/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/171116.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, November 16, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 227 Headlines 48 SOUTH FOURTH: Violates Spread of Hours Provisions, Wright Says 191 SEVENTH AVENUE: Parties in "Zayas" Suit Reach Accord 1-800-FLOWERS: Conference in "Lopez" Suit Moved to Dec. 11 A+ TRAFFIC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime and Wages ADVANCED LOGISTICS: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA AIR CONDITIONING EXPERTS: "Rapier" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages ALASKA USA: "Hicks" Suit Sues over Collection of Membership Dues ALLIANZ LIFE: Faces "Berthiaume" Consumer Fraud Suit in Minn. AMAZON.COM: "Waithaka" Suit Moved to Massachusetts Federal Court AMAZON.COM.DEDC: Case Management Report Due Nov. 28 in "Mathis" APEX TERMITE: "Silva" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA ARTISAN CONSTRUCTION: LePort Sues for Not Paying Subcontractors BALDWIN PARK: "Weinberg" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code BDR INC: "Meza" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code BEACON CBHM: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code BEAR STATE: "Owens" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Arvest Bank BIG LOTS: Stores Not Accessible to Disabled, "Brito" Suit Says BOAR'S HEAD: Case Management Conference Set for Nov. 28 CARBONLITE INDUSTRIES: Improperly Paid Workers, "Gallegos" Says CARNEGIE VALET: Conference in "Diaz" Suit Moved to Nov. 21 COLLEGE OF MOUNT SAINT VINCENT: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D.N.Y. COURAGE TEAM: Chen Dismissed Suit over Minimum Wage & OT Pay CRM PROPERTY: Bianchi Files Class Suit over Rental Fees CSC SERVICE: Faces Parkville Realty Suit Over Washers' Admin. Fee CSC SERVICEWORKS: Summit Gardens Sues over Breach of Lease CSX INTERMODAL: Plaintiffs Can Pursue Wage Claims Individually DA DEFENSE: "Ignelzi" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code DESH BANGLA: "Alam" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT under Labor Law DYNAMIC DISTRIBUTION: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Lopez Says EARTH ISLAND: Abarca Sues over Inaccurate Wage Statements EDGE PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Wages, "Grabias" Suit Says EMPIRE PHARMACY: Violates California Labor Laws, Hollander Says EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Bailey" Suit in S.D. West Virginia EQUIFAX INC: Probe Finds Execs' $1.8MM Stock Sales Legal ETERNAL INK: Whitcomb & Dzikowski Seek Unpaid Wages Under FLSA EXPRESS PIPE: "Mortley" Suit Moved to C.D. California FARMERS SERVICES: Web Site Not Friendly to Blind, Suit Claims FAT SAL'S: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Ho" Suit Says FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act FOGO DE CHAO: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, "Safi" Suit Says GEM RECOVERY: Faces "Clyburn" Suit in District of New Jersey GENERAL MOTORS: "Wolfe" Suit Consolidated with Case 17-12786 GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Suit GOSCH IMPORTS: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action Lawsuit HENDREN PLASTICS: Sen. Hendren Files Defamation Suit HENRY SCHEIN: TCPA Suit Stayed Pending Resolution of 8th Cir. Case HOMEAWAY.COM: "Meyer" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California HOST INTERNATIONAL: "Smith" Suit Moved to E.D. California IQ DATA: "Buchwald" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida JAMES SWARTWOUT: Faces "Masiello" Suit in N.D. Ohio LG ELECTRONICS: Smart TVs Lose Access to YouTube, Conn Claims LOWE'S HOME: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, "Saenz" Suit Says LUXOTTICA RETAIL: "Infante" Moved to Eastern District of New York MARKHAM, IL: Class Takes on Chicago Suburb's Red-Light Cameras MAXMAHAN COMPANY: "Cole" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA MUNICIPAL WATER SAVINGS: Tuttle Sues over Savings Products MZL ISLAND: "Lutfieva" Suit Seeks Wages under Labor Law NATIONAL GENERAL: "Miller" Suit Goes to C.D. California NAVIENT CORPORATION: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action NEVADA: ACLU Accuses State of Denying Rural Defendants Due Process NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: "Falk" Suit Goes to Mediation NOBLE DISTRIBUTION: "Miller" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT & Minimum Wages NOBLE HOUSE: "Holt" Suit Moved to Southern District of California NOVAN INC: Jan. 2 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Bid NOVAN INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit ORBITAL ATK: "Cramer" Suit Balks at Merger Deal P.S.C. INC: "Miller" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington PEACHTREE ORTHOPEDIC: Hanover Insurance Sues over Data Breach PG&E CORP: Woman Sues After Losing Napa Condo in Wildfire PHILIPS AND PIONEER: Judge Signs Off $55.5MM Settlement PROFESSIONAL PRODUCE: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Franco Says PSF TRUCKING: Faces "Pearson" Suit in California State Court QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Bennett" Suit Remains Stayed in New Jersey RESIDENCE RESOURCE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says ROCKET FARMS: "Moreno" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code SAVE-A-LOT INC: Sued by Wallace for Improperly Charging Drink Tax SCOTIABANK PR: Maura et al. Sue over Foreclosures SIXT RENT A CAR: Underpays Fleet Planners, "Russell" Suit Claims SELENE FINANCE: "Werner" Suit Moved to S.D. New York SJS ENTERPRISES: Bautista Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under Labor Code SKECHERS USA: Dec. 22 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Bid SOCAL REPRODUCTIVE CENTER: Faces "Thompson" Suit SOUTH COAST TRANS: Fails to Pay Earned Wages, "Yoo" Suit Says SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Cost of 2015 Leak at $841MM and Counting SPANISH BROADCASTING: Sends Spam Text Messages, Bugbee Claims SUBWAY: Plaintiffs Abandon Footlong Sandwich Litigation SUPAROSSA RESTAURANT: Heckl Sues over Biometric Data Collection SYKES ENTERPRISES: "Rake" Suit Moved to Middle Dist. of Florida TD BANK: "Lay" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida TERMINIX INT'L: "Renteria" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages TESLA INC: Dec. 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline TEZOS ICO: CA Lawsuit Now Official, Tim Draper on Defensive THERAPY SOURCE: Fails to Pay Full Commission to Sales Reps TIM SCHAEFFER: Faces "Warid" Suit over Building Code Violation TOYO INK: "Polino" Suit Goes to Mediation TRINITY MANAGEMENT: Spiro & Kaplan Sue over Water Service Fees TRINITY PRESS: "Mamary" Suit Claims Sexual Harassment UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Grizzlies Owner Faces Questions Over Quick Rise UNITED PRODUCTION: Orozco Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Code UNITED STATES: Civil Rights Groups Sue for Cambodian Refugees UNITED STATES: Dingler Sue Appellate Court Judges UNITED STATES: Judge Urged to Free Iraqi Detainees UNITED STATES: Trump Rollback Spurs Suit by Princeton, Microsoft VACO TECHNOLOGY: Misclassifies Employees, "Bush" Suit Says VANTAGE SOURCING: Walker Sues over Debt Collection Practices VEHI-SHIP LLC: "Mackey" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA WAL-MART STORES: "Beckman" Suit Moved to S.D. California WHOLE FOODS: Sued by Thomas for Not Providing Seats to Checkers YANKEE CANDLE: Faces "Davis" Suit in C.D. California ZUFFA LLC: Has Until Dec. 15 to Respond to "Ferrandini" Suit ********* 48 SOUTH FOURTH: Violates Spread of Hours Provisions, Wright Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA WRIGHT, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. 48 SOUTH FOURTH STREET CORP. and DAVID ROSEN, Case No. 158805/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., October 3, 2017), accuses the Defendants of violating the spread of hours provisions of the New York Labor Law, the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations and the Wage Theft Prevention Act. 48 South Fourth is a domestic business corporation, duly organized and existing in the state of New York, with its principal place of business located in Brooklyn, New York. David Rosen is the owner and operator of 48 South Fourth. The Defendants are engaged in the business of operating a bar known as The Woods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Blit, Esq. Justin S. Clark, Esq. LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4020 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 967-3000 E-mail: mblit@levineblit.com jclark@levineblit.com 191 SEVENTH AVENUE: Parties in "Zayas" Suit Reach Accord -------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the case titled as Edwin Zayas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 191 Seventh Avenue Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06461- AT, (S.D.N.Y., August 27, 2017), have advised the Court that all claims asserted have been settled in principle. Accordingly, Judge Analisa Torres on Nov. 2 ordered that the action is dismissed and discontinued without costs, and without prejudice to the right to reopen the action within 30 days of the date of this Order if the settlement is not consummated. Any pending motions are moot. All conferences are vacated.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Bahamonde, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, PC 2501 Jody Court North Bellmore, NY 11710 Telephone: (516) 783-9662 Facsimile: (646) 435-4376 Email: James@CivilRightsNY.com 1-800-FLOWERS: Conference in "Lopez" Suit Moved to Dec. 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- Due to a change in the Court's calendar, the conference originally scheduled before Judge Sandra Feuerstein on Nov. 20 is rescheduled for Dec. 11 at 11:15 a.m., according to an Oct. 19 notice in the case, Sheenny Lopez, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, v. 1-800- FLOWERS.COM, Inc. and 1-800-FLOWERS TEAM SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05110-SJF-GRB, (E.D.N.Y., August 30, 2017). On Sept. 29, an Answer to Complaint was filed by 1-800-Flowers Team Services, Inc., and 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. The lawsuit seeks to recover from the defendants the unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages. The plaintiff worked for defendants as an analyst from April 8, 2013 until August 8, 2017. The primary job duties of the plaintiff never entailed decision-making as such were handled by defendants' senior management. The plaintiff was hired as a salaried exempt employee and paid an annual salary and was not eligible to receive an overtime pay due to the misclassification. Throughout the plaintiff's employment she did not receive an overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. Further, 1-800- Flowers did not provide the plaintiff with a wage notice at the time of her hire that accurately contained the regular and overtime rates of pay. 1-800-Flowers is a floral and gourmet foods retailer and distribution company that primarily provides services in the florist industry by selling floral arrangements and food items throughout the United States.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821 New York, New York 10017 Telephone: (212) 679-5000 Facsimile: (212) 679-5005 A+ TRAFFIC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime and Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Justin Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and as representative of other aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, v. A+ Traffic Management, Inc.; AAA Traffic Management, LLC and Does 1 through 250, the Defendants, Case No. BC679219, (Sup. Ct. Cal., October 11, 2017), alleges that the defendants failed to compensate its staff for all overtime hours worked in excess of eight hours per day or 40 hours per week as required by the state's Labor Code. The Defendant also failed to maintain accurate payroll records as required by California Labor Code as well as the Industrial Wage Orders; and required the employees to use their personal cellular phones in carrying out their duties for the employer but failed to reimburse or indemnify the employees for necessary expenditures and losses.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. Jean P. Buchanan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP 555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 432-8933 Facsimile: (562)435-1656 Email: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com Email: brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com Email: laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com Email: jean@carlinbuchsbaum.com ADVANCED LOGISTICS: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ RAFAEL GARCIA, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT INC., and BRIAN D. McGARY, the Defendants, Case No. CACE-17-020130 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Nov. 3, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was and is a resident of the State of Florida and was employed by Defendants. On many occasions throughout his employment with Defendants, Garcia worked in excess of 40 hours per week and was not paid overtime. During the time that Garcia has been employed at Advanced he had been improperly characterized as an independent contractor rather than an employee so that Advanced could attempt to avoid complying with Federal and state laws including, but not limited to the failure to pay Federal payroll taxes and state unemployment taxes. During Garcia's employment, he complained to her employer about the illegal actions including the improper classification of his employment. Advanced Logistics provides real time integrated logistics management information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Behren, Esq. Behren Law Firm 2893 Executive Park Drive, Suite 110 Weston, FL 33331 Telephone: (954) 636 3802 Facsimile: (772) 252 3365 AIR CONDITIONING EXPERTS: "Rapier" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- RANDALL RAPIER, on behalf of himself and others similarly- situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AIR CONDITIONING EXPERTS, INC., CHRISTOPHER D. ALLEN, and HEATHER JANE PRESTON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04326-CAP (N.D. Ga., Oct 30, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Rapier files this complaint as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of himself and other similarly- situated individuals. Mr. Rapier's Consent to join form is filed contemporaneously with this complaint. During each of the three years preceding the filing of this complaint, ACE's gross annual sales were greater than $500,000. During each of the three years preceding the filing of this complaint, ACE employed one or more individuals who engaged in interstate commerce. The ACE employed Mr. Rapier as a repair technician at its location in Tucker. The Defendant is a Georgia corporation that provides residential air conditioning repair and installation services throughout the southeastern United States, including within the State of Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Regan Keebaugh, Esq. RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC 315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080 Decatur, Georgia 30030 Telephone: (678) 271 0300 Facsimile: (678) 271 0311 E-mail: regan@decaturlegal.com ALASKA USA: "Hicks" Suit Sues over Collection of Membership Dues ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER T. HICKS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Alaska USA Federal Credit Union; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. (S.D. Fla., Oct. 27, 2017), seeks damages, punitive damages, restitution, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief against Defendants for their unlawful practices of collecting membership dues from individuals who never agreed to become members of their Credit Union. According to the complaint, Mr. Hicks purchased a vehicle from South Bay Hyundai on July 10, 2017, for a total sale price of $25,283.40. According to the sales contract's Federal Truth-In- Lending Disclosures, $21,900.53 was financed at a 3.24% Annual Percentage Rate, and Mr. Hicks will have paid a total of $23,783.40, in addition to his down payment of $1,500.00. On July 17, 2017, Alaska USA purchased the loan from South Bay Hyundai. Mr. Hicks did not have the opportunity to decline, negotiate, or otherwise intervene in this transfer. On July 21, 2017, Alaska USA sent Mr. Hicks a statement indicating a loan balance of $21,905.53. On the statement was a $5.00 charge identified as a "membership fee". This $5.00 was added to the principle balance of Mr. Hicks' loan without his authorization or even notification. Mr. Hicks did not apply for membership at Alaska USA, did not consent to become a member of the credit union, and per Alaska USA's membership web page, is not even eligible for membership. Alaska USA regularly purchases loans from originators and attaches membership fees to the principle balances without the consent of debt holders Alaska USA. Federal Credit Union is a federally chartered credit union headquartered in Anchorage, Alaska that provides banking and financial services and products, including loan servicing, to consumers and businesses throughout the country, including in California.[BN] Attorneys for Christopher T. Hicks and the Putative Class: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. Derek R. Guizado, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP 249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone No.: (562) 590 5550 Facsimile No.: (562) 590 8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net dguizado@mahoney-law.net ALLIANZ LIFE: Faces "Berthiaume" Consumer Fraud Suit in Minn. ------------------------------------------------------------- Bonnie Berthiaume, Robert Berthiaume, Doris Burnham, Richard Burnham, Nancy MayerGosz, Fletcher Lewis, and Carole Lewis v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America and Imeriti, Inc. d/b/a Imeriti Financial Network, Case No. 27-CV-17-15118 (Minn. Dist. Ct., Hennepin Cty., October 3, 2017), is action filed over consumer fraud, false statements in advertising, deceptive trade practices, negligence, and aiding and abetting brought on behalf of a class of similarly-situated policyholders, who purchased one or more Allianz annuities through Allianz's and Imeriti's agent, Sean M. Meadows. Sean M. Meadows, a former financial adviser who stole over $10 million from his retirement-age clients, is now serving 25 years in federal prison. He was affiliated with Allianz and Imeriti, which both had actual knowledge of Meadows' illegal and unethical sales practices, failed to supervise him, willfully and deliberately ignored numerous red flags, failed to warn their customers of these red flags and sales practices, and assisted Meadows by providing an aura of legitimacy for his actions, the Plaintiffs contend. Allianz is a Minnesota corporation with its executive offices located in Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Founded in 1969, Allianz sells fixed index, variable, and index variable annuities, in addition to life insurance products in Minnesota and across the United States. Imeriti is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business located in Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota. Imeriti is an Allianz independent marketing organization. As an IMO, Imeriti agreed to meet compliance and quality standards established by Allianz. Because Imeriti is an IMO, agents associated with Imeriti receive higher commission percentages when they sell Allianz products than they would without Imeriti.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amy S. Conners, Esq. Jennifer L. Olson, Esq. Thomas B. Heffelfinger, Esq. BEST & FLANAGAN LLP 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 2700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 339-7121 Facsimile: (612) 339-5897 E-mail: theffelfinger@bestlaw.com aconners@bestlaw.com jolson@bestlaw.com AMAZON.COM: "Waithaka" Suit Moved to Massachusetts Federal Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled BERNARD WAITHAKA; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 17-____, was removed on Oct. 27, 2017 from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Worcester County, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-40141-TSH to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks to recover all damages due to the Plaintiff and other class members because of their misclassification as independent contractors and related wage law violations, including unpaid wages and unreimbursed business expenses, statutory trebling of damages, attorneys' fees and costs and injunctive relief for claims allegedly arising from Defendants' purported misclassification of putative class members under the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law, Mass. Gen.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Adelaide Pagano, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone (617) 994 5800 The Defendants are represented by: Douglas T. Schwarz, Esq. Elizabeth M. Bresnahan, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 951 8000 E-mail: douglas.schwarz@morganlewis.com elizabeth.bresnahan@morganlewis.com AMAZON.COM.DEDC: Case Management Report Due Nov. 28 in "Mathis" --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on Nov. 13 granted a Joint Motion for Extension of Time for Parties to File Case Management Report in the case, Michael A. Mathis, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Amazon.Com.DEDC, LLC and Accurate Backgroud, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv- 01991-JSM-AEP, (M.D. Fla., August 22, 2017). The deadline to file the Case Management Report is extended to Nov. 28. The lawsuit seeks damages against the defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The plaintiff alleges that he applied for a seasonal position with Amazon using an online application system. Amazon offered plaintiff a position but was contingent on a background check. Amazon ordered a background check on plaintiff from Accurate which the latter improperly reported that the plaintiff had a pending possession of cocaine charge. Amazon informed the plaintiff about the misreported criminal history and notified the plaintiff that the job offer was rescinded. The FCRA regulates the conduct of any person who uses a consumer report to take any adverse action against any employees or prospective employees. Amazon routinely uses consumer reports prepared by Accurate to make hiring decision and fails to provide copies of consumer reports to job applicants against whom it takes an adverse action based in whole or part on consumer reports before taking an adverse action as required by the FCRA. Amazon is an online commerce and cloud computing company that markets its services throughout the United States.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Steven G. Wenzel, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 Email: swenzel@wfclaw.com Email: bhill@wfclaw.com Email: triciaw@wfclaw.com - and - Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com Email: craig@clalegal.com Email: elizabeth@clalegal.com APEX TERMITE: "Silva" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALFREDO JOSE CANIZARES SILVA, and other similarly situated technicians, the Plaintiff, v. APEX TERMITE & PEST MANAGEMENT, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation and LIEN ZAMORA, Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 63409265 (in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami Dade County, Florida, Oct. 27, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff performed approximately 18 hours of overtime each week for which Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at 1-1/2 times his regular rate of pay. The Plaintiff was paid at approximately $11 an hour. The Defendants had or should have had full knowledge of all hours worked by Plaintiff, including those hours worked by Plaintiff in excess of 40 in a given week. The Plaintiff's overtime rate is $16. The Plaintiff seeks this rate for each of Plaintiffs approximate 18 hours of overtime. As such Plaintiff is owed approximately $7,425.00 ($16.5 overtime rate x 18 hours of overtime x 25 weeks in un-liquidated overtime wages). Therefore, Plaintiff is owed approximately $7,425.00 in unpaid overtime wages, plus an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, totaling $14,850. Additionally, throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendants retained tips given to Plaintiff by customers for services rendered. The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of all unpaid tips. The Plaintiff claims there are other similarly situated current and former technicians working, or previously working, for Defendants. The Plaintiff and other similarly-situated current and former technicians performed similarly duties for Defendants and were subject to similar policies as to compensation. Apex Termite provides indoor and exterior treatments for both residential and commercial customers designed to meet specific pest control needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 4l6 5005 E-mail: jremei-@rgpattorneys.com ARTISAN CONSTRUCTION: LePort Sues for Not Paying Subcontractors --------------------------------------------------------------- LEPORT BROOKLYN LLC v. ARTISAN CONSTRUCTION PARTNERS, LLC, JAMES GALVIN, GARRET BRANAGH and JOHN DOES 1-10, being fictitious and unknown persons, entities or parties, Case No. 519077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., October 3, 2017), is brought pursuant to the Lien Law on behalf of the Plaintiff individually, and on behalf of all other persons or entities, who are trust fund claimants by reason of labor and materials furnished to Artisan in connection with the LePort School Project and who have not been paid in full. LePort Brooklyn LLC is a limited liability corporation in New York and headquartered in Brooklyn, New York. On December 8, 2014, LePort, as owner, and Artisan, as general contractor, entered into a contract whereby, in exchange for consideration to be paid to Artisan by Leport, Artisan agreed to furnish labor and materials to a project known as LePort School, located in Brooklyn. Artisan is a New York limited liability corporation based in New York City. James Galvin was the President of Artisan and Garret Branagh was the Chief Financial Officer. In connection with the LePort School Project, Artisan entered into subcontracts with Aegis Mechanical Corp., Ground Effects Inc., Electrotech Services, Inc., All Boro One Source and others. Although Artisan received progress payments from LePort and certified that all contractors and materialmen had been paid in full for all labor and materials they supplied to the LePort School Project, Artisan and its officers did not pay all laborers, materialmen, subcontractors and vendors -- in breach of their trust fund obligations, the Plaintiff alleges. As a result, LePort says, it had to pay the contract balances owed to Aegis, Sound Effects, Electrotech and All Boro, as well as other subcontractors, to ensure completion of the LePort School Project.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Moskow II, Esq. McELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP 225 Liberty Street, 36th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 483-9490 Facsimile: (212) 483-9129 E-mail: rmoskow@mdmc-law.com BALDWIN PARK: "Weinberg" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW WEINBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BALDWIN PARK FITNESS, LLC, an entity unknown; CHATSWORTH HEALTH FITNESS, LLC, an entity unknown; and CHINO FITNESS, LLC, an entity unknown, the Defendants, Case No. BC682204 (Cal. Super Ct., Nov. 2, 2017), seeks to recover meal period and rest break wages, minimum and overtime wages, unpaid commissions, and penalties, pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants joint and severally acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in (failing to provide meal periods and rest breaks, failing to pay all wages, including minimum wages, overtime wages, and commissions, failing to provide accurate wage statements, failing to pay all wages due and owing upon termination of employment, and unfair business practices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq. Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq. Brian G. Lee, Esq. YOON LAW, APC One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612 0988 Facsimile: (213) 947 1211 BDR INC: "Meza" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------- JOSE MEZA, as an individual; SARIF VILLAGRANA, as an individual; and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BDR, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-99, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC 682415 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 3, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants systematically required Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to work through meal breaks without compensation. Defendants further failed to provide second meal periods even when Plaintiffs worked in excess of ten hours in a single day. The Defendants continually provided Plaintiffs and others similarly situated with inaccurate itemized time sheets. Time sheets Defendants provided to Plaintiffs did not correctly reflect the hours Plaintiffs worked, including overtime hours accrued. BDR is a full-service construction management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW, APC 80 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 880 Pasadena, CA 91101-2672 Telephone: (626) 396 9900 Facsimile: (626) 270 4045 E-mail: firm@xomerolaw.com BEACON CBHM: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- GRISELDA LOPEZ individually, and as a representative of other aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, v. BEACON CBHM LLC dba BEACON HEALTH Corporation; and DOES 1 through 250, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 30-2017-00953353 CIJ-OE-CJCC (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 2, 2017), seeks to recover overtime pay under California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other employees were required to work for periods longer than five hours without an uninterrupted meal period of not less than thirty minutes. The Plaintiff was not authorized or permitted lawful meal periods, and was not provided with one hour's wages in lieu thereof in violation of, among others, Labor Code. The Defendants willfully required Plaintiff and other employees to work during meal periods and failed to compensate Plaintiff and other employees for work performed during meal periods. Beacon Cbhm is in the management services business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. Heather K. Cox, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP 555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 432 8933 Facsimile: (562) 435 1656 E-mail: gctry@carlinbuchsbaum.com brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com heather@carlinbuchsbaum.com BEAR STATE: "Owens" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Arvest Bank ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES OWENS, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. RICHARD N. MASSEY, J. MATTHEW MACHEN, W. DABBS CA VIN, WILLIAM CHANGOSE, K. AARON CLARK, FRANK CONNER, SCOTT T. FORD, G. BROCK GEARHART, JOHN J. GHIRARDELLI, OMON FITZGERALD HILL, DANIEL C. HORTON, IAN R. VAUGHAN, and BEAR STATE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00714-SWW (in the Circuit of Pulaski County, Ark., Nov. 1, 2017), seeks to enjoin the consummation of a proposed merger transaction or, in the event the proposed transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith and due care. The Plaintiff brings the action individually and on behalf of similarly situated holders of the common stock of Bear State Financial, Inc., against the directors and certain officers of Bear State for breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with a proposed merger transaction by which Arvest Bank, through its wholly owned subsidiary Arvest Acquisition Sub, Inc., will acquire all of the outstanding stock of Bear State for inadequate consideration. The Plaintiff also asserts a claim against Richard N. Massey, Bear State's Chairman of the Board, and his affiliated entity Bear State Financial Holdings, LLC, for breaching their fiduciary duties in their capacities as controlling shareholders of the Company. On August 22, 2017, Bear State and Arvest jointly issued a press release announcing that they had entered into a definitive Agreement and Plan of Reorganization pursuant to which Arvest will acquire Bear State in a transaction valued at approximately $391 million in the aggregate. On August 25, Bear State filed a Form 8- K with the SEC wherein it disclosed the terms of the Merger Agreement. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Bear State, with Bear State surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Arvest. According to Bear State's Form 8-K, at the effective time of the merger, each share of Bear State common stock will be converted into the right to receive $10.28 in cash per share. The Complaint notes that, like many financial institutions, Bear State has been making steady progress in recovering from the financial crisis of 2008, before which its stock was trading at more than $50 per share. By 2014, Bear State had improved its balance sheet, steadily improved its regulatory capital requirements, and improved the quality of its loan portfolio under a more rigorous practice of proactive credit risk management. As Bear State confirmed in its most recent financial results, the Company's core profitability continues to improve. Bear State is poised for strong growth and its solid balance sheet gives the Company an opportunity for further internal expansion and the exploration of acquisition opportunities. Thus, the Merger Consideration being offered to Bear State's public shareholders in the Proposed Transaction is unfair and grossly inadequate because, among other things, the intrinsic value of Bear State common stock is materially in excess of the Merger Consideration given the Company's recent financial performance and its prospects for future growth and earnings. The lawsuit notes that insiders and affiliates of Bear State own approximately 45.73% of the Company's outstanding common stock. Chairman Massey has sole voting and dispositive control over approximately 42.35% of the outstanding stock of Bear State. Individual Defendant Massey's control of these shares primarily derives from his position as the managing member of BSF Holdings, which owns 40.28% of the Company's outstanding common stock. Bear State director William Changose is a member of and serves as Chief Operating Officer of BSF Holdings. Bear State directors Scott Ford and Dabbs Cavin and certain officers of the Company, including Matt Machen, Sherri Billings, Tom Fritsche, Shelly Loftin, Donna Merriweather, Yurik Paroubek and Paul Lowe are also members of BSF Holdings. BSF Holdings and Richard N. Massey have each entered into voting agreements with Arvest and agreed to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. In light of Massey's significant stock ownership and position as Chairman of the Board and managing member of BSF Holdings, Massey and BSF Holdings are controlling shareholders of Bear State. According to the lawsuit, Massey and BSF Holdings owe fiduciary duties to the Company's remaining shareholders in their capacity as controlling shareholders of the Company, which they have breached by agreeing to the Proposed Transaction for the unfair Merger Consideration. Further, because Individual Defendant Massey (who has the sole power to vote and dispose of BSF Holdings' shares in the Company) and the other Individual Defendants who hold leadership positions at BSF Holdings (Messrs. Machen, Changose, Ford, and Cavin) each stand to receive personal, unique financial benefits in connection with the Proposed Transaction, including the accelerated vesting of outstanding restricted stock units ("RSUs"), options, and warrants and/or other significant "change in control" payments, the Proposed Transaction is subject to the exacting entire fairness standard of review, which requires Defendants to establish that the Proposed Transaction was the result of an entirely fair process and resulted in a fair price. As set forth herein, both the Merger Consideration and the process by which the Defendants have agreed to consummate the Proposed Transaction are unfair to the Company's remaining shareholders. The lawsuit contends that, to ensure that the Proposed Transaction is consummated, the Individual Defendants locked up the deal by agreeing to unfair "deal-protection" provisions in the Merger Agreement, effectively rendering the Proposed Transaction a fait accompli. For example, the Board agreed to: (i) a "no-shop" provision that prevents the Company from negotiating with or providing confidential Company information to competing bidders except under extremely limited circumstances; (ii) a "matching rights" provision that allows Arvest five (5) business days to match any competing proposal in the unlikely event that one emerges; and (iii) a $14 million termination fee to be paid to Arvest if the Board agrees to accept a competing proposal. In pursuing the unfair plan to facilitate the acquisition of Bear State by Arvest for grossly inadequate consideration, through a flawed process, each of the Individual Defendants violated applicable law by directly breaching and/or aiding the other Individual Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith and fair dealing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Isl Bryce Brewer, Esq. BRYCE BREWER LAW FIRM, LLC 800 West 4th Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 978 3030 Facsimile: (501) 978 3050 E-mail: bryce@brycebrewerlaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC 350 Fifth A venue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971 1341 Facsimile: (212) 202 7880 - and - Guri Ademi, Esq. Shpetim Ademi ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Ave. Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 BIG LOTS: Stores Not Accessible to Disabled, "Brito" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos G. Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., an Ohio Corporation doing business as Big Logs at Chelton Center, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02052, (D. Colo., August 25, 2017), seeks injunctive relief, declaration of rights, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs for defendant's violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiff's complaint alleges that the defendant continues to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of defendant's Big Lots Property and Business. Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. The plaintiff visited the Big Lots Property and Business and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the Big Lots Property and Business. Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. The plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the subject Big Lots Property and Business and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises in the near future. The defendant has discriminated against the individual plaintiff and other similarly situated persons by denying access to and full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of the property. Hence, the plaintiff brings the class suit to require the defendant to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices or procedures necessary to afford all offered goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations to individuals with disabilities.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, & PEREZ, P.L. 4937 SW 74th Court, No. 3 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Facsimile: (305) 553-3031 Email: ajperezlaw@gmail.com Email: agmlaw@bellsouth.net Email: mpomares@lawgmp.com BOAR'S HEAD: Case Management Conference Set for Nov. 28 ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Theresa Forsher, individually and on behalf of all others similary situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boar's Head Provisions Co., Inc. the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04974-EDL, (N.D. Cal., August 25, 2017), a Case Management Statement is due by Nov. 21, and an Initial Case Management Conference is set for Nov. 28 at 10:00 a.m. The class action lawsuit alleges that the defendant deceptively and misleadingly marketed and continues to deceptively and misleadingly market certain of its cheese products as natural when in fact the products contain ingredients derived from using unnaturally genetically modified organisms. Defendant's labeling, marketing and advertising for the products was designed to encourage consumers to purchase the said products and it materially mislead the plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers. The plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers relied on the defendant's misrepresentations since consumers rely on food label representations and information in making purchasing decisions and that wrongful conduct of the defendant caused the plaintiff and other consumers injuries. Boar's Head produces and distributes meats, cheeses and condiments to delicatessens, gourmet stores and supermarkets throughout the United States.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, New York 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 Email: mreese@reesellp.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Christopher J. Moreland, Esq. HALUNEN LAW 1650 IDS Center 80 South Eight Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 605-4098 Facsimile: (612) 605-4099 Email: weiner@halunenlaw.com Email: moreland@halunenlaw.com CARBONLITE INDUSTRIES: Improperly Paid Workers, "Gallegos" Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT GALLEGOS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. CARBONLITE INDUSTRIES, LLC, an unknown business entity; BBSI, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC678134 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., October 3, 2017), alleges that the Defendants hired the Plaintiff and the other class members, classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and failed to compensate them for all hours worked and missed meal periods and rest breaks. CarbonLite Industries LLC, a recycling company, produces and markets bottle-grade post-consumer recycled polyethylene terephthalate. The Company specializes in processing used plastic bottles into bottle-grade PET resin flakes and pellets that are used to manufacture new plastic beverage bottles and other products. The Company was incorporated in 2010 and is based in Los Angeles, California. CarbonLite operates as a subsidiary of HPC Industries, LLC. The true names and capacities of BBSI and the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com CARNEGIE VALET: Conference in "Diaz" Suit Moved to Nov. 21 ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an Order dated Oct. 26 granting a Letter Motion that adjourns the conference scheduled for Nov. 9 to Nov. 21 at 10:15 a.m., in the case, Juan Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Carnegie Valet Cleaning Corp.; Carnegie Linen Services, Inc.; Carnegie Hotel Cleaners Ltd.; Danielle Uniform Maintenance Inc.; Gary Perlson and Eric Schweitzer, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 06402-JPO, (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2017). The plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he was employed by Carnegie Valet where he laundered restaurant linens and uniforms. Defendants misclassified the plaintiff and others similarly situated employees as exempt from the overtime protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws. The employees of the defendants were illegally underpaid for their work by reason of defendants' persistent and willful violations of the FLSA and the NYLL. Defendants' violations of the FLSA and NYLL are by not paying employees their time-and-a-half for time worked in excess of 40 hours each week, by not paying employees one additional hour of pay at the basic minimum hourly rate on days when their spread of hours exceeded to ten, by not providing employees within ten business days of the commencement of their employment a written notice in English and Spanish and by not providing employees with every payment of wages an accurate statements.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 Email: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com COLLEGE OF MOUNT SAINT VINCENT: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The College of Mount Saint Vincent. The case is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The College of Mount Saint Vincent, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17- cv-08206-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla. The College of Mount Saint Vincent is a Catholic liberal arts college located in the northwest corner of the Riverdale section of The Bronx, New York, adjacent to the Yonkers border. It is the northernmost location in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite OHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (917) 796 7437 Facsimile: (212) 982 6284 E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com COURAGE TEAM: Chen Dismissed Suit over Minimum Wage & OT Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on Nov. 9 approved the Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of the case, Shou Le Chen and John Doe, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Courage Team Inc., doing business as Pig Haven and Huifong Lee, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06365-ALC, (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2017). The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs for defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. In the complaint, the plaintiff states that throughout his entire employment as a delivery person with defendants, he regularly worked over 40 hours per week and was required to work without any lunch break on a daily basis. The plaintiff was compensated a fixed salary and there was never any understanding that the fixed daily salaries were intended to cover any overtime hours worked. The fixed salary amounted to regular rates below the prevailing statutory minimum wage under the FLSA and NYLL. The defendants failed to pay the proper overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and NYLL. Further, the defendants did not provide with a proper wage and hour notices or wage statements as required by NYLL. The defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying either the FLSA minimum wage or the New York State minimum wage to the plaintiff and other similarly situated employees.[BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 CRM PROPERTY: Bianchi Files Class Suit over Rental Fees ------------------------------------------------------- Leah Bianchi, Joshua Cook, Sarah Cook and Phillip Sandy, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CRM Property Management Corp. and Imstar LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 17-3266C, (Trial Court of Massachusetts The Superior Court, October 11, 2017), seeks damages for defendants violations of the Massachusetts General Laws. The plaintiffs state that they leased premises from Imstar through CRM. Imstar has been the owner and landlord of the property and contracted the services of CRM to manage the property. The lawsuit says Imstar and CRM have failed to notify all their tenants of the amount of interest accrued on advance rental payments. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws, residential lessors like Imstar and CRM are required to pay to Massachusetts tenants' interest on advance rent payments such as a last month's rent. Defendants' failure to provide tenants, such as Plaintiffs, payment of interest on advance rental payments, such as the Last Month Rent paid by Plaintiffs, constitutes a violation of M.G.L. The lawsuit alleges against the defendant claims of breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment. CRM is a property management company that provides property management services for residential and commercial properties in Boston and the Greater Boston Area.[BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Travis J. Jacobs, Esq. Michael Kurban, Esq. THE JACOBS LAW, LLC 36 Bromfield Street, Suite 502 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (800) 652-4783 Facsimile: (888) 613-1919 Email: TJacobs@TheJacobsLaw.com Email: MKurban@TheJacobsLaw.com - and - Michael S. Denham, Esq. PO Box 1606 Framingham, MA 01701 Telephone: (617) 651-2171 Email: michael@denham-law.com CSC SERVICE: Faces Parkville Realty Suit Over Washers' Admin. Fee ----------------------------------------------------------------- PARKVILLE REALTY ASSOCIATES, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. CSC SERVICE WORKS, INC., Case No. 607833/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., October 3, 2017), accuses the Defendant of breach of contract. In March 2012, the Plaintiff and Service Directions, Inc., entered into a lease agreement for a term of eight years permitting Service Directions to install, maintain and operate washers and dryers on the premises of a residential apartment building located in Brooklyn, New York, which is owned and operated by the Plaintiff. The agreement further provided, inter alia, that the parties would split the (laundry) revenues each month on a 50/50 basis. In 2014, CSC purchased the assets of or otherwise merged with Service Directions with CSC as the surviving corporation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Plaintiff contends, commencing in May 2017, CSC commenced deducting what it termed an "Administrative Fee" from the commission revenue due to the Plaintiff and all other Class Members. The Plaintiff argues that CSC's actions constitute a breach of contract since such fees are not provided for in its agreements, expressly or impliedly. CSC Service Works, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware with offices located in Plainview, New York. CSC is a company engaged in the business of, inter alia, providing laundry solutions for multifamily, residential and commercial industries as well as vending services for convenience stores and gasoline stations. CSC does business under various names or otherwise has numerous affiliates engaged in the same laundry solutions business. These include ASI Campus Laundry; Coinmach; Kwik-Wash; Mac-Gray; SDI Laundry Solutions; Sparkle Solutions and Super Laundry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth A. Elan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH A. ELAN 217 Broadway, Suite 603 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 619-0261 Facsimile: (212) 271-4230 E-mail: elanfirm@yahoo.com CSC SERVICEWORKS: Summit Gardens Sues over Breach of Lease ---------------------------------------------------------- SUMMIT GARDENS ASSOCIATES ET AL and SUNNYSLOPE INVESTMENTS NO. 1, LTD., the Plaintiffs, v. CSC SERVICEWORKS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. CV 17 888502 (Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Nov. 3, 2017), alleges that CSC is charging Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated an additional fee in breach of the lease agreements governing the subject transactions. CSC leases space from owners of apartment buildings and other small business entities like Plaintiffs for the installation and operation of coin- and/or card-operated laundry equipment. In exchange, CSC pays Plaintiffs and its other lessors a portion of the collections from the laundry machines as rent. Beginning in May 2017, CSC began unilaterally imposing a new "Administrative Fee" upon Plaintiffs and its other lessors, which CSC unilaterally deducted from its rental payments to Plaintiffs and its other lessors. This fee was not authorized anywhere in the standard laundry room leases that CSC entered into with its lessors. Since 2013, CSC has been providing multifamily residential and commercial laundry solutions nationwide. CSC's laundry solutions consist of, among other things, leasing laundry room space in apartment buildings, college housing, and other locations from business owners like Plaintiffs to install laundry equipment for the use of the tenants in those locations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. Frank A. Bartela, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A. 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Telephone: (440) 352 3391 Facsimile: (440) 352 3469 E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com fbartela@dworkenlaw.com - and - Ronald P. Friedberg, Esq. MEYERS, ROMAN, FRIEDBERG & LEWIS 28601 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 500 Cleveland, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 831 0042 Facsimile: (216) 831 0542 E-mail: rfriedberg@meyersroman.com CSX INTERMODAL: Plaintiffs Can Pursue Wage Claims Individually -------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for California Labor Law News, reports that a California wage and hour lawsuit that was originally put forward as a class action has been amended to allow class participants the opportunity to pursue their wage and hour claims individually. To that end, all class claims associated with the plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint have been stricken, following approval by US Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte earlier this month. The original wage and hour complaint against defendant CSX Intermodal Terminals Inc. (CSX) accused the company of incorrectly classifying drivers as independent contractors when they were rightly employees of the firm, or so the plaintiffs alleged. As a result, plaintiffs allege they were denied meal and rest breaks, denied pay that reflected proper minimum wage levels, denied reimbursement for work-related expenses including insurance costs, fuel and maintenance, and together with other rights guaranteed to employees under California employment law. CSX, according to Court documents, is a provider of freight transport via trucks as well as rail. Drivers were hired to operate trucks that pulled CSX trailers laden with freight between rail yards and clients of CSX. The wage and hour lawsuit is Valadez, et al. v. CSX Intermodal Terminals Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-05433. As suggested above the lawsuit was originally proposed as a class action until plaintiffs decided to amend their suit, with the support of the Court. At the same time, an additional wage and hour lawsuit has been filed (Goyal, et al., v. CSX Intermodal Terminals Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-06081), alleging similar claims to that of Valadez, et al v. CSX. According to Law360 (10/27/17), the Goyal complaint has been filed on behalf of some 30 drivers with another 25 expected to be added in the coming weeks. It was reported that Goyal et al drivers were originally members of the Valadez class, although none participated as named plaintiffs. Goyal et al has been put forward itself as a proposed class action with about 90 class participants expected. The six named drivers in Valadez v. CSX abandoned all of their original class claims against the defendant, with one exception: claim for penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act, which seeks relief on behalf of employees who were allegedly harmed by CSX. Amongst claims made against CSX by Goyal et al is an assertion of a pre-existing agreement between CSX and drivers stipulating that drivers had the right to refuse assignments. The Goyal et al lawsuit, however, claims that drivers who attempted to refuse assignments did not receive alternate assignments. Some drivers, the lawsuit asserts, were not offered replacement assignments for two, or more working days. On occasion, a driver who rejected a CSX assignment would be fired by the company, or so it is alleged. According to the wage and hour lawyer for the plaintiffs, the defendant moved to terminate the contracts of all affected drivers in September of last year, and now reportedly uses a third-party for driving services originally undertaken by both the Valadez and Goyal drivers. Both cases were filed in US District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] DA DEFENSE: "Ignelzi" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------------- MARCELO A. IGNELZI, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DA DEFENSE LOGISTICS HQ, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; and DOES I through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 17CV318170 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 26, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to provide him and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods; failed to provide them with rest periods; failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the regular rate of pay; failed to pay them at least minimum wage for all hours worked; failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate; failed to pay them double time wages at the correct rate; failed to reimburse them for all necessary business expenses; failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; and failed to pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment. DA Defense provides logistic services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Blvd Ste 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888 7771 Facsimile: (310) 888 0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com DESH BANGLA: "Alam" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT under Labor Law --------------------------------------------------------------- MD Nurul Alam, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Desh Bangla Inc.; The Bangla Times Inc.; and Choudhury S. Hasan, the Defendants, Case No. 714912/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including unpaid minimum wages, overtime pay and spread of hours pay, and an additional and equal amount as liquidated damages pursuant to the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants employed MD Nurul Alam for two roles. One role was being a salesman, which involved working on customer accounts. As a salesman, he was responsible for marketing, advertising, accounts receivables, and soliciting new business. The other role was being a delivery man. As a deliveryman, he was responsible for delivering newspapers. According to the complaint, Mr. Alam was a loyal and dedicated employee, working over 50 hours a week, six days a week for most of the weeks he was employed by Defendants. As compensation, Defendants provided a fixed weekly payment that did not compensate him in accordance with the requirements of the wage and hour laws. Separate from this weekly payment, at the time the Individual Defendant hired Plaintiff, the Individual Defendant promised Plaintiff that he would receive an additional payment at the end of the year, calculated at $200 per week for each week he was delivering newspapers. Plaintiff has made repeated demands for payment but has not been paid as promised. A comparison of the wages the Employer has paid to the Plaintiff against the wages that were due under federal and state wage-and- hour laws, specifically, (i) the New York State mandated minimum wage; (ii) the New York State mandated overtime wage; and (iii) the New York State required spread of hours laws, reveals that this Plaintiff has been grossly underpaid. In addition to bringing claims for violation of the wage and hour laws on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff brings an individual claim for violation of federal, state and city discrimination laws. In May 2016, Plaintiff suffered an on-the-job injury; a left Achilles tendon rupture for which he required surgery. (A worker's compensation claim was filed and the matter is ongoing in front of the worker's compensation board.) Plaintiff was out of work for approximately two months. When Plaintiff returned to work in August 2016, he resumed his normal duties, except he no longer delivered newspapers as doctors had advised that the injuries he suffered left him in a condition that could not sustain the physical demands that came with delivering newspapers for his Employer. Defendants made no efforts to accommodate this disability.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 27005 79th Avenue New Hyde Park, NY 11040-1546 Telephone: (718) 669 0714 E-mail: mgangat107@gmail.com DYNAMIC DISTRIBUTION: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Lopez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JULIO CESAR LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC DISTRIBUTION AND WAREHOUSING INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC682l78 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 2, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wage and unpaid overtime under California Labor Code. According to the Plaintiff, there were times during his employment that Plaintiff was told by management he was not permitted to take a meal break. Plaintiff estimates this occurred 1-2 times per week, however, Dynamic Distribution would deduct 30 minutes from employees' time records indicated a break had been taken when it had riot. Dynamic Distribution's policy was to automatically deduct 30-minute meal periods whether or not employees actually were able to take them. When employees were required to use handwritten time cards, they were instructed to insert a 30-minute meal period even if one was not actually taken. When there was an "urgent" order or when a container arrived at the facility, warehouse employees were told not to take any breaks or required to postpone their meal break which resulted in not being provided a meal break until after the fifth hour of work. The Plaintiff and other warehouse workers were not paid for time worked during recorded meal periods and were not paid premium pay for meal and rest breaks not provided.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. Derek R. Guizado, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590 5550 Facsimile: (562) 590 8400 E-mail: kmahonev@mahoney-law.net kodenbreit@mahonev-law.net dguizado@mahonev-law.net EARTH ISLAND: Abarca Sues over Inaccurate Wage Statements --------------------------------------------------------- ALFRED ABARCA; individually, and on behalf of members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EARTH ISLAND, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC681764 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 1, 2017), seeks to recover statutory wages, civil penalties, interest, and other damage. According to the complaint, despite requesting that Plaintiff and the other class members sign one of the Releases, Defendants did not make a reasonable inquiry as to how many overtime hours Plaintiff or the other employees worked for Defendants, how many meal or rest breaks they "missed," how many hours they worked off the clock, how many inaccurate wage statements they received, whether their final paycheck was provided timely, how much in necessary business-related expenses remained unpaid by Defendants, and/or whether they received minimum wages for all hours worked. Despite requesting that Plaintiff and other employees to sign a Release, Defendants did not make a reasonable inquiry into the job duties that Plaintiff or the other class members performed or the amount of time each day that they performed those job duties. Defendants did not provide a basis for the amount of compensation Plaintiff or the other class members would receive nor did they make reasonable efforts to determine what was owed to Plaintiff or the other class members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265 1020 Facsimile: (818) 265 1021 EDGE PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Wages, "Grabias" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------ BOGDAN GRABIAS (on behalf of himself and other workmen similarly situated), the Plaintiff, v. EDGE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE INC., AB CONTRACTING LLC, ANDREW BIZUB, FIRST INDEMNITY OF AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, JOHN DOES 1 through 100 And XYZ CORORATIONS 1 through 100, (fictitious names), the Defendants, Case No.1-7698-17 (N.J. Super. Ct., Oct 30, 2017), demands judgment against the defendants for damages, interest, attorney's fees and costs. This action is brought in part pursuant to the provisions of the New Jersey Prevailing Wage Act, which allows a private right of action by plaintiff on behalf of himself and other workmen similarly situated to recover the full amount of the prevailing wage owed to them. Inasmuch as plaintiff and other workmen similarly situate were paid less than the prevailing wage on the public works projects on which they were employed, plaintiff and others are entitled to recover the difference between the prevailing wage and that which they were actually paid, together with costs and reasonable attorney's fees as may be allowed by the court.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Vrhovc, Esq. 719 Van Houten Ave. Clifton, NJ 07013 Telephone: (973) 779 2001 EMPIRE PHARMACY: Violates California Labor Laws, Hollander Says --------------------------------------------------------------- E. Hollander, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Empire Pharmacy Consultants LLC and Does 1 through 50, the Defendant, Case No. BC679107, (Cal. Sup. Ct., October 11, 2017), alleges that the defendant failed to provide its Pharmacist employees meal breaks, rest breaks, and pay stubs; reimburse necessary expenses; and provide employment records upon request. The plaintiff states that he was able to eat a meal but could not leave the pharmacy and was required to assist customers and answer any questions at the same time. The Defendant failed to timely compensate plaintiff and other similarly situated Pharmacists for all outstanding wages owing twice per month, and did not provide wage statements with required information, including but not limited to, hours worked, the inclusive dates of the pay period, employee identification number or last four digits of his social security number and all applicable rates of pay. Plaintiff says he will amend the complaint to assert a claim for relief under the Private Attorneys General Act for misclassification as independent contractors, failure to provide sick leave and failure to timely pay earned wages. Empire Pharmacy Consultants is a Florida Limited Liability Company which is a labor contractor that supplies staff pharmacists to various pharmacies in the Los Angeles area.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. Priya Mohan, Esq. MinJi Gal, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: 323.962.3777 Facsimile: 323.962.3004 Email: harrisa@harrisandruble.com Email: pmohan@harrisandruble.com Email: mgal@harrisandruble.com EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Bailey" Suit in S.D. West Virginia ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc. The case is captioned as Ryan Bailey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Equifax Inc. and Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-04211 (S.D.W.Va., Oct. 24, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert C. Chambers. Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Edward Amos, II, Esq. Jason P. Foster, Esq. Scott S. Segal, Esq. THE SEGAL LAW FIRM 810 Kanawha Boulevard, East Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 344 9100 Facsimile: (304) 344 9105 E-mail: edward.amos@segal-law.com jason.foster@segal-law.com scott.segal@segal-law.com - and - Kevin Sharp, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP 611 Commerce St., Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 434 7001 Facsimile: (615) 434 7020 EQUIFAX INC: Probe Finds Execs' $1.8MM Stock Sales Legal -------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Tribune reports that Equifax, the credit report company hacked over the summer exposing the personal information of 145 million Americans, said a special committee has determined that none of the four executives who sold shares at the time did anything wrong. The high-level executives sold shares worth a combined $1.8 million in the days immediately after the company discovered the breach. When Equifax went public with the breach in early September, company shares cratered, erasing about $2.35 billion of its market value. The company revealed that an ongoing cyberattack lasted from mid- May to July. Equifax Inc. said it detected the hack on July 29. On Aug. 1 and Aug. 2, Equifax Chief Financial Officer John Gamble and three other executives sold a combined $1.8 million in stock. The company said on November 3 that a special committee comprised of independent directors, and advised by an independent counsel, found that none of the executives had knowledge of the breach when their trades were made. The committee's review included dozens of interviews and the scouring of more than 55,000 documents including emails, text messages, phone logs and other records. The report on November 3 is unlikely to relieve pressure on the beleaguered company, which badly bungled the response to the hack. Investigators will want to know how a breach of this size and scope could have occurred, without the knowledge of some of the company's highest executives. Faith in the leadership and the security of private information eroded in the weeks after the attack. Anxious consumers experienced jammed phone lines and clueless company representatives. An Equifax website set up to help people determine their exposure was described as sketchy by security experts. The site provided inconsistent and unhelpful information to many. The company blamed the problems of an online customer help page on a vendor's software code after it appeared that it had been hacked as well. High-level executives, including CEO Richard Smith, have already stepped down. The internal report did not appear to ease the apprehension of those who hold company stock. Shares were essentially flat on Friday. That's because it is the Securities and Exchange Commission, the federal agency that enforces securities laws, which will have the final say. SEC Chairman Jay Clayton has refused to comment when asked by lawmakers if executives at Equifax engaged in insider trading when they sold their shares. He has not confirmed or denied that the SEC is investigating. Smith, the former Equifax CEO, appeared before Congress to answer questions from lawmakers, but they were far from satisfied with the answers they received. The Atlanta company is under multiple state and federal investigations and has been sued by numerous customers in litigation likely to evolve into class-action lawsuits. What makes the data breach so dangerous is the information that Equifax holds. Social security numbers, identification, addresses and personal information held by Equifax and the two other, major credit agencies is used to determine a person's creditworthiness. [GN] ETERNAL INK: Whitcomb & Dzikowski Seek Unpaid Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Colton Whitcomb and Melissa Dzikowski, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Eternal Ink, Inc. also known as Eternal Manufacturing and Design and Terry Welker, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-13333-MFL-APP, (E.D. Mich., October 11, 2017), seeks unpaid wages and overtime compensation. Plaintiffs allege that they worked more than 40 hours per week and were not paid 1-1/2 times their regular rate of pay for their overtime hours worked. Eternal Ink is a Michigan corporation which is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of tattoo ink.[BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Maia Johnson Braun, Esq. David A. Hardesty, Esq. GOLD STAR LAW, P.C. 2701 Troy Center Dr., Ste. 400 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 275-5200 EXPRESS PIPE: "Mortley" Suit Moved to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled James Mortley, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Express Pipe and Supply Co., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Morrison Supply Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 30-02017-000946124-CU-OX-CXC, was removed on Nov. 2, 2017 from the Superior Court of CA for the County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-01938-JLS-JDE to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton. Express Pipe manufactures fabricated pipes and fitting products. The Company offers kitchen and bathroom piping solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arnab Banerjee, Esq. Brandon Kyle Brouillette, Esq. Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq. CAPSTONE LAWYERS APC 1875 Century Park East Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556 4811 Facsimile: (310) 943 0396 E-mail: arnab.banerjee@capstonelawyers.com brandon.brouillette@capstonelawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Keith A. Jacoby, Esq. Rachael Sarah Lavi, Esq. Littler Mendelson PC 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107 Telephone: (310) 553 0308 Facsimile: (310) 553 5583 E-mail: kjacoby@littler.com rlavi@littler.com FARMERS SERVICES: Web Site Not Friendly to Blind, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- JASON CAMACHO AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITU- ATED, the Plaintiffs, v. FARMERS SERVICES INSURANCE AGENCY; ZURICH INSURANCE GROUP LTD., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06306-AMD- CLP (E.D.N.Y., Oct 30, 2017), seeks permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendants for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendants denial of full and equal access to its web-site, and therefore denial of its services and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's website, www.farmers.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janet Nina Esagoff, Esq. ESAGOFF LAW GROUP, PC 10 Bond St., Suite 118 Great Neck, New York 11021 Telephone: (212) 417 7737 E-mail: janet@esagoff.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228 9795 Facsimile: (212) 982 6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com FAT SAL'S: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Ho" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------ JEFFREY HO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FAT SAL'S BRANDING, LLC, a California; Company; FAT SAL'S KITCHEN 1, LLC, a California Company; NEW YORK RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, INC., a California Company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC682110 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 1, 2017), seeks to recover injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement of all benefits Defendants enjoyed from their failure to pay proper compensation, pursuant to Business and Professions Code and California Labor Code. The Plaintiff and Class Members allege that Defendants failed to pay overtime wages for all the overtime hours; failed to provide to Plaintiff meal break periods and failed to pay one hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal break period was not provided; failed to permit and authorize rest break periods and failed to pay one hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the rest break period was not provided; failed to furnish accurate wage statements; and failed to pay all wages earned each pay period on the regular payday for the pay period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald W. Makarem, Esq. Gene Williams, Esq. MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES, APLC 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440 Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760 Telephone: (310) 312 0299 Facsimile: (310) 312 0296 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act -------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON ELLINGTON, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 63300780 (in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, Oct. 25, 2017), seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendant's violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970. The Defendant allegedly violated the FCRA by procuring consumer reports on Plaintiff and other Background Check Class members without first making proper disclosures in the format required by 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i). Namely, these disclosures had to be made (1) before Defendant actually procured consumer reports, and (2) in a stand-alone document, clearly informing Plaintiff and other Background Check Class members that Defendant might procure a consumer report on each of them for purposes of employment. The Plaintiff suffered an informational injury. The Defendant is the largest plumbing wholesaler and distributor in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. Andrew Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 North Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223 5505 Facsimile: (813) 257 0572 E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com RMorgan@forthepeople.com AFrisch@forthepeople.com FOGO DE CHAO: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, "Safi" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- MARGALARA SAFI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FOGO DE CHAO, INC., a Delaware 16 11 corporation; FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (SAN JOSE) LLC, a 17 II Delaware limited liability company; FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA 18 II (CALIFORNIA), LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 17CV318072 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct 24, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime wages under California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide employees meal and rest periods as required under California law, failed to pay minimum and overtime wages, and failed to reimbursed business expenses. Fogo de Chao is a fine dining, full-service Brazilian steakhouse or churrascaria. Fogo de Chao currently operates 29 locations in the United States of America and nine locations in Brazil.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Launa Adolph, Esq. Kayvon Sabourian, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans A venue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531 1900 Facsimile: (310) 531 1901 GEM RECOVERY: Faces "Clyburn" Suit in District of New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against GEM RECOVERY SYSTEMS LLC. The case is captioned as KISHA CLYBURN, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GEM RECOVERY SYSTEMS LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 09621-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., Oct. 27, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo. GEM Recovery is a leader in the management of accounts receivable.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227 5900 Facsimile: (973) 244 0019 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Wolfe" Suit Consolidated with Case 17-12786 ------------------------------------------------------------ Erica Wolfe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. General Motors, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12823-MFL-RSW, (E.D. Mich., August 25, 2017), has been consolidated with other similar lawsuits under lead case number 17-12786, according to an October 20 court order by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. Following consolidation, the Wolfe case has been terminated. The lawsuit arises from defendant's fraudulent and misleading marketing and sales of vehicles despite knowing prior to sale that the air conditioning system is defective; and failing to disclose those material facts to the plaintiff and other similarly situated persons. The Complaint says the air conditioning defect may cause engine stalling endangering occupants and operators. This dramatically increases the likelihood of accident and injury for all those traveling in the vehicle, the lawsuit adds. GM is an automobile design, manufacturing, distribution and service corporation doing business throughout the United States.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon Almonrode, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W University Dr., Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com Email: ssa@millerlawpc.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Glen L. Abramson, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: scarson@bm.net Email: gabramson@bm.net - and - Kevin Page, Esq. CUMMINGS & PAGE, LLP 16 Studio Hill Road Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510 Telephone: (914) 821-6400 Facsimile: (914) 821-6444 Email: kevin@candplaw.com GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Genocea Biosciences, Inc., and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the District of Massachusetts, and docketed under 17-cv-12168, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Genocea securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Genocea securities between May 5, 2017, and September 25, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until January 2, 2018 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Genocea is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers and develops vaccines and immunotherapies. At all relevant times, Genocea's genital herpes immunotherapy product GEN-003 was the Company's lead product candidate. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's finances were insufficient to support Phase 3 trials of GEN-003; (ii) accordingly, Genocea had overstated the prospects for GEN-003; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Genocea's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 25, 2017, post-market, Genocea disclosed that it was halting spending and activities on GEN-003 and exploring strategic alternatives for the drug. The Company also announced that it was cutting 40% of its workforce. On this news, the Company's share price fell $ 4.08, or 76.5%, to close at $ 1.25 on September 26, 2017. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] GOSCH IMPORTS: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Gosch Imports, Inc., failed to correctly classify their California auto Service Advisor employees as "non-exempt", resulting in alleged unpaid overtime wages. The Gosch Imports, Inc., class action lawsuit, Case No. RIC1720356 is currently pending in the Riverside County Superior Court for the State of California. According to the lawsuit, Gosh Imports, Inc., allegedly failed to accurately classify their auto Service Advisor employees as "non- exempt" employees and failed to provide them the legally required overtime compensation and benefits these employees are entitled to. The Complaint further claims that Gosch Imports, Inc., allegedly failed to accurately record missed meal and rest breaks and also allegedly failed to pay the proper minimum wages causing the wage statements being issued to the employees by Gosch Imports, Inc., to allegedly violate California law, and in particular, Labor Code Section 226(a). Cal. Lab. Code Sec 1194 states: Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs of suit. If you would like to know more about the Gosch Imports, Inc. lawsuit, please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq. -- DeBlouw@bamlawca.com and NICK@BAMLAWCA.COM -- by calling (800) 568-8020 Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik is a California employment law firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees, fight back against unfair business practices, including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. The firm has offices located in San Diego, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento and Chicago. [GN] HENDREN PLASTICS: Sen. Hendren Files Defamation Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Nathan Owens, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that the top Republican in the Arkansas Senate filed a defamation lawsuit late November 1st in Benton County court on behalf of his company after allegations that Hendren Plastics Inc. used participants in a rehabilitation program as unpaid workers. Sen. Jim Hendren of Gravette said his company, Hendren Plastics, paid for the work done by participants in the Drug and Alcohol Recovery Program in Decatur and that the allegations against his company are not true. The November 1 filing accused attorney Timothy Steadman, Esq., of Holleman & Associates in Little Rock of making "categorically false" statements about Hendren Plastics on Fort Smith-based television station KHBS-TV, Channel 40, that were an "assertion of fact and not a mere opinion." Steadman's firm filed a lawsuit in Benton County on Oct. 23, after an article about the rehabilitation program was published by the Center for Investigative Reporting. The suit seeks class-action status. The organization highlighted the questionable practices of Oklahoma-based Christian Alcoholics and Addicts in Recovery, which reportedly modeled its nonprofit after the Drug and Alcohol Recovery Program. "These programs are supposed to help people combat addiction, not turn them into slaves for businesses that are unashamedly for profit," Steadman said during the TV news broadcast on November 2. "Hendren and Simmons Food and the other business that use these men and women . . . . they control the employment," Steadman said later. Hendren Plastics claims that Steadman's statements were defamatory and presented the company in a false light. The Gravette company is seeking damages resulting from its loss of reputation and character as well as punitive damages. Attorney Tim Hutchinson, Esq. of Reece Moore Pendergraft LLP filed the defamation claim on November 1. He declined to comment on November 3. Neither Steadman nor Hendren were available November 3 for comment. Laurent Sacharoff, associate professor of law at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, said the case is peculiar because Steadman's statements fall in line with his lawsuit. "Normally, when people use [the word] 'slavery,' it's hyperbolic, so there'd be no case at all," Sacharoff said. "But here it's interesting because they're actually suing for slavery." The lawsuit filed Oct. 23 in Benton County accused Hendren Plastics, along with Simmons Foods, and up to 30 "John Doe" companies of conspiring to use rehabilitation participants as a free labor pool for manufacturing jobs often described as dirty and dangerous. On November 1 the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma filed a lawsuit in Muskogee, Okla., federal court against companies that worked with rehabilitation programs that supplied workers. Hendren on October 30 terminated Hendren Plastics' agreement with the Drug and Alcohol Recovery Program in Decatur. Hendren said he was disappointed because he saw the value in the program in that it gave nonviolent offenders a second chance. "When you see these kind of things made against our company -- you can't allow those kind of attacks," he said October 31. [GN] HENRY SCHEIN: TCPA Suit Stayed Pending Resolution of 8th Cir. Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sam Knef, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that U.S. District Judge John A. Ross has ruled for defendants Henry Schein Practice Solutions and Integrated Media Solutions' joint motion to stay a class-action complaint alleging the defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Plaintiff BPP filed suit earlier this year claiming the defendants sent unsolicited fax ads without a proper opt-out notice as required by federal law. The defendants had asked that the action be stayed pending a decision at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of St. Louis Heart Center Inc. v. Nomax Inc. At issue on appeal in that case is standing, which Nomax argues cannot be based on a "bare procedural violation of a federal statute divorced from any concrete harm." "Defendants argue that resolution of Nomax 'could significantly curtail or extinguish altogether Plaintiff's claims because the standing question presented in Nomax is identical to the standing issue presented in this case,'" Ross wrote. Ross also wrote that defendants further argued that a stay would "preserve judicial and party resources and would not prejudice BPP because the case is in its infancy, discovery has not yet commenced, and the trial date is approximately 16 months away." They further argued that if their request to stay were turned down all parties would be prejudiced "because they would incur significant expense in discovery 'only to later find out that Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue this case,'" Ross's ruling states. "Defendants also maintain that Nomax has been fully briefed and is likely to be decided within the next six months, and that BPP will suffer no damage from a stay because a modest delay in receiving money damages is not prejudicial and the conduct challenged in the Complaint has already stopped," it states. Ross wrote that he was not persuaded by BPP's argument that a decision by this court in the Nomax case is an "outlier in the law" and that federal courts nationwide have been rejecting defense motions challenging standing in TCPA cases. BPP also had argued that parties had "already expended significant judicial and party resources due to failed attempts at early mediation," and that the defense had not explained "a good excuse" for why they had not stayed the action in a more timely fashion. Finally, BPP had argued that it would be prejudiced if the judge were to stay the case due to a risk of evidence being lost. "In light of the Eighth Circuit's pending decision in Nomax, and in the interest of reaching consistent results in similar TCPA cases, the Court will grant Defendants' motion to stay this case," Ross wrote. "The Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff will be unduly prejudiced by such a stay, as the case is in the early stages of litigation. Furthermore, the Court believes that a stay will preserve the resources of the parties, as well as the Court, which weighs in favor of a stay." [GN] HOMEAWAY.COM: "Meyer" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Karen Meyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Homeaway.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 37-02017-0003668-CU-BC-NC, was removed on Nov. 3, 2017 from the Superior Court of California, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv- 02243-JLS-KSC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Janis L. Sammartino. HomeAway, Inc. is a vacation rental marketplace with more than 2,000,000 vacation rentals in 190 countries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Natasha N Serino, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. SCHACK 16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 485 6535 Facsimile: (858) 485 0608 E-mail: natashaserino@amslawoffice.com The Defendant is represented by: Joseph H. Bias, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 612 7397 Facsimile: (213) 612 2501 E-mail: joseph.bias@morganlewis.com HOST INTERNATIONAL: "Smith" Suit Moved to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Kelly Smith, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Host International, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 17CECG03397, was removed on Nov. 3, 2017 from the Fresno Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in Fresno. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-01487- DAD-MJS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Dale A. Drozd. Host International, Inc. is a restaurant which engages in providing food items like pizza, pasta, salads and more. It also provides alcoholic beverage. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com tfriedman@toddflaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Margaret Rosenthal, Esq. Nicholas D. Poper, Esq. Shareef Farag, Esq. Vartan Serge Madoyan, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 820 8800 Facsimile: (310) 820 8859 E-mail: mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com npoper@bakerlaw.com sfarag@bakerlaw.com vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com IQ DATA: "Buchwald" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Carrie Buchwald, as parent and guardian of A.B., a minor, and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 17-005789-CA-01, was removed on Nov. 1, 2017 from 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-24010-KMW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kathleen M. Williams. IQ Data is a national leader in multi-family property management debt collections.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher W. Legg, Esq. CHRISTOPHER LEGG, P.A. 3837 Hollywood Blvd., Ste. B Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 962 2333 Facsimile: (954) 927 2451 E-mail: chris@theconsumerlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Douglas A. Kahle, Esq. SCHWED MCGINLEY & KAHLE LLC 11410 North Jog Road, Suite 100 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418 Telephone: (561) 694 0070 Facsimile: (561) 694 0057 E-mail: dkahle@schwedpa.com JAMES SWARTWOUT: Faces "Masiello" Suit in N.D. Ohio --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against James Swartwout. The case is captioned as Matthew Masiello, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. James Swartwout, Joseph Hartnett, David Molfenter, James Fast, Charles Kummeth, Frank Wilson, Alan L. Bazaar, and John A. Janitz, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02239-CAB (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 24, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Christopher A. Boyko.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beau D. Hollowell, Esq. Daniel R. Karon, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL R. KARON 700 St. Clair Avenue, W, Ste. 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 622 1851 Facsimile: (216) 241 8175 E-mail: bhollowell@karonllc.com dkaron@karonllc.com LG ELECTRONICS: Smart TVs Lose Access to YouTube, Conn Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD CONN, on behalf of himself, all other others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. LG Electronics, USA, a New Jersey corporation, and DOES I through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC682080 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 1, 2017), contends that certain flash-based Smart TVs, including those manufactured by LG, no longer have access to the YouTube app. The Defendant had promoted Affected Smart TVs by placing the YouTube logo on its packaging, in-store displays, and by displaying the YouTube app in its commercials and in online advertising to inform consumers that Affected Smart TVs came with YouTube access included upon purchase. At no time prior to 2013 did Defendant disclaim that continued use of the YouTube app, for the life of its Affected Smart TVs, could or would end. LG manufactures consumer electronics products including specifically smart televisions (Smart TVs).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaveh S. Elihu, Esq. Thomas L. Dorogi, Esq. Sylvia V. Panosian, Esq. Employee Justice Legal Group, LLP 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1120 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 382 2222 Facsimile: (213) 382 2230 LOWE'S HOME: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, "Saenz" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH SAENZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. (S.D. Fla., Nov. 1, 2017), seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendants' continuous violation to California wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to receive itemized wage statements prescribed by Labor Code that accurately showed nine pieces of information, including gross wages earned and all deductions. Lowe's Home operates home improvement stores. It retails appliances, tools, paints, lumber, and nursery products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Ali S. Carlsen, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379 6250 Facsimile: (949) 379 6251 LUXOTTICA RETAIL: "Infante" Moved to Eastern District of New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Kathleen Infante, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Luxottica Retail North America, doing business as: Lenscrafters an Ohio corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-05145, was transferred on Nov. 2, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-06389-SLT-RER to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sandra L. Townes. Luxottica Retail sells prescription glasses and sunglasses in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Philip Reichmann, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES REICHMAN 16 Yale Circle Kensington, CA 94708 Telephone: (415) 373 8849 Facsimile: (855) 780 6405 E-mail: cpreichmann@yahoo.com - and - Sally M. Handmaker, Esq. Andrew N. Friedman, Esq. Geoffrey Graber, Esq. Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408 4600 Facsimile: (202) 408 4699 E-mail: shandmaker@cohenmilstein.com afriedman@cohenmilstein.com ggraber@cohenmilstein.com tleopold@cohenmilstein.com - and - Robert Gordon, Esq. GREITZER & LOCKS 1500 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 - and - Steven G Calamusa, Esq. 4114 Northlake Blvd Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 799 5070 Facsimile: (561) 799 4050 E-mail: SCalamusa@ForTheInjured.com The Defendant is represented by: Harrison Brown, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 239 3433 Facsimile: (424) 239 3434 E-mail: hbrown@blankrome.com MARKHAM, IL: Class Takes on Chicago Suburb's Red-Light Cameras -------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Klein, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a resident of the Chicago suburbs filed a class action claiming the city of Markham is collecting fines for red-light camera violations while skirting state law. A class-action lawsuit led by Karen M. Murphy of nearby Orland Park, Ill., seeks to stop Markham's allegedly "unlawful collection of money from vehicle owners through its Photo Enforcement Program." According to the complaint filed on November 7 in Cook County Circuit Court by Chicago attorney Clinton A. Krislov, Esq. -- clint@krislovlaw.com -- Markham "has been issuing red light violation notices and collecting fines and late fees despite its failure to comply with two mandatory provisions of the state law governing red light cameras." Markham does not publish the location of its cameras, which record drivers going through red lights, on its website. Murphy claims the city also does not provide a statistical analysis on the safety impact of each camera, another requirement of Illinois law. "There is no indication that defendant has conducted the statistical analysis as required by statute. No such study appears anywhere on the city of Markham website," the complaint alleges. Markham officials did not immediately respond November 8 to a request for comment on the lawsuit. Clicking the "red light enforcement" link on the city's website takes visitors to a 404 error page. Murphy's attorney, Krislov, said in a phone interview that "red- light cameras have proven to be very lucrative for municipalities." "The fact is, if they're going to use them as revenue generators, they should go through the hoops," he added. "We're merely saying if you're going to do it, follow the law." Murphy is suing Markham for unjust enrichment, asking the court to void red-light traffic violations and order a return of the $100 fines that drivers have paid. She seeks to represent a class of anyone who has been issued red- light tickets from Markham. Her complaint was electronically filed on November 7, but was not made available until November 8. The case is KAREN M. MURPHY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MARKHAM, Defendant, Case No. ______, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Country Department, Chancery Division. Attorney for Plaintiffs: Clinton A. Krislov, Esq. Christopher M. Hack, Esq. KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD 20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: (312) 606-0500 MAXMAHAN COMPANY: "Cole" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- SHARON COLE, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated, the PLAINTIFF, v. MAX MAHAN COMPANY INC. and JOHN DOES 1-10, c/o MAX MAHAN COMPANY INC., the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:17- cv-01014 (W.D. Tex., Oct 24, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek. However, Defendants did not pay any additional compensation for hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek. Max Mahan primarily transports "fracking sand", which is used by natural gas companies in the hydraulic fracturing process.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq. MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 13590 Ranch Road 12 Wimberley, Texas 78676 Telephone: (512) 782 0567 Facsimile: (512) 782 0605 E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com - and - Matthew D. Miller, Esq. Justin L. Swidler, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway N, Ste. 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685 7420 Facsimile: (856) 685 7417 E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com jswidler@swartz-legal.com MUNICIPAL WATER SAVINGS: Tuttle Sues over Savings Products ---------------------------------------------------------- Twinkle Tuttle, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Municipal Water Savings California Corp. the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv- 06277-ODW-AS, (C.D. Cal., August 24, 2017), seeks damages and to stop the defendant's practice of falsely advertising water conservation products in violation of Unfair Competition Law and Electronic Funds Transfer Act. The plaintiff's complaint states that the defendant approached her to solicit to purchase a product that allegedly saves money on their water utility bill. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the product after being pitched by a sales representative working for the defendant. The representative provided with a brochure wherein it advertised that the product would save the plaintiff an expected $475 per year on her water bill. However, the plaintiff's water bill has not decreased or changed since the installation of the defendant's product. The plaintiff requested to cancel the service because of false advertising but the defendant refused and attempted to charge her $1,800 as an early cancellation fee on the basis of supposedly entered five year deal. The defendant represents a money back guarantee for a consumer that no longer wishes to use the product but when the plaintiff sought to invoke the guarantee the defendant informed her that she did not qualify because she cannot get a rebate from her homeowner's insurance company. The condition was never communicated to the plaintiff before she signed a signature pad at defendant's request. Further, the defendant gathered the plaintiff's bank card payment information via a voided check in order to set up auto pay and did not make plaintiff fill out a proper EFTA disclosure form. The plaintiff did not provided the defendant either with a written or an electronic signature authorizing the recurring or automatic payments in violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and its surrounding regulations. The case has been reassigned from Judge Ronald S.W. Lew to Judge Otis D. Wright, II for all further proceedings.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., #780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 877-206-4741 Facsimile: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com Email: abacon@toddflaw.com MZL ISLAND: "Lutfieva" Suit Seeks Wages under Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------- GULCHEKHRA LUTFIEVA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by MZL HOME CARE AGENCY, LLC, the Plaintiffs, v. MZL HOME CARE AGENCY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 159740/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 1, 2017), seeks to recover wages and benefits under the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of ten hours per day, without providing the proper hourly compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread of hours" compensation. The Plaintiff has initiated this action seeking for herself, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees who are citizens of New York and who performed work within the State of New York, minimum wages, overtime compensation, "spread of hours" compensation, reimbursement for business expenses borne for the benefit and convenience of the Defendant, as well as damages arising from Defendant's breach of contract, which they were deprived of, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 Facsimile: (212) 943 9082 E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com - and - Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C. 517 Brighton Beach Ave., 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 808 2224 Facsimile: (866) 261 5478 E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com NATIONAL GENERAL: "Miller" Suit Goes to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case, Caroline Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. National General Holdings Corp., National General Insurance Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., doing business as Wells Fargo Dealer Services, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06586-UA, (S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2017), has been transferred to the United States District Court, Central District of California acknowledging receipt of transferred case, and assigned Case Number: 8:17-cv-01824 (C.D. Cal.). The lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo and its insurance underwriter National General conspired to steal hundreds of millions of dollars from unsuspecting automobile purchasers by imposing unwanted, unneeded and unlawful automobile insurance costs on them. Wells Fargo, together with National General, engaged in a continuous scheme to cheat unsuspecting auto loan customers into paying for unnecessary, unwanted and unlawful lender-placed or "force-placed" automobile insurance policies, commonly referred to as collateral protection insurance ("CPI"). Defendants' scheme resulted in the forced payment of unnecessary auto insurance policies, the incurrence of substantial and unwarranted fees and charges, negative credit reporting and other delinquencies, and/or repossession of Class members' vehicles. National General Insurance Company nominally underwrote collateral protection insurance policies for Wells Fargo auto loan borrowers.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey K. Koenig, Esq. HECHT, KLEEGER & DAMSCHEK, PC 19 West 44th Street Suite 1500 New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 490-5700 Facsimile: (212) 490-4800 Email: koenig@lawyer1.com - and - Arnold Levin, Esq. Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Fax: (215) 592-4663 Email: ALevin@lfsblaw.com Email: CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Franklin D. Azar, Esq. Keith Scranton, Esq. Hugh Z. Balkin, Esq. FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 14426 East Evans Avenue Aurora, CO 80014 Telephone: (303) 757-3300 Facsimile: (303) 757-3206 Email: azarf@fdazar.com Email: scrantonk@fdazar.com Email: balkinz@fdazar.com NAVIENT CORPORATION: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Navient Corporation and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the District of New Jersey, and docketed under 17-cv-11014, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Navient securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Navient securities between February 25, 2016, and October 4, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until December 15, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Navient Corporation 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. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company engaged in deceptive practices to facilitate the origination of subprime loans; (ii) the Company committed unfair and deceptive acts by steering student borrowers into payment plans that postponed bills, allowing interest to accumulate, rather than helping them enroll in income-driven repayment plans; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Navient's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 5, 2017, Pennsylvania's Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Navient and its subsidiary Navient Solutions, LLC, alleging "widespread abuses" in Navient's student loan origination and servicing segments and deceptive lending practices. Among other abuses, the lawsuit alleges that Navient marketed predatory loans and steered student borrowers into payment plans that postponed bills, allowing interest to accumulate, rather than helping them enroll in income-driven repayment plans. On this news, Navient's share price fell $2.10, or 14.25%, to close at $12.61 on October 5, 2017. On October 10, 2017, Bloomberg published an article entitled "Navient Subject of AFL-CIO Call for Insider Trading Probe," disclosing that the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations ("AFL-CIO"), the nation's largest labor federation, called for the SEC to "examine the trading in Navient's common stock on August 31" for possible insider trading. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] NEVADA: ACLU Accuses State of Denying Rural Defendants Due Process ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mynews4.com reports that the American Civil Liberties Union is accusing the state of Nevada of routinely violating the constitutional rights of criminal defendants in 11 rural counties by failing to provide them with adequate legal representation when they can't afford their own lawyer. The ACLU's Nevada chapter filed a class-action suit in Carson District Court on November 2 alleging indigent defendants are being denied their right to due process under the state system that transfers the job of public defense to individual counties. The suit says the state lacks adequate oversight of the counties and their system of contracting attorneys to represent the accused. It says the contract lawyers receive de facto flat fees and have a financial incentive to provide as little legal assistance to their clients as possible. The ACLU has filed similar suits in several other states, including Idaho and Utah. [GN] NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: "Falk" Suit Goes to Mediation --------------------------------------------------- In the case, Michelle Falk, Indhu Jayavelu, Patricia L. Cruz, Danielle Trotter and Amanda Macri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Nissan North America, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04871-EDL, (N.D. Cal., August 22, 2017), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on Nov. 13 entered an order granting a Stipulation selecting Private ADR. The lawsuit arises from the sale or lease of more than 500,000 vehicles throughout the United States manufactured by Nissan that are equipped with defective transmissions. Nissan, the lawsuit says, breached its express and implied warranties at the time each class vehicle was sold or leased because each was equipped with a dangerous and defective transmission. The transmissions are defective in design, materials and workmanship. The transmissions cause sudden, unexpected shaking and violent jerking when drivers attempt to accelerate it. Vehicle owners reported complete transmission failure in the middle of roadways and the defect creates unreasonably dangerous situations while driving and increases the risk of a crash. Hence, plaintiffs bring this class action for themselves and all others similarly situated owners for defendant's breach of express and implied warranties under state laws and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Nissan's deceptive trade practices in violation of the consumer protection laws of California, Ohio, New York, Colorado and Illinois.[BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Shimon Yiftach, Esq. Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1990 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 322-0322 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 Email: shimony@bgandg.com Email: peretz@bgandg.com - and - Gary Mason, Esq. Jennifer S. Goldstein, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP 5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 305 Washington, D.C. 20016 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 Email: gmason@wbmllp.com Email: jgoldstein@wbmllp.com - and - Lawrence Deutsch, Esq. Jeffrey Osterwise, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3062 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: ldeutsch@bm.net Email: josterwise@bm.net - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP 412 H Street N.E., Ste. 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com - and - Gary S. Graifman, Esq. Jay I. Brody, Esq. KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Chestnut Ridge, New York 10977 Telephone: (845) 356-2570 Facsimile: (845) 356-4335 Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com Email: jbrody@kgglaw.com - and - Daniel Calvert, Esq. Catherine S. Blackshear, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN, LLP 27300 Riverview Center Boulevard Suite 103 Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Telephone: (239) 390-1000 Facsimile: (239) 390-0055 Email: dcalvert@yourlawyer.com Email: cblackshear@yourlawyer.com NOBLE DISTRIBUTION: "Miller" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT & Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMEKA MILLER, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NOBLE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC681763 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages under California Labor Code. The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over 8 hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with Defendants. The Defendants are engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California. This pattern and practice involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods and/or rest breaks in violation of California law.[BN] Noble Distribution is in the General Warehousing business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265 1020 E-mail: lfj@lfjpc.com NOBLE HOUSE: "Holt" Suit Moved to Southern District of California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Kathleen Holt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Noble House Hotels & Resort, LTD, doing business as: Noble House Hotels & Resort, LTD, LP; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-02017-00035217-CU-MC-CTL, was removed on Nov. 3, 2017 from the Superior Court of California, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-02246- MMA-BLM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael M. Anello. Noble House owns and operates upper segment boutique hotels. Its amenities include rooms, resort and spa, golf resort, and marinas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Toby Lemieux, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233 7770 Facsimile: (619) 297 1022 E-mail: kevin@westcoastlitigation.com The Defendant is represented by: Heidi Brooks Bradley, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 1888 Century Park East, 21st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-1725 Telephone: (310) 712 6600 Facsimile: (310) 712 8888 E-mail: bradleyh@sullcrom.com NOVAN INC: Jan. 2 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Bid ----------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until January 2, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Novan, Inc. (Nasdaq:NOVN), if they purchased the Company's shares between September 26, 2016 and January 26, 2017 (the "Class Period") and/or pursuant to its September 26, 2016 initial public offering ("IPO"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. What You May Do If you purchased shares of Novan and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-novn/to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by January 2, 2018. About the Lawsuit Novan certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the class period, violating federal securities laws. The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include, but are not limited to, that: (i) the Company had initiated and conducted two identical Phase 3 clinical trials for its lead product candidate SB204; (ii) in fact, the two SB204 Phase 3 clinical trials were not identical; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Novan's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Lewis Kahn, Esq., Managing Partner Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 206 Covington St. Madisonville, LA 70447 Tel. No.: 1-877-515-1850 Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] NOVAN INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Novan, Inc. ("Novan") (NASDAQ:NOVN) stock during the period between September 26, 2016 and January 26, 2017 (the "Class Period"), including those who purchased Novan stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about September 26, 2016 ("IPO"). This action was filed in the Middle District of North Carolina and is captioned Miriyala v. Novan, Inc., et al., No. 17-00999. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from November 3, 2017. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/novan/.Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Novan, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. It also charges Novan and its former CEO and CFO with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Novan is a clinical-stage drug development company that focuses on the development and commercialization of nitric oxide-based therapies in dermatology. At all relevant times, Novan's lead product candidate was SB204, a once-daily topical gel for the treatment of acne vulgaris. The complaint alleges that in the IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus, and throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Novan's business and outlook, specifically regarding SB204. For example, defendants repeatedly stated that Novan had commenced and performed two identically designed Phase 3 clinical trials for SB204. Defendants' statements falsely stated that the two Phase 3 clinical trials were identical and omitted specific facts as to why the two critical trials were, in fact, not identical. As a result of these false statements, the Company's outlook and expected financial performance were not accurately represented to the market at all relevant times. As a result of defendants' false statements during the Class Period, the price of Novan stock climbed significantly above the IPO price of $11.00 per share, reaching as high as $29.09 per share on December 7, 2016. Before the market opened on January 27, 2017, Novan announced the top-line results of its two Phase 3 clinical trials of SB204. Although the drug hit all of its goals in one of the trials, it failed to beat a placebo in the other trial. On this news, the price of Novan stock dropped from a close of $18.70 per share on January 26, 2017, to a close of $4.86 per share on January 27, 2017, a decline of 74%. Subsequent disclosures regarding SB204 demonstrated that the two Phase 3 clinical trials of SB204 were not identical. Following these disclosures, several executives left the Company. Then, on June 5, 2017, Novan announced that it was replacing its CEO and co-founder and that it was laying off 20% of its workforce. As a result, the price of Novan stock fell on June 6, 2017. Additional disclosures on August 2, 2017 revealed that Novan was retreating further from SB204, signaling a shift in Novan's primary focus and causing the stock to drop more than 17% to close at $4.54 that day. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Novan stock during the Class Period, including those who purchased Novan stock in connection with the Company's IPO (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller is widely recognized as a leading law firm advising and representing U.S. and international investors in securities litigation and portfolio monitoring. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For the third consecutive year, the Firm ranked first in both the total amount recovered for investors and the number of shareholder class action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report. Robbins Geller attorneys have shaped the law in the areas of securities litigation and shareholder rights and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of the Firm's clients. Robbins Geller not only secures recoveries for defrauded investors, it also implements significant corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. https://www.linkedin.com/company/rgrdlaw https://twitter.com/rgrdlaw https://www.facebook.com/rgrdlaw https://plus.google.com/+Rgrdlaw/posts Contacts Darren Robbins, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Tel. No.: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 Email: djr@rgrdlaw.com [GN] ORBITAL ATK: "Cramer" Suit Balks at Merger Deal ----------------------------------------------- KELLY CRAMER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the 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, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 01225-CMH-MSN (E.D. Va., Oct. 25, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding a shareholder vote on a proposed merger agreement, and from taking any steps to consummate the proposed merger unless and until material information is disclosed to Orbital ATK shareholders, or, in the event the Proposed Merger is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act. On September 18, 2017, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's shareholders stand to receive $134.50 in cash for each share of Orbital ATK common stock they own. On October 25, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading definitive Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. While Defendants are touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy, according to the complaint, they have failed to disclose material information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Merger, thereby rendering certain statements in the Proxy incomplete and misleading. In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for Orbital ATK; and (ii) the valuation analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., in support of its fairness opinion. The special meeting of Orbital ATK shareholders to vote on the Proposed Merger is schedule for November 29, 2017. The lawsuit says it is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed to the Company's shareholders prior to the shareholder vote, so that they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights. Orbital ATK is an American aerospace manufacturer and defense industry company. It was formed in 2015 from the merger of Orbital Sciences Corporation and parts of Alliant Techsystems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street N.W., Suite 115 Washington, D.C. 20007 Telephone: (202) 524 4290 Facsimile: (202) 333 2121 E-mail: etripodi@zlk.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971 1341 Facsimile: (212) 202 7880 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com P.S.C. INC: "Miller" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Kimberly Miller, Briana Houser, and Dean Buchhol, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. P.S.C., Inc. doing business as: Puget Sound Collections and Does One Through Ten, Case No. 17-00002-11360-9, was removed on Oct. 24, 2017 from the Pierce County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-05864-RBL to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ronald B. Leighton. PSC Inc. provides data-collection solutions for the retail supply chain worldwide. The Company's products include mobile and wireless data-capture terminals. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Beth E Terrell, Esq. Blythe H Chandler, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Ste 300 SEATTLE, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816 6603 Facsimile: (206) 319 5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com bchandler@tmdwlaw.com - and - Joshua L Turnham, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA L TURNHAM PLLC 214 E Galer St St 100 Seattle, WA 98102 Telephone: (206) 395 9267 Facsimile: (206) 905 2996 E-mail: joshua@turnhamlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert E Sabido, Esq. Timothy J. Fransen, Esq. COSGRAVE VERGEER KESTER 500 Pioneer Tower 888 Sw Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 323 9000 Facsimile: (503) 323 9019 E-mail: rsabido@cosgravelaw.com tfransen@cosgravelaw.com PEACHTREE ORTHOPEDIC: Hanover Insurance Sues over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Hanover Insurance Company, the Plaintiff, v. Peachtree Orthopedic Clinic, P.A. and David Wexler, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 04236-CAP (N.D. Ga., Oct 24, 2017), seeks to recover damages arising from injuries allegedly suffered by David Wexler and by a class of all similarly situated individuals as a result of a 2016 data breach of Peachtree Orthopedic computer records concerning Peachtree Orthopedic patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin A. Doyle, Esq. Lokey, Mobley and Doyle, LLP Hanover Insurance Company 8425 Dunwoody Place Atlanta, GA 30350 Telephone: (770) 640 9441 E-mail: kdoyle@mobley-doyle.com PG&E CORP: Woman Sues After Losing Napa Condo in Wildfire --------------------------------------------------------- Maria Sestito, writing for Napa Valley Register, reports that a Napa homeowner has joined the ranks of what is now more than 100 people suing PG&E for allegedly causing the wildfires that plagued Northern California for several weeks in October. The homeowner, San Mateo resident Valerie Evans, filed her class action suit alleging negligence against the utility company in Napa County Superior Court while fires in Napa, Solano and Sonoma counties were still burning. Evans' Creekside condo at 100 Bonnie Brook Drive at Silverado Resort burned to the ground in the Atlas Fire, according to the lawsuit. The Atlas Fire, which started Oct. 8 on Atlas Peak Road, burned 51,624 acres and destroyed nearly 500 homes before it was 100 percent contained last November 3, according to Napa County officials. Although the cause of the fire is still under investigation by Cal Fire, the lawsuit alleges that the fire began when high winds blew vegetation and/or trees into electrical transmission or distribution lines owned, operated, controlled and/or maintained by PG&E. The company had a duty to maintain the equipment and should have known the risk not doing so would have, the suit alleges, "particularly in light of the increased vegetation growth caused by an exceptionally wet spring, the presence of drought-stricken trees, and the foreseeable dry, windy fall conditions." The suit calls the wildfires a "foreseeable" and "preventable" tragedy. Along with her condo and its contents, Evans says she lost one-of- a-kind artwork, rare trees and "irreplaceable" vintage collectibles from around the world. Evans, who is being represented by law firms Caddel & Chapman of Houston and Francis & Mailman, P.C. of Philadelphia, is asking to be certified as a class representative representing other property owners who were victims of the Atlas Fire in Napa and Solano counties. In addition to suing PG&E Corporation and Pacifica Gas and Electric Co., Evans has also named 50 "Does" representing potential contractors hired by PG&E to clear vegetation and/or trim trees around power lines in Napa County. The first individuals to sue the utility company were Wayne and Jennifer Harvell, residents of Santa Rosa's Coffey Park neighborhood which was leveled by the Tubbs Fire. The couple filed their lawsuit just eight days after the Tubbs Fire destroyed their home. Since then, more than 100 other victims have filed lawsuits against PG&E, according to media reports. [GN] PHILIPS AND PIONEER: Judge Signs Off $55.5MM Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge on November 7 signed off on a $55.5 million settlement of class action price- fixing conspiracy claims by indirect purchasers of optical disk drives, in which Philips and Pioneer will pay $50.5 million and TEAC will pay $5 million. A full-text copy of the Order dated November 7, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/ZQlyyZ The case is IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, No. 3:10-md-2143 RS (JCS)(N.D. Calif.). Lead Counsel for Indirect Purchaser Class: Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Tel: (510) 725-3000 Fax: (510) 725-3001 Email: jefff@hbsslaw.com shanas@hbsslaw.com -- and -- Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel: (206) 623-7292 Fax: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com PROFESSIONAL PRODUCE: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Franco Says ---------------------------------------------------------- MARIA FRANCO, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants, the Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL PRODUCE, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC682132 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 3, 2017), seeks to recover minimum and straight time wages and overtime compensation under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff brings this action against Professional Produce for California Labor Code violations stemming from Defendants' failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide all net, 10-minute rest periods, failure to pay for all hours worked, including minimum wage, straight time, and overtime pay, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, and failure to furnish accurate statements and maintain required records.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Farzad Rastegar, Esq. RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC 22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 200 Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (310) 961 9600 Facsimile: (310) 961 9094 E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com PSF TRUCKING: Faces "Pearson" Suit in California State Court ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against PSF Trucking, Inc. The case is captioned as RAY PEARSON, INDIVIDUALLY, ON A REPRESENTATIVE BASIS, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. PSF TRUCKING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION and PAMELA SUZANNE FORD, the Defendant, Case No. BCV- 17-102520 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 24, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David R. Lampe. PSF Trucking is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Bakersfield, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter H. Carlson, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 704 3060 QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Bennett" Suit Remains Stayed in New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action suit has been filed against Quest Diagnostics, Inc. The case is styled as Jennifer Bennett, Diana Dannelly, Edie Golikov, Dolores Herrmann, Lonnie Hodges Jr., Lily Martyn, Ryszard Pojawis, Stephen Timm and Liang Yu, the Plaintiffs, v Quest Diagnostics, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06514-ES-MAH, (D.N.J., September 3, 2017). The case is assigned to Judge Esther Salas. In a Stipulation and Order dated Oct. 6, Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer said Defendant Quest's time to respond to the Complaint shall be stayed pending adjudication of the motion to dismiss in Leslie v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., Civil Action No. 17-01590.[BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Esq. COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLC 250 PEHLE AVENUE, SUITE 401 Saddlebrook, NJ 07663 Telephone: (201) 845-9600 Facsimile: (201) 845-9423 Email: jwh@njlawfirm.com RESIDENCE RESOURCE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JASON CAMACHO AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. RESIDENCE RESOURCE LTD., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06246-NGG-JO (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2017), the Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The complaint says Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's website, www.lincolntowers.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janet Nina Esagoff, Esq. ESAGOFF LAW GROUP, PC 10 Bond St., Suite 118 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 417 7737 E-mail: janet@esagoff.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228 9795 Facsimile: (212) 982 6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com ROCKET FARMS: "Moreno" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- LUZ A. MORENO on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROCKET FARMS HERBS, INC., a California Corporation; ROCKET FARMS, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC682309 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 3, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages to compensate employees waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay former employees all earned and unpaid wages; back pay for failure to give written notice of mass layoffs; applicable civil penalties; injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to California Labor Code. According to the complaint, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees with all wages (including up to 60 days of average regular rate of compensation or final rate of compensation for Defendants failure to provide 60 days' notice of a mass layoff) after Plaintiff and other California employees separated employment with Defendants. As a result, Defendants failed to pay those employees timely after each employee's termination in violation of Labor Code. Rocket Farms is the largest grower of indoor flowers, fresh cut herbs and potted edibles in the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Joshua M. Webster, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432 0000 Facsimile: (310) 432 0001 E-mail: jwebster@lelawfirm.com SAVE-A-LOT INC: Sued by Wallace for Improperly Charging Drink Tax ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARK J. WALLACE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAVE-A-LOT, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2017CH13297 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., October 3, 2017), accuses the Defendant of improperly charging the Cook County sweetened beverage tax on retail purchases of unsweetened beverages in Save-A-Lot stores. The Cook County Sweetened Beverage Tax Ordinance imposes a tax at the rate of $0.01 per ounce on the retail sale of all sweetened beverages in Cook County, Illinois. Notwithstanding the requirements in the Cook County Sweetened Beverage Tax Ordinance, the Defendant charged the Plaintiff a sweetened beverage tax on his purchases of unsweetened, 100% juice, resulting in an unlawful tax charge, according to the complaint. Save-A-Lot, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business located in Earth City, Missouri. The Defendant owns, controls and maintains Save- A-Lot retail locations in Cook County, Illinois, and sells beverages and other items to consumers in those locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Sharon A. Harris, Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Maebetty Kirby, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com sharon@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com nick@attorneyzim.com maebetty@attorneyzim.com SCOTIABANK PR: Maura et al. Sue over Foreclosures ------------------------------------------------- In the case, YIRIES JOSEPH ASEF SAAD MAURA, WILLIAM LOPEZ COLON, his spouse NANCY COLON BERRIOS and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM, et al. the Plaintiffs, v. SCOTIABANK PUERTO RICO, MIDFIRST BANK, PR ASSET PORFOLIO 2013-1 INTERNATIONAL LLC, MWPR CR LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. (S.D. Fla., Oct. 27, 2017), Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and a class of persons who sought loan modifications to their mortgage payments through their banks and/or mortgage loan servicers. Plaintiffs are residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and/or the United States of America, with real estate properties located in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Defendants are banks and/or mortgage loan servicers dedicated to provide mortgage loans to qualified individuals with offices, branches and subsidiaries located in Puerto Rico and/or the United States. The Defendants' actions have cause great suffering and emotional distress to Plaintiffs, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiffs had not been able to live peacefully and quietly since the start of lawsuits and/or foreclosure proceedings. The Plaintiffs had mental anguishes and sufferings as a result of the lawsuits and/or foreclosure proceedings brought against them. Defendants directly or indirectly through them, their loan servicers, employees and representatives, have been continually harassing the Plaintiffs by requiring them pay inexistent or inaccurate arrears, to communicate with them and threatened to foreclose their property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vanessa Saxton-Arroyo, Esq. P.O. Box 191590 San Juan, PR 00919-1590 Telephone: (787) 667 8094 E-mail: vanessa.saxton@capr.org - and - John A. Stewart-Sotomayor, Esq. Arecibo PR 00614-0357 Telephone: (787) 955 0516 E-mail: stewart_j_esq@msn.com - and - Lisandra Rodriguez Moreno, Esq. Parque del Monte MB-78 Paseo del Sol Trujillo Alto, PR 00976 Telephone: (787) 603 5199 E-mail: lrodzmoreno@gmail.com - and - Joseph Gierbolini, Esq. PO Box 191620 San Juan, PR 00919-1620 Telephone: (787) 225 5367 E-mail: juriszone@capr.org - and - Atabey Lamela-Garcia, Esq. PO Box 194829 San Juan, PR 00919-4829 Telephone: (787) 960 7780 E-mail: lcda.lamela@hotmail.com SIXT RENT A CAR: Underpays Fleet Planners, "Russell" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Russell, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sixt Rent A Car LLC and Does 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. BC679288, (Sup. Ct. Cal., October 11, 2017), seeks to recover civil penalties under the California Labor Code. The plaintiff alleges that he worked for defendants as a Fleet Planner from approximately November 2014 until his resignation on August 7, 2017. During the plaintiff's employment with the defendants, he regularly worked in excess of eight hours per workday, but did not receive overtime compensation equal to 1-1/2 times their regular rate of pay for overtime hours worked. The plaintiff and similarly situated employees were receiving an incentive pay that caused them to be underpaid all their required overtime wages. Defendants also failed to compensate Plaintiff and similarly aggrieved employees for all hours worked. Specifically, Plaintiff and similarly aggrieved employees were required to download Microsoft Outlook onto their cellular phones and respond to Defendants' emails when they were off-duty. Plaintiff and similarly aggrieved employees were not compensated for this time worked, causing them to not be paid all minimum and overtime wages.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. Daniel J.Brown, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2274 East Maple Avenue El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com Email: sblakely@haineslawgroup.com Email: dbrown@haineslawgroup.com SELENE FINANCE: "Werner" Suit Moved to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- The venue of the case styled as Diana Werner, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Selene Finance, LLC and Friedman Vartolo, LLP, the Defendants, was removed from Supreme Court, County of Dutchess, Case No. 17-51519, on August 30, 2017, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 7:17-cv-06514-NSR. The case is assigned to Judge Nelson Stephen Roman.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Edward B. Geller, Esq. EDWARD B. GELLER, ESQ. P.C 15 Landing Way Bronx, NY 10464 Telephone: (914) 473-6783 Email: epbh@aol.com - and - Richard J. Davis, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 420 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 251-3000 Facsimile: (205) 244-5654 Email: rdavis@maynardcooper.com SJS ENTERPRISES: Bautista Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- Katryna Bautista, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SJS Enterprises, Inc., doing business as SC Village Paintball and Airsoft Park; D & G Sports Ventures, LLC doing business as Giant Sports; Hollywood Sports Park, LLC; and, Does One through Ten the Defendants, Case No. BC682213 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 2, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime under California Labor Code. On a regular and consistent basis, Plaintiff was not provided with meal periods before the end of the fifth hour of work, if at all. Defendants, by and through their officers, directors and managing agents, intentionally and systematically promulgated and enforced policies under which Plaintiff regularly worked more than five hours per day without being allowed one meal period of at least 30 minutes during which she was relieved of all of her respective job duties. Throughout the relevant period, Plaintiff frequently was required to forego her meal periods in order to continue working. The Plaintiff was not provided with an additional hour of pay for each workday that the meal period was not properly provided. Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff for missed meal periods systemically violated the mandatory requirements of sections 226.7 and 512 of the California Labor Code and Commission wage order No. 10-2001. SJS Enterprises provides printing services to automotive, electronics, and appliance industries worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Ricasa, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RICASA 15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (818) 650 8077 Facsimile: (818) 301 5151 E-mail: jricasa@ricasalaw.com SKECHERS USA: Dec. 22 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Bid --------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors that they have until December 22, 2017 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Skechers U.S.A., Inc. (NYSE:SKX), if they purchased the Company's shares between April 23, 2015 and October 22, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Skechers investors should visit us at https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-skechers-usa-inc- securities-litigation-2 or call to speak to our claim center toll- free at (844) 367-9658. Skechers and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On October 22, 2015, the Company released its Q3 2015 results, which revealed net sales far below analysts' consensus estimates based on $20 million in net sales being moved from Q3 to Q2 2015 because of early customer deliveries as well as a weaker retail environment than expected. On this news, the price of Skechers shares plummeted $14.55 per share, or 31.50 percent, to close on October 23, 2015 at $31.64 per share. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. ClaimsFiler's team of experts monitor the securities class action landscape and cull information from a variety of sources to ensure comprehensive coverage across a broad range of financial instruments. [GN] SOCAL REPRODUCTIVE CENTER: Faces "Thompson" Suit ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southern California Reproductive Center. The case is captioned as Latoshia Ann Thompson and Chyontelle Marcia McGinnis, Individually and as Limited Liability Partners of MDT and Associated, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, for the benefit of MDT and Associates, LLC, the Plaintiffs. v. Southern California Reproductive Center; Shahin Ghadir, M.D.; The City of Los Angeles, as The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles; Eric Garcetti, as the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles; DPSS; Homeless Services Authority; LAHSA; LAFD; LASD; RAPS; Metropolitan Transit Authority, MTA; Shane Murphy Goldsmith as The City of Los Angeles Police Board Commissioner; LAHSA former Vice Chair; Downtown Women's Center DWC; Angel Jones Day Center Manager DWC; the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-07883-VBF-KS (C.D. Cal., Oct. 27, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. Southern California Reproductive Center is the leading fertility clinic in the Los Angeles and Santa Barbara areas offering surgical and non-surgical treatments.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. SOUTH COAST TRANS: Fails to Pay Earned Wages, "Yoo" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- SAM YOO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOUTH COAST TRANSPORTATION & DISTRIBUTION, INC., and DOES 1 through 25, the Defendants, Case No. BC62126AXED (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 2, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid earned wages under California Labor Code. According to the complaint, during each assignment, upon arriving at a drop destination, Plaintiff was required to wait while goods were unloaded from his truck. Plaintiff was not paid for his waiting time. Occasionally, while on driving assignments, the trucks being driven by Plaintiff and other members of the Class would require maintenance or repairs. As drivers, Plaintiff and other members of the Class were required to arrange for such work and wait while it was performed. Plaintiff and other Class members were not paid for such time. While employed on driving assignments for Defendants, Plaintiff was not always provided with compliant meal and rest breaks. And, when Plaintiff took ten-minute rest breaks, he was not separately compensated for such time. To perform their jobs, Plaintiff and other members of the Class were required to purchase navigation devices and road maps. Defendants did not reimburse employees for these expenses. South Coast provides transportation and logistics services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron C. Gundzek, Esq. Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq. GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 542 2100 Facsimile: (213) 542 2101 - and - Marshall A. Caskey, Esq. Daniel M. Holzman, Esq. N. Cory Barari, Esq. CASKEY & HOLZMAN 24025 Park Sorrento, Ste. 400 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 657 1070 Facsimile: (818) 297 1775 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Cost of 2015 Leak at $841MM and Counting ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Solis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that the 2015 blowout at an LA-area natural gas storage facility that displaced thousands of residents will cost Southern California Gas Company an estimated $841 million, according to a quarterly earnings report from the company -- which said the leak generated more than 300 lawsuits involving over 43,800 plaintiffs. The suits claim negligence, strict liability, property damage, fraud, public and private nuisance (continuing and permanent), trespass, inverse condemnation, fraudulent concealment, unfair business practices, and loss of consortium, among other things against the utility and the state of California. Most of those suits were filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court. Porter Ranch resident Matt Pakucko, who has been a vocal critic of how the state and SoCalGas handled the situation at its Aliso Canyon facility, said the 2015 leak was like a faáade being lifted from the community. "We could tell there were all these strange problems with people's health before the blowout, but there were no infections, no bacteria that could be discovered by tests," Pakucko said in an interview. "The symptoms were in line with exposure to chemicals. Then we knew the truth." Pakucko, founder of the group Save Porter Ranch, personally knows hundreds of people who have sued SoCalGas and the state, including himself. He has lived in the San Fernando Valley community for 10 years and does not expect the quarterly earnings report to have any impact on the Aliso Canyon storage facility's operations. In July, SoCalGas Company restarted operations at the facility with the approval from the California Public Utilities Commission and state's Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources. A majority of the $840 million estimated cost was used to relocate residents and to pay for cleaning and labor costs. More was spent on efforts to control and stop the leak, reduce emissions, and investigate the cause of the blowout at the well. The remaining sum includes "legal costs incurred to defend litigation, the value of lost gas, the costs to mitigate the actual natural gas released, and other costs," according to the report. One lawsuit filed by Alberto Del Castillo, his family and several other Porter Ranch residents the leak made them "sick almost all the time" due to the strong gas odor they could smell from their home. In 2016, a Los Angeles judge ordered SoCalGas to pay for the costs to clean residents' homes. And the utility pleaded no contest as part of a settlement agreement after the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office filed a misdemeanor criminal complaint seeking penalties and other remedies over the failure to provide timely notice of the leak. SoCalGas agreed to pay a $75,000 fine, penalty assessments of approximately $233,500 and operational commitments estimated at $5 million. Liza Tucker with Consumer Watchdog wants to know how much of the $841 million estimate will be passed on to ratepayers, and told Courthouse News the utility shouldn't be allowed to ask customers to pay for anything. "They're supposed to be maintaining these wells, but they were not," Tucker said. "They collected ratepayers' fees to service the facilities. Clearly the wells were not being maintained. It was SoCalGas' fault that the well exploded. It was not an act of God." In 2015, the California Public Utilities Commission ordered SoCalGas to exclude costs related to the Aliso Canyon leak from requests to raise rates. And in March 2016, the commission ordered SoCalGas to track day-to-day costs not associated with the leak so regulators can determine if ratepayers should receive a refund. Several state agencies have ongoing investigations related to the estimated 109,000 metric tons of natural gas that were released during the leak. The $841 million estimate does not include pending lawsuits, costs of cooperating with the investigations, damages and restitution, civil, administrative and criminal fines, or other penalties. The residents' lawsuits will likely go to trial by late next year. SPANISH BROADCASTING: Sends Spam Text Messages, Bugbee Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Bugbee, the Plaintiff, v. Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc. and Does 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06164, (N.D. Ill., August 24, 2017), alleges that in multiple instances, the defendant sent text messages to the class members without the prior express consent of the recipients, and even continue to send text messages after the class members requested to stop and after the member registered with the federal government's Do Not Call list. The acts and omissions of the defendant constitutes numerous and multiple negligent and willful violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the lawsuit says. Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc. was engaged in the marketing and operation of Spanish-language radio stations throughout the United States.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Levin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 111 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 212-4355 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com SUBWAY: Plaintiffs Abandon Footlong Sandwich Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal News Line, reports that plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit brought over Subway's "footlong" sandwiches have decided to abandon efforts to pursue the litigation. The plaintiffs filed a two-page stipulation of dismissal without prejudice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Oct. 24. Their voluntary dismissal comes nearly two months after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed a proposed settlement agreement. The Seventh Circuit, in its Aug. 25 decision, reversed the Eastern District of Wisconsin's decision certifying a proposed class and approving a settlement in the case, calling it "utterly worthless." Days later, despite the Seventh Circuit ruling, the plaintiffs said they intended to pursue the litigation. They did not provide a reason for their voluntary dismissal, filed by co-lead counsel Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. -- sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- of the firm of DeNittis Osefchen Prince P.C., of Marlton, N.J. and Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq. -- tom@attorneyzim.com -- of the Zimmerman Law Offices of Chicago. "The Subway sandwich litigation was a racket used by plaintiffs' attorneys to extract fees for themselves, as the Seventh Circuit rightly recognized," said Ted Frank, with the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Class Action Fairness and a frequent objector to such class action settlements. Frank, a class member himself, objected to the settlement and class certification. He argued the settlement -- a proposed injunction -- enriched only the lawyers and provided no meaningful benefits to the class. "We hope the failure of this frivolous lawsuit and unfair settlement deal will discourage others from pursuing frivolous class actions," Frank said in a statement. The plaintiffs alleged footlong sandwiches sold at Subway restaurants were marketed as being 12 inches in length, when, in fact, they were not. According to their complaint, Subway's alleged business practices violated state consumer protection statutes. The class action stemmed from a social media post in 2013, which pointed out how the chain's footlong sandwich came up short. Matt Corby, an Australian teenager, purchased a Subway footlong sandwich and decided to measure it. The sandwich was only 11 inches long. He took a photo of the sandwich next to a tape measure and posted the photo on his Facebook page. Subway, in response, issued a press release announcing it had "redoubled" its efforts "to ensure consistency and correct length in every sandwich." The franchisor assured its customers that its "commitment remains steadfast" to ensure that every footlong sandwich sold at each of its restaurants worldwide is at least 12 inches long. "Within days of Corby's post, the American class-action bar rushed to court," Judge Diane S. Sykes wrote in the Seventh Circuit's 11- page ruling. Plaintiffs' lawyers sued Doctor's Associates Inc., the franchisor of Subway Sandwich Shops, seeking damages and injunctive relief under the consumer protection laws of various states. Subway moved to transfer the cases to a single district court for a multidistrict litigation. The cases -- nine in total -- were eventually consolidated in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. [GN] SUPAROSSA RESTAURANT: Heckl Sues over Biometric Data Collection --------------------------------------------------------------- LORNA HECKL, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. SUPAROSSA RESTURANT GROUP LLC, MR. B's STUFFED PIZZA, INC., REAL TIME SPORTS, MIA'S GELATO, BIAGIO EVENTS & CATERING, CUCINA BIAGIO and LEGNO IGP, the Defendants, Case No. 2017-CH-14299 (in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., Oct. 25, 2017), seeks to stop Defendants from unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of sensitive biometric data belonging to the Plaintiff and class. According to the complaint, when employees first start working for Defendants, they are required to scan their fingerprints and part of their hand into its time clock. Defendants utilize that scanned information as part of their biometric time tracking system, which requires employees use their fingerprints and partial hand prints as a means of authentication, instead of a passcode, identification card or other means of identification. Employees who are responsible for placing orders in Defendants' point of sale ("POS") system, are also required to scan their fingerprints in the POS system. Defendants utilize that scanned and sensitive information as part of the login process for their POS system, as opposed to a unique passcode, identification card, or other means of identification. While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or identification cards-which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised, fingerprints and hand prints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint or biometric database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking of their own unique biometric makeup. Suparossa is a company that has a variety of restaurant, catering, and venue concepts located in Chicago and its suburbs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robin Potter, Esq. M. Nieves Bolanos, Esq. POTTER BOLANOS LLC www.potterlaw.org 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 861 1800 Facsimile: (312) 861 3009 E-mail: robin@potterlaw.org nieves@potterlaw.org - and - Randall B. Gold, Esq. FOX & FOX, S.C. www.fox-law.com 111 East Wacker Dr. Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 6060 E-mail: Rgoldlaw@aol.com SYKES ENTERPRISES: "Rake" Suit Moved to Middle Dist. of Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Kevin Rake, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff v. Sykes Enterprises Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No. 17-CA-9148, was removed on Oct. 30, 2017 from the 13th Judicial Circuit Hillsborough County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-02560-JDW-MAP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James D. Whittemore. Sykes Enterprises, Incorporated is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Tampa, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300 Tampa, FL 33602-3343 Telephone: (813) 224 0431 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Theresa M. Waugh, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 111 North Magnolia Ave., Suite 1250 Orlando, FL 32801-2366 Telephone: (407) 393 2900 Facsimile: (407) 393 2929 E-mail: twaugh@littler.com TD BANK: "Lay" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Michael Lay, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. TD Bank, National Association, the Defendant, was moved on Nov. 2, 2017 to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv- 62143-JIC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Senior Judge James I. Cohn. TD Bank, N.A., is an American national bank. It is the result of many mergers and acquisitions. The bank operates in 15 states and Washington D.C. It is located on the East coast of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Lay, Esq. Scott M. Behren, Esq. BEHREN LAW FIRM 2893 Exectuive Park Drive, Suite 110 Weston, FL 33331 Telephone: (954) 636 3802 Facsimile: (772) 252 3365 E-mail: scott@behrenlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Aaron Jarett Reed, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 400 7500 Facsimile: (305) 603 2552 E-mail: AReed@littler.com TERMINIX INT'L: "Renteria" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- JIMMY RENTERIA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. BC678353 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., October 3, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties under the California Business and Professions Code, the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 5. Terminix International, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, provides pest control services to residential and commercial customers, and employed the Plaintiff and other similarly situated non-exempt employees within the County of Los Angeles and the state of California. The Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. Daniel J. Brown, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2274 East Maple Avenue El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com sblakely@haineslawgroup.com dbrown@haineslawgroup.com TESLA INC: Dec. 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ---------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP alerts investors in Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) to the securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Lead Plaintiff deadline is December 11, 2017. If you purchased or otherwise acquired securities of TSLA between May 4, 2016 and November 1, 2017 and suffered losses contact Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. For more information visit https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/TSLA or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing TSLA@hbsslaw.com On October 6, 2017, the Wall Street Journal reported: "Unknown to analysts, investors and the hundreds of thousands of customers who signed up to buy it, as recently as early September major portions of the Model 3 were still being banged out by hand, away from the automated production line, according to people familiar with the matter." This news drove the price of TSLA shares down $13.94, or nearly 4%, to close at $342.94 on October 9, 2017. Then, on November 1, 2017, the WSJ reported (a) "Tesla said it would build 10% fewer Model S and X vehicles in the fourth quarter than the third quarter" and (b) "[t]he outlook is even worse for the Model 3 [. . . ] [i]t now expects to produce 5,000 a week by the first quarter of next year, another slippage in its timeline." This news drove the price of TSLA shares down as much as $24.80, or nearly 8%, during intraday trading on November 2, 2017. "We're focused on Tesla's apparent omissions concerning its struggle to build the Model 3 and investor damages resulting from the recent revelations," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Tesla should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email TSLA@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a national investor-rights law firm headquartered in Seattle, Washington with 70+ attorneys in 11 offices across the country. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. Reed Kathrein, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP Tel. No.: 510-725-3000 E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com [GN] TEZOS ICO: CA Lawsuit Now Official, Tim Draper on Defensive ----------------------------------------------------------- Jon Buck, writing for The Cointelegraph, reports that the behemoth Tezos ICO, once the darling of the ICO world backed by VC icon Tim Draper, is now the subject of at least one major class action lawsuit with potentially more to follow. The threat of class action came some weeks back after infighting at the top of the company went public. The class action has been filed in district court in California by attorney James Taylor-Copeland. Esq. -- james@taylorcopelandlaw.com -- on behalf of investors. The suit alleges that Tezos violated US Securities Law by offering securities, while at the same time "misleading" investors regarding the nature of the company. Tim Draper defended his position writing in his comment to Cointelegraph: "There was nothing secretive about our purchase of Tezos. We invested for ownership in the company, which at the time was two bright young people and an idea. The sale might not have happened at all! We also participated in the Pre-sale. Most ICO founders earn tokens over time. All tokens we hope to receive that we didn't buy in the Pre-sale (alongside with all the other investors who participated) will vest over time with the founders' tokens. I have no intention of selling these tokens because I am a true believer in the Tezos mission: to build a Blockchain on proof of stake and open it up for developers to build and invent on a new and more relevant platform." Investors Angry The suit is not the only one in the works. Other firms are also studying and preparing for potential lawsuits, including Florida- based firm Silver Miller. Investors who feel they have been bilked out of funds can contact either firm to be added to the class action. According to the report: "Taylor-Copeland said the proposed class includes an estimated 30,000 people who bought Tezzies and seeks to allow them to rescind their purchases and other damages. He said the lawsuit may be the first civil action brought over an ICO." [GN] THERAPY SOURCE: Fails to Pay Full Commission to Sales Reps ---------------------------------------------------------- COLLEEN LIDSTONE and ALICE M. FORSYTHE, on their own behalf and for all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THERAPY SOURCE INC., JOSHUA CARTAGENOVA and STACEY CARTEGENOVA, the Defendants, Case No. 171003423 (in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, PA, Oct. 25, 2017), contend that Defendants violated the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, when they breached their employment contracts, which required them to pay full commissions to their sales representatives but, as a matter of policy, willfully and continuously refused to do so. Therapy Source is a resource for therapist jobs, and staffing solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy M Kolman, Esq. KOLMAN ELY, P.C. 414 Hulmeville Avenue Penndel, PA 19047 Telephone: (215) 750 3134 E-mail: tkolman@kolmanlaw.net TIM SCHAEFFER: Faces "Warid" Suit over Building Code Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- SOHAIL and SAMIRA WARID, husband and wife, and THADDAEUS and JENNY ROBBINS, husband and wife, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TIM SCHAEFFER DEVELOPMENT CORP., d/b/a "Tim Schaeffer Communities" and "Schaeffer Family Homes;" WHITE CEDARS ASSOCIATES, LLC, d/b/a "Tim Schaeffer Communities" and "Schaeffer Family Homes;" DAYSTAR CONSTRUCTION, INC., d/b/a "Tim Schaffer Communities" and "Schaeffer Family Homes;" and SCHAEFFER FAMILY HOMES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 17-_____ (N.J. Super. Ct., Nov. 3, 2017), seeks remedy from uniform, class-wide building code violation and associated design and construction defects in approximately 44 mass-built homes with stucco facades/fronts that were designed, constructed, and sold by Defendants. According to the complaint, independent inspections have determined that the stucco-front homes in the "White Cedars by Tim Schaeffer Communities" development were designed and constructed by Defendants in error and in violation of the applicable building code, with several associated design and construction defects. Specifically, it was discovered that Defendants made a design and construction error in the installation of stucco, or exterior insulated finish system, on the facades of approximately 44 homes located in the "White Cedars by Tim Schaeffer Communities" development, in that Defendants failed to provide the required level of stucco thickness mandated by the applicable building code, as well as other stucco-related design and construction defects. These homes were built using uniform procedures, according to a common design, and the code violation and design defects described herein are common to all stucco-front homes designed and built by Defendants in the "White Cedars by Tim Schaeffer Communities" development. As related in greater detail herein, Defendants were aware of the building code violation and uniform construction defects at the time these homes were built and originally sold by Defendants to members of the proposed class, including Plaintiffs. Despite this, Defendants failed to reveal the existence of the building code violation, or the other uniform construction defects described herein, to class members at the time Defendants sold these homes to Plaintiffs and the class.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen P. Denittis, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 5 Greentree Circle, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ, 08053 Telephone: (856) 797 9951 E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com TOYO INK: "Polino" Suit Goes to Mediation ----------------------------------------- The venue of the case styled as Armando Polino individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Toyo Ink America, LLC, the Defendant, was removed from Orange County Court, Case No. 30-2017-009277581-CU-WT-CJC, on August 22, 2017, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 8:17-cv-01441-DOC-DFM, on September 3, 2017. In a Nov. 1 Order, Judge John A. Kronstadt held that the case is ordered to a private mediator based upon a stipulation of the parties or by the court order. The ADR Proceeding is to be held no later than May 7, 2018. Status Conference is set for May 21, 2018 at 1:30 pm before Judge Kronstadt.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq. Todd M Friedman, Esq. TODD M. FRIEDMAN LAW OFFICES PC 21550 Oxnard Street Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 Email: mgeorge@toddflaw.com Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com Defendant is represented by: Beth A Kahn, Esq. CLARK HILL LLP 1055 West 7th Street 24th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2503 Telephone: (213) 891-9100 Facsimile: (213) 488-1178 Email: bkahn@clarkhill.com - and - Michael Paul Purcell, Esq. CLARK HILL LLP One Embarcadero Center Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8500 Facsimile: (415) 984-8599 Email: mpurcell@clarkhill.com TRINITY MANAGEMENT: Spiro & Kaplan Sue over Water Service Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN SPIRO and SIMONE KAPLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRINITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. CGC-17-562293 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 3, 2017), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to amend lease agreement and notify all Class Members that they have a right to obtain the information and documents describing in detail how Defendants calculated their bill for trash and water/sewer charges. This class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of the tenants and former tenants of Defendants, one of San Francisco's largest landlords with dozens of multi-apartment buildings and hundreds of apartment units. Defendants have a systematic business practice of fraudulently overcharging their tenants for trash and water/sewer service. Defendants also have a business practice of covering up their fraud by refusing to provide their tenants with the information and documentation that would allow the tenant to know that he or she has been overcharged. Finally, Defendants enforce illegal and unfair contractual provisions that purport to strip any ability of the Courts or a regulatory agency from stopping Defendants fraudulent practices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Devine, Esq. SEEGER SALVAS & DEVINE LLP 455 Market Street, No. 1530 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 981 9260 TRINITY PRESS: "Mamary" Suit Claims Sexual Harassment ----------------------------------------------------- Tony Mamary, the Plaintiff, v. Trinity Press, Inc.; Raymond Mininni; Kevin Barnes and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, the Defendants, Case No. L-2808-17, (Sup. Ct. N.J., August 25, 2017), seeks damages including interest, cost of suit and attorneys' fees for defendants' discrimination and sexual harassment. The plaintiff states that he began working as a "biller" with Trinity Press in April 2013 and was subjected to sexual harassment by the defendants on a daily basis until she was terminated in July of 2017. All harassment are alleged to have been because of plaintiff's sex or gender which are severe or pervasive. Harassment was purposeful, intentional, wilfull and undertaken by members of upper management in fact and in law. Thus punitive damages are warranted.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 727-9700 UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Grizzlies Owner Faces Questions Over Quick Rise ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ted Evanoff, writing for Commercial Appeal, reports that when California entrepreneur Robert Pera set out to buy the Memphis Grizzlies, he looked like a young go-getter taking control of the city's premier sports franchise. Now a lawsuit filed in New York rekindles questions about business practices at Ubiquiti Networks Inc., the wellspring of Pera's considerable wealth. You might remember this summer's war of words led by Citron Research, a kind of pit bull in the financial world. Citron's attack on Ubiquiti fell short, but the echo continues. Citron accusations are at the center of a lawsuit that asks a federal judge in New York to impanel a jury and weigh allegations Ubiquiti made up information in its financial reports in violation of U.S. law. Class-action Case Lots of lawyers troll the country for supposed victims of securities fraud. And this looks like one of those. Class-action lawsuit attorneys Gardy & Notis LP reeled in a small investor named Richard Gericke. Gericke owns 75 Ubiquiti shares, the lawsuit contends, and he bought the stock at prices artificially inflated by Ubiquiti. Wall Street pit bulls, class-action trolls and a victim out a few hundred bucks are hardly worth mention. Except Pera's handling of this bears watching. Too good to be true? If this lawsuit goes to trial, Ubiquiti could wind up explaining some actions that may not be unlawful, but as Citron's report claims, don't really add up. The report questions how a company with only 725 employees and so little spending on innovation could make so much money. All this could touch on the lingering question behind the reclusive electrical engineer's fabulous wealth. Is his story too good to be true? Turns out a Manhattan jury may put the question to rest. FedExForum Whether some distant tech firm erred or not isn't a Memphis concern. But Robert Pera is our concern. Memphis needs a Grizzlies owner able to keep the franchise stable. For the city, this comes down to a tax base issue. While other pro teams are in the region, the Grizzlies play in FedExForum, the largest construction project ever undertaken by local government. Sales taxes paid by fans buying tickets, food and other items in the arena help pay off the $250 million in construction loans. The city needs an owner willing to keep the team in Memphis and able to keep fans in the FedExForum's 18,100 seats. Rags to riches None of this seemed relevant six week ago. Ubiquiti's stock climbed during the summer, rising 24 percent in value between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Stock is like money and if it rises in value the owner is richer. Perhaps the biggest beneficiary was Pera himself. He owns about 56 million shares of Ubiquiti stock. His is like a rags-to-riches story, except for the rags. He grew up among San Francisco's elite. He's the son of Edmond Pera, the former chief financial officer of one of the nation's biggest private companies, bluejeans maker Levi Strauss of San Francisco. The elder Pera now heads Armanino Foods, a San Francisco wholesaler whose stellar board of directors once included Hollywood movie producer and celebrity manager Toni Barzie, whose clients have included Tommy Dorsey, Eddie Fisher, Jackie Gleason and Frank Sinatra. Robert Pera formed Ubiquiti in 2005 shortly after graduation from San Diego State University. He was 27. Ubiquiti made a simple wireless broadband device. If you were in Peru or rural China this is what you wanted. It lets a person in one town without extensive communication systems talk by cell phone to a person in another town. Sales Boom To say the device caught on is to understate its popularity. Choose your clichÇ. Young Pera minted money. He made money hand over fist. His devices sold like hotcakes. His touch was gold. Rather than hire a big sales force, Ubiquiti relied on customers to spread the word. And rather than hire a big engineering staff, the firm relied on customers to suggest product improvements. In 2011, Ubiquiti went public, scheduling the sale of $147 million worth of stock in the initial public offering. In 2012, Pera bought a major stake in the Grizzlies, a franchise in the National Basketball Association. In 2014, business magazine Forbes named Pera, age 36, to its list of world's youngest billionaires. In 2017, Forbes estimated Pera's net worth exceeded $3.8 billion with the bulk of the fortune apparently consisting of Ubiquiti stock. Then came Sept. 18. Red Flags? Los Angeles investment advisor Citron Research speculates on stocks. It profits when the stock price falls, a procedure known as short sales. Citron short-seller extraordinaire Andrew Left's report identified what he described as "red flag warnings." "Citron," his report says, "believes (the) Ubiquiti story is unraveling as we write. The end is now for the Ubiquiti fraud." Ubiquiti's stock price fell 8 percent, closing at $50.62 per share that day. Pera soon calmed investors. He called Citron's attack the work of "clowns." Many stock analysts and observers, including The Commercial Appeal, pointed out contentions aired by Citron had been made by others and put to rest five years earlier. Ubiquiti's stock price recovered. Lawsuit Filed Seven days after Citron's report splashed over Wall Street, the Gericke lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on Manhattan. The lawsuit enshrined the accusations leveled by Andrew Left, contending Citron had "documented verifiable fraudulent statements concerning the reporting of accounts receivable, and the size of Ubiquiti's reported user base." It is business jargon -- accounts receivable, user base. But it touches on the very core of Ubiquiti's success. Between 2014 and 2016, Ubiquiti after-tax annual profits doubled to almost $258 million while sales rose 45 percent to $865 million. The company was pocketing almost 30 cents of every sales dollar. Not even far larger rival Cisco Systems Inc., the Gericke lawsuit points out, could manage that kind of margin. About that jargon Say a wholesaler in the Czech Republic orders 1,000 devices. This gets classified as an accounts receivable. Gericke's lawsuit cites Citron's report. It points out there was a Czech wholesaler, a firm named Discomp. According to the lawsuit, this wholesaler reported a "trade payable" of $3.4 million to its government while Ubiquiti showed $9 million in accounts receivable attributable to Discomp. Because the $9 million transaction was highlighted by Ubiquiti in its annual report to shareholders filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Citron claims Ubiquiti committed fraud and was actually trying to makes its sales volume look bigger than it was. Did Discomp, the Czech government, Ubiquiti or Citron make a mistake? That's what a trial may sort out. Ubiquiti Community Similarly, there's the matter of user base. Those are customers actually. They comment on forums. They suggest fixes. The company listens and responds. It is one way Ubiquiti gets by with a small staff of researchers. According to the lawsuit, the tech company in an Aug. 25 press release described "a global, grass-roots community of over 4 million entrepreneurial operators and systems integrators who engage in thousands of on-line forums." Citron contends the 4 million number is suspect. Citron said it analyzed 11,250 registered accounts and found almost 97 percent never posted a message in a forum and that many are actually web robots, the lawsuit contends. Ubiquiti and lawyers for Gericke didn't return calls last week. What's next Other law firms have sought clients. The Pomerantz law firm of New York, which looks for high-profile class action cases, filed its own lawsuit against Ubiquiti on behalf of client Gabby Klein, who also filed securities fraud lawsuits in 2013 and 2016 against other companies. It looks like the Klein and Geriche lawsuits and any others that come along may be bundled and heard as a class-action case with multiple accusers. So far, Ubiquiti has weathered the storm. Since September the company has bought tens of thousands of shares from other investors, reducing the number of Ubiquiti shares available to trade on the market. Aided by the buying binge, Ubiquiti edged over $62 per share last week, above the $54.95-price the stock traded at just before the Citron attack. In terms of the stock value, it's as if the assault never happened. But in the next few weeks we'll find out if a class-action materializes and be able to hear Ubiquiti explain its success in court. [GN] UNITED PRODUCTION: Orozco Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE OROZCO, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED PRODUCTION FRAMING LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant, Case No. BC68220 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 1, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages and minimum wages under California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees who were compensated on a piece- rate basis for so-called "nonproductive" time (i.e., hours that they were working but were not actually performing piece-rate work). For example, Plaintiff was required to travel between jobsites, unload tools, wait for materials to arrive at jobsites, and sometimes had to wait for a forklift operator to become available before he could begin his work. Under Defendants' piece- rate compensation system, Plaintiff was not compensated for time spent performing such tasks. As a result of these practices, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees for all hours worked at the minimum wage when they were being compensated on a piece-rate basis, as Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for non-productive hours. The lawsuit cites Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors, LP (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 36 (holding that a piece-rate compensation structure that does not separately compensate employees for non-productive time violates California minimum wage laws). United Production is using Alignable to connect with other businesses in Riverside.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. Andrew JTRowbotham, Esq. Stephanie A. Rierig, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2274 East Maple Avenue El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292 2350 Facsimile: (424) 292 2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com skierig@haineslawgroup.com UNITED STATES: Civil Rights Groups Sue for Cambodian Refugees ------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Yam, writing for Huffington Post, reports that civil rights groups have launched a class action lawsuit against federal immigration authorities after a series of recent raids led to the detention of more than 100 Cambodian refugees who could now face deportation. The lawsuit, launched November 3 by a number of Asian-American nonprofits, argues that the recent arrests of Cambodian-Americans across the country by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials has been illegal. The detentions occurred amid U.S. government tensions with Cambodia over repatriation policies. The organizations argue that the raids, which they called the largest to ever target the Cambodian community, were abrupt and arbitrary. "The lawsuit is attempting to stop this indiscriminate style of raids," said Anoop Prasad, a lawyer on the case on behalf of the plaintiffs. "This style of raids put people in this constant state of fear." ICE declined HuffPost's request for comment on the case. Nonprofits Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus, Advancing Justice-Los Angeles, and law firm Sidley Austin LLP filed the suit on behalf of Nak Kim Chhoeun, Mony Neth and other individuals who were detained in the raids. Many Cambodians who came to the U.S. as children have only ever known one home, but nearly 2,000 people are currently subject to deportation orders by federal immigration authorities. Because the Cambodian government has in the past refused to accept individuals slated for deportation from the U.S., many have lived for years as lawful permanent residents. Advocates say that most of these Cambodian refugees did receive final orders of removal in the past and had been detained for their criminal records, many as teenagers. But the vast majority were released years ago on orders of supervision, required to annually check in with authorities but otherwise free to live in the U.S.. Many of those who've been rounded up had moved forward with their lives, staying out of crime for decades, Prasad explained. The sudden urgency by the U.S. government to pursue detention again has confounded advocates. According to Prasad, it's legal for ICE to detain these individuals in certain cases when there are relevant changes in circumstances, including if ICE has acquired travel documents for them, or if the Cambodian government has indicated that they're willing to take specific people back. But Prasad said those conditions have not been met with the raids. In fact, most individuals have been routinely checking in with ICE for some time but were unexpectedly detained at recent check-ins, Prasad said. He told HuffPost that he believes ICE is using these legal, documented refugee immigrants as pawns during a time of strained U.S. relations with Cambodia, and that raids are probably a response to the Cambodian government's pushback on the U.S. deportation of refugees who have few or no ties to their home country. Even though Cambodia has demonstrated cooperation with repatriation efforts, the Trump administration continued with the large-scale roundups, likely to put pressure on the country in hopes it will take in more people in the coming year, Quyen Dinh, executive director of nonprofit Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, or SEARAC, previously told HuffPost. Prior to the roundups, the Trump administration had already in September imposed visa sanctions on Cambodia, preventing high- ranking officials and their families from traveling to the U.S. The raids have created a stressful environment for the families of those who have been picked up, and the situation has stirred up many emotions in the community. "Especially for older generations -- the parents of a lot of people being picked up -- they're feeling this trauma of being separated from their families again," Prasad said. "Almost all of them lost relatives in the genocide. Almost all of them were separated from family members when they were fleeing and were never able to find their family members again. I think the experience of now losing another generation to deportation is definitely traumatizing to the Cambodian community." The groups who filed the lawsuit are currently awaiting ICE's response to the litigation. But for now, they're calling on people to sign a petition in opposition to the ICE raids. [GN] UNITED STATES: Dingler Sue Appellate Court Judges ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against James N. Hatten. The case is captioned as JOSEPH DINGLER and ASHTON DINGLER, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. JAMES N. HATTEN, U.S. District Court, Clerk; JUSTIN S. ANAND, Judge, U.S. District Court; AMY TOTTENBERG, Judge, U.S. District Court; PHYLLIS A. KRAVITCH, Judge, U.S. 11th Circuit; STANLEY F. BIRCH, JR., Judge, U.S. 11th Circuit; JEROME FARRIS, U.S. 9th Circuit; and UNITED STATES, INC. also known as: THE UNITED STATES also known as: UNITED STATES, INC., Any pseudo name of 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(A), Case No. 1:17-cv- 02232-UNA (D.D.C., Oct. 26, 2017).[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. UNITED STATES: Judge Urged to Free Iraqi Detainees -------------------------------------------------- Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that civil rights groups have asked a federal judge in Michigan to order the release of Iraqi nationals who say they are being unlawfully detained and face persecution and death if they are forced to return to the Middle East. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents rounded up more than 100 Iraqi nationals in Detroit this summer, striking fear in a community of Chaldean Christians that the Trump administration had previously suggested it would protect from persecution in the Middle East. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, a group of detainees sued Detroit's ICE director in June, claiming the administration was trying to send them back to a country where they faced torture and death because of their religious beliefs. In July, U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith barred the government from deporting the plaintiffs, giving them three months to file motions to reopen their cases in immigration courts. Now, the ACLU of Michigan wants Judge Goldsmith to release them, arguing that ICE has placed some of the Iraqis in indefinite detention. It might be years before the courts resolve their cases and some of the detainees have lived in the U.S. for decades, the ACLU said in a motion for preliminary injunction filed November 7 in Detroit federal court. "The Trump administration is shamefully prolonging the agony of these Iraqi families in the hopes that they voluntarily give up their immigration cases. It's time for the court to once again step in and say enough," Judy Rabinovitz, a deputy director with ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement. The Justice Department did not immediately respond November 9 to a request for comment on the injunction motion. Vice President Mike Pence has vowed to protect Christians in the Middle East from persecution in speeches to religious leaders. ICE had arrested people with deportation orders or pending criminal charges or convictions, but civil rights groups said the move was unfair given they face persecution if deported. Judge Goldsmith's injunction against deportation stays in effect for each Iraqi detainee until they have exhausted their legal remedies, according to the ACLU. Eighty-seven percent of the detainees' cases have been reopened and the 10 cases the immigration courts have adjudicated has resulted in a favorable ruling for the plaintiffs, the group says. "Yet almost all remain incarcerated," the ACLU said in Tuesday's injunction motion. "Although it will soon be five months since the June ICE raids, and although it is clear that petitioners and class members face the prospect of many more months or years of detention as they fight their immigration cases, and although petitioners and class members have demonstrated through past compliance with orders of supervision that they are not a danger or flight risk, respondents insist on keeping them incarcerated." In a news release, the ACLU said ICE cannot hold a detainee indefinitely unless authorities show that they are likely to flee or are a danger to the community. The civil rights group says the agency lacks that justification for those swept up in the Detroit raid. Authorities are required to review the cases of detainees with removal orders who are held for more than 90 days. But the ACLU claims ICE has served the Iraqis with boilerplate denials and extended their detentions. Some detainees have received no review at all, the group says. The ACLU's federal lawsuit was filed against Rebecca Adducci, director of the Detroit ICE District, the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. attorney general. CODE Legal Aid, Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, International Refugee Assistance Project, and the law firm Miller Canfield Paddock & Stone joined the ACLU in its Nov. 7 filing. The case is USAMA JAMIL HAMAMA, et al., Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v. REBECCA ADDUCCI, et al., Respondents/Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 11910 (E.D. Mich.). Attorneys for All Petitioners and Plaintiffs: Michael J. Steinberg, Esq. Kary L. Moss, Esq. Bonsitu A. Kitaba, Esq. Miriam J. Aukerman, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN 2966 Woodward Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48201 Tel: (313) 578-6814 Email: msteinberg@aclumich.org -- and -- Kimberly L. Scott, Esq. Wendolyn Wrosch Richards, Esq. Cooperating Attorneys ACLU Fund of Michigan MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE, PLC 101 N. Main St., 7th Floor Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Tel: (734) 668-7696 Email: scott@millercanfield.com -- and -- Nora Youkhana, Esq. Nadine Yousif, Esq. Cooperating Attorneys, ACLU Fund of Michigan CODE LEGAL AID INC. 27321 Hampden St. Madison Heights, MI 48071 Tel: (248) 894-6197 Email: norayoukhana@gmail.com -- and -- Maria Martinez Sanchez, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW MEXICO 1410 Coal Ave. SW Albuquerque, NM 87102 Email: msanchez@aclu-nm.org -- and -- Judy Rabinovitz, Esq. Lee Gelernt, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 549-2618 Email: jrabinovitz@aclu.org -- and -- Margo Schlanger, Esq. Samuel R. Bagenstos, Esq. Cooperating Attorneys ACLU Fund of Michigan 625 South State Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Tel: 734-615-2618 Email: margo.schlanger@gmail.com -- and -- Susan E. Reed, Esq. MICHIGAN IMMIGRANT RIGHTS CENTER 3030 S. 9th St., Suite 1B Kalamazoo, MI 49009 Tel: (269) 492-7196, ext. 535 Email: Susanree@michiganimmigrant.org -- and -- Lara Finkbeiner, Esq. Mark Doss, Esq. Mark Wasef, Esq. INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT Urban Justice Center 40 Rector St., 9th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel: (646) 602-5600 Email: lfinkbeiner@refugeerights.org Attorney for Petitioner/Plaintiff Usama Hamama: William W. Swor, Esq. WILLIAM W. SWOR & ASSOCIATES 1120 Ford Building 615 Griswold Street Detroit, MI 48226 Email: wwswor@sworlaw.com UNITED STATES: Trump Rollback Spurs Suit by Princeton, Microsoft ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eva Fedderly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Microsoft teamed up with Princeton University and one of its students last November 3 for a federal complaint over the rollback of a program that offers legal protections to qualifying young immigrants. Represented by the firm Jenner & Block, Microsoft and Princeton's lawsuit in Washington comes exactly two months after Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Esq. rescinded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Since its adoption by the Obama administration in 2012, DACA has made it possible for about 800,000 individuals who might otherwise be at risk of deportation to get driver's licenses, work authorizations, and other state and local benefits. Microsoft and Princeton say they are two such institutions that benefit greatly from DACA. While there are at least 45 DACA recipients working in some capacity for Microsoft and its subsidiary LinkedIn, Princeton says it has enrolled at least 21 so-called Dreamers since 2012. Maria de la Cruz Perales Sanchez, who joined the suit as a co- plaintiff, is among the 15 beneficiaries currently enrolled in undergraduate studies at the New Jersey-based Ivy. "Dreamers are particularly promising students and employees because of the significant barriers they have overcome in order to excel. As children, they were forced not only to navigate a new country, culture, and language, but also to do so knowing that at any moment, they might be taken into custody and sent far from their homes and lives here in the United States," the complaint states. "To have achieved educational and career successes under such precarious circumstances suggests that Dreamers have grit and perseverance, can overcome obstacles, and will exceed expectations -- all qualities that Princeton values in its students and Microsoft values in its employees." In addition to strengthening the communities at Microsoft and Princeton, according to the complaint, DACA recipients benefit society at large whether through service in the military or their pursuit of work in understaffed fields such as nursing and home health care. "The Dreamers have held up their end of the bargain," the complaint states. "But the same cannot be said of the United States." Microsoft and Princeton call the Trump administration's rescission of DACA unconstitutional. Without DACA making it possible for students like Perales Sanchez to get financial aid and work on campus, Princeton for example will have to make up the difference so that she can continue her studies. "Similarly, Microsoft will lose employees who fill critical positions in the company's workforce and in whom the company has invested -- leaving gaps that cannot easily be filled," the complaint states. Calling for an injunction and declaratory relief, Microsoft, Princeton and Perales Sanchez allege violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. A representative for Homeland Security declined to comment on pending litigation. The case is THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON ) UNIVERSITY, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, MARIA DE LA CRUZ PERALES SANCHEZ, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, and ELAINE C. DUKE, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Civil Action No. ____ (D.D.C.). Attorneys for The Trustees of Princeton University, Microsoft Corporation, and Maria De La Cruz Perales Sanchez: Thomas J. Perrelli, Esq. Lindsay C. Harrison, Esq. Marina Jenkins, Esq. Alex Trepp, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1099 New York Avenue, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001-4412 Tel: 202-639-6000 Fax: 202 639-6066 Email: tperrelli@jenner.com lharrison@jenner.com mjenkins@jenner.com atrepp@jenner.com VACO TECHNOLOGY: Misclassifies Employees, "Bush" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Christina Bush, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vaco Technology Services, LLC; Vaco San Francisco, LLC; Vaco Lajolla, LLC; Vaco Orange County, LLC; Vaco Los Angeles, LLC; Google, Inc and Does 1 to 50, the Defendants, Case No. 17CV314988, (Sup. Ct. Cal., August 24, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, actual and liquidated damages, restitution including civil penalties, attorney's fees and costs of suit for defendants violations of the Labor Code and Business and Professional Code. The complaint alleges eight causes of action against the defendants which are failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay hourly and overtime wages, failure to indemnify, failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, unfair competition and failure to pay employees for all hours worked in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff alleges that he was initially hired as an Order Audit Operation Specialists and the primary duties involved data entry. He was promoted to Content Bug Technician with duties that involved software quality assurance. Later, he was transferred to the Google Expedition team as a Team Lead with duties that involved traveling to various public schools and providing education virtual reality tours through an application developed by Google. Plaintiff alleges that the Company's employees were misclassified as exempt when in fact they were non-exempt. Plaintiff in behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees worked more than eight hours each workday and more than 40 hours each workweek. They were paid a fixed salary regardless of the hours worked and were not paid any overtime compensation. They did not perform duties more than 50% of the time that would qualify them as exempt employees. Hence, they were entitled to all the protections afforded to non-exempt employees under the California law.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. SETAREH LAW CROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com Email: thomas@setarehlaw.com VANTAGE SOURCING: Walker Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ Sherrie Lynn Walker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vantage Sourcing, LLC; Scott Alan Stanford, Derrick Dean Willman and Does 1 through 10, the Defendants, Case No. 17CV315216, (Sup. Ct. Cal., August 29, 2017), is a consumer class action brought by the plaintiff in behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers pursuant to the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California Civil Code. California Civil Code prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices and also it that California consumers be provided a "Consumer Collection Notice." The plaintiff alleges that she is alleged to have a financial obligation in the form of a consumer credit account issued by Verizon Wireless and the plaintiff generally denies that any debt is owed. The alleged debt was assigned, consigned, or otherwise transferred to defendants for collection from plaintiff. Defendants sent a collection letter to the plaintiff in an attempt to collect the alleged debt. However, the collection letter fails to provide the notice required by California Civil Code, in a type-size that is at least the same type-size as that used to inform Plaintiff of her specific debt or in at least 12-point type. Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct was directed towards a senior citizen. Vantage Sourcing is engaged in the business of collecting defaulted consumer debts.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Fred W. Schwinn, Esq. Raeon R. Roulston, Esq. Matthew C. Salmonsen, Esq. CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC. 12 South First Street, Suite 1014 San Jose, CA 95113-2418 Telephone: (408) 294-6100 Facsimile: (408) 294-6190 Email: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com VEHI-SHIP LLC: "Mackey" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MACKEY and WILLIE REDMOND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. VEHI-SHIP, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07737 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 26, 2017), seeks to recover overtime pay under Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons who work or have worked for Vehi-Ship as drivers within the last 3 years, and who elect to opt-in to this action. Vehi-Ship unlawfully required Plaintiffs and all individuals employed as drivers to work in excess of 40 hours per week, without paying them overtime compensated for every hour worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Action members are "similarly situated," as that term is used in 29 U.S.C. Sec 216(b), because, inter alia, all such individuals worked pursuant to Vehi-Ship's previously described common pay practices and, as a result of such practices, were not paid the full and legally mandated overtime premium for hours worked over 40 during the workweek. Resolution of this action requires inquiry into common facts, including, inter alia, Vehi- Ship's common compensation, timekeeping and payroll practices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. Miller, Esq. MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 1051 Perimeter Drive, Suite 400 Schaumburg, IL 60173 Telephone: (847) 995 1205 E-mail: richard.miller@millerlawfirm.org - and - Scott C. Polman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT C. POLMAN 8130 N. Milwaukee Ave. Niles, IL 60714 Tel: 847.292.1989 E-mail: spolman.law@comcast.net WAL-MART STORES: "Beckman" Suit Moved to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Gina Beckman, as an individual, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., an Arkansas corporation authorized to do business in the state of California; Espresso Supply, Inc., a Washington corporation authorized to do business in the state of California; Eko Brands, LLC, a Washington corporation; Ekobrew, a Washington corporation; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 37-02017-00021869-CU-BC-CTL, was removed on Nov. 3, 2017 from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-02249-BAS-BLM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant. Wal-Mart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates as a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Monique Renee Rodriguez, Esq. CLARK LAW GROUP 205 W Date Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239 1321 Facsimile: (888) 273 4554 E-mail: mrodriguez@clarklawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Norman A. Ryan, Esq. RYAN CARVALHO & WHITE LLP Rio Vista Plaza 8989 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 368 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (858) 455 8700 Facsimile: (858) 455 8701 E-mail: nryan@ryanlitigators.com WHOLE FOODS: Sued by Thomas for Not Providing Seats to Checkers --------------------------------------------------------------- TERRI THOMAS, individually, and as a representative of all others similarly situated v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. BC678289 (Cal. Super. Ct. Los Angeles Cty., October 3, 2017), alleges that Whole Foods failed to provide the Plaintiff and other checkers and cashiers with seats as required the California Labor Code. Whole Foods Market is a corporation doing business throughout California. Whole Foods is a nationwide retail chain operation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andre E. Jardini, Esq. K.L. Myles, Esq. KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Telephone: (818) 547-5000 Facsimile: (818) 547-5329 E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com klm@kpclegal.com YANKEE CANDLE: Faces "Davis" Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Yankee Candle Company, Inc. The case is captioned as Edward Davis, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Yankee Candle Company, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-02194-FMO-FFM (C.D. Cal., Oct. 25, 2017). The case is a assigned to the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The Yankee Candle Company is an American manufacturer and retailer of scented candles, candleholders, accessories, and dinnerware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706 6464 Facsimile: (949) 706 6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com ZUFFA LLC: Has Until Dec. 15 to Respond to "Ferrandini" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Zuffa, LLC's time to answer, move or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint, Dean Ferrandini and Keffe Ferrandini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Zuffa, LLC; Showtime Networks, Inc.; UFC and Does 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. BC673915, (C.D. Cal., August 25, 2017), has been extended until December 15, 2017, pursuant to an order dated October 24 granting a stipulation by the parties. The stipulation was approved by Judge Manuel L. Real. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to provide live streaming services to the thousands of Californian who paid over $100 for the UFC Fight Pass to watch but were unable to watch the majority of the event live due to defendants' failure to prepare for the high volume of subscribers. The Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Conor McGregor was widely advertised as being one of the biggest sporting events. Plaintiffs were intrigued by the hype surrounding the fight and decided to order the event with UFC Fight Pass. Plaintiffs purchased streaming passes from defendants. When the live stream start at a scheduled time, the plaintiffs received an error message and attempted to call consumer support but were never connected to any person and they even attempted several times over the next few hours but of no avail. Plaintiffs did not receive the services for which they paid for and expected and the defendants have not refunded any money even though defendants knew the patrons who purchased the streaming passes were unable to access the live streaming of the event due to technical failures.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Hrag Kouyoumijan, Esq. Drew Ferrandini, Esq. SEVEN HILL LAW, APC 411 West 7th Street, Suite 310 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 235-3532 Facsimile: (213) 488-1588 Email: hragk@sevenhilllaw.com Email: drewf@sevenhilllaw.com ********* 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 * * *