/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/171218.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, December 18, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 249 Headlines AIR5 NETWORKS: "Glanton" Suit Seeks Unpaid wages & OT under FLSA AKAL SECURITY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Alonzo" AKORN INC: Bid to Intervene in "Berg" Denied w/o Prejudice AL DAHRA ACX: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, "Avila" Suit Says ALAMO RENT: Faces "Ball" Suit in M. Dist. Florida ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Fligmman" Suit in E.D. New York ALTERRA GROUP: "Shevchuk" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA ANAYA'S CUTTING: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Araujo Says ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD: Impact Fee Refunds Order Affirmed APEX TERMITE: "Silva" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida ASSOCIATES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY: "Smith" Suit Moved to D.S.C. ATLANTA, GA: Faces "Fambro" Wage-and-Hour Suit ATLANTIC CREDIT: Faces "Vento" Suit in E.D. New York AW LINS: Faces "Pillay" Suit over Tip-Pooling BEST & CO: "Carranza" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under Labor Law BNSF RAILWAY: "Gonzales" Suit Moved to E.D. Washington BNSF RAILWAY: "Sumlin" Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California BONNEVILLE BILLING: "Zachary" Suit Moved to District of Idaho BRISK AIR: "Loya" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida BULTHAUP CORP: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York BURBANK MANAGEMENT: Terrell Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages BURLINGTON COAT: "Knight" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law C. TECH COLLECTIONS: Faces "Cammy" Suit in E.D. New York CALIBER HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Moorehead Says CALIFORNIA OFF TRACK: Faces "Castro" Wage-and-Hour Suit CALLICO CONSTRUCTION: "Villatoro" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA CAPITAL PAWN: Faces "McCown" Suit over Unsolicited Text Messages CEDARS SINAI: "Castro" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law CENTRAL PLUMBING: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Underpays Help Desk Workers, Briggs Says CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Tibbetts" Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. CJ MAHAN: "Betzner" Suit Moved to Eastern District of Arkansas CLEANSTREET: Fails to Pay All Wages, "Villanueva" Suit Says COAST MEDICAL: Deducts $30 from Nurses' Pay, "Sweatt" Suit Says CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Faces "Sloan" Suit in C.D. Calif. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: "Mazariegos" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y. CRAIG TOOLS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Menchaca Says CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Faces "Solano" Suit in N.D. New York DITECH FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses "Scally" FDCPA Suit DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces "Morales" Suit in E.D. New York DYNAMIC LEDGER: GGCC Sues over Initial Coin Offering ELECTRONIC MERCHANT: "Winters" Suit Moved to D. New Jersey EMERGENCY SERVICES RESTORATION: "Vigers" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage EMPIRE INTERNATIONAL: "Paul" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA EQUIFAX INC: Court Extends Time to Respond in "Young" FCRA Suit EQUIFAX INC: "Cuevas" Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California EULEN AMERICA: "Pena" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA EVOLUTION HOSPITALITY: Rizo Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code EXPEDIA INC: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgments to OTAs EYM GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Johnson" Suit Says FEDEX FREIGHT: "Pina" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida FIRST CENTURY: Court Compel Arbitration in "Oliver" FRANKLIN COUNTY, PA: Cmmw. Court Ruling in Privacy Suit Reversed GALENA BIOPHARMA: $41K Attys' Fee Awarded in Securities Suit GAP INC: "Coladonato" Suit Moved to New Jersey Federal Court GEICO GENERAL: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Insurance Suit GOSMITH INC: Faces "Hobbs" Suit over Spam Text Messages GREEN STAR: Faces "Bohlke" Suit over Spam Text Messages GRETNA, LA: Nelson and Richardson Sue over Arrests & Fines GUITAR CENTER: Website Inaccessible to Blind, "Andrews" Suit Says H MART INC: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D.N.Y. HAPPY CAB: Court Enters Default Judgment in "Knox" FLSA Suit HEALTH INSURANCE: Faces "Vigorito" Securities Class Action HF MANAGEMENT: Court Dismisses "Ortiz" Unpaid OT Pay Suit HOME HEALTH: "Yusupova" Suit Seeks Wages under Labor Law HOMELAND SECURITY: Al Otro Suit Transferred to S.D. California INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INT'L: Lead Plaintiffs in "Shanawaz" Named INTERFAITH MEDICAL: Underpaid Per Diem Physicians, Okeke Says INTERSTATE SAFETY: $80K Settlement in "Owens" Suit Gets Approval INVENTURE FOODS: "Schoenfeld" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Utz Merger INVENTURE FOODS: "Shaoul" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Utz Merger JUICY WINGZ: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Hernandez Says KAPDAS INCORPORATED: Leroy Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA KEANE FRAC: "Tran" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA KOCH FOODS: Conspiracy Claims in Antitrust Suit Remains L & JG STICKLEY: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York L'OREAL USA: Faces "Spector" Suit over CeraVe Face Lotion LATIN CLUB BAR: "Roe" Suit Seeks Back Pay under Labor Code MADER NEWS: "Molina" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Prelim Approval of Class Deal Denied MARVIN ENGINEERING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Iniguez Says MDL 2741: "Schroeder" Suit v. Monsanto Moved to N.D. Cal. MDL 2800: "Pantaze" Data Breach Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia MDL 2800: "Morris" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia MDL 2800: "Ostoya" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia MDL 2800: "Highfield" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE: "Verma" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri MICHIGAN: Court Certifies Class of Jewish Inmates MILLER STARK: Deadline to File Judgment for Default Set in "Wade" MONSANTO COMPANY: Joffe Sues Over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MOTORINO EAST: "Morales" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA MRS BPO: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in "Dinaples" MUSICIAN'S FRIEND: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Andrews Says NEIMAN MARCUS: Fails to Pay Compensation, "Roces" Suit Says NORMANDIN'S: Court Grants Prelim Approval of "Brinker" Settlement NORTH DAKOTA: "Hansen" Suit Moved from E.D. Pa. to Local Court NOVAN INC: Cisneros Sues over Steep Share Price Drop NUCO2 MANAGEMENT: "Hernandez" Suit Moved to E.D. California NYU LANGONE: Underpays Nurse Aides, "Pruitt" Suit Claims OCEAN DRIVE: "Esquenazi" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA OCWEN LOAN: Court Grants Amendment in "Henry" WVCCPA Suit OPUS PLATINUM: Faces "Terrell" Wage-and-Hour Class Suit PACIFIC COAST SIGHTSEEING: "Nava" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages PEACHY DEVELOPMENTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Velasquez Says PEI WEI ASIAN: "Davis" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida PETERSEN-DEAN: Fails to Pay Wages, "Colmenero" Suit Says PHILLIPS 66: Fails to Timely Pay Final Wages, Robbins Says PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Aikens" PURDUE PHARMA: Teamsters Local 404 Sues over Opioid Effect R.T.R. FINANCIAL: Faces "Chein" Suit in E.D. New York RASIER LLC: Heller et al. Sue over Theft of Rider & Driver Data REPRODUCTIVE PARTNERS: Schrimsher Seeks OT Wages under Labor Code RYB EDUCATION: Faces "Wang" Suit over Drop in ADR Price SABER HEALTHCARE: "Travis" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA SAFETY-KLEEN: Brown & Diop Seek Unpaid Wages under Labor Code SANOFI US: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Velasquez" Suit Says SEED YOUR OWN: "Sou" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: "Anderson" Suit Moved to C.D. California SHILLINGTON SCHOOL: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. of New York SLING MEDIA: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Heskiaoff" Suit SLIDING DOOR CO: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York SPRINT SOLUTIONS: Trzupek Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages ST. FRANCIS COUNTY: Womack Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA STARBUCKS CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Carrington" Suit STARR RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Dembele Says STERLING JEWELERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hudson Claims SURVEILLANCE SECURITY: Fails to Pay Wages, "Hughes" Suit Says SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Peck" Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court T-MOBILE USA: Ct. Grants Telephonic Appearance in Mngt Conference TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Dismissal of "Santana" Affirmed in Part TIMEX GROUP: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. of New York TOYOTA MOTOR: "Roscoe" Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts U.S. BANK: "Duncan" Suit Moved to District of Maryland U.S. HEALTHWORKS: "Rodriguez" Suit Moved to N.D. California UBER TECH: Continues to Freeze Account, Rosales Claims UBER TECH: Faces "West" Suit over Data Security Breach UBER TECH: Faces "Townsend" Suit over Data Breach UDREN LAW OFFICES: Pa. Super. Affirms Dismissal of "Glover" UNION PACIFIC: "Logan" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Washington UNITED STATES: "Harris" Suit v. FBOP Moved to S.D. Indiana UNITED STATES: Court Enjoins Minors' Suit vs. ICE UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: "Millman" Class Certification Bid Premature UNIVERSAL FITNESS: Rose Sues over Gym Memberships Rates VISTANA MANAGEMENT: "Michel" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA VITAQUEST INT'L: "Shoaf" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey WEINSTEIN COMPANY: Geiss et al. Sue over Unwanted Sexual Conduct WEST BASIN WATER: Faces "Rastegar" Suit over Standby Charges WHIRLPOOL CORP: Subclass Rep Replacement in "Schechner" Denied WYNDHAM HOTELS: Faces "Ogen" Suit over Biometric Data Collection ********* AIR5 NETWORKS: "Glanton" Suit Seeks Unpaid wages & OT under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Glanton and Tiffany Bent, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Air5 Networks Holdings, LLC, a Florida Corporation, Charles Glenn, Matthew Davis and George Burton, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02932-JSM- TBM (M.D. Fla., Dec. 6, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and cost pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Air5 has a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees to work in excess of 40 hours each workweek without paying overtime compensation, and some earned points earned wages, as required by FLSA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charlotte Kelly, Esq. JOHN BALES ATTORNEYS 325 E. Twiggs St., Suite 100 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224 9100 Facsimile: (813) 224 9109 E-mail: Team-EmploymentLaw@JoneBales.com AKAL SECURITY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Alonzo" --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Ed E. Alonzo, Plaintiff, v. Akal Security, Inc., Defendant, Case No. CV-17-00836-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz.), Judge John J. Tuchi of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Conditional Class. The Defendant employs the Plaintiff as an Air Security Officer ("ASO"), a position responsible for the supervision of deportees during flights back to their home countries. The Plaintiff brought a Hybrid Collective and Class Action Complaint against the Defendant on March 20, 2017. The Complaint alleges that the Defendant deducts a one-hour lunch break from pay for each workday, regardless of whether the Plaintiff does in fact take a lunch break. In a prior Order, the Court dismissed two counts of the Complaint for failure to state a claim. The remaining count alleges that the automatic one-hour deduction, regardless of whether the Plaintiff takes a lunch break or works through the hour, violates the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff now moves to conditionally certify a proposed class of ASOs working for the Defendant in Arizona on the grounds that they are "similarly situated" to the Plaintiff within the meaning of the FLSA. Under even the lenient standards of the notice stage, Judge Tuchi finds that the Plaintiff's allegations and sole declaration are insufficient to show a putative class of similarly situated individuals. The Complaint itself provides little to no factual allegations in support of the assertion that the ASOs are similarly situated to the Plaintiff. The only other evidence amounts to a sworn description of the Plaintiff's job duties and pay and does not even mention any other individual. The Judge also notes that, even if the Plaintiff did establish a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that the class is subject to an illegal plan or policy. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts that ASOs perform tasks on the flight home. Separately and distinctly, the Plaintiff asserts that all ASOs are subjected to Akal's automatic one-hour lunch deduction policy on the flight home. Nowhere in the pleadings or the declaration does the Plaintiff allege that the other ASOs work during their lunch breaks. The Plaintiff also seems to equate a bona fide meal break with the ability to make phone calls, stream internet, run errands, and so on. However, the Judge says, FLSA regulations and district courts in the Ninth Circuit define a bona fide meal break as one during which the employee is "completely relieved from duty." Although it may be difficult to fully enjoy the lunch break due to the conditions of the airplane, the ASOs' inability to enjoy entertainment or run errands is not in itself a violation of the bona fide meal break regulations. Judge Tuchi concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to show that other ASOs are similarly situated and subject to an illegal policy of working without compensation during their meal breaks. The Judge cannot assume this simply because the Plaintiff alleges he sometimes works through his. Therefore, he denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Conditional Class. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/peVaWR from Leagle.com. Ed E Alonzo, Plaintiff, represented by Emily Adele Johnson, Lubin & Enoch PC. Ed E Alonzo, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Seth Sarelson -- msarelson@kymplaw.com -- Kaplan Young & Moll Parron PLLC, Nicholas Jason Enoch, Lubin & Enoch PC & Stanley Lubin, Lubin & Enoch PC. Akal Security Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Derek H. Sparks -- Derek.Sparks@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC, Jenna Rinehart Rassif -- Jenna.Rassif@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC & Sonya K. Boun -- Sonya.Boun@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP. AKORN INC: Bid to Intervene in "Berg" Denied w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROBERT BERG, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AKORN, INC.; JOHN N. KAPOOR; KENNETH S. ABRAMOWITZ; ADRIENNE L. GRAVES; RONALD M. JOHNSON; STEVEN J. MEYER; TERRY A. RAPPUHN; BRIAN TAMBI; ALAN WEINSTEIN; RAJ RAI; FRENSENIUS KABI AG; QUERCUS ACQUISITION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 17 C 5016 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied with prejudice Theodore Frank's motions to intervene, and to consolidate. Berg filed the action, and several other individuals filed similar actions, against Akorn, the members of Akorn's board of directors, and Frensenius Kabi AG, in order to force Akorn to make certain revisions to the proxy statement it filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with Frensenius' bid to acquire Akorn. On July 10, 2017, Akorn made the changes to its proxy statement sought by Berg in the case and the plaintiffs in the other actions, making their claims moot. Shortly thereafter, all the cases were dismissed without prejudice by joint stipulations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). The plaintiffs' counsel also informed the Defendants that they intended to seek their fees from them. In the case in particular, Berg's counsel filed a Motion for Entry of Stipulation and Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. The motion document provided that the Court would retain jurisdiction over all parties solely for the purposes of any potential further proceedings relating to the adjudication of any claim by any Plaintiff in the Akorn Section 14 Actions for attorneys' fees and/or expenses. The Court granted the motion to dismiss by minute order on July 19, 2017, but did not enter the Stipulation and Proposed Order. Two months later, on Sept. 15, 2017, the parties filed another Stipulation and Proposed Order Closing Case for All Purposes. This document provided that the Plaintiffs in the Akorn Section 14 Actions have reached agreement with the Defendants with respect to the Fee Claims and the Defendants have agreed to provide them with a single payment of $322,500 in attorneys' fees and expenses to resolve any and all Fee Claims, and thus there are no Fee Claims to be adjudicated by the Court. It provided further, that the matter is fully resolved and no further issues remain in dispute, and, there being no reason for the Court to retain jurisdiction over the matter, the case should be closed for all purposes. Three days later, before the Court could take any action with respect to the September 15 proposed order, Frank, an owner of 1,000 Akorn shares, filed a motion to intervene for purposes of objecting to the settlement of the attorneys' fee claims. He contends that the cases filed by Berg and the other Plaintiffs are part of a "racket," pursued for the sole purpose of obtaining fees for the Plaintiffs' counsel, which are successful because victim Defendants like Akorn find it cheaper, and therefore rational, to pay nuisance value attorneys' fees rather than contest them, and further delay the merger. Frank contends that this is a misuse of the class action device for private gain. Berg opposes Frank's motion to intervene. Judge Durkin finds that Frank clearly seeks to challenge or object to the attorneys' fees settlement. But he has not identified a procedural mechanism that would serve as a vehicle for such an objection. There does not appear to be a process for the Court to approve or reject the settlement akin to that under Rule 23 for class actions or Rule 23.1 for derivative suits. He says maybe Frank theorizes that the Court's retention of jurisdiction, and the Plaintiffs' pending request for entry of an order closing the case "for all purposes," means that the case remains within the realm of a class action settlement that must comply with Rule 23. If this is Frank's theory, the Judge says, Frank has not articulated it. To the extent the Court's decision to retain jurisdiction in the case may have facilitated Berg's counsel's ability to extract greater fees from the Defendants, he is sympathetic to Frank's frustration with the Plaintiffs' engineering of a device to evade review under Rule 23 and the spirit of Walgreen. But the fact that the Plaintiffs' have dismissed their class claims without prejudice, and that the Defendants have already reached an agreement with their counsel, makes it difficult (if not impossible) to see how the case remains within the ambit of Rule 23, or any other authority of the Court. With respect to Frank's request for the Court to order disgorgement of the attorneys' fees under its inherent authority to address abuse of the judicial process, Judge Durkin does not perceive a basis to take the extraordinary remedy of disgorgement. Neither has Frank identified one. For these reasons, the Judge denied without prejudice Frank's motions to intervene and to consolidate. Because the parties' briefs on Frank's motion to intervene were focused on the Court's subject matter jurisdiction and contributed little to the Court's understanding of Frank's potential interest in this case; and because the Court is concerned with Berg's apparent success in evading the requirements of Rule 23, and takes seriously Frank's contention that this case, although brought in the name of Akorn's shareholders, actually serves to injure their interests (if only derivatively); Judge Durlin granted Frank leave to refile his motion to intervene (and motion to consolidate) by Dec. 8, 2017. He directed that should Frank refile his motion, it should focus on the issues identified by the Court in the Opinion regarding his interest in this case generally. Should Frank refile his motion, Berg's opposition is due Dec. 22, 2017, and Frank's reply is due Jan. 8, 2018. If Frank does not file a motion by Dec. 8, 2017, the Court will consider the case closed. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/WKZJLw from Leagle.com. Robert Berg, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher James Kupka -- ckupka@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky. Robert Berg, Plaintiff, represented by Eric J. O'Bell -- ejo@OBellLawFirm.com -- Gauthier, Houghtaling & Williams, Andrew Charles Murphy -- acm@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin, P.C., Brian D. Long -- bdl@rl-legal.com -- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., Elizabeth K. Tripodi -- etripodi@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Patrick Doyle Austermuehle, DiTommaso Lubin, P.C., Peter Scott Lubin -- psl@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin Austermuehle & Vincent Louis DiTommaso -- vdt@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin, P.C.. Akorn, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alexander Breckinridge, V - - abreckinridge@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker LLP, Anthony C. Porcelli -- aporcelli@polsinelli.com -- POLSINELLI PC, Robert H. Baron -- rbaron@cravath.com -- CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Robert B. Bieck, Jr., Jones Walker LLP & Sohil M. Shah, Polsinelli, PC. John N. Kapoor, Defendant, represented by Alexander Breckinridge, V, Jones Walker LLP, Anthony C. Porcelli, POLSINELLI PC, Robert H. Baron, CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Robert B. Bieck, Jr. -- rbieck@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker LLP & Sohil M. Shah -- sshah@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli, PC. Kenneth S. Abramowitz, Defendant, represented by Alexander Breckinridge, V, Jones Walker LLP, Anthony C. Porcelli, POLSINELLI PC, Robert H. Baron, CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Robert B. Bieck, Jr., Jones Walker LLP & Sohil M. Shah, Polsinelli, PC. Adrienne L. Graves, Defendant, represented by Alexander Breckinridge, V, Jones Walker LLP, Anthony C. Porcelli, POLSINELLI PC, Robert H. Baron, CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Robert B. Bieck, Jr., Jones Walker LLP & Sohil M. Shah, Polsinelli, PC. Ronald M. Johnson, Defendant, represented by Alexander Breckinridge, V, Jones Walker LLP, Anthony C. Porcelli, POLSINELLI PC, Robert H. Baron, CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Robert B. Bieck, Jr., Jones Walker LLP & Sohil M. Shah, Polsinelli, PC. Steven J. Meyer, Defendant, represented by Alexander Breckinridge, V, Jones Walker LLP, Anthony C. Porcelli, POLSINELLI PC, Robert H. Baron, CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Robert B. Bieck, Jr., Jones Walker LLP & Sohil M. Shah, Polsinelli, PC. Terry A. Rappuhn, Defendant, represented by Alexander Breckinridge, V, Jones Walker LLP, Anthony C. Porcelli, POLSINELLI PC, Robert H. Baron, CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Robert B. Bieck, Jr., Jones Walker LLP & Sohil M. Shah, Polsinelli, PC. Brian Tambi, Defendant, represented by Alexander Breckinridge, V, Jones Walker LLP, Anthony C. Porcelli, POLSINELLI PC, Robert H. Baron, CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Robert B. Bieck, Jr., Jones Walker LLP & Sohil M. Shah, Polsinelli, PC. Alan Weinstein, Defendant, represented by Alexander Breckinridge, V, Jones Walker LLP, Anthony C. Porcelli, POLSINELLI PC, Robert H. Baron, CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Robert B. Bieck, Jr., Jones Walker LLP & Sohil M. Shah, Polsinelli, PC. Raj Rai, Defendant, represented by Alexander Breckinridge, V, Jones Walker LLP, Anthony C. Porcelli, POLSINELLI PC, Robert H. Baron, CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Robert B. Bieck, Jr., Jones Walker LLP & Sohil M. Shah, Polsinelli, PC. Theodore H. Frank, Intervenor, represented by M. Frank Bednarz, Center For Class Action Fairness. AL DAHRA ACX: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, "Avila" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- LUIS AVILA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AL DAHRA ACX, INC., A corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC685992 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 6, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages penalties, injunctive relief, and restitution of all benefits Defendants have enjoyed from their failure to pay all wages owed and other violations of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs alleges that Defendants failed to comply with California labor laws governing the inclusion of bonus pay in overtime rate calculations, resulting in unpaid overtime wages, failure to pay all wages due on termination, and failure to maintain accurate payroll records. These unlawful acts result in liability for unlawful business practices. Al Dahra ACX, Inc. supplies forage, roughage, and feed products. It offers alfalfa hay, timothy hay, Sudan grass, oat hay, Bermuda products, timothy hay, dehydrated alfalfa, dehydrated rye grass, rye grass, straw products, pellet products, feed ingredients, and other grass hay and straw products for dairy, beef, horse, and camel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 761 5484 E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com - and - Sahag Maiarian, II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609 0807 Facsimile: (818) 609 0892 ALAMO RENT: Faces "Ball" Suit in M. Dist. Florida ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alamo Rent a Car, LLC. The case is styled John Ball, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alamo Rent a Car, LLC a Missouri limited liability company, Enterprise Holdings, Inc. a Missouri corporation and Enterprise Leasing Company of Orlando, LLC a Missouri limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-02106-GKS-GJK (M.D. Fla., December 8, 2017). Alamo Rent a Car is a car rental agency in the United States. Based in Clayton, Missouri, it has branches across North America, South America, Africa, Europe, and Oceania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Lynch, Esq. Christopher J. Lynch, P.A 6915 Red Road, Suite 208 Coral Gables, FL 33143 Tel: (305) 443-6200 Email: clynch@hunterlynchlaw.com - and - Edmund A. Normand, Esq. Normand Law, PLLC 62 W. Colonial St., Suite 209 Orlando, Fl 32814 Tel: (407) 603-6031 Email: ed@ednormand.com - and - Jacob Lawrence Phillips, Esq. Normand Law, PLLC 62 W. Colonial St., Suite 209 Orlando, Fl 32814 Tel: (407) 403-6031 Email: jacob@ednormand.com ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Fligmman" Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial, LP. The case is styled Lea Fligman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Alltran Financial, LP formerly known as: United Recovery Systems, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07176 (E.D. N.Y., December 8, 2017). Alltran Financial is a debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. Adam J. Fishbein, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Tel: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com ALTERRA GROUP: "Shevchuk" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- ULYANA SHEVCHUK, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALTERRA GROUP, LLC d/b/a ALTERRA HOME LOANS, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02922-APG-PAL (D. Nev., Nov. 21, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant hired Plaintiff and others similarly situated to provide assistance to customers with applying for and processing home loans. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from June 1, 2015 through January 25, 2017. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated are required to arrive at Defendant's place of business and perform services, including, but not limited to, assist customers with applying for and processing home loans. The Plaintiff and the class worked well over 40 hours per week. Typically, Plaintiff worked above 45 hours per week without being paid proper overtime compensation. Alterra Group offers home loan and mortgage services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leon Greenberg, Esq. Dana Sniegocki, Esq. LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2965 South Jones Blvd - Suite E3 Las Vegas, NV 89146 Telephone: (702) 383 6085 Facsimile: (702) 385 1827 E-mail: leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com; dana@overtimelaw.com ANAYA'S CUTTING: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Araujo Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRES ARAUJO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ANAYA'S CUTTING, INC., a California Corporation; MARTIN ANAYA, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC684452 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 21, 2017), alleges that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have not been paid, during the relevant liability periods, wages for all time worked, including overtime wages, as a result of, including but not limited to, maintaining a policy whereby each week, Plaintiff and the Class Members were paid for all regular time worked up to 40 hours per week via paycheck and was paid cash for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work. Often times the cash payments did not compensate the class members for the actual overtime hours they worked. From July 2, 2017 through August 24, 2017, Plaintiff was paid entirely in cash, and was not compensated for all hours worked. The Defendants also rounded the time on Plaintiff and another employees timecards thereby reporting less hours than was actually worked before clocking out.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer F. Hooshmand, Esq. Devon M. Lyon, Esq. LYON LEGAL, P.C. 2698 Junipero Ave., Suite 201A Signal Hill, CA 90755 Telephone: (562) 216 7382 Facsimile: (562) 216 7385 E-mail: d.lyon@lyon-legal.com j.hooshmand@lyon-legal.com ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD: Impact Fee Refunds Order Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HALLE DEVELOPMENT, INC. et al., v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, Case No. 1299 (Md. Spec. App.), Judge Robert A. Zarnoch of the U.S. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the district court's judgment for the County to award counsel fees in the amount of 39% of the $1,342,360 in refunds plus 5% interest on each refund, and from that 39%, the County was ordered to pay Greiber 67.6% and Phillip F. Scheibe 32.4%, but withhold 20% of Scheibe's fee to the benefit of those entitled to a refund. The case began in February of 2001 when the Appellees filed a class action complaint in the circuit court on behalf of all current owners of real property located within the boundaries of Anne Arundel County. The class action grew out of the County's unlawful retention of development impact fees from property owners in the County between 1988 and 1996. The property owners' action to recover refunds of impact fees has spanned more than 16 years, resulting in numerous orders of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County and appellate opinions from the Court and the Court of Appeals. The circuit court initially dismissed the complaint, finding the property owners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, but the Court reversed that decision on appeal. There, it held that the Appellants could maintain an action in assumpsit due to the absence of an effective administrative remedy following the County's failure to publish a refund notice. On remand, the circuit court conditionally certified the class action pursuant to Md. Rule 2-231(b)(3). On Dec. 15, 2006, the circuit court issued its decision on the merits, finding that $4,719,359 in refunds were due to the current owners of specified fee-paying properties, with 5% interest from the date of each initial fee's payment. The court included fees collected in 1988 through 1996. On appeal, the County argued that the circuit court erred by refusing to permit the County to count the encumbrances in calculating the refund. In its Feb. 7, 2008 opinion and May 7, 2008 supplemental opinion, the Court held that the circuit erred by excluding fees that were encumbered within six years following collection. The County petitioned and the Plaintiffs cross-petitioned for review by the Court of Appeals, which issued its opinion May 6, 2009. The Court, however, declined to review issues, and its prior holdings became the law of the case. Thereafter, the Court affirmed its 2008 decision on all issues on which it granted certiorari. On Sept. 15, 2009, the circuit court appointed John R. Greiber as the lead counsel for the Class and denied Scheibe's Motion to Strike Greiber as the counsel. The circuit court allowed Scheibe to stay on as counsel only for the named class representatives. Later, he filed a Supplemental Motion to Strike Counsel, which the circuit court denied on March 2, 2011. On March 25, 2011, following a 15-day bench trial, the circuit court issued its order and opinion, finding that property owners were due $1,342,360 in impact fee refunds, plus 5% interest for each property owner from the date of each impact fee payment to the date of the refund. The circuit court, citing to the Court's prior opinion as the law of the case, accepted the County's calculation of fees that were expended or encumbered on eligible projects. On July 24, 2012, the circuit court entered its order as a final judgment, and the property owners appealed to the Court again. In its July 29, 2013 opinion, the Court held that the circuit court did not err or abuse its discretion in entering the March 25, 2011 order. On May 13, 2014, the circuit court awarded counsel fees in the amount of 39% of the $1,342,360 in refunds plus 5% interest on each refund. From that 39%, the County was ordered to pay Greiber 67.6% and Scheibe 32.4%, but withhold 20% of Scheibe's fee to the benefit of those entitled to a refund. On Aug. 8, 2016, following the circuit court's rulings on various other motions, the court issued its final order and on Nov. 7, 2016, the County paid as directed. On appeal to the Court, Scheibe, as the counsel for appellants and named class members, challenges the circuit court's determination of available impact fee refunds and interest, its designation of Greiber as the lead counsel for the Class and its division of attorneys' fees. Judge Zarnoch holds that the circuit court did not err in its award of $1,342,360 in impact fee refunds and 5% interest per annum on each refund, or in its designation of Greiber as the lead counsel for the Class. Based on an analysis of the same arguments raised in the appeal, the Court held in its 2013 opinion that the law of the case doctrine compelled the circuit court to determine impact fee encumbrances pursuant to our 2008 prior holding. He discerns no error by the circuit court. As there has been no change in the facts underlying the 2013 opinion, the holding of the Court that the circuit court did not err in its consideration of funds that were encumbered within six years following collection is still the law of the case. The circuit court, therefore, did not err in determining that the funds were timely encumbered, and applying that amount to the sums available for refund. The Judge further holds that the Appellants' arguments on the issues of whether to include encumbrances and how the court must treat ineligible expenditures, the denial post-judgment interest, and the court's designation of lead counsel -- all of which the Court have previously addressed and decided or were not properly raised in a prior appeal -- are barred by the doctrine of the law of the case. It was within the trial court's discretion to apportion reasonable attorneys' fees in the absence of a written fee agreement signed by the named class representatives. The circuit court engaged in a detailed analysis of the factors listed in MRPC 1.5(a), and others, to determine a reasonable percentage of the common fund in counsel fees, and it considered the work of both Greiber and Scheibe in apportioning those fees between them. The court's findings were not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Judge concludes that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in awarding a percentage of the common fund as counsel fees to Greiber as the lead counsel for the class, or in its division of fees. Finally, during the course of the litigation, both the County and the property owners have attempted to go back in time to either return to arguments previously lost on appeal or to remedy past procedural failures. The County, eventually, accepted its fate and it has complied with the circuit court's final disposition of the case. The Appellants, on the other hand, have raised arguments that the Court has already rejected. Judge Zarnoch says the law of the case doctrine bars almost every argument the Appellants raise in the appeal. Similarly, the challenge to the circuit court's division of counsel fees returns to the same grounds relied on in arguing that the circuit court erred in its designation of Greiber as the lead counsel, which it addressed in 2013. For the same reasons the Court has in its prior opinions, the Judge affirms the order of the circuit court entered on Aug. 8, 2016. For these reasons, Judge Zarnoch affirmed the judgment of the circuit court for the County. The costs be paid by the Appellants. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2017 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/j84666 from Leagle.com. APEX TERMITE: "Silva" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled 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. 17-025140-CA- 01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami- Dade, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on Dec. 4, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-24370-KMW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kathleen M. Williams. 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 Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Lawrence Joseph McGuinness, Esq. Juliana Gonzalez, Esq. MCGUINNESS & GONZALEZ, P.A. 3126 Center Street Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 448 9557 Facsimile: (305) 448 9559 E-mail: ljmpalaw@netzero.com juliana_gonzalez@hotmail.com ASSOCIATES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY: "Smith" Suit Moved to D.S.C. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Ashlee Smith, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Associates in Gastroenterology PA and Berkeley Endoscopy Center LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2017-CP-40-06035, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas Richland County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Columbia) on Nov. 22, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-03179-TLW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Terry L Wooten. Associates In Gastroenterology is a medical group practice located in Wexford, PA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Paul Porter, Esq. CROMER BABB PORTER AND HICKS PO Box 11675 Columbia, SC 29211-1675 Telephone: (803) 799 9530 E-mail: paul@cbphlaw.com - and - Janet Elizabeth Rhodes, Esq. BURNETTE SHUTT AND MCDANIEL PA PO Box 1929 Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 850 0912 Facsimile: (803) 904 7910 E-mail: jrhodes@burnetteshutt.law The Defendants are represented by: Charles Edgar McDonald, III, Esq. Christopher Ray Thomas, Esq. William L Duda, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PO Box 2757 Greenville, SC 29602 Telephone: (864) 271 1300 Facsimile: (864) 242 0037 E-mail: charles.mcdonald@ogletreedeakins.com christopher.r.thomas@ogletreedeakins.com bill.duda@ogletreedeakins.com ATLANTA, GA: Faces "Fambro" Wage-and-Hour Suit ---------------------------------------------- Edward Fambro, Michael Holmes and Kimberly Gertman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective action, the Plaintiffs, v. City of Atlanta, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04960-WSD (N.D. Ga., Dec. 6, 2017), alleges that the City failed to compensate Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees in the City's Corrections Department for accrued compensatory time upon their separation from employment. The City also failed to compensate them for overtime after their comp time accruals reached 480 hours. The City periodically and unlawfully truncated the compensatory accruals of the class. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a collective of similarly situated individuals, to wit, "All persons who the City of Atlanta employed in the City's Corrections Department in the three years prior to December 6, 2017, who were awarded compensatory time in lieu of overtime, and who consent in writing to their inclusion in a collective action." Atlanta is the capital of the U.S. state of Georgia. It played an important part in both the Civil War and the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. Atlanta History Center chronicles the city's past, and the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site is dedicated to the African-American leader's life and times.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Esq. Charles R. Bridgers, Esq. DELONG, CALDWELL, BRIDGERS, FITZPATRICK, BENJAMIN, LLC 3100 Centennial Tower 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 979-3150 Facsimile: (404) 979 3170 E-mail: charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com ATLANTIC CREDIT: Faces "Vento" Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc. The case is styled Claudia Vento, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07179 (E.D. N.Y., December 8, 2017). Atlantic Credit & Finance purchases and manages unsecured and consumer-distressed assets. It also purchases various consumer- distressed asset types, including credit card receivables, retail credit card receivables, automotive deficiencies, healthcare receivables, telecommunication receivables, and utilities receivables.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. AW LINS: Faces "Pillay" Suit over Tip-Pooling --------------------------------------------- RACHAEL SHIRES and SPENCER PILLAY, Each Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AW LINS ASIAN CUISINE DOWNTOWN LITTLE ROCK, LLC, and "ANDY" LIU and "JENNY" LIU, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00771-BSM (E.D. Ark., Nov. 21, 2017), seeks to recover declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, within the applicable statutory limitations period as a result of Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Shires was a server at AW Lins. Mr. Pillay was a bartender at AW Lins. They were told they will be paid $2.63 per hour plus tips, and $5.00 per hour plus tips, respectively, and they have so far received all of their pay in cash. The Defendants, however, did not let Plaintiffs keep all of the tips they received. Rather, when Plaintiffs were hired, they were told that part of their tips would be collected by management as a part of a tip-pooling arrangement. The tips collected were distributed to other AW Lins employees such as busboys and servers, but was also distributed to employees in management positions. Because Defendants did not operate a valid tip pool, they were required to pay Plaintiffs and its other tipped employees at least $7.50 (and $8.50 under state law) per hour. The Plaintiffs bring this suit individually and on behalf of all other servers and bartenders employed by Defendants. The Defendants own and/or operate AW Lins, an Asian cuisine restaurant in Pulaski County, located at 17717 Chenal Parkway in Little Rock.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 Telephone: (501) 221 0088 Facsimile: (888) 787 2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com BEST & CO: "Carranza" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under Labor Law ---------------------------------------------------------------- Washington Carranza, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Best & Co. Hair Cutters Ltd., Nubest Personal Fitness Salon, Inc., and Michael Mazzei, the Defendants, Case No. 716200/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 21, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, maximum liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New York Minimum Wage Act and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was paid at his straight regular rate for overtime hours worked in some weeks during his employment with Defendants and Plaintiff was not paid for each and all hours worked in each week during his employment with Defendants. For example, for the weekly pay period ending October 24, 2015, Plaintiff worked at least 42.75 hours and was paid at his straight regular rate of $13.40 an hour for each and all of these 42.75 hours worked. Likewise, for the weekly pay period ending April 16, 2016, The Plaintiff worked at least 41 hours and was paid at his straight regular rate of $13.40 an hour for each and all of these 41 hours worked. Similarly, for the weekly pay period ending March 11, 2017, Plaintiff worked at least 42.50 hours and was paid at his straight regular rate of $14.50 an hour for each and all of these 42.50 hours worked. These examples are reflective of Defendants' payment pattern throughout numerous weeks of Plaintiff's employment with them.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740 1000 Facsimile: (718) 740 2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com BNSF RAILWAY: "Gonzales" Suit Moved to E.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Gregory Neal Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BNSF Railway Company, the Defendant, Case No. 17- 00002-51180-11, was removed from the Superior Court of Washington Franklin County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on Nov. 22, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-05193-TOR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. BNSF Railway is one of the largest freight railroad networks in North America, second to the Union Pacific Railroad, and is one of eleven North American Class I railroads.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: India Lin Bodien, Esq. INDIA LIN BODIEN ATTORNEY AT LAW 2522 N Proctor St No. 387 Tacoma, WA 98407 Telephone: (253) 212 7913 E-mail: india@indialinbodienlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: William Thomas Montgomery, Esq. MONTGOMERY SCARP & CHAIT PLLC 1218 3rd Avenue, Suite 2400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 625 1801 Facsimile: (206) 625 1807 E-mail: tom@montgomeryscarp.com BNSF RAILWAY: "Sumlin" Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Henry Sumlin and Brian Lee, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BNSF Railway Company and Does 1-10, the Defendants, was removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court, CIVDS1721925, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside) on Nov. 22, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-02364-JFW-KK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John F. Walter. BNSF Railway is one of the largest freight railroad networks in North America, second to the Union Pacific Railroad, and is one of eleven North American Class I railroads.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig J Ackermann, Esq. Sam Vahedi, Esq. ACKERMANN AND TILAJEF PC 1180 South Beverly Drive Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 277 0614 Facsimile: (310) 277 0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com - and - David S Winston, Esq. WINSTON LAW GROUP, P.C. 1180 South Beverly Drive Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (424) 288 4568 Facsimile: (424) 532 4062 E-mail: david@employmentlitigators.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP PC 1180 South Beverly Drive Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 824 3828 Facsimile: (310) 862 6851 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com Attorneys for BNSF Railway Company: Amanda Pade Ellison, Esq. Koree Blyleven, Esq. JONES DAY 555 S Flower Street 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 489 3939 Facsimile: (213) 243 2539 E-mail: apade@jonesday.com kblyleven@jonesday.com BONNEVILLE BILLING: "Zachary" Suit Moved to District of Idaho ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Lehmkuhl Zachary, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bonneville Billing and Collections, Inc., a Utah Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. CV-17-00776, was removed from the Seventh Judicial District for Madison County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho (Pocatello - Eastern) on Dec. 7, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-00503-DCN to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David C. Nye. Bonneville Billing is a collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Adam Ballard, Esq. Ballard Law, PLLC 237 N. 2nd East, Suite 102 Rexburg, ID 83440 Telephone: (208) 359 5532 E-mail: ryanballardlaw@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Donald J Farley, Esq. POWERS TOLMAN FARLEY, PLLC 345 Bobwhite Court, Ste. 150 P. O. Box 9756 Boise, ID 83707 Telephone: (208) 577 5100 Facsimile: (208) 577 5101 E-mail: djf@powerstolman.com BRISK AIR: "Loya" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled MARK A LOYA, individually and for all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BRISK AIR, INC., a Florida profit corporation and ANDY ANDRES, individually, Defendants, Case No. CACE 17-018981, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit for Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale) on Nov. 21, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv- 62289-FAM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Federico A. Moreno. Brisk Air offers residential and commercial HVAC repair service serving the Phoenix, Arizona area since 2000.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brody Max Shulman, Esq. Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Courthouse Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: M. Benjamin Murphey, Esq. LAWLOR WHITE & MURPHEY, LLP 2211 Davie Blvd. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312 Telephone: (954) 525 2345 Facsimile: (954) 730 8908 E-mail: bmurphey@lwmlegal.com BULTHAUP CORP: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bulthaup Corporation. The case is styled as Steven Matzura and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bulthaup Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09669 (S.D. N.Y., December 8, 2017). Bulthaup offers kitchen and living space systems with which you can design your living space to suit your needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com BURBANK MANAGEMENT: Terrell Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- JAKE D. TERRELL, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BURBANK MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC684565 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 27, 2017), seeks to recover all unpaid wages due at the time of termination or resignation to Plaintiff and the Proposed Class under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, for at least four years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present, the Defendant has had a consistent policy of failing to inform Proposed Class Members of their right to take meal periods by way of a lawful policy and requiring Proposed Class Members within the State of California, including Plaintiff, to work at least five hours before receiving a meal period and failing to pay the employees one hour of pay at the employees' regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period was provided after five hours, as required by California state wage and hour laws. For at least four years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present, Defendant has had a consistent policy of failing to inform Proposed Class Members of their right to take rest periods by way of a lawful policy and of failing to provide Proposed Class Members within the State of California, including Plaintiff, rest periods of at least 10 minutes per four hours worked or major fraction thereof and failing to pay such employees one hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the rest period was not provided, as required by California state wage and hour laws.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren M. Cohen, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990 8300 Facsimile: (818) 990 2903 E-mail: dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com BURLINGTON COAT: "Knight" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law ----------------------------------------------------------------- Omar Knight, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corporation, and New Beginnings Commercial/Residential Cleaning Plus, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 716248/2017 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges pursuant to the NY Civil Practice Law and Rules 901, on behalf of himself and a class of other similarly- situated current and former employees who were employed by Defendants, individually and/or jointly, within the six-year period preceding the filing of this action to the date of disposition of this action, that he and they: 1) were paid an hourly rate less than or equal to the applicable New York State minimum wage rate; and 2) worked a spread of hours of more than 10 hours in a day; that he and they are entitled to an extra hour of pay for each such day pursuant to New York Minimum Wage Act and the regulations thereunder including 12 NYCRR. The Plaintiff further complains under Civil Practice Law and Rules, on behalf of himself and a class of other similarly situated current and former hourly employees who worked for Defendants as manual workers and who: 1) were employed by Defendants within the State of New York as manual workers; 2) entitled to maximum liquidated damages and interest for being paid overtime wages and non-overtime wages later than weekly; and 3) entitled to costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New York Labor Law; as well as an injunction prohibiting Defendants from continuing to violate the weekly payment requirement for manual workers set forth in NYLL. Burlington Coat Factory -- http://www.BurlingtonCoatFactory.com/- - is an American national off price department store retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740 1000 Facsimile: (718) 740 2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com C. TECH COLLECTIONS: Faces "Cammy" Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against C. tech Collections, Inc. The case is styled Morris Cammy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C. tech Collections, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07175 (E.D. N.Y., December 8, 2017). C. Tech Collections is a debt collection agency located in Mount Sinai, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C. 337 Avenue W, Suite 2f Brooklyn, NY 11223 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (347) 665-1545 Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com CALIBER HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Moorehead Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LANCE MOOREHEAD, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, v. CALIBER HOLDINGS CORPORATION d/b/a CALIBER COLLISIONS CENTERS, CALIBER COLLISIONS, and CALIBER COLLISIONS EXPRESS, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-01308-F (W.D. Okla., Dec. 5, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Defendant is aware or should be aware that federal law requires it to pay all employee full minimum wage and overtime wages for all hours over 40 worked in any work week. The Plaintiff is similarly situated to Defendant's other employees undertaking class duties because those employees were also paid in violation of the FLSA and subjected to Defendant's illegal policy or practice of failing to pay Plaintiff a minimum wage for hours worked; and failing to pay Plaintiff overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Caliber Holdings Corporation operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides auto repair services such as paintless dent repair, auto glass, and vehicle reassembly, as well as offers car rentals, insurance, towing, and warranty services. Caliber operates throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacque Pearsall, Esq. 2548 NW Expressway, Suite 102 Oklahoma City, OK 73112 Telephone: (405) 609 6601 Facsimile: (405) 673 5785 E-mail: jacquepearsall@gmail.com CALIFORNIA OFF TRACK: Faces "Castro" Wage-and-Hour Suit ------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD CASTRO, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA OFF TRACK WAGERING, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG17883233 (Cal. Super. Ct. Nov. 21, 2017), seeks to recover penalties and damages for Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants jointly and severally have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to keep accurate records and failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements identifying all required information, including without limitation, the address of the employer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William L. Marder POLARIS LAW GROUP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531 4214 Facsimile: (831) 634 0333 - and - Dennis S. Hyun, Esq. HYUN LEGALM, APC 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488 6555 Facsimile: (213) 488 6554 CALLICO CONSTRUCTION: "Villatoro" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE A. VILLATORO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CALLICO CONSTRUCTION CORP. (d/b/a CALLICO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY), GLENN J. CANCRO and ALAN CANCRO, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-12084 (D.N.J., Nov. 27, 2017), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants. The Callico Construction Corp. is a construction company owned by Glenn J. Cancro and Alan Cancro located at 13-15 Wright Avenue No. 15, Jersey City, New Jersey, 07306-6417. Mr. Villatoro worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving the appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of his hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff additional overtime premium for any hours worked over 40. Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff Villatoro to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing them the overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Sara Isaacson, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 Facsimile: (212) 317 1620 E-mail: sisaacson@faillacelaw.com CAPITAL PAWN: Faces "McCown" Suit over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- RUTH MCCOWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL PAWN II OF FLORIDA, a limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00665-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., Dec. 5, 2017), seeks to stop Defendant from its practice of sending unsolicited text messages to cellular telephones without the recipient's prior express written consent and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct, including injunctive relief. The Defendant operates a chain of retail outlets that sell previously used item. In order to promote different sales and promotions, Defendant contacts consumers with solicitation messages. Unfortunately for consumers, Defendant conducted (and continues to conduct) a wide-scaling telemarketing campaign that features the repeated sending of unwanted solicitation text messages to consumers' cellular telephones without consent -- and even to those who have demanded that text messages stop -- in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400 4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor Miami, FL 333131 Telephone: (888) 333 9427 Facsimile: (888) 498 8946 CEDARS SINAI: "Castro" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law -------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA CASTRO, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. CEDARS SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM, a California corporation; CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC684388 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, restitution, and related relief under the California Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide her and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods, failed to provide them with rest periods, failed to pay premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods, failed to pay them for all hours worked, failed to pay overtime wages at the correct rate, failed to pay double time wages at the correct rate, failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements, and failed to timely pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone (310) 888 7771 Facsimile (310) 888 0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com scott@setarehlaw.com CENTRAL PLUMBING: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Plumbing Specialties Co., Inc. The case is styled Steven Matzura and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Central Plumbing Specialties Co., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17- cv-09671 (S.D. N.Y., December 8, 2017). Central Plumbing Specialties Co., Inc. distributes faucets, sinks, and fittings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Underpays Help Desk Workers, Briggs Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ISRAFEL BRIGGS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC and TIME WARNER CABLE SERVICES LLC AS AGENT FOR TWC ADMINISTRATION, the Defendants, Case No. 716187/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 21, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, attorneys' fees, costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest under New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated nonexempt hourly paid customer service representatives and help desk leads ("Help Desk Workers") employed by Time Warner Cable Services LLC As Agent For TWC Administration ("Time Warner") and subsequently by Time Warner and Defendant Charter Communications, LLC ("Charter") in the State of New York at any time during the period commencing six years prior to the filing of this action and continuing until such further date as the practices complained of are discontinued. The Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in illegal and improper wage practices. These practices include: requiring Help Desk Workers to perform work without compensation during meal breaks; failing to pay Help Desk Workers overtime of time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a week; and failing to provide accurate wage statements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C. 1613 Northern Boulevard Roslyn, NY 11576 Telephone: (516) 625 0105 CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Tibbetts" Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Adriana Tibbetts and Darryl Tibbetts, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs. v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00968, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Nov. 22, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-08508-R-SK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Manuel L. Real. Cheesecake Factory operates restaurants in United States. It also operates full-service casual dining restaurants in Chicago; Los Angeles; Las Vegas; Houston; Dallas; Garden City, New York; and Sunrise, Florida. In addition, the company operates a self-service limited-menu food service.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Patrick Fusco, Esq. IACONIS FUSCO, LLP 340 Trinity Place Malverne, NY 11565 Telephone: (516) 535 9295 Facsimile: (516) 535 9295 E-mail: jfusco@iaconisfusco.com The Defendant is represented by: Louis Smith, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 500 Campus Drive Suite 400 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 360 7900 Facsimile: (973) 295 1321 E-mail: smithlo@gtlaw.com CJ MAHAN: "Betzner" Suit Moved to Eastern District of Arkansas -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Paul Betzner; Rhonda Betzner; James Alberson; Tiffani Alberson, as a parent and next friend of Mattison Jernigan, a minor; Kelley Kelly; Tony Patterson; and Fredonia, City of also known as: Biscoe, City of on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs v. CJ Mahan Construction Company LLC, Parsons-Mahan Joint Venture, Parsons Construction Group Inc., John Does 1-30, and API Equipment LLC, Case No. 59SCV- 17-00038, was removed from the Prairie County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock) on Nov. 27, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-00778-BRW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Billy Roy Wilson. Based in Columbus, Ohio, C.J. Mahan Construction Company, LLC is a heavy-civil and marine contractor with a proven track-record for success on some of the most challenging and complex infrastructure projects east of the Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Doyle Nalley, Esq. LOVELL & NALLEY Post Office Box 606 Benton, AR 72015-0606 Telephone: (501) 315 7491 Facsimile: (501) 778 4979 E-mail: johndoylenalley@hotmail.com - and - Mattie A. Taylor, Esq. Randall I. Hall, Esq. HALL & TAYLOR LAW PARTNERS Post Office Box 242055 Little Rock, AR 72223 Telephone: (501) 404 2333 Facsimile: (501) 404 2336 E-mail: randy@littlerocktriallawyers.com Attorneys for CJ Mahan Construction Company LLC: Scott P. Richardson, Esq. MCDANIEL, RICHARDSON, & CALHOUN, PLLC 1020 West Fourth Street, Suite 410 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 235 8336 Facsimile: (501) 588 2104 E-mail: scott@mrcfirm.com Attorneys for Parsons-Mahan Joint Venture: Gary D. Marts, Jr., Esq. Stephen R. Lancaster, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Telephone: (501) 212 1234 Facsimile: (501) 376 9442 E-mail: gmarts@wlj.com slancaster@wlj.com Attorneys for API Equipment LLC: Jennifer Cameron Kellett, Esq. 3010 Goodwyn Green Circle Memphis, TN 38111 Telephone: (901) 490 7456 CLEANSTREET: Fails to Pay All Wages, "Villanueva" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR VILLANUEVA, as an individual and on behalf of all employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CLEANSTREET, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC684440 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 21, 2017), seeks to recover all Wages including overtime under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff and Class Members were non-exempt employees covered under one or more IWC Wage Order(s), and Labor Code section 510, and/or other applicable Wage Orders, regulations and statutes, and each Class Member was not subject to an exemption for executive, administrative or professional employees, which imposed obligations on the part of Defendant to pay Plaintiff and Class Members lawful overtime compensation. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class were covered by one or more IWC Wage Order(s), and Labor Code section 226.7 and other applicable Wage Orders, regulations and statutes which imposed an obligation on the part of Defendant to pay Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class rest and meal period compensation. The Defendant was obligated to pay Plaintiff and Class Members for all hours worked. However, Defendant had a policy and practice of not paying Plaintiff and Class Members for all hours worked by requiring its employees to work off-the clock. For example, Plaintiff often stayed after his shift ended in order to assist other drivers with their routes. Clean Street provides cleaning and sweeping services for municipalities and private facilities throughout California. It offers municipal street sweeping, concrete scrubbing-grease removal, bus stop cleaning, storm water system cleaning, special event clean-up, sidewalk cleaning, graffiti removal, and business district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Anna R. Salusky, Esq. Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. Alina B. Mazeika, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590 5550 Facsimile: (562) 590 8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net asalusky@mahoney-law.net kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net amazeika@mahoney-law.net COAST MEDICAL: Deducts $30 from Nurses' Pay, "Sweatt" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JOYCE SWEATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COAST MEDICAL SERVICE, INC., SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., and DOES 1 to 100, the Defendants, Case No. BC684665 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 22, 2017), seeks to recover $30.00 from Plaintiff's pay as a result of Defendants' violation of the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class members worked for Defendants as per diem nurses. The Defendants are Temporary Services Employers pursuant to Labor Code section 201.3(a). The Defendants assigned Plaintiff and the class members to work for various hospitals on a day-to-day basis. Plaintiffs were entitled to payment at the end of each day pursuant to Labor Code section. To receive payment at the end of the day, Defendants deducted $30.00 from Plaintiffs and the class members' paychecks. The Defendants entered into an employment contract with Plaintiff on November 22, 2016. The terms of the Travel Agreement were, in relevant part, that Plaintiff would be assigned to Southern California Hospital at Culver City for thirteen weeks between November 28, 2017 and February 26, 2017. The Plaintiff was terminated from her position before February 26, 2017, in breach of the Travel Agreement after Defendants breached the Travel Agreement, Plaintiff still continued working as a per diem nurse. While working as a per diem nurse, Plaintiff was entitled to payment at the end of each day pursuant to Labor Code, but Plaintiff was required to acquiesce to a $30 deduction to receive wages. The Plaintiff notified the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and Defendants on October 4, 2017 of the intent to seek PAGA penalties, as required by Labor Code section 2699. Once 65 days have elapsed since the letter was sent, Plaintiff will amend to request PAGA penalties. Coast Medical Service is a customer driven healthcare staffing company focused on per diem and travel nursing opportunities in Greater Los Angeles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Starr, Esq. Adam M. Rose, Esq. Theodore R. Tang, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Road, STE 2074 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 914 3433 Facsimile: (818) 914 3433 E-mail: robert@frontierlawcenter.com adam@frontierlawcenter.com theodore@frontierlawcenter.com CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Faces "Sloan" Suit in C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Continental Service Group, Inc. The case is styled Ranisha Sloan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v Continental Service Group, Inc. dba ConServe, Defendant, Case No. 12:17-cv- 08885 (C.D. Cal., December 9, 2017). Continental Service Group, Inc. doing business as ConServe provides debt collection services to creditors. It specializes in higher education receivables.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq. Law Offices of Jonathan A Stieglitz 11845 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Tel: (323) 979-2063 Fax: (323) 488-6748 Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: "Mazariegos" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Al Mazariegos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 612524/2017, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of NY, County of Suffolk, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip) on Nov. 27, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-06900-ADS-AKT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Arthur D. Spatt. Convergent Outsourcing offers business process outsourcing, revenue cycle, and receivables management services. It also provides receivables collection services to credit grantors in retail, telecommunications, and utilities industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq. 775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255 Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (631) 629 7709 E-mail: mpash@verizon.net The Defendant is represented by: Matthew Brady Johnson, Esq. BROCK & SCOTT 300 Cadman Plaza West One Pierrepont Plaza, 12th Fl Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (646) 710 3912 Facsimile: (813) 438 2282 E-mail: matt.johnson@brockandscott.com CRAIG TOOLS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Menchaca Says ------------------------------------------------------- JOSE ALFREDO MENCHACA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CRAIG TOOLS, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant, Case No. BC684774 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that, during the four years preceding the filing of the Complaint and continuing to the present, Defendants did (and do) business by supplying rotary cutting tools for the aerospace industry, and employed Plaintiff and other similarly situated non-exempt employees within Los Angeles County and the State of California. The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of eight hours per workday, and/or more than 40 hours per workweek, but did not receive overtime compensation equal to one and one- half times his regular rate of pay for working overtime hours. Specifically, Defendants paid Plaintiff non-discretionary incentive pay, including year-end bonuses based on company performance and/or other forms of pay not excludable as a matter of law when calculating an employee's regular rate. Despite Defendants' payment of Incentive Pay to Plaintiff, Defendants have failed to include all forms of Incentive Pay when calculating Plaintiffs regular rate of pay, thereby causing Plaintiff to be underpaid all of his required overtime wages. Rather, Plaintiff was only paid one-and-a-half times (or two times in the case of double-time hours) his base hourly rate, which is not equal to his regular rate, as Defendants failed to include the various forms of Incentive Pay earned by Plaintiff during corresponding time periods that are required to be included in the regular rate, but were not.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. Andrew J. Rowbotham, 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 CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Faces "Solano" Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Management L.P. The case is styled Allison Solano, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Management L.P., Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-01329-BKS-ATB (N.D. N.Y., December 8, 2017). Credit Management L.P. operates as a receivables management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Cohen, Esq. Daniel Cohen PLLC 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (646) 645-8482 Fax: (347) 665-1545 Email: dan@dccohen.com DITECH FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses "Scally" FDCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed without prejudice the case styled KENDALL SCALLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16cv1992-WQH-WVG (S.D. Cal.). On Aug. 9, 2016, Scally initiated the action by filing a class action complaint against the Defendant alleging causes of action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("Rosenthal Act"). On Sept. 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint alleging the same causes of action against the Defendant. On Jan. 26, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting a motion to dismiss and dismissing the first amended complaint without prejudice. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff's claims were precluded by the Bankruptcy Code because they hinged on allegations that the Defendant was attempting to collect a debt previously discharged in bankruptcy. On May 30, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a second amended class action complaint against the Defendant. The Plaintiff again alleges a cause of action for violations of the FDCPA and a cause of action for violations of the Rosenthal Act on behalf of himself and other similarly situated. On June 13, 2017, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. On July 10, 2017, the Defendant filed a reply. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the FDCPA or Rosenthal Act because the second amended complaint lacks factual allegations to establish that the debt at issue is a debt for personal, family, or household purposes. It contends that he Plaintiff's claims remain precluded by the Bankruptcy Code because they are premised on a debt discharged in bankruptcy. It further contends that the Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed with prejudice because they continue to depend on the legal effect of the discharge of his debt in bankruptcy and further litigation would be futile and prejudicial. In the second amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that he is a 'consumer' as the term is defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(3) and that the Defendant attempted to collect a 'consumer debt' as the term is defined by the FDCPA and Rosenthal FDCPA. Judge Hayes says these statements are legal conclusions insufficient to establish the nature of the debt. He concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that he has been the object of collection activity arising from a consumer debt covered by the FDCPA. Because he fails to state a claim under the FDCPA, the Plaintiff also fails to state a claim under the Rosenthal Act. Judge Hayes therefore granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismissed without prejudice the second amended complaint. The Plaintiff will have 30 days from the date the Order is issued to file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. If the Plaintiff fails to do so, the Clerk of Court will close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/NrqF6f from Leagle.com. Kendall Scally, Plaintiff, represented by Asil A. Mashiri, Mashiri Law Firm A Professional Corporation. Kendall Scally, Plaintiff, represented by Babak Semnar -- Bob@SanDiegoConsumerAttorneys.com -- Semnar & Hartman, LLP & Jared M. Hartman -- jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com -- Semnar & Hartman LLP. Ditech Financial, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mathew McKenna Wrenshall -- mwrenshall@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Perry Anthony Napolitano -- pnapolitano@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, pro hac vice. DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces "Morales" Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified Consultants, Inc. The case is styled Karen Morales, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07173 (E.D. N.Y., December 8, 2017). Diversified Consultants is a business specializing in accounts receivable management functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C. 337 Avenue W, Suite 2f Brooklyn, NY 11223 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (347) 665-1545 Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com DYNAMIC LEDGER: GGCC Sues over Initial Coin Offering ---------------------------------------------------- GGCC, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DYNAMIC LEDGER SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, TEZOS STIFTUNG, a Swiss Foundation, KATHLEEN BREITMAN, an Individual, and ARTHUR BREITMAN, an Individual, the Defendants, Case No. (S.D. Fla., Nov. 24, 2017), is a securities class action on behalf of all U.S. investors that contributed the digital currencies bitcoin and/or ethereum to the Tezos blockchain "Initial Coin Offering" between July 1 and 14, 2017. In violation of Sections 5, 12(a)(1) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, according to the complaint, the Defendants offered and sold Tezos tokens without filing a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Tezos tokens are securities. An ICO is a fundraising mechanism through which the founders of a blockchain project sell crypto tokens in exchange for the cryptocurrencies bitcoin and ethereum (aka ether). An ICO is similar to an Initial Public Offering, but instead of purchasing shares of a company, investors purchase crypto-tokens that can later be traded for other tokens or for cash. Based on the tremendous appreciation of bitcoin and ethereum, investors generally invest in ICOs with an expectation that the tokens will appreciate in value. The Tezos ICO was so "hot" that investors contributed $109 million worth of bitcoin and ethereum in the first 15 hours. See http://bitcoinist.com/drapers-uncapped-tezos-ico-raises-109m-15- hours/. ICO was the largest in history. Defendants raised the equivalent of $232 million in bitcoin and ethereum at July 2017 prices. Contributed bitcoin and ethereum have since exploded in value, and are now worth more than $600 million at November 2017 prices. The ICO was a boon for Defendants. Defendant Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc. and its shareholders will be paid approximately $20 million if the (not yet finished) Tezos platform is launched and stable. The rest of the invested bitcoin and ethereum is owned by Defendant Tezos Stiftung. The only purported "restriction" regarding Tezos Shiftung's holding is that it use these monies to "promote" Tezos. In addition, DLS will receive 10% of all tokens issued. Tezos Stiftung will receive another 10% of tokens. Yet, Defendants claim they have no obligation to provide Tezos tokens to Plaintiff and the Class. Defendants even claim the right to abandon the project at will and without recourse. It is situations exactly like this that the federal securities laws are intended to prevent. The ICO for the Tezos tokens was an illegal offer and sale of securities for which no registration statement was filed or then in effect, and as to which no exemption from registration was available. The ICO was a generalized solicitation made using statements posted on the Internet and distributed throughout the world, including in the United States, and the securities were offered and sold to the general public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William R. Restis, Esq. THE RESTIS LAW FIRM, P.C. 550 West C St., Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 270 8383 E-mail: william@restislaw.com - and - Joseph J. Depalma, Esq. Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623 3000 Facsimile: (973) 623 0858 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com bgreenberg@litedepalma.com ELECTRONIC MERCHANT: "Winters" Suit Moved to D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled JEFFREY A. WINTERS and COLLECTION SOLUTIONS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ELECTRONIC MERCHANT SYSTEMS, an unincorporated entity; BMO HARRIS BANK, N.A.; CHESAPEAKE BANK; MERRICK BANK CORPORATION; INDIGO SYSTEMS NJ, LLC; and DEMETRI PAPAFAGOS, the Defendants, Case No. BER-L-07152-16, was removed from the Bergen County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Nov. 22, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-12003- CCC-MF to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Claire C. Cecchi.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David M. Hoffman, Esq. 28 Countryside Drive Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 Telephone: (908) 608 0333 E-mail: dhoffman@david-hoffman-esq.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher Charles Loeber, Esq. MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP Four Gateway Center 100 Mulberry Street Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 639 7942 Facsimile: (973) 297 3949 E-mail: cloeber@mccarter.com EMERGENCY SERVICES RESTORATION: "Vigers" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage ---------------------------------------------------------------- VACQUES A. VIGERS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EMERGENCY SERVICES RESTORATION, INC., IMMEDIATE RESPONSE RESTORATION, INC., RESTORATION TRAINING & TECHNOLOGY, INC., EMERGENCY SERVICE RESTORATION OF TEXAS, INC., EMERGENCY CONSTRUCTION REPAIR SERVICES, INC., DOES NOS. 1 through 10, KASSON DANIEL HARTWELL, in his individual and professional capacities, and SENDY HARTWELL, in her individual and professional capacities, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-08482 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 21, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Vigers, on behalf of himself and all current and former similarly situated Technicians and Helpers employed by Defendants during the full statute of limitations period. The Defendants, who refer to themselves as a "Full Service Restoration Company," are a water damage restoration company that engages in a willful and deliberate policy and practice of misclassifying the individuals who perform the work that is at the very heart of their business, known as Technicians and Helpers, as independent contractors. The Defendants refer to these Technicians and Helpers as "ESR Technicians" and require them to drive ESR trucks, wear ESR specific uniforms, hand out ESR business cards, ESR pamphlets, and ESR advertisements, and hold themselves out to the ESR customers and clients that they service as ESR employees. Indeed, the customers that these Technicians and Helpers service are strictly ESR's customers and ESR's clients. The Defendants do not pay their Technicians any base compensation at all; rather, Technicians receive only a commission on the jobs they complete for Defendants' customers and for which Defendants are able to secure payments from their own customers. Helpers, on the other hand, receive even less -- they are paid only a flat rate of $500 per week. However, the relationship between, on the one hand, Defendants, and, on the other hand, Technicians and Helpers, is obviously one between employer and employee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256 2884 Facsimile: (424) 256 2885 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com EMPIRE INTERNATIONAL: "Paul" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- YONALDO PAUL, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, 9 Freeman Street West Orange, NJ 07052; MICHAEL MCDERMOTT, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, 469 River Styx Road Hopatcong, NJ 07843; and FRED MITCHKO, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, 47 Split Rock Road Boonton, NJ 07005, the Plaintiffs, v. EMPIRE INTERNATIONAL, LTD d/b/a EMPIRE CLS, 225 Meadowlands Pkwy Secaucus, NJ 07094; and DAVID SEELINGER, c/o EMPIRE INTERNATIONAL, LTD d/b/a EMPIRE CLS, 225 Meadowlands Pkwy Secaucus, NJ 07094, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-12012 (D.N.J., Nov. 22, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs seek redress from Defendants' violations of the FLSA and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. The Plaintiffs assert that Defendants failed to pay proper overtime wages to them and other similarly situated individuals in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiffs also assert that Defendants unlawfully diverted and/or withheld wages from them and other similarly situated individuals. As a result of Defendants' unlawful actions, Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated have suffered damages.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew D. Miller, Esq. Justin L. Swidler, Esq. Richard S. Swartz, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway N., Ste. 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685 7420 Facsimile: (856) 685 7417 EQUIFAX INC: Court Extends Time to Respond in "Young" FCRA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion for Extension to Time to Respond in the case captioned KELLY E. YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-538-FtM-38CM (M.D. Fla.). Plaintiff Kelly Young filed a complaint against Defendant alleging negligence and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Plaintiff's Complaint was one of over two-hundred putative class action suits filed in the wake of Equifax's data security breach. Defendant informs the Court that it has consulted with Plaintiff's counsel, who indicated that Plaintiff does not oppose the motion so long as the stay is without prejudice to Plaintiff's filing an amended complaint. To date, Plaintiff has filed no response opposing Defendant's motion, and the time to do so has now expired. Defendant's Motion to Stay or, in the Alternative, for an Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint with Incorporated Memorandum of Law is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9ydvp2m from Leagle.com. Kelly E. Young, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Joseph DeCosta, Holtz Mahshie DeCosta, PA. 1560 Matthew Drive, Suite E, Fort Myers, FL, 33907 Equifax Inc., Defendant, represented by Melissa A. Campbell -- mcampbell@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, LLP. EQUIFAX INC: "Cuevas" Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Maricela Cuevas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC675172, was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Nov. 28, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17- cv-08604-AB-JEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. 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: Thomas Vincent Girardi, Esq. Ashkahn Mohamadi, Esq. Christopher T. Aumais, Esq. GIRARDI KEESE 1126 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977 0211 Facsimile: (213) 481 1554 E-mail: tgirardi@girardikeese.com amohamadi@girardikeese.com caumais@girardikeese.com The Defendant is represented by: John R Lawless, Jr., Esq. KING AND SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443 4355 Facsimile: (213) 443 4310 E-mail: jlawless@kslaw.com EULEN AMERICA: "Pena" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- LISVANI PENA, RENE DIAZ GONZALEZ and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiffs, v. EULEN AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-24265-JEM (S.D. Fla., Nov. 24, 2017), seeks to recover overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing of this complaint back three years under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act as Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and recklessly failed to investigate whether Defendants' payroll practices were in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants remain owing Plaintiff these wages since the commencement of Plaintiff's employment with Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865 6766 Facsimile: (305) 865 7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM EVOLUTION HOSPITALITY: Rizo Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- ENA MARIA RIZO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EVOLUTION HOSPITALITY, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC686011 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 6, 2017), seeks to recover overtime and minimum wages under the California Labor Code. The case is a class action, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, on behalf of Plaintiffs and all other current and former similarly situated employees employed by or formerly employed by Evolution Hospitality, LLC and any subsidiaries or affiliated companies. According to the complaint, for at least four years prior to the filing of this action and through to the present Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages, including overtime wages, to Plaintiffs and other non-exempt employees in the State of California in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, including but not limited to, implementing a practice and/or procedure that unevenly rounds time worked, thereby depriving employees of overtime and minimum wage compensation. Evolution Hospitality manages hotels and resort properties in major metropolitan markets across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. De Sario, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 553 3600 Facsimile: (310) 553 3603 - and - Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C. 287 South Robertson Boulevard, Suite 303 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 975 1493 EXPEDIA INC: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgments to OTAs ------------------------------------------------------- In the cases captioned, VILLAGE OF BEDFORD PARK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and VILLAGE OF LOMBARD, Plaintiff-Cross- Appellee, v. EXPEDIA, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, Cross- Appellants, Case Nos. 16-3932, 16-3944 (7th Cir.), Judge Sara Lynn Darrow of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (i) affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the online travel agencies ("OTAs") against all but one municipality; and (ii) reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Village of Lombard and entered summary judgment entered in favor of the OTAs. Thirteen Illinois municipalities assert that the Appellees-Cross- Appellants, which are OTAs -- Expedia, Priceline, Travelocity, and Orbitz -- have withheld money owed to them under their local hotel tax ordinances. Though each of the 13 ordinances has unique aspects, all fall into one of three general categories: those that place the duty to collect and remit the tax on owners, operators, and managers of hotels or hotel rooms; those that apply to all persons engaged in the business of renting hotel rooms; and those that incorporate elements of both. The municipalities argue that they have been shorted tax revenue over the years because the OTAs do not remit taxes on the full price that customers pay. To illustrate, assume a 5% tax. If a customer books a room directly with a hotel for $100 a night, the hotel collects $5 for taxes and remits that to the municipality. But if a customer books a room through an OTA for $100 and the hotel's room rental rate is only $60, the OTA pays the hotel $63 and the hotel remits $3 to the municipality. The municipalities seek to collect the additional $2 from the OTAs. But none of the municipal ordinances place a duty on the OTAs to collect or remit the taxes, so the municipalities have no recourse against the OTAs. The municipalities filed a putative class action against the OTAs in state court alleging that they had failed to remit taxes owed to the named municipalities and others similarly situated in Illinois. It was removed to the Northern District of Illinois under the removal provision of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The district court denied class certification, but retained jurisdiction. After discovery, both sets of parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the OTAs summary judgment against all but one municipality. In turn, the court granted Lombard summary judgment against the OTAs. Both the municipalities and the OTAs appeal the grant of summary judgment against them. First, the municipalities ask the Court to certify, pursuant to Circuit Rule 52(a), four questions to the Illinois Supreme Court: (i) whether the OTAs are "operators" of hotels or hotel rooms; (ii) whether the OTAs "own" hotel rooms; (iii) whether the OTAs are "managers" of hotel rooms; and (iv) whether "gross rental receipts" refers to the room rate negotiated between the OTA and the hotel or the full amount the customer pays to the OTA. Judge Darrow denied the motion to certify. She says she will not certify questions when what is required is the exercise of a court's judgment. The Judge recognizes that the Illinois Supreme Court has not ruled on these issues yet, but finds that this is not a proper case for certification. The case involves routine questions of statutory interpretation that the Court is well- equipped to handle. After interpreting the meaning of the 13 ordinances, the case merely requires the Court to exercise judgment as to whether the undisputed facts show that the ordinances apply to the OTAs. Turning to the appeal, the Judge finds that seven of the ordinances place on owners, operators, and managers of hotels or hotel rooms the duty to collect the tax from a renter and remit it to the municipality. Thus, if the OTAs are not owners, operators, or managers, they have no obligations under these ordinances. She agrees with the district court granting the OTAs summary judgment against the municipalities with these ordinances -- Arlington Heights, Bedford Park, Oak Lawn, Orland Hills, Orland Park, Schaumburg, and Tinley Park -- because it found that the OTAs were not owners, operators, or managers. She says the district court granted summary judgment to the OTAs against the municipalities with this type of ordinance because the OTAs had no duty to collect or remit hotel occupancy taxes. That portion of the decision is affirmed. Judge Darrow also finds that three of the ordinances -- Rockford, Willowbrook, and Lombard -- impose a tax squarely on those engaged in renting hotel rooms or engaged in the business of renting hotel rooms. The OTAs are not engaged in the business of renting rooms and are not subject to these three ordinances. She affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the OTAs against Rockford and Willowbrook. But as Lombard's ordinance did not specify that the tax was only on gross rental receipts, the Judge reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Lombard and granted summary judgment to the OTAs. Finally, she finds that the last three ordinances are slightly more complicated, but the OTAs are not required to pay taxes to the municipalities under any of them. Des Plaines appears to tax all persons engaged in the business of renting, leasing or letting rooms in a hotel or motel. Warrenville's ordinance similarly imposes a tax on those engaged in the business of renting, but places a duty to pay on owners. Burr Ridge's ordinance includes language about both engaging in the business of renting and owners, operators, and managers. But as the OTAs are neither engaged in the business of renting nor owners or operators of hotels, they have no obligations regardless of how these ordinances are interpreted. She therefore affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the OTAs against Des Plaines, Warrenville, and Burr Ridge. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/4Yuoa3 from Leagle.com. William Q. Bird, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Albert L. Hogan, III -- al.hogan@skadden.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. Elizabeth Brooke Herrington -- beth.herrington@morganlewis.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Mark P. Rotatori -- mprotatori@jonesday.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. Allyson Newton Ho, for Defendant-Appellee. Dominick L. Lanzito -- dlanzito@pjmlaw.com -- for Plaintiff- Appellant. Mark Jacob Altschul, for Defendant-Appellee. Paul O'Grady -- pogrady@pjmlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Marcella Louise Lape -- marcella.lape@skadden.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Randolph K. Herndon -- randolph.herndon@skadden.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Brian S. Stagner -- brian.stagner@kellyhart.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. Judd Edward Stone, II -- judd.stone@morganlewis.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Kristen L. Beightol -- kristen@rl-law.com -- for Plaintiff- Appellant. Robert K. Finnell, for Plaintiff-Appellant. John W. Crongeyer, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Paul I. Hotchkiss, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Michael S. Kzrak -- MSK@CliffordLaw.com -- for Plaintiff- Appellant. Jennifer J. McGahey -- jmcgahey@bradley.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. Alexandria Seay, for Plaintiff-Appellant. EYM GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Johnson" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- SHAKIEMA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. EYM Group, Inc. and EYM Pizza of Illinois, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2017L012387 (in the Cir. Ct. Of Cook Cty., Ill., Dec. 6, 2017), seeks to recover wages for all hours worked including overtime wages pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Defendants have further violated the Illinois Whistleblower Act by terminating Plaintiff for "whistleblowing" on Defendants' illegal activity. Lastly, Defendants have violated Illinois state law by terminating Plaintiff's employment for filing a lawsuit against Defendants. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as follows: all former and current, non-exempt EYM Group and EYM Pizza employees in Illinois, who were compensated on an hourly basis, and who were and continue to be denied wages for all hours worked, including overtime wages, due to them under the IMWL and IWPCA at any time within the applicable limitations period and continuing through the present. EYM Group was founded in 2008 and is a multi-brand franchisee company of over 100 Denny's and Burger King restaurants in six states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uche O. Asonye, Esq. Adrian Jonak, Esq. ASONYE & ASSOCIATES 100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2115 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 795 9110 E-mail: uasonye@aa-law.com ajonak@aa-law.com FEDEX FREIGHT: "Pina" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Guillermo Pina, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Fedex Freight, Inc., Case No. 17-24807-CA, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami Dade, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on Nov. 27, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv- 24274-FAM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Federico A. Moreno. FedEx Freight provides less-than-truckload transportation services. FedEx Freight Inc. was formerly known as Fedex Freight East, Inc. The company was founded in 1982 and is based in Harrison, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathaly Lewis, Esq. Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, SUITE 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: nl@rgpattorneys.com pmh@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Meagan Leigh Martin, Esq. Joyce Ackerbaum Cox, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 649 4000 Facsimile: (407) 841 0168 E-mail: mmartin@bakerlaw.com jacox@bakerlaw.com FIRST CENTURY: Court Compel Arbitration in "Oliver" --------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned ANTHONY OLIVER, Plaintiff, v. FIRST CENTURY BANK, N.A., and STORED VALUE CARDS, INC. (d/b/a NUMI FINANCIAL), Defendants, Case No. 17cv620-MMA (KSC) (S.D. Cal.). Plaintiff was once again detained at the county jail, forced to deposit his cash into an ATM at the jail, and received a pre-paid debit card upon release. Plaintiff was charged similar transaction/service fees for withdrawing funds, as well as a weekly maintenance fee. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff brings individual and class claims against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and common law. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides that a written provision in a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. The key issue as framed by the parties is whether a valid agreement exists between the parties to arbitrate disputes arising out of Plaintiff's use of the release cards. However, a close reading of the arbitration provision demonstrates that this is a question delegated in the agreement to the arbitrator. Here, the delegation clause clearly and unmistakably demonstrates an intent to arbitrate arbitrability, and Plaintiff does not contest the validity of the delegation provision in particular. In fact, he does not mention it at all in his opposition to the motion to compel. As such, the Court "must treat it as valid under Section 2 of the FAA, and must enforce it under Sections 3 and 4, leaving any challenge to the validity of the Agreement as a whole for the arbitrator." Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stays the action. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7wgla3e from Leagle.com. Anthony Oliver, Plaintiff, represented by James A. Tabb -- jimmy@zaveritabb.com -- Zaveri Tabb, APC. Anthony Oliver, Plaintiff, represented by Yevgeniy Y. Turin -- eturin@mcgpc.com -- McGuire Law, P.C., pro hac vice. First Century Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by John R. Heisner, Sullivan Hill Lewin Rez and Engel. 550 West C Street15th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Stored Value Cards, Inc., Defendant, represented by George F. Verschelden -- george.verschelden@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP, pro hac vice, John R. Heisner, Sullivan Hill Lewin Rez and Engel & Rafael Francisco Bonilla -- rbonilla@heisneralvarez.com -- Heisner Alvarez. FRANKLIN COUNTY, PA: Cmmw. Court Ruling in Privacy Suit Reversed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case styled JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN DOE 3 AND JANE DOE 1, Appellees, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY, FRANKLIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY SHERIFF DANE ANTHONY AND EMPLOYEE JOHN/JANE DOES, Appellants, Case No. 120 MAP 2016 (Pa.), Judge Kevin M. Dougherty of the U.S. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for the Middle District reversed the decision of the Commonwealth Court and remanded for reinstatement of the trial court's order sustaining the preliminary objection dismissing Count III of the Complaint against Sheriff Anthony. The Appellees are adult individuals residing in Franklin County, Pennsylvania, who each applied for a license to carry a firearm ("LTCF") by submitting an application to the Franklin County Sheriff's Department. Subsequently, they filed the underlying eight-count class action complaint against the Appellants, claiming, inter alia, violations of the confidentiality provision of Section 6111(i) and seeking damages. The Appellees alleged they and several other applicants received notification of the approval, renewal, denial or revocation of their LTCF applications from the Appellants via postcards sent through the United States Postal Service, and the postcards were not sealed in an envelope. They claimed the information visible on the postcards included the applicant's name, address and a statement of the approval, denial or revocation of the requested license. The Appellees alleged, inter alia, the Appellants' use of postcards to notify LTCF applicants of the status of their applications resulted in the notices being visible to all individuals processing, mailing and serving the mail, as well as, to any individual receiving the postcard at the address, who may or may not be the applicant or license holder. They claimed these actions constituted "public disclosure" in violation of Section 6111(i). Central to the appeal is Count III of the Complaint, in which the Appellees specifically alleged Sheriff Anthony, in his management and leadership of the Sheriff's Office, instituted and directed the disclosure of confidential LTCF application information to the public, employees of the County and Sheriff's Office not authorized under the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act ("UFA"), USPS employees and other third parties at the same address who use the same mailbox as the LTCF applicant in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 6111(i). The Appellants filed numerous preliminary objections to the Complaint. With regard to Count III, they sought dismissal of all claims against Sheriff Anthony on the basis that he is immune from suit as a high public official for any actions he took in his official capacity as Sheriff of Franklin County. In reaching its conclusion, the trial court held it was not prepared to deny Sheriff Anthony the absolute immunity the common law of Pennsylvania affords to high public officials. It further opined that had the legislature intended to eliminate high public official immunity in Section 6111(i), it could have done so "in language that was clear, specific and unequivocal." Accordingly, the trial court sustained the demurrer to Count III against Sheriff Anthony, ruling he was shielded from liability by high public official immunity. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Relevant to this appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court's dismissal of Count III of the complaint against Sheriff Anthony. The Commonwealth Court first rejected the Appellees' argument that the trial court should not have reached the issue of immunity because immunity is a defense which is properly raised in new matter, and not in preliminary objections. It thus concluded Sheriff Anthony was not entitled to high public official immunity to shield him from suit in the event it is demonstrated his actions violated Section 6111(i), and the trial court erred in dismissing Count III of the Complaint on this basis. The Appellants filed a petition for allowance of appeal and the Court granted review, limited to the discrete issue of whether the General Assembly intended to abrogate high public official immunity when it enacted 18 Pa.C.S. Section 6111(i). The Appellants insist the Appellees have failed to demonstrate the General Assembly intended to abrogate high public official immunity with Section 6111(i), and the Appellees' argument the application of immunity is contrary to the public interest would end all governmental immunity if taken to its logical conclusion. The Appellees argue the alleged violations of Section 6111(i) involved here did not take place in furtherance of any important social purpose, and instead were actually injurious to the public, as demonstrated by the civil and criminal liability set forth in the statute for breaches of confidentiality. Judge Dougherty rejects the Commonwealth Court's expansion of its reasoning in Gardner v. Jenkins to determine the General Assembly implicitly abrogated Sheriff Anthony's immunity as a high public official by including "local government agencies" as potential defendants in civil suits arising out of violations of Section 6111(i). The Commonwealth Court's error in applying Title 2's definitions to the UFA is compounded by the fact the General Assembly specifically defined the term "sheriff" in the UFA. As the General Assembly defined "sheriff" in the UFA, there is no basis for importing Title 2's definition of "government agency" to the UFA to determine whether the General Assembly intended to include sheriffs as potential defendants under Section 6111(i). Furthermore, the Commonwealth Court correctly determined the General Assembly expressly waived immunity for lawsuits arising out of improper tapping fees by providing the following language in the Municipal Authorities Act that any person questioning the reasonableness or uniformity of a rate fixed by an authority may bring suit against the authority in the court of common pleas of the county where the project is located. The statute included clear and unequivocal language waiving governmental immunity and providing an explicit statutory basis for suit specifically against the authority. The General Assembly did not provide such a clear and unequivocal basis for suit specifically against the sheriff when it enacted Section 6111(i) of the UFA. The Judge declines to hold the General Assembly implicitly abrogated immunity for the sheriff through the use of general, undefined terms. He recognizes permitting such implicit abrogation of high public official immunity would undermine the purpose and goal of the doctrine, the value of which has been consistently upheld and recognized by the Court. Judge Dougherty therefore holds the General Assembly did not specifically and intentionally abrogate high public official immunity such that Sheriff Anthony may be held liable pursuant to Section 6111(i). He further holds the Commonwealth Court erred in its decision to the contrary, which necessarily involved a finding of implicit abrogation that is not supported in the law. Accordingly, he reversed the decision of the Commonwealth Court and remanded for reinstatement of the trial court's order sustaining the preliminary objection dismissing Count III of the Complaint against Sheriff Anthony. Jurisdiction relinquished. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2017 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/P70rfV from Leagle.com. Jessica Sydney Hosenpud -- jhosenpud@laverylaw.com -- Lavery Faherty Patterson, P.C., for Franklin County, Franklin County Sheriff's Office, and Franklin County Sheriff Dane Anthony, Appellant. Joshua M. Autry -- jautry@laverylaw.com -- Lavery Law, for Franklin County, Franklin County Sheriff's Office, and Franklin County Sheriff Dane Anthony, Appellant. Frank J. Lavery, Jr. -- flavery@laverylaw.com -- Lavery Law, for Franklin County, Franklin County Sheriff's Office, and Franklin County Sheriff Dane Anthony, Appellant. Joshua Garet Prince -- Joshua@PrinceLaw.com -- Prince Law Ofcs PC, for Jane Doe 1, Appellee. Joshua Garet Prince, Prince Law Ofcs PC, for John Doe 1, Appellee. Joshua Garet Prince, Prince Law Ofcs PC, for John Doe 2, Appellee. Joshua Garet Prince, Prince Law Ofcs PC, for John Doe 3, Appellee. Bruce Richard Beemer, PA Office of Attorney General, for Attorney General's Office of Pennsylvania, Amicus Curiae. Ronald Troy Elliott -- relliott@dmkcg.com -- Dillon McCandless King Coulter & Graham L.L.P., for The Pennsylvania Sheriffs' Association, Amicus Curiae. John Bartley Delone, Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, for Attorney General's Office of Pennsylvania, Amicus Curiae. John G. Knorr, III, Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, for Attorney General's Office of Pennsylvania, Amicus Curiae. Joshua D. Shapiro, Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, for Attorney General's Office of Pennsylvania, Amicus Curiae. GALENA BIOPHARMA: $41K Attys' Fee Awarded in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE GALENA BIOPHARMA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.3:14-cv-00367-SI (D. Or.), Judge Michael H. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon awarded the Co- Class Counsel 25% of the Gross Settlement Fund, or $41,250, as attorneys' fee and $30,000 for its expenses and costs. The Court has granted final approval to the Settlement. The Co- Class Counsel, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Pomerantz LLP, appointed by the Court as the Co-Class Counsel for the purposes of the Settlement, have petitioned the Court for the award of attorneys' fees in compensation for the services provided to Class Representatives and the Class along with reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with the prosecution of this action to be paid out of the Gross Settlement Fund established pursuant to the Settlement. The Court has reviewed the fee application and the supporting materials filed therewith, and has heard the presentation made by the Co-Class Counsel during the final approval hearing on Nov. 17, 2017, and due consideration having been had thereon. Judge Simon awarded the Co-Class Counsel 25% of the Gross Settlement Fund, or $41,250, as attorneys' fees, together with a proportionate share of the interest earned on the fund, at the same rate as earned by the balance of the fund, from the date of the establishment of the fund to the date of payment. He ordered that the Co-Class Counsel will be reimbursed out of the Gross Settlement Fund in the amount of $30,000 for its expenses and costs. Except as otherwise provided in the Order, the Judge says the attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses will be paid in the manner and procedure provided for in the Stipulation. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/JPVpCv from Leagle.com. Michael E. Deering, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey S. Ratliff - - RGMR1500@gmail.com -- Ransom Gilbertson Martin & Ratliff, LLP. Michael E. Deering, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice, Leigh R. Handelman Smollar -- lsmollar@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Phillp Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice. Saul Rosenthal, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Ransom Gilbertson Martin & Ratliff, LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice & Phillp Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice. Kisuk Cho, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Ransom Gilbertson Martin & Ratliff, LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Horne, The Rosen Law Firm, pro hac vice, Laurence Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice, Leigh R. Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Phillp Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice. Anthony Kim, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Ransom Gilbertson Martin & Ratliff, LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Horne, The Rosen Law Firm, pro hac vice, Laurence Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice, Leigh R. Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Phillp Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice. Pantelis Lavidas, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Ransom Gilbertson Martin & Ratliff, LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Horne, The Rosen Law Firm, pro hac vice, Laurence Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice, Leigh R. Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Phillp Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice. Joseph Buscema, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Ransom Gilbertson Martin & Ratliff, LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Horne, The Rosen Law Firm, pro hac vice, Laurence Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice, Leigh R. Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Phillp Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice. Alan Theriault, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Horne, The Rosen Law Firm, pro hac vice, Leigh R. Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Phillp Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.. Galena Biopharma, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lois O. Rosenbaum -- lois.rosenbaum@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP & Paul R. Bessette -- pbessette@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, pro hac vice. Mark J. Ahn, Defendant, represented by Ada Fernandez Johnson -- afjohnson@debevoise.com -- Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan R. Tuttle -- jrtuttle@debevoise.com -- Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice, Kristen L. Tranetzki -- kristen@angelilaw.com -- Angeli Law Group LLC & Scott N. Auby, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice. Ryan M. Dunlap, Defendant, Pro Se. Mark W. Schwartz, Defendant, Pro Se. Michael McCarthy, Defendant, represented by Jacob S. Frenkel -- jfrenkel@dickinson-wright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, pro hac vice, James T. McDermott -- jmcdermott@balljanik.com -- Ball Janik, LLP, Russell D. Duncan -- rduncan@shulmanrogers.com -- Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, P.A., pro hac vice & Ciaran Patrick Ahern Connelly -- cconnelly@balljanik.com -- Ball Janik, LLP. Kamilla Bjorlin, Defendant, represented by Edward Gartenberg -- egartenberg@gghslaw.com -- Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton LLP, pro hac vice. Richard Chin, Defendant, represented by Robert L. Aldisert -- RAldisert@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP. Rudolph Nisi, Defendant, represented by Robert L. Aldisert, Perkins Coie, LLP. Stephen Galliker, Defendant, represented by Robert L. Aldisert, Perkins Coie, LLP. Sanford Hillsberg, Defendant, represented by Robert L. Aldisert, Perkins Coie, LLP. The Cho Group, Movant, represented by Phillp Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Ransom Gilbertson Martin & Ratliff, LLP. Galena Investor Group, Movant, represented by Daniel H. Skerritt - - dan.skerritt@tonkon.com -- Tonkon Torp LLP. GAP INC: "Coladonato" Suit Moved to New Jersey Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled CARON COLADONATO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE GAP, INC., GAP (APPAREL) LLC, GAP INTERNATIONAL SALES, INC., BANANA REPUBLIC, LLC, and BANANA REPUBLIC (APPAREL) LLC, Case No. CAM L 003932 17, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden) on Nov. 22, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-11998-JHR-KMW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez. Gap, Inc., commonly known as Gap Inc. or Gap, is an American worldwide clothing and accessories retailer. It was founded in 1969 by Donald Fisher and Doris F. Fisher and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Patrick Denittis, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC 5 Greentree Centre 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 797 9951 Facsimile: (856) 797 9978 E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Kristin Mckeon Hadgis, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963 5563 E-mail: kristin.hadgis@morganlewis.com GEICO GENERAL: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Insurance Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned A&M GERBER CHIROPRACTIC LLC, a/a/o Conor Carruthers, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-62610-BLOOM/Valle, (S.D. Fla.). GEICO's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. GEICO's Motion to Disqualify Class Representative is denied. This class action lawsuit seeks a declaration as to the meaning of a single sentence contained within a GEICO insurance policy as explained below. Plaintiff is a health care provider that rendered health care services to Conor Carruthers (Carruthers) for injuries he sustained in an automobile accident in March of 2015. Carruthers was insured under a policy with GEICO that provided personal injury protection ("PIP") motor vehicle insurance benefits (Policy). Plaintiff accepted an assignment of insurance benefits under the Policy signed by Carruthers. Pursuant to Carruthers's assignment of benefits, Plaintiff submitted HCFA 1500 forms to GEICO showing charges for the treatment rendered to Carruthers in the amount of $60 for CPT code 97110 and $45 for CPT Code 97140. Both charges were less than the elected 2015 Medicare Part B Fee Schedule, which provides the fee for CPT Code 97110 was $33.52 and the fee for CPT Code 97140 was $30.72. At 200% of the Medicare Fee Schedule, this totals $67.04 and $61.44 respectively. GEICO paid Plaintiff 80% of the billed amount, resulting in payments of $48 and $36 respectively. The code BA was listed on the Explanation of Review and stands for Billed Amount. This code is an explanation code generated on Explanation of Review forms after a particular claim line meeting certain criteria is processed. In the case of FLPIP (01-13), for example, GEICO issues a check representing 80% of the billed amount2 and then adds the BA reason code for that particular line item charge on the Explanation of Review. In total, Plaintiff alleges that GEICO paid it $57.00 less than the Policy required. GEICO also raises other issues that do not render Plaintiff an inadequate class representative, such as his purported failure to inform the Court that he did not submit the assignment of benefits with the claim. As explained in section III(A)(1) above, the class definition does not contain such a requirement; therefore, Plaintiff would not have such an obligation. Other arguments are that Plaintiff does not maintain adequate medical records as required by the Florida Administrative Code, that Plaintiff concocted a scheme to have Harvey A. Frank D.C., P.A. intervene in the action, and that Plaintiff failed to produce documents at his deposition. Addressing each of these in turn, GEICO does not explain how sloppy record-keeping would disqualify a class representative nor does it cite any law supporting such a proposition. With regard to the Motion to Intervene, although Plaintiff did not prevail on this issue, its position was not frivolous so as to warrant disqualification. And finally, GEICO faults Plaintiff for not producing records at the continuation of Dr. Gerber's deposition on October 31, 2017. However, the Court's recent Omnibus Order informed the parties that the remaining discovery was limited to the completion of Dr. Gerber's deposition. Given the limited scope of discovery, Plaintiff had no obligation to bring newly requested documents to the continued deposition. As such, GEICO's request to disqualify Plaintiff as a class representative is unavailing. As the Court previously determined in its Class Certification Order, Plaintiff's interests appear to be aligned with those of the class in that GEICO's use of the BA code to adjust claims applied across the board to Plaintiff and the putative class; therefore, Plaintiff satisfies the adequacy test of Rule 23(a). A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yafk6884 from Leagle.com. A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Edward Herbert Zebersky -- ezebersky@zpllp.com -- Zebersky Payne, LLP. A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Mark S. Fistos -- mark@pathtojustice.com -- Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L., Michael Trent Lewenz -- mlewenz@zpllp.com -- Zebersky Payne LLP, Steven R. Jaffe -- steve@pathtojustice.com -- Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman PL & Todd S. Payne -- tpayne@zpllp.com -- Zebersky & Payne, LLP. GEICO General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Omar Andres Giraldo -- omar.giraldo@csklegal.com -- Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Thomas Lee Hunker -- thomas.hunker@csklegal.com -- Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. & Peter David Weinstein -- peter.weinstein@csklegal.com -- Cole Scott Kissane PA. GOSMITH INC: Faces "Hobbs" Suit over Spam Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------- KEITH HOBBS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GOSMITH, INC., and DOES 1-10, and each of them, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-06776 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 25, 2017), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently and knowingly or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. According to the complaint, on September 15, 2017, the Plaintiff began receiving text messages from Defendant on his cellular telephone number ending in -7558. During this time, Defendant began to use Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the purpose of sending Plaintiff spam advertisements and/or promotional offers, via text messages. The Defendant sent Plaintiff text messages from the shortcode 76484. The Defendant sent text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone soliciting Defendant's services, and after Plaintiff texted "Stop" to Defendant, it continued to send text messages.[BN] GoSmith, Inc. provides home improvement contracting services in the United States. The company was founded in 2012 and is based in Sunnyvale, California. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, 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: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com GREEN STAR: Faces "Bohlke" Suit over Spam Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT BOHLKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GREEN STAR CAPITAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-08546 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 26, 2017), seeks to recover damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. According to the complaint, beginning August of 2017, the Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -9695, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services. The Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone numbers confirmed to belong to Defendant, including without limitation (561) 479- 8449. In one of Defendant's initial calls to Plaintiff, Plaintiff requested that Defendant stop calling him. However, Defendant continued to call Plaintiff against Plaintiff's express request that Defendant not do so. The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). The Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1). The Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Furthermore, Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -9695 was added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about July 27, 2003. The Defendant placed multiple calls soliciting its business to Plaintiff on his cellular telephone ending in -9695 in or around August of 2017. Such calls constitute solicitation calls pursuant to 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(c)(2) as they were attempts to promote or sell Defendant's services. The Plaintiff received numerous solicitation calls from Defendant within a 12-month period. Defendant continued to call Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA. Green Star provides business financing to new and established companies throughout the United States.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, 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: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com GRETNA, LA: Nelson and Richardson Sue over Arrests & Fines ---------------------------------------------------------- TAMARA G. NELSON and TIMOTHEA RICHARDSON, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BELINDA C. CONSTANT, in her official capacity as Mayor of the City of Gretna, Louisiana, RAYMOND A. OSBORN, JR., in his official capacity as Magistrate of the Gretna Mayor's Court, OLDEN C. TOUPS, JR., in his official capacity as Magistrate of the Gretna Mayor's Court, WALTER J. LEBLANC, in his official capacity as City Prosecutor for the City of Gretna, ARTHUR LAWSON, JR., in his official capacities as Chief of Police and Marshal, TERRI BROSSETTE, in her official capacities as Clerk of the Gretna Mayor's Court and Lieutenant of the Gretna Police Department, and the CITY OF GRETNA, LOUISIANA, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-14581-ILRL-JVM (E.D. La., Dec. 5, 2017), seeks to rectify the egregious Due Process and Equal Protection Rights violations that occur daily in the Mayor's Court of the City of Gretna, Louisiana. The Defendant municipal officers of Gretna operate their Mayor's Court not as a forum for the legitimate adjudication and resolution of alleged violations of the Gretna Municipal Code but instead as a major source of revenue for the municipality. The Gretna Mayor's Court, as its name suggests, is completely under the control of Gretna's Mayor. The defendants are prosecuted in the Mayor's Court by a Gretna prosecutor who is appointed by the Gretna City Council and serves at the pleasure of Gretna's Mayor. The Magistrates who preside are likewise City of Gretna employees, appointed by the City Council and serving as judges at the pleasure of the Mayor. None of these officials are disinterested and neutral. All of them are incentivized to maximize arrests, to multiply prosecutions and have the defendants found guilty so that the Magistrates can assess fines and fees against those defendants. The fines and fees thus assessed fund the City of Gretna. In fiscal year 2014-15, fees and fines from the Mayor's Court accounted for over 13.5% of the total revenue in Gretna's General Fund -- which in turn funds the operations of the Mayor's Court and pays the salaries of police, prosecutors and judges. As the docket of the Gretna Mayor's Court expands so does the profitability of the Court's operations to the City of Gretna. Unsurprisingly, there has been an explosion in the number of misdemeanor arrests and citations by the Gretna Police Department. A disproportionate number of those arrested are African American citizens of Gretna. Defendants also operate a Deferred Prosecution program offering arrestees accused of violating a municipal ordinance the opportunity to have their charges dismissed in exchange for an agreement to pay a set fine (typically lesser in amount than the fine that would be imposed upon a finding of guilt. There is no deferred prosecution option for those who are unable to participate in the Deferred Prosecution Program because they cannot afford to pay the Program's fees. As a consequence, those found guilty in the Gretna Mayor's Court and sentenced to pay larger fees and fines are disproportionately the poor and those least able to pay the levied amounts. If a defendant is unable to pay his fees and fines, the Clerk of Court relies on the issuance of attachments, the threat of incarceration, and the suspension of driver's licenses as a means of debt collection against the poorest defendants in the system. In its transformation from a court of law to a business enterprise, the Gretna Mayor's Court, through the named Defendants, has routinely violated the Due Process and Equal Protection rights of those unfortunate enough to appear before it.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric A. Foley, Esq. Katie M. Schwartzmann, Esq. RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER 4400 S. Carrollton Ave. New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 620 2259 Facsimile: (504) 208 3133 E-mail: eric.foley@macarthurjustice.org katie.schwartzmann@macarthurjustice.org GUITAR CENTER: Website Inaccessible to Blind, "Andrews" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR ANDREWS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GUITAR CENTER, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 522736/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 22, 2017), contends that Defendant is denying blind individuals equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to its non-disabled customers through http://www.guitarcenter.com/ Plaintiff is a blind individual. The Website provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials, and other programs offered by Defendant. Yet, the Website contains extensive access barriers that make it difficult, if not impossible for blind customers to use the Website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind users to even complete a transaction on the Website. The Website thus excludes the blind from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. In the wave of technological advances in recent years, assistive computer technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of everyday life, allowing blind people to fully and independently access a variety of services, including ordering gift cards online. Guitar Center is the largest chain of musical instrument retailers in the world with 269 locations throughout the United States. Its headquarters is in Westlake Village, California.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 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 H MART INC: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against H Mart, Inc. The case is styled Steven Matzura and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. H Mart, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09670 (S.D. N.Y., December 8, 2017). H Mart is an American supermarket chain operated by the Hanahreum Group headquartered in Lyndhurst, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com HAPPY CAB: Court Enters Default Judgment in "Knox" FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, GLENDA KNOX, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HAPPY CAB, LLC and STACEY R. DIXON, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-29 (S.D. Ga.), Judge Lisa Godbey Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Brunswick Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. According to the allegations of the Complaint, Knox was employed by Happy Cab as a dispatcher in St. Marys, Georgia, in Camden County. Dixon is a corporate officer of Happy Cab, exercising operational control over its activities. As owner and acting manager of Happy Cab, Dixon has the power to hire and fire Knox, supervise and control her work schedule, determine her rate and method of payment, and maintain employment records. The Defendants provide a mode of passenger transportation from portal to portal for patrons for a fee. The Defendants hired the Plaintiff, and she provided rapid transportation response to customer requests within a designated coverage area. As part of her job, she was required to arrive at the Defendants' place of business to perform services, including assisting drivers with directions to customers' pick-up locations and navigating them through traffic. The Plaintiff alleges that she typically worked over 60 hours per week and that she was not paid minimum wage or overtime. She worked as a dispatcher for Happy Cab from May 2016 through November 2016, earning $88 per day. The Defendants never paid her at a rate of time and one-half her regular rate for hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek, she alleges. In a putative class action, the Plaintiff brought claims for violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") against Happy Cab and Dixon under 29 U.S.C. Sections 206, 207. Knox sued on March 6, 2017. She issued Summons to Happy Cab and Dixon on March 7 and 9, 2017, respectively. The server verified that he served Dixon on behalf of Happy Cab on March 11, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. and that he served Dixon personally at the same date and time. Dixon is Happy Cab's registered agent for service. On May 31, 2017, Knox moved for an entry of default, which the clerk entered. On July 12, 2017, Knox moved for a default judgment against Happy Cab and Dixon. Judge Wood is satisfied that FLSA applies to the Defendants in their employment relationship with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has made sufficient allegations to satisfy the requirements. The Judge finds that the Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was individually engaged in commerce by accepting payments from customers based on credit cards issued by out-of-state banks, making and answering phone calls, and working with products from out-of-state. It alleges that the Defendants made gross earnings of at least $500,000 annually. Knox alleges that the Defendants had at least two employees engaged in commerce by means of CB radios and portable payment devices and that she herself was engaged in commerce by accepting payments from customers based on credit cards issued by out-of-state banks, making and answering phone calls, and working with products from out-of-state. The Judge is also satisfied that the Defendants violated the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA by compensating the Plaintiff at a rate of less than $7.25 and by failing to compensate her at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. For these reasons, Judge Wood granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED, and the amount of damages will be determined at the Dec. 20, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. She directed the Clerk of Court to serve both the Defendants with notice of the hearing. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/203hqD from Leagle.com. Glenda Knox, Plaintiff, represented by C. Ryan Morgan, Morgan & Morgan, PA. HEALTH INSURANCE: Faces "Vigorito" Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL VIGORITO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC., GAVIN SOUTHWELL, and MICHAEL D. HERSHBERGER, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02845-SDM-JSS (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 27, 2017), is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Health Insurance Innovations securities between August 2, 2017 and September 11, 2017, both dates inclusive. Health Insurance Innovations operates as a developer, distributor, and administrator of cloud-based individual health and family insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United States. The Company offers, inter alia, short-term medical plans, hospital indemnity plans, and supplemental insurance products. It designs and structures individual health and family insurance plans, and supplemental products on behalf of insurance carriers and discount benefit providers and market them to individuals through a network of distributors. According to the complaint, the 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) Health Insurance Innovations' application for a key insurance license in its home state of Florida was rejected due to the state's Office of Insurance Regulation's ("OIR") discovery of undisclosed legal actions against Health Insurance Innovations insiders; (ii) Health Insurance Innovations warned the OIR of the anticipated "domino effect" that the rejection was likely to cause, by which the Company would subsequently lose licenses in additional states; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Health Insurance Innovations' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 11, 2017, SeekingAlpha.com published an article reporting on the OIR's June 2017 rejection of Health Insurance Innovations' application for a "key insurance license in [its] home state of Florida as [the OIR] uncovers undisclosed legal actions against HIIQ insiders" and that "HIIQ privately warns of disastrous domino effect" spreading to other states, causing additional loss of licenses. HIIQ makes no disclosure to investors." On this news, Health Insurance Innovations' share price fell $6.55, or 21.91%, to close at $23.35 on September 11, 2017. 7. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 661 1100 Facsimile: (212) 661 8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com HF MANAGEMENT: Court Dismisses "Ortiz" Unpaid OT Pay Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case captioned JUANA ORTIZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. HF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a HEALTHFIRST, Defendant, Case No. 17 Civ. 4560 (LGS) (S.D. N.Y.). Ortiz, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, sues the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Kanwarpreet Thind initiated the putative collective and class action on Dec. 3, 2014. He filed the First Amended Complaint on Feb. 20, 2015 alleging that he worked for Healthfirst as a Facilitated Enroller ("FE") from Aug. 24, 2009 to Jan. 24, 2012, and as a Manager for Sales from Jan. 25, 2012 to Aug. 21, 2014. The FAC alleged six causes of action based on violations of FLSA and NYLL. In an Opinion and Order dated July 29, 2015, the Court dismissed the FAC's causes of action based on Healthfirst's alleged failure to pay the minimum wage and to pay wages in accordance with the agreed terms of employment under NYLL. On July 31, 2015, the Court granted Thind's motion for conditional certification of two FLSA collectives -- Collective A and Collective B -- as to the FAC's FLSA overtime claim only. Collective A included all current and former Healthfirst employees who worked as managers in the Facilitated Enrollment Department in the three years before the filing of the initial complaint and who did not receive overtime pay. Collective B included all current and former Healthfirst employees who worked as FEs in the three years before the filing of the initial complaint and who did not receive overtime pay. Ortiz and others joined the litigation in the fall of 2015, after receiving notice of the Thind collective action. On May 12, 2016, the Defendant moved to decertify Collective B. Thind opposed the decertification motion, crossmoved for leave to file what now is the operative pleading and for final certification of a redefined Collective B consisting of Collective B1 and Collective B2. Proposed Collective B1 included all current and former Healthfirst employees who worked as FEs, worked off- the-clock with express instruction from managers and did not receive overtime pay. Proposed Collective B2 included all current and former Healthfirst employees who worked as FEs, worked off- the-clock without express instruction from managers and did not receive overtime pay. In an Opinion and Order dated Dec. 9, 2016, the Court decertified Collective B. It granted in part Thind's cross-motion for leave to amend, allowing him to file an amended complaint replacing Collective B with the described Collective B1 -- FEs who received express instructions to work off-the-clock. The Court denied Thind's motion to amend with respect to Collective B2. Since the December 9 Opinion, the claims on behalf of Collectives A and B1 have proceeded as separate actions, with Thind continuing to represent Collective A on behalf of managers in Thind v. Healthfirst, Inc., et al. After the claims on behalf of Collective B1 were severed from the Thind action, Ortiz was named the Lead Plaintiff in the new action on June 16, 2017. The Complaint, (i.e., the Second Amended Complaint) asserted claims on behalf of Ortiz and a collective defined in relevant part as FEs who worked off-the-clock hours to meet the Defendant's productivity requirement with instruction from managers. On July 14, 2017, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint. On July 28, 2017, Oritz attempted to file a third amended complaint. On Aug. 8, 2017, Ortiz filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, challenging the Defendant's arguments as "hypertechnical," and in the alternative, requesting leave to file an amended complaint. Ortiz also filed with her opposition a proposed third amended complaint, which adds new facts to correct the deficiencies that the Defendant had identified -- the proposed complaint defines the Collective, in relevant part, as FEs who worked off-the clock hours to meet Defendant's productivity requirement with express instruction from managers. The Defendant moves to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint based on the Named Plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with the Court's Dec. 9, 2016, Order granting leave to amend the Amended Complaint under specific conditions. The Named Plaintiff opposes the motion. Judge Schofield dismissed the Complaint because it exceeds the scope of the Court's leave, as it is premised on the theory of the dismissed B2 Collective, and it alleges facts that are inconsistent with what has been disclosed in discovery. As the Complaint's allegations sound in the Collective B2 theory that Healthfirst implicitly instructed FEs, including Ortiz, to work in excess of 40 hours per week -- a theory the December 9 Opinion unequivocally rejected -- the Complaint exceeds the scope of the Court's leave. The Judge also dismissed the Complaint because it exceeds the scope of the Court's leave by pleading facts that are inconsistent with those disclosed in discovery. The Complaint also fails to allege that anyone told Ortiz to work off-the-clock, yet she identified Mildres Ramos as having done so in her interrogatory responses. Because the Complaint is premised on the rejected theory of the B2 Collective and pleads facts that are inconsistent with those which have been disclosed in discovery, it exceeds the scope of the Court's leave and is dismissed. To the extent that Ortiz's belated, the amended responses to the Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories cure some of the defects identified in his Opinion, the Judge will resolve that issue in a separate opinion and order regarding Ortiz's pending motion for leave to file the proposed third amended complaint. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/DLMu7G from Leagle.com. Juana Ortiz, Plaintiff, represented by David Alan Roth, Roth & Roth, LLP. Juana Ortiz, Plaintiff, represented by Rebecca Solomon Predovan, Hepworth Gershbaum & Roth PLLC & Charles Gershbaum, Hepworth, Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC. HF Management Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Paul Marks -- amarks@dorflaw.com -- Dorf & Nelson LLP, Seth L. Levine - - slevine@levinelee.com -- Levine Lee LLP, Aaron Isaac Karp -- akarp@levinelee.com -- Levine Lee LLP & Scott B. Klugman -- sklugman@levinelee.com -- Levine Lee LLP. HOME HEALTH: "Yusupova" Suit Seeks Wages under Labor Law -------------------------------------------------------- MAVJUDA YUSUPOVA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by HOME HEALTH CARE SERVICES OF NEW YORK INC., the Plaintiffs, v. HOME HEALTH CARE SERVICES OF NEW YORK INC., the Defendant, Case No. 156350/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 21, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, "spread of hours" compensation, and 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 which Plaintiffs were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive pursuant to the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, while employed by Defendant, the Plaintiff provided services to homebound, disabled and/or ailing elderly clients, including but not limited to, personal care services, such as assistance with dressing, bathing and personal grooming, lifting and transferring bedridden and/or immobile clients from and to bed/wheelchair, basic cooking, serving food and/or feeding, changing diapers and toileting, cleaning, such as mopping, cleaning bathrooms, doing laundry and taking out garbage, moving clients on wheelchair inside and outside of the client's home, escorting clients to the doctor, and/or making transportation arrangements. The Plaintiff maintained her own residences, and did not "live in" the homes of Defendant's clients or in the home of her employer. The Plaintiff was not an "exempt companion" of the Defendant's clients. While employed by Defendant, the Plaintiff generally worked more than 40 hours per week. Home Health provides quality and compassionate home care services in an ethical manner to our patients and their families.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 Facsimile: (212) 943 9082 E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com - and - Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C. 1517 Voohies Ave, 2nd Fl Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (212) 808 2224 Facsimile: (866) 261 5478 E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com HOMELAND SECURITY: Al Otro Suit Transferred to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Al Otro Lado, Inc., a California corporation, Abigail Doe, Beatrice Doe, Carolina Doe, Dinora Doe, Ingrid Doe, and Jose Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs. v. Elaine C. Duke, Acting Secretary, US Department of Homeland Security; Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner, United States Customs and Border Protection, in his official capacity; and Todd C. Owen, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, United States Customs and Border Protection, in his official capacity, the Respondents, Case No. 2:17-cv-05111, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Nov. 22, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-02366-W-KSC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas J. Whelan. The United States Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet department of the United States federal government with responsibilities in public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robin A Kelley, Esq. Faraz Mohammadi, Esq. James H Moon, Esq. Kristin P Housh, Esq. Wayne S Flick, Esq. Manuel A Abascal, Esq. LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 891 7597 Facsimile: (213) 891 8763 E-mail: wayne.s.flick@lw.com - and - Angelo Guisado, Esq. Baher Azmy, Esq. Ghita Schwarz, Esq. CENTER FOR CONSTITUTION RIGHTS 666 Broadway 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 Telephone: (212) 614 6454 Facsimile: (212) 614 6499 - and - Karolina J Walters, Esq. Kathryn E Shepherd, Esq. Melissa E Crow, Esq. AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL 1331 G Street NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 507 7520 Facsimile: (202) 742 5619 The Respondents are represented by: Gisela A Westwater, Esq. Alexander James Halaska, Esq. Danielle K Schuessler, Esq. Genevieve M Kelly, Esq. Sairah Saeed, Esq. Sherease Rosalyn Pratt, Esq. US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation - Civil Division PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 532 4174 Facsimile: (202) 616 8962 E-mail: sherease.pratt@usdoj.gov INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INT'L: Lead Plaintiffs in "Shanawaz" Named --------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases styled SHAWN SHANAWAZ, Plaintiff, v. INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INTERNATIONAL INC., et al., Defendants. GUY BRAVERMAN, Plaintiff, v. INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INTERNATIONAL INC., et al., Defendants. DAVID DUCHARME, Plaintiff, v. INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INTERNATIONAL INC., et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 17-CV-5761 (JPO), 17-CV-6045 (JPO), 17-CV-6621 (JPO) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York appointed Ducharme, Sam Snyder, and Julia Ann Snyder as the lead plaintiffs, and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, as the lead counsel for the class. This is a putative shareholder class action against Intellipharmaceutics and its executives. The crux of the Plaintiffs' allegations is that Intellipharmaceutics misled investors on the efficacy of one of its drugs, and that their stock value dropped as a result. Three groups of the Plaintiffs are vying to represent the class: a. Shanawaz was the first plaintiff to file suit. However, he has not formally moved to be appointed the lead plaintiff, and has not made a submission showing the total amount of losses he allegedly suffered. b. The Braverman group: Braverman was second to file suit. He now moves, along with Eric Ludwig, to consolidate the three cases and be appointed the lead plaintiffs. They also move to appoint Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm as the lead counsel for the class. Together, Braverman and Ludwig assert that they lost $51,427 as a result of the alleged scheme. c. The Ducharme group: Ducharme was last to file suit. He now moves, along with Sam Snyder and Julia Ann Snyder, to consolidate the three cases and be appointed the lead plaintiffs. They also move to appoint Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, as the lead counsel for the class. Together, Ducharme and the Snyders assert that they lost $101,484.97 as a result of the alleged scheme. None of the contenders has filed an opposition to their competitors' motions. The Defendants do not object to consolidation, and take no position with respect to the Court's appointment of the lead plaintiff or the selection of the lead plaintiff's counsel. Judge Oetken holds that the only major distinction between the three groups of Plaintiffs is the amount of loss: The Ducharme group lost $101,484.97; the Braverman group lost $51,427; and Shanawaz has not filed a statement listing his total losses. Since the competing groups of the Plaintiffs are nearly identical in all other respects, the amount of loss is dispositive. For these reasons, Judge Oetken granted Ducharme group's motion. He denied Braverman group's motion. The Judge consolidated the three cases, and Ducharme, Sam Snyder, and Julia Ann Snyder are appointed the lead plaintiffs. The Court likewise approved Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, as the lead counsel for the class. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 15 and 18. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/mJHZk7 from Leagle.com. Shawn Shanawaz, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP. David Ducharme, Movant, represented by Kim Elaine Miller -- kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC. Guy Braverman, Movant, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP. Eric Ludwig, Movant, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP. Intellipharmaceutics International Inc., Defendant, represented by John J. Clarke, Jr. -- john.clarke@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP. Isa Odidi, Defendant, represented by John J. Clarke, Jr., DLA Piper US LLP. Domenic Della Penna, Defendant, represented by John J. Clarke, Jr., DLA Piper US LLP. INTERFAITH MEDICAL: Underpaid Per Diem Physicians, Okeke Says ------------------------------------------------------------- THEOPHILUS OKEKE, individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTERFAITH MEDICAL CENTER; and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendant, Case No. 522746/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid and incorrectly paid wages/benefits under New York Labor Law. The Defendants employed Plaintiff Okeke and those similarly situated as per diem physicians in Defendants' "Emergency Medicine" department. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a class of all persons who are and were employed by Defendants as per diem physicians during the past six years through the final date of the disposition of this action, who were denied additional incentive compensation of $96,00 per workday for each day that they performed medical examinations upon Defendants' psychiatric patients prior to those patients' admission. The Plaintiff also brings this action, pursuant to CPLR Article 9, on behalf of a class of all persons who are and were employed by Defendants as per diem physicians during the past six years through the final date of the disposition of this action, who were denied paid time off for all legal holidays. Interfaith Medical Center is a teaching health care system providing medical, surgical, gynecological, dental, psychiatric, pediatric and other services throughout Central Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Berman, Esq. Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 INTERSTATE SAFETY: $80K Settlement in "Owens" Suit Gets Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MICHAEL OWENS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTERSTATE SAFETY SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-CV-0017 (M.D. Pa.), Judge A. Richard Caputo of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted the Joint Motion Seeking Court Approval of Collective Action Settlement. The Plaintiff commenced the collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleging that the Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime compensation for travel and wait time hours to employees whose worked involved travel to remote job locations. On June 3, 2017, the parties jointly filed a motion for approval of the collective action settlement. The settlement agreement provides for a total maximum payment of $80,000, inclusive of fees and costs, in exchange for the release of claims as defined in the agreement. According to the parties, the settlement exceeds the aggregate amount that could be owed to the Plaintiff and all potential opt-ins based on their hours worked and rate of pay by approximately $2,500. The participating members of the Class are to receive a pro-rated portion of the settlement after payment of attorney's fees and costs. Additionally, the settlement agreement states that the Defendant would not oppose a request for attorney's fees and costs not exceeding $32,000 and $1,000, respectively. The settlement agreement further sets forth, inter alia, the claims process, the duties of the parties, the dispute resolution process, and provides that the parties and their counsel will not issue any press release or participate in any communication or contact with the media regarding settlement or any other matter related to the litigation. On June 14, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted an unopposed motion for attorney's fees and costs, seeking fees in the amount of $32,000 and costs totaling $1,000. A hearing was held on the joint motion for settlement approval and the request for fees and costs on Nov. 16, 2017. Judge Caputo finds that in light of the risks of proceeding to trial and the relative costs of continued litigation, approval of the settlement is warranted. He also finds the proposed settlement as fair and reasonable. With respect to the requested fees and costs, the Judge says the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff's counsel in support of his requested fee, and the Gunter factors, all of which support granting the proposed fee, he will approve the attorney's fee of $32,000 and award costs in the amount of $1,000. For the reasons he stated, Judge Caputo granted the joint motion for approval of collective action settlement, and the consented motion for approval and award of attorney's fees and costs. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/fo5J0C from Leagle.com. Michael Owens, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen Franko -- steve@stevefranko.com. Interstate Safety Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph S. Sileo -- jsileo@mcneeslaw.com -- McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC. INVENTURE FOODS: "Schoenfeld" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Utz Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- GLENN SCHOENFELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INVENTURE FOODS, INC., TERRY E. MCDANIEL, MACON BRYCE EDMONSON, ASHTON D. ASENSIO, PAUL J. LAPADAT, TIMOTHY A. COLE, and JOEL D. STEWART, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04273-JAT (D. Ariz., Nov. 21, 2017), seeks to recover to enjoin a proposed merger transaction or, in the event the proposed transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting from the Individual Defendants' violations of these laws. The Plaintiff, a stockholder of Inventure Foods, Inc., brings this action against the members of Inventure's Board of Directors collectively, for violations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Specifically, Defendants solicit the tendering of stockholder shares in connection with the sale of the Company to Utz Quality Foods, LLC through a recommendation statement that omits material facts necessary to make the statements therein not false or misleading. Stockholders need this material information to decide whether to tender their shares or pursue their appraisal rights. On October 25, 2017, the Company and Utz entered into a definitive agreement under which Utz will acquire all of the outstanding common shares of Inventure in an all-cash tender offer. If consummated, Inventure stockholders will receive $4.00 in cash per common share of Inventure. The Transaction has a value of approximately $165 million. On November 15, Utz filed a Form TO-T Tender Offer Statement announcing the commencement of its tender offer, set to expire at one minute after 11:59 P.M. New York City Time on December 13. Also on November 15, Defendants issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in the Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Recommendation Statement is deficient and misleading in that it fails to provide adequate disclosure of all material information related to the Proposed Transaction. The failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as stockholders need such information in order to make a fully-informed decision regarding tendering their shares in connection with the Proposed Transaction about whether to tender their shares. Inventure Foods manufactures and markets healthy/natural and indulgent specialty snack food products in the United States and internationally. It operates in two segments, Frozen Products and Snack Products.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Gerald Barrett, Esq. WARD, KEENAN & BARRETT, P.C. 2141 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 279 1717 Facsimile: (602) 279 8908 E-mail: gbarrett@wardkeenanbarrett.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524 4290 Facsimile: (202) 337 1567 E-mail: denright@zlk.com etripodi@zlk.com INVENTURE FOODS: "Shaoul" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Utz Merger --------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Shaoul, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Inventure Foods, Inc., Terry McDaniel, Timothy A. Cole, Ashton D. Asensio, Macon Bryce Edmonson, Paul J. Lapadat, and Joel D. Stewart, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 04261-DGC (D. Ariz., Nov. 21, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a proposed merger transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' wrongdoing. This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on October 26, 2017, pursuant to which Inventure Foods, Inc. will be acquired by Utz Quality Foods, LLC, through Utz's wholly owned subsidiary, Heron Sub, Inc. On October 25, 2017, Inventure's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Utz. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Utz commenced a tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding shares of Inventure common stock for $4.00 per share in cash. The Tender Offer commenced on November 15, 2017 and is set to expire at 12:00 p.m., New York City time, on December 13. On November 15, Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Form 14D-9 with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders it false and misleading, in violation of Sections 14(d), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Inventure Foods manufactures and markets healthy/natural and indulgent specialty snack food products in the United States and internationally. It operates in two segments, Frozen Products and Snack Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew S. Friedman (AZ 005425) BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC 2325 East Camelback Road, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com - and - Carl L. Stine, Esq. Adam J. Blander, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759 4600 E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com ablander@wolfpopper.com JUICY WINGZ: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Hernandez Says ------------------------------------------------------------ SALVADOR M. HERNANDEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and other current and former employees, the Plaintiff, v. JUICY WINGZ, INC., a California corporation; ARAM AVAGYAN, an individual; ZACK NERSISIAN, an individual; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC 684385 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 22, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime wage under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees were routinely not paid all wages due and were denied breaks. Wages were paid by check that was often subjected to bank holds or were rejected outright due to insufficient funds resulting in bank fees charged to the employee. Finally, Defendants withheld all wages earned in the employee's final pay period -- the pay period when their employment terminated; these wages were essentially forfeited. The Plaintiff and other employees brought these violations to the attention of the two individual defendants on numerous occasions. Rather than remedying any of the ongoing violations, whenever anyone complained, Defendants would simply wean the employee off the schedule until they lost hope of returning to a routine and regular work schedule and stopped calling for shifts and for the money they were owed. The violations were systemic and pervasive, were so woven into Defendants' way of doing business that it could fairly be described as Defendants' modus operandi well rooted in Defendants' business model. Juicy Wingz is a family-owned and operated restaurant that seeks to provide the local community with fresh, made to order meals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elana R. Levine, Esq. Brian Levine, Esq. LEVINE LAW GROUP, APC 15303 Ventura Blvd., Suite 900 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 990 3400 Facsimile: (818) 855 8040 KAPDAS INCORPORATED: Leroy Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- GLORIA LEROY, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KAPDAS INCORPORATED, KAPDAS HOLDINGS, LLC, and KAPDAS TAX SERVICES d/b/a LIBERTY TAX SERVICE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04944-TWT (N.D. Ga., Dec. 6, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly force its employees to work substantial amount of overtime without properly paying all compensation due, thus depriving them of rightful compensation for their work that LTS is legally obligated to pay. The Plaintiff worked for LTS as a tax collector at LTS's Stockbridge, Georgia location and was damaged by this illegal policy or practice. Kapdas is tax preparation company that provides its service in an around Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Cowan, Esq. BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC Marathon Oil Tower, Ste 900 5555 San Felipe St., Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 425 7100 Facsimile: (713) 425 7101 - and - Michael A, Mille, Esq. 1349 W. Peachtree St. NW, Suite 1995 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 815 9220 Facsimile: (678) 317 0956 E-mail: mike@millslegal.net KEANE FRAC: "Tran" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- VU TRAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. KEANE FRAC TX, LLC; KEANE FRAC ND, LLC; KEANE FRAC GP, LLC; KEANE FRAC, LP; KEANE GROUP, LLC; and KEANE GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17- cv-03588 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. According to the complaint, Keane Group violated the FLSA by employing Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours [but refusing to compensate them] for [their] employment in excess of 40 hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which [they are or were] employed. Keane Group violated the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate time and pay records for Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. Bridget Davidson, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222 6775 Facsimile: (713) 222 6739 KOCH FOODS: Conspiracy Claims in Antitrust Suit Remains ------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned IN RE BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST LITIGATION, No. 16 C 8637 (N.D. Ill.). Broilers constitute approximately 98% of all chicken meat sold in the United States. Defendants are industrial Broiler producers. As of 2015, Defendants controlled 88.8% of Broiler production in the United States. Defendants purchase their breeder flocks (the chickens that lay the eggs Defendants raise into Broilers) from three global genetics conglomerates that account for 98% of Broilers raised in the United States, and 80% of Broilers raised globally. These three genetic companies own a biological lock on their unique Broiler lines, meaning they tightly control the purebred genetic strain they develop. Plaintiffs allege that prior to 2008, there was a historic pattern of annual increases in Broiler production, of about 3%. Industry publications noted that 2008 was the "first time in decades [that] total broiler production remained virtually unchanged from the year before." On May 21, 2008, the Wall Street Journal noted the production cuts, and reported that prices had started to increase. The paper also noted that it is unusual for egg sets to decline at this time of year, because demand is usually highest in August when chickens hatched in May would be mature. Nevertheless, despite these production and capacity cuts, Tyson's CEO questioned whether they would result in the sought-after price increase. Pilgrim's CEO also called for additional production cuts, because "there is still too much breast meat available to drive market pricing significantly higher." By late 2010, the economy as a whole had begun to improve, and some producers began to increase production to meet that demand, resulting in falling prices. After the International Poultry Expo held January 24-26, 2011, Defendants again began to take action to restrict production. Seven defendants and two other producers cut production, closed facilities, or delayed planned construction of new facilities. These actions continued into 2012. Plaintiffs contend they have plausibly alleged private communications among Defendants indicating a conspiracy to cut production with the intent to inflate prices. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that the nature of Broiler breeder flocks is that they predict future Broiler supply, so by sharing such information in a way that permits company-by-company identification, Defendants are in fact sharing future anticipated production information with one another, which clearly suggest high antitrust concern. Plaintiffs are divided into three putative classes based on their position in the supply and demand chain, and each class has filed its own complaint: (1) direct purchasers (wholesalers and retailers); (2) commercial and institutional indirect purchasers who resell chicken (e.g., retailers and restaurants); and (3) indirect purchasers who cook or eat the chicken (restaurants and individuals); All Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege a conspiracy. Conspiracy First, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged parallel conduct. The Court rejects Defendants' contention that the alleged conduct is too varied in its timing and methods. The Court also finds that the alleged factual circumstances plausibly demonstrate that the parallel conduct was a product of a conspiracy. The Court finds plausible Plaintiffs' allegations that Defendants conduct was unusual in comparison to the industry's history of regular production increases and rejects Defendants' argument that the conspiracy as alleged would not be in the interests of all conspirators. Nothing about Plaintiffs' allegations indicates that the increase in the market price was insufficient to cover the various potential losses of market shares Defendants highlight. The Court also finds that the alleged conspiracy strategy to take actions to restrain production, and then allow production to increase again to reap the benefits of the resulting price increase is not implausible despite the large number of producers in the industry and the lack of an enforcement mechanism allegation. Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' conspiracy claims are denied. Defendants' motions to dismiss, R. 279; R. 292 are denied except that Plaintiffs' claims under the laws of Wisconsin are dismissed, so that Defendants' motion to dismiss the Indirect Plaintiffs' claim is granted in part. The Court has not addressed all of Defendants' arguments seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs' state law claims. But the Court's opinion explains that at least one claim in each jurisdiction will proceed to discovery, with the exception of Wisconsin. Any state law claim the Court has addressed and dismissed, is dismissed without prejudice. To the extent Plaintiffs believe they can cure the deficiencies the Court has described with respect to their claims under Wisconsin law, Plaintiffs may file a joint motion for leave to amend by December 20, 2017, supported by a brief of no more than five pages explaining how the amendments would cure Plaintiffs' allegations. The proposed amended paragraphs of the complaints (not the entire complaints) should also be attached as an exhibit. No defendant should file a responding brief unless the Court so orders. To the extent it is necessary in order to streamline a trial or assess damages for the Court to address the additional state law claims not addressed in this opinion, or to reconsider dismissal of state law claims under the laws of jurisdictions for which other claims are proceeding, the Court will address those issues when appropriate. For now, however, the parties know which jurisdictions remain in play and which are out. That is a sufficient basis to conduct discovery. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb86y5zm from Leagle.com. Maplevale Farms, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brian D. Clark- bdclark@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.l.l.p.. Maplevale Farms, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Warshaw - dwarshaw@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw & LLP. pro hac vice, Dennis Allen Lienhardt, Jr. -- dal@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C., pro hac vice, Elizabeth R. Odette -- erodette@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton -- hmsilton@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Joseph C. Kohn -- jkohn@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., pro hac vice, Robert John McLaughlin -- rmclaughlin@hmelegal.com -- Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC, Steven Alan Hart -- shart@hmelegal.com -- Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC, W. Joseph Bruckner - wjbruckner@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., William Ernest Hoese -- whoese@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift & Graf, pro hac vice, Adam J. Pessin -- apessin@finekaplan.com -- Fine, Kaplan and Black, RPC, pro hac vice, Benjamin Michael Shrader -- bshrader@hmelegal.com -- Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC, Bobby Pouya -- bpouya@pswlaw.com -- PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP, pro hac vice,Brian H. Eldridge - - beldridge@hmelegal.com -- Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC, Bruce L. Simon -- bsimon@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon & Warshaw LLP, pro hac vice, CLIFFORD HARRIS PEARSON - cpearson@pswlaw.com -- PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP, pro hac vice, Cadio Zirpoli -- zirpoli@saveri.com -- Saveri & Saevri, Inc., pro hac vice, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. - g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com -- Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, pro hac vice, Goldich A. Marc -- mgoldich@axgolaw.com -- Axler Goldich Llc, Jeffrey J. Corrigan -- jcorrigan@srkw-law.com -- SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., pro hac vice, Jonathan M. Jagher -- jjagher@srkattorneys.com -- SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., pro hac vice, Kyle Pozan -- kpozan@hmelegal.com -- Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC, Linda P. Nussbaum -- lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com -- Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., pro hac vice, Mark Reinhardt - m.reinhardt@rwblawfirm.com -- Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, pro hac vice, Matthew Dickinson Heaphy -- mheaphy@saveri.com.- Saveri & Saveri, Inc., pro hac vice, Michael H. Pearson - mpearson@pswlawfirm.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP, pro hac vice, Neil J. Swartzberg -- nswartzberg@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, pro hac vice, RACHEL ELLEN KOPP -- rkopp@srkattorneys.com -- SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., pro hac vice, Roberta D. Liebenberg -- rliebenberg@finekaplan.com -- Fine, Kaplan and Black, R.P.C., pro hac vice, Sarah Jane Van Culin -- sarah@saveri.com -- Saveri & Saveri, Inc., pro hac vice, Shana Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com - - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon S. Almonrode -- ssa@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C. & Simeon Andrew Morbey samorbey@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.. Koch Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen Novack - snovack@novackmacey.com -- Novack and Macey LLP, Christopher S. Moore, Novack and Macey - cmoore@novackmacey.com -- LLP, Lally A. Gartel, Novack and Macey LLP, Marie Velinda Lim -- mlim@novackmacey.com -- Novack and Macey LLP & Stephen J. Siegel - - ssiegel@novackmacey.com -- Novack and Macey LLP. JCG Foods of Alabama, LLC, Defendant, represented by Stephen Novack, Novack and Macey LLP, Christopher S. Moore, Novack and Macey, LLP, Lally A. Gartel, Novack and Macey LLP, Marie Velinda Lim, Novack and Macey LLP & Stephen J. Siegel, Novack and Macey LLP. JCG Foods of Georgia, LLC, Defendant, represented by Stephen Novack, Novack and Macey LLP, Christopher S. Moore, Novack and Macey, LLP, Lally A. Gartel, Novack and Macey LLP, Marie Velinda Lim, Novack and Macey LLP & Stephen J. Siegel, Novack and Macey LLP. Koch Meats Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen Novack, Novack and Macey LLP, Christopher S. Moore, Novack and Macey, LLP, Lally A. Gartel, Novack and Macey LLP, Marie Velinda Lim, Novack and Macey LLP & Stephen J. Siegel, Novack and Macey LLP. Tyson Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H. Suggs -- dsuggs@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy K. Ostrander -- jostrander@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, John Mark Gidley -- mgidley@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Amy Beth Manning -- amanning@mcguirewoods.com - McGuireWoods LLP, Christina M. Egan -- cegan@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP, Kristen J. Mcahren -- kmcahren@whitecase.com - - White & Case Llp, Peter J. Carney -- pcarney@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, pro hac vice & Robert A. Milne -- rmilne@whitecase.com -- White & Case, pro hac vice. Tyson Chicken, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H. Suggs, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy K. Ostrander, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Amy Beth Manning, McGuireWoods LLP, Christina M. Egan, McGuire Woods LLP,Kristen J. Mcahren, White & Case Llp, Peter J. Carney, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice & Robert A. Milne, White & Case, pro hac vice. Tyson Breeders, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H. Suggs, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy K. Ostrander, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Amy Beth Manning, McGuireWoods LLP, Christina M. Egan, McGuire Woods LLP, David H. Suggs, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Kristen J. Mcahren, White & Case Llp, Peter J. Carney, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice & Robert A. Milne, White & Case, pro hac vice. Tyson Poultry, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H. Suggs, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy K. Ostrander, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Amy Beth Manning, McGuireWoods LLP, Christina M. Egan, McGuire Woods LLP, Kristen J. Mcahren, White & Case Llp, Peter J. Carney, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice & Robert A. Milne, White & Case, pro hac vice. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, Defendant, represented by Carrie C. Mahan - carrie.mahan@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher J. Abbott -- Christopher.abbott@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Clayton E. Bailey -- CBailey@BaileyBrauer.com -- Bailey Brauer PLLC, pro hac vice, Daniel E. Antalics - daniel.antalics@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin J. Arquit - Kevin.arquit@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshall & Manges LLP & Michael Lee McCluggage -- mmccluggage@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP. L & JG STICKLEY: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against L. & J.G. Stickley Incorporated. The case is styled Lawrence Young, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v L. & J.G. Stickley Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09680 (S.D. N.Y., December 8, 2017). L. & J. G. Stickley, Inc. designs and manufactures hardwood furniture. It offers living room, bedroom, dining room, entertainment, office, and upholstery furniture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Bronson Lipsky LLP 630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com L'OREAL USA: Faces "Spector" Suit over CeraVe Face Lotion --------------------------------------------------------- DAVID SPECTOR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LOREAL USA, INC. and VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17- cv-09123 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2017), alleges that testing conducted by counsel for Plaintiff in accordance with FDA sunscreen testing protocols revealed that the Defendant's CeraVe Body Lotion SPF 50, CeraVe Face Lotion SPF 30, and CeraVe Body Lotion SPF 30 each fail to meet those labelled SPFs. In the case of the Body Lotion SPF 50, Plaintiff's testing showed an SPF average value of 17.4. In the case of the Body Lotion SPF 30, Plaintiff's testing showed an SPF average of 16. The Plaintiff and putative class members have been, and continue to be, injured by Defendants' pattern and practice of placing into the stream of commerce sunscreen products containing a false SPF number, and largely inflated UV protection numbers, which Defendants manufacture or manufactured, distribute or distributed, and sold or sell. L'Oreal USA, Inc. manufactures and markets cosmetics for consumer and professional markets. It provides skincare, haircare, makeup, and perfume products. L'Oreal USA, Inc. was formerly known as Cosmair, Inc. and changed its name to L'Oreal USA, Inc. in June 2000. The company was founded in 1953.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janine Lee Pollack, Esq. Theodore B. Bell, Esq. Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545 4600 Facsimile: (212) 686 0114 E-mail: pollack@whafh.com tbell@whafh.com malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. Joseph Osefchen, Esq. Shane Prince, Esq. DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, PC Five Greentree Centre 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 797 9951 Facsimile: (856) 797 9978 E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com LATIN CLUB BAR: "Roe" Suit Seeks Back Pay under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------- JANE ROE, on behalf of herself and all others Civil similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JOSE TORRES L.D. LATIN CLUB BAR, INC. and DOES 1-200, the Defendants, Case No. 17CIV05530 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 4, 2017), contends that the Defendant's classification of Plaintiff and class members as independent contractors was not due to any unique factor related to the exotic dancers' employment by or relationship with Defendant. Rather, as a matter of its uniform business policy, Defendant has routinely misclassified exotic dancers as independent contractors as opposed to employees. As a result of this practice, Plaintiff and the class members have not been paid the minimum wages under the California Labor Code, and have been deprived of other statutory rights and benefits. Therefore, they have suffered harm, injury, and have incurred financial loss.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven G. Tidrick, Esq. Joel B. Young, Esq. THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM SAMMTEE 2039 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 308 C09 IN'W Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 788 5100 Facsimile: (510) 291 3226 E-mail: sgt@tidricklaw.com jby@tidricklaw.com MADER NEWS: "Molina" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE MOLINA, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MADER NEWS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant, Case No. BC685960 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 6, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties under Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order and California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges, that during the four years preceding the filing of the Complaint and continuing to the present, Defendants did (and continue to do) business by being a wholesale distributor of time sensitive business, trade, news, and entertainment publications in Southern California The Plaintiff performed various duties including, without limitation, driving to and from customers of Defendants to collect unsold newspapers and magazines, as well as picking up money from stores and purchasing money orders. During his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked various weekly shifts, including shifts where he worked seven days in a row. The Plaintiff would often work in excess of 8 hours in a work day and/or often work in excess of 40 hours in a week, and also on occasion in excess of 10 hours in a work day. Plaintiff was not required to and did not actually clock in or out on an actual timekeeping system to track his hours, instead merely tracking his general schedule on written sheets. However, his written time sheets were not always accurate because he was often directed by Defendants to falsify such written timesheets to reflect less hours than he actually worked.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Tuvia Korobkin, 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 tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com dbrown@haineslawgroup.com MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Prelim Approval of Class Deal Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement in the case captioned KEITH THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-01160-JST (N.D. Cal.). Before the Court is Plaintiffs' unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement with Defendant Avenue Capital Management II, L.P. According to the Court, Plaintiffs still fail to satisfy the Court's concerns about the adequacy of the settlement. In Plaintiffs' renewed motion, counsel repeatedly state what they believe to be a reasonable expected recovery at trial, but provide no declaration or other evidence in support of those beliefs, even though counsel apparently consulted with expert witnesses before reaching their conclusions. Without such evidence, the Court continues to lack a sufficient basis for evaluating whether the amount offered in settlement is adequate. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' renewed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y964xt3k from Leagle.com. Richard Hayes, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice. Richard Hayes, Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Joshua B. Silverman -- jbsilverman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Lesley F. Portnoy -- lfportnoy@pomlaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Louis C. Ludwig -- lcludwig@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Marc Ian Gross -- migross@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Wernke -- mjwernke@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Omar Jafri ojafri@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Phillip C. Kim - pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Robert Vincent Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Sunny S. Sarkis -- ssarkis@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Yu Shi - yshi@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA, pro hac vice. Keith Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Jonathan Stern, Rosen Law Firm, pro hac vice, Joshua B. Silverman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Lesley F. Portnoy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Louis C. Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Wernke, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Omar Jafri, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Sunny S. Sarkis, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Yu Shi, The Rosen Law Firm PA, pro hac vice. Herb Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua B. Silverman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Louis C. Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Wernke, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Omar Jafri, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Sunny S. Sarkis, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Yu Shi, The Rosen Law Firm PA, pro hac vice. Magnachip Semiconductor Corp., Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Kramer -- dkramer@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Robert N. Kravitz -- rkravitz@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Alex Young K. Oh -- aoh@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Jacqueline P. Rubin -- jrubin@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, John C. Tang -- jctang@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Kelsey Israel-Trummel -- kitrummel@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Matthew D. Stachel -- mstachel@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice. Margaret Sakai, Defendant, represented by Kimberly Perrotta Cole - - kimberly.cole@kobrekim.com -- Kobre & Kim LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Sangyun Kim - micahel.kim@kobrekim.com -- Kobre & Kim LLP, pro hac vice & Michael Fang Peng -- Michael.peng@kobrekim.com -- Kobre & Kim LLP. R. Douglas Norby, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Kramer, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Jacqueline P. Rubin, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Robert N. Kravitz, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Alex Young K. Oh, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP & Matthew D. Stachel, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP. Ilbok Lee, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Kramer, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Jacqueline P. Rubin, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Robert N. Kravitz, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Alex Young K. Oh, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP & Matthew D. Stachel, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP. Nader Tavakoli, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Fetterman -- dfetterman@kasowitz.com -- Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, pro hac vice, Jason Takenouchi -- jtakenouchi@kasowitz.com -- Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, Brian Choi, Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP, pro hac vice & Trevor Joseph Welch - - twelch@kasowitz.com -- Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP, pro hac vice. Randal Klein, Defendant, represented by Ali R. Rabbani -- arabbani@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Andrew S. Jick -- ajick@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Douglas Maynard -- dmaynard@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, John C. Murphy -- jmurphy@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Asaro -- masaro@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Neal Ross Marder -- nmarder@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Peter Ian Altman -- paltman@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Stephen Michael Baldini -- sbaldini@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice & Sydney Spector -- sspector@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice. Michael Elkins, Defendant, represented by Ali R. Rabbani, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Andrew S. Jick, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Douglas Maynard, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, John C. Murphy, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Asaro, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Neal Ross Marder, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Peter Ian Altman, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Stephen Michael Baldini, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice & Sydney Spector, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice. Avenue Capital Management II, L.P., Defendant, represented by Ali R. Rabbani, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Andrew S. Jick, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Douglas Maynard, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, John C. Murphy, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Asaro, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Neal Ross Marder, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Peter Ian Altman, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Stephen Michael Baldini, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice & Sydney Spector, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice. Barclays Capital Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew Rawlinson -- matt.rawlinson@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, James E. Brandt -- james.brandt@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Jason C. Hegt -- jason.hegt@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins LLP, James E. Brandt, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Jason C. Hegt, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins LLP, James E. Brandt, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Jason C. Hegt, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice. UBS Securities LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins LLP, James E. Brandt, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Jason C. Hegt, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice. Needham & Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins LLP, James E. Brandt, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Jason C. Hegt, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice. Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System, Interested Party, represented by Danielle Suzanne Myers - denim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz LLP, Dennis J. Herman -- donnish@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Joshua B. Silverman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Louis C. Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Mary K. Blasy -- mblasy@rgrdlaw.com - - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Michael J. Wernke, Pomerantz LLP, Omar Jafri, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel H. Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Sunny S. Sarkis, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. MARVIN ENGINEERING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Iniguez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- GABRIEL INIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARVIN ENGINEERING CO., INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC684670 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 22, 2017), seeks to recover minimum and straight time Wages, overtime compensation, and timely pay final wages under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff brings this action against Marvin Engineering Co. for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from Defendants' failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to pay minimum and straight time wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action on behalf of himself and certain current and former employees of Defendants. The Class consists of Plaintiff and all other persons who have been employed by any Defendant in California in a non-exempt, hourly-paid position during the statute of limitations period. Marvin Engineering manufactures and supplies aerospace and defense equipment. The company offers missile launchers, ejector racks, test equipment, and military hardware. It manufactures missile launchers, such as missile rail, sidewinder, maverick single rail, and hellfire; and tube launched optically tracked wire.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Justin F. Marquez, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232 3128 Facsimile: (213) 232 3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com MDL 2741: "Schroeder" Suit v. Monsanto Moved to N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled MILDRED SCHROEDER, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of EDWARD SCHROEDER, Deceased, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-08197, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 24, 2017,. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-06773-VC to the proceeding. The Schroeder case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741- VC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen H. Beyea-Schroeder, Esq. BURNETT LAW FIRM 3737 Buffalo Speedway Suite 1850 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (832) 413 4410 Facsimile: (832) 900 2120 E-mail: Karen.Schroeder@RBurnettLaw.com - and - Rachal G. Rojas, Esq. JOHNSON LAW GROUP 2925 Richmond Ave., Suite 1700 Houston, Texas 77098 Telephone: (713) 626 9336 Facsimile: (713) 583 9460 E-mail: rrojas@johnsonlawgroup.com MDL 2800: "Pantaze" Data Breach Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Nikolaos C. Pantaze, an individual, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Information Services LLC, a foreign limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17- cv-01530, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), MDL No. 2800, on Dec. 7, 2017. The Georgia Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-04986-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is case No. 1:17- md-02800-TWT. 1:17-cv-04986-TWT Equifax Information collects and reports consumer information to financial institutions. The company was formerly known as Equifax Credit Information Services Inc. and changed its name to Equifax Information Services LLC in June 2004. The company was incorporated in 1937 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gusty Yearout, Esq. YEAROUT MYERS & TRAYLOR 800 Shades Creek Parkway, Suite 500 Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 414 8163 Facsimile: (205) 414 8199 - and - M. Stan Herring, Esq. WATTS & HERRING,LLC 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 879 2447 E-mail: stan@wattsherring.com MDL 2800: "Morris" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Jason Morris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02178, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on Dec. 7, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv- 04990-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The case is consolidated with MDL 2800. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-md-02800-TWT. 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: Brian Caplan, Esq. REITLER KAILAS & ROSENBLATT LLC 885 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 209 3050 E-mail: bcaplan@reitlerlaw.com MDL 2800: "Ostoya" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Paul Ostoya, an individual and Samuel Stephenson, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc. Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01550, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on Dec. 7, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv- 04990-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The case is consolidated with MDL 2800. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-md-02800-TWT. 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: Evan T. Rosemore, Esq. Francois M. Blaudeau, Esq. Odeh J. Issis, Esq. SOUTHERN INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL & LEGAL AFFAIRS, LLC 2224 1st Avenue N. Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 326 3336 Facsimile: (205) 380 0145 MDL 2800: "Highfield" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Christopher Highfield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc. and Equifax Information Solutions, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-01567, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on Dec. 7, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17- cv-04990-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The case is consolidated with MDL 2800. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-md-02800-TWT. 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: Chris T. Hellums, Esq. Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN HOOKS DUTTON & HOLLIS 2001 Park Place North Park Place Tower, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322 8880 Facsimile: (205) 328 2711 E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com jonm@pittmandutton.com - and - N. Kirkland Pope, Esq. POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C. P.O. Box 191625, Suite 300 3391 Peachtree Road, N.E. Atlanta, GA 31119-1625 Telephone: (404) 523 7706 Facsimile: (404) 524 1648 E-mail: efile@pmkm.com MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE: "Verma" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Rajesh Verma, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Memorial Healthcare Group, Inc., doing business as: Memorial Hospital Jacksonville, a Florida corporation; NPAS, Inc.; Medicredit, Inc., a Missouri Corporation; and HOVG, LLC, doing business as: Bay Area Credit Service, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Case No. 3:16-cv-00427, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of the Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis) on Dec. 4, 2017. The Missouri Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-02809-RWS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Rodney W. Sippel. Memorial Healthcare operates an acute care medical facility that provides healthcare services to patients in Northeast Florida. The company offers advanced technology, ambulatory surgery, atrial fibrillation, bariatric surgery, bariatrics, and behavioral health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Kem, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ERIC W. KEM, P.A. 2233 NW 41st Street, Suite 700-H Gainesville, FL 32606 Telephone: (352) 318 2771 E-mail: ekem@kemlawfirm.com - and - Robert W. Murphy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY 1212 SE 2nd Ave Ft Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 763 8660 Facsimile: (954) 763 8607 E-mail: rphyu@aol.com - and - Keith J. Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 West Monroe St., Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726 1092 Facsimile: (312) 726 1093 E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Ashley Bruce Trehan, Esq. Edward Martin Waller, Jr., Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC 401 E Jackson St Ste 2400 Tampa, FL 33602-5236 Telephone: (813) 222 2083 Facsimile: (813) 384 2814 E-mail: ashley.trehan@bipc.com edward.waller@bipc.com - and - Jamie N. Cotter, Esq. SPENCER FANE BRITT & BROWNE, LLP-DENVER 1700 Lincoln Street Wells Fargo Center, Suite 2000 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 839 3800 Facsimile: (303) 839 3838 E-mail: jcotter@spencerfane.com - and - John David Emmanuel, Esq. Scott A. Richards, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC 401 E Jackson St Ste 2400 Tampa, FL 33602-5236 Telephone: (813) 222 8180 Facsimile: (813) 222 8189 E-mail: John.emmanuel@bipc.com scott.richards@bipc.com - and - Martin B. Goldberg, Esq. Michael L. Ehren, Esq. LASH & GOLDBERG, LLP 100 SE 2nd St., Suite 1200 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 347 4040 Facsimile: (305) 347 4050 E-mail: mgoldberg@lashgoldberg.com mehren@lashgoldberg.com - and - Megan D. Meadows, Esq. Scott James Dickenson, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 1 N. Brentwood Blvd., Suite 1000 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 863 7733 Facsimile: (314) 862 4656 E-mail: mmeadows@spencerfane.com sdickenson@spencerfane.com - and - Jacob W. Stahl, Esq. Maura K. Monaghan, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON, LLP 919 Third Ave New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 909 6000 Facsimile: (212) 909 6386 E-mail: jwstahl@debevoise.com mkmonaghan@debevoise.com MICHIGAN: Court Certifies Class of Jewish Inmates ------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned MICHAEL ARNOLD, Plaintiff, v. HEIDI WASHINGTON, Defendant, Civil Case No. 13-14137 (E.D. Mich.). Plaintiff Michael Arnold brings this action against Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Director Heidi Washington, claiming that Jewish inmates requiring a kosher diet are receiving food not prepared or served in a kosher manner. Arnold alleges that this conduct violates the putative class members' First Amendment rights and their rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Arnold proposes the following class definition: Jewish prisoners who are designated to receive religious meals and have been served Vegan meals prepared in a non-Kosher manner, including, but not limited to, where the utensils used in the preparation of the Vegan meals are not certified as being Kosher; where all the area where the Vegan meals are prepared is not Kosher; and where all the equipment used to clean the utensils is not Kosher are included within this class. Arnold believes that there are at least 50 to 100 MDOC inmates who are similarly situated to him that is, they are Jewish individuals incarcerated in an MDOC facility and are designated to receive a kosher diet. Arnold contends that their joinder is impractical. The Court agrees, particularly because these individuals are prisoners housed at various MDOC facilities throughout the State of Michigan. As such, the Court finds that Arnold meets the numerosity requirement. The common question for all members of the proposed class is the same: Does MDOC provide meals that in fact are kosher to Jewish prisoners designated to receive kosher meals? Arnold alleges that MDOC uses non-kosher items in preparing kosher meals and uses non- kosher equipment, utensils, and areas to prepare and serve the meals. Arnold's RLUIPA and First Amendment claims are typical of the claims he seeks to assert on behalf of the putative class. Therefore, Rule 23(a)'s second and third elements are satisfied. To satisfy the fourth, and final, class-action prerequisite, the Court must find that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. This is a two- pronged inquiry: (1) the representative must have common interests with unnamed members of the class, and (2) it must appear that the representatives will vigorously prosecute interests of the class through qualified counsel. The Court finds that Arnold has common interests with the members of the proposed class. With respect to the second criteria, Defendant has not challenged the competency or desire of Arnold or his counsel to prosecute the interests of the class, nor does the Court believe that it would have any basis to do so. In short, Rule 23(a)'s four requirements for class certification are satisfied. Arnold alleges that Defendant fails to provide kosher-certified meals to Jewish prisoners throughout MDOC's facilities, resulting in the systemic violation of their religious rights pursuant to RLUIPA and the First Amendment. He seeks injunctive relief against any such future violations. This is a prime example of a case properly certified as a class under Rule 23(b)(2). The Court concludes that the proposed class meets the standard imposed by Rule 23(b)(2). The Court holds that Arnold satisfies all of the prerequisites for class certification under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2). Accordingly, the Court grants Arnold's motion for class certification. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybuyqdrr from Leagle.com. Michael Arnold, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Manville -- daniel.manville@law.msu.edu -- Civil Rights Clinic. Michael Arnold, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Steinberg -- msteinberg@aclumich.org -- American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan. Michael Martin, Defendant, represented by John L. Thurber, MI Dept of Atty Gen Corrections Division. Brad Purves, Defendant, represented by John L. Thurber, MI Dept of Atty Gen Corrections Division. Heidi Washington, Defendant, represented by Allan J. Soros, Michigan Department of Attorney General Corrections Division & John L. Thurber, MI Dept of Atty Gen Corrections Division. MILLER STARK: Deadline to File Judgment for Default Set in "Wade" ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division, issued a Memorandum Order setting deadline for filing Motion in the case captioned DENISE WADE, v. MILLER STARK KLEIN & ASSOCIATES, ET AL., Civil Action No. 16-cv- 1290 (W.D. La.). Denise Wade filed this putative class action against defendants who she alleged violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants are Miller Stark Klein & Associates (MSK), Darryl Miller, and Ronald Hough. The November 10, 2017 deadline has passed, and neither MSK nor Mr. Miller have enrolled new counsel, requested an extension of time, or taken any other action of record. Accordingly, the answer (Doc. 13) filed by MSK and Mr. Miller is stricken, and the Clerk of Court is directed to enter a default against those two defendants. The entry of those defaults will result in all named defendants being defaulted. Plaintiff, if she wishes to pursue a judgment, is directed to file a motion for default judgment no later than January 13, 2018. If plaintiff fails to take the steps required by this order, the complaint may be dismissed for failure to prosecute. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017 Memorandum Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7ob6v2m from Leagle.com. Denise Wade, Plaintiff, represented by Philip Bohrer -- phil@bohrerbrady.com -- Bohrer Law Firm. Denise Wade, Plaintiff, represented by Lesa G. Pascal, Charles Pascal Cohen, pro hac vice & Scott Earl Brady -- scott@bohrerbrady.com -- Bohrer Law Firm. Miller Stark Klein & Associates, Defendant, Pro Se. Darryl Miller, Defendant, Pro Se. pro hac vice. Ronald Hough, Defendant, Pro Se. MONSANTO COMPANY: Joffe Sues Over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY F. JOFFE and LAURIE RODETSKY JOFFE, Husband and Wife, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv- 00667-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla., Dec. 6, 2017), seeks compensatory damages as a result of Plaintiffs' use of, and exposure to, Roundup, which caused or was a substantial contributing factor in causing Plaintiffs to suffer from cancer, physical pain and mental anguish, including diminished enjoyment of life. This case arises out of Monsanto's wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Glyphosate has been found to be carcinogenic, linked to causing various forms of cancer, and in particular non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. As such, Roundup is dangerous to human health and unfit to be marketed and sold in commerce, particularly without proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiffs, who used Roundup extensively, now suffer from non- Hodgkins Lymphoma and bring this action for the harm they have incurred. According to the complaint, Monsanto provided failed to contain adequate warnings and precautions that would have enabled Plaintiff, and similarly situated individuals, to utilize the product safely and with adequate protection. Instead, Monsanto disseminated information that was inaccurate, false, and misleading and that failed to communicate accurately or adequately the comparative severity, duration, and extent of the risk of injuries associated with use of and/or exposure to Roundup and glyphosate; continued to promote the efficacy of Roundup, even after it knew or should have known of the unreasonable risks from use or exposure; and concealed, downplayed, or otherwise suppressed, through aggressive marketing and promotion, any information or research about the risks and dangers of exposure to Roundup and glyphosate. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George T. Williamson, Esq. FARR, FARR, EMERICH, HACKETT, CARR & HOLMES, P.A. 99 Nesbit Street Punta Gorda, FL 33950 Telephone: (941) 639 1158 Facsimile: (941) 639 0028 E-mail: gwilliamson@farr.com MOTORINO EAST: "Morales" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ ARTURO MORALES, DOMINGO ANDRES FRANCISCO and RUFINO MARCELO FLORES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MOTORINO EAST VILLAGE INC. (d/b/a PIZZERIA MOTORINO), MOTORINO 3 INC. (d/b/a PIZZERIA MOTORINO), DIMITRI VLAHAKIS and MATHIEU PALOMBINO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 09236 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were ostensibly employed by Defendants as delivery workers. However, they were required to spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties including but not limited to, various restaurant duties such as dishwashing, mopping, sweeping, carrying wood up from the basement, cleaning containers, putting together boxes, sweeping the sidewalk, carrying, unpacking, and stocking deliveries, transporting supplies such as food and soda from the basement to the kitchen and from the kitchen back to the basement, taking out the garbage and twisting and tying up cardboard boxes/cartons for recycling, and hosing the special filter fan behind the kitchen. The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants. The Defendants own, operate, or control two Italian restaurants one of which is located at Pizzeria Motorino East Village and the second one is located at 510 Columbus Avenue, New York, NY 10024. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants without appropriate minimum wages for the hours that they worked each week. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked at the straight rate of pay. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Flores the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiffs as delivery workers in their payroll, but in actuality their duties required a significant amount of time spent in non-tipped, nondelivery duties. Regardless, at all times Defendants paid these plaintiffs at a rate that was lower than the required tip-credit rate. Under state law, Defendants were not entitled to take a tip credit because Plaintiff's non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday. The Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising Plaintiffs' actual duties in payroll records to avoid paying Plaintiffs at the minimum wage rate and to enable them to pay Plaintiffs at the lower tip-credited rate (which they still failed to do), by designating them as delivery workers instead of non-tipped employees. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated employees.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 Facsimile: (212) 317 1620 MRS BPO: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in "Dinaples" -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DONNA DINAPLES, Plaintiff, v. MRS BPO, LLC, Defendant, C.A. No. 2:15-cv-01435-MAP (W.D. Pa.), Judge Michael A. Ponsor of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment on liability, and granted the both the Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment and for class certification. On Nov. 4, 2014, the Defendant mailed the Plaintiff a collection letter that displayed a Quick Response Code ("QR Code") on the outside of the envelope. It is undisputed that a QR Code may be scanned by a widely available QR Code reader downloadable to a cell phone. It is further undisputed that, through the use of such a reader, the Plaintiff's unencrypted account number -- the number used by the Defendant to identify the Plaintiff for its own purposes -- would be displayed. The Plaintiff contends that this disclosure of her account number through the QR Code constituted a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Plaintiff brings suit under the FDCPA against MRS. The Plaintiff and the Defendant both move for summary judgment on liability. The Plaintiff also moves for class certification. The Plaintiff seeks certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 of the Class of all consumers with an address in Westmoreland County who, beginning Nov. 2, 2014 through and including the final resolution of the case, were sent one or more letters from the Defendant attempting to collect a consumer debt allegedly owed to Chase Bank, which displayed on the outside of the mailing a QR Code containing the account number associated by the Defendant with that consumer's account. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has not established that she suffered a concrete injury, insofar as she does not allege that she or any members of the proposed class were harmed by the QR Code, or that anyone has, in fact, ever scanned the code. Judge Ponsor finds this argument unpersuasive. He says the injury suffered by the Plaintiff is the disclosure of confidential information. To invoke the FDCPA, she does not have to identify harm quantifiable in dollars and cents. The Defendant's disclosure of confidential information protected under the FDCPA is per se sufficient to sustain a finding of a violation of the statute. The degree of harm, of course, may factor into any assessment of damages, but liability is clear. In a further effort to fend off summary judgment, the Defendant invokes the "benign or harmless language" exception under the FDCPA. The Judge finds that by contrast, disclosures implicating a core concern animating the FDCPA -- the invasion of privacy would not fall under the benign language exemption. The simple fact is that disclosure of an account number is not "benign" under the statute, and this exception does not apply. The Defendant's final argument is that the disclosure occurred as a result of bona fide error and despite its own maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such error. Judge Ponsor this appeal to the bona fide error defense must also be rejected. The Defendant has not alleged that the barcode was stamped in error upon the envelope by an errant employee or the like. In fact, it admits it was company and indeed, industry policy to do so. Given that the Defendant's conduct was intentional, the bona fide error defense offers the Defendant no protection. Based on the foregoing, the Judge will allow the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability, and deny the Defendant's motion. The Judge will also allow the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. He says a review of the record confirms that the Plaintiff has met all the four threshold requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. First, as to numerosity, similar letters were mailed to approximately 264 consumers in Westmoreland County; second, the putative class shares common questions of fact and law; third, class members can be easily identified through a review of the Defendant's records; fourth, their claims are typical of other putative class members; fifth, Plaintiff is a competent class representative; and, finally, the Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in prosecuting FDCPA matters and consumer class actions. The prerequisites of predominance and superiority have also been met. The likely interest of class members in prosecuting claims against the Defendant individually is small, even in the case of a clear statutory violation, because statutory damages are capped under the FDCPA. Even if individual litigation were practical, the class action treatment is more efficient than the management of myriad individual actions by consumers standing alone. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Ponsor granted the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability, and denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. He also granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. He has allowed the Plaintiff's proposed Order Certifying Class, with the agreed modification permitting their counsel to submit a proposed form of Class Notification for review by the court within 45 (not 20) days and allowing the Defendant to produce the Class List within 45 days as well. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/WBtZAe from Leagle.com. DONNA DINAPLES, Plaintiff, represented by Ari H. Marcus -- Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, LLC, pro hac vice. DONNA DINAPLES, Plaintiff, represented by Mark G. Moynihan -- mark@moynihanlaw.net -- Moynihan Law, P.C. & Yitzchak Zelman -- yzelman@marcuszelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, LLC, pro hac vice. MRS BPO, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bryan C. Shartle -- bshartle@sessions.legal -- Sessions, Fishman, Nathan, LLP, pro hac vice, Michael D. Alltmont -- malltmont@sessions.legal -- Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, pro hac vice & Ross S. Enders -- renders@sessions.legal -- Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, LLC. MUSICIAN'S FRIEND: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Andrews Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR ANDREWS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MUSICIAN'S FRIEND, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 522740/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 22, 2017), contends that the Defendant is denying blind individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to its non-disabled customers through http://www.musiciansfriend.com/ The Website provides to the public a wide array of the goods services, price specials, and other programs offered by Defendant. Yet, the Website contains extensive access barriers that make it difficult, if not impossible, for blind customers to use the Website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind users to even complete a transaction on the Website. Defendant thus excludes the blind from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. In the wave of technological advances in recent years, assistive computer technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of everyday life, allowing blind people to fully and independently access a variety of services, including purchasing products online. The Plaintiff is a blind individual. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to purchase monitors, power cables, and microphone clips on the Website. However, unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on the Website, Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a transaction on the Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is 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 NEIMAN MARCUS: Fails to Pay Compensation, "Roces" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- ONDREA ROCES and SOPHIA AHMED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LTD, LLC; and the Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. CGC-17-562858 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 5, 2017), alleges that Neiman Marcus has systematically failed to pay Plaintiffs and all other Sales Associates for the full amount of time they have worked at Neiman Marcus. Sales Associates are paid on a commission basis. Neiman Marcus fails to pay Sales Associates for time performing non-commission-generating duties assigned by the Company. This practice deprives Sales Associates of the wages to which they are rightfully entitled under the law and constitutes a violation of state law. The Plaintiffs are Sales Associates employed by Neiman Marcus, classified as exempt from the overtime requirements of state law. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated Sales Associates who were paid on commission, and who work or worked for Neiman Marcus in the United States at any time during the applicable liability period. Although Plaintiffs and Sales Associates were paid exclusively by commission, they were routinely required to perform work that did not allow them to earn commission, and were not paid on an hourly basis for this work. Specifically, Plaintiffs and Sales Associates spent these non-sales-commission-generating work periods performing administrative or operational work duties unrelated to the direct earning of sales. These Non-Sell Periods regularly amounted to multiple hours of work each week. Because the store was not open, or because Plaintiffs and Sales Associates were unable to interact with clients or potential clients on the sales floor during Non-Sell Periods, Plaintiffs and other Sales Associates by definition could not have earned commission during Non-Sell Periods. Neiman Marcus has unlawfully failed to pay Plaintiffs and Sales Associates hourly wage for work performed during Non-Sell Periods. Plaintiffs and Sales Associates performed unpaid hourly work, as defined by the applicable state laws, and are and have been entitled to hourly compensation at the appropriate rate for all hourly work performed. Neiman Marcus has willfully refused to pay Plaintiffs and other Sales Associates the required hourly compensation for hourly work performed, and has failed to keep proper time records as required by the law. Neiman Marcus operates dozens of luxury department stores across the country. Neiman Marcus has employed Sales Associates at its retail locations nationwide. By the conduct described herein, Neiman Marcus has willfully violated state law by failing to pay Sales Associates, including Plaintiffs, proper hourly wages as required by law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. Relic Sun, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638 8800 Facsimile: (415) 638 8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com rsun@outtengolden.com NORMANDIN'S: Court Grants Prelim Approval of "Brinker" Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the parties' class action settlement in the case captioned ALAN BRINKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NORMANDIN'S, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:14-cv-03007-EJD (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs allege that Normandin's and OneCommand violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing automated calls to Plaintiffs' phones. Plaintiff Alan Brinker received one call, which went to voicemail; he listened to the message, called to confirm that Normandin's left the message, and hung up. Plaintiffs Austin Rugg and Ana Sanders each received approximately five or six calls; it is unclear whether they answered the calls or listened to voicemail messages. Here, the parties state that the class consists of 8,313 members. This size far exceeds the forty-person class size generally deemed sufficient for numerosity purposes. Thus, the court finds that Plaintiffs have made an adequate showing of numerosity. The Plaintiffs contend that the commonality requirement is met because the claims of class members raise the following common questions: (1) whether OneCommand used an automated telephone dialing system to call potential consumers' cell phones; (2) whether Normandin's obtained valid prior express consent from consumers; and (3) whether Normandin's is vicariously liable for calls placed by OneCommand. Plaintiffs' claims are based on Defendants' practice of placing automated calls. The injuries they allege are substantially identical to the injuries suffered by all class members. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have met the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3). Rule 23(a)(4) requires a showing that "the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. To determine whether a class representative fairly and adequate protects the interests of the class, the court must answer two questions: (1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members, and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class? The Court finds, based on the information presented, that Plaintiffs and their counsel do not have conflicts of interest with other class members. The Court also finds that Plaintiffs' counsel has and will continue to pursue this action vigorously on behalf of the class in light of counsel's reputation, qualifications, and experience representing clients in consumer protection class actions. Under Rule 23(b)(3), the court must find "that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available means for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. With respect to predominance, the question of law and fact common to all class members is whether Defendants violated the TCPA by placing autodialed calls to cell phones without the recipients' consent. In light of this common question, the Court finds that the predominance requirement set forth in Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied. With respect to superiority, each class member's potential recovery is $500 in statutory damages for each TCPA violation (or $1500 per violation if the violation was willful). These amounts are substantially less than the amount it would cost each class member to pursue an independent legal action. Most class members would be deterred from filing suits and seeking recovery. As such, Plaintiffs have shown that a class action is the most efficient and effective means of resolving this controversy. The settlement agreement contains the following major components: * Each of the 8,313 class members may submit a claim for either (1) a certificate in the amount of $90 for one-time purchase of goods and/or services, or (2) $40 in cash. * Plaintiff Brinker will receive a service award of $10,000. Plaintiffs Rugg and Sanders will receive $1,000 each. * Defendants will be enjoined from committing further TCPA violations and will train and instruct their employees regarding the requirements of the TCPA. * Plaintiffs' counsel seeks, and Defendants do not oppose, an award of $150,000 in attorneys' fees and costs. Approval of the settlement is not contingent on approval of the fees and costs award, and fees and costs are to be paid by Defendants separately from the relief to the settlement class. The Court finds that the terms of settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule23(e). The motion for preliminary approval of settlement is granted. The law firm of Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC is appointed as class counsel under Rule 23(g). Plaintiffs Alan Brinker, Austin Rugg, and Ana Sanders are approved to act as class representatives for settlement purposes only. Kurtzman Carson Consultants is appointed as Settlement Administrator. A hearing on the final approval of class action settlement will be held before this court on March 29, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. Class counsel must file brief(s) requesting final approval of the settlement agreement, attorneys' fees award, and incentive award no later than 35 calendar days before the final approval hearing. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8ab67ja from Leagle.com. Alan Brinker, Plaintiff, represented by Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC. Alan Brinker, Plaintiff, represented by Adrienne McEntee -- amcentee@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Daudt and Willie PLLC, Allyson Janay Ferguson -- jferguson@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Kathryn A. Williams -- roblin@williamslaw.com -- Williamson & Williams, Mary Bondy Reiten -- mreiten@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC &Roblin John Williamson -- kim@williamslaw.com -- Williamson & Williams. Austin Rugg, Plaintiff, represented by Adrienne McEntee, Terrell Marshall Daudt and Willie PLLC & Beth E. Terrell, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC. Ana Sanders, Plaintiff, represented by Adrienne McEntee, Terrell Marshall Daudt and Willie PLLC & Beth E. Terrell, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC. Normandin's, Defendant, represented by Andrew Stearns -- AStearns@RobardsStearns.com -- Robards & Stearns. Onecommand, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sean P. Flynn - sflynn@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP, Steven Charles Coffaro -- steve.coffaro@kmklaw.com -- Keating Muething and Klekamp PLL & Daniel Scott Kubasak -- dkubasak@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees. Normandin's, Cross-claimant, represented by Andrew Stearns, Robards & Stearns. NORTH DAKOTA: "Hansen" Suit Moved from E.D. Pa. to Local Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Angela Hansen and B.D. BY MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND ANGELA HANSEN, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. State of North Dakota, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05246, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota (Western) on Dec. 4, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00260-CSM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. North Dakota is a Midwestern U.S. state dominated by the Great Plains. Its eastern city of Fargo showcases Native American and modern art at the Plains Art Museum.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. NOVAN INC: Cisneros Sues over Steep Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------- ROBERTO CISNEROS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NOVAN, INC., NATHAN STASKO, RICHARD D. PETERSON, ROBERT A. INGRAM, W. KENT GEER, ROBERT J. KEEGAN, G. KELLY MARTIN, SEAN MURPHY, and JOHN W. PALMOUR, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01066 (M.D.N.C., Nov. 24, 2017), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Novan's stock, pursuant and/or traceable to Novan's false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus, issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about September 26, 2016 and/or on the open market between September 26, 2016 and August 1, 2017, both dates inclusive. Novan is a clinical-stage drug development company that focuses on the development and commercialization of nitric oxide-based therapies in dermatology. Novan was incorporated in January 2006 under the laws of Delaware and its subsidiaries were organized in May 2015 under the laws of North Carolina. Founded in 2006, the Company is headquartered in Morrisville, North Carolina and its stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "NOVN." Leading up to and during the Class Period, Defendants represented that Novan had commenced two identically designed Phase 3 clinical trials of SB204, a once-daily, topical gel for the treatment of acne vulgaris. SB204 was the Company's lead product candidate, and information regarding its development and commercialization was important to investors. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and outlook, specifically regarding SB204. Specifically, Defendants repeatedly stated that Novan had commenced and performed two identically designed Phase 3 clinical trials of SB204; Defendants 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; and as a result for the foregoing, the Company's outlook and expected financial performance were not accurately represented to the market at all relevant times. 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 on December 7, 2016. Before the market opened on January 27, 2017, Novan announced the top-line results of its two "identical" Phase 3 clinical trials of SB204. Although the drug reached all of its goals in one of the trials, dubbed NI-AC302, it failed to beat a placebo in the other separate Phase 3 study, called NI-AC301. On news of these discordant results in what were described to be two identical studies, the price of Novan stock fell sharply. After closing at $18.70 on January 26, 2017, the stock opened at $4.50 per share on January 27, 2017, fell to a low of $3.52, and ultimately closed at $4.86, a decline of 74%, on abnormally high trading volume of more than eight million shares. 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. On March 22, 2017, Novan announced that its Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), Defendant Richard Peterson, was leaving and would be replaced, "effective immediately," by interim CFO William L. Hodges. On May 5, 2017, Novan disclosed that the Company's Chief Medical Officer ("CMO"), M. Joyce Rico, had resigned. Then, on June 5, 2017, Novan announced that it was replacing its Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and co-founder, Defendant Nathan Stasko, with G. Kelly Martin, a member of the Company's Board of Directors, who would become interim CEO. Novan also announced that it was laying off 20% of its workforce and that despite previously assuring investors that it was committed to SB204, Novan was executing a plan to turn its focus to earlier-stage compounds. Following the Company's June 5, 2017 disclosures, the price of Novan stock fell 5% to close at $4.64 that day. The stock extended its losses on June 6, 2017, falling 4% to close at $4.45. Additional company disclosures on August 2, 2017, informed the market that Novan would be retreating further from SB204, stating that Novan's "[p]rimary clinical focus over the next 24 months" would be "antiviral clinical work in EGW and Molluscum" and that the "[a] cne indication and path forward [would] be largely driven by regulatory clarity." On this news, the price of Novan stock declined from $5.48 on August 1, 2017, to $4.54 on August 2, 2017, a drop of more than 17%. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Novan, Inc. is a late-stage pharmaceutical company focused on redefining the standard of care in dermatology through the development and commercialization of innovative therapies using the Company's nitric oxide platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Schiller, Esq. SCHILLER & SCHILLER, PLLC 304 East Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 789 4677 Facsimile: (919) 789 4469 E-mail: david@schillerfirm.com - and - Jeremy A. Liebermanm, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 661 1100 Facsimile: (212) 661 8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Telephone: (312) 377 1181 Facsimile: (312) 377 1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697 6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com NUCO2 MANAGEMENT: "Hernandez" Suit Moved to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Alejandro Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nuco2 Management, LLC, a Delaware Company, the Defendant, Case No. BCV-17-102571, was removed from the Kern County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California - (Fresno) on Dec. 7, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-01645-LJO-JLT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230 7502 Facsimile: (818) 230 7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth Chau Buu Nguyen, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-2709 Telephone: (310) 553 0308 Facsimile: (310) 553 5583 E-mail: enguyen@littler.com NYU LANGONE: Underpays Nurse Aides, "Pruitt" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA PRUITT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NYU LANGONE HEALTH SYSTEM d/b/a NYU LUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER, the Defendant, Case No. 522945/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 28, 2017), seeks to recover amount of underpayments based on the Defendant's failure to pay straight or agreed upon wages for all hours worked as provided by the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated non-exempt hourly paid nurse's aides employed by Lutheran Medical Center, now known as NYU Langone Health System in the State of New York at any time during the period commencing six years prior to the filing of this action and continuing until such further date as the practices complained of are discontinued. The Defendant, by virtue of its management and control over the wages and work of its Aides, is classified as an "employer" under New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has engaged and continues to engage in illegal and improper wage practices. These practices include: requiring Aides to perform work without compensation during meal breaks; requiring Aides to perform work without compensation before the start of their scheduled shift; requiring Aides to perform work without compensation after the end of their scheduled shift; and failing to pay Aides at their straight or agreed upon rate for all hours worked under 40 hours in a week.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Louis Ginsberg, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C. 1613 Northern Boulevard Roslyn, NY 11576 Telephone: (516) 625 0105 OCEAN DRIVE: "Esquenazi" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- ABRAHAM ESQUENAZI, the Plaintiff, v. OCEAN DRIVE LIMOUSINES, INC., OCEAN DRIVE LIMOUSINES, INC. SO. FLA., RICHARD BENNETTI and MELISSA BENNETTI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-24267-UU (S.D. Fla., Nov. 25, 2017), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the laws of the United States and the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being compensated at a rate of not less than one and one half times the regular rate at which he was employed. The Plaintiff was employed as a driver, performing the same or similar duties as that of those other similarly situated drivers who Plaintiff observed worked in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503 5131 Facsimile: (888) 270 5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com OCWEN LOAN: Court Grants Amendment in "Henry" WVCCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Huntington Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint in the case captioned KIMBERLY HENRY, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:17-1789 (S.D.W.V.). Plaintiff alleges that her house was totally destroyed by a fire in May of 2014. Despite the house being a complete loss with no change in equity, Plaintiff states that Defendant refused to give her insurance company a payoff quote until Defendant received a property appraisal. In August 2014, Plaintiff's insurer sent Defendant a check for the total amount due on Plaintiff's monthly statements. Defendant acknowledged receipt of the funds on August 23, 2014. Nevertheless, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not apply the insurance proceeds to the loan balance, and it began collection efforts against Plaintiff. Soon after discovery commenced, Defendant produced a Payoff Quote dated September 4, 2014. This document provides, in part, for a Satisfaction Cost, and that, if the account is past due, collection expenses and legal fees may be accruing. Plaintiff asserts this language is an unlawful threat under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA). Therefore, Plaintiff filed the current motion to bring a claim for additional violations of the WVCCPA on her own behalf and on behalf of a class. Defendant argues the proposed amendment is futile because it is permitted to charge the costs set forth in the Payoff Quote it sent. Upon consideration, the Court finds it premature at this initial stage of the proceedings to determine what Defendant actually intended when it referenced legal fees and Satisfaction Cost and whether the language applied to Plaintiff and violates the WVCCPA. Moreover, as indicated by Plaintiff, Defendant has made no attempt to argue that collection expenses as contained in the Payoff Quote are permissible under the WVCCPA. Plaintiff argues they are plainly not allowed under West Virginia Code Section 46A-2-128(c) and (d), and her claim could stand on that ground alone. Given Plaintiff's new claim is at least plausible, the Court rejects Defendant's futility argument and GRANTS Plaintiff's motion. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7d25hsv from Leagle.com. Kimberly Henry, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher B. Frost, HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD. Kimberly Henry, Plaintiff, represented by Jed Robert Nolan, HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD, Jonathan R. Marshall, BAILEY & GLASSER, Patricia M. Kipnis, BAILEY & GLASSER, Ralph C. Young, HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD & Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD, 1031 Quarrier St Ste 200, Charleston, WV, 25301-2314 Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jason E. Manning -- jason.manning@troutman.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS, Massie Payne Cooper -- massie.cooper@troutman.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS & Michael Christopher Litman -- mike.litman@troutman.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS. OPUS PLATINUM: Faces "Terrell" Wage-and-Hour Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- JAKE D. TERRELL, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. OPUS PLATINUM, INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC684564 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 27, 2017), seeks to recover meal and rest period penalties, penalties for accurate itemized wage statements, other penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement of all benefits Defendant enjoyed under the California Labor Code. This case is a Class Action, pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, on behalf of Plaintiff and all individuals who hold or held the position of hourly employee currently employed by or formerly employed by Defendant and any subsidiaries or affiliated companies. According to complaint, the Defendant has had a consistent policy of failing to inform Proposed Class Members of their right to take meal periods by way of a lawful policy and requiring Proposed Class Members within the State of California, including Plaintiff, to work at least five hours before receiving a meal period and failing to pay such employees one hour of pay at the employees' regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period was provided after 5 hours, as required by California state wage and hour laws. Opus Platinum is a restaurant located in Burbank, California.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Darren M. Cohen, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990 8300 Facsimile: (818) 990-2903 E-mail: dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com PACIFIC COAST SIGHTSEEING: "Nava" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- JOSE NAVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC COAST SIGHTSEEING TOURS & CHARTERS, INC., a Florida corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, the Defendants, Case No. BC685681 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 4, 2017), seeks to recover damages for unpaid compensation for failing to provide timely and uninterrupted meal periods and/or rest periods; prejudgment interest; and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants employed Plaintiff and the rest of the Class as non-exempt employees. The Defendants adopted and maintained uniform policies, practices and procedures governing the working conditions of, and payment of wages to Plaintiff and the rest of the Class. These uniform policies, practices and procedures violated California's labor laws and constituted unfair, fraudulent or illegal business practices under Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq. Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq. GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920 Sherman Oaks, CA 90017 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 PEACHY DEVELOPMENTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Velasquez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JORGE H. VELASQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PEACHY DEVELOPMENTS CALIFORNIA SOUTH, LLC, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC685778 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 5, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees routinely working over eight hours per day or 40 hours per week without being properly compensated for hours worked in excess of eight hours per day or 40 hours per week, routinely working 12 or more hours per day and or more than eight hours per day on the seventh consecutive work day in a work week, thereby depriving them of overtime wages. Moreover, Defendants routinely did not include Plaintiff or other similarly situated employees' commissions, nondiscretionary bonuses, or other non-hourly compensation in determining overtime pay in violation of Labor Code section 200 which resulted in the failure to compensate at the proper overtime rates of pay, to the detriment of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. Peachy Development is a top and body repair and paint shop located in Orange, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Diego Aviles, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 438 5555 Facsimile: (310) 300 1705 E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com diego@tomorrowlaw.com PEI WEI ASIAN: "Davis" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Ron Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pei Wei Asian Diner, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 17-12013-CA, was removed from the 15th Judicial Circuit Court Palm Beach, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) on Nov. 28, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:17-cv-81294-RLR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robin L. Rosenberg. Pei Wei Asian Diner is an American restaurant chain serving Pan Asian fare, operating in more than 200 locations in the U.S. and six international locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP 1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447 8888 Facsimile: (561) 447 8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Kelly Marie Pena, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 374 0506 Facsimile: (305) 374 0456 E-mail: kelly.pena@ogletreedeakins.com PETERSEN-DEAN: Fails to Pay Wages, "Colmenero" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------- MARCO A. PULIDO COLMENERO, VICTOR PULIDO and JUAN PULIDO NUNES, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the California general public, the Plaintiff, v. JAMES PATRICK PETERSEN; PETERSEN-DEAN, INC., a California corporation; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC685878 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 5, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. The Defendants are in the construction industry in the business of installing roofing tiles and solar panels. The Plaintiffs' job title was cargador (also called loader). The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees, which included other cargadores (loaders) and installadores (also called installers or roofers) laid black paper on roofs which they marked with chalk to indicate where the roof tiles or solar panels were to installed, for which they were paid a piece rate. The Plaintiffs and other Loaders/Roofers also loaded roof tiles or solar panels onto a conveyor which they used to lift the tiles and panels to the customer's roof, which they then unloaded, for which they were paid a piece rate. The Plaintiffs and other Loaders/Roofers worked overtime (i.e., 8 hours per workday or 40 hours per workweek) but were only paid piece rate compensation by Defendants that did not compensate them for the overtime hours they worked.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen Glick, Esq. M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK 1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 387 3400 Facsimile: (213) 387 7872 PHILLIPS 66: Fails to Timely Pay Final Wages, Robbins Says ---------------------------------------------------------- DEAN A. ROBBINS, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. CGC-17-562672 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 27, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid premium wages, interest and costs of suit under the 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 provide them with accurate written wage statements; and failed to pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment. Phillips 66 is an American multinational energy company headquartered in Westchase, Houston, Texas. It debuted as an independent energy company when ConocoPhillips executed a spin-off of its downstream and midstream assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone (310) 888 7771 Facsimile {310} 888 0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarchlaw.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Aikens" --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the case captioned SHARON AIKENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-1132 -cv (2d Cir.) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Aikens appeals from the dismissal of her putative class action against PRA for alleged violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA"). The EFTA provides that a preauthorized electronic fund transfer from a consumer's account may be authorized by the consumer only in writing, and a copy of such authorization will be provided to the consumer when made. The District Court dismissed the action for lack of standing. Aikens' complaint alleges that on March 11, 2015, a PRA associate telephoned her to discuss an outstanding credit card debt. During the call, Aikens agreed to a repayment plan under which PRA would make monthly withdrawals from her bank account. PRA debited Aikens' account for the first time in April 2015 without obtaining her written authorization, and continued making monthly withdrawals thereafter. In March 2016, Aikens filed suit against PRA under the EFTA. She sought to represent the class of individuals who had entered into automated payment plans with PRA over the telephone and without a contemporaneous writing. PRA moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing. The District Court concluded that, under Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, Aikens failed to show a concrete injury and therefore lacked constitutional standing to pursue the asserted claim. The court dismissed the action with prejudice. On appeal, Aikens contends that the District Court erred in its standing determination, and also that its dismissal for want of standing should have been entered without prejudice. The Appellate Court holds that Aikens' filings in the District Court articulated no theory at all to justify her hypothesis that PRA created an increased risk of fraud by obtaining her consent over the phone and mailing her a confirmation letter rather than obtaining her contemporaneous written authorization. It concludes, therefore, that she has not met her burden of showing that PRA's conduct amounted to anything more than a "bare procedural violation," and so she has failed to establish that she has constitutional standing to assert her EFTA claim. It has considered the remainder of Aikens' arguments and finds them to be without merit. Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the District Court's conclusion that the case must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It remanded the case, however, with the instruction that the District Court enter an amended judgment dismissing the action without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/HQRMzm from Leagle.com. DAVID N. McDEVITT -- dmcdevitt@consumerlawinfo.com -- Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC, Mesa, AZ., for Appellant. DAVID L. HARTSELL -- dhartsell@mcguirewoods.com -- ( Sarah A. Zielinski -- szielinski@mcguirewoods.com -- on the brief), McGuireWoods LLP, Chicago, IL., for Appellee. PURDUE PHARMA: Teamsters Local 404 Sues over Opioid Effect ---------------------------------------------------------- TEAMSTERS HEALTH SERVICES AND INSURANCE PLAN LOCAL 404, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PURDUE PHARMA, LP, PURDUE PHARMA, INC., THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC., ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., CEPHALON, INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ALLERGAN PLC, ACTIVIS PLC, ACAVIS, INC., ACTAVIS LLC, ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC., WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., WATSON S PHARMA, INC., MCKESSON CORPORATION, CARDINAL HEALTH INC., and AMERISOURCE BERGEN CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 12342 (D. Mass., Nov. 28, 2017), seeks to recover compensatory damages in an amount sufficient to fairly and completely compensate Plaintiff and the class for all damages; punitive damages as provided by law; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law, and that such interest be awarded at the highest legal rate. The Plaintiff on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, brings this class action complaint against Defendants. The Plaintiff is a health and welfare benefit fund. The Plaintiff has paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or the entire purchase price on behalf of its members for prescription opioid's which are manufactured, marketed, promoted, sold, and/or distributed by the Defendants during the Class Period. Plaintiff has sustained injury as a result of Defendants' alleged illegal and wrongful conduct. Opioids include brand-name drugs like OxyContin and Percocet and generics like oxycodone and hydrocodone. They are derived from or possess properties similar to opium and heroin, and, as such, they are highly addictive and dangerous and therefore are regulated by the United States Food and Drug Administration as controlled substances. Opioids provide effective treatment for short-term post-surgical and trauma-related pain, and for palliative end-of- life care. They are approved by the FDA for use in the management of moderate to severe pain where use of an opioid analgesic is appropriate for more than a few days. The Defendants, however, have manufactured, promoted, and marketed opioids for the management of pain by misleading consumers and medical providers through misrepresentations or omissions regarding the appropriate uses, risks, and safety of opioids. Addiction is a spectrum of substance use disorders that range from misuse and abuse of drugs to addiction. Throughout this Complaint, "addiction" refers to the entire range of substance abuse disorders. Individuals suffer negative consequences wherever they fall on the substance use disorder continuum. Defendants knew that, barring exceptional circumstances, opioids are too addictive and too debilitating for long-term use for chronic non-cancer pain lasting three months or longer ("chronic pain"). The Defendants knew that, with prolonged use, the effectiveness of opioids wanes, requiring increases in doses to achieve pain relief and markedly increasing the risk of significant side effects and addiction. Defendants knew that controlled studies of the safety and efficacy of opioids were limited to short-term use in managed settings where the risk of addiction and other adverse outcomes was significantly minimized. To date, there have been no long-term studies demonstrating the safety and efficacy of opioids for long- term use. The Defendants accomplished that false perception through a coordinated, sophisticated, and highly deceptive marketing campaign that began in the late 1990s, became more aggressive in or about 2006, and continues to the present. The Defendants accomplished their marketing campaign goal by convincing doctors, patients, and others that the benefits of using opioids to treat chronic pain outweighed the risks, and that opioids could be safely used by most patients. Defendants, individually and collectively, knowing that long-term opioid use causes addiction, misrepresented the dangers of long-term opioid use to physicians, pharmacists, and patients by engaging in a campaign to minimize the risks of, and to encourage, long-term opioid use. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has incurred and continue to incur costs for opioid prescriptions in excess of those they would have otherwise incurred, payments for their insureds' treatment for opioid addiction, and payments for emergency hospital visits for their insureds' including payments for Naloxone Hydrochloride (Narcan) resulting from opioid abuse and overdose. Defendants' misrepresentations regarding the safety and efficacy of long-term opioid use proximately caused injury to Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Cheverie, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP 112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 213 8311 Facsimile: (212) 79 0028 E-mail: Dcheverie@hrsclaw.com R.T.R. FINANCIAL: Faces "Chein" Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against R.T.R. Financial Services Inc. The case is styled Menachem Chein, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v R.T.R. Financial Services Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07183 (E.D. N.Y., December 9, 2017). R.T.R. Financial Services Inc. is engaged in the Financial institution in Staten Island, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. Maxim Maximov, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Tel: (718) 395-3459 Fax: (718) 408-9570 Email: m@maximovlaw.com RASIER LLC: Heller et al. Sue over Theft of Rider & Driver Data --------------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN HELLER, DAVID FLUSS, ANNA LUNA, MARCY LOKIETZ, AKASH SHETH, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RASIER, LLC, RASIER-CA, LLC, and UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-08545-CBM-KS (C.D. Cal., Nov. 24, 2017), seeks to recover seek injunctive relief designed to ensure against the recurrence of a data breach by adopting and implementing reasonable data security practices to safeguard Ubers' riders' and drivers' personal information. The Plaintiffs bring this class action case against the Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard riders' and drivers' personally identifiable information ("PII") which Uber collected in connection with the operation of its business. On November 21, 2017, Uber disclosed that in October 2016 hackers had stolen 57 million driver and rider accounts and that Defendants had kept the data breach secret for more than a year after paying a $100,000 ransom. Uber has acknowledged that a cybersecurity incident occurred, resulting in the theft of its riders' and drivers' PII, consisting of names, addresses, email addresses, credit card numbers and other information. PII for Plaintiffs and the class of riders and drivers they seek to represent was compromised due to Uber's acts and omissions and their failure to properly protect PII. Uber could have prevented this Data Breach. Uber disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and Class members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected, failing to disclose to its riders and drivers the material fact that it did not have adequate security practices to safeguard PII, failing to take available steps to prevent and stop the breach from ever happening, and failing to monitor and detect the breach on a timely basis. As a result of the Data Breach, PII of the Plaintiffs and Class members has been exposed, in all likelihood, to criminals for misuse. The injuries suffered by Plaintiffs and Class members, or likely to be suffered as a direct result of the Data Breach. Uber Technologies is a global transportation technology company headquartered in San Francisco, California, United States, operating in 633 cities worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrice L. Bishop, Esq. Howard Longman, Esq. Melissa R. Emert, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 9430 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 209 2468 Facsimile: (310) 209 2087 E-mail: service@ssbla.com hlongman@ssbny.com memert@ssbny.com REPRODUCTIVE PARTNERS: Schrimsher Seeks OT Wages under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE L. SCHRIMSHER, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. REPRODUCTIVE PARTNERS MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California corporation; REPRODUCTIVE PARTNERS, INC., a corporation; REPRODUCTIVE PARTNERS MEDICAL GROUP - LA JOLLA, a California corporation; INSPERITY PEO SERVICES, L.P., a limited partnership conducting business in California as ADMINISTAFF COMPANIES, II, L.P.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC684448 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 21, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages, minimum wages, and all wages due to discharged and quitting employees under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and class members were employed by Defendants under employment agreements that were partly written, partly oral, and partly implied. In perpetrating the acts and omissions alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, acted pursuant to, and in furtherance of, their policies and practices of not paying Plaintiff and Class Members all wages earned and due, through methods and schemes which include, but are not limited to, failing to pay overtime premiums; failing to provide rest and meal periods; failing to properly maintain records; failing to provide accurate itemized statements for each pay period; failing to properly compensate Plaintiff and Class Members for necessary expenditures; and requiring, permitting or suffering the employees to work off the clock, in violation of the California Labor Code and the applicable Welfare Commission IWC Orders. Reproductive Partners is a premiere San Diego fertility center, recognized worldwide for top In vitro fertilization success rates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matem, Esq. Tagore 0. Subramaniam, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531 1900 Facsimile: (310) 531 1901 E-mail: mmatem@matemlawgroup.com tagore@matemlawgroup.com RYB EDUCATION: Faces "Wang" Suit over Drop in ADR Price ------------------------------------------------------- TONGYAN WANG and YUYAN JIA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RYB EDUCATION, INC., YANLAI SHI and WEI PING, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09320 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 28, 2017), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired RYB's American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs"): (1) pursuant and/or traceable to RYB's false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus, issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about September 27, 2017; and/or (2) on the open market between September 27, 2017 and November 22, 2017, both dates inclusive. RYB Education, Inc. offers educational services. The Company operates kindergarten and pre-schools. RYB Education provides training in a variety of subjects and languages, teacher recruitment, guidance, innovative learning, development of children, rating systems, parents consulting, and other services. Founded in 1998, the Company is headquartered in Beijing, People's Republic of China, and its stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "RYB." On September 27, 2017, the Company completed its IPO, issuing 7,800,000 shares and raising net proceeds of approximately $144,300,000. 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) RYB failed to establish safety policies to prevent sexual abuse from occurring at its schools; (ii) RYB's failure to remedy problems within its system exposed children to harm and unreasonable risk of harm while in the Company's care; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, RYB securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and class members suffered significant losses and damages. On November 24, 2017, various news outlets reported that police have opened an investigation into RYB after numerous parents accused a RYB nursery of drugging and molesting their children. Beijing's education authority confirmed the police investigation in a statement. According to China's leading newspaper Xinhua News Agency, RYB has suspended multiple teachers at RYB Education New World after kindergarten students were "reportedly sexually molested, pierced by needles, given unidentified pills," and forced to undress and locked in a dark room. Parents reported that at least eight children have been abused at the school and that the children had given similar accounts with respect to their abuse. On this news, RYB's ADR price fell $10.28 per share, or over 38% from its previous closing price, to close at $16.45 per share on November 24, 2017. On the following day, several news outlets reported that Chinese police had detained teachers in connection with its RYB's child abuse inquiry. According to police reports, one of the teachers was arrested after needle wounds were found on at least eight children aged 2-6 years at the kindergarten. In a statement issued later that day, RYB announced it had fired the detained teachers, as well as the head of one of its kindergartens. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiffs and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Hui M. Chang, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661 1100 Facsimile: (212) 661 8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com hchang@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com SABER HEALTHCARE: "Travis" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- LILIE TRAVIS on her own behalf and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, d/b/a "The Crossings of Riverview", the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-02851-MSS-TGW (M.D. Fla., Nov. 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated, attorney fees/costs and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as an hourly worker for Defendant performing work as a resident aide. The Defendant is an assisted living service provider. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for all the hours worked during her employment. Saber Healthcare owns and operates skilled nursing and rehabilitation facilities for residents and their families. It also offers long term care, assisted living, memory care, personal care, and home health services. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in Bedford Heights, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle J. Lee, Esq. 1971 West Lumsden Road, Suite 303 Brandon, FL 33511 Telephone: (813) 343 2813 E-mail: wig@mazgadd.com SAFETY-KLEEN: Brown & Diop Seek Unpaid Wages under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- N1ARCUS BROWN and ABDOU DIOP, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees, the Plaintiff, v. GLEAN HARBORS INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, dba Benicia Industrial Services, SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS INC., SAFETY-KLEEN ENVIROSYSTEMS CO., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG17884810 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 5, 2017), seeks to recover relief under California law for Defendants' breach of their legal obligations to authorize and permit rest periods and to furnish timely and accurate wage statements, pursuant to California Labor Code and California Industrial Welfare. The Defendants have employed Plaintiffs and putative class members as operators, loaders, industrial and specialty services requires constant monitoring, Plaintiffs work a continuous rotating shift during which time, they are never fully relieved from duty. The Plaintiffs and the other operators, loaders, technicians, and other employees are scheduled for and work 12-hour shifts, during which Defendants uniformly require them to remain on duty the entire. Throughout their shifts, Defendants require Plaintiffs and the other operators, loaders, technicians, and other employees to monitor equipment, respond to their radios (which they were required to carry at all times, including on breaks) and critical events, and maintain the safe and stable operation of their units. To do so, Plaintiffs and the other operators, loaders, technicians, and other employees are required to remain attentive, carry radios, and be reachable at all times during their shifts. As a result, Plaintiffs never receive off-duty breaks because they are constantly and continuously responsible for their units. Because operators are responsible for their units throughout their shifts, with no designated rest breaks or relief, Defendants do not authorize or permit Plaintiffs to take off-duty rest breaks for every 40-hour work period or major fraction thereof, as required by law. The Defendants do not have a policy or system for providing relief to Plaintiffs to allow them to\take off-duty rest breaks. The Defendants do not pay Plaintiffs an extra hour of wages for each work day during which they are not provided the off-duty rest breaks to which they are entitled under California law. The Defendants also routinely fail to maintain complete and accurate payroll records for Plaintiffs showing, inter alia, the gross and net wages earned, including wages for missed rest breaks.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua F. Young, Esq. Pamela Chandran, Esq. GILBERT & SACKMAN 3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (323) 938 3000 Facsimile: (323) 937 9139 E-mail: jyoung@gslaw.org pchandran@gslaw.org SANOFI US: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Velasquez" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- KAREN LEVINE, the Plaintiff, v. SANOFI US SERVICES INC. f/k/a SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. INC.; SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC; SANDOZ, INC., ACCORD HEALTHCARE, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION d/b/a MCKESSON PACKAGING; HOSPIRA WORLDWIDE, LLC f/k/a HOSPIRA WORLDWIDE, INC.; HOSPIRA INC.; SUN PHARMA GLOBAL FZE, SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. f/k/a CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES LTD.; PFIZER INC.; ACTAVIS LLC f/k/a ACTAVIS INC.; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-14638 (E.D. La., Dec. 5, 2017), alleges that the Defendants expressly warranted to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' healthcare providers that Taxotere, Docefrez, Docetaxel Injection, and Docetaxel Injection Concentrate were safe and fit for use for the purposes intended, that they did not produce any dangerous side effects in excess of those risks associated with other forms of treatment for cancer, that the side effects they did produce were accurately reflected in the warnings, and that they were adequately tested. Taxotere, Docefrez, Docetaxel Injection, and Docetaxel Injection Concentrate do not conform to Defendants' express warranties, because is the drugs are not safe, were not adequately tested, and have numerous serious side effects, which are in excess of those risks associated with other forms of treatment and which were not accurately warned about by Defendants. The Defendants' sales representatives met with Plaintiffs' healthcare provider(s), including but not limited to in-person meetings, "window calls," phone calls, office meetings, lunches, dinners, conferences, and presentations to discuss Taxotere prior to Plaintiffs' first Taxotere treatment. During Defendants' sales representatives and marketing agents communications with healthcare providers, they made statements, comments, and express suggestions that the risk of permanent hair loss associated with Taxotere use was no higher than its competitor's alternatives. Defendants' sales representatives expressly warranted to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' healthcare providers that once patients who are administered Taxotere complete treatment, their hair would grow back. The Defendants published and disseminated Taxotere safety labels and Patient Information leaflets, which expressly stated that "[o]nce you have completed all your treatments, hair generally grows back." Defendants' Patient Information leaflets contained this statement until at least 2010. The Defendants' statements were false. Defendants knew or should have known that, in fact, their representations and warranties were false, misleading, and untrue. Defendants' misrepresentations were made to potential prescribers and/or purchasers or users as members of the public at large. The Plaintiffs' physicians and others similarly situated relied upon these representations before prescribing Taxotere. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing breaches of warranty, Defendants caused Plaintiffs to suffer injuries.[BN] SEED YOUR OWN: "Sou" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- FRANKIE SOU, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SEED YOUR OWN LLC, a California limited liability company; ENDLESS PURSUIT CORPORATION, a California corporation; L.A. JUNKIES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive the Defendant, Case No. BC685476 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 4, 2017), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay employees for all hours worked at the minimum wage and/or applicable overtime rates of pay; failed to include all remuneration when calculating the applicable overtime rate of pay; failed to provide legally complaint meal periods and/or pay meal period premium wages; failed to provide legally complaint rest breaks and/or pay rest break premium wages; and failed to indemnify employees for employment-related expenditures. Seed Your Own is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Concord, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Andrea Rosenkranz, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432 0000 Facsimile: (310) 432 0001 E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com arosenkranz@lelawfirm.com SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: "Anderson" Suit Moved to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Brent Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Sherwin-Williams Company, an Ohio corporation, the Defendant, v. Does 1 to 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. CIVDS1722065, was removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside) on Dec. 7, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-02459-FMO-SHK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The Sherwin-Williams Company is an American Fortune 500 company in the general building materials industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin T Barnes, Esq. Gregg Lander, Esq. Kevin T Barnes Law Offices 5670 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664 Telephone: (323) 549 9100 Facsimile: (323) 549 0101 E-mail: barnes@kbarnes.com lander@kbarnes.com - and - Raphael Albert Katri, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL A KATRI 8549 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3104 Telephone: (310) 940 2034 Facsimile: (310) 733 5644 E-mail: RKatri@socallaborlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Margaret Rosenthal, Esq. Nicholas D Poper, Esq. Shareef Swamy Farag, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard 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 SHILLINGTON SCHOOL: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. of New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shillington School of Graphic Design LLC. The case is styled Steven Matzura and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Shillington School of Graphic Design LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09694 (S.D. N.Y., December 10, 2017). Shillington's innovative approach to design education means students achieve amazing results in a seriously short amount of time.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com SLING MEDIA: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Heskiaoff" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case, MICHAEL HESKIAOFF, Individually & on behalf of all others similarly situated, MARC LANGENOHL, Individually & on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, RAFAEL MANN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff- Appellant, v. SLING MEDIA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17- 1094-cv (2d Cir.). The Plaintiffs are purchasers of Slingbox Media Players and licensees of related software, which allow users to view television programming from one device (e.g., their primary television at home) on additional devices in other locations (e.g., cell phones or computers). They allege that Sling violated their statutory and contractual rights by disseminating -- without advance warning -- various advertisements. The Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal from a March 22, 2017 judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granting Sling motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("CAC") and denying as futile the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a proposed Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("SCAC"). The Appellate Court begins by determining whether the Plaintiffs' non-contractual statutory claims are governed by New York or California substantive law. It agrees with the district court that these non-contractual statutory claims are governed by New York law. The Plaintiffs bought their Slingboxes in New York and were New York residents at the time of their purchases, indicating that New York substantive law governs under New York's choice-of- law principles. Accordingly, the district court properly determined that New York law applied to the Plaintiffs' non- contractual statutory claims under New York's choice-of-law principles. Moving on to the decision granting Sling's motion to dismiss the CAC, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs failed plausibly to allege a violation of New York General Business Law Section 349. The CAC does not plausibly allege a deceptive act or practice. Indeed, the Plaintiffs point to no affirmative statement made by Sling pertaining to advertising, much less a deceptive statement. And they did not plea an actionable omission because nothing in the CAC alleges why a reasonable consumer would have been led to believe that Slingbox would always be an ad-free product. Turning to the district court's order denying as futile the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, the Appellate Court concludes that the additional information included in the proposed SCAC still fails to allege a deceptive act or practice under Section 349. In particular, Sling's purported misrepresentations or omissions were not deceptive acts or practices under Section 349 because they would not have caused a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances to believe that the Slingbox was, and always would be, an ad-free product. Similarly, the district court did not err in rejecting as futile the Plaintiffs' proposed claim based on an alleged breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the EULA. The Plaintiffs do not and cannot pinpoint anything in the EULA related to advertising, and nothing in the EULA suggests that barring Sling from disseminating advertisements is necessary so that they can receive the benefit of their bargain. Accordingly, the district court properly denied as futile the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, the Court concludes. It has considered all of the Plaintiffs' remaining arguments and finds them to be without merit. Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the district court. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2017 Summary Order is available at https://is.gd/ZbUbS5 from Leagle.com. ROBERT I. LAX -- rlax@lax-law.com -- Lax LLP, New York, New York (Adam Gonnelli, The Sultzer Law Group, P.C., Red Bank, New Jersey; Innessa Melamed Huot -- ihuot@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, New York, New York, on the brief). for Plaintiffs-Appellants and Consolidated Plaintiff-Appellant. RICHARD R. PATCH -- rrp@coblentzlaw.com -- (Susan K. Jamison -- skj@coblentzlaw.com -- Katharine T. Van Dusen -- kvandusen@coblentzlaw.com -- Mark L. Hejinian -- mhejinian@coblentzlaw.com -- Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP, San Francisco, California; Leigh R. Lasky -- lasky@laskyrifkind.com -- Lasky, LLC, Chicago, Illinois, on the brief), for Defendant- Appellee. SLIDING DOOR CO: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Sliding Door Company. The case is styled Steven Matzura and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v The Sliding Door Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09672 (S.D. N.Y., December 8, 2017). The Sliding Door Company is the leading manufacturer of innovative, high-quality, yet cost-effective interior sliding and swing door solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. SPRINT SOLUTIONS: Trzupek Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- WHITNEY TRZUPEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02844 (D. Colo., Nov. 28, 2017), asks the Court to require Defendant to cease all unsolicited solicitation text messaging activities and an award of statutory damages to the members of the Class under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. The Defendant is an American telecommunications company that provides wireless and internet services to consumers and businesses. To promote its products and services, Defendant conducted a wide-scale solicitation campaign that features the sending of unsolicited text messages to consumers' cellular telephones -- and even to those on the National Do Not Call Registry -- without consent, in violation of the TCPA. Text messages, like the ones sent in the instant action, are considered calls under the TCPA. According to the complaint, the Defendant fails to obtain express written consent before sending text messages to consumers' cellular telephone numbers. Furthermore, telemarketers such as Defendant can easily avoid calling numbers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry by inexpensively "scrubbing" their call lists against the National Do Not Call Registry database. The scrubbing process identifies those numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, allowing telemarketers to remove those numbers and ensure that no calls are placed to consumers who opt-out of telemarketing calls. To avoid violating the TCPA by calling registered numbers, telemarketers must scrub their call lists against the Registry at least once every 31 days. The Defendant, however, makes no effort to scrub its call lists or avoid calling telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone: (954) 400 4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor Miami, Florida 333131 Telephone: (888) 333 9427 Facsimile: (888) 498 8946 ST. FRANCIS COUNTY: Womack Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- JEFF WOMACK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ST. FRANCIS COUNTY, ARKANSAS, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00205-BRW (E.D. Ark., Nov. 28, 2017), seeks to recover declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and reasonable attorney's fee, as a result of Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals proper minimum wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, Defendant participated in the management of Plaintiff's work, including setting and enforcing the amount of hours worked and the amount and manner of compensation paid. The Defendant dictated, controlled and ratified, both implicitly and explicitly, the wage and hour practices and all related employee compensation policies that are at issue in this case. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from November 2013 until October 2017, as a sheriff's deputy. The Defendant did not establish a "work period" for the sheriff's department pursuant to the FLSA. The Plaintiff was routinely required to work in excess of 40 hours per week and was not paid for all hours worked, nor was he paid properly for overtime. Even if Defendant did establish a work period for the sheriff's department, Plaintiff was routinely required to work in excess of 171 hours in a 28-day period and was not paid for all hours worked, including overtime. The Plaintiff was instructed to phone in his hours each day, but no matter how many hours he verbally reported, his paycheck never reflected more than 40 hours worked each week. The Defendant knew that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week and also over 171 hours in a 28-day period, and Defendant required him to do so. The Defendant did not pay Plaintiff any overtime compensation because Defendant shorted Plaintiff's reported work hours. The Defendant operates the St. Francis County Sheriff's Department where Plaintiff was employed within the three years prior to the filing of this Complaint as a sheriff's deputy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stacy Gibson, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Utile Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221 0088 Facsimile: (888) 787 2040 E-mail: stacy@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com STARBUCKS CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Carrington" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case styled KILEIGH CARRINGTON, individually and on behalf of members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 16cv3074 DMS (KSC) (S.D. Cal.). In June 2014, Plaintiff Carrington filed a claim against Defendant Starbucks in state court under the Private Attorneys General Act challenging Starbucks's meal break practice ("Carrington I"). The Defendant removed that case to this Court, but the case was remanded to state court. On Oct. 24, 2016, the trial commenced in Carrington I, and the court found in favor of Carrington on liability. The trial court awarded penalties on Dec. 19, 2016, and entered judgment in favor of Carrington on July 20, 2017. While Carrington I was pending, the Plaintiff commenced this lawsuit, which also challenges the Defendant's meal break policy. Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) required the Plaintiff to serve the summons on the Defendant with 90 days of filing the Complaint, or by March 21, 2017, the Plaintiff did not do so. Thus, on Aug. 25, 2017, the Court issued a notice of a hearing under Rule 4(m) regarding dismissal of the case for want of prosecution. The Plaintiff thereafter served the Defendant on Aug. 31, 2017. On Sept. 12, 2017, the Plaintiff's counsel submitted a declaration explaining the reasons for the delay in service. On the same day, the Court vacated the Rule 4(m) hearing. The Defendant now moves to dismiss the case for insufficient service of process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5). It argues that the Plaintiff cannot demonstrate good cause for her failure to timely serve the Complaint because the failure was intentional. In light of the broad discretion that is provided by Rule 4(m), Judge Sabraw declined to dismiss the Plaintiff's case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5). She says the delay in the present case is 163 days, which is not insignificant, but also not so long as to warrant dismissal. The Defendant has not lost any evidence or witnesses relevant to the case, and it is disputed whether the Defendant had actual knowledge about the case prior to being served. In light of the facts presented, dismissal is not warranted. For these reasons, Judge Sabraw denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/v74Nzm from Leagle.com. Kileigh Carrington, Plaintiff, represented by Clint S. Engleson -- cengleson@sullivanlawgroupapc.com -- Sullivan Law Group, LLP. Kileigh Carrington, Plaintiff, represented by Eric K. Yaeckel -- yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com -- Sullivan Law Group LLP. Starbucks Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gregory W. Knopp -- gknopp@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP. STARR RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Dembele Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MOUSSA DEMBELE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. STARR RESTAURANT ORGANIZATION, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 171200223 (Phily. Cty. Ct. of Common Pleas, Dec. 4, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages; reasonable attorney's fees, expenses, and court costs; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Defendant owns and operates the Pare Restaurant ("Pare") on Rittenhouse Square. During the three-year period relevant to this lawsuit, the Defendant has employed at least 35 individuals at Pare in the position of food runner. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant at Pare as a food runner until approximately October 2017. The Defendant has required Plaintiff and other Pare food runners to spend a substantial portion of their working hours performing non-tipped work. The Defendant pays Plaintiff and other food runners an hourly wage of $4.50 plus tips. This $4.50 hourly wage is paid for all work hours, including those hours dedicated to non-tipped work. Starr Restaurants, stylized as STARR Restaurants, is a group of 35 restaurants in Philadelphia, New York City, Atlantic City, Washington D.C. and South Florida. The organization is headed by founder Stephen Starr.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 STERLING JEWELERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hudson Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- LARRY HUDSON, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. STERLING JEWELERS INC., an Ohio corporation, SIGNET JEWELERS LIMITED, a foreign corporation, and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC685084 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 28, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime wages pursuant to the California Labor Code. This lawsuit arises out of the following wrongful acts that occurred, are occurring, and will occur, at least in part, within four years preceding the filing of this action and up to and through the time of trial of this matter. As a result of Defendants' company-wide policies and practices, Defendants engaged in the following unlawful conduct: Defendants did not properly calculate the regular rate of pay when paying overtime wages to Plaintiff and similarly-situated employees; Defendants did not properly calculate the regular rate when paying premium wages for meal periods that were not provided to PLAINTIFF and similarly-situated employees; and Defendants did not provide meal periods to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees. Sterling Jewelers is an American specialty jewelry company headquartered in Akron, Ohio. The company was founded in 1910 by Henry Shaw, from LeRoy's Jewelers in Lorain, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shadie L. Berenji, Esq. Oscar A. Bustos, Esq. Brittanee A. Marksbury, Esq. BERENJI LAW FIRM, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 708 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 855 3270 Facsimile: (310) 855 3751 E-mail: berenii@employeejustice.law bustos@employeejustice.law marksbury@employeejustice.law SURVEILLANCE SECURITY: Fails to Pay Wages, "Hughes" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JEROME HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SURVEILLANCE SECURITY, INC. an Arizona corporation; DOES 1 through 25, the Defendant, Case No. BC685544 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 4, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime pay under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff and the Class were required to work off the clock. The Defendants required Plaintiff and members of the Class to arrive at work before the start of their shifts, but did not pay them for time worked prior to the beginning of their shifts. In addition, Plaintiff and members of the Class were required to remain at their posts after clocking out and after the end of their shifts in order to accommodate the needs of Defendants' customers. The Plaintiff and members of the Class were also docked 30 minutes of pay for each day they worked, to account for their unpaid meal periods. Such deductions were made even though Plaintiff and the Class members were prevented by Defendants from taking a meal period that was off-duty and free of interruption. The Plaintiff and the members of the Class were never paid for the times when they worked off the clock. Accordingly to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the rest of the Class are entitled to recover from Defendants unpaid wages for any time they worked and were not paid agreed upon wages at any time within the four years prior to the initiation of this action until the date that the Class is certified. Surveillance Security provides security service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron C. Gundzik, 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 E-mail: Agundzik@gghslaw.com Rgundzik@gghslaw.com - and - Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. LEBE LAW, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 5723 Melrose Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90038 Telephone: (310) 921 7056 Facsimile: (310) 820 1258 E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Peck" Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the case captioned Lawrence J. Peck, Plaintiff, v. Swift Transportation Co. Arizona, LLC, Defendant, No. ED 17-cv-01695 VAP (KKx) (C.D. Cal.). Plaintiff alleges that he worked for Defendant as a non-exempt hourly truck driver. Plaintiff asserted a single PAGA claim based on various alleged Labor Code violations, including failure to furnish written, accurate and/or incomplete wage statements, failure to pay all wages due within the pay period, failure to pay all wages due at the time of separation, and failure to pay, reimburse or indemnify for work-related expenses. Plaintiff seeks penalties under Labor Code Sections 2698 and 2699, as well as for unpaid wages under Labor Code Section 558 on behalf of all persons presently and formerly employed by Defendant in California as non-exempt hourly truck drivers who performed any services in California during the covered period and was paid on a per mile basis. Defendant removed the action to the District Court based on the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The District Court holds that remand is required since the holding in Baumann v. Chase Inv. Servs. Corp., 747 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2014), remains undisturbed. Defendant's removal was improper, since CAFA is not applicable to a PAGA suit that does not also seek class certification. The Court declines to award attorney's fees, since Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendant lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8byketk from Leagle.com. Lawrence J. Peck, Plaintiff, represented by Neal J. Fialkow, Law offices of Neal J Fialkow Inc, 215 N Marengo Ave Fl 3, Pasadena, CA 91101-1504 Lawrence J. Peck, Plaintiff, represented by James S. Cahill - jscahilllaw@aol.com -- Law Offices of Neal Fialkow Inc. Swift Transportation Co. Arizona, LLC, Defendant, represented by Hilary Ann Habib -- hhabib@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, Paul S. Cowie -- pcowie@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP &Robert E. Mussig, Jr. -- rmussig@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP. T-MOBILE USA: Ct. Grants Telephonic Appearance in Mngt Conference ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Administrative Request for Telephonic Appearance at Case Management Conference in the case captioned JESSE BLACK, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-CV-04151-HSG (N.D. Cal.). The Court has considered Plaintiff's Administrative Request for Telephonic Appearance and finds that Plaintiff's counsel, Arnab Banerjee of Capstone Law APC, is permitted to appear telephonically at the Case Management Conference. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybubtx5h from Leagle.com. Jesse Black, Plaintiff, represented by Arnab Banerjee -- Arnab.Banerjee@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC. T-Mobile USA, Inc, Defendant, represented by Gregory G. Iskander - - giskander@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Keith Adam Jacoby -- kjacoby@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Sophia Behnia -- sbehnia@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Perry Kim Miska -- pmiska@littler.com Jr. -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Dismissal of "Santana" Affirmed in Part ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HADIT SANTANA, Plaintiff, VANESSA VIGIL, RICARDO VIGIL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-303 (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part the final judgment of the district court dismissing the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint with prejudice, entered on Jan. 30, 2017, insofar as it held that the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing, but vacated it in part insofar as it held that the Plaintiffs lack a statutory cause of action as "aggrieved" parties. The Defendant-Appellee is a publisher, developer, and distributor of video games, including "NBA 2K15" and "NBA 2K16. Ricardo Vigil purchased NBA 2K15 and his sister, Vanessa Vigil, played his copy of the game. Both the Plaintiffs used the MyPlayer feature and followed described procedure to create their MyPlayer avatars. On Oct. 19, 2015, they brought claims against Take-Two in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging five violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). The Plaintiffs allege that Take-Two: (i) collected their biometric data without their informed consent; (ii) disseminated their biometric data to others during game play without their informed consent; (iii) failed to inform them in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which their biometric data would be stored; (iv) failed to make publicly available a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiffs' biometric data; and (v) failed to store, transmit, or protect from disclosure their biometric data by using a reasonable standard of care or in a manner that is at least as protective as the manner in which it stores, transmits, and protects other confidential and sensitive information. Take-Two moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for lack of Article III standing and for failure to state a cause of action under the statute (i.e., lack of "statutory standing"). The district court granted the motion on both grounds and dismissed the action with prejudice on Jan. 30, 2017, and the clerk entered final judgment the same day. The Plaintiffs timely appealed. The Court concludes that none of the alleged procedural violations raise a material risk of harm to this interest. Although the Plaintiffs allege that Take-Two collected and disclosed their biometric data without their authorization, there is no dispute that Take-Two informed them that the MyPlayer feature required a "face scan" that would be visible to other players during online gameplay. This terminology is sufficient to meet BIPA's mandates under the circumstances. Thus, to the extent that Take-Two departed from BIPA's requirements, it only did so insofar as it omitted the term, "geometry." Take-Two's alleged violations of BIPA's notice provisions fail to raise a material risk of harm. The Plaintiffs have not shown that this violation, if true, presents a material risk that their biometric data will be misused or disclosed. Take-Two's alleged violations of BIPA's data security provisions raise a somewhat thornier issue. Although Take-Two asserts that violations of such prophylactic measures confer standing only where there has been a data breach, the Appellate Court does not need to make such a wide-sweeping conclusion. Despite multiple opportunities to amend their pleadings, the Plaintiffs have failed to allege that Take- Two's alleged violations have raised a material risk that their biometric data will be improperly accessed by third parties. They therefore have failed to show a "risk of real harm" sufficient to confer an injury-in-fact. Lastly, the Court finds unpersuasive the Plaintiffs' attempt to manufacture an injury. While it is true that BIPA's legislative findings identify consumers' withdrawal from biometric-facilitated transactions as a problem, they clarify that this issue arises only where a consumer's biometric data has been "compromised," i.e., collected or disclosed without his or her authorization. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Take-Two's procedural violations have created a material risk that this will occur, they cannot now leapfrog this obligation by imposing an injury upon themselves. Although it finds for the foregoing reasons that the district court properly held that the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing, the Appellate Court nonetheless must remand with the instruction that the district court will amend its judgment and enter dismissal without prejudice. A complaint dismissed for lack of Article III standing should be without prejudice because the court is without subject matter jurisdiction. Since the statutory standing arguments are based on differing constructions of the term "aggrieved party" as used in BIPA, the Appellate Court says the district court's resolution of the issue was a judgment on the merits that could not be properly addressed absent subject matter jurisdiction. The district court was therefore without power to dismiss the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action under the statute. It has considered all of the Plaintiffs' contentions on appeal and has found in them no basis for reversal. For the reasons stated, the judgment of the district court, the Appellate Court affirmed in part insofar as it held that the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing, but is vacated in part insofar as it held that the Plaintiffs lack a statutory cause of action as "aggrieved" parties. It remanded the case with the instruction that the district court will amend its judgment and enter dismissal without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Summary Order is available at https://is.gd/4kql5e from Leagle.com. FRANK HEDIN -- fhedin@careyrodriguez.com -- (John C. Carey -- jcarey@careyrodriguez.com -- on the brief), Carey, Rodriguez, Milian, Gonya, LLP, Miami, FL., for Plaintiffs-Appellants. VICTOR JIH -- VJih@irell.com -- (Robert M. Schwartz -- rschwartz@irell.com -- Nathaniel Lipanovich -- nlipanovich@irell.com -- Molly Russell -- mrussell@irell.com -- Derek R. Flores -- dflores@irell.com -- on the brief), Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA., for Defendant-Appellee. TIMEX GROUP: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. of New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Timex Group USA, Inc. The case is styled Steven Matzura and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v Timex Group USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09693 (S.D. N.Y., December 10, 2017). Timex Group USA, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets timepieces and jewelry to customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com TOYOTA MOTOR: "Roscoe" Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Ray Roscoe, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1779CV00750, was removed from the Hampden County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Springfield) on Nov. 27, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv- 12332-KAR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson. Toyota Motor Sales is the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and distribution subsidiary devoted to the U.S. market. Founded in 1957 in California, TMS currently employs more than 6,500 people.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq. CONNOR MORNEAU & OLIN, LLP 273 State Street, 2nd Floor Springfield, MA 01103 Telephone: (413) 455 1730 Facsimile: (413) 455 1594 E-mail: jmorneau@cmolawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Holly M. Polglase, Esq. Matthew E. Bown, Esq. HERMES, NETBURN, O'CONNOR & SPEARING, P.C. 265 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 728 0050 Facsimile: (617) 728 0052 E-mail: hpolglase@hermesnetburn.com mbown@hermesnetburn.com U.S. BANK: "Duncan" Suit Moved to District of Maryland ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Wyatt J. Duncan and Tykecia McCormick-Duncan, Individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. U.S. Bank National Association, on behalf of Ajax Mortgage Loan Trust 2016-C, Mortgage-Backed Notes, Series 2016-C as Trustee; BWW Law Group, LLC; Fawn Way Builders, LLC; John Does 1-100; and Jane Does 1-100, Case No. CAE17-28245, was removed from the Circuit Court of Maryland for PG County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt) on Nov. 27, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-03506-PWG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul W. Grimm. U.S. Bank National Association provides commercial banking services for individuals, businesses, and institutions. It offers personal banking services, including checking and savings accounts, and certificates of deposits; and personal loans and credit.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas Neil Gottron, Esq. Terry Morris, Esq. MORRIS PALERM LLC 751 Rockville Pike, No. 2A Rockville, MD 20852 Telephone: (301) 424 6290 Facsimile: (301) 424 6294 E-mail: dgottron@morrispalerm.com tmorris@morrispalerm.com Attorneys for U.S. Bank National Association: Matthew D Cohen, Esq. BWW LAW GROUP, LLC 6003 Executive Boulevard, Suite 101 Rockville, MD 20852 Telephone: (240) 482 0794 Facsimile: (301) 961 6473 E-mail: matt.cohen@bww-law.com U.S. HEALTHWORKS: "Rodriguez" Suit Moved to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled CATRINA R. RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. U.S. HEALTHWORKS, INC., a Delaware corporation; U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP, PROF. CORP., A Delaware corporation; US HEALTHWORKS HOLDING COMPANY, INC., a business entity form unknown; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. RG17879760, was removed from the County of Alameda Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland) on Dec. 4, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-06924-KAW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. U.S. HealthWorks is an American health care provider network headquartered in Valencia, California.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se: The Defendants are represented by: Hazel Uy Poei, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 689 0404 Facsimile: (213) 689 0430 E-mail: hazel.poei@jacksonlewis.com UBER TECH: Continues to Freeze Account, Rosales Claims ------------------------------------------------------ DAMARIS ROSALES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and Does 1-50, the Defendant, Case No. BC685555 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 4, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendant from continuing to freeze accounts or funds that have not actually been hacked. The Plaintiff brings this suit as a class action pursuant to California Business and Professions Code and California Code of Civil Procedure against Uber Technologies. The Plaintiff alleges that Uber unfairly, unlawfully, and deceptively froze and removed funds from her account under the guise that it was protecting her from hackers. After exhausting every administrative remedy provided by Uber, Plaintiff has not been forwarded the money she earned and Uber continues to hide the true nature of why it froze her account. The Plaintiff started driving for Uber in or about April 2016. Since that time, she has completed approximately 1,200 rides for Uber and has maintained a 4.9/5 rating. During the same time, she has also used the same bank account for all transfers of funds from her Uber account to her personal bank account. On or about October 28, 2017, around 7 pm, Plaintiff received and accepted a request to drive an Uber customer. Before arriving at the pickup, Plaintiff received a strange phone call from someone who she believed was posing as an Uber office employee seeking to verify personal information. Plaintiff believed that someone was trying to hack her Uber account. Sensing a problem, Plaintiff specifically avoided giving out any personal information and hung up the phone on the suspected hacker. Plaintiff immediately called the official Uber telephone number to report that she believed someone had attempted to hack her account. Plaintiff specifically told the Uber office employee that she had not given out any personal information. On October 29, 2017, Plaintiff logged into her Uber account to transfer her $384.00 of earnings to her bank account. She was unable to transfer the funds. Uber froze her funds and locked out her ability to transfer the money. To date, Plaintiff has attempted every administrative remedy suggested by Uber and still not been able to retrieve her funds. Plaintiff alleges it was unfair, fraudulent, deceptive, and unlawful, under California Business and Professions Code that Uber unilaterally decided to lock her account and keep her money. By freezing Plaintiff's account, Uber represented that the transactions involved rights and obligations which it did not have or involve, or which are prohibited by law under California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. By hiding the existence of serious hacking issues, negligently failing to protect both drivers and riders private information, and by unilaterally deciding on a policy to freeze or take drivers funds at the mere report of a hacking attempt, Uber fraudulently and/or negligently collected, and continues to collect, money from the Plaintiff and the Class. Further, Uber knew, should have known, or recklessly disregarded this illegal practice during the relevant period. Uber did not disclose the illegality of this practice to past, current, or future drivers and continues to implement this practice. Due to this conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class have suffered, or will in the future suffer, extensive economic damages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Gold, Esq. GOLD APLC 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (323) 936 0540 E-mail: mgold@goldaplc.com UBER TECH: Faces "West" Suit over Data Security Breach ------------------------------------------------------ BRADLEY WEST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UBER USA, LLC, a limited liability company, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a California corporation, RASIER, LLC, a limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08593 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 28, 2017), seeks to recover monetary damages, punitive damages, nominal damages, statutory damages, and injunctive relief, and all other relief as authorized in equity and by law as a result of Defendant's violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, negligence, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff brings this class action against Uber for its failure to secure and safeguard the private information of approximately 57 million riders and drivers who use its service and for Uber's concealment and refusal to provide notification to individuals affected by the data breach for a period of over twelve months. On November 21, 2017, Uber publicly announced a data breach that occurred back in October 2016, wherein hackers accessed Uber user data stored on a third-party cloud-based service ("Security Breach"). The Security Breach disclosed the personal information of approximately 600,000 drivers (including license information); and names, email addresses, and private cell phone numbers for approximately 57 million users. Uber allegedly paid the hackers who stole the information $100,000 in exchange for the criminals' assurance that they would delete the data. Uber failed to inform anyone of the Security Breach for more than one year from its occurrence. The Security Breach was caused by Uber's knowing violation of its obligations to secure consumer information. Uber failed to comply with security standards and allowed the private information of millions collected by Uber to be compromised. Uber is a global transportation technology company headquartered in San Francisco, California, United States, operating in 633 cities worldwide. It develops, markets and operates the Uber car transportation and food delivery mobile apps.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben Barnow, Esq. Erich P. Schork, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 621 2000 Facsimile: (312) 641 5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com e.schork@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com j.blake@barnowlaw.com - and - Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338 1100 Facsimile: (619) 338 1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com - and - Aron D. Robinson, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ARON D. ROBSINON 180 W. Washington Street, Suite 700 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 857 9050 Facsimile: (312) 857 9054 E-mail: adroblaw@aol.com UBER TECH: Faces "Townsend" Suit over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------- DANYELLE TOWNSEND and KEN TEW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv- 06756-DMR (N.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2017), seeks declaration that, to comply with its existing obligations, Uber must implement specific additional, prudent industry security practices, as outlined below, to provide reasonable protection and security to the personally identifiable information of Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class. The Complaint contends Uber users trust the company with their personal information when they create an Uber account consisting of their name, email, phone number, login name and password, address, payment or banking information and other personal information. On November 21, 2017, Uber disclosed that it had experienced a data breach, confirming that the personally identifiable information of 57 million Uber users worldwide had been downloaded by hackers, including names, email addresses and mobile phone numbers. However, also potentially at risk are additional pieces of personally identifiable information generally available in Uber customer accounts including: location history, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, Social Security numbers, dates of birth and other information. Additionally, Uber disclosed that the names and drivers' license numbers of around 600,000 drivers in the United States had been downloaded by hackers. The Data Breach occurred in October 2016; however, Uber failed to disclose the Data Breach until more than one year later. The hackers were able to gain access through a third-party cloudbased service that handled computing tasks for the company. From there, the hackers discovered an archive of rider and driver information. The hackers then emailed the company, demanding a ransom in exchange for deleting the downloaded information. Rather than alerting regulators, law enforcement and victims of the Data Breach, Uber sought to conceal the Data Breach by paying the hackers $100,000 to destroy the stolen data and to promise to keep the Data Breach a secret from the public and regulators. As a result of Uber's negligence and wanton and reckless disregard of data breach notification requirements, millions of Americans are now -- and have been for over one year -- at risk of identity theft. Uber, the world's largest ridesharing company operating in over 700 countries and 600 cities worldwide, connects millions of riders with drivers via Uber's mobile application.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Matthew J. Preusch, Esq. Christopher L. Springer, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456 1496 Facsimile: (805) 456 1497 E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com cspringer@kellerrohrback.com - and - Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623 1900 Facsimile: (206) 623 3384 E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com - and - Jodi Flowers, Esq. Breanne Cope, Esq. Laura Ray, Esq. Mathew Jasinski, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216 9000 Facsimile: (843) 216 9450 E-mail: jflowers@motleyrice.com bcope@motleyrice.com lray@motleyrice.com mjasinski@motleyrice.com UDREN LAW OFFICES: Pa. Super. Affirms Dismissal of "Glover" ----------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued an Opinion affirming the Judgment of the District Court dismissing the Complaint in the case captioned MARY E. GLOVER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED FORMER AND CURRENT HOMEOWNERS IN PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant, v. UDREN LAW OFFICES, P.C., A NEW JERSEY DEBT COLLECTOR, Appellee, No. 1953 WDA 2016 (Pa. Super.). Appellant, Mary E. Glover, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated former and current homeowners in Pennsylvania, appeals from the trial court's order sustaining Appellee's, Udren Law Offices, P.C., a New Jersey debt collector (Udren), preliminary objections based on collateral estoppels. Ms. Glover entered into a residential real estate loan transaction with Washington Mutual Bank, F.A (WaMu Bank), in which she agreed to repay a $9,997 loan to WaMu Bank or its mortgage and note successors or assigns) by making monthly principal and interest payments of $67.35 over a 30-year period. Ms. Glover sustained injuries in an automobile accident and suffered a significant loss of income as a result. Thereafter, she made a request to WaMu Bank for a loan modification to reduce her monthly payment. In response, Washington Mutual Home Loans (WaMu Home Loans), a wholly owned subsidiary of WaMu Bank demanded that she pay $559.15, which represented three overdue monthly payments plus three late charges, or else her home would be sold by the Sheriff to pay off the mortgage debt. An attorney for Udren called Ms. Glover and advised her that she needed to pay $1,700 for about eleven months of missed payments, and additional attorney's fees and costs of approximately $1,697.28. Thereafter, on April 10, 2006, Udren filed a foreclosure complaint, asserting a claim against Ms. Glover for $12,652.36. In the foreclosure complaint, Udren alleged that Ms. Glover owed $1,855 for collection costs, which included a title report, court costs, and attorney's fees. Ms. Glover filed the complaint where she reasserted the Act 6 and UTPCPL claims against Udren that the federal court dismissed without prejudice. In short, she maintains that Udren has collected unlawful charges from Ms. Glover, including unincurred attorney fees based on a flat-rate without court authorization, prior to a time when any fees should have been collected, in violation of the contract and state law. The trial court dismissed Ms. Glover's Act 6 claims, explaining that she does not allege that Udren violated any provisions of the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act. Since Ms. Glover relies solely on Section 406, since Section 406 applies only to residential mortgage lenders, and since Udren is not a residential mortgage lender, the trial court dismissed Ms. Glover's claims raised in Counts I-IV for failure to plead any violations of Act 6 that would allow recovery under Section 502. In addition, the trial court dismissed Ms. Glover's remaining claims under the UTPCPL. While Ms. Glover's appeal was pending before the state Supreme Court, her federal litigation against Wells Fargo, among others, continued. On October 14, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion, in which it affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo on Ms. Glover's Act 6 claim. The Third Circuit stated that, "Section 406 of Act 6 allows a residential mortgage lender to contract for or receive from the mortgage debtor a reasonable fee actually incurred in connection with foreclosure actions. Even assuming Wells Fargo is a residential mortgage lender under Section 406, Ms. Glover has failed to present evidence on which a reasonable jury could conclude that she was charged attorney's fees not incurred or permitted under the loan documents and, more significantly, that she paid any such fees. Thus, she has not shown that there is a genuine issue of material fact for the jury to resolve in connection with her Act 6 claim and so we will affirm summary judgment in Wells Fargo's favor." Glover v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 629 Fed.Appx. 331, 343 (3d Cir. 2015). Ms. Glover argues that collateral estoppel does not apply as the federal judgment against Wells Fargo fails to satisfy two criteria for the application of Pennsylvania's collateral estoppel doctrine. First, she states that the issue as decided by the federal courts with respect to Wells Fargo is not identical, under the collateral estoppel doctrine, to the Act 6 issue now presented against Udren. Second, she claims that lack of discovery prevented Ms. Glover from obtaining a full and fair opportunity to litigate her claims against Wells Fargo in the federal action. In addition, Ms. Glover also states that the Act 6 claims in the two cases are not identical because in the federal case, the federal court's holding related to a failure with respect to the requisite evidentiary showing under federal summary judgment standards while the lower court here was required to analyze the case against Udren under Preliminary Objection standards which precluded affirmative defenses. Without any citation in support, Ms. Glover claims that collateral estoppel does not apply when the burdens of proof in the two actions are significantly different. In response, the Pa. Super. concurs with the trial court, which stated that it found no support for Ms. Glover's argument that collateral estoppel is limited by the evidence underlying the first suit's final judgment. Whether a plaintiff can adduce sufficient evidence if given a second bite at the apple is not grounds to defeat the collateral estoppel effect of the judgment. Additionally, the Pa. Super. is persuaded by its observation that further discovery directed at Udren related to its collection' of any money cannot defeat the Third Circuit's finding that Ms. Glover was not charged and did not pay any unlawful fees. Accordingly, the Pa. Super. agrees with the trial court that the issues are identical, and Udren satisfied element one of the collateral estoppel doctrine. A full-text copy of the Superior Court's November 20, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9muu8pb from Leagle.com. Michael P. Malakoff, Michael P. Malakoff, PC, The Frick Building 437 Grant StreetSuite 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15219- 6002, for Appellant, Mary E. Glover. Jonathan Robert Burns -- jburns@bonwlaw.com -- for Appellant, Mary E. Glover. Jonathan J. Bart -- jbart@wilentz.com -- Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., for Appellee, Udren Law Offices. UNION PACIFIC: "Logan" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Washington ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Michael L. Logan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 17204339-1, was removed from the Spokane County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on Nov. 27, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00394-SMJ to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. Union Pacific is a freight hauling railroad that operates 8,500 locomotives over 32,100 route-miles in 23 states west of Chicago and New Orleans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: India Lin Bodien, Esq. INDIA LIN BODIEN ATTORNEY AT LAW 2522 N Proctor St No. 387 Tacoma, WA 98407 Telephone: (253) 212 7913 E-mail: india@indialinbodienlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Clarence M Belnavis, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP - SEA 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2750 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682 2308 E-mail: cbelnavis@fisherphillips.com UNITED STATES: "Harris" Suit v. FBOP Moved to S.D. Indiana ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled DONTE ROLANDO HARRIS, John Does, Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR., Director, FBOP, TERMINATED: 06/29/2017; MS ANGELA P. DUNBAR, Assistant Programs Director CPD, TERMINATED: 06/29/2017; JOHN & JANE DOES, TERMINATED: 06/29/2017; COUNTER TERRORISM UNIT, TERMINATED: 06/29/2017; ANGELA P. DUNBAR; STEPHEN COPE, CTU Analyst; JOHN DOE, and CTU Director, Case No. 1:16-cv-01012, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to the Southern District of Indiana (Terre Haute) on Nov. 28, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv- 00536-WTL-MPB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William T. Lawrence.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Patricia K. McBride, Esq. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 252 7123 Facsimile: (202) 252 2599 UNITED STATES: Court Enjoins Minors' Suit vs. ICE ------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class Certification in the case captioned ILSA SARAVIA, et al., Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, et al., Respondents/Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-03615-VC (N.D. Cal.). The minors have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, and they seek to provisionally certify a class of unaccompanied minors for purposes of that motion. In the Spring of 2017, agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), executed "Operation Matador" in two New York counties. Operation Matador targeted undocumented immigrants in Suffolk and Nassau Counties who had alleged connections to criminal gangs. After receiving allegations of gang affiliation from local law enforcement officers, ICE agents proceeded to arrest the alleged gang members, relying on ICE's authority under federal law to arrest noncitizens who are subject to removal from the country. Some of the people arrested were minors. And ICE decided, after making the arrests, that some of the minors fell within a certain legal category: unaccompanied minors. Under federal law, an unaccompanied minor is a child who comes across the border without any parent or legal guardian in the United States available to take care of them. When DHS takes custody of an unaccompanied minor, federal law requires that agency to transfer custody of the minor to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), a division within a different cabinet-level agency, namely, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The minors and their attorneys ask the Court to rule quickly on their request for a preliminary injunction. The issue in this case is not whether federal agents may arrest and detain undocumented minors who truly are members of dangerous criminal gangs. If federal agents have probable cause to believe that a minor is a member of a criminal gang, certainly that could be a "changed circumstance" that would justify detention, even if the government had previously determined that the minor was not dangerous. But there is no reason to deny these minors protections that noncitizens typically get after having been released on bond or parole. The minors and their sponsors have the right to participate in a prompt hearing before an immigration judge in which the government's evidence of changed circumstances is put to the test. By shipping the minors across the country for indefinite detention in a high-security facility before providing that hearing, the government has violated their due process rights. Accordingly, for any noncitizen minor previously placed with a sponsor who has been arrested on allegations of gang activity, the government is ordered to provide a hearing before an immigration judge by no later than November 29, 2017, to allow the minor and his sponsor to contest the government's evidence of changed circumstances. The government must restore the minor to the sponsor's custody if such evidence is lacking. Going forward, at least while this lawsuit is pending, the government is ordered to provide such a hearing within seven days of arrest of any such minor. The plaintiffs have asked for further relief, and they have asserted additional legal theories. Further relief may be warranted, but because the minors are clearly entitled to at least this due process protection, and because their need for that protection is time-sensitive, a preliminary injunction on this issue is warranted at this time. The motion for a preliminary injunction on behalf of a class of noncitizen minors is granted to remedy the government's likely violation of the class members' procedural due process rights. The government is ordered to provide A.H. and all other noncitizen minors previously released to a sponsor who were rearrested and are currently in federal custody based on allegations of gang affiliation with a hearing before an immigration judge to challenge the basis for those allegations, in conformity with the requirements set out in Part III.A of this order. The defendants' motions to dismiss are granted as to the claims brought by F.E. and J.G. individually. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y89yfque from Leagle.com. Ilsa Saravia, Plaintiff, represented by Ashley K. Corkery -- acorkery@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP. Ilsa Saravia, Plaintiff, represented by Holly Stafford Cooper, University of California, Davis School of Law Immigration Law Clinic, Judy Rabinovitz, ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project, Kathlyn Anne Querubin -- kquerubin@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Martin S. Schenker -- mschenker@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Nathaniel Robert Cooper -- ncooper@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP, Stephen B. Kang, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, Trevor Morehead Kempner, Cooley LLP, William S. Freeman, ACLU Foundation of Northern California & Julia Harumi Mass, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Inc.. Lorenza Gomez, Plaintiff, represented by Ashley K. Corkery, Cooley LLP, Holly Stafford Cooper, University of California, Davis School of Law Immigration Law Clinic, Judy Rabinovitz, ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project, Julia Harumi Mass, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Inc., Kathlyn Anne Querubin, Cooley LLP, Martin S. Schenker, Cooley LLP, Nathaniel Robert Cooper, COOLEY LLP, Stephen B. Kang, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, Trevor Morehead Kempner, Cooley LLP & William S. Freeman, ACLU Foundation of Northern California. Wilfredo Velasquez, Plaintiff, represented by Ashley K. Corkery, Cooley LLP, Holly Stafford Cooper, University of California, Davis School of Law Immigration Law Clinic, Judy Rabinovitz, ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project, Julia Harumi Mass, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Inc., Kathlyn Anne Querubin, Cooley LLP, Martin S. Schenker, Cooley LLP, Nathaniel Robert Cooper, COOLEY LLP, Stephen B. Kang, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, Trevor Morehead Kempner, Cooley LLP & William S. Freeman, ACLU Foundation of Northern California. Jefferson B. Sessions, Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation United States Department of Justice, Civil Division & Vinita Andrapalliyal, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division. James McHenry, Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation United States Department of Justic, Civil Division & Vinita Andrapalliyal, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division. Thomas E. Price, Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation United States Department of Justic, Civil Division & Vinita Andrapalliyal, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division. Steven Wagner, Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation United States Department of Justic, Civil Division & Vinita Andrapalliyal, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division. Scott Lloyd, Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation United States Department of Justic, Civil Division & Vinita Andrapalliyal, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division. Elicia Smith, Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation United States Department of Justic, Civil Division & Vinita Andrapalliyal, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division. Elaine Duke, Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation United States Department of Justic, Civil Division & Vinita Andrapalliyal, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division. Thomas D Homan, Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation United States Department of Justic, Civil Division & Vinita Andrapalliyal, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division. James McCament, Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation United States Department of Justic, Civil Division & Vinita Andrapalliyal, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: "Millman" Class Certification Bid Premature ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned OPAL MILLMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, LEAR CORPORATION EEDS AND INTERIORS, as successor to United Technologies Automotive Inc., ANDREW DAIRY STORE, INC., L.D. WILLIAMS, INC., CP PRODUCT, LLC, as successor to Preferred Technical Group, Inc., and LDW DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Defendants, Cause No. 1:16-CV-312-TLS (N.D. Ind.). This matter is before the Court on two pending motions: the Defendant L.D. Williams' Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike the Amended Complaint and the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class. To date, there has been no response by the Defendants, and the Court notes that additional Defendants have been added in the Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the parties' briefing has focused on the Third Amended Complaint, and the parties are also engaged in discovery. The Court further finds that filing a motion that the parties are not yet ready to support or defend, and the Court is not yet able to rule upon, does not promote the efficient administration of justice. No party has indicated that the certification issue is ripe for adjudication. The Court, finding no reason to consider the certification issue at this time, denies the Motion to Certify Class as premature, but without prejudice to refiling at the appropriate juncture of the case. The Court also denies as moot the Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike the first Amended Complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc4slgly from Leagle.com. Opal Millman, Plaintiff, represented by Rodney L. Michael, Jr. -- rmichael@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP. Opal Millman, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas A. Barnard -- tbarnard@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Benjamin A. Wolowski -- bwolowski@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP & Tammara D. Porter -- tporter@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP. Eric Powell, Plaintiff, represented by Rodney L. Michael, Jr., Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Thomas A. Barnard, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Benjamin A. Wolowski, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP & Tammara D. Porter, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP. Laury Powell, Plaintiff, represented by Rodney L. Michael, Jr., Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Thomas A. Barnard, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Benjamin A. Wolowski, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP & Tammara D. Porter, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP. United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alicia Marcia Raines - Alicia.RainesBarrs@btlaw.com --, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Joseph G. Eaton -- joe.eaton@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP & Kelly J. Hartzler -- kelly.hartzler@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP. Lear Corporation Eeds and Interiors, Defendant, represented by Alicia Marcia Raines, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Joseph G. Eaton, Barnes & Thornburg LLP & Kelly J. Hartzler, Barnes & Thornburg LLP. Andrews Dairy Store Inc, Defendant, represented by Thomas A. Herr -- tah@barrettlaw.com -- Barrett McNagny LLP & William A. Ramsey - - war@barrettlaw.com -- Barrett McNagny LLP. L.D. Williams, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew M. McNeil -- amcneil@boselaw.com -- Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, Bradley M. Dick -- bdick@boselaw.com -- Bose McKinney & Evans LLP & Bradley R. Sugarman -- bsugarman@boselaw.com --, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP. CP Product LLC, Defendant, represented by G. Daniel Kelley, Jr. -- daniel.kelley@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP, Nicholas B. Reuhs Nicholas.Reuhs@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP & Samuel B. Gardner -- Samuel.Gardner@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP. LDW Development LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew M. McNeil, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, Bradley M. Dick, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP & Bradley R. Sugarman, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP. Andrews Dairy Store Inc, Cross Claimant, represented by Thomas A. Herr, Barrett McNagny LLP & William A. Ramsey, Barrett McNagny LLP. L.D. Williams, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Sugarman, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP. LDW Development LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Andrew M. McNeil, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, Bradley M. Dick, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP & Bradley R. Sugarman, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP. UNIVERSAL FITNESS: Rose Sues over Gym Memberships Rates ------------------------------------------------------- GIOVANNA ROSE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL FITNESS CLUB, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv- 08547 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 26, 2017), seeks to recover damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against Defendant to stop Defendant's practice of falsely advertising its services and products to falsely induce consumers to purchase Defendant's gym memberships and obtain redress for all California consumers (a) who were promised a gym membership at one price, but then ultimately charged a higher price, (b) who were represented to receive free training sessions, or (c) whose bank accounts were debited on a reoccurring basis without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers, Defendant. The Defendant is engaged in the advertising, sale, and provider of gym services with a large share of its business done in California. The Defendant represents to prospective consumers that they would get a gym membership for a monthly fee of $24.99 with a free training session. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated purchased Defendant's gym memberships. The Defendant misrepresented and falsely advertised to Plaintiff and others similarly situated the price of these services because Defendant charged purchasers of these services and products for more than what was advertised and deducted these funds from accounts of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to Plaintiff which these consumers never agreed to pay for. The Defendant's misrepresentations to Plaintiff and others similarly situated caused them to purchase Defendant's gym memberships and training sessions, which Plaintiff and others similarly situated would not have purchased absent these misrepresentations by Defendant and its employees. In so doing, Defendant has violated California consumer protection statutes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, 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: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com VISTANA MANAGEMENT: "Michel" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- NERLINE MICHEL, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. VISTANA MANAGEMENT, INC., DBA SHERATON'S VISTANA RESORT, a Florida for Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-02085-ACC-DCI (M.D. Fla., Dec. 5, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant without being paid the proper overtime pay, premium rate of time and one-half her regular rate of pay, for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours within a work week. Vistana Management is a real estate agent and manager which provides asset management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, PA 1950 Lee Road, Suite 213 Witer Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (321) 287 6021 Facsimile: (407) 960 4789 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com VITAQUEST INT'L: "Shoaf" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Renee Shoaf and Pamela Parra, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. VitaQuest, Intl. LLC and WINDMILL HEALTH PRODUCTS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02007, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Dec. 5, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-12604 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. VitaQuest engages in the formulation, development, and manufacture of custom dietary supplements for clients worldwide. It offers anti-aging supplements, bodybuilding supplements, capsules, chewable tablets, enzyme supplements, herbal supplements, kosher vitamins, and men's supplements. WEINSTEIN COMPANY: Geiss et al. Sue over Unwanted Sexual Conduct ---------------------------------------------------------------- LOUISETTE GEISS, KATHERINE KENDALL, ZOE BROCK, SARAH ANN THOMAS (a/k/a SARAH ANN MASSE), MELISSA SAGEMILLER, and NANNETTE KLATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY HOLDINGS, LLC, MIRAMAX, LLC, MIRAMAX FILM CORP., MIRAMAX FILM NY LLC, HARVEY WEINSTEIN, ROBERT WEINSTEIN, DIRK ZIFF, TIM SARNOFF, MARC LASRY, TARAK BEN AMMAR, LANCE MAEROV, RICHARD KOENIGSBERG, PAUL TUDOR JONES, JEFF SACKMAN, JAMES DOLAN, MIRAMAX DOES 1-10, and JOHN DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09554 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2017), alleges that under the guise of meetings ostensibly to help further Plaintiffs' showbiz careers, or to hire them, or to socialize at industry events, Harvey Weinstein isolated Plaintiffs and Class Members in an attempt to engage in unwanted sexual conduct that took many forms: flashing, groping, fondling, harassing, battering, false imprisonment, sexual assault, attempted rape and/or completed rape. The Plaintiffs and Members of the Class had or wanted to have careers in the entertainment industry and correctly understood that Weinstein was a powerful force in the production world. The Plaintiffs and the Class operated under duress and the credible and objective threat of being blacklisted by Weinstein and major film producers such as Miramax and TWC if they refused Weinstein's unwanted sexual advances or complained about his behavior. To the extent a woman was "lucky" enough to escape physically unscathed, Weinstein's behavior (and the fact it was facilitated by TWC and Miramax, the "Complicit Producers") nonetheless caused injury to their business prospects, career, reputation, and severe emotional and physical distress. Weinstein Company is a mini-major film studio, founded in New York City by Bob and Harvey Weinstein in 2005. TWC is one of the largest mini-major film studios in North America. Bob Weinstein owns 23% of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Zweig, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. Shelby Smith, Esq. Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. Emily Brown, Esq. Robert B. Carey, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10017 E-mail: jasonz@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com shelbys@hbsslaw.com beth@hbsslaw.com emilyb@hbsslaw.com rob@hbsslaw.com - and - M. Cris Armenta, Esq. Credence E. Sol, Esq. THE ARMENTA LAW FIRM, APC 1230 Rosecrans Ave, Suite 3 WEST BASIN WATER: Faces "Rastegar" Suit over Standby Charges ------------------------------------------------------------ MIKEL RASTEGAR, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; HENRY PORTER, JR., individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; EMAN KHOUBIAN, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WEST BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. BC 684499 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 22, 2017), seeks refund of all wrongfully imposed and collected "Standby Charges" and seeks declaratory and/or injunctive relief requiring Defendants to discontinue the assessment, collection and remittance of these Standby Charges. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs suspect that West Basin intended to euphemistically label taxes as 'Standby Charges' and "property assessments" on the Plaintiffs' and Class members' property tax bills because West Basin has no legal right to provide, and therefore bill, these "end-use customers" for retail water services -- and again, West Basin and its officers, directors, and managing agents have been, and are, fully aware that these standby charges have been illegal since their first enactment and have never been "standby/availability charges". Additionally, and as West Basin is well aware, the Plaintiffs and Class Member receive their retail water from water agencies or municipal water districts other than West Basin. West Basin is a wholesale water agency that provides imported drinking water to nearly one million people in 17 cities and unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County. West Basin is an industry leader in water recycling, conservation, and water education.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul E. Heidenreich, Esq. David W.T. Brown, Esq. HUSKINSON, BROWN & HEIDENREICH, LLP 1200 Aviation Blvd., Suite 202 Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Telephone: (310) 545-5459 Facsimile: (310)546-1019 E-mail: pheidenreich@,hbhllp.com WHIRLPOOL CORP: Subclass Rep Replacement in "Schechner" Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TOBY SCHECHNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-12409 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, denied the Plaintiffs motion to substitute the putative "Michigan Subclass representative," or in the alternative, leave to withdraw. In June 2016, the Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint; filing of an amended complaint followed several months later. During preliminary motion practice, the Court issued its first scheduling order. And after the motions were resolved, the parties filed a joint discovery plan; the Court then held a scheduling conference. On the recommendation of the parties, the Court issued a second scheduling order that delayed the end of fact discovery by more than two months. In August 2017, the Court held a telephonic status conference at the request of the parties. During the conference, the parties advised that they were disputing whether the Defendant could inspect the ovens that were at the heart of the litigation. The Plaintiffs expressed concerns about potential intrusion and the cost of having attorneys present. The Court advised that the inspections seemed reasonable, and that conducting the inspections around the times and places set for depositions could reduce costs. A month later, the Court held a second telephonic conference at the parties' request. It became clear during the call that the discovery issues had escalated, so the Court appointed a discovery master. The discovery master then recommended compelling the oven inspection of one of the Plaintiffs: Laura Bliss. The Court agreed with the recommendation, and ordered the inspection. In the meantime, the Plaintiffs moved to substitute out or withdraw Bliss as the Michigan Subclass representative. The Plaintiffs disclosed for the first time that Bliss has medical reasons that justify her substitution even though she is willing to permit the inspection and to appear at trial by video conference. Judge Murphy holds that although legitimate medical conditions would usually justify delay, the delay appears to be caused by a lack of communication between the Plaintiffs' counsel and Bliss rather than the medical condition itself. He says the timing suggests that the counsel inadequately communicated with Bliss when confirming the inspection and the lack of communication resulted in a week delay to learn that the inspection would be an issue; the ramifications of the delay are amplified because it occurred near the end of discovery. The Judge says diligent communication would have resulted in the Plaintiffs learning of the alleged need for substitution sooner, and discovery likely could have been conducted on the new Michigan Subclass representative without delaying the litigation. In sum, he finds that granting leave to amend would delay the litigation and that the delay is unjustified. Justice therefore does not require him to grant the Plaintiffs leave under Civil Rule 15(a)(2). For these reasons, Judge Murphy denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute. The Plaintiffs may file, no later than 30 days after the date of the Order, a motion to dismiss Bliss' claims. If filed, the motion should state (i) under which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure or other authority she seeks to dismiss her claims, and (ii) any conditions of the dismissal. The Defendant will have an opportunity to respond in accordance with Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(e). A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/4G4qEd from Leagle.com. Morley Witus, Special Master, represented by Morley Witus -- mwitus@bsdd.com -- Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC. Toby Schechner, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt -- dal@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Mark Samuel Reich -- mreich@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Down LLP, Sharon S. Almonrode -- ssa@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Stuart Andrew Davidson -- SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & E. Powell Miller -- epm@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm. Barbara Barnes, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Mark Samuel Reich, Robbins Geller Rudman & Down LLP, Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm. Kathryn Limpede, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Mark Samuel Reich, Robbins Geller Rudman & Down LLP, Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm. Mary Ellen Thome, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Mark Samuel Reich, Robbins Geller Rudman & Down LLP, Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm. Richard Thome, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Mark Samuel Reich, Robbins Geller Rudman & Down LLP, Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm. Louise Miljenovic, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Mark Samuel Reich, Robbins Geller Rudman & Down LLP, Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm. Laura Bliss, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Mark Samuel Reich, Robbins Geller Rudman & Down LLP, Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm. Beverly Simmons, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Mark Samuel Reich, Robbins Geller Rudman & Down LLP, Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm. Candace Oliarny, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Mark Samuel Reich, Robbins Geller Rudman & Down LLP, Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm. Whirlpool Corporation, Defendant, represented by Howard B. Iwrey - - hiwrey@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, James P. Feeney -- jfeeney@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, Jessica G. Scott -- scott@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Julian Richard Ellis, Jr. -- ellis@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler, Trigg, O'Donnell, LLP & Michael T. Williams -- williams@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP. WYNDHAM HOTELS: Faces "Ogen" Suit over Biometric Data Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- MONICA OGEN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WYNDHAM HOTELS AND RESORTS, LLC, WYNDHAM HOTEL MANAGEMENT, INC., WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE OPERATIONS, INC., and DOLCE INTERNATIONAL/ST. CHARLES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2017-CH-15626 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Nov. 28, 2017), seeks to put a stop to Defendants' unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs and the proposed Class' sensitive biometric data. Wyndham operates hotels and resorts located throughout the State of Illinois and in this Circuit. When Wyndham hires an employee, he or she is enrolled in an employee database. Wyndham uses the employee database to monitor the time worked by each of their employees, including salaried employees. While most retail establishments use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Wyndham employees are required to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Wyndham employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed -- such as in the recent Equifax data breach -- employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking, and other improper or unlawful use of this information. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act. Despite this law, Wyndham disregards its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of BIPA. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq. Haley R. Jenkins, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 6060 Telephone: (312) 233 1550 Facsimile: (312) 233 1560 E-mail: lawyers@stephanzouras.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 * * *