/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/171115.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 15, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 226 Headlines 50 FRONT STREET: "Bonikos" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ABM INDUSTRIES: Ct. Denies Remand of Janitors' Reimbursement Suit ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS: Rollhaus Sues Over Share Price Drop ALLIED INTERSTATE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Gil" FDCPA Suit ALLSTATE FIRE: Ct. Refuses to Reinstate Aug. 9 Arbitration Order AMERICAN BANKERS: Faces Jones Suit Over Force-Placed Insurance AMERICAN HONDA: Ct. Strikes Proposed Nationwide Class in "Miles" AMIDA CARE: Faces MF Class Suit in New York Supreme Court APEX SUPPLY: Court Approves Settlement in "Collado" Suit AT&T INC: Scott Appeals Ruling in "Bond" Suit to Fourth Circuit AVALANCHE CARE: "Jackson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages AXA EQUITABLE: Partial Bid to Junk Brach Foundation Suit Denied BEAR STATE FINANCIAL: "Parshall" Hits Merger, Seeks Projections BEDROCK PC: "Qualls" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation BIMBO BAKERIES: "Oddo" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania BLUE APRON: Hill Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid OT, Final Pay BMW AG: Stanley Files Suit Over Anti-trust Activities BMW AG: Sued by Sasson for Anti-trust Activities BRAMAN HYUNDAI: "Schaevitz" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations BRICKLANE CURRY: Miranda Sues for Denied Mininum, Overtime Pay BUCKSKIN'S SALOON: "Greer" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations BURRITO DEL MAR: "Ordaz" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay CALIFORNIA: Cal. App. Affirms Atty Fees Order in "Woosley" Suit CALIFORNIA: Dec. 20 Status Conference in "Coleman" Suit CASCADE COLLECTIONS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lloyd" Suit Says CB&I LLC: "Rando" Suit Hits Unpaid OT Wages, Breach of Contract CELADON GROUP: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Blakley" Suit CENTURYLINK INC: Court Consolidates 3 Securities Fraud Cases CHEMOURS COMPANY: "Morton" Suit Seeks Damages on Toxic Leaks CHILDREN'S PLACE: Court Compels Arbitration in "Sparks" COMPANDSAVE.COM INC: Faces Suit Over TCPA Violations COMPASS BANK: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Hossfield" TCPA Suit CR BARD: Bid to File of 2nd Class Cert in "Barraza" Denied DIMENSION THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suit Over Sale to Ultragenyx DONALD TRUMP: Court Partially OK's Production of Docs in "Wagafe" CHEMOURS CO: Nix Files Suit Over Toxic Chemical Dumping CREDIT CONTROL: "Klein" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations DSWC INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Suit DYNAMIC PET: "Reed" Stayed Pending Settlement Appeal Notice EOS CCA: "Singh" Disputes Vague Collection Letter EQUIFAX INC: Meade Files Suit Over Data Breach EQUIFAX INC: "First Education" Suit Alleges FTCA Violation EQUIFAX INC: "Sander" Sues Over Data Breach, Seeks Damages EQUIFAX INC: "Smith" Sues Over Data Breach, Seeks Damages EQUIFAX INC: Sued by Mashburn in N.D. Georgia Over Data Breach FIRST CHOICE: "Woods" Seeks OT Pay for Work Over 40 Hours/Week FIRSTSOURCE: "Otten" Suit Disputes Vague Collection Letter FOREST LABS: Macleods Must Produce Docs in Namenda Antitrust Suit FOWLER FOODS: "Petty" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages FREEDOMROADS LLC: "Piner" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay GAP INC: "Pallagrosi" Sues Over Discount Fraud GBS TOWSON: Court Denies Equitable Tolling in Wage & Hour Suit GENERAC POWER: "Tom" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages GIANT GLASS: "Cireus" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime GRAND ISLE: "Sandlin" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages HUFFINES DENTON: Sued for Denying "Navarro" Overtime Pay IGNITE PAYMENTS: Zam & Zam Appeals E.D.N.Y. Decision to 2nd Cir. INT'L COSMETICS: Settlement in "Moore" Suit Has Final Approval INTEC COMMUNICATIONS: "Lopez" Suit Seeks OT Wages, Damages INTELIQUENT INC: "Torres" Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads JACKSON HEWITT: Court Grants Move to Dismiss "Lomeli" Suit KEEFE COMMISSARY: Reichert Sues for Unlawful Taking of Property KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Ct. Grants Final OK of "Helde" Settlement LAGASSE LLC: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Alpha Tech Suit Denied LTD MERCHANT: "Kilpatrick" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation LULAROE LLC: "Lemberg" Sues Over Deceptive Refund Policy MANUFACTURERS & TRADERS: "Fynn" Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania MARY KAY: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Beauty Consultants' Suit MCS MORTGAGE: "Karlin" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages MDL 2796: Audobon Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. MDL 2796: "Reder" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. MDL 2796: "Grodzen" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. MDL 2796: "Kremer" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. MEC DEVELOPMENT: "Jefferson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay MINNESOTA: Suit vs. DOL Stayed Pending BIC Exemption Reassessment METALCRAFT OF MAYVILLE: "Mazurek" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations NATIONWIDE EVICTION: Conditional Class Cert in "Russell" Denied NAVIENT CORP: Pope Files Suit Over Share Price Drop NRRM LLC: Court Denies Partial Bid to Strike "Kundinger" Suit ORBITAL ATK: Sedon Sues to Halt Merger Deal, Seeks Projections PATON ENGINEERS: "Patai" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages PINNACLE ENGINEERING: "Thomas" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages PNC MERCHANT: Faces Healing Suit in N.Y. Over Unauthorized Fees PRIMERITUS FINANCIAL: Odahl Sues Over Repossession Procedure PUBLIC HEALTH: "Morris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages RAMSGATE INSURANCE: "Ganier" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages RJ REYNOLDS: "Tarrow" Suit Remanded to California State Court SOLARCITY CORP: "Daugherty" Stayed Pending Outcome of "Morris" SPARK NETWORKS: "Vana" to Halt Merger Deal, Claims Shortchanged SPEEDY CASH: "Payton" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations SPEEDYPC SOFTWARE: Court Certifies Class in Consumer Fraud Suit STATE FARM: Show Cause Order in "Ayers" Discharged TARGET CORPORATION: Sued Over Up & Up Makeup Remover Products TATE & KIRLIN: "Marconi" Suit Disputes Collection Letter TEMPUR SEALY: "Rabin" Suit Alleges Breach of Express Warranty TENDER LOVING: "Jones-Dowd" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Merger Docs Lacking Projections, Claims "Berg" TESLA MOTORS: "Paige" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT, Final Pay TRANZVIA LLC: "Hirsch" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation TUNNEL TAXI: "Lemache" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay UTILIKON LLC: "Medina" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages VIRGINIA: Court Refuses to Review Sovereign Immunity Ruling WENDO FURNITURE: "Liu" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations WILSON COUNTY, KS: Settlement in "Ogden" Suit Has Final Approval WOLFGANG'S STEAKHOUSE: Court Dismisses "Fullwood" FACTA Suit XEROX HR: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss FAC in "Chendes" ERISA Suit ********* 50 FRONT STREET: "Bonikos" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Yannis Bonikos and Rigel Shaholli, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 50 Front Street Enterprises, Inc. (d/b/a "Mykonos"), Peter Kazamias, John Doe Corp. #1 (d/b/a "50 Front"), John Doe Corps. #2-10, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 17-cv-06076, (E.D. N.Y., October 17, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages and liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorney's fees for violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Defendants operate Greek restaurants where Bonikos and Shaholli worked as chefs. Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their hours worked, thus did not account for their overtime hours. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Salim Katach, Esq. VARACALLI & HAMRA, LLP 110 E 59th Street, Suite 3200 New York, NY 10022 Tel: (646) 590-0571 Fax: (646) 619-4012 E-mail: skatach@svhllp.com ABM INDUSTRIES: Ct. Denies Remand of Janitors' Reimbursement Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Third Motion to Remand the case captioned MARLEY CASTRO, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. ABM INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-3026-YGR (N.D. Cal.). This putative class action generally stems from allegations that defendants required their janitorial employees with the employee master job description Cleaner to use personal cell phones for work-related purposes without reimbursement, in violation of California Labor Code section 2802 and California Business and Professions Code section 17200. A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if the action could have originally been filed in federal court. A plaintiff may seek to have a case remanded to the state court from which it was removed if the district court lacks jurisdiction or if there is a defect in the removal procedure. The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) CAFA provides that district courts have original jurisdiction over any class action in which: (1) the amount in controversy exceeds five million dollars, (2) any plaintiff class member is a citizen of a state different from any defendant, (3) the primary defendants are not states, state officials, or other government entities against whom the district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief, and (4) the number of plaintiffs in the class is at least 100. Plaintiffs' motion for remand is based on two grounds, namely, (a) defendants' removal was not timely, and, in any event (b) defendants cannot satisfy their burden as the $5 million amount- in-controversy requirement. Timeliness of Removal The Court understands that this is the first time plaintiffs have represented an intent to seek the full reimbursement cost of the minimum available cost of a cell phone in California. In fact, plaintiffs previously took that position that a 20% reimbursement rate for cell phone expenses was speculative and unsupported by the evidence in this case. Plaintiffs' class certification motion attaches the declaration of plaintiffs' accounting expert which states that the lowest available monthly cost of a cell phone during the class period was $27.14. Based therein, defendants calculate the amount-in-controversy as exceeding $5 million, and possibly even exceeding $20 million depending on certain assumptions which the Court discusses below. Plaintiffs' class certification motion, trial plan, and expert declaration thus constitute a motion or other paper from which it may be first ascertained that the case has become removable. Accordingly, the Court finds defendants' motion timely. Amount-In-Controversy Calculation Evidence Offered and Calculations by ABM In support of removal jurisdiction, ABM offers the declaration of plaintiffs' accounting expert, David Breshears CPA/CFF, who states that the lowest available monthly cost of a cell phone during the class period was $27.14. Next, defendants point to the declaration of Nedy Warren, ABM's Vice President of Human Resources, which indicates that ABM's records reflect that there are at least 29,413 Punitive Class Members. Warren further states that these Punitive Class Members worked approximately 627,908 months during the class period. Based on these figures, defendants calculate the amount in controversy as approximately $17,041,423 independent of attorney's fees. Defendants further calculate that plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees places an additional 25% in controversy, increasing the figure to $21,301,779. Assumptions Underlying ABM's Calculations Defendants' calculations rely on an important and contested assumption, namely that each Punitive Class Member incurred at least one reimbursable cell phone expense for each month worked during the class period. Defendants assumed that each punitive class member accrued twelve overtime hours per week for every week worked, despite the fact that defendants' evidence supported a contrary inference, namely that employees' schedules varied greatly and many class members did not have this much overtime. By contrast, defendants here make a reasonable assumption of one reimbursable cell phone expense per month, which is supported by plaintiffs' allegations in the SAC and evidence in this case including the named plaintiffs' deposition testimonies. Accordingly, the motion to remand is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycf7udqwfrom Leagle.com. Marley Castro, Plaintiff, represented by Chad A. Saunders -- csaunders@hunterpylelaw.com -- Sundeen Salinas & Pyle. Marley Castro, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Lise Casey -- genevieve@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman and Wasow, Hunter Pyle -- hunter@hunterpylelaw.com -- Hunter Pyle Law & Todd F. Jackson, Feinberg -- todd@feinbergjackson.com -- Jackson, Worthman and Wasow LLP. Lucia Marmolejo, Plaintiff, represented by Chad A. Saunders, Sundeen Salinas & Pyle, Genevieve Lise Casey, Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman and Wasow, Hunter Pyle, Hunter Pyle Law & Todd F. Jackson, Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman and Wasow LLP. ABM Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley Joseph Hamburger -- bhamburger@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Theane Evangelis Kapur -- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Attorney at Law & Katherine V.A. Smith -- ksmith@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP. ABM Onsite Services -- West, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley Joseph Hamburger, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Theane Evangelis Kapur, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Attorney at Law & Katherine V.A. Smith, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP. ABM Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley Joseph Hamburger, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Theane Evangelis Kapur, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Attorney at Law & Katherine V.A. Smith, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP. ABM Janitorial Services -- Northern California, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley Joseph Hamburger, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Theane Evangelis Kapur, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Attorney at Law & Katherine V.A. Smith, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP. ABM Janitorial Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley Joseph Hamburger, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Theane Evangelis Kapur, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Attorney at Law & Katherine V.A. Smith, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP. ABM Janitorial Services-Southwest, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley Joseph Hamburger, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Theane Evangelis Kapur, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Attorney at Law & Katherine V.A. Smith, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP. ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS: Rollhaus Sues Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------- Rina Rollhaus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Acacia Communications, Inc., Murugesan Shanmugaraj, John F. Gavin, Francis J. Murphy, Eric A. Swanson, Peter Y. Chung, Benny P. Mikkelsen, Stan J. Reiss, John Ritchie, Vincent T. Roche, Matrix Partners VIII, L.P., Summit Partners Venture Capital Fund III-A, L.P., Summit Partners Venture Capital Fund III-B, L.P., Summit Investors I, LLC, Summit Investors I (UK), L.P., Commonwealth Capital Ventures IV L.P., The Malini Shanmugaraj 2016 QTIP Trust, Mehrdad Givehchi, Givehchi LLC, John Lomedico, Bhupendra C. Shah, Bhupendra Shah 1999 Trust U/A DTD 10/06/1999, Christian Rasmussen, Ofs Fitel, LLC, Egan Managed Capital III, L.P., Weston & Co. VIII, LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Needham & Company, LLC, Cowen and Company, LLC, William Blair & Company, L.L.C. and Northland Securities, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-11988, (D. Mass., October 13, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Acacia designs, develops, manufactures and markets high-speed coherent optical interconnect products for cloud infrastructure operators and content and communication service providers. The complaints says Acacia's 2017 second quarter financial results were adversely affected by the quality issue regarding a circuit board cleaning process. As it experienced supply constraints as capacity was used to both build replacement units and to meet new demand from customers, Acacia reported second quarter earnings per share of $0.17-$0.20 on revenues of $77-$79 million, far lower than the $0.31 on $91 million in revenues the market had been led to expect. On this news, the price of Acacia common stock declined from its close of $41.62 per share on July 13, 2017 to close at $39 per share on July 14, 2017, on unusually high volume of more than 3.5 million shares traded. Rina Rollhaus purchased Acacia common stock in the Secondary Offering on October 7, 2016 at the price of $100.00 per share. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Edward F. Haber, Esq. Adam M. Stewart, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER &URMY LLP Seaport East Two Seaport Lane Boston, MA 02210 Tel: (617) 439-3939 Email: ehaber@shulaw.com astewart@shulaw.com - and - Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. Lawrence D. Levit ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, NY 10119 Tel: (212) 279-5050 Fax: (212) 279-3655 Email: jfruchter@aftlaw.com llevit@aftlaw.com ALLIED INTERSTATE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Gil" FDCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned SALLY GIL and SUZETTE RENE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALLIED INTERSTATE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-3362 (ADS)(AYS)(E.D. N.Y.) pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs are individuals, residing in Suffolk County, New York, who incurred consumer credit card debt originally held by Synchrony Bank. Gil and Rene subsequently were unable to make the required debt payments and their debts were assigned or transferred to Allied for collection. Allied is a Franklin County, Ohio based debt collector who was assigned the Plaintiffs' debts. The Defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiffs, dated June 1, 2016, informing them that Synchrony Bank retained Allied to collect their outstanding debt. The letter detailed the amount owed and according to the Plaintiffs, informed them that they must dispute the validity of the underlying debt in writing. On June 5, 2017, the Plaintiffs commenced the action against the Defendant by filing the putative class action complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated, against the Defendant for damages stemming from alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). They contend that the Defendant falsely informed them, in the form of a debt collection letter, that any disputes they had in connection with their debt must be made in writing. Presently before the Court is a motion filed on Aug. 16, 2017 by the Defendant, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Plaintiffs' entire complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Plaintiffs' FDCPA claims are time-barred. Judge Spatt finds no merit in the Defendant's argument. According to the FDCPA, a claim must be commenced within one year from the date on which the violation occurs. In this case, the Plaintiffs filed this suit on June 5, 2017. Therefore, only acts that accrued on or after June 5, 2016 are considered timely. Further, the letters that the Defendant sent to the Plaintiffs were dated June 1, 2016, five days before the deadline for the statute of limitations. In addition, though the Plaintiffs failed to include in their pleading the date they allegedly received the debt collection letters, the Judge says the Defendant did not address the issue in its memoranda. Without such information, he cannot dismiss the complaint. Accordingly, the Judge declines to rule that the Plaintiffs' FDCPA claim is barred by the statute of limitations. For these reasons, Judge Spatt denied the Defendant's motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Memorandum of Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/1lK2bL from Leagle.com. Sally Gil, Plaintiff, represented by Craig B. Sanders -- info@sanderslawpllc.com -- Barshay Sanders, PLLC. Sally Gil, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Barshay, Sanders Law, PLLC & Eric A. Curtis -- info@bakersanders.com -- Baker Sanders, LLC. Suzette Rene, Plaintiff, represented by Craig B. Sanders, Barshay Sanders, PLLC, David M. Barshay, Sanders Law, PLLC & Eric A. Curtis, Baker Sanders, LLC. Allied Interstate LLC, Defendant, represented by Nana Japaridze -- njaparidze@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP. ALLSTATE FIRE: Ct. Refuses to Reinstate Aug. 9 Arbitration Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER OF SOMERSET, individually and as a Class Representative on behalf of others similar situated, and JUAN GONZALEZ, individually and as a Class Representative on behalf of others similar situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE FIRE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civ. No. 16-5378 (D. N.J.), Judge Anne E. Thompson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the Plaintiffs' motion to reinstate the Court's Aug. 9, 2017 Order denying arbitration. The Plaintiffs bring the action for damages and declaratory judgment, following the Defendant's failure to pay for a procedure Plaintiff Gonzalez had at Plaintiff Ambulatory Surgical Center of Somerset. The Plaintiffs sue on behalf of the classes (i) of individuals insured by the Defendant who have sustained injuries in car accidents and are entitled to medical benefits pursuant to New Jersey law, and (ii) of ambulatory surgical facilities who performed procedures for which the Defendant refused payment. On April 7, 2017, the Defendant moved to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings, which the Court denied on Aug. 9, 2017. On Aug. 23, 2017, the Defendant moved for reconsideration of the Court's decision to deny its motion. On Oct. 5, 2017, the Court granted the Defendant's motion and ordered arbitration and an administrative termination pending arbitration. It reconsidered based on the breadth of the deemer statute within New Jersey's Personal Injury Protection ("PIP") coverage, which extends coverage to out-of-state insureds who were injured in-state or utilized in-state care. The Court found that the deemer statute incorporated PIP's arbitration and dispute resolution provision, thus exposing the Plaintiffs to arbitration. On Oct. 12, 2017, the Plaintiffs moved the Court to reinstate its original order and opinion of Aug. 9, 2017 denying arbitration. Judge Thompson finds that the Plaintiffs' Motion largely repeats arguments already iterated in its opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and in its opposition to the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. The Plaintiffs argue that the case cannot be compelled to arbitration due to the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the law set forth in Shady Grove v. Orthopedic Associations, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co. As the Defendant appropriately notes, the Court did not overlook this argument that has already been strenuously advanced by the Plaintiffs, and even so, this argument does not alter the Court's conclusion. The Judge also agrees with the Defendant's assessment: there is no "direct collision" between the PIP arbitration provision and Rule 23 to invoke Shady Grove. She also observes that although the Plaintiffs pled two classes in the Complaint, no class pursuant to Rule 23 has yet been certified, nor have the subsequent moving papers addressed class qualifications under Rule 23. Finally, Judge Thompson cannot consider the Plaintiffs' argument regarding Gonzalez's Allstate policy and the requirement of mutual consent to arbitrate therein. Reconsideration is a remedy limited to unique circumstances. The Plaintiffs present arguments on reconsideration that fall outside of the scope of Rule 7.1. For these reasons, Judge Thompson denied the Plaintiffs' Motion. A corresponding order will follow. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/G8OwEm from Leagle.com. AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER OF SOMERSET, Plaintiff, represented by CHARLES THOMAS KANNEBECKER -- info@kannebeckerlaw.com. JUAN GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, represented by CHARLES THOMAS KANNEBECKER. ALLSTATE FIRE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by MARC E. WOLIN -- mwolin@saiber.com -- SAIBER LLC, DAVID D'ALOIA -- ddaloia@saiber.com -- SAIBER, LLC & MICHAEL GROHS, SAIBER LLC. AMERICAN BANKERS: Faces Jones Suit Over Force-Placed Insurance -------------------------------------------------------------- Jones Real Estate, Inc., d/b/a Jones Realty, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, Avatel Technologies, Inc., The CIT Group Inc., and Assurant, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-23933-UU (S.D. Fla., October 26, 2017), seeks redress for the Defendant's lucrative profit-making scheme of placing force-placed insurance when a customer fails to obtain or maintain insurance coverage on voice, data, and/or video equipment that is leased through financing. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida operates an insurance company with a principal place of business in Miami, Florida. Avatel Technologies, Inc. operates a telecommunications company providing phone systems and voice mail services. The CIT Group Inc. is a financial holding company headquartered in New York City. Assurant, Inc. is a global provider of risk management products and services with headquarters in New York City. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason K. Whittemore, Esq. WAGNER MCLAUGHLIN, P.A. 601 Bayshore Blvd., Suite 910 Tampa, Florida 33606 Telephone: (813) 225-4000 E-mail: jason@WagnerLaw.com AMERICAN HONDA: Ct. Strikes Proposed Nationwide Class in "Miles" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned CAROL MILES, RYAN MOTT, JOHN WOLFE, and LIZZY WOLFE, BARBARA HENWOOD, ANDY SWIERCZYNSKI, BRANDON FRANKLIN, ANNE SHAPIRO, MARY MANSFIELD, TAMI OSTENDORF, and JULIE MACKERT, individually and on behalf of the class members, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 17 C 4423 (N.D. Ill.). Defendant has moved to dismiss ten of the sixteen counts and seeks to strike the proposed class definitions. Plaintiffs claim that they purchased model years 2015, 2016, 2017 Honda CR-V vehicles from Honda dealerships. Within months of their purchase, plaintiffs all experienced what smelled like an open pool of gasoline inside the passenger cabin. The smell persisted no matter the driving speed or duration and was overpowering if the windows were kept shut. The smell was intermittent, coming and going regardless of the outdoor temperature, speed, or duration. Plaintiffs allege that they cannot drive their vehicles when the smell exists. Plaintiffs allege that at the time they purchased their vehicles defendant was aware of the problem, was unable to uncover the cause, and unable to fix the problem, yet actively concealed the defect from its customers even if specifically asked. Counts I and II -- Nationwide Class In Count I plaintiffs, none of whom are California residents or purchased their vehicles there, on behalf of a purported nationwide class, seek to apply the California Commercial Code to their claims brought pursuant to the MMWA. In Count II, plaintiffs allege, on behalf of a nationwide class, violation of California's Business and Professional Code Section 17200, which prohibits acts of "unfair competition. Defendant argues that both claims should be dismissed because California law cannot be applied to claims of non-California plaintiffs. The court agrees. The court considers four factors: (1) where the injury occurred; (2) where the injury causing conduct occurred; (3) the domiciles of the parties; and (4) where the relationship of the parties is entered. None of these factors favors application of California law to the non-California plaintiffs. First, with respect to Count I, under Illinois choice-of-law rules, the place of purchase and injury governs breach of warranty claims. None of the plaintiffs are domiciled in California, none purchased their vehicles in California, none entered a relationship with defendant in California, and none were injured in California. The injury occurs where the plaintiffs purchased their vehicles and were given their warranties without any warning of the alleged defect. Thus, under Illinois choice-of-law rules, the law of the state where each plaintiff purchased their vehicles the law that applies to their state law claims. The court concludes that plaintiffs cannot assert claims under California law for non-California plaintiffs. Counts I and II are dismissed. Consumer Fraud Claims -- Counts IV (Illinois), VIII (Indiana), XI (Wisconsin), XV (Maryland) Defendant argues that plaintiffs have failed to meet Rule 9(b)'s pleading requirements with respect to their consumer fraud claims brought under Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin and Maryland law. Defendant argues that plaintiffs have failed to provide the names of who participated in the alleged fraud, in what capacity they were involved, and what misrepresentations they made. In the instant case, the facts alleged give defendant an ironclad defense to Shapiro's claims because the ICSA has an occurrence statute of limitations rather than a discovery statute of limitations. Thus, the statute of limitations began to run no later than when Shapiro purchased the vehicle, over two years before the instant suit was commenced. Consequently, plaintiff Shapiro's ICSA claim is dismissed. Defendant also argues that defendant Mansfield's claim under the ICSA fails because the second amended complaint fails to allege that she provided proper notice to defendant as required under the act. The act requires the consumers to give the seller written notice and an opportunity to cure the alleged deceptive practices either through modification or rescission of the transaction. The second amended complaint contains no allegation that either Shapiro or Mansfield provided written notice to defendant. Plaintiffs respond by arguing that defendant had knowledge of plaintiffs' claims within the time allowed by statute, but does not allege that either plaintiff provided that notice, or gave defendant an opportunity to cure. Absent such an allegation, Counts VII and VIII are dismissed without prejudice. Unjust Enrichment Claims -- Counts V (Illinois), IX (Indiana), XII (Wisconsin), XVI (Maryland) Plaintiffs allege that all of their purchases or leases were governed by a specific contract that contained an express warranty. Defendant has not challenged the existence of the contract or the warranties. Thus, defendant is correct that plaintiffs cannot base their unjust enrichment claims on the same conduct that form the basis of their breach of warranty claims. As plaintiffs point out, however, to the extent that their unjust enrichment claims are based on the same conduct underlying their consumer fraud claims, such as the alleged failure to disclose and warn, unjust enrichment claims remain viable. Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts V, IX, XII and XVI, is denied. Class Allegations Defendant has moved to strike plaintiffs' class definitions. This court has already determined that the law of the state where each plaintiff purchased his or her vehicle shall be applied to plaintiff's claims. Applying the warranty, unjust enrichment, and misrepresentation laws of 50 different states, or even the 4 states that the name plaintiffs represent, is unmanageable on a class-wide basis because those state laws may conflict in material ways. Because these claims must be adjudicated under the laws of so many jurisdictions, a single nationwide class is not manageable. The court strikes the proposed nationwide class. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8qacxwffrom Leagle.com. Carol Miles, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Nicholas Loftus, Stotlmann Law Offices, 10 S. LaSalle St., 35th Floor , Chicago, Illinois 60606, United States Carol Miles, Plaintiff, represented by Deanna Christina Besbekos, Stoltmann Law Offices, P.c. & Joseph Robert Wojciechowski, Stoltmann Law Offices, P.C., 10 S. LaSalle St., 35th Floor , Chicago, Illinois 60606, United States American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Livia McCammon Kiser -- LKISER@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP & Tara Azad Amin -- TAMIN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin Llp. AMIDA CARE: Faces MF Class Suit in New York Supreme Court --------------------------------------------------------- M.F., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS, SIMILARLY SITUATED v. AMIDA CARE, INC., Case No. 520314/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., October 19, 2017), seeks damages for alleged issues relating to personal injury. Amida Care, Inc., operates as a non-profit organization in the United States. The Organization offers nursing, HIV care, pharmacy, and dental services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: SILVER & KELMACHTER LP 11 Park Pl., Suite 1214 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 661-8400 APEX SUPPLY: Court Approves Settlement in "Collado" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, approved the settlement in the case captioned LUIS COLLADO, Plaintiff, v. APEX SUPPLY CO., INC., et. al., Defendants, No. 17 Civ. 727 (HBP) (S.D.N.Y.), and dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs in light of the settlement. Plaintiff alleges that he was formerly employed by defendants Apex Supply Corporation, a hardware equipment and supply retail business, and its shareholders, Ian Lynch and Matthew Taragano. Plaintiff seeks to recover allegedly unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). Plaintiff also asserts a claim based on defendants' failure to provide certain notice and wage statements as required by the NYLL. Plaintiff commenced this action as a collective action with respect to the FLSA claims, but the parties reached a settlement before conditional certification. The Court held a lengthy settlement conference on June 23, 2017, that was attended by the parties and their counsel. After a protracted discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the parties' respective positions, the parties agreed to resolve the dispute for a total settlement of $30,000. The agreement also provides that plaintiff's counsel will receive $550.00 for his out-of-pocket expenses, $9,815.00 (or approximately 33%) of the remaining $29,450.00 will be paid to plaintiff's counsel as fees and the remaining $19,635.00 will be paid to plaintiff. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9xrg53bfrom Leagle.com. Luis Collado, Plaintiff, represented by Abdul Karim Hassan, Abdul K. Hassan Law Group PLLC. , 215-28 Hillside Avenue, Queens Village, NY 11427 Apex Supply Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph R. Curto - - jcurto@vcsclaw.com -- Veneruso, Curto, Schwartz & Curto, LLP. Matthew Taragano, Defendant, represented by Joseph R. Curto, Veneruso, Curto, Schwartz & Curto, LLP. Ian Lynch, Defendant, represented by Joseph R. Curto, Veneruso, Curto, Schwartz & Curto, LLP. AT&T INC: Scott Appeals Ruling in "Bond" Suit to Fourth Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Intervenor Michael A. Scott filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Tim Bond, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT & T Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00923-MJG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought for alleged failure to disclose material information that Cricket would not continue to support the CDMA handsets as a result of the AT&T acquisition and that the CDMA handsets were not compatible with AT&T's GSM cellular network. AT & T Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides wireless products and services. The Company maintains its corporate headquarters in Dallas, Texas. The appellate case is captioned as Michael A. Scott v. Tim Bond, Case No. 17-2288, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Case Initial forms due within 14 days; -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on December 12, 2017; and -- Response Brief is due on January 11, 2018.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee TIM BOND, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Cory Lev Zajdel, Esq. Z LAW, LLC 2345 York Road Timonium, MD 21093 Telephone: (443) 213-1977 E-mail: clz@zlawmaryland.com Intervenor-Appellant MICHAEL A. SCOTT is represented by: Benjamin Howard Carney, Esq. Martin Eugene Wolf, Esq. GORDON & WOLF, CHTD 100 West Pennsylvania Avenue Towson, MD 21204-0000 Telephone: (410) 825-2300 Facsimile: (410) 825-0066 E-mail: bcarney@GWCfirm.com mwolf@GWCfirm.com Defendant-Appellee CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, is represented by: Ann Marie Duffy, Esq. Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq. MAYER BROWN, LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1101 Telephone: (202) 263-3418 Facsimile: (202) 263-3300 E-mail: aduffy@mayerbrown.com aparasharami@mayerbrown.com - and - Daniel R. Lanier, Esq. John Edward McCann, Jr., Esq. Lynn Christina Schlie, Esq. MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, PC 100 Light Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 385-3651 E-mail: dlanier@milesstockbridge.com jmccann@milesstockbridge.com lschlie@milesstockbridge.com AVALANCHE CARE: "Jackson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Banetta Jackson, and all others similarly-situated v. Avalanche Care, Inc., Karl Pierre, Guy Dorvilus, and Jorge Espinal, Case No. 1:17-cv-06217 (E.D. N.Y., October 24, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Banetta Jackson resides in Queens, New York. Plaintiff works for the Defendants as a home health aide. Corporate Defendant is a New York State Licensed Home Health Care Services Agency providing personal care and skilled services throughout the five boroughs of NYC including the following Counties: Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Putnam, & Rockland. Defendant Karl Pierre is the Chief Operating Officer of Corporate Defendant. Defendant Guy Dorvilus is the Chief Financial Officer of Corporate Defendant. Defendant Jorge Espinal is the Human Resource Coordinator of Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan El-Hag, Esq. EL-HAG & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 777 Westchester Ave, Suite 101 White Plains, NY 10604 Tel: (914) 755-1579 Fax: (914) 206-4176 E-mail: Jordan@elhaglaw.com AXA EQUITABLE: Partial Bid to Junk Brach Foundation Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied AXA's partial motion to dismiss the case, BRACH FAMILY FOUNDATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. AXA EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-740 (JMF) (S.D. N.Y.), but granted its request to keep under seal Exhibits B and E to the Ard Declaration. In this putative class action, Brach Foundation alleges that, by increasing the cost of insurance for a group of life insurance policyholders, AXA breached the terms of the policies at issue and made material misrepresentations in violation of Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law. In an Opinion and Order entered on Dec. 19, 2016, the Court denied AXA's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's contract claim, but granted AXA's motion to dismiss the Section 4226 claim on the ground that the claim sounded in fraud and failed to meet the heightened pleading standards set forth in Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Section 4226 claim fell short, the Court explained that although the Complaint alleged that AXA issued and circulated false or misleading illustrations and annual statements and filed false or misleading interrogatories with its regulators, it failed to identify any specific illustration, annual statement, or interrogatory. On Jan. 27, 2017, with the Court's leave, the Brach Foundation filed its Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") to remedy that defect. AXA now moves to dismiss the amended Section 4226 claim. Upon due consideration of the parties' submissions, Judge Furman denied AXA's motion. He explains that in stark contrast to the earlier Complaint, the SAC alleges that AXA disseminated 20 false and misleading illustrations, and nine false and misleading interrogatories, and describes them at length. Indeed, the SAC provides ample detail as to the timing and nature of the allegedly fraudulent materials in question and also explains in depth their alleged import. These allegations are more than enough to distinguish the SAC from complaints that the Court and other courts have found wanting under Rule 9(b). Turning to AXA's request to keep under seal two exhibits filed by the Brach Foundation in support of its opposition to the motion to dismiss (specifically, Exhibits B and E to the Declaration of Seth Ard), and to redact references to those exhibits in the parties' other submissions, Judge Furman concludes that AXA's request is well founded. In any event, any presumption in favor of public access would be overcome here, as the Court did not consider materials at issue in deciding AXA's motion and the exhibits are highly sensitive documents that discuss proprietary actuarial assumptions, processes, methodologies, and judgments that continue to inform or reflect AXA's current mortality assumptions. Those considerations are sufficient to keep the exhibits and any references to the exhibits under seal. For the reasons he stated, Judge Furman denied AXA's partial motion to dismiss is denied, but granted its request to keep under seal Exhibits B and E to the Ard Declaration. To the extent they have not done so already, the parties will promptly file (i) with the Sealed Records Department Exhibits B and E to the Ard Declaration and unredacted versions of any documents referencing them, and (ii) on ECF any other materials that are not already on the docket in unredacted form. He directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Docket No. 74. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/AzJXWb from Leagle.com. Brach Family Foundation, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Frances Sarah Lewis -- fgradijan@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP. Brach Family Foundation, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Glenn Charles Bridgman -- gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP, Mark P. Musico -- mmusico@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP, Rohit Nath -- rnath@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP, Steven Gerald Sklaver -- ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey L.L.P. & Seth D. Ard -- sard@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP. Secondary Life Three LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Deborah Kravitz -- dkravitz@kamberlaw.com -- Kamber Law LLP, Leonard W. Aragon -- leonard@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Michael Aschenbrener -- masch@kamberlaw.com -- Kamber Law LLC, Robert B. Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Scott Adam Kamber, Kamber Law LLC & Scott Adam Kamber, KamberLaw, LLC. Jeremy Wenokur, Plaintiff, represented by Deborah Kravitz, Kamber Law LLP, Leonard W. Aragon, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Michael Aschenbrener, Kamber Law LLC, Robert B. Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Scott Adam Kamber, Kamber Law LLC & Scott Adam Kamber, KamberLaw, LLC. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Daniel Robert Walfish -- dwalfish@milbank.com -- Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, David Robert Gelfand -- dgelfand@milbank.com -- Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP & Stacey Jill Rappaport -- srappaport@milbank.com -- Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP. BEAR STATE FINANCIAL: "Parshall" Hits Merger, Seeks Projections --------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bear State Financial, Inc., Bear State Bank, Richard N. Massey, Dabbs Ca Vin, Daniel C. Horton, Aaron Clark, Frankl. Conner, Scott T. Ford, Brock Gearhart, Omon Fitzgerald Hill, Ian Robert Vaughan, John J. Ghirardelli, Matt Machen, William J. Changose, Arvest Bank, and Arvest Acquisition Sub, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-00669, (E.D. Ark., October 13, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of Bear State Financial, Inc., Bear State Bank and Bear State Financial by Arvest Bank and Arvest Acquisition Sub, Inc., recissory damages in case the merger pushes through, reasonable allowance for Plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, Bear State Financial stockholders will receive $10.28 in cash for each share of Bear State Financial common stock they own. The complaint says the merger consideration fails to disclose projections, estimated earnings per share and tangible book value per share for December 31, 2017 through December 31, 2022 on a stand-alone basis as well as any other projection line items for the company. The disclosure of projected financial information is material because it provides stockholders with a basis to project the future financial performance of a company and allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses in support of its fairness opinion over the deal price, it adds. Bear State Financial is an Arkansas corporation and bank holding company. Bear State Bank is a state chartered bank that conducts business through 48 banking locations and three loan production offices that are located in various communities in Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, offering financial products to individuals and business customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 (302) 295-5310 - and - RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484) 324-6800 - and - David G. Scott, Esq. EMERSON SCOTT LLP 1301 Scott Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 907-2555 Facsimile: (501) 907-2556 Email: dscott@emersonfirm.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON SCOTT, LLP 830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058 Telephone: (281) 488-8854 Facsimile: (281) 488-8867 Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com BEDROCK PC: "Qualls" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marcus Qualls, and all others similarly-situated v. Bedrock PC 1099, LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-03232 (S.D. Tex., October 24, 2017), seeks to recover overtime compensation and all other available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Defendant Bedrock PC 1099, LLC was formerly a joint and/or co- employer of Plaintiff Marcus Qualls. Mr. Qualls worked as a "Consultant" for Bedrock's client, EOG, from April of 2017 until August of 2017. The Plaintiff was interviewed and was hired through Bedrock, and he worked exclusively as a Consultant on EOG's drilling rigs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 1020 Macon St., Suite 15 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Tel: (817) 908-9861 Fax: (817) 394-2412 E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com BIMBO BAKERIES: "Oddo" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on July 13, 2017 titled Christopher Oddo, Philip Brucato, and Michael Lennon, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Bimbo Bakeries U.S.A. Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 16-04267 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-04775-PD to the proceeding. The case alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bimbo Bakeries U.S.A. Inc. operates a Mexican multinational bakery product manufacturing company in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua S. Boyette, Esq. Matthew D. Miller, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC 1101 Kings Highway, North, Suite 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08032 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 E-mail: jboyette@swartz-legal.com MMILLER@SWARTZ-LEGAL.COM The Defendant is represented by: Bradley Crowell, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5845 E-mail: bradley.crowell@morganlewis.com - and - James P. Walsh Jr., Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 2000 One Logan Square Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5511 E-mail: james.walsh@morganlewis.com - and - Sean P. Lynch, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 502 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 919-6611 E-mail: slynch@morganlewis.com BLUE APRON: Hill Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid OT, Final Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Hill on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. Blue April LLC, Blue Apron Market LLC and Does 1-100, Case No. RG17878905 (Cal. Super., October 16, 2017), seeks seeking unpaid wages, overtime, meal and rest period compensation, final pay, penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code. Blue Apron operates an e-commerce marketplace that delivers original recipes and fresh ingredients packaged as fresh meal-kits and operates industrial stores and warehouses within Alameda CA where Hill worked as a warehouse staff. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. Jamie Serb, Esq. Tony Roberts, Esq. THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 Email: bturley@turleylawfirm.com dmara@turleylawfirm.com jserb@turleylawfirm.com troberts@turleylawfirm.com BMW AG: Stanley Files Suit Over Anti-trust Activities ----------------------------------------------------- Edwin Herbert Stanley and William Bankhead Nelson, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BMW AG, BMW of North America, LLC, Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., Audi AG, Audi Of America, Inc., Audi Of America, LLC, Dr. Ing. H.C.F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC, Mercedesbenz U.S. International, Inc., Robert Bosch GMBH and Robert Bosch LLC, Case No. 17-cv-05906, (N.D. Cal., October 13, 2017), seeks damages and injunctive relief, pursuant to federal antitrust law and state antitrust, unfair competition in particular the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. Defendants have reportedly been secretly colluding with each other since the 1990s on matters ranging from car development, gasoline engines, diesel engines, brakes, transmissions, gearboxes, choices of suppliers, emissions controls and even prices for spare parts supplied by Robert Bosch. Stanley purchased a 2013 Audi S7 from Huntsville Audi in Huntsville, Madison County, Alabama. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 986-1400 Facsimile: (415) 986-1474 Email: jennie@andrusanderson.com BMW AG: Sued by Sasson for Anti-trust Activities ------------------------------------------------ Elie Sasson, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BMW AG, BMW of North America, LLC, Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., Audi AG, Audi Of America, Inc., Audi Of America, LLC, Dr. Ing. H.C.F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC, Mercedesbenz U.S. International, Inc., Robert Bosch GMBH and Robert Bosch LLC, Case No. 17-cv- 05904, (N.D. Cal., October 13, 2017), seeks damages and injunctive relief, pursuant to federal antitrust law and state antitrust, unfair competition in particular the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. Defendants have reportedly been secretly colluding with each other since the 1990s on matters ranging from car development, gasoline engines, diesel engines, brakes, transmissions, gearboxes, choices of suppliers, emissions controls and even prices for spare parts supplied by Robert Bosch. Sasson leased a new BMW 435i hardtop convertible in 2016 from an authorized BMW dealer in California and claims to have paid excessively inflated prices for German automobiles. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 986-1400 Facsimile: (415) 986-1474 Email: jennie@andrusanderson.com BRAMAN HYUNDAI: "Schaevitz" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaevitz, and all others similarly-situated v. Braman Hyundai, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-23890 (S.D. Fla., October 24, 2017), seeks statutory damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Defendant owns and operates a new and used vehicle dealership in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Tel: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com BRICKLANE CURRY: Miranda Sues for Denied Mininum, Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Filogonio Miranda, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bricklane Curry House Too Inc. (d/b/a Brick Lane Curry House), BLCH I LLC (d/b/a Brick Lane Curry House) and Satinder Sharma, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-07997, (S.D. N.Y., October 17, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, spread-of-hours, applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Brick Lane Curry House is a chain of Indian restaurants owned by Satinder Sharma, where Plaintiff worked as a delivery person assigned to their locations at 235 E 53rd St, New York, NY 10022 and at 99 2nd Ave New York, NY 10003. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 BUCKSKIN'S SALOON: "Greer" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------------- Courtney Greer, and all others similarly-situated v. Buckskin's Saloon LLC, Lon Allen Bale, and Laura Bale, Case No. 1:17-cv-02551 (D. Colo., October 24, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff Courtney Greer is a resident in Douglas County, Colorado and worked as server for the Defendants from August 2017 to September 2017. Defendants own and operate a bar in Douglas County, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Tel: (480) 382-5176 Fax: (480) 304-3805 E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com BURRITO DEL MAR: "Ordaz" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Maria Ordaz on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Burrito Del Mar, LLC and Lani Alviar, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02389 (D. Colo., October 3, 2017), seeks compensatory and liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and attorney fees and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order. Ordaz worked for Defendants' frozen burrito production enterprise as an hourly food preparation worker. She claims to have worked beyond forty hours each workweek and beyond twelve each workday. Defendants also refused to provide her rest periods as required by Colorado law. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brandt Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE 595 Canyon Boulevard Boulder, CO 80302 Tel: (303) 440-8780 Email: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com CALIFORNIA: Cal. App. Affirms Atty Fees Order in "Woosley" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lamar W. Baker of the Court of Appeals of California for the Second District, Division Five, affirmed the trial court's attorney fees order the case, CHARLES PATRICK WOOSLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. B275402 (Cal. App.). Woosley filed a class action in 1978 alleging the Defendants and appellants the State of California, through the Department of Motor Vehicles and the State Board of Equalization ("State") unconstitutionally collected vehicle license fees and use taxes. The trial court certified two classes and entered judgment for the Plaintiffs in the 1980s. In the 1990s, the trial court certified newly defined classes. In the early-to-mid 2000s, it held a new trial on liability and conducted various proceedings pertaining to class membership and the claims process. After litigating a class action for approximately 30 years, the Plaintiffs, made their case for attorney fees. In 2014, the trial court awarded fees to the Plaintiffs' Counsel, but reduced their lodestar hours and applied only a small multiplier (no multiplier for Woosely) after taking into consideration the results ultimately obtained in the underlying litigation. The resulting fee awards for the Plaintiffs' Counsel's work on the merits of the class action totaled $62,006.37 for Jones Bell, $1,690,417.19 for the Gansinger Firm, $165,750 for the Busetti Firm, and $418,821.68 for Woosley. The trial court separately awarded Plaintiffs' Counsel the following attorney fees for work on their fee applications: $14,332.50 to Jones Bell, $80,010 to the Gansinger Firm, $15,600 to the Busetti Firm, and $70,000 to Woosley. The court rejected some of the hours claimed by counsel as excessive but did not explicitly reduce the fees on fees award for lack of success. In 2016, the trial court awarded the Plaintiffs' Counsel additional fees for their work in pursuing the 2014 fee awards. The trial court awarded them the following amounts: to the Gansinger Firm, $404,275.75 in attorney fees and $5,281.87 in costs; to the Busetti Firm, $32,260 in attorney fees and $60 in costs; to Jones Bell, $122,083.50 in attorney fees and $393.57 in costs; and to Woosley, $277,592 in attorney fees and $60 in costs. The trial court awarded substantially fewer costs than those requested by the Plaintiffs' Counsel. It found the costs claimed were in many cases unrecoverable or vaguely described. The State appeals, and Woosley cross-appeals, the trial court's attorney fees order. The Gansinger Firm, the Busetti Firm, and Jones Bell do not challenge the fee award, and they are respondents only in the proceeding. Judge Baker explains that to the extent the Plaintiffs' Counsel failed to defend their prior fee awards, that failure pertained only to the amounts awarded and not to a wholesale rejection of a principal basis for their claims, as was the case in the underlying litigation. Because the trial court applied the proper standards in determining the attorney fee awards in the case and because those awards are supported by a reasonable basis in the record, the Judge finds no abuse of discretion. The Judge also finds that the trial court committed no error when it determined a reasonable billing rate for calculating Woosley's award. It concludes that the trial court's decision not to enhance Woosley's fee award for risk and delay was not error. By the time the Plaintiffs' Counsel applied for the attorney fees at issue, their entitlement to an award of some amount was all but inevitable based on their success in the underlying litigation and their earlier fee award. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to enhance Woosley's award for risk. Nor does he think the court abused its discretion by declining to enhance Woosley's award for the delay in payment. While a "small" enhancement "tantamount to an interest rate" for "a significant delay in the payment of the fees" is permitted, it is not mandatory. Accordingly, Judge Baker affirmed the trial court's attorney fees order. The Gansinger Firm, the Law Offices of John F. Busetti, and Jones, Bell, Abbott, Fleming & Fitzgerald are to recover their costs on appeal from the Defendants. Woosley will bear his own costs on appeal. The Defendants are awarded no costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/24dw5o from Leagle.com. Patrick G. Woosley, in pro. per., for Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Diane S. Shaw, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stephen Lew, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Hutchison B. Meltzer, Deputy Attorney General, for Appellants State of California, Department of Motor Vehicles and California Department of Fee and Tax Administration. John B. Murdock for Respondent Law Offices of John F. Busetti. James M. Gansinger and Eric L. Troff -- eric@btllp.com --for Respondent The Gansinger Firm. Jones, Bell, Abbott, Fleming & Fitzgerald, Craig R. Bockman -- crbockman@jonesbell.com -- and Kevin K. Fitzgerald -- kkfitzgerald@jonesbell.com -- for Respondent Jones, Bell, Abbott, Fleming & Fitzgerald. CALIFORNIA: Dec. 20 Status Conference in "Coleman" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RALPH COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB P (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California entered an order explaining the continuance of the Nov. 3, 2017 contempt hearing setting a status conference for Dec. 20, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.; and providing the status conference agenda. On April 19, 2017, the Court ordered the Defendants to come into full and permanent compliance with Program Guide timelines for transfer of inmate-patients to acute and intermediate care facility programs. In accordance with the Court's previously signaled intention to exclude certain periods from this requirement, the parties were also ordered to develop an addendum to the Program Guide identifying exceptions to the timelines. The Defendants have appealed the April 19, 2017 order. The appeal is still pending. The Court directed the parties to file a joint statement of their positions on how the Defendants' appeal impacts the Court's jurisdiction over further proceedings. In the joint statement, the Defendants argued that the pending appeal divests the Court of jurisdiction to decide whether defendants must fully comply with the Program Guide transfer timelines and to adjudicate contempt proceedings for any such noncompliance. In the alternative, the Defendants requested the Court defer the contempt hearing to avoid the potential waste of resources in the event the Order is overturned on appeal. The Plaintiffs argued that the Court retains jurisdiction over all issues because the order the Defendants have appealed is neither a final nor an appealable order. They have moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In the meantime, the Court has approved the parties' stipulations to complete and submit to the Court the proposed addenda creating exceptions to the Program Guide transfer timelines by Nov. 30, 2017. At a Sept. 28, 2017 hearing concerning obstacles to compliance with the 24-hour timeline for transfer to mental health crisis bed ("MHCB") care, the Court noted that it anticipated considering a full report in November on the status of efforts to comply with that timeline and, as necessary, enforcement thereof. In a follow-up order, the Court resolved three issues considered at the Sept. 28, 2017 hearing. Specifically, the Court denied the Defendants' request to start the 24-hour referral timeline only after in-person clinical assessments and to allow inmate-patients identified as needing MHCB level care to be placed in alternative housing pending that in-person clinical assessment. It also rejected defendants' practice of ending the 24-hour transfer timeline when an inmate- patient is placed in a transport vehicle, rather than when the inmate-patient is placed in an MHCB. Finally, it required development of updated data templates for reporting on access to MHCB care. In that order, the Court directed the parties to be prepared at the Nov. 3, 2017 hearing to provide a filing date for a current, consolidated Program Guide incorporating all modifications required by the Court orders issued since March 2006. The Court further indicated that the parties should be prepared to address at that hearing what effect the Court's resolution of the transportation question noted will have on reporting going forward. On Oct. 19, 2017, when the Nov. 3 hearing still remained on calendar, the Defendants filed a request for clarification of the scope of that hearing and for a pretrial conference. The Plaintiffs responded on Oct. 21, 2017. The Court has denied the Defendants' request for pretrial conference and clarification without prejudice, and provides additional guidance to the parties in the Order. In their Oct. 16, 2017 monthly report, Judge Mueller finds that the Defendants do report that since Sept. 13, 2017, all inmate patients not subject to a previously agreed-upon exception have been transferred to acute or ICF inpatient care within Program Guide timelines. With this information, the Judge agrees that it may be useful to assess the sustainability of the Defendants' most recent compliance efforts as part of any contempt proceeding. For the additional reason, she has taken the Nov. 3, 2017 hearing off calendar, to be reset. Judge Mueller directed that the agenda for the Dec. 20, 2017 status conference will be as follows: a. Confirmation and finalization of the Program Guide addenda setting forth exceptions to the Program Guide timelines for transfer to acute inpatient care, ICF inpatient care and MHCBs, and timelines for completion of the referral process when such exceptions apply; b. Discussion of how the Court's Oct. 10, 2017 order addressing transportation time for transfer to mental health crisis beds (MHCBs) affects future reporting; c. Update on the effectiveness of steps defendants are taking to improve the timeliness of MHCB transfers; d. Discussion of a timeframe for submission of new templates for reporting on MHCB transfers and for issuance of an enforcement order, if necessary, to achieve compliance with the Program Guide's 24-hour timeline for transfer to MHCB care; and e. Determination of a filing date for a current, consolidated Program Guide incorporating all modifications required by court orders issued since March 2006. With respect to item "a," the Judge expects the parties will submit on or before Nov. 30, 2017 a joint statement proposing language for addenda to the Program Guide as required by the Court's April 19, 2017 order and in accordance with their Court- approved stipulations. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/jCn8Ji from Leagle.com. Matthew A. Lopes, Jr, Special Master, Pro Se. Ralph Coleman, Plaintiff, represented by Cara E. Trapani -- ctrapani@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Claudia B. Center, American Civil Liberties Union, Donald Specter, Prison Law Office, Ernest Galvan -- egalvan@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Jane E. Kahn -- kahn@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien & Galvan, LLP, Jeffrey L. Bornstein -- jbornstein@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan Grunfeld LLP, Jenny Snay Yelin -- jyelin@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Krista Michelle Stone-Manista -- KStone-Manista@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld, Lisa Adrienne Ells -- lells@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP, Margot Knight Mendelson, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, Michael Bien -- mbien@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Thomas Bengt Nolan -- nolan@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Jessica L. Winter -- jwinter@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP & Michael S. Nunez -- mnunez@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Defendant, represented by Chad A. Stegeman, California Department of Justice, Christine Marie Ciccotti, Office of the Attorney General, Danielle Felice O'Bannon, Department of Justice, Elise Owens Thorn, CA Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Jay Craig Russell, Office of the Attorney General, Tyler Vance Heath, Attorney General's Office for the State of California, Xavier Becerra, CA Office of the Attorney General, Kevin Allen Voth, California Department Of Justice & Damon Grant McClain, Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General. Michael Cohen, Defendant, represented by Chad A. Stegeman, California Department of Justice, Christine Marie Ciccotti, Office of the Attorney General, Damon Grant McClain, Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Danielle Felice O'Bannon, Department of Justice, Elise Owens Thorn, CA Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Jay Craig Russell, Office of the Attorney General, Tyler Vance Heath, Attorney General's Office for the State of California, Xavier Becerra, CA Office of the Attorney General & Kevin Allen Voth, California Department Of Justice. Scott Kernan, Defendant, represented by Chad A. Stegeman, California Department of Justice, Christine Marie Ciccotti, Office of the Attorney General, Damon Grant McClain, Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Danielle Felice O'Bannon, Department of Justice, Elise Owens Thorn, CA Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Jay Craig Russell, Office of the Attorney General, Tyler Vance Heath, Attorney General's Office for the State of California, Xavier Becerra, CA Office of the Attorney General & Kevin Allen Voth, California Department Of Justice. Pamela Ahlin, Defendant, represented by Chad A. Stegeman, California Department of Justice, Christine Marie Ciccotti, Office of the Attorney General, Damon Grant McClain, Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Danielle Felice O'Bannon, Department of Justice, Elise Owens Thorn, CA Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Jay Craig Russell, Office of the Attorney General, Tyler Vance Heath, Attorney General's Office for the State of California, Xavier Becerra, CA Office of the Attorney General & Kevin Allen Voth, California Department Of Justice. State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Unknown, represented by Steven Paul Saxton -- ssaxton@downeybrand.com -- Downey Brand LLP. J. Clark Kelso, Receiver, represented by Martin H. Dodd, Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier LLP. Psychology Shield, Amicus, represented by Arthur M. Chenen, Theodora Oringher Miller and Richman PC. California Psychiatric Association, Amicus, represented by Paul Andrew Hemesath, United States Attorney's Office. SEIU Local 1000, Amicus, represented by Rocco Robert Paternoster, Service Employees International Union. Californians United for a Responsible Budget, Amicus, represented by Cassie M. Pierson, Legal Services For Prisoners With Children. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Amicus, represented by Michael Stone Romano -- mromano@stanford.edu -- Three Strikes Project, Stanford Law School. California Correctional Peace Officers Association, Intervenor, represented by David Allen Sanders, California Correctional Peace Officers Association, Donald Paul Bird, II -- paul@majlabor.com -- Messing Adam & Jasmine LLP & Gregg McLean Adam -- gregg@majlabor.com -- Messing Adam & Jasmine Llp. Office of the Inspector General, Intervenor, represented by James Casey Spurling, Office Of The Inspector General & Shaun R. Spillane, Office Of The Inspector General. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, Intervenor, represented by Rochelle L. Wilcox -- rochellewilcox@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. Elwood Lui, Neutral, represented by Peter E. Davids -- pdavids@jonesday.com -- Jones Day. Peter Siggins, Neutral, represented by Peter E. Davids, Jones Day. USA, Neutral, represented by Laura Lee Coon, U.S. Department Of Justice & Regan Rush, United States Department Of Justice, Civil Rights Division. CASCADE COLLECTIONS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lloyd" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Assana Lloyd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cascade Collections Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-08279 (S.D.N.Y., October 26, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending an initial collection letter attempting to collect a consumer debt without including an appropriate disclosure that interest, fees and costs are continuously accruing, or in the alternative, the creditor and the Defendant has made the decision to waive accruing interest and fees, and would accept the amount stated on the collection letter as payment in full. Cascade Collections Inc. operates a debt collection agency located at P.O. Box 3166, Salem, OR 97302. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Kohn, Esq. RC LAW GROUP, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: dkohn@rclawgroup.com CB&I LLC: "Rando" Suit Hits Unpaid OT Wages, Breach of Contract --------------------------------------------------------------- John Rando and Jason Tatarewitz, for themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CB&I, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02790 (D.S.C., October 13, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. CB&I is a provider of technology and infrastructure for the energy industry. Plaintiffs entered into a contract with CB&I where they would provide services and labor to Defendant in exchange for agreed-upon wages. Defendant breached the contracts by not paying them all amounts due, including unaccounted overtime, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Amy L. Gaffney, Esq. Regina Hollins Lewis, Esq. GAFFNEY LEWIS & EDWARDS, LLC 3700 Forest Drive, Suite 400 Columbia, SC 29204 Tel: (803) 790-8838 Fax: (803) 790-8841 Email: agaffnengglelawfirmúom rlewis@glelawfirm.com - and - David B. Yarborough, Jr., Esq. William E. Applegate, IV, Esq. Christopher J. Bryant, Esq. YARBOROUGH APPLEGATE LLC 291 East Bay Street Charleston, SC 29401 Tel: (843) 972-0150 Fax: (843) 277-6691 Email: david@yarboroughapplegate.com william@yarboroughapplegate.com chris@yarboroughapplegate.com CELADON GROUP: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Blakley" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs William Blakley, Helen Blakley and Kimberly Smith filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled William Blakley, et al. v. Celadon Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv- 00351-SEB-TAB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs asserted in their First Amended Complaint that the advances made by Celadon constituted loans in violation of the Indiana Small Loans Act and Indiana Consumer Loan Act. The Plaintiffs further asserted that Celadon's deductions for items, such as "lease payments, fuel purchases, insurance purchases, and payroll advances," constituted wage assignments in violation the Indiana Wage Assignment Act, by including transaction fees in excess of the permissible 8% rate and by securing agreements for assignments exceeding 30 days. The appellate case is captioned as William Blakley, et al. v. Celadon Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-8022, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners WILLIAM BLAKLEY, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated; HELEN BLAKLEY, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated; and KIMBERLY SMITH, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, are represented by: Justin L. Swidler, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC 1101 N. Kings Highway Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com Defendants-Respondents CELADON GROUP, INC., CELADON TRUCKING SERVICES, INCORPORATED, QUALITY COMPANIES, LLC, and QUALITY EQUIPMENT LEASING, LLC, are represented by: Christopher James Eckhart, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. Ten W. Market Street Indianapolis, IN 46204-2971 Telephone: (317) 637-1777 E-mail: ceckhart@scopelitis.com CENTURYLINK INC: Court Consolidates 3 Securities Fraud Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division, issued a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Similar Cases in the case captioned BENJAMIN CRAIG, v. CENTURYLINK INC., et al., Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-01005 (W.D. La.). Potential class plaintiffs filed Motions to Consolidate similar cases against Defendant CenturyLink, Inc. and related Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Craig alleges a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired CenturyLink common stock. Craig alleges that CenturyLink publicly issued materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts regarding its compliance with applicable laws and regulations, causing its stock prices to artificially inflate. Craig alleges that he and other investors suffered significant losses and damages when the truth as to CenturyLink's unlawful business practices emerged and its stock prices fell. A related stockholder suit, Scott v. CenturyLink, No. 17-1033 (W.D. La.) (Scott), was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division. That case is also a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired CenturyLink securities. In Scott, Plaintiff Don J. Scott (Scott) named as Defendants CenturyLink, Post, Ewing, and David D. Cole (Cole). Scott also seeks certification of his suit as a class action, appointment of Scott as class representative, appointment of Scott's counsel as Class Counsel, damages, costs, attorney fees, and injunctive relief. Two other stockholder suits have been filed against CenturyLink in the Western District of Louisiana (Monroe Division): Thummeti v. CenturyLink, et al., 3:17-cv-01065 (W.D. La.). Thus, there are three stockholder actions against CenturyLink in the Western District of Louisiana. There are five factors to consider in determining whether consolidation is appropriate: (1) same court; (2) common parties; (3) common questions of law or fact; (4) risk of prejudice or confusion versus risk of inconsistent adjudications; and (5) judicial economy. First, all three cases are in the same court, the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division. Second, all of the plaintiffs are CenturyLink stockholders. The cases involve the same core Defendants: CenturyLink, Post, and Ewing. Scott v. CenturyLink, No. 3:17-1033 names one additional defendant, Cole, an Executive Vice President of CenturyLink. Third, all three cases involve common questions of law or fact (they allege similar complaints) whether Defendants fraudulently inflated their stock prices to the detriment of Plaintiff stockholders, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Fourth, there is little risk of confusion between the different Plaintiff stockholders, but there is a risk of inconsistent adjudications in different courts. Finally, it would clearly be more economical to decide all three cases together than to do so separately, since they all involve the same issues of law and fact. All relevant factors favor consolidation A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Memorandum Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y984kjetfrom Leagle.com. Amarendra Thummeti, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz. Amarendra Thummeti, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz & Patrick V. Dahlstrom - - pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz. CenturyLink Inc, Defendant, represented by Thomas M. Hayes, III -- tom@hhsclaw.com -- Hayes Harkey et al, Brandon Wade Creekbaum -- brandon@hhsclaw.com -- Hayes Harkey et al, George Edward Anhang -- ganhang@cooley.com -- Cooley, pro hac vice & Lyle Roberts -- lroberts@cooley.com -- Cooley, pro hac vice. Glen F Post, III, Defendant, represented by Thomas M. Hayes, III, Hayes Harkey et al, Brandon Wade Creekbaum, Hayes Harkey et al, George Edward Anhang, Cooley, pro hac vice & Lyle Roberts, Cooley, pro hac vice. R Stewart Ewing, Jr, Defendant, represented by Thomas M. Hayes, III, Hayes Harkey et al, Brandon Wade Creekbaum, Hayes Harkey et al, George Edward Anhang, Cooley, pro hac vice & Lyle Roberts, Cooley, pro hac vice. CHEMOURS COMPANY: "Morton" Suit Seeks Damages on Toxic Leaks ------------------------------------------------------------ Roger Morton, and all others similarly-situated v. 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, Case No. 7:17-cv-00197 (E.D. N.C., October 20, 2017), seeks compensatory and punitive damages arising out of releases, discharges, spills and leaks of toxic PFAS and PFECAs and other perfluorinated and polyfluorinated chemicals, both past and present, from the Fayetteville Works Facility and property currently owned by the Chemours Defendants in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Plaintiff Roger Morton owns a residential real property at 1343 Stone Chimney Drive, Supply, North Carolina. Mr. Morton occupies and resides at that property since 1988. The Fayetteville Works Site consists of about 2150 acres located at 22828 NC Highway 87 W, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28306-7332 on the Cumberland-Bladen County Line about 100 miles north of Wilmington. The Fayetteville Works Site consists of offices, manufacturing facilities, piping, storage, waste and treatment facilities, release points, and other related buildings and operations. The Chemours Defendants currently own and operate at the Fayetteville Works Site. The complaint says the DuPont Defendants manufactured, used, processed and disposed of chemicals containing perflourinated and polyfluorinated chemicals, including perfluoroalkyl substances, which are man-made chemicals, at the Fayetteville Works Site. Defendant Ellis H. McGaughy was at times relevant hereto Plant and Site Manager of the Fayetteville Works Site for both the DuPont Defendants and the Chemours Defendants. Defendant Michael E. Johnson was at times relevant hereto environmental manager at the Fayetteville Works Site for both the DuPont Defendants and the Chemours Defendants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary W. Jackson, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN, P.C. 280 South Mangum Street, Suite 400 Durham, NC 27701 Tel: (919)-688-4991 E-mail: gjackson@farrin.com - and - Kevin S. Hannon, Esq. THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC 1641 Downing Street Denver, CO 80218 Tel: (303) 861-8800 E-mail: khannon@hannonlaw.com CHILDREN'S PLACE: Court Compels Arbitration in "Sparks" ------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned NICOLE SPARKS et al., Individually and on behalf of all others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE CHILDREN'S PLACE, Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-1057 (E.D. Pa.). Nicole Sparks and Amirah Pasha allege that when they worked as store managers for Defendant The Children's Place, they were not paid overtime and were misclassified as exempt from the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") to avoid the payment of overtime, despite the fact that their job duties did not significantly differ from non-exempt employees. In their one-count Complaint, they seek to represent a class of all store managers who worked in The Children's Place stores located in Pennsylvania in the past three years. The Children's Place argues that these claims should be dismissed under the doctrine of claim splitting. The longstanding rule against improper claim splitting prohibits a plaintiff from prosecuting his case piecemeal and requires that all claims arising out of a single alleged wrong be presented in one action. In Essex v. Children's Place, Civil Action No. 15-cv-5621 (D.N.J.), a court certified an FLSA collective action involving the same issues complained of in this case that store managers at The Children's Place were misclassified as exempt in order to avoid paying earned overtime compensation. Both of the Named Plaintiffs in this action opted in to that litigation, and the same lawyers represent the Plaintiffs in both suits. Plaintiffs also claim there is a risk that Essex will not be finally certified for trial, which will lead to their claims being dismissed from that action without prejudice. They argue that if they have to wait for their role in Essex to end to bring their Pennsylvania claims, their claims will be worth less because the statute of limitations will bar recovery for wages earned more than three years prior to the filing of the new case. While this argument does not provide a defense to Plaintiffs' claim splitting, it does provide a reasonable basis for staying this matter, just as in Bradley, Case No. 2017 CH 01124, court did under nearly identical circumstances, rather than dismissing it. The doctrine of claim splitting is intended to prevent a defendant from having to deal with piecemeal litigation of the same issues. 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 that Essex is decertified and the Plaintiffs' claims in that action are dismissed without prejudice. The Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendant's motion. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Memorandum is available at http://tinyurl.com/yd4cm8qzfrom Leagle.com. NICOLE SPARKS, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL A. GALPERN -- mgalpern@lockslaw.com -- LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC. NICOLE SPARKS, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL H. REED, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP & SETH R. LESSER, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP, Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, New York 10573 AMIRAH PASHA, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL A. GALPERN, LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC, MICHAEL H. REED, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP & SETH R. LESSER, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP. THE CHILDREN'S PLACE, INC., Defendant, represented by ANDREW J. VOSS -- avoss@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC, MARTHA J. KEON -- mkeon@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. & RYAN D. FREEMAN -- rfreeman@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.. COMPANDSAVE.COM INC: Faces Suit Over TCPA Violations ---------------------------------------------------- Twonesha Johnson-Hendricks, and all others similarly-situated v. Compandsave.com Inc., Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:17-at-01107 (E.D. Calif., October 24, 2017), seeks damages and any other available or equitable remedies under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular phone in violation of the TCPA. Plaintiff Twonesha Johnson-Hendricks is a resident of Vallejo, California. Defendant Compandsave.com Inc. is a marketer and seller of computer products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, 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 mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com COMPASS BANK: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Hossfield" TCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, denied Compass' Motion to Dismiss the case, ROBERT HOSSFELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COMPASS BANK and MSR GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-CV-2017-VEH (N.D. Ala.). Mr. Hossfeld initiated the purported class action arising under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA") against Compass on Dec. 15, 2016. On Feb. 24, 2071, Mr. Hossfeld filed a first amended complaint that added a second Defendant -- MSR Group, LLC -- to the litigation. Pending before the Court is Compass' Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Standing Pursuant to the Supreme Court's Ruling in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins filed on March 17, 2017. Compass raises two primary issues in its initial brief. First, Mr. Hossfeld has not suffered a concrete and particularized injury in fact, denying the Court subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Second, even assuming Mr. Hossfeld has suffered an injury fact, such an injury is not traceable to any alleged violation of the TCPA and would occur anytime Mr. Hossfeld receives a phone call -- even those that are TCPA compliant. Judge Hopkins explains that although Compass may not have intended for Mr. Hossfeld to personally receive these survey calls, liability for using an autodialing system under Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) does not provide a statutory exception if someone other than the Defendant's intended recipient answers or receives the call. Also, none of the standing cases cited by Compass evaluates particularity under the TCPA through the lens of what a defendant did or did not intend regarding the actual recipient of any unsolicited calls. While Compass is correct that Mr. Hossfeld has not alleged a persistent pattern or "proliferation of intrusive" automated calls to his cell phone, the Judge says that argument ignores the plain wording of the statute and Spokeo's express reaffirmation of Lujan's earlier recognition that Congress may elevate an otherwise inadequate harm, such as a single unsolicited call, to concrete status. Judge Hopkins finds that the link between Mr. Hossfeld's intrusion injury and Compass' conduct is neither speculative, nor attenuated, nor indirect. Instead, Compass' use of the autodialer to call Mr. Hossfeld's cell phone number is the direct source that led to his claimed injury. Finally, the Judge is not persuaded to follow the traceability holding first adopted in Romero v. Dep't Stores Nat'l Bank and subsequently followed in Ewing v. SQM US, Inc. Instead, he finds that Mr. Hossfeld's intrusion injury is fairly traceable to Compass' alleged unlawful conduct under the TCPA. Further, because Palm Beach Golf Ctr.-Boca, Inc. v. John G. Sarris, is not pivotal to the Court's analysis of concreteness or traceability of an unauthorized telephone call under the TCPA, Compass' objections to Mr. Hossfeld's reliance upon that pre-Spokeo junk-fax decision for those issues are moot. Akin to the injury-in-fact analysis, in the absence of a more compelling record, the Judge is not persuaded to extend the prudential standing holding applied in the extreme situation of Stoops v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to Mr. Hossfeld's case, especially when Compass' jurisdictional attack is facial, rather than factual. For these reasons, Judge Hopkins denied Compass' Motion. Further, the stay of the action is lifted and the parties are ordered to file their report of their planning meeting within 14 days of the entry date of this decision. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/aDbfpl from Leagle.com. Robert Hossfeld, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander H. Burke -- aburke@burkelawllc.com -- BURKE LAW OFFICES LLC. Robert Hossfeld, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel J. Marovitch -- dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com -- BURKE LAW OFFICES LLC, Gregory S. Graham, GREGORY S GRAHAM PC & Scott D. Owens -- scott@ScottDOwens.com -- SCOTT D OWENS PA. MSR Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by Chad R. Fuller -- chad.fuller@troutman.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Michael Hooks -- jmhooks@csattorneys.com -- CHRISTIAN & SMALL LLP, Sharon D. Stuart -- sdstuart@csattorneys.com -- CHRISTIAN & SMALL LLP & Virginia Bell Flynn -- virginia.flynn@troutman.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, pro hac vice. Compass Bank, Defendant, represented by Gregory C. Cook -- gcook@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM LLP & Jonathan Paul Hoffmann -- jhoffmann@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM LLP. CR BARD: Bid to File of 2nd Class Cert in "Barraza" Denied ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Maria E. Barraza, et al., Plaintiffs, v. C. R. Bard Inc., and Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc., Defendants, Case No. CV16-01374-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz.), Judge David G. Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denied the Plaintiffs' request to file a second motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to formulate and reformulate their proposed class action. They filed their initial class complaint on May 5, 2016. With leave of the Court, the Plaintiffs filed an amended class complaint on Oct. 4, 2016, adding a new class representative. They filed another amended class complaint on Jan. 12, 2017, adding another class representative. The Plaintiffs moved again to amend their complaint on Jan. 13, 2017, but withdrew this motion one month later. They were permitted to designate yet another class representative on May 20, 2017. The Plaintiffs filed a further motion to amend their complaint with their class certification motion, which the Court permitted the amendment. The Court held at least five telephone conferences with the parties as the Plaintiffs worked through these various iterations. Additionally, Plaintiffs' modification of their class proposal was not limited to these amendments -- they made more modifications during the class certification process. The Plaintiffs sought to certify a single class that included all Bard filter recipients in all of those states. However, they changed course at the class certification hearing. Their counsel stated that the Plaintiffs no longer were seeking certification of a single class for all 16 states, but instead were seeking certification of 16 separate classes, one for each state. The Court denied their proposal to add new class representatives for the five states that lacked representatives. On Sept. 11, 2017, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. At a subsequent status conference, they requested an opportunity to file a second motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs now propose an entirely new approach. They seek to certify a single class limited to recipients of the Bard G2 filter in Florida, and suggest that the Court adopt a bellwether-class procedure that allows the parties and the court to focus pre-trial and trial efforts (other than discovery) on the claims arising under a single state law, before turning to litigation of the many other states at issue in this case. The Court directed the parties to file memoranda on that issue, which they did, and held a follow-up telephone conference with the parties on Nov. 2, 2017. Judge Campbell denied the Plaintiffs' request to file a second motion for class certification. He says this proposal clearly is not workable. The Plaintiffs presently have only one class representative for each of the 11 states, and each representative has only one kind of Bard filter. These representatives could not represent separate classes of persons in their states who have different kinds of filters, and the Court has already ruled that it will not permit the addition of new Named Plaintiffs at this late stage of the litigation. And if Plaintiffs propose to use the existing Plaintiffs to assert separate classes for each of the filters in each of the 11 states, then the Court would be confronted with scores of potential class actions. In addition to the ample opportunity the Plaintiffs have had to fashion their class strategy, the Judge finds no new circumstances that warrant another class certification motion. Finally, as to the Plaintiffs' argument during the Nov. 2, 2017 conference that the case remains alive and must be resolved in some way, Judge Campbell says it's true, but the case without class certification consists of 11 Plaintiffs. He asked the parties to propose a course for resolving their claims. For these reasons, Judge Campbell denied the Plaintiffs' request to file a second motion for class certification. He directed that on or before Nov. 21, 2017, the parties will file a joint proposal regarding the future litigation of the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/dPCsvw from Leagle.com. Maria E Barraza, Plaintiff, represented by Ben C. Martin, Law Offices of Ben C. Martin. Maria E Barraza, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Thomas Kirchmer, Provost & Umphrey Law Firm LLP, Daniel Seltz, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Donald A. Migliori -- dmigliori@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Eric M. Terry -- ETerry@THLawyer.com -- TorHoerman Law LLC, Evan Michael Zucker -- ezucker@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd PC, Hadley L. Matarazzo -- hmatarazzo@faraci.com -- Faraci Lange LLP, Howard L. Nations, Nations Law Firm, John A. Dalimonte -- info@dalimonterueb.com -- Dalimonte Rueb LLP, Joseph R. Johnson, Babbitt & Johnson PA, Joseph A. Osborne, Jr., Osborne & Associates, Julia Reed-Zaic -- info@hrzlaw.com -- Heaviside Reed Zaic, Matthew Ryan McCarley, Fears Nachawati PLLC, Matthew David Schultz, Levin Papantonio Thomas MItchell Rafferty & Proctor PA, Michael T. Gallagher, Gallagher Law Firm LLP, Michael A. Kelly, Walkup Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger, Nathan Craig Van Der Veer, Farris Riley & Pitt LLP, Ramon Rossi Lopez -- rlopez@lopezmchugh.com -- Lopez McHugh LLP, Richard S. Lewis -- rlewis@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Russell W. Budd, Baron & Budd PC, Sheila M. Bossier, Bossier & Associates PLLC, Steven Rotman -- srotman@hausfeld.com - - Hausfeld LLP, Stuart Goldenberg -- slgoldenberg@goldenberglaw.com -- Goldenberg Law PLLC, Thomas P. Cartmell, Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, Troy Alexander Brenes -- tbrenes@breneslawgroup.com -- Brenes Law Group, Turner Williamson Branch, Branch Law Firm & Wendy R. Fleishman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP. Thomas Flournay, Plaintiff, represented by Ben C. Martin, Law Offices of Ben C. Martin, Christopher Thomas Kirchmer, Provost & Umphrey Law Firm LLP, Daniel Seltz, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Donald A. Migliori, Motley Rice LLC, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Eric M. Terry, TorHoerman Law LLC, Evan Michael Zucker, Baron & Budd PC, Hadley L. Matarazzo, Faraci Lange LLP, Howard L. Nations, Nations Law Firm, John A. Dalimonte, Dalimonte Rueb LLP, Joseph R. Johnson, Babbitt & Johnson PA, Joseph A. Osborne, Jr., Osborne & Associates, Julia Reed-Zaic, Heaviside Reed Zaic, Matthew Ryan McCarley, Fears Nachawati PLLC, Matthew David Schultz, Levin Papantonio Thomas MItchell Rafferty & Proctor PA, Michael T. Gallagher, Gallagher Law Firm LLP, Michael A. Kelly, Walkup Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger, Nathan Craig Van Der Veer, Farris Riley & Pitt LLP, Ramon Rossi Lopez, Lopez McHugh LLP, Richard S. Lewis, Hausfeld LLP, Russell W. Budd, Baron & Budd PC, Sheila M. Bossier, Bossier & Associates PLLC, Steven Rotman, Hausfeld LLP, Stuart Goldenberg, Goldenberg Law PLLC, Thomas P. Cartmell, Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, Troy Alexander Brenes, Brenes Law Group, Turner Williamson Branch, Branch Law Firm & Wendy R. Fleishman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP. James Holt, Plaintiff, represented by Ben C. Martin, Law Offices of Ben C. Martin, Christopher Thomas Kirchmer, Provost & Umphrey Law Firm LLP, Daniel Seltz, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Donald A. Migliori, Motley Rice LLC, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Eric M. Terry, TorHoerman Law LLC, Evan Michael Zucker, Baron & Budd PC, Hadley L. Matarazzo, Faraci Lange LLP, Howard L. Nations, Nations Law Firm, John A. Dalimonte, Dalimonte Rueb LLP, Joseph R. Johnson, Babbitt & Johnson PA, Joseph A. Osborne, Jr., Osborne & Associates, Julia Reed-Zaic, Heaviside Reed Zaic, Matthew Ryan McCarley, Fears Nachawati PLLC, Matthew David Schultz, Levin Papantonio Thomas MItchell Rafferty & Proctor PA, Michael T. Gallagher, Gallagher Law Firm LLP, Michael A. Kelly, Walkup Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger, Nathan Craig Van Der Veer, Farris Riley & Pitt LLP, Ramon Rossi Lopez, Lopez McHugh LLP, Richard S. Lewis, Hausfeld LLP, Russell W. Budd, Baron & Budd PC, Sheila M. Bossier, Bossier & Associates PLLC, Steven Rotman, Hausfeld LLP, Stuart Goldenberg, Goldenberg Law PLLC, Thomas P. Cartmell, Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, Troy Alexander Brenes, Brenes Law Group, Turner Williamson Branch, Branch Law Firm & Wendy R. Fleishman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP. Gregory Lester, Plaintiff, represented by Ben C. Martin, Law Offices of Ben C. Martin, Christopher Thomas Kirchmer, Provost & Umphrey Law Firm LLP, Daniel Seltz, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Donald A. Migliori, Motley Rice LLC, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Eric M. Terry, TorHoerman Law LLC, Evan Michael Zucker, Baron & Budd PC, Hadley L. Matarazzo, Faraci Lange LLP, Howard L. Nations, Nations Law Firm, John A. Dalimonte, Dalimonte Rueb LLP, Joseph R. Johnson, Babbitt & Johnson PA, Joseph A. Osborne, Jr., Osborne & Associates, Julia Reed-Zaic, Heaviside Reed Zaic, Matthew Ryan McCarley, Fears Nachawati PLLC, Matthew David Schultz, Levin Papantonio Thomas MItchell Rafferty & Proctor PA, Michael T. Gallagher, Gallagher Law Firm LLP, Michael A. Kelly, Walkup Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger, Nathan Craig Van Der Veer, Farris Riley & Pitt LLP, Ramon Rossi Lopez, Lopez McHugh LLP, Richard S. Lewis, Hausfeld LLP, Russell W. Budd, Baron & Budd PC, Sheila M. Bossier, Bossier & Associates PLLC, Steven Rotman, Hausfeld LLP, Stuart Goldenberg, Goldenberg Law PLLC, Thomas P. Cartmell, Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, Troy Alexander Brenes, Brenes Law Group, Turner Williamson Branch, Branch Law Firm & Wendy R. Fleishman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP. Eddie Mims, Plaintiff, represented by Ben C. Martin, Law Offices of Ben C. Martin, Christopher Thomas Kirchmer, Provost & Umphrey Law Firm LLP, Daniel Seltz, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Donald A. Migliori, Motley Rice LLC, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Eric M. Terry, TorHoerman Law LLC, Evan Michael Zucker, Baron & Budd PC, Hadley L. Matarazzo, Faraci Lange LLP, Howard L. Nations, Nations Law Firm, John A. Dalimonte, Dalimonte Rueb LLP, Joseph R. Johnson, Babbitt & Johnson PA, Joseph A. Osborne, Jr., Osborne & Associates, Julia Reed-Zaic, Heaviside Reed Zaic, Matthew Ryan McCarley, Fears Nachawati PLLC, Matthew David Schultz, Levin Papantonio Thomas MItchell Rafferty & Proctor PA, Michael T. Gallagher, Gallagher Law Firm LLP, Michael A. Kelly, Walkup Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger, Nathan Craig Van Der Veer, Farris Riley & Pitt LLP, Ramon Rossi Lopez, Lopez McHugh LLP, Richard S. Lewis, Hausfeld LLP, Russell W. Budd, Baron & Budd PC, Sheila M. Bossier, Bossier & Associates PLLC, Steven Rotman, Hausfeld LLP, Stuart Goldenberg, Goldenberg Law PLLC, Thomas P. Cartmell, Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, Troy Alexander Brenes, Brenes Law Group, Turner Williamson Branch, Branch Law Firm & Wendy R. Fleishman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP. Delmar Lee Peck, Plaintiff, represented by Ben C. Martin, Law Offices of Ben C. Martin, Christopher Thomas Kirchmer, Provost & Umphrey Law Firm LLP, Daniel Seltz, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Donald A. Migliori, Motley Rice LLC, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Eric M. Terry, TorHoerman Law LLC, Evan Michael Zucker, Baron & Budd PC, Hadley L. Matarazzo, Faraci Lange LLP, Howard L. Nations, Nations Law Firm, John A. Dalimonte, Dalimonte Rueb LLP, Joseph R. Johnson, Babbitt & Johnson PA, Joseph A. Osborne, Jr., Osborne & Associates, Julia Reed-Zaic, Heaviside Reed Zaic, Matthew Ryan McCarley, Fears Nachawati PLLC, Matthew David Schultz, Levin Papantonio Thomas MItchell Rafferty & Proctor PA, Michael T. Gallagher, Gallagher Law Firm LLP, Michael A. Kelly, Walkup Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger, Nathan Craig Van Der Veer, Farris Riley & Pitt LLP, Ramon Rossi Lopez, Lopez McHugh LLP, Richard S. Lewis, Hausfeld LLP, Russell W. Budd, Baron & Budd PC, Sheila M. Bossier, Bossier & Associates PLLC, Steven Rotman, Hausfeld LLP, Stuart Goldenberg, Goldenberg Law PLLC, Thomas P. Cartmell, Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, Troy Alexander Brenes, Brenes Law Group, Turner Williamson Branch, Branch Law Firm & Wendy R. Fleishman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP. Denise Tomlin, Plaintiff, represented by Ben C. Martin, Law Offices of Ben C. Martin, Christopher Thomas Kirchmer, Provost & Umphrey Law Firm LLP, Daniel Seltz, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Donald A. Migliori, Motley Rice LLC, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Eric M. Terry, TorHoerman Law LLC, Evan Michael Zucker, Baron & Budd PC, Hadley L. Matarazzo, Faraci Lange LLP, Howard L. Nations, Nations Law Firm, John A. Dalimonte, Dalimonte Rueb LLP, Joseph R. Johnson, Babbitt & Johnson PA, Joseph A. Osborne, Jr., Osborne & Associates, Julia Reed-Zaic, Heaviside Reed Zaic, Matthew Ryan McCarley, Fears Nachawati PLLC, Matthew David Schultz, Levin Papantonio Thomas MItchell Rafferty & Proctor PA, Michael T. Gallagher, Gallagher Law Firm LLP, Michael A. Kelly, Walkup Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger, Nathan Craig Van Der Veer, Farris Riley & Pitt LLP, Ramon Rossi Lopez, Lopez McHugh LLP, Richard S. Lewis, Hausfeld LLP, Russell W. Budd, Baron & Budd PC, Sheila M. Bossier, Bossier & Associates PLLC, Steven Rotman, Hausfeld LLP, Stuart Goldenberg, Goldenberg Law PLLC, Thomas P. Cartmell, Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, Troy Alexander Brenes, Brenes Law Group, Turner Williamson Branch, Branch Law Firm & Wendy R. Fleishman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP. Diane Washington, Plaintiff, represented by Ben C. Martin, Law Offices of Ben C. Martin, Christopher Thomas Kirchmer, Provost & Umphrey Law Firm LLP, Daniel Seltz, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Donald A. Migliori, Motley Rice LLC, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Eric M. Terry, TorHoerman Law LLC, Evan Michael Zucker, Baron & Budd PC, Hadley L. Matarazzo, Faraci Lange LLP, Howard L. Nations, Nations Law Firm, John A. Dalimonte, Dalimonte Rueb LLP, Joseph R. Johnson, Babbitt & Johnson PA, Joseph A. Osborne, Jr., Osborne & Associates, Julia Reed-Zaic, Heaviside Reed Zaic, Matthew Ryan McCarley, Fears Nachawati PLLC, Matthew David Schultz, Levin Papantonio Thomas MItchell Rafferty & Proctor PA, Michael T. Gallagher, Gallagher Law Firm LLP, Michael A. Kelly, Walkup Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger, Nathan Craig Van Der Veer, Farris Riley & Pitt LLP, Ramon Rossi Lopez, Lopez McHugh LLP, Richard S. Lewis, Hausfeld LLP, Russell W. Budd, Baron & Budd PC, Sheila M. Bossier, Bossier & Associates PLLC, Steven Rotman, Hausfeld LLP, Stuart Goldenberg, Goldenberg Law PLLC, Thomas P. Cartmell, Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, Troy Alexander Brenes, Brenes Law Group, Turner Williamson Branch, Branch Law Firm & Wendy R. Fleishman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP. Nancy Mosher, Plaintiff, represented by Ben C. Martin, Law Offices of Ben C. Martin, Christopher Thomas Kirchmer, Provost & Umphrey Law Firm LLP, Daniel Seltz, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Donald A. Migliori, Motley Rice LLC, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Eric M. Terry, TorHoerman Law LLC, Evan Michael Zucker, Baron & Budd PC, Hadley L. Matarazzo, Faraci Lange LLP, Howard L. Nations, Nations Law Firm, John A. Dalimonte, Dalimonte Rueb LLP, Joseph R. Johnson, Babbitt & Johnson PA, Joseph A. Osborne, Jr., Osborne & Associates, Julia Reed-Zaic, Heaviside Reed Zaic, Matthew Ryan McCarley, Fears Nachawati PLLC, Matthew David Schultz, Levin Papantonio Thomas MItchell Rafferty & Proctor PA, Michael T. Gallagher, Gallagher Law Firm LLP, Michael A. Kelly, Walkup Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger, Nathan Craig Van Der Veer, Farris Riley & Pitt LLP, Ramon Rossi Lopez, Lopez McHugh LLP, Richard S. Lewis, Hausfeld LLP, Russell W. Budd, Baron & Budd PC, Sheila M. Bossier, Bossier & Associates PLLC, Steven Rotman, Hausfeld LLP, Stuart Goldenberg, Goldenberg Law PLLC, Thomas P. Cartmell, Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, Troy Alexander Brenes, Brenes Law Group, Turner Williamson Branch, Branch Law Firm & Wendy R. Fleishman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP. C R Bard Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Amanda Christine Sheridan -- asheridan@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer LLP, James R. Condo- jcondo@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer LLP, Richard B. North, Jr. -- richard.north@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLC, Brandee J. Kowalzyk, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLC, & Elizabeth C. Helm, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLC, Atlantic Station, 201 17th Street NW, Suite 1700, Atlanta, GA 30363 Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Amanda Christine Sheridan, Snell & Wilmer LLP, James R. Condo, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Richard B. North, Jr., Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLC, Brandee J. Kowalzyk, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLC & Elizabeth C. Helm, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLC. DIMENSION THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suit Over Sale to Ultragenyx ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Rubin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dimension Therapeutics, Inc., Annalisa Jenkins, Alan B. Colowick, Michael Dybbs, Georges Gemayel, John A. Hohneker, George V. Migausky, and Arlene M. Morris, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-11992 (D. Mass., October 15, 2017), seeks compensatory damages resulting from the acquisition of Dimension by Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc., awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger, reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Ultragenyx will acquire all outstanding shares of Dimension for $6.00 in cash per share of Dimension's common stock. The complaint says the Registration Statement omits financial projections and the analyses performed by MTS Securities LLC, the Company's financial advisor, thus rendering Plaintiff unable to make a fully-informed decision whether to tender their shares in connection with the merger. Dimension is a gene therapy platform company that focuses on discovering and developing therapeutic products for people living with rare and metabolic diseases associated with the liver. Ultragenyx is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company bringing to market products for the treatment of rare and ultra-rare diseases, with a focus on debilitating genetic diseases. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly C. Keenan, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 682-3025 Fax: (212) 682-3010 - and - Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq. MATORIN LAWOFFICE, LLC 18 Grove Street, Suite 5 Wellesley, MA 02482 Tel: (781) 453-0100 Email: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com DONALD TRUMP: Court Partially OK's Production of Docs in "Wagafe" ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, at Seattle, issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents in the case captioned ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States, et al., Defendants, Case No. C17-94 RAJ (W.D. Wash.). The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to certify two classes: a Naturalization Class and an Adjustment Class. The parties have since been engaged in discovery. The parties have attempted to resolve their discovery disputes without court intervention but have reached an impasse. Plaintiffs now move the Court to compel the Government to produce certain documents. Plaintiffs seek, and the Government refuses to provide, discovery in four discrete areas: (1) information to allow Plaintiffs to identify potential class members and why Named Plaintiffs were subjected to Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program ("CARRP"); (2) responsive documents despite their classified status, or a privilege log in lieu of the documents; (3) documents related to two Executive Orders; and (4) documents outside the scope of national applicability. Identifying Class Members The Government argues that the class members' specific identities are neither relevant nor required for Plaintiffs to pursue this class action. The Government contends, broadly, that releasing the identities of potential class members could lead individuals to potentially alter their behavior, conceal evidence of wrongdoing, or attempt to influence others in a way that could affect national security interests. Such a vague, brief explanation that consists of mere speculation and a hypothetical result is not sufficient to claim privilege over basic spreadsheets identifying who is subject to CARRP. Even if it were sufficient, the privilege is not automatic; the Court must balance the need for Plaintiffs to obtain this information against the Government's reasons for withholding. In doing so, the Court finds that the balance weigh in favor of disclosure. The Court notes that there is a protective order in place and Plaintiffs' attorneys could supplement the protective order or obtain security clearances to assuage any remaining concerns on the part of the Government. Plaintiffs request to know why the Named Plaintiffs were subjected to CARRP. The Court finds that this information is relevant to the claims and Plaintiffs' needs outweigh the Government's reasons for withholding. Classified Documents The Government claims that no relevant classified documents exist. It appears that the Government only searched for classified documents that relate to CARRP on a programmatic level. The Government asserts that any other documentation is irrelevant. The Court rejected the Government's conclusory arguments as to relevance. As such, the Government must either produce the relevant documents or provide Plaintiffs with a proper privilege log. Documents Related to the Executive Orders The Court is mindful that intruding on the Executive in this context is a matter of last resort and the Court does not find that the record before it justifies such an intrusion. However, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to discuss alternative custodians and non-custodial sources of information for any discovery over which the Government asserts this specific privilege. The Court requests a joint status report within five (5) days of the court ordered conference detailing any resolution of this issue. Nationwide Applicability Plaintiffs object to the Government's refusal to produce documents outside the scope of national applicability. The Government argues that searching for documents outside of this scope is unduly burdensome and irrelevant. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek documents for which the Government has already searched, the Court grants the request with the caveat that the Government may produce a privilege log in lieu of the documents if appropriate. For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents. The Court orders the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint status report thereafter in accordance with this Order. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybaquqjdfrom Leagle.com. Abdiqafar Wagafe, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Perez -- DPerez@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE. Abdiqafar Wagafe, Plaintiff, represented by Emily Chiang -- echiang@aclu-wa.org -- ACLU OF WASHINGTON, Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid -- glenda@nwirp.org -- NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT, Harry H. Schneider, Jr. -- hschneider@perkinscoie.com -PERKINS COIE, Hina Shamsi -- hshamsi@aclu.org -- AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, pro hac vice, Hugh E. Handeyside -- hhandeyside@aclu.org -- CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP, Jennifer Pasquarella -- jpasquarella@aclusocal.org -- ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, pro hac vice, Kristin Macleod-Ball -- kmacleodball@immcouncil.org -- AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt -- lgelernt@aclu.org -- AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, pro hac vice, Matt Adams -- matt@nwirp.org -- NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT, Sameer Ahmed -- sahmed@aclusocal.org -- ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, pro hac vice, Stacy Tolchin -- stacy@tolchinimmigration.com -- LAW OFFICES OF STACY TOLCHIN, pro hac vice, Trina Realmuto -trealmuto@immcouncil.org -- AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Laura Kaplan Hennessey -- LHennessey@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE & Nicholas Peter Gellert -- NGellert@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE. Mehdi Ostadhassan, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Perez, PERKINS COIE, Emily Chiang, ACLU OF WASHINGTON, Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT, Harry H. Schneider, Jr., PERKINS COIE, Hina Shamsi, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, pro hac vice, Hugh E. Handeyside, CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP, Jennifer Pasquarella, ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, pro hac vice, Kristin Macleod-Ball, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, pro hac vice, Matt Adams, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT, Sameer Ahmed, ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, pro hac vice, Stacy Tolchin, LAW OFFICES OF STACY TOLCHIN, pro hac vice, Trina Realmuto, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Laura Kaplan Hennessey, PERKINS COIE & Nicholas Peter Gellert, PERKINS COIE. Hanin Omar Bengezi, Plaintiff, represented by Emily Chiang, ACLU OF WASHINGTON, Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT, Harry H. Schneider, Jr., PERKINS COIE, Hina Shamsi, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, pro hac vice, Hugh E. Handeyside, CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP, Jennifer Pasquarella, ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, pro hac vice, Kristin Macleod-Ball, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, pro hac vice, Matt Adams, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT, Sameer Ahmed, ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, pro hac vice, Stacy Tolchin, LAW OFFICES OF STACY TOLCHIN, pro hac vice, Trina Realmuto, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Laura Kaplan Hennessey, PERKINS COIE, Nicholas Peter Gellert, PERKINS COIE & David A. Perez, PERKINS COIE. Mushtaq Abed Jihad, Plaintiff, represented by Emily Chiang, ACLU OF WASHINGTON, Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT, Harry H. Schneider, Jr., PERKINS COIE, Hina Shamsi, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, pro hac vice, Hugh E. Handeyside, CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP, Jennifer Pasquarella, ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, pro hac vice, Kristin Macleod-Ball, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, pro hac vice, Matt Adams, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT, Sameer Ahmed, ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, pro hac vice, Stacy Tolchin, LAW OFFICES OF STACY TOLCHIN, pro hac vice, Trina Realmuto, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Laura Kaplan Hennessey, PERKINS COIE, Nicholas Peter Gellert, PERKINS COIE & David A. Perez, PERKINS COIE. Sajeel Manzoor, Plaintiff, represented by Emily Chiang, ACLU OF WASHINGTON, Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT, Harry H. Schneider, Jr., PERKINS COIE, Hina Shamsi, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, pro hac vice, Hugh E. Handeyside, CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP, Jennifer Pasquarella, ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, pro hac vice, Kristin Macleod-Ball, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, pro hac vice, Matt Adams, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT, Sameer Ahmed, ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, pro hac vice, Stacy Tolchin, LAW OFFICES OF STACY TOLCHIN, pro hac vice, Trina Realmuto, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Laura Kaplan Hennessey, PERKINS COIE, Nicholas Peter Gellert, PERKINS COIE & David A. Perez, PERKINS COIE. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendant, represented by Aaron R. Petty -- aaron.r.petty@usdoj.gov -- US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Edward S. White -- edward.s.white@usdoj.gov -- US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Joseph F. Carilli, Jr.- joseph.f.carilli2@usdoj.gov -- US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. John Kelly, Defendant, represented by Aaron R. Petty, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Edward S. White, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Joseph F. Carilli, Jr., US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Lori Scialabba, Defendant, represented by Aaron R. Petty, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Edward S. White, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Joseph F. Carilli, Jr., US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Matthew D Emrich, Defendant, represented by Aaron R. Petty, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Edward S. White, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Joseph F. Carilli, Jr., US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Daniel M Renaud, Defendant, represented by Aaron R. Petty, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Edward S. White, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Joseph F. Carilli, Jr., US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Donald Trump, Defendant, represented by Aaron R. Petty, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Edward S. White, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Joseph F. Carilli, Jr., US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. CHEMOURS CO: Nix Files Suit Over Toxic Chemical Dumping ------------------------------------------------------- Brent Nix, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 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, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00046 (E.D. N.C., October 16, 2017), seeks compensatory and punitive damages arising out of releases, discharges, spills and leaks of toxic chemicals from the Fayetteville Works Facility owned by Chemours; loss in value and marketability of properties owned by Plaintiff; cost of remediating the properties; cost of mitigating the contaminated water and/or the cost of alternative water sources; loss of use of the properties they own; discomfort and inconvenience; cost of diagnostic testing for the early detection of illness, disease, and disease process caused by exposure to said toxins all resulting from trespassing, negligence, nuisance and unjust enrichment. Nix owns residential real property at 5008 Laurenbridge Lane, Wilmington, North Carolina and consumes water supplied by the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority through water from the Cape Fear River. Fayetteville Works Site consists of manufacturing facilities, piping, storage, waste and treatment facilities owned by Chemours, a wholly-owned subsidiary of DuPont. Defendants allegedly disposed of ammonium perfluorooctanoate, a toxic substance, to their surrounding air, soil and surface water at the Fayetteville Works Site. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Gary W. Jackson, Esq. 280 South Mangum Street, Suite 400 Durham, NC 27701 Phone: (919)-688-4991 Email: gjackson@farrin.com - and - Kevin S. Hannon, Esq. THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC 1641 Downing Street Denver, CO 80218 Phone: (303) 861-8800 Email: khannon@hannonlaw.com CREDIT CONTROL: "Klein" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations ----------------------------------------------------- Patricia A. Klein, and all others similarly-situated v. Credit Control, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-14371 (S.D. Fla., October 24, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff Patricia A. Klein is a resident of Indian River County, Florida. Defendant Credit Control, LLC is a Missouri Limited Liability Company engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts, which operates from offices located at 5757 Phantom Drive, Suite 330, Hazelwood, Missouri, 63042. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leo W. Desmond, Esq. DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C. 5070 Highway A1A, Suite D Vero Beach, FL 32963 Tel: (772) 231-9600 Fax: (772) 231-0300 E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com DSWC INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a Memorandum affirming the District Court's granting of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Leave to Amend the putative class action filed by Marilyn Sperling alleging that DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc.'s price tags were false or deceptive under California law. According to the lawsuit, the price tags displayed the manufacturer's suggested retail price as a compare at price. Sperling claimed that the price tags were false or deceptive because she did not understand, nor would a reasonable consumer have understood, the compare at price to be the manufacturer's suggested retail price. Though Sperling alleged that she found shoes elsewhere for a few dollars less than the compare at price, she did not allege when she found them, so it could well have been long after her purchase, when the passage of time could have reduced market demand for the shoes. Nor do Sperling's other allegations establish, if proved, that the manufacturer's suggested retail price was not a fair comparator at the time of her purchase. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sperling leave to file a third amended complaint. Sperling was given an opportunity to cure the deficiencies in her pleading after the district court's guidance in an earlier dismissal, but she failed to do so. The appeals case is MARILYN SPERLING, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DSWC, INC., an Ohio corporation; and DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE, INC., a Missouri corporation, Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-55231 (9th Cir.). A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's October 19, 2017 Memorandum is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9yaeka7from Leagle.com. DYNAMIC PET: "Reed" Stayed Pending Settlement Appeal Notice ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the parties' Joint Motion to Stay the case, KHRISTIE REED, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC PET PRODUCTS; and FRICK'S MEAT PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-0987-WQH- DHB (S.D. Cal.). Reed commenced the class action in May 2015. A separate class action was filed in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, that names the same two Defendants, alleges similar facts, concerns similar events, and alleges many similar causes of action. The parties to the Missouri action reached a global class action settlement that, upon court approval, would potentially resolve the claims pending before this Court. Reed and other Plaintiffs in the Missouri action filed objections to the Settlement. In light of these developments in the Missouri case, the parties to this case filed a Joint Motion to Stay this Action, asking the Court to stay the case until the Missouri Circuit Court ruled on the objections to the Settlement and the Missouri parties decided whether or not to appeal that ruling. The Court granted the Joint Motion and stayed the case through Sept. 12, 2017. The Missouri Circuit Court issued an order approving the Settlement on Aug. 11, 2017, and the objectors, including Reed, appealed that order on Sept. 11, 2017. The parties now jointly request that the Court issue a further stay of this action until after notice to this Court of a ruling on the appeal of the Missouri Court settlement, or by ex parte application of either party at any time. The Court ordered the parties to show cause, by Oct. 10, 2017, why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice, with leave for any party to file a motion to reopen the case at any time. The parties each filed a response to the Order to Show Cause on Oct. 10, 2017. Having reviewed the Joint Status Report, the parties' responses to the Order to Show Cause (ECF Nos. 91 and 92), and the record of this action, Judge Hayes concludes that the action should be stayed while the Missouri Court of Appeals reviews the order approving the Settlement. Accordingly, he stayed the action until this Court receives notice of the Missouri Court of Appeals' ruling on the appeal of the order approving the Settlement. The Judge directed the parties to file status reports (i) 90 days from the date of his Order, (ii) every 90 days thereafter until the Missouri Court of Appeals issues a ruling on the appeal, and (iii) within 10 days of the Missouri Court of Appeals' ruling on the appeal. The Clerk of the Court will administratively close the action without prejudice to any party and with leave to be reopened by the Court upon notification that the Missouri Court of Appeals ruled on the appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/ouVzBa from Leagle.com. Khristie Reed, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie E. Hurst -- lhurst@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP. Khristie Reed, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Gordon Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP. Paul Benesch, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie E. Hurst, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP. Rebecca Brandel, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie E. Hurst, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP. Diane Canutt, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie E. Hurst, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP. Rod Canutt, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie E. Hurst, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP. Rene Lucht, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie E. Hurst, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP. Diane Ortman, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie E. Hurst, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP. Kris Vosburgh, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie E. Hurst, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP. Crystal Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie E. Hurst, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP. Dynamic Pet Products, Defendant, represented by Daniel E. Tranen - - daniel.tranen@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser, pro hac vice, David Joseph Aveni -- david.aveni@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, Gregory Dean Hagen -- gregory.hagen@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP & Michael S. Weisenbach -- michael.weisenbach@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser, pro hac vice. Frick's Meat Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel E. Tranen, Wilson Elser, pro hac vice, David Joseph Aveni, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, Gregory Dean Hagen, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP & Michael S. Weisenbach, Wilson Elser, pro hac vice. EOS CCA: "Singh" Disputes Vague Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------- Nirvana Singh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EOS CCA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv- 06071, (E.D. N.Y., October 17, 2017), seeks damages, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. EOS CCA, Inc., is a Massachusetts Corporation with a principal place of business in Plymouth County, Massachusetts. It is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers. Defendant alleges Plaintiff owes a debt that fell behind on payments owed. In its efforts to collect, Defendant contacted Plaintiff by letter, however, said letter fails to provide information that would allow Plaintiff to determine what Plaintiff will need to pay to resolve the debt at any given moment in the future, the amount needed to pay to resolve the debt at any given moment in the future, explanation of the fees that may cause the amount stated to increase and the details of the "Fees Coll. Costs" item on the letter, thus rendering the Plaintiff unable to determine the exact amount of the debt. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com EQUIFAX INC: Meade Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------- Suzanne Meade, Brenda Kay Wygal and Edward Wygal, on behalf of themselves and all 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 Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act. Equifax is a credit-reporting company that track and rates the financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as information on everything from child support payments, credit limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer history. Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license numbers and credit card numbers. Plaintiffs blame Equifax for failure to safeguard personally identifiable information during the data breach. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Lewis, Esq. KITRICK, LEWIS, & HARRIS, CO. LPA 445 Hutchinson Avenue, Suite 100 Community Corporate Center Columbus, OH 43235-8630 Phone: (614) 224-7711 Fax: (614) 225-8985 Email: mlewis@klhlaw.com - and - Robert J. Wagoner, Esq. ROBERT J. WAGONER, CO., L.L.C. 445 Hutchinson Avenue, Suite 100 Columbus, OH 43235 Phone (614) 796-4110 Fax (614) 796-4111 Email: Bob@wagonerlawoffice.com (Counsel to Kitrick, Lewis & Harris Co., L.P.A.) - and - Jeremiah E. Heck, Esq. LUFTMAN, HECK & ASSOCIATES, LLP 580 East Rich Street Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 224-1500 Fax: (614) 224-2894 Email: jheck@lawLH.com - and - Brian M. Garvine, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN M. GARVINE, LLC 5 East Long Street, Suite 1100 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 223-0290 Fax: (614) 221-3201 Email: brian@garvinelaw.com - and - Michelle E. Lanham, Esq. MICHELLE E. LANHAM, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC 445 Hutchinson Avenue, Suite 100 Columbus, OH 43235 Phone: (614) 300-5896 Fax: (614) 737-5239 Email: Michelle@mlanhamlaw.com EQUIFAX INC: "First Education" Suit Alleges FTCA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- First Education Federal Credit Union, ASI Federal Credit Union, and Michigan Credit Union League, and all others similarly- situated v. Equifax Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-04184 (N.D. Ga., October 20, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. According to the FTC, the failure to employ reasonable and appropriate measures to protect against unauthorized access to confidential consumer data constitutes an unfair act or practice prohibited by Section 5 of the FTC Act of 1914. Plaintiff First Education Federal Credit Union is a federally- chartered credit union with a principal place of business in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Plaintiff ASI Federal Credit Union is a federal credit union with a principal place of business in Harahan, Louisiana. Plaintiff Michigan Credit Union League is a Michigan membership corporation whose members are financial institutions. Defendant Equifax Inc. is a global consumer credit reporting agency incorporated in Georgia, with its principal place of business at 1500 Peachtree Street NW, Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas A. Withers, Esq. GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC 8 E. Liberty Street Savannah, GA 31401 Tel: (912) 447-8400 Fax: (912) 629-6347 E-mail: twithers@gwllawfirm.com EQUIFAX INC: "Sander" Sues Over Data Breach, Seeks Damages ---------------------------------------------------------- Laura Sander, in behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00208, (D. Colo., October 13, 2017), seeks to recover actual and statutory damages, equitable relief, restitution, reimbursement of out-of-pocket losses, other compensatory damages, credit monitoring services with accompanying identity theft insurance and injunctive relief including an order requiring Equifax to improve its data security pursuant to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and District of Columbia's Consumer Protection Procedures Act. 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. 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. Plaintiff claims to be a victim of the data breach. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC are engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and dispersing information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties upon request. [BN] H. Vincent McKnight, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 1666 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202)499-5200 Facsimile: (202)499-5199 Email: vmcknight@sanfordheisler.com - and - Kevin Sharp, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 611 Commerce St., Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 434-7001 Email: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com - and - Jeremy Heisler, Esq. Andrew Melzer, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 1350 A venue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10019 Tel: (646) 402-5650 Fax: (646) 402-5651 Email: amelzer@sanfordheisler.com EQUIFAX INC: "Smith" Sues Over Data Breach, Seeks Damages --------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Smith, John Fralick, Michael Herrmann and Elexis Williams, in behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02183, (N.D. Ohio, October 16, 2017), seeks to recover actual and statutory damages, equitable relief, restitution, reimbursement of out-of-pocket losses, other compensatory damages, credit monitoring services with accompanying identity theft insurance and injunctive relief including an order requiring Equifax to improve its data security pursuant to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. 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. 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. Plaintiffs claim to be victims of the data breach. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC are engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and dispersing information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties upon request. [BN] Kevin Sharp, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 611 Commerce St., Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 434-7001 Email: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com EQUIFAX INC: Sued by Mashburn in N.D. Georgia Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- DORI M. MASHBURN, SARAH L. HARDY, RICHARD GAINEY, VALERIE GAINEY, JONATHAN C. ENTSMINGER, CARRIE L. ENTSMINGER, JACKIE L. KIER, ALOHA KIER, LARRY NEWCOMER, and ANDREA SHAFRAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EQUIFAX, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-04159-TWT (N.D. Ga., October 19, 2017), arises from a data breach experienced by Equifax resulting to the exposure of its client's sensitive identifying information, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, phone numbers, credit card numbers, and nearly 11 million driver's license numbers. On September 7, 2017, Equifax disclosed that it had experienced a data breach that has exposed the most sensitive identifying information of 143 million Americans. Equifax later increased that number to 145.5 million. As a result of Equifax's negligence, tens of millions of Americans are now at increased risk of financial account fraud, tax fraud, and other forms identity theft, the Plaintiffs allege. Equifax Inc. is a global company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, that does business throughout the country and is one of the three primary credit reporting agencies in the United States. Equifax maintains data on more than 820 million consumers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin R. Dean, Esq. Joseph F. Rice, Esq. Jodi Flowers, Esq. Breanne Cope, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Facsimile: (843) 216-9450 E-mail: kdean@motleyrice.com jrice@motleyrice.com jflowers@motleyrice.com bcope@motleyrice.com - and - Laura Ray, Esq. Mathew Jasinski, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC One Corporate Center 20 Church Street, 17th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 882-1681 Facsimile: (860) 882-1682 E-mail: lray@motleyrice.com mjasinski@motleyrice.com - and - Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com - and - Matthew J. Preusch, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com FIRST CHOICE: "Woods" Seeks OT Pay for Work Over 40 Hours/Week -------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Woods, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. First Choice Energy Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00222 (D.N.D., October 17, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. First Choice Energy Services LLC operates flowback equipment for the oil and gas industry and is based in Minot, North Dakota. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as flowback hand from approximately May of 2014 to March of 2015, performing manual labor at a well site, connecting equipment, hammering pipes together and testing the fluids returning from the well. Woods typically works well in excess of 40 hours per week, seven days a week, twelve hours a day without overtime premium. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John Neuman, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (281) 885-8630 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 Email: jneuman@smnlawfirm.com FIRSTSOURCE: "Otten" Suit Disputes Vague Collection Letter ---------------------------------------------------------- Ian Otten, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-06070 (E.D. N.Y., October 17, 2017), seeks to recover damages, attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers. Firstsource attempted to collect a debt that Otten allegedly owes American Express credit card via a collection letter. Said letter indicated that the "amount due above reflects the total balance due as of the date of this letter. The itemization reflects post charge-off activity we received from American Express and as such is subject to timing and system limitations." No explanation was provided about the "timing and system limitations" as well as the amount of the "current balance." Thus said latter failed to clearly, explicitly and unambiguously convey the amount of the debt. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com FOREST LABS: Macleods Must Produce Docs in Namenda Antitrust Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Non-Parties to Produce Documents in the case captioned IN RE NAMENDA DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION, No. 15 Civ. 7488 (CM) (JCF) (S.D.N.Y.). Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel non-parties Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Macleods Pharma USA, Inc., to produce documents responsive to a subpoena. In brief, the plaintiffs allege that in late 2007, at least twelve generic manufacturers, not including Macleods, filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) with the FDA for generic versions of Namenda IR in which they contended that the patent, known as the 703 patent, was invalid, not infringed by their proposed products, or both. In these lawsuits, the generic manufacturers again argued, among other things, that the patents were invalid. Forest ultimately settled the lawsuits. The settlements included cash payments from Forest to the alleged infringers and licensing agreements that allowed the generic defendants to launch generic versions of Namenda IR months before Namenda IR's patent expired, but well after the generics could have begun selling generic Namenda IR if Forest's patent was found to be invalid. The plaintiffs in this action, direct purchasers of Namenda products from Forest, allege that these settlements were collusive and anticompetitive, and they allege that because of the conduct, they had to pay supra-competitive prices for the products. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit parties to obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. To determine whether a subpoena imposes an undue burden, a court should examine "such factors as relevance, the need of the party for the documents, the breadth of the document request, the time period covered by it, the particularity with which the documents are described and the burden imposed. As to undue burden and proportionality, Macleods asserts that providing sales data at the transactional level would require 150 hours of employee time, cost between $10,0000 and $15,000, and take approximately twenty-seven days to compile. Macleods' arguments are unpersuasive. While the money and time that will be spent on the production is not trifling, it is small in comparison with the potential damages in this case. Macleods, while not the largest producer of generic Namenda, appears to make over 10% of generic Namenda IR sales in the United States, making it the fourth largest seller of the product. While Macleods has produced a summary, a one-page outline of customer sales data is insufficient in a case such as this, where more specific material would be expected to support the plaintiffs' case. Additionally, the summary does not detail sales specific to customers, and those sales could inform an analysis of class member damages and injuries. Finally, Macleods appears to be the only source for the requested information. The request is therefore proportional to the needs of the case. Macleods also suggests that the request should be rejected because, as a third party, it retains a greater expectation of privacy. However, Macleods' unsubstantiated and cursory assertions of confidentiality are insufficient. Additionally, discovery in this case is subject to a protective order. Macleods' confidentially argument is therefore unpersuasive. The plaintiffs' motion to compel is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9mdy9hw from Leagle.com JM Smith Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Dan Litvin -- dlitvin@garwingerstein.com -- Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, L.L.P.. JM Smith Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Opper -- jopper@garwingerstein.com -- Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, L.L.P., Noah H. Silverman -- nsilverman@garwingerstein.com -- Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, L.L.P., Blaine Larson -- blarson@hpcllp.com -- Heim Payne & Chorush, LLP, Chris Letter -- cletter@odrlaw.com -- Odom & Des Roches, LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher Stow-Serge -- cstow@odrlaw.com -- Odom & Des Roches, LLP, Dan Chiorean -- dchiorean@odrlaw.com -- Odom & Des Roches, LLP, Daniel C. Simons - - dsimons@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., David C. Raphael, Jr., Smith Segura & Raphael, LLP, 3600 Jackson St., Ste 111, Alexandria, LA 71303-3000, pro hac vice, Ellen Noteware -- enoteware@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Emma Perry, Heim Payne & Chorush, LLP, Eric J. Enger, Heim Payne & Chorush, LLP, 1111 BAGBY, SUITE 2100, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002, Erin R. Leger, Smith Segura & Raphael, LLP, 3600 Jackson St., Ste 111, Alexandria, LA 71303-3000, Kimberly Marion Hennings -- khennings@garwingerstein.com -- Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, L.L.P., Miranda Yan Jones, Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP, 1111 BAGBY, SUITE 2100, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 pro hac vice, Nicholas Urban -- nurban@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Phyllis Maza Parker -- pparker@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Russell A. Chorush, Heim Payne & Chorush, LLP,1111 BAGBY, SUITE 2100, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 & Bruce E. Gerstein -- bgerstein@garwingerstein.com -- Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, L.L.P.. Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E. Gerstein, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, L.L.P., Elizabeth Anne Silva, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Joseph Thomas Lukens, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice, Neill W. Clark, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice, Peter Russell Kohn, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Dan Litvin, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, L.L.P., Daniel C. Simons, Berger & Montague, P.C., David Francis Sorensen, Berger & Montague, P.C, Ellen Noteware, Berger & Montague, P.C., Nicholas Urban, Berger & Montague, P.C. & Phyllis Maza Parker, Berger & Montague, P.C.. Forest Laboratories LLC, Defendant, represented by Heather McDevitt -- hmcdevitt@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, Jack Pace -- jpace@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, John Mark Gidley -- mgidley@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, Martin Michael Toto -- mtoto@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, Peter J. Carney -- pcarney@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, Charles Moore -- charlesmoore@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, Heather Marie Burke -- hburke@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, Kevin Charles Adam -- kevin.adam@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, Kristen O'Shaughnessy -- kristen.oshaughnessy@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, Michael Eugene Hamburger -- michael.hamburger@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP & Ryan Philip Johnson -- rjohnson@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP. Actavis, plc, Defendant, represented by Heather McDevitt, White & Case LLP, Jack Pace, White & Case LLP, John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP, Martin Michael Toto, White & Case LLP, Peter J. Carney, White & Case LLP, Charles Moore, White & Case LLP, Heather Marie Burke, White & Case LLP, Kevin Charles Adam, White & Case LLP, Kristen O'Shaughnessy, White & Case LLP, Michael Eugene Hamburger, White & Case LLP & Ryan Philip Johnson, White & Case LLP. Forest Laboratories, Inc., Defendant, represented by Heather McDevitt, White & Case LLP, Martin Michael Toto, White & Case LLP, Charles Moore, White & Case LLP, Heather Marie Burke, White & Case LLP, Kevin Charles Adam, White & Case LLP, Kristen O'Shaughnessy, White & Case LLP, Michael Eugene Hamburger, White & Case LLP & Ryan Philip Johnson, White & Case LLP. Forest Laboratories Holdings Ltd., Defendant, represented by Heather McDevitt, White & Case LLP, Martin Michael Toto, White & Case LLP, Charles Moore, White & Case LLP, Heather Marie Burke, White & Case LLP, Kevin Charles Adam, White & Case LLP, Kristen O'Shaughnessy, White & Case LLP, Michael Eugene Hamburger, White & Case LLP & Ryan Philip Johnson, White & Case LLP. Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Miscellaneous, represented by Erin R. Conway -- erin@amintalati.com -- Amin Talati Upadhye LLP. Macleods Pharma USA, Inc., Miscellaneous, represented by Erin R. Conway, Amin Talati Upadhye LLP. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Christopher T. Holding -- cholding@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter, LLP, Jordan David Weiss -- jweiss@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter, LLP & Sarah K. Frederick -- sfrederick@goodwinlaw.com -Goodwin Procter, LLP. FOWLER FOODS: "Petty" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Latoya Petty, Shacoya Johnson and Carolyn Love, and all others similarly-situated v. Fowler Foods, Inc., Wallace W. Fowler, Chris Fowler, and Timothy M. Supples, Case No. 2:17-cv-02779 (W.D. Tenn., October 20, 2017), seek to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs Latoya Petty and Shacoya Johnson were employed by Defendants as hourly-paid employees at one or more of Defendants' franchised restaurants. Plaintiff Carolyn Love is a resident of Tennessee and, was employed by Defendants as a salaried Assistant Manager at one or more of Defendants' franchised restaurants. Defendant Fowler Foods, Inc. is an Arkansas corporation with its principal executive office located in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Defendants have owned and operated KFC, Taco Bell and other franchised restaurants in various states, including the States of Tennessee, Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio, Alabama, Louisiana, Michigan and North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com pjackson@jsyc.com FREEDOMROADS LLC: "Piner" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- Elgin Piner, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FreedomRoads, LLC and Sirpilla RV Centers, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00902 (S.D. Ohio, October 16, 2017), seeks overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a service technician from April 2015 until his termination on or about October 10, 2017. Piner worked at Camping World of Columbus, performing general labor on behalf of Defendants repairing RVs, responding to service calls, and performing miscellaneous labor for the general maintenance of RVs. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com GAP INC: "Pallagrosi" Sues Over Discount Fraud ---------------------------------------------- Michael Pallagrosi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Gap, Inc., Gap (Apparel) LLC, Gap International Sales, Inc., Banana Republic, LLC and Banana Republic (Apparel) LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-05905, (N.D. Cal., October 13, 2017), seeks economic and compensatory damages, statutory, punitive, or exemplary damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and such other relief for violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law of the California Business and Professions Code. Defendants allegedly engaged in advertising fictitious prices and percentage-off discounts in the advertising, marketing, and sale of apparel and other personal items at their Banana Republic Factory and Gap Factory stores. Base prices on the price tag of every item are purportedly jacked-up and "re-discounted" to appear as if it were "discounted."[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Ste. 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com - and - Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 5 Greentree Centre 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Tel.: (856) 797-9951 Fax: (856) 797-9978 Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com GBS TOWSON: Court Denies Equitable Tolling in Wage & Hour Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Maryland issued a Memorandum Opinion granting in part as to Plaintiff's consented motion to revise the Scheduling Order and denying in part, without prejudice, as to Plaintiffs' motion to toll the statute of limitations for class members in the case captioned IRIS PINEDA LEIVA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GBS TOWSON EAST d/b/a GINO'S BURGERS AND CHICKEN, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. ADC-16-3765 (D. Md.). Iris Pineda Leiva, Gladis Brenes Casazola, Carla Pinto, and Geidi Oromon Ramos brought a collective action against GBC Towson East, LLC d/b/a Gino's Burgers and Chicken, Aberdeen GBC, LLC, Woodbine Ventures, Aberdeen, LLC, A & M Hospitality, LLC, Scott Autry, Jared Miller, and Bridgit Kincaid, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act, Maryland Wage Payment and Collections Act, and Maryland Wage Hour Law, quantum meruit, and discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. Plaintiffs' motion includes a request to modify the parties' Scheduling Order. The motion states that all parties consent to extending the deadlines and Defendants' partial opposition acknowledges their consent to the proposed extension. The Court will grant the parties' consensual motion to revise Scheduling Order, which will be modified. Plaintiffs argue that tolling is the only means of ensuring that potential Plaintiffs do not suffer the diminution or extinguishment of their claims as a result of Defendant Autry's delay, in violation of this Court's order, in providing information to Plaintiffs as needed to achieve the distribution of notice. Defendants counter that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they are entitled to equitable tolling because they have failed to meet their burden for establishing a basis for the doctrine's application and for a willful FLSA violation which would entitle them to a three year statute of limitations, rather than a two year statute of limitations. Equitable tolling is appropriate in two circumstances: first, when the plaintiffs were prevented from asserting their claims by some kind of wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant, and second, when extraordinary circumstances beyond plaintiffs' control made it impossible to file the claims on time. Even though Plaintiffs have offered evidence of conduct by Defendant Autry that could support equitable tolling, given the statutory framework and the narrow circumstances under which the Fourth Circuit has permitted equitable tolling, the circumstances in this case are not extraordinary enough to support a general tolling of the statute of limitations. Therefore, the Court will deny plaintiffs' motion as to tolling the statute of limitations. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Memorandum Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/yaz2l8hr from Leagle.com. Iris Pineda Leiva, Plaintiff, represented by Jamar R. Brown -- jbrown@rosenbergmartin.com -- Rosenberg Martin Greenberg, LLP. Iris Pineda Leiva, Plaintiff, represented by Monisha Cherayil -- cherayilm@publicjustice.org -- Public Justice Center, Sally Jean Dworak Fisher -- dworak-fishers@publicjustice.org -- Public Justice Center Inc & Louis J. Ebert -- lelbert@rosenbergmartin.com -- Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP. Gladis Brenes Casazola, Plaintiff, represented by Monisha Cherayil, Public Justice Center, Sally Jean Dworak Fisher, Public Justice Center Inc & Louis J. Ebert, Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP. Carla Pinto, Plaintiff, represented by Monisha Cherayil, Public Justice Center, Sally Jean Dworak Fisher, Public Justice Center Inc & Louis J. Ebert, Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP. Geidi Oromon Ramos, Plaintiff, represented by Monisha Cherayil, Public Justice Center, Sally Jean Dworak Fisher, Public Justice Center Inc & Louis J. Ebert, Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP. Ledis Anabel Velasquez Villanuevo, Plaintiff, represented by Louis J. Ebert, Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP & Monisha Cherayil, Public Justice Center. Francisco A. Malave Davila, Plaintiff, represented by Louis J. Ebert, Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP & Monisha Cherayil, Public Justice Center. Miguel A. Oromon Esquivel, Plaintiff, represented by Louis J. Ebert, Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP & Monisha Cherayil, Public Justice Center. Rubita Raymundo, Plaintiff, represented by Monisha Cherayil, Public Justice Center. Juan Pablo Raymundo, Plaintiff, represented by Monisha Cherayil, Public Justice Center. Eunice Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Monisha Cherayil, Public Justice Center. Edin Coto Toledo, Plaintiff, represented by Monisha Cherayil, Public Justice Center. GBC Towson East, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher Curtis Fogleman -- cfogleman@gleason-law.com -- Gleason, Flynn, Emig, Fogleman & McAfee, Chartered & Patricia L. Morse -- pmorse@gleason-law.com -- Gleason Flynn Emig and Fogleman Chartered. Scott Autry, Defendant, Pro Se. Jared Miller, Defendant, represented by Christopher Curtis Fogleman, Gleason, Flynn, Emig, Fogleman & McAfee, Chartered & Patricia L. Morse, Gleason Flynn Emig and Fogleman Chartered. Bridgit Kincaid, Defendant, Pro Se. GENERAC POWER: "Tom" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Timothy Tom, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Generac Power Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-1413, (E.D. Wisc., October 16, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. Plaintiff worked as a Material Handler and Team Lead at Generac's 3815 Oregon Street, Oshkosh, Wisconsin location where it manufactures power products. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. Kelly L. Temeyer, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304 Brookfield, WS 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com ktemeyer@walcheskeluzi.com GIANT GLASS: "Cireus" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Iledieu Cireus, and all others similarly-situated v. Giant Glass & Mirror, Inc., and Joseph M. Martucci, Case No. 0:17-cv-62065 (S.D. Fla., October 20, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Iledieu Cireus is a resident of Broward County, Florida and was employed as a glass worker, installer, helper, driver, or general laborer by Defendants. Defendants Giant Glass and Joseph M. Martucci, own and operate a glass design and fabrication business in Broward County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Norell, Esq. ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A. 300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305 Plantation, FL 33317 Tel: (954) 617-6017 Fax: (954) 617-6018 E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com GRAND ISLE: "Sandlin" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Wesley Sandlin, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Grand Isle Shipyard, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-10083 (E.D. La., October 3, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid back wages with liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sandlin worked for Grand Isle's oilfield services company as a safety inspector. He claims that Grand Isle did not maintain time- keeping facilities thus failed to account for his overtime.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM 2537 South Gessner Road, Suite 104 Houston, TX 77063 Tel: (713) 223-8855 Fax: (713) 623-6399 Email: ttran@tranlawllp.com - and - Scott Webre, Esq. WEBRE AND ASSOCIATES 2901 Johnston Street, Suite 307 Lafayette, LA 70503 Tel: (337) 237-5051 Fax: (337) 237-5061 Email: Scott@webreandassociates.com HUFFINES DENTON: Sued for Denying "Navarro" Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- Angel Navarro, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Huffines Denton Autos, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00741, (E.D. Tex., October 16, 2017), seeks all unpaid wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees, costs and expenses of this action, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked for Defendant's Plano, Texas dealership, servicing cars in the oil change area. Huffines allegedly did not pay Navarro overtime for work over 40 hours a week. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100 Southlake, TX 76092-4322 Tel: (817) 416-5060 Fax: (817) 416-5062 Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com - and - Jack Siegel, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040 Dallas, TX 75231 Tel: (214) 790-4454 Fax: (469) 339-0204 Email: jack@siegellawgroup.biz Website: www.4overtimelawyer.com IGNITE PAYMENTS: Zam & Zam Appeals E.D.N.Y. Decision to 2nd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Zam & Zam Super Market, LLC, filed an appeal from a District Court memorandum and order dated October 31, 2017, and District Court judgment dated October 31, 2017, entered in the lawsuit titled Zam & Zam Super Market, LLC v. Ignite Payments, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-cv-6370, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have systematically exploited their position of trust and power by unfairly and deceptively "cramming" the Plaintiff and their other merchant customers with "optional" services that the merchants specifically declined and that provide no benefit to the merchants. Ignite Payments provides a payment processing solution to agents and ISOs in the payments industry. The appellate case is captioned as Zam & Zam Super Market, LLC v. Ignite Payments, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-3571, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Zam & Zam Super Market, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: David S. Stellings, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: dstellings@lchb.com Defendants-Appellees Ignite Payments, LLC, First Data Merchant Services Corporation, First Data Corporation and First Data Merchant Services, LLC, are represented by: Caroline Hickey, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 5th Avenue New York, NY 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8527 E-mail: caroline.hickeyzalka@weil.com INT'L COSMETICS: Settlement in "Moore" Suit Has Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DRIA MOORE, an individual, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL COSMETICS AND PERFUMES, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. ED CV 14-1179-DMG (DTBx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dolly M. Gee of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California approved the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Awards of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Payments. On Nov. 3, 2017, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Awards of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Payments came before the Court for hearing pursuant to the Order of the Court, dated Aug. 4, 2017, on the application of Plaintiff Moore and the Certified Classes for approval of the Settlement set forth in the Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release. Judge Gee finds that the Stipulation was the product of protracted, arm's-length negotiations between experienced counsel, and that the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Classes. She granted final approval of the Stipulation. The certified Class continues to meet all the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure section 382, as already found, and for the reasons set forth, in the Court's Preliminary Approval Order. Excluded from the Class are those persons who validly requested exclusion in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order. Except as to Maria Reyes, who has validly and timely requested exclusion from the Class, the Action is dismissed with prejudice. In addition, Judge Gee finds that the Class Counsel has skillfully advanced legal theories on a contingency-fee basis, and their efforts resulted in satisfactory results for the Class, given all the circumstances. The Judge, given these results and the risk undertaken by the Class Counsel, awarded the Class Counsel attorneys' fees of 25% of the $115,000 Gross Maximum Settlement Amount. The Judge further finds that the Class Counsel's expenses were reasonably incurred in prosecuting the case, and that the proposed incentive payment to the Plaintiff is reasonable in light of the services he performed on behalf of the Classes and the risks he undertook in bringing and advancing this lawsuit. Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiff's requested incentive payment of $10,000 and the Class Counsel's requested $39,000 in litigation expenses. Judge Gee further ordered that the Claims Administrator, CPT Group., will be paid an amount of $12,000 for the administration of claims in the matter, and said sum will be paid out of the Gross Maximum Settlement Amount in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation. Any amounts of the Gross Settlement Sum that remain after the payments to the Settlement Class Members, the Named Plaintiff, and the Class Counsel will be distributed to a cy pres beneficiary to be designated by the Court, except that if less than $1,000 remains, those amounts will escheat to the State of California through its Unclaimed Property Law. The Judge finds no just reason for delay in the entry of his Amended Final Judgment and immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Amended Final Judgment is available at https://is.gd/JKrvv8 from Leagle.com. Dria Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew T. Ryan -- info@theryanlawgroup.com -- Ryan Law Professional Corporation. International Cosmetics and Perfumes Inc, Defendant, represented by Forrest Arthur Hainline, III -- fhainline@goodwinlaw.com -- Doodwin Procter LLP, Hong-An Vu -- hvu@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, James C. Rehnquist -- jrehnquist@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice & Kate MacLeman -- kmacleman@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice. INTEC COMMUNICATIONS: "Lopez" Suit Seeks OT Wages, Damages ---------------------------------------------------------- Alex Leo Lopez, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Intec Communications, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-03077, (S.D. Tex., October 13, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a cable technician performing cable TV and security installation services in 2015-2017. Intec allegedly does not maintain accurate time records of all hours worked by Lopez and deducts certain costs and expenses from the wages such as toll charges and gas expenses incurred causing their regular hourly rates in some instances to fall below the federal minimum wage. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg M. Rosenberg, Esq. Tracey D. Lewis, Esq. ROSENBERG & SPROVACH 3518 Travis Street, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 960-8300 Fax: (713) 621-6670 INTELIQUENT INC: "Torres" Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads --------------------------------------------------- Carlos Torres, in behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Inteliquent, Inc. and Neutral Tandem-Louisiana, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-10022, (E.D. La., October 3, 2017), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unsolicited text message activities, statutory and trebled damages, all expenses of this action and such other relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Defendants sent unsolicited text messages, without consent, to cellular telephones, including that of the Plaintiff's, while using an automatic telephone dialing equipment with the capacity to store and dial telephone numbers, en masse. Inteliquent is a communications enabler offering network-based voice and messaging services to wireless, cable, carriers and communication service providers. Neutral Tandem is a subsidiary of Inteliquent, Inc. [BN] Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 534-5005 Facsimile: (504) 272-2956 Email: rlc@beaumontcostales.com whb@beaumontcostales.com JACKSON HEWITT: Court Grants Move to Dismiss "Lomeli" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned LUIS LOMELI, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON HEWITT, INC.; TAX SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC. d/b/a JACKSON HEWITT TAX SERVICE; JJF & AC, INC. d/b/a Guanajuato Insurance Agency and Jackson Hewitt Tax Service; JUAN FLORES, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, No. 13-cv-08389 (C.D. Cal.). JH, Inc. and TSA move to dismiss the FAC because: (1) each cause of action is grounded in fraud, but Lomeli does not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b); and (2) for each cause of action Lomeli fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief under Rule 8. JH, Inc. and TSA also move to strike the class allegations in the FAC. JH, Inc. and TSA, one of JH, Inc.'s subsidiaries, operate a tax preparation business. Juan Flores controls JJF & AC, Inc., and operates a Jackson Hewitt location in South Gate, California, which is a franchise of the Jackson Hewitt enterprise. Lomeli claims that Defendants manipulated several of his tax returns, and submitted them to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) without his consent. JH, Inc. and TSA move to dismiss the entire FAC because it does not allege fraud with particularity, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Lomeli relies on People v. JTH Tax, Inc., which upheld the trial court's limited agency finding under a substantial evidence standard of review. 212 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1247. On review after a bench trial, the California Court of Appeal analyzed the trial court's holding that, even if Liberty's franchisees are not its agents for all purposes, they are its agents at a minimum for purposes of advertising. The appeals court analyzed whether a franchisor could be vicariously liable for the illegal advertising of its franchisee. In affirming the trial court's finding of an agency relationship, the court explained that the franchisor admitted that it had control over the franchisee's advertisements, which were the allegedly illegal conduct, for reasons other than just protecting its intellectual property. Here, while JH, Inc. and TSA may have control over the franchisee's advertisements, the conduct complained of is the filing of fraudulent tax returns and charging of undisclosed fees, which relates directly to the actions of franchisee employees, in this case, Flores. The control JH, Inc. and TSA have over the franchisee, as alleged by Lomeli, does not rise to the complete or substantial control of the instrumentality of harm that is required. finding franchisor not vicariously liable for acts of franchisee's employees. Lomeli claims he also pleads apparent agency because JH, Inc. and TSA strove to separate themselves from the mom and pops' by emphasizing the unity of their enterprise, franchisees and all. But he provides no authority for the proposition that these statements would establish an apparent agency relationship, and the Court declines to find it for him. Direct Allegations of Fraud To comply with Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud must be specific enough to give defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud charged so that they can defend against the charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong. Lomeli relies on the rule from Wool, which relaxes the heightened pleading requirements as to matters peculiarly within the opposing party's knowledge, and in cases where the corporate fraud is conveyed in group-published materials. Wool, 818 F.2d at 1439-40. Lomeli points to advertisements, which he contends are fraudulent group-published materials allowing group allegations of fraud, but he ignores the rule from Wool that in such cases, the particularity requirement may be satisfied if the allegations are accompanied by a statement of the facts upon which the belief is founded." Lomeli does not provide a statement of facts supporting his belief that JH, Inc. and TSA were complicit in, or actively perpetrated fraud. All of Lomeli's allegations surround his experiences at the South Gate Jackson Hewitt franchise location, which he then characterizes as allegations against Jackson Hewitt. Accordingly, the Court grants JH and TSA's Motion to Dismiss. Motion to Strike JH and TSA also filed a Motion to Strike the class allegations in Lomeli's FAC. While the Court foresees several issues with Lomeli's class allegations, it declines to rule on JH, Inc. and TSA's Motion to Strike at this juncture, and denies it, as moot, in light of the Court's ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. The Court grants JH, Inc. and TSA's Motion to Dismiss, with leave to amend. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9ngxfnhfrom Leagle.com. Luis Lomeli, Plaintiff, represented by Paul A. Traina -- paul@stalwartlaw.com -- Stalwart Law Group. Luis Lomeli, Plaintiff, represented by Dylan Ruga -- dylan@stalwartlaw.com -- Stalwart Law Group, Ian P. Samson -- ian@stalwartlaw.com -- Engstrom Lipscomb and Lack & Ji-In Lee Houck -- jiin@stalwartlaw.com -- Stalwart Law Group. Jackson Hewitt, Inc, Defendant, represented by Robert J. Herrington -- herringtonr@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP & Ryan Christopher Bykerk -- bykerkr@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP. Tax Services of America, Inc, Defendant, represented by Robert J. Herrington, Greenberg Traurig LLP & Ryan Christopher Bykerk, Greenberg Traurig LLP. JJF and AC, Inc, Defendant, represented by Janet A. Contero - janetcontero@gmail.com -- & Mark R. Smith -- Mark@MarkRSmithLaw.com Law -- Office of Mark R Smith PC. Juan Flores, Defendant, represented by Janet A. Contero & Mark R. Smith, Law Office of Mark R Smith PC. KEEFE COMMISSARY: Reichert Sues for Unlawful Taking of Property --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Reichert, and all others similarly-situated v. Keefe Commissary Network, LLC dba Access Corrections; Rapid Investments, Inc., dba Rapid Financial Solutions, dba Access Freedom; and Cache Valley Bank, Case No. 3:17-cv-05848 (W.D. Wash., October 20, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act including the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the taking of property without just compensation. Plaintiff Jeffrey Reichert lives in and is a citizen of Kingston, Washington. Defendant Keefe Commissary Network, LLC, a subsidiary of Keefe Group, Inc., is a Missouri corporation that does business under various trade names, including "Access Corrections." Keefe is an operator of commissary stores inside correctional facilities and offers a wide array of services to correctional institutions, including prepaid debit release cards. Defendant Rapid Investments, Inc. is a Utah corporation that does business as Rapid Financial Solutions and other various trade names, including "Access Freedom." Defendant Cache Valley Bank is a state chartered bank based in Utah. Cache Valley Bank is a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and has over $950 million in assets and 13 offices throughout Utah. Cache Valley Bank has contracted with Rapid Investments to issue prepaid debit cards nationwide and is located at 101 N. Main, Logan, Utah 84321. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Griffin, Esq. Laura R. Gerber, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com lgerber@kellerrohrback.com KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Ct. Grants Final OK of "Helde" Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a Judgment and Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned KEVIN HELDE, JON BODILY, and MAX TENA, on their own behalf and on the behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC., an Arizona corporation, Defendant, No. 2:12-cv-00904-RSL (W.D. Wash.). Plaintiffs allege that Knight willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs and a certified Class of employee drivers (Class) for wage and hour abuses in violation of Washington law. On May 24, 2017, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement. That Order directed the Settlement Administrator to provide Notice to the Class, which informed Class members of: (a) the proposed Settlement, and the Settlement's key terms; (b) the date, time, and location of the Final Approval Hearing; and (c) the right of any Class Member to opt out of or object to the proposed Settlement, and an explanation of the procedures to exercise those rights. The Court confirms the proposed Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, as found in the Court's Order Granting Class Certification, Order Reinstating Plaintiffs' Rest Break Claim and Certifying Class, and the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, and finds that the Settlement Class is properly certified as a class for settlement purposes. The Court finds that the Settlement was entered into in good faith as the result of arm's-length negotiations between experienced attorneys, that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and that the Settlement satisfies the standards and applicable requirements for final approval of this class action Settlement under Washington law and the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. In addition to any recovery that Plaintiffs may receive under the Settlement, and in recognition of the Plaintiffs' efforts on behalf of the Settlement Class, the Court approves the payment of service awards to the Plaintiffs, in the amount of $10,000 each, to be paid pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to enter this Final Order of Judgment and Dismissal with Prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Judgment and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybrywwggfrom Leagle.com. Kevin Helde, Plaintiff, represented by Greg Alan Wolk, REKHI & WOLK, P.S., 529 Warren Ave N #201, Seattle, WA 98109 Kevin Helde, Plaintiff, represented by Hardeep S. Rekhi, REKHI & WOLK, P.S., 529 Warren Ave N #201, Seattle, WA 98109, Toby James Marshall -- tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC & Erika L. Nusser -- enusser@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC. John Bodily, Plaintiff, represented by Greg Alan Wolk, REKHI & WOLK, P.S., Hardeep S. Rekhi, REKHI & WOLK, P.S., Toby James Marshall, TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC & Erika L. Nusser, TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC. Max Tena, Plaintiff, represented by Greg Alan Wolk, REKHI & WOLK, P.S., Hardeep S. Rekhi, REKHI & WOLK, P.S., Toby James Marshall, TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC & Erika L. Nusser, TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC. Knight Transportation Inc, an Arizona Corporation, Defendant, represented by Eric S. Beane -- eric.beane@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LLP, pro hac vice, Anthony Todaro -- anthony.todaro@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LLP, Jeffrey B. DeGroot -- jeffrey.degroot@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LLP & Stellman Keehnel -- stellman.keehnel@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LLP. LAGASSE LLC: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Alpha Tech Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case styled ALPHA TECH PET INC., ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. LAGASSE, LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Case Nos. 16 C 513 & 16 C 4321 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendants' motion to deny class certification and denied its motion for judgment on the pleadings. Alpha Tech alleges that defendants the Defendants sent it eight unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005. Alpha Tech also makes class allegations on behalf of others similarly situated. In December 2016, the Court consolidated Alpha Tech's case with another case pending in this district for pre-trial proceedings. The other case, Craftwood II, Inc. et al. v. Essendant, Inc., asserts the same claims against Essendant and effectively seeks to represent the same class. The Alpha Tech and Craftwood Plaintiffs seek to certify classes of all persons and entities to whom Essendant sent fax transmissions from May 1, 2011 to May 1, 2015, which would implicate approximately 1.5 million faxes in 725 separate transmissions to nearly 24,000 unique fax numbers. They propose dividing the class into three categories based on the content of the faxes. Discovery closed a number of months ago, and on Aug. 23, 2017, the Court adopted Magistrate Judge Valdez's Aug. 1, 2017 ruling denying the Plaintiffs' motion to reopen discovery. Currently before the Court are two motions by the Defendants: (i) a motion to deny class certification and a motion for judgment on the pleadings on portions of the Plaintiffs' individual claims. The central basis of both motions is a recent change in the law. In March 2017, a split panel of the D.C. Circuit struck down a rule from the Federal Communications Commission rule requiring both unsolicited and solicited faxes to include opt-out notices with certain language. The D.C. Circuit held this rule, known as the "Solicited Fax Rule," "unlawful to the extent that it requires opt-out notices on solicited faxes." It found that the TCPA's clear statutory text reached only unsolicited fax advertisements, meaning that the FCC did not have the authority to promulgate a rule regarding solicited faxes. Since Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCC was decided earlier this year, several courts have found class certification inappropriate in TCPA cases where, to determine whether any putative member of the proposed class had a TCPA claim, a court would first be required to determine whether that proposed class member solicited' the faxes it received. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs cannot show that their proposed classes meet Rule 23's requirements in light of the individualized consent issues resulting from the D.C. Circuit's decision in Bais Yaakov. The Plaintiffs respond that Bais Yaakov is not governing law in this circuit, and in any event, individualized consent issues do not defeat class certification (which they seek further discovery to help show). Judge Durkin disagrees on both fronts. He likewise finds Bais Yaakov binding and the individualized consent issues created by Bais Yaakov dispositive of the Plaintiffs' class certification claims. He says individualized consent issues would require a series of mini-trials, thus defeating predominance and superiority. Regardless of other questions that may be common to the class, identifying which individuals consented would undoubtedly be the driver of the litigation. The Judge therefore granted the Defendants' motion to deny class certification. Because motions for judgment on the pleadings are technically improper when they pertain only to parts of claims, the Judge denied the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. But the legal principles set forth in his opinion regarding the impact of Bais Yaakov apply equally to the Plaintiffs' remaining, individual claims. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/foymoC from Leagle.com. Alpha Tech Pet, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca. Alpha Tech Pet, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Charles Darryl Cordero -- cdc@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears LLP, Daniel F. Lula -- dfl@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears Llp, Glenn L. Hara -- ghara@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, Ross Michael Good -- rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca & Ryan M. Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca. Lagasse, LLC, Defendant, represented by Henry T. Kelly -- hkelly@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley, Drye & Warren, Lauri Mazzuchetti -- lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren Llp, pro hac vice & Givonna Saint Clair Long -- glong@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. Essendant Management Services LLC, Defendant, represented by Henry T. Kelly, Kelley, Drye & Warren, Lauri Mazzuchetti, Kelley Drye & Warren Llp, pro hac vice & Givonna Saint Clair Long, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. Essendant Co., Defendant, represented by Henry T. Kelly, Kelley, Drye & Warren, Lauri Mazzuchetti, Kelley Drye & Warren Llp, pro hac vice & Givonna Saint Clair Long, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. United Stationers Inc., Defendant, represented by Henry T. Kelly, Kelley, Drye & Warren, Lauri Mazzuchetti, Kelley Drye & Warren Llp, pro hac vice & Givonna Saint Clair Long, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. LTD MERCHANT: "Kilpatrick" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ Suzanne Kilpatrick, and all others similarly-situated v. LTD Merchant Services, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01005 (W.D. Tex., October 20, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff Suzanne Kilpatrick is a citizen of Austin, Texas. Defendant LTD Merchant Services, Inc. is a commercial payment systems company. LTD Merchant Services, Inc. maintains its head offices in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. W. Craft Hughes, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120 Galleria Tower I Houston, TX 77056 Tel: (713) 554-2377 Fax: (888) 995-3335 E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com craft@hughesellzey.com LULAROE LLC: "Lemberg" Sues Over Deceptive Refund Policy -------------------------------------------------------- Stella Lemberg, Jeni Laurence, Amandra Bluder and Carissa Stuckart, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LuLaRoe, LLC and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02102 (C.D. Cal., October 13, 2017), seeks nominal, actual and compensatory damages, restitution of all monies, expenses, costs and disgorged profits from the unlawful and unfair business practices in violation of the California Business and Professions Code, reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, costs and interest, equitable and declaratory relief, pre-judgment and post- judgment interest and such other and further relief for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Unfair Advertising Law and for unjust enrichment and breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendants are clothing manufacturers, selling clothing nationwide through a multi-level marketing model. LuLaRoe created a direct- buyer system so consumers must go through "representatives" or "consultants" to buy LuLaRoe's clothing products. LuLaRoe has a 100% refund policy for independent retailers who would opt to cancel their dealership contract. However, in actuality, it retained 10% as a non-refundable "shipping fee" which it claims in not part of the refund policy. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Amber L. Eck, Esq. Aaron M. Olsen, Esq. HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 2050 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 342-8000 Fax: (619) 342-7878 - and - Peter S. Pearlman, Esq. Kelly M. Purcaro, Esq. COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP Park 80 West - Plaza One 250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401 Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 Telephone: (201) 845-9600 Facsimile: (201) 845-9423 Email: psp@njlawfirm.com kmp@njlawfirm.com MANUFACTURERS & TRADERS: "Fynn" Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on September 22, 2017 captioned Edward R. Flynn, Terry S. Seyler, and Gene E. Daisey, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company a/k/a M&T Bank, Case No. 02754 was removed on October 26, 2017, from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-04806-WB to the proceeding. The case alleges that M&T engages in a pattern and practice of failing to provide statutorily complaint, commercially reasonable notices when repossessing and reselling a financed vehicle. Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company operates a bank holding company headquartered in Buffalo, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott W. Parker, Esq. Fred W. Hoensch, Esq. Kristin M. Mykulak, Esq. PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLC 1635 Market Street, 11th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 908-9808 Facsimile: (267) 908-9888 E-mail: scott.parker@piblaw.com fred.hoensch@piblaw.com kristin.mykulak@piblaw.com MARY KAY: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Beauty Consultants' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's dismissal, on grounds of forum non conveniens, the putative class action lawsuit filed by Ina M. Collins, a Mary Kay Inc. beauty consultant. Mary Kay moved to dismiss the suit on forum non conveniens grounds, relying on two written agreements that set forth terms and conditions of the parties' relationship. Mary Kay is a Texas-based company that sells cosmetics to customers via beauty consultants. Collins is a New Jersey resident who worked as a Mary Kay beauty consultant in New Jersey in a few capacities, including Independent Sales Consultant and "Independent Sales Director." The putative class consists of individuals who are New Jersey residents and have worked as Mary Kay beauty consultants, in a variety of titles, from September 2009 to the present. Collins and Mary Kay entered into two written agreements that set forth the general terms and conditions of their relationship: The Agreements contained substantively identical forum selection clauses: "The parties further agree that if any dispute or controversy arises between them concerning any matter relating to this Agreement that any issues which either party may elect to submit for legal jurisdiction shall be submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Texas and the parties agree that the proper venue shall be Dallas, Dallas County, Texas." The District Court relied on federal common law in reaching its decision to grant Mary Kay's motion. Collins centers her appeal on the proper interpretation of the Agreements' forum selection clauses. Specifically, she argued in her opening brief that we should reverse the District Court's dismissal because her claim is outside the scope of the forum selection clause included in the Agreements. Under the familiar doctrine of Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938), federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction apply state law to substantive issues and federal law to procedural issues. Here, the District Court applied federal law to its entire analysis, reasoning that questions of venue are procedural rather than substantive in nature. But in selecting this body of law, the District Court did not draw any distinction between questions of the clauses' enforceability and questions of interpretation. Because the parties did not appear to dispute which body of law governed the interpretation, the Third Circuit simply applied general contract law principles" to determine that the clause encompassed the plaintiff's claim we referenced both Delaware state law and federal law when interpreting the scope of the forum selection clause at issue, without explicitly addressing which law controlled. In sum, the Third Circuit finds no reason under this Circuit's precedent or the Erie doctrine to apply federal common law to interpret the forum selection clauses in the Agreements here. Accordingly, the Third Circuit will apply state contract law to assess the scope of the clauses and decide whether they encompass Collins' NJWPL claim. Having established that state contract law, rather than federal common law, governs the interpretation of the forum selection clauses here, the Third Circuit determines which state's contract law applies. Collins has not demonstrated that either of the two exceptions outlined in Restatement Section 187(2) should apply, the Third Circuit holds. There is no dispute that the parties have a substantial relationship to the state of Texas. Further, Collins has not shown why New Jersey has a materially greater interest" in the application of its own contract law to the interpretation of the forum selection clauses, or how the application of Texas contract law to interpret the scope of the forum selection clauses would offend the fundamental policy of New Jersey. Accordingly, the Third Circuit will apply Texas contract law to interpret the scope of the forum selection clause in the Agreements. Under Texas contract law, the Agreements' forum selection clauses encompass Collins' wage claim. The forum selection clauses in the Agreements provided that if any dispute or controversy arises between the parties concerning any matter relating to this Agreement, the case must be filed in Texas state court. Collins argues that because her claim is not for breach of contract, it is not within the scope of the forum selection clauses. Yet Collins concedes in her supplemental briefing that courts applying Texas law interpret forum selection clauses covering claims relating to an agreement as broad in scope. Collins has not cited to authority applying Texas law to exclude wage claims from a forum selection clause of comparable breadth to the clauses here. Collins' wage claim relates to her working relationship with Mary Kay and thus implicates the contents of the Agreements. The Agreements establish the relationship between Collins and Mary Kay and outline its terms and conditions. While the Agreements themselves are not determinative of whether Collins qualifies as an employee afforded wage law protection or an unprotected independent contractor, the Agreements will be relevant to understanding the contours of the parties' affiliation. Further, the Agreements touch on consultants' purchases from the company, a key issue in Collins' sole claim: that Mary Kay mandated certain prohibited payments from its beauty consultants. In the absence of authority suggesting that Texas law would interpret this broad forum selection clause to exclude Collins' wage claim, the Third Circuit holds her claim falls within its scope. Having concluded that Collins's claim falls within the scope of the Agreements' enforceable forum selection clauses, the Third Circuit turns to the District Court's application of the forum non conveniens framework. The Third Circuit said it is mindful of the predicament that could arise for a plaintiff who (a) performs work in her home state for a company headquartered in another state, (b) seeks the substantive protections guaranteed by her home state's wage payment law; and (c) is subject to forum selection and choice-of- law clauses in her employment agreement that point outside of her home state. But it is incumbent on plaintiffs in those situations to challenge the enforceability of the forum selection clauses and to outline for the lower court exactly how they stand to be deprived of the wage payment protections they are otherwise guaranteed. Collins made no attempt to do so in this case. Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirms the decision of the District Court to dismiss this action on forum non conveniens grounds. The appeals case is captioned INA M. COLLINS, On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated persons, Appellant, v. MARY KAY, INC.; ABC CORP.; JANE AND JOHN DOES, the latter parties' names being currently unknown and fictitious, No. 16-3178 (3rd Cir.). A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' October 19, 2017 Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9524fu6from Leagle.com. RAVI SATTIRAJU, ESQ. [ARGUED], The Sattiraju Law Firm, 116 Village Boulevard, Princeton, NJ 08540, Counsel for Appellant, CHRISTINE A. AMALFE -- camalfe@gibbonslaw.com -ESQ. [ARGUED], STEVEN G. SANDERS, ESQ., RICHARD S. ZACKIN -- rzackin@gibbonslaw.com -- ESQ., Gibbons P.C., One Gateway Center, Newark, NJ 07102, Counsel for Appellee Mary Kay, Inc. MCS MORTGAGE: "Karlin" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------Peter Karlin, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. MCS Mortgage Bankers, Inc., David Kotkin, Stephen Petuck and Frank Walter, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-06011 (E.D. N.Y., October 14, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages with liquidated, compensatory, punitive and treble damages, redress for failure to comply with the notice and record keeping requirements of New York labor laws, injunctive relief including treble and liquidated damages, as well as prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief for breach of contract and the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs worked as loan originators for the Defendants' mortgage lending business. MCS Mortgage Bankers, Inc. operates as a mortgage lending company. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Justin R. Marino, Esq. J.R. Stevenson, Esq. STEVENSON MARINO LLP 75 Maiden Lane, Suite 402 New York, NY 10038 Tel: (212) 939-7228 Fax: (212) 531-6129 Email: jmarino@stevensonmarino.com jrs@stevensonmarino.com MDL 2796: Audobon Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on October 10, 2017 captioned Audubon Imports, LLC, d/b/a Mercedes Benz of Baton Rouge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW North America, LLC, Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, Audi of America, LLC, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars of North America, Inc., Daimler AG, and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv- 01127 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-06094-CRB to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation No. 2796. The lead case is 3:17-md-02796-CRB. The case asserts that the Defendants are engaged in a cartel to artificially generate supra-competitive profits by agreeing to reduce product quality, deter innovation, and not fully compete against each other for sales of millions of passenger cars that they sold in the United States. The Defendants are in the business of developing, manufacturing, and selling cars and motorcycles worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle Adrien Parfitt, Esq. ASHCRAFT & GEREL LLP 4900 Seminary Rd., Suite 650 Alexandria, VA 22311 Telephone: (703) 931-5500 Facsimile: (703) 820-1656 E-mail: mparfitt@ashcraftlaw.com MDL 2796: "Reder" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on August 2, 2017 styled Glen Reder and Lonny Gold, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Audi AG, Audi of America, Inc., Audi of America, LLC, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW of North America, LLC, Daimler AG, Mercedesbenz USA, LLC, Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC, DR. ING. H.C.F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars of North America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-05724 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv- 06103-CRB to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation No. 2796. The lead case is 3:17-md-02796-CRB. The case arises out of the conspiracy to unlawfully inflate prices and increase maintenance costs for diesel passenger vehicles manufactured and sold by Defendants. The Defendants are in the business of developing, manufacturing, and selling cars and motorcycles worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce L. Simon, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-9000 Facsimile: (415) 433-9008 E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com - and - Allan Steyer, Esq. Donald Scott Macrae, Esq. Jill Michelle Manning, Esq. STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP One California Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 421-3400 Facsimile: (415) 421-2234 E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com smacrae@bamlawlj.com jmanning@steyerlaw.com - and - Anna M. Horning Nygren, Esq. Kristen G Marttila, Esq. Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: amhorningnygren@locklaw.com kgmarttila@locklaw.com rkshelquist@locklaw.com wjbruckner@locklaw.com - and - Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. Michael Harrison Pearson, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com mpearson@pswlaw.com - and - Kyle G. Bates, Esq. Todd M. Schneider, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: kbates@schneiderwallace.com tschneider@schneiderwallace.com - and - Neil Swartzberg, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 1001 Page Mill Road, Building 2 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 812-1353 Facsimile: (650) 213-0260 E-mail: nswartzberg@manatt.com - and - Steven A. Hart, Esq. HART MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE, LLC 121 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 1050 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 955-0545 Facsimile: (312) 971-9243 E-mail: shart@hmelegal.com The Defendant Porsche Cars of North America, Inc. is represented by: Norman A. Armstrong Jr., Esq. KING AND SPAULDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 626-8979 E-mail: narmstrong@kslaw.com - and - Peter A. Strotz, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4363 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: pstrotz@kslaw.com MDL 2796: "Grodzen" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on August 29, 2017 captioned Rudolf Grodzen and Vikram Chatrath, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BMW AG; BMW North America, LLC; Volkswagen AG; Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.; Audi AG; Audi of America, Inc.; Audi of America, LLC; DR. ING. H.C. F. Porsche AG; Porsche Cars North America, Inc.; Bentley Motors Limited; Daimler AG; Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC; Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC; Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Case No. 2:17-cv-06401 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-06105-CRB to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation No. 2796. The lead case is 3:17-md-02796-CRB. The case arises out of the conspiracy to unlawfully inflate prices and increase maintenance costs for diesel passenger vehicles manufactured and sold by Defendants. The Defendants are in the business of developing, manufacturing, and selling cars and motorcycles worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Atnip III, Esq. HELLMUTH AND JOHNSON PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Telephone: (952) 941-4005 Facsimile: (952) 941-2337 E-mail: jatnip@hjlawfirm.com MDL 2796: "Kremer" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on August 8, 2017 titled Victor Kremer and Michelle Martin, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. BMW AG, BMW North America, LLC, Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, Audi of America, Inc., Audi of America, LLC, DR. ING. H.C.F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars of North America, Inc., Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC, Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Robert Bosch GMBH, and Robert Bosch LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-05865 was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv- 06104-CRB to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation No. 2796. The lead case is 3:17-md-02796-CRB. The case arises out of the conspiracy to unlawfully inflate prices and increase maintenance costs for diesel passenger vehicles manufactured and sold by Defendants. The Defendants are in the business of developing, manufacturing, and selling cars and motorcycles worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Klein, Esq. Stuart G. Gross, Esq. GROSS & KLEIN LLP The Embarcadero Pier 9, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 671-4628 Facsimile: (415) 480-6688 E-mail: bklein@grosskleinlaw.com sgross@grosskleinlaw.com MEC DEVELOPMENT: "Jefferson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Jefferson, Wayne Lewis and Gregory Brown, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MEC Development, LLC and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 17-at-00777 (E.D. Cal., October 13, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, restitution, statutory penalties, civil penalties, liquidated damages, meal and rest break premium payments, interest and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant provides personnel and program/project management services over a wide range of technical and business disciplines including but not limited to asset/property management, sustaining engineering, corrosion control, program management, training and exercise support, facilities management, warehousing and logistics services and administrative/back office support where Plaintiffs worked as logisticians. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq. Archie I. Grubb, II, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Tel: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com - and - Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. Emily C. Aldridge, Esq. BLEICHMAR, FONTI & AULD LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 670 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel.: (415) 445-4003 E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com mweiler@bfalaw.com ealdridge@bfalaw.com MINNESOTA: Suit vs. DOL Stayed Pending BIC Exemption Reassessment ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, Plaintiff, v. R. Alexander Acosta, Secretary of Labor, and United States Department of Labor, Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-03289 (SRN/DTS) (D. Minn.), Judge Susan Richard Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, granted the Defendants' Motion for a Stay, denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and withdrew the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Thrivent filed the present suit on Sept. 29, 2016, asserting that the Best Interest Contract Exemption" ("BIC Exemption")'s bar on class action waivers violates the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") and is accordingly unenforceable because it exceeds Department of Labor ("DOL")'s statutory authority. By way of relief, Thrivent asked that the Court declare the class action waiver bar to be in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") and the FAA and enjoin its enforcement. Both parties agreed to proceed immediately with summary judgment briefing. Initially, DOL argued that the BIC Exemption's ban against class- action waivers did not violate the FAA, and that DOL had the authority to condition exemptions on adherence to certain standards, including allowing class actions. The amici also asserted this argument in support of DOL's position. However, shortly after the submission of the summary judgment briefing, but prior to the hearing on the motions, DOL requested a stay of the proceedings. Additionally, on March 1, 2017, DOL informed the Court that (i) the Department had proposed an extension of the April 10, 2017 applicability date for the rulemaking and exemptions, and initiated a 45-day comment period, and (ii) in Hugler, 2017 WL 514424, the court granted summary judgment to DOL on an FAA claim challenging the provision at issue in the case. The Court declined to issue a stay at that time, and heard argument on the cross summary judgment motions. In July 2017, DOL filed a notice of withdrawal of its cross-motion for summary judgment and its opposition to the Plaintiff's summary judgment motion, explaining that the Department no longer defends the one regulatory provision challenged in this action -- the application of BIC Exemption Section II(f)(2) to arbitration agreements. Also, DOL renewed its request for a stay, arguing that because the challenged provision was not yet applicable to Thrivent, and DOL was reassessing both the exemption and broader rulemaking, a stay would promote judicial economy and likewise conserve the parties' resources. Thrivent opposes DOL's Motion to Stay. Shortly thereafter, Thrivent filed its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Although Thrivent would prefer a ruling on its Motion for Summary Judgment, short of a dispositive ruling, it asks the Court to issue a preliminary injunction enjoining the Defendants, as well as all other federal agencies, from implementing or enforcing against Thrivent the BIC Exemption to DOL's Fiduciary Rule. Moreover, if a preliminary injunction is granted, Thrivent would be willing to explore an appropriately crafted stay of these proceedings. Judge Nelson granted Thrivent's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The implementation and enforcement of the BIC Exemption's antiarbitration condition against Thrivent is preliminarily enjoined and restrained until the conclusion of this litigation or such time as the Court so orders. Until the preliminary injunction is dissolved or modified by the Court, Thrivent will not be considered out of compliance with the BIC Exemption as a result of maintaining its MDRP, which includes the individual arbitration of member disputes. Given that this injunction is issued against an agency of the United States, no bond is required. Given DOL's reassessment of the challenged provision of the BIC Exemption, the Judge finds that DOL has sufficiently demonstrated the need for a stay. Staying the matter will allow the administrative process to fully develop, possibly resolving this dispute, and thereby promoting judicial economy. Moreover, in light of Thrivent's injunctive relief, awarded Thrivent will not be prejudiced by the entry of a stay at this time. In fact, Thrivent expressed its willingness to enter into a stay if the Court were to grant its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Accordingly, Judge Nelson granted DOL's Motion for a Stay. Following the issuance of the preliminary injunction, the Judge stayed these proceedings, pending further order of the Court. The parties will jointly file a status report every 60 days addressing whether a continued stay of proceedings is necessary. As previously noted, DOL's pending Motion for Summary Judgment is withdrawn. In light of his rulings concerning injunctive relief and a stay, Judge Nelson denied Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/S0Yflh from Leagle.com. Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew B. Kay -- akay@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor, pro hac vice. Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L. Schmitter -- cschmitter@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP & Mark L. Johnson -- mjohnson@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP. United States Department of Labor, Defendant, represented by Emily Sue Newton -- emily.s.newton@usdoj.gov -- DOJ & Galen Thorp -- galen.thorp@usdoj.gov -- DOJ, pro hac vice. R. Alexander Acosta, Defendant, represented by Emily Sue Newton, DOJ & Galen Thorp, DOJ, pro hac vice. AARP, Amicus, represented by Deepak Gupta -- deepak@guptawessler.com -- Gupta Wessler PLLC, pro hac vice & Vildan A. Teske, Teske, Micko, Katz, Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP. AARP Foundation, Amicus, represented by Deepak Gupta, Gupta Wessler PLLC, pro hac vice & Vildan A. Teske, Teske, Micko, Katz, Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP. AAJ, Amicus, represented by Deepak Gupta, Gupta Wessler PLLC, pro hac vice & Vildan A. Teske, Teske, Micko, Katz, Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP. Americans for Financial Reform, Amicus, represented by Deepak Gupta, Gupta Wessler PLLC, pro hac vice & Vildan A. Teske, Teske, Micko, Katz, Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP. Better Markets, Inc., Amicus, represented by Deepak Gupta, Gupta Wessler PLLC, pro hac vice & Vildan A. Teske, Teske, Micko, Katz, Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP. Consumer Federation of America, Amicus, represented by Deepak Gupta, Gupta Wessler PLLC, pro hac vice & Vildan A. Teske, Teske, Micko, Katz, Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP. Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, Amicus, represented by Deepak Gupta, Gupta Wessler PLLC, pro hac vice & Vildan A. Teske, Teske, Micko, Katz, Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP. METALCRAFT OF MAYVILLE: "Mazurek" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Mazurek, and all others similarly-situated v. Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-01439 (E.D. Wis., October 20, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin law. Plaintiff Richard Mazurek is a resident of Dodge County in the State of Wisconsin. Plaintiff Mazurek is a former employee of Metalcraft who worked as a CNC Machinist at Metalcraft's West Bend, Wisconsin location from on or around November 24, 2008 to on or around April 30, 2017. Defendant Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. operates a precision metal fabrication and custom manufacturing facilities. Defendant's principal place of business is located in Mayville Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Summer Murshid, Esq. Timothy Maynard, Esq. Claire Roehre, Esq. Hawks Quindel, S.C. 222 East Erie, Suite 210 P.O. Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Tel: (414) 271-8650 Fax: (414) 271-8442 E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com smurshid@hq-law.com tmaynard@hq-law.com croehre@hq-law.com NATIONWIDE EVICTION: Conditional Class Cert in "Russell" Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification in the case captioned DAN RUSSELL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE EVICTION, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action H-17-0008 (S.D. Tex.). Pending before the court is a renewed motion for conditional certification of a collective action filed by plaintiff Dan Russell. Russell filed this suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claiming that Nationwide wrongfully failed to pay Russell, and others similarly situated, legally-owed overtime wages. According to Russell, he worked in excess of forty hours a week but was not paid overtime wages. Russell alleges that Nationwide paid him a flat fee for each court appearance, even though some court appearances required him to work upwards of twelve hours per day. Russell alleges that Nationwide violated the FLSA by failing to pay him, and others similarly situated, at one-and-one-half times their regular pay rates for the hours worked in excess of forty in a week. Section 207(a) of the FLSA requires covered employers to compensate non-exempt employees at overtime rates for time worked in excess of forty hours per week. Section 216(b) creates a cause of action against employers who violate the overtime compensation requirements. Section 216(b) also permits an employee to bring a collective action lawsuit against an employer on behalf of himself and other employees similarly situated. The plaintiff bears the burden of making a preliminary factual showing that a similarly situated group of potential plaintiffs exists. To establish this, the plaintiff must make a minimal showing that: (1) there is a reasonable basis for crediting the assertion that aggrieved individuals exist; (2) those aggrieved individuals are similarly situated to the plaintiff in relevant respects given the claims and defenses asserted; and (3) those individuals want to opt in to the lawsuit. The statement relied on by Russell provides no evidence that any other individual has interest in joining the lawsuit. Further, in the ten months that this case has been on file, only one individual (Travis Pryor) other than Russell has opted into the lawsuit. Thus, the only indication that others might be interested in joining the lawsuit is Pryor's consent to join. This court has previously declined to conditionally certify collective actions when plaintiffs have presented more evidence than what Russell has here. Here, Russell provides no indication at all that others would be interested in joining the suit. The plaintiff's affidavit stated that he remembers talking to some [other employees] about overtime not being paid to us. Another employee did file an affidavit indicating that he would like to opt in if the class was certified Here, Russell's declaration provides no indication that others actually want to join, leaving the Pryor consent as the only indication of any interest by other individuals. Russell has failed to make a minimal showing that other similarly situated individuals want to opt in. Thus, Russell's renewed motion for conditional certification of a collective action is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7by5k3ofrom Leagle.com. Dan Russell, Plaintiff, represented by Alfonso Kennard, Jr., KENNARD RICHARD PC, 2603 Augusta Drive, 14th Floor, Houston, TX 77057 Nationwide Eviction, LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael D. Mitchell -- michael.mitchell@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins et al. NAVIENT CORP: Pope Files Suit Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------- Eli Pope, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown, Case No. 17-cv-08373 (D. N.J., October 16, 2017), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Navient provides asset management and business processing services to education, health care, and government clients at the federal, state, and local levels in the United States. According to the complaint, Navient's 2017 Q2 10-Q report failed to disclose that the Company engaged in the facilitation of subprime loans, steering student borrowers into payment plans that postponed bills, allowing interest to accumulate rather than helping them enroll in income-driven repayment plans. On October 5, 2017, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro filed a lawsuit Pennsylvania against Navient and one of its subsidiaries. On this news, shares of the Company fell $2.10 per share or over 14% from its previous closing price to close at $12.60 per share on October 5, 2017. Plaintiff purchased Navient securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and lost substantially upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosure. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com NRRM LLC: Court Denies Partial Bid to Strike "Kundinger" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LINDA KUNDINGER, Plaintiff, v. NRRM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-321-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied the Defendant's partial motion to strike the Plaintiff's class action complaint. Kundinger filed a putative class action complaint against the Defendant, alleging that NRRM improperly obtained drivers' personal information from the Wisconsin Department of Motor Vehicles and used the information to send advertisements for aftermarket automobile services. Kundinger claims that NRRM violated the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 ("DPPA"), which prohibits illegitimate uses of drivers' personal information registered with the DMV. NRRM moves to strike three paragraphs from the class action complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Kundinger alleges in paragraphs 22 through 24 that NRRM has an "F" rating from the Better Business Bureau ("BBB") because NRRM sent letters to various individuals and misled them in various ways, such as implying that NRRM was a manufacturer or dealer. These allegations pertain to Kundinger's DPPA claim. The DPPA prohibits the use of drivers' personal information except for the 14 enumerated categories of use, such as use in the normal course of business by a legitimate business. The challenged allegations tend to show that NRRM used the information for an illegitimate purpose not excused under the DPPA. NRRM contends that paragraphs 22 through 24 are impertinent because they relate to BBB reviews of NRRM's marketing practices in general without explicitly referring to personal information from the DMV. But Kundinger's allegation is that NRRM used the information from the DMV to identify names and addresses of potential customers and sent unconsented mail to those individuals, as evidenced by the BBB reviews. So, Judger Peterson finds that the BBB reviews are pertinent. As for prejudice, NRRM contends that the challenged allegations would distract from the actual issues and would be prejudicial to NRRM. But NRRM does not develop this argument, and there appears to be no reason why the court or a jury would be confused by the allegations here. Therefore, Judge Peterson denied NRRM's motion to strike is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/M4OLor from Leagle.com. Linda Kundinger, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce A. Schultz -- bschultz@cnsbb.com -- Coyne, Schultz, Becker & Bauer, S.C.. Linda Kundinger, Plaintiff, represented by Amy E. Keller -- akeller@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Andrew Byron Miller -- miller@starrausten.com -- Starr Austen & Miller, LLP & Jacob M. O'Brien -- obrien@starrausten.com -- Starr Austen & Miller, LLP. NRRM, LLC, Defendant, represented by Colin Michael Luoma -- cml@carmodymacdonald.com -- Carmody MacDonald P.C., Stephen Todd Hamby -- sth@carmodymacdonald.com -- Carmody MacDonald P.C. & Tina N. Babel -- tnb@carmodymacdonald.com -- Carmody MacDonald P.C. ORBITAL ATK: Sedon Sues to Halt Merger Deal, Seeks Projections -------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Sedon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Orbital ATK, Inc., David W. Thompson, Ronald R. Fogleman, Kevin P. Chilton, Roxanne J. Decyk, Lennard A. Fisk, Ronald T. Kadish, Tig H. Krekel, Douglas L. Maine, Roman Martinez IV, Janice I. Obuchowski, James G. Roche, Harrison H. Schmitt and Scott L. Webster, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01164 (E.D. Va., October 16, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of Orbital ATK by Northrop Grumman Corporation; or in in the event defendants consummate the merger, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief in violation of Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Northrop Grumman will acquire Orbital ATK where Orbital stockholders will have the right to receive $134.50 in cash for each share of common stock they own. Said transaction is valued at approximately $9.2 billion. Defendants filed a proxy statement that failed to include Orbital's projections utilized by its financial advisor, Citigroup in its financial analyses, including the impact of cash pension reimbursements and contributions and annual cash flows on its net income, says the complaint. Orbital ATK is an aerospace and defense systems company and supplier of related products to the U.S. government, allied nations and prime contractors, whose main products include launch vehicles and related propulsion systems, satellites and associated components and services, composite aerospace structures, tactical missiles, subsystems and defense electronics and precision weapons, armament systems and ammunition. Northrop Grumman is a Delaware corporation and leading global security company that offers products, systems and solutions for undersea, aerospace and cyberspace. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Donald J. Enright, Esq. Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 Facsimile: (202) 333-2121 Email: denright@zlk.com etripodi@zlk.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly C. Keenan, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 682-3025 Fax: (212) 682-3010 PATON ENGINEERS: "Patai" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Patai, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Paton Engineers and Constructors (CA) LLC and Paton Engineers and Constructors (U.S.) Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-03104 (S.D. Tex., October 16, 2017), seeks to recover overtime for the hours they work in excess of forty per week; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Paton Engineers is a full-service engineering, construction, automation and project management firm where Patai worked as a piping designer from February 2016 to June 2017. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. Bridget Davidson, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 PINNACLE ENGINEERING: "Thomas" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Brian Thomas, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees Plaintiff, v. Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. and Pinnacle Project Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-03113, (S.D. Tex., October 16, 2017), seeks overtime premium, liquidated damages, reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees, costs, expert fees, mediator fees, and out-of-pocket expenses incurred by bringing this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. provides a full range of environmental, industrial, civil engineering, and remedial field services. Pinnacle Project Services Group assists industrial, petrochemical and refining clients with planning, scheduling, cost control and administrative support and more. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis A. Clifford, Esq. THE CLIFFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC 712 Main Street, Suite 900 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 999-1833 Fax: (866) 232-0999 Email: dennis@cliffordemploymentlaw.com PNC MERCHANT: Faces Healing Suit in N.Y. Over Unauthorized Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Healing for the Abused Woman Ministries and Kelwin Inkwel, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PNC Merchant Services Company, L.P., Case No. 1:17-cv-06255 (E.D.N.Y., October 26, 2017), arises out of the Defendant's unlawful practice of assessing improper fees not authorized in the merchant agreement. PNC Merchant Services Company, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership that is co-owned by PNC Bank, N.A. and the country's largest payment processor. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Adam Webb, Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange, S.E. Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-0773 E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com PRIMERITUS FINANCIAL: Odahl Sues Over Repossession Procedure ------------------------------------------------------------ Charlynn Odahl, Plaintiff, v. Primeritus Financial Services, Inc., Key Auto Recovery and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC679797 (Cal. Super., October 16, 2017), is a class action complaint that seeks actual, statutory, punitive, restitution and disgorgement of illicit gains, injunctive relief, pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred in the investigation, filing and prosecution of this action and such other and further relief for violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Collateral Recovery Act. On March 26, 2012, Odahl purchased an automobile on credit from an auto dealership under a retail installment sales contract by BMW Financial Services N.A., LLC. The latter issued a repossession assignment to Primeritus to repossess said vehicle when Plaintiff went default. Key Auto repossessed subject vehicle by entering a secured, gated garage and driving its vehicle into Plaintiff's private property without permission. Key Auto also failed to properly notify plaintiff of the seizure of the vehicle within 48 hours and failed to mail her a written inventory of her personal items in the vehicle. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander B. Trueblood, Esq. TRUEBLOOD LAW FIRM 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310)443-4139 Facsimile: (310) 943-2255 - and - Brandon A. Block, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON BLOCK A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 433 North Camden Drive, Suite 600 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 887-1440 Facsimile: (310) 496-1420 PUBLIC HEALTH: "Morris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Marvella Morris and Noel Cord, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Public Health Management Corporation (PHMC) and Turning Points for Children, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-04620 (E.D. Pa., October 17, 2017), seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. PHMC offers a broad array of programs spanning behavioral health/recovery, nurse-managed primary care, chronic disease management and prevention, tobacco control, obesity prevention, early intervention, HIV/AIDS, violence intervention, homeless health services and parenting support for families. Turning Points is an accredited human services agency headquartered at 4329 Griscom Street, Philadelphia, PA 19124. It joined PHMC as an affiliate in March 2013. Plaintiffs have been jointly employed by PHMC and Turning Points to provide various social services to children and families in Philadelphia's foster care system. Morris is currently employed in the position of Case Manager, while Cord recently resigned from the position of Outcome Specialist. Morris typically works approximately 60-70 hours per week, while Cord typically worked approximately 50 hours per week, both without overtime premiums. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Tel: (215) 884-2491 RAMSGATE INSURANCE: "Ganier" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Ganier, and all others similarly-situated v. Ramsgate Insurance, Inc., Ramsgate Program Managers, Inc., 1st Quality Insurance Group Inc, all dba 1st Quality Insurance Group, and Thomas Rumfelt, Case No. 8:17-cv-02463 (M.D. Fla., October 20, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff Robert Ganier resided in Lake Wales and worked for the Defendants from May 2017 until September 2017. Defendants operate a business enterprise selling insurance policies to businesses from multiple offices and locations, and through numerous sales agents across the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN WILLIAMS LLC 18801 N. Dale Mabry Hwy. #563 Lutz, FL 33548 Tel: (813) 639-9366 Fax: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mlf@feldmanlegal.us RJ REYNOLDS: "Tarrow" Suit Remanded to California State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANDREW TARROW, Plaintiff, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. SACV 17-01568-CJC(KESx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand, and denied as moot the Defendants' motion to stay. Defendant RJRT and its parent corporation Reynolds American, Inc. ("RAI") sell tobacco products. They formerly employed Plaintiff as a Territory Manager in their Riverside, California division. RJRT and RAI employ Defendants William Roth and Daniel Harrington as Senior Directors for their Southern and Northern California regions, respectively. Roth and Harrington oversee and control RJRT and RAI's operation in their region, and each manages approximately half of the Territory Managers in California. Roth and Harrington, the only two Senior Directors in California, were and are the highest-ranking individuals within RAI and RJRT in the state. Tarrow filed the action on Aug. 8, 2017, in the Orange County Superior Court as a putative class action alleging ten causes of action: failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit rest breaks, unlawful collection or receipt of wages due for "personal use," failure to indemnify for expenditures incurred in discharge of duties, waiting time penalties, failure to pay using proper instrument at the place of discharge, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, conversion, and violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants misclassified Territory Managers as "exempt" employees and had various policies and practices that gave rise to their claims. He brings the action on behalf of a proposed class of the Defendants' current and former employees who hold/held the position of Territory Manager for the four years preceding the filing of the action who were also intentionally misclassified as 'exempt' employees by the Defendants. The Defendants removed the action to this Court on Sept. 11, 2017. Before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion to remand, and the Defendants' motion to stay. Judge Carney finds that the Plaintiff seeks both monetary damages and injunctive relief from all five Defendants joint and severally. The alleged California Labor Code violations are pled as being caused by Roth and Harrington's creation of policies and practices or their enforcement of RJRT and RAI's policies and practices. The damages appear to be the same whether caused by Roth and Harrington, or caused by the other Defendants. As pled, significant damages can be attributed to Roth and Harrington's conduct, therefore, the Judge concludes that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that he seeks "significant relief" from the local Defendants for purposes of the local controversy exception. The Judge also finds that nothing in CAFA indicates a congressional intention to turn a jurisdictional determination concerning the local Defendant's 'alleged conduct' into a mini- trial on the merits of the Plaintiff's claims. He Court can look only to the allegations found in the Plaintiff's Complaint when it determines whether the local controversy exception applies. Accordingly, based on the allegations of the Complaint, he concludes that the Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that Roth and Harrington's conduct provides a "significant basis" for the alleged conduct for which the Plaintiff seeks relief. For these reasons, Judge Carney granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand and denied as moot the Defendants' motion to stay. Finally, with respect to the Plaintiff's request for the Court to exercise its discretion to award attorneys' fees and costs in remanding the removed case to state court under Section 1447(c), Judge Carney finds that the Defendants had an objectively reasonable basis to remove the action under CAFA. First, there are many similar cases pending in the Central District at this time. And second, there are no reported Ninth Circuit decisions on similar facts presented here that hold the local controversy exception applies. Accordingly, the Judge will deny the Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/ajCpR4 from Leagle.com. Andrew Tarrow, Plaintiff, represented by Natalie Mirzayan -- mirzayann@yahoo.com -- Law Offices of Natalie Mirzayan. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Defendant, represented by Aaron Lee Agenbroad -- alagenbroad@JonesDay.com -- Jones Day & Liat Yamini - - lyamini@JonesDay.com -- Jones Day. Reynolds American, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron Lee Agenbroad, Jones Day & Liat Yamini, Jones Day. Staci Meyer, Defendant, represented by Aaron Lee Agenbroad, Jones Day & Liat Yamini, Jones Day. William Roth, Defendant, represented by Aaron Lee Agenbroad, Jones Day & Liat Yamini, Jones Day. Daniel Harrington, Defendant, represented by Aaron Lee Agenbroad, Jones Day & Liat Yamini, Jones Day. SOLARCITY CORP: "Daugherty" Stayed Pending Outcome of "Morris" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BREANA DAUGHERTY, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. SOLARCITY CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-05155-WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the parties stipulation to stay the case pending the outcome of Morris et al. v. Ernst & Young, LLP. On Jan. 13, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Morris. The parties requested a stay of the appeal pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the stay was granted on Aug. 28, 2017. The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Morris on Oct. 2, 2017. The parties believe that a stay pending a decision in Morris will be more efficient for this Court and the parties. The parties submit their joint stipulation to stay the case pending the outcome of Morris. The Court granted their stipulation. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/A7cet6 from Leagle.com. SPARK NETWORKS: "Vana" to Halt Merger Deal, Claims Shortchanged --------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Vana, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Spark Networks, Inc., Brad Goldberg, Michael J. Mcconnell, Michael Brodsky, Ian V. Jacobs, John H.Lewis, Danny Rosenthal,And Walter L. Turek, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-07603 (C.D. Cal., October 17, 2017), seeks to enjoin the shareholder vote on the merger of the businesses of Spark and Affinitas under a holding company, New Spark, organized under the laws of Germany; and in the event defendants consummate the merger, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief for violation of Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Under the terms of the merger agreement, Spark stockholders will be entitled to receive, 0.1 for each share of Spark common stock, representing 0.1 ordinary shares of new Spark. Consequently, current Spark stockholders will collectively own approximately 25% of New Spark, while Affinitas stockholders will collectively own approximately 75% of New Spark. According to the complaint, Defendants filed a proxy statement that failed to include Orbital's projections utilized by its financial advisor, B. Riley & Co., LLC. Plaintiffs allege that the intrinsic value of the Company's common stock is materially in excess of the amount offered for those securities in the proposed acquisition given its prospects for future growth and earnings. Spark operates premium online dating platforms EliteSingles, eDarling and Attractive World. It operates a number of other niche-focused and international websites and mobile applications. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Bower, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC 600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170 Culver City, CA 90230 Tel: (213) 446-6652 Email: dbower@monteverdelaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com SPEEDY CASH: "Payton" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Payton, and all others similarly-situated v. Speedy Cash and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:17-cv-07777 (C.D. Calif., October 24, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff Jonathan Payton is a resident of Los Angeles, California. Defendant Speedy Cash offers online payday loans, as well as installment loans and lines of credit for larger amounts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, 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 mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com SPEEDYPC SOFTWARE: Court Certifies Class in Consumer Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and Subclass in the case captioned ARCHIE BEATON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SPEEDYPC SOFTWARE, a British Columbia company, Defendant, No. 13-cv-08389 (N.D. Ill.). This putative class action arises out of Beaton's purchase of a license to use the SpeedyPC's software. SpeedyPC promotes its software through online advertisements and on websites as being capable of increasing computer speed and performance, removing harmful computer errors, and protecting users' privacy and security. Beaton alleges that these representations do not reflect the software's true capabilities. Instead, the software has two main functions: first, it is a registry cleaner and second, it removes superfluous temporary files from a user's hard drive. According to Beaton, these functions "do not come close to squaring with SpeedyPC's representations about the functionality of SpeedyPC Pro. According to Beaton, SpeedyPC breached implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability and committed fraudulent misrepresentation under various consumer protection laws. Beaton first proposes as the Class: All individuals living in the United States who downloaded a free trial of SpeedyPC Pro and thereafter purchased the full version between October 28, 2011 and November 21, 2014. On behalf of the Class, Beaton seeks to litigate contractual warranty claims for breaches of the implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability. These claims arise under British Columbia law. Beaton also proposes as the Subclass: All Class members who reside in Illinois, California, Colorado, Florida, New York, Oregon, Alabama, Tennessee, New Jersey, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Vermont, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Washington, D.C. Numerosity SpeedyPC's records reflect that over 574,000 individuals downloaded the free trial of SpeedyPC's software before purchasing the full version of SpeedyPC's software. Thus, both the Class and Revised Subclass are sufficiently numerous under Rule 23. Commonality For class certification, only one question of law or fact common to the class is required. Here, there are undoubtedly questions of law and fact that are common to the Class and Revised Subclass. The Class's contractual warranty claims raise legal questions about whether customers can avail themselves of these warranties or whether they have been disclaimed by the End User License Agreement accompanying SpeedyPC's software. These claims will also include factual questions about what function SpeedyPC's software was marketed as performing, whether the software did in fact perform that function, whether customers expressly or impliedly made known that they were purchasing the software for that purpose, and whether customers were harmed. And these factual questions also arise with respect to the Revised Subclass's ICFA claims. Typicality SpeedyPC contends that, in Beaton's deposition, he conceded that his experience with SpeedyPC's software was different than that of other customers. To this end, SpeedyPC cites Beaton's deposition testimony where SpeedyPC's counsel showed Beaton an anonymous positive internet review of SpeedyPC's software and he responded, I'm just going on my own experience. My own experience does not coincide with this individual's response or his computer. This does not constitute a concession by Beaton that his experience with SpeedyPC's software was different from others. Beaton's response implied that he had no knowledge of the posting individual's experience. As such, he was simply saying that because he had a negative experience with SpeedyPC's software, he differed in opinion from the anonymous positive internet review he was shown. Nowhere did he concede that SpeedyPC's software functioned differently for other people or computers. Thus, SpeedyPC has provided no reason to think that Beaton's claims are atypical. Adequacy of Representative and Counsel To determine whether the class representatives will adequately represent the class as a whole, courts examine whether: (1) the representatives have antagonistic or conflicting claims with the other class members; and (2) the counsel for named plaintiffs can sufficiently represent the class. The fact that opposing counsel in other cases have accused Edelson of sanctionable conduct and incompetence does not disqualify them as class counsel. SpeedyPC only trudges up adversarial claims against Edelson, SpeedyPC has not pointed to any judicial rulings on those adversarial claims. The most SpeedyPC does is point out that in another class action case against Speedy, Edelson had to change the named plaintiff and then subsequently voluntarily dismissed its complaint. In essence, SpeedyPC asks this Court to disqualify Edelson from class-action litigation for once voluntarily dismissing a case. That is not enough and thus the Court rejects the request. Based on a review of the dockets of the cited Edelson matters and Edelson's conduct in this matter, the Court has not seen anything indicating Edison lacks the competence to adequately litigate this case. Thus, the Court finds that Beaton and his counsel Edelson are adequate representatives of the Class and Revised Subclass. The Court finds that Beaton's proposed Class and Revised Subclass meet the requirements of Rule 23(a). Analysis under Rule 23(b) Predominance of Common Questions Generally, predominance is satisfied when common questions represent a significant aspect of a case and can be resolved for all members of a class in a single adjudication. In other words, common questions can predominate if a common nucleus of operative facts and issues underlies the claims brought by the proposed class. SpeedyPC does not address these common questions, but rather poses ten material questions that it claims require individual attention such that they would predominate over the common questions relating to the Class and Revised Subclass: (1) Who did the class member purchase the software from? (2) Was the software purchased primarily for business or personal use? (3) Did the software work? (4) Was the class member deceived into purchasing the software? (5) What was the value of the software as promised to the class member? (6) What was the value of the software as delivered to the class member? (7) Did the class member provide notice of its claim to Speedy? (8) Is the class member's claim time barred? (9) Did the class member request a refund? (10) Was a refund issued to the class member? The Court disagrees and does not find that these questions predominate over the common questions that relate to the Class and Revised Subclass. Question (1) is best addressed through a common proceeding because the evidence shows that the class members purchased the premium version of SpeedyPC's software through the free version's portal and were directed to one of two payment processors. Similarly, questions (3), (4), (5), and (6) too can be addressed through a common proceeding, because each of these questions is intricately related to SpeedyPC's representations about the software and the function of the software. Beaton alleges that SpeedyPC's software did not properly diagnose problems with computers and therefore did not confer any benefit on customers of SpeedyPC's premium software product. Questions (2), (7), (8), (9), and (10) are questions that may require individual responses and evidence, but they do not predominate over the common questions relevant to the Class and Revised Subclass. Each of these questions is, as a general matter, sufficiently simple that there are streamlined mechanisms available to determine which of the Class members has a viable claim. Superiority of Class Action In light of all this, the Court determines that the class action is a superior way of proceeding. Chiefly, as discussed, there are common questions of law and fact relating to the Class and Revised Subclass that predominate over any individual questions. Moreover, the claims of the Class and Revised Subclass are manageable. The Class's claim is under the law of British Columbia, Canada and the Revised Subclass's claim is under the ICFA. The Court grants Beaton's motion to certify the class to bring contractual warranty claims for breaches of the implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Memorandum Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/yct8de2p from Leagle.com. Archie Beaton, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Harris Richman - - brichman@edelson.com -- Edelson PC. Archie Beaton, Plaintiff, represented by Rafey S. Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Amir Cheyenne Missaghi -- amissaghi@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, David Ira Mindell -- dmindell@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C. & Eve-Lynn J. Rapp -- erapp@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C.. SpeedyPC Software, Defendant, represented by James Kenneth Borcia -- jborcia@tresslerllp.com -- Tressler LLP & Kevin Krikor Kearney -- kkearney@tresslerllp.com -- Tressler LLP. STATE FARM: Show Cause Order in "Ayers" Discharged -------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, issued an Order discharging the Show Cause Order in the case captioned FRANK AYERS, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; RUTH MIER GRAHAM; GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY; TAMMY BOOTH; and STEVEN HERSH, Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-1265-Orl-37TBS (M.D. Fla.). Plaintiff asserts, among others, a putative class action breach- of-contract claim against Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The Class Claim rests on the theory that State Farm is required to provide its insureds with counsel prior to the initiation of a third-party bodily injury lawsuit. After State Farm removed the action to the District Court, the Court concluded that it lacked sufficient evidence to determine whether State Farm had satisfied the Class Action Fairness Act's jurisdictional threshold and ordered it show cause why this case should not be remanded. State Farm and Plaintiff responded to the Show Cause Order, and the matter was set for a hearing on October 17, 2017. At the October 17 Hearing, the Plaintiff addressed the Show Cause Order and considered several pending motions. The Court concluded that it lacked sufficient evidence to determine whether State Farm had satisfied the Class Action Fairness Act's jurisdictional threshold and ordered it show cause why this case should not be remanded. The Court's Show Cause Order is discharged. Defendant State Farm's Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law is denied without prejudice. Defendant State Farm's Motion to Redesignate Case from Track Two to Track Three and Motion to Bifurcate Discovery is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybsh66elfrom Leagle.com. Frank Ayers, Plaintiff, represented by Henry Arnold Seiden, Seiden Law, 301 Clematis Street Suite 201, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamine Reid -- breid@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, David Matthew Allen -- mallen@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA & Jeffrey A. Cohen -- jacohen@carltonfields.com -Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA. Ruth Mier Graham, Defendant, represented by David Cyril Knapp, James A. Coleman, PA, James A. Coleman, James A. Coleman, PA, Kendall B. Rigdon, Rigdon, Alexander & Rigdon, LLP & Kurt Edward Alexander, Rigdon, Alexander & Rigdon, LLP, 2405 N. Courtnay Pkwy. Suite 202Merritt Island, FL 32953 Government Employees Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Kendall B. Rigdon, Rigdon, Alexander & Rigdon, LLP & Kurt Edward Alexander, Rigdon, Alexander & Rigdon, LLP. Tammy Booth, Defendant, represented by Alan Jeffrey Nisberg -- anisberg@butler.legal -- Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP & John W. Weihmuller -- jweihmuller@butler.legal -- Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP. Steven Hersh, Defendant, represented by Alan Jeffrey Nisberg, Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP & John W. Weihmuller, Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP. TARGET CORPORATION: Sued Over Up & Up Makeup Remover Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Megan McAteer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-07848 (C.D. Cal., October 26, 2017), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's failure to properly warn consumers, either in their extensive television, print, and online marketing of the Up & Up Makeup Remover Cleansing Towelettes -- Evening Calm Products or on the package labeling that one or more of the Products' active ingredients creates an irritating and allergic reaction causing a burning sensation on the face and turns the face red. Target Corporation is the second-largest discount store retailer in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis J. "Casey" Flynn Jr., Esq. CAREY DANIS & LOWE 6220 W 3rd St # 415 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: (314) 662-2836 E-mail: francisflynn@gmail.com - and - Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq. Ashton Smith, Esq. JONES WARD PLC The Pointe 1205 E. Washington St., Suite 111 Louisville, KY 40206 Telephone: (502) 882-6000 Facsimile: (502) 587-2007 E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com ashton@jonesward.com TATE & KIRLIN: "Marconi" Suit Disputes Collection Letter -------------------------------------------------------- Michael Marconi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tate & Kirlin Associates, Inc. and John Does, 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-04411, (E.D. Pa., October 3, 2017), seeks statutory and actual damages, costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Tate & Kirlin was tasked to collect the alleged debt of Marconi to Verizon Wireless. Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection letter indicating that "a negative credit bureau report reflecting on your credit record may be submitted to a credit reporting agency by the current account owner if you fail to fulfill the terms of your credit obligations." The threat of reporting the alleged debt to the credit bureaus can be considered a simple coercion. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Antranig Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES 1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Email: ag@garibianlaw.com TEMPUR SEALY: "Rabin" Suit Alleges Breach of Express Warranty ------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel S. Rabin, and all others similarly-situated v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc. and Mattress Firm, Inc. dba Mattress Firm, Case No. 2:17-cv-02619 (D. Kan., October 24, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for alleged breach of express warranty pursuant to Kansas law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Kansas and resides in Overland Park, Kansas. In January 2012, Plaintiff purchased a Sealy brand Stearns & Foster mattress from a Mattress Firm store in Overland Park, Kansas. Defendant Sealy is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Lexington, Kentucky. Sealy manufactures and distributes mattresses for sale through retailers to consumers under a variety of brands and names including Stearns and Foster. Sealy purchased the Stearns & Foster Company in late 1983. Defendant Mattress Firm is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas, and currently operates over 3,500 locations across 49 states nationwide. Defendant Mattress Firm is a bedding retailer. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin N. Hutnick, Esq. BERMAN & RABIN, P.A. 15280 Metcalf Overland Park, KS 66223 Tel: (913) 649-1555 Fax: (913) 652-9474 E-mail: bhutnick@bermanrabin.com TENDER LOVING: "Jones-Dowd" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Sue Ellen Jones-Dowd, and all others similarly-situated v. Tender Loving Family Care Inc., T.L.F.C. Companion Services LLC, and Annika D'Andrea, Case No. 6:17-cv-06726 (W.D. N.Y., October 20, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Sue Ellen Jones-Dowd is a resident of the State of New York and was employed by the Defendants from March 2013 to March 2016 as home health aides. Defendants own and operate a New York State licensed home care services agency. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Mullin, Esq. FERR & MULLIN, P.C. 7635 Main St. Fishers P.O. Box 440 Fishers, NY 14453 Tel: (585) 869-0210 E-mail: rlmullin@FerrMullinLaw.com - and - Justin M. Cordello, Esq. Cordello Law, PLLC 95 Allens Creek Rd., Bldg. 2, Ste 215 Rochester, NY 14618 Tel: (585) 857-9684 E-mail: justin@cordellolaw.com TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Merger Docs Lacking Projections, Claims "Berg" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Berg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Terraform Global, Inc., Peter Blackmore, Fred Boyle, Christopher Compton, Hanif Dahya, Mark Lerdal, David J. Mack, Alan B. Miller, Jack Stark, David Ringhofer, Gregory Scallen, Brookefield Asset Management, Orion US Holdings LLP and Bre GLBL Holdings Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-03044 (D. MD., October 17, 2017), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of Terraform by affiliates of Orion US Holdings; rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger; as well as costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. TerraForm Global owns and operates renewable energy generation assets worldwide. The Company generates electricity through solar, wind, and hydro-electric projects and serves utility, commercial, industrial and government customers. TerraForm Global holds wind and solar projects in South Africa, India and China. Under the terms of the merger agreement, Terrform's Class A common stock will be converted to the right to receive $5.10 in cash. Defendants filed a proxy statement that failed to include financial projections and valuation analyses performed by its financial advisor, Centerview Partners, LLC including a fully- taxed unlevered free cash flow of the company from 2017 to 2026, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-531 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com - and - Thomas J. Minton, Esq. GOLDMAN AND MINTON 3600 Union Ave., Suite 201 Baltimore MD 21211 Tel: (410) 783-7575 Fax: (410) 783-1711 Email: tminton@charmcitylegal.com - and - RM LAW PC 1055 Westlakes Dr., Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: 324-6800 TESLA MOTORS: "Paige" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT, Final Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Christin Paige, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. Tesla Motors, Inc., Supplier Link Services, Inc. and Does 1-100, Case No. RG17878917 (Cal. Super., October 16, 2017), seeks unpaid wages including overtime, meal and rest period compensation, final pay, penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code. Tesla is an electric car manufacturer -- https://www.tesla.com/about -- operating from its Fremont factory in California. Supplier Link Services is a third party sorting and engineering company located in Fremont, California providing quality control solutions, including onsite engineering, inspection and rework services. Paige claims to be jointly employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt factory staff. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. Jamie Serb, Esq. Tony Roberts, Esq. THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 Email: bturley@turleylawfirm.com dmara@turleylawfirm.com jserb@turleylawfirm.com troberts@turleylawfirm.com TRANZVIA LLC: "Hirsch" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------- Aaron Hirsch, and all others similarly-situated v. Tranzvia LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-00763 (E.D. Tex., October 24, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited telephone calling activities to consumers, and an award of statutory damages to the members of the Classes under the TCPA equal to $500 per violation, together with court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and treble damages. Plaintiff Aaron Hirsch is a citizen of Maryland and resides in Montgomery County, Maryland. Defendant Tranzvia LLC operates a technology services company that purportedly offers payment technology services and other services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Warren T. Burns, Esq. Daniel Charest, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (469) 904-4550 Fax: (469) 444-5002 E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com dcharest@burnscharest.com TUNNEL TAXI: "Lemache" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------- Jose Sanaicela Lemache, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tunnel Taxi Management, LLC, Millennium Taximeter Corp., Skilman Consulting Corp., Taxopark Garage Inc., Evgeny A. Friedman and Mamed Dzhaniyev, Defendants., Case No. 17-cv-02183, (N.D. Ohio, October 16, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. Evgeny A. Friedman and Mamed Dzhaniyev own taxi auto shops located at 4407 Vernon Blvd, Queens, New York 11101, where Lemache worked as a mechanic. [BN] Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 UTILIKON LLC: "Medina" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Gregorio Medina, Jose David Aguilar, Wilmer Gavarrete, Alberto Perez, Jesus Quinto, Gabriel Villeda, Ricardo Zuniga Samano, Simeon Amaya Soriano, Sergio Carrillo, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Utilikon, LLC and Chagnon Dean Early, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-03093, (S.D. Tex., October 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Utilikon is a subcontractor for infrastructure construction services, including installation of fiber-optic cables where Aguilar, Gavarrete, Perez, Quinto, Villeda, Samano, Soriano and Carrillo were employed as general laborer while Medina was employed as a supervisor. They were involved in digging trenches and installing piping and fiber optic cable in the piping and trenches. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq. 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Tel: 713-868-3388 Fax: 713-683-9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com vijay@buenkerlaw.com VIRGINIA: Court Refuses to Review Sovereign Immunity Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned SHERRY LYNN THORNHILL, for herself and as Administrator of the Estate of her son, Shawn Christopher Berry, deceased, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. F. GLENN AYLOR, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:15CV00024 (W.D. Va.), is before the United States District Court for Western District of Virginia, Charlottesville Division, on defendants' motion for reconsideration of their motion to certify to the Supreme Court of Virginia the question of whether regional jail authorities and their employees are entitled to sovereign immunity under Virginia law. Thornhill filed an amended class action complaint against eleven defendants, including the Central Virginia Regional Jail Authority, Superintendant F. Glenn Aylor, and several employees at the Central Virginia Regional Jail, arising out of Berry's death while in custody. Defendants then filed separate motions to dismiss, which the court granted in part and denied in part. Only Count II, asserting a claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and Count III, alleging wrongful death in violation of Virginia Code Section 8.01-50, remain pending against the Authority, Aylor, and three of the employees. A decision was issued in Haleem v. Quinones, No. 5:17-cv-00003, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16138 (W.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2017), granting sovereign immunity to a Virginia regional jail authority and granting the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The United States District Court for Western District of Virginia, Charlottesville Division, rejected the defendants' argument that the state sovereign immunity granted to Virginia sheriffs when performing discretionary acts flows from the sheriffs to regional jail authorities and their employees because the sheriffs sit on a board that oversees those authorities. Although a possibly novel argument, the court recognized that the mere existence of a novel theory does not compel certification. Indeed, certification is unnecessary when existing case law permits the court to reach a reasoned and principled conclusion. The court recognized that here, the existing case law addresses when an employee of a state agency is entitled to sovereign immunity and whether an entity or individual is an agent of the Commonwealth entitled to sovereign immunity for discretionary acts. The court further noted that this argument presents a factual inquiry, and not a question of Virginia law for which Rule 5:40 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia provides a basis for certification. Sovereign immunity is a defensive plea presenting distinct issues of fact which, if proved, create a bar to a plaintiff's right of recovery. The court continues to find its prior analysis persuasive. The court will deny the motion for reconsideration. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Memorandum Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/y92cdkvg from Leagle.com. Sherry Lynn Thornhill, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Olin Wilson, Wilson Law PLC, 125 Southampton Drive, Harrisonburg, VA 22801 Sherry Lynn Thornhill, Plaintiff, represented by Uri Nazryan, 1600 Wilson Blvd #905, Arlington, VA 22209 & Mitchell J. Rotbert, Rotbert Business Law P.C., 8937 Shady Grove Court, Gaithersburg, MD 20877. pro hac vice. F. Glenn Aylor, Defendant, represented by Channing Maria Thomas, Phillips & Thomas Law, PLLC, Helen Eckert Phillips, Phillips & Thomas Law, PLLC, Po Box 517, Abingdon, VA, 24212-0517 & Francesca Evans Fornari -- fef@stlawva.com -- St. John Bowling Lawrence & Quagliana LLP. Central Virginia Regional Jail Authority, Defendant, represented by Channing Maria Thomas, Phillips & Thomas Law, PLLC, Helen Eckert Phillips, Phillips & Thomas Law, PLLC & Francesca Evans Fornari, St. John Bowling Lawrence & Quagliana LLP. Christie M. Apple-Figgins, Defendant, represented by Channing Maria Thomas, Phillips & Thomas Law, PLLC, Helen Eckert Phillips, Phillips & Thomas Law, PLLC & Francesca Evans Fornari, St. John Bowling Lawrence & Quagliana LLP. Jasmine Buckner-Jones, Defendant, represented by Channing Maria Thomas, Phillips & Thomas Law, PLLC, Helen Eckert Phillips, Phillips & Thomas Law, PLLC & Francesca Evans Fornari, St. John Bowling Lawrence & Quagliana LLP. Amanda Pitts, Defendant, represented by Helen Eckert Phillips, Phillips & Thomas Law, PLLC & Francesca Evans Fornari, St. John Bowling Lawrence & Quagliana LLP. WENDO FURNITURE: "Liu" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Guobin Liu, and all others similarly-situated v. Wendo Furniture NY Inc., Wanyi Chen, and "John" Hu, Case No. 1:17-cv-06216 (E.D. N.Y., October 24, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Guobin Liu is a resident of New York. Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a furniture delivery and assembly worker from August 2015 to September 2017. Defendant Wendo Furniture NY Inc. owns and operates a furniture business located at 3609 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11354. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ge Qu, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Tel: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: rqu@hanglaw.com WILSON COUNTY, KS: Settlement in "Ogden" Suit Has Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned RUSSELL K. OGDEN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. PETE FIGGINS, In his Official Capacity as Sheriff for Wilson County, Kansas, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-CV-02268-JAR (D. Kan.), Judge Julie A. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted the final approval to the parties' Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2). The Plaintiffs filed the class action asserting claims, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Defendant in his official capacity as Sheriff of Wilson County, Kansas. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's postcard-only mail policy is an unconstitutional violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of inmates at the Wilson County Correctional Facility and their friends and family members. On June 16, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, which included the Agreement reached by the parties. In an Order dated July 19, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the Agreement with instruction to give notice to the Settlement Class. After notice to Settlement Class members and a fairness hearing, the Court now considers the Agreement for final approval and entry. Judge Robinson finds that the evidence presented to the Court supports approval and adoption of the Agreement. The parties fairly and honestly negotiated the Agreement. The record demonstrates that the Agreement is the result of cooperative, good-faith, and arms'-length negotiation by skilled counsel who is familiar with litigating civil rights claims. The Judge is satisfied that the Agreement provides meaningful, immediate recovery to all Settlement Class members that might otherwise be unrecoverable after a decision on the merits. Finally, the Agreement maintains the safety-based limitations on prison correspondence discussed to protect the jail's security interests. Thus, the Agreement complies with the Prison Litigation Reform Act. In sum, Judge Robinson concludes that the Agreement proposed by the parties is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Therefore, she granted the parties' Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2). The Judge adopted and entered the Agreement as part of the judgment in the case and instructed the Clerk of the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/WByzWi from Leagle.com. Russell K Ogden, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua A. Glickman -- josh@sjlawcollective.com -- Social Justice Law Collective, Pl. Russell K Ogden, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen D. Bonney -- dbonney@aclukansas.org -- ACLU Foundation of Kansas. Beatrice Hammer, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua A. Glickman, Social Justice Law Collective, Pl & Stephen D. Bonney, ACLU Foundation of Kansas. John Smith, Class representative, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua A. Glickman, Social Justice Law Collective, Pl & Stephen D. Bonney, ACLU Foundation of Kansas. Sheriff Pete Figgins, Defendant, represented by Andrew D. Holder - - aholder@fisherpatterson.com -- Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, LLP & Terelle A. Mock -- mock@fisherpatterson.com -- Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, LLP. WOLFGANG'S STEAKHOUSE: Court Dismisses "Fullwood" FACTA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CYNTHIA M. FULLWOOD, Plaintiff, v. WOLFGANG'S STEAKHOUSE, INC. and ZMF RESTAURANTS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 13 Civ. 7174 (KPF) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and denied the Plaintiff's request for leave to amend. The Plaintiff brings the putative class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA"). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants repeatedly violated FACTA by printing full expiration dates on otherwise properly-redacted credit card receipts. The Defendants have, for the fourth time, moved to dismiss the action. In 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that he Plaintiff did not adequately plead a willful violation of FACTA. The Court denied that motion in light of the Plaintiff's proposed amendments, which were subsequently filed as the Second Amended Complaint in this matter. In 2015, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court denied that motion, finding that the Plaintiff had plausibly alleged a willful violation of FACTA. In 2016, Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, this time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for a lack of standing in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. This time, the Court granted that motion. However, because the Second Amended Complaint had been filed pre- Spokeo, the Court granted leave to amend and instructed the Plaintiff to plead facts showing she suffered a "concrete and particularized injury." The Plaintiff filed her Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") on Feb. 14, 2017. The Plaintiff's TAC contains numerous further additions, including more information about the risk and prevalence of identity theft, the legislative history of FACTA, and additional case law and secondary legal authority. The Defendants now, for the fourth time, move to dismiss the TAC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for a lack of standing. The Plaintiff filed her opposition to the Defendants' motion on May 10, 2017, and Defendants filed their reply in support of their motion on May 23, 2017. Judge Failla explains that after the Second Circuit's decision in Crupar-Weinmann v. Paris Baguette America, Inc., the Court ordered the parties to file supplemental memoranda. The Defendants predictably, and accurately, argue that Crupar-Weinmann demands a finding that the Plaintiff lacks Article III standing because the pleadings in Crupar-Weinmann and the instant case are "substantially indistinguishable," and because, under the Second Circuit's reasoning, it does not matter that the Plaintiff's receipts could have been exposed to the public. Unless and until the Second Circuit revisits its holding in light of the Plaintiff's arguments or precedent from its sister Circuits, the Court is bound by Crupar-Weinmann to dismiss the Plaintiff's TAC under Rule 12(b)(1) for a lack of Article III standing. With respect to the Plaintiff's allegation that she received non- compliant receipts from Wolfgang's at unspecified times before Oct. 3, 2013, the Judge finds that it is not clear from the TAC or from the Plaintiff's briefing when the Plaintiff discovered the violations. Without this critical fact, it is impossible for the Court to determine whether the Plaintiff's new allegation is subject to the two-year time bar or whether it was properly filed within five years of the violation. The required facts are not before the Court, and no matter: the Plaintiff lacks standing to sue and her claim must be dismissed on that basis. Judge Failla denied the Defendants' request for reconsideration. The Defendants also argue in their supplemental brief that Crupar- Weinmann warrants reconsideration of the Court's prior denial of the Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for reckless behavior. However clever this argument may be, the Judge says, having found that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, cannot engage in this analysis. Finally, the Judge denied the Plaintiff's request for leave to amend. She explains that the Plaintiff has filed four complaints in this matter, an initial and three amended complaints. With respect to the latter category, the Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint as a matter of right under Rule 15, and received permission from the Court to file the second and third amended complaints. The Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend, yet again, but does not proffer what amendments she would make. The Judge cannot conceive of any amendment that would cure the Plaintiff's lack of standing that she has not already had ample opportunity to make. For the reasons she stated, Judge Failla granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and denied the Plaintiff's request for leave to amend. She directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/aZet2Y from Leagle.com. Cynthia M. Fullwood, Plaintiff, represented by Asher Hawkins -- ahawkins@frankllp.com -- Frank LLP. Cynthia M. Fullwood, Plaintiff, represented by Bridget Veronica Hamill -- bhamill@frankandbianco.com -- Frank LLP, Gregory Alan Frank -- mfrank@frankandbianco.com -- Frank LLP, Marvin Lawrence Frank, Frank LLP & Peter Y. Lee, Lee LLC Dba Peter Y. Lee, Esq. Wolfgang's Steakhouse, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric Joseph Shimanoff -- ejs@cll.com -- Cowan, Liebowitz, & Latman, PC & Joel Schmidt, Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C.. ZMF Restaurants LLC, Defendant, represented by Eric Joseph Shimanoff, Cowan, Liebowitz, & Latman, PC & Joel Schmidt -- jks@cll.com -- Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C.. XEROX HR: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss FAC in "Chendes" ERISA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint in the case captioned PATRICK CHENDES, JILLIAN SMITH, and DION TUMMINELLO, Plaintiffs, v. XEROX HR SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-13980 (E.D. Mich.). Plaintiffs are participants in three Ford Motor Company retirement plans. They bring this proposed class action against Defendant Xerox HR Solutions, LLC, the company that provides platform and recordkeeping services for the administration of their plans or alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Plaintiffs bring four claims for this allegedly wrongful activity. First, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant and FE breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan participants and beneficiaries in violation of ERISA. Second, Plaintiffs allege various prohibited transactions" in violation of ERISA by both Defendant and FE. Third, Plaintiffs claim that, even if Defendant is not a fiduciary, Defendant is liable for FE's commission of prohibited transactions because Defendant knowingly received improper payment from FE, a fiduciary to the Ford Plans. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to meet its disclosure obligations under 29 C.F.R. Section 2550.408b-2(c). Defendant's Fiduciary Liability (Count I) Defendant's first argument on this motion to dismiss is that Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for breach of fiduciary duties or for prohibited transactions because neither Defendant nor FE was a fiduciary of the plan with respect to the challenged conduct. Plaintiffs disagree. Plaintiffs premise Defendant's fiduciary status on three grounds. Discretion over Compensation First, Plaintiffs claim that Xerox HR is a fiduciary because it had discretion over the amount of its compensation. Plaintiffs do not allege that the agreement between Xerox and the Plans in any way permitted Xerox to exercise discretion in how much money it received from the Plans. Rather, Plaintiffs rely on the fact that their agreement with Defendant did not limit Defendant's ability to seek further compensation elsewhere. Indeed Plaintiffs, in response to the motion to dismiss, refer not to Defendant's discretion in retaining funds from Plaintiffs, but rather to Defendant's discretion over the compensation it received from FE. Any fees that Defendant collected were collected from FE, and were based firstly on an arm's length negotiation between Defendant and FE not Defendant's discretion as it related to the Plans. Even after Defendant and FE entered into their agreement, Defendant's compensation was based on factors outside of Defendant's discretion: namely, the number of participants who used FE's services and the valuation of the assets of those participants. Even so, Defendant's receipt of a portion of FE's fees is entirely dependent on whether the Plan's participants engage FE's services in the first place. If participants in the Plans choose not to use FE's services, Defendant receives no such fees at all. Because Defendant did not have discretion over the amount of its own compensation as it relates to Plaintiffs, Defendant was not acting as a fiduciary in collecting fees from FE. Election of a Fiduciary Second, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant is a fiduciary because it selected another fiduciary FE and many courts have held that appointing an ERISA fiduciary is itself a fiduciary act. Plaintiffs seem to suggest, in this portion of the complaint, that by control over the negotiation of terms and conditions, they mean simply that FE, after contracting with the Ford Plans, would still be required to pay Defendant a portion of its fees. The court doubts that such an allegation -- an allegation that does not say that Defendant was directly involved in the Ford-FE negotiations rises to the level of appointment of a fiduciary sufficient to impose fiduciary liability. However, as Plaintiffs' complaint is unclear on this point. Plaintiffs will be given leave to replead to allege to the extent that they can facts demonstrating that Defendant exercised de facto control over the election of FE as a fiduciary for the Plans. Control Over the Ford-FE Agreement Defendant is an ERISA fiduciary, according to Plaintiffs, because fiduciary status is ultimately a matter of functional control over a plan or its assets and the agreement between Ford and FE amounts to a plan asset over which Defendants had functional control. Plaintiff has cited no authority for the proposition that a contract for services independently negotiated between third parties constitutes an intangible property interest rising to the level of a plan asset. The court, therefore, finds no reason to conclude that the Ford-FE agreement was an "asset" of the plan. Accordingly, Defendant was not a fiduciary based upon the proffered theory that it exercised control over the Ford-FE agreement. Whether Defendant's Fees Were Reasonable Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' claims should also be dismissed because Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege that Defendant's fees were unreasonable. Dismissal on the basis of whether or not the fees in this case were unreasonable would be inappropriate. Indeed, an indefinite concept like reasonableness is precisely the kind of factual inquiry inappropriate for a motion to dismiss. While the fee- sharing arrangement itself, as Defendant notes, is not per se a violation of ERISA, it does not follow that Defendant's arrangement must have been reasonable. The court declines Defendant's invitation to dismiss on this basis. Prohibited Transaction Claims (Count II and III) Count II is premised on Defendant's status as a fiduciary and alleges four types of prohibited transactions in violation of Section 406(a) and Section 406(b). Count III alleges that even if Defendant is not a fiduciary Defendant is subject to appropriate equitable relief for FE's prohibited transactions. Defendant's Fiduciary Liability The court agrees with Defendant that the payments from FE to Defendant do not constitute plan assets. The court determined that once the fees are collected from the mutual fund's assets and transferred to one of the Fidelity entities, they become Fidelity's assets again, not the assets of the Plans. Citing 29 U.S.C. Section 1001(b)(1), which exempts assets of an investment company issuing securities from being plan assets under ERISA. Plaintiffs maintain that this myopic view, if adopted, could provide an easy roadmap to launder self-dealing payments. But Plaintiffs have cited no authority holding that funds paid by a plan to a service provider continue to be plan assets after the transfer. And they fail to present any meaningful way that a court could draw a line representing where plan assets, once lawfully paid as fees to a service provider under the terms of a negotiated agreement, would cease to be plan assets. Plaintiffs' argument is accordingly rejected. This does not, however, dispose of Plaintiffs' argument that Defendant committed a prohibited transaction under Section 406(a)(1)(C), which, by its plain language, does not require assets of the plan. Defendant contends that it cannot be liable under this provision because the plan was not a party to the Xerox-FE Agreement, and therefore the Defendant could not have caused the plan to engage in a transaction with FE as required by Section 406(a). Under the complaint as currently alleged, the court agrees. Plaintiffs have nowhere alleged facts that would tend to show that Defendant even if it were acting as a fiduciary caused the Ford Plans to enter into a transaction constituting the furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest. Plaintiffs, however, will be given leave to replead facts that would make this claim plausible on its face. Defendant's Non-Fiduciary Liability Plaintiffs claim in Count III that even if Defendant is not a fiduciary with respect to the challenged conduct, FE undoubtedly is. Defendant, therefore, can still be liable to Plaintiffs for prohibited transactions under ERISA Section 406(a)(1)(C), (a)(1)(D), (b)(1), or (b)(3) because Defendant is a party in interest" to the Ford Plans. The court agrees that there is nothing to suggest that FE was a fiduciary to the Ford Plans when it negotiated its own compensation with Ford. While FE became a fiduciary to the Ford Plans with respect to the investment advice it provided, it was not wearing its fiduciary hat when it negotiated its agreement with Ford. Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that FE was acting as a fiduciary for the Ford Plans when it negotiated its agreement with Defendant, either. And while Plaintiffs make the blanket statement in their response to the motion to dismiss that the Ford Plans' other fiduciaries are, by definition, fiduciaries that should have been aware that Defendant's receipt of fees constituted a prohibited transaction, the court finds this claim nowhere alleged or supported in the complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' claim for non-fiduciary liability under Count III is dismissed. Plaintiffs are given leave to replead, if they can, that the Ford Plans' other fiduciaries caused the Plans to enter into a transaction that they knew or should have known was prohibited. Defendant's Safe Harbor Under Section 408(b)(2) Defendant argues that even if Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that it engaged in prohibited transactions, Defendant is still entitled to dismissal because "Xerox's receipt of fees from FE falls comfortably within the prohibited transaction exemption set forth in ERISA Section 408(b)(2). Plaintiffs point out in their response, this safe harbor is a defense that is not an appropriate basis for dismissal on a motion to dismiss. An ERISA plaintiff need not plead the absence of exemptions to prohibited transactions. Defendants contend that this court may properly consider this exemption because Plaintiffs put it in play by anticipating it in their complaint. Here, the court finds nothing in the complaint to suggest that Plaintiffs have inadequately pled that FE's fees were unreasonable. The court, therefore, will not dismiss the complaint on the basis of Defendant's proposed safe harbor. Disclosure Requirements (Count IV) Plaintiffs claim that Defendant is liable for its failure to disclose its fee sharing arrangement. Defendant contends that there is no basis to conclude that this regulation provides a private right of action. Plaintiffs cite no authority for the proposition that this regulation provides a private right of action, and the court has found none. Rather, Defendant argues and the court agrees that Plaintiffs improperly rely on the slight-of-hand substitution of ERISA for this subchapter to support their argument that Section 2550.408b-2(c) provides a private right of action. In the court's view, Congress' use of the phrase this subchapter means nothing other than that; this provision is limited to the actual statutory language, and excludes ERISA regulations like Section 2550.408b-2(c) from the scope of civil enforcement through a private cause of action. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7oga5klfrom Leagle.com. Patrick Chendes, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt -- dal@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C.. Patrick Chendes, Plaintiff, represented by Ellen T. Noteware -- enoteware@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., James A. Bloom -- jbloom@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Todd S. Collins -- tcollins@bm.net -- Berger & Montague & Sharon S. Almonrode -- ssa@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C. Jillian Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Ellen T. Noteware, Berger & Montague, P.C., James A. Bloom, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Todd S. Collins, Berger & Montague & Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C.. Dion Tumminello, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Ellen T. Noteware, Berger & Montague, P.C., James A. Bloom, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Todd S. Collins, Berger & Montague & Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C.. Xerox HR Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by Colin M. Battersby -- battersby@millercanfield.com -- Miller, Canfield,, Conor T. Fitzpatrick -- Fitzpatrick@millercanfield.com -- Miller Canfield Paddock & Stone, PLC, Emily C. Hootkins -- emily.hootkins@alston.com -- Alston and Bird LLP, H. Douglas Hinson -- doug.hinson@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, Michael P. Coakley -- coakley@millercanfield.com -- Miller, Canfield, & Patrick C. DiCarlo -- pat.dicarlo@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP. ********* 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 * * *