/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/171220.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, December 20, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 251 Headlines A & J FAMILY: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime for Janitors ACORDA THERAPEUTICS: "Hague" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation AIDA: Thousands of Door-to-Door Sales People to Join Class Action ALKERMES PLC: Jan. 22 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ALLERGAN INC: "FWK" Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation ANN ARBOR, MI: Sued Over Footing Drain Disconnection Program ARRAY BIOPHARMA: Sued for Making False Statements on Cancer Drug AUSTRALIA: Darwin Residents Mull PFAS Contamination Class Action AUSTRALIA: Law Firm Invites Darwin Residents to Join PFAS Suit AVEO: Hundreds of Former Residents Sign Up for Class Action BAKER HUGHES: $3MM FLSA Class Settlement Has Final Court OK CAFE PAPILLON: "Besil" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime CANADA: Deal Reached in RCMP LGBTQ Persecution Class Action CANADA: Gov't Sets Aside $100MM for LGBTQ Purge Settlement CANADA: Trudeau Apologizes for Abuse at Indigenous Schools CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Makes Calls That Violate TCPA, Leeb Says CHEVRON U.S.A.: "Goodman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT CHINA AGRITECH: To Decide Clock-Tolling on Shareholder Suit CITIGROUP INC: Court Certifies Plan Investors Class in ERISA Suit CVS HEALTH: "Prescott" RICO Suit Transferred to New Jersey BAR TACO: About 400 Sign on to Lawsuit BARCLAYS PLC: May 18 Euribor Settlement Fairness Hearing Set CBRE INC: Arbitration Agreements Violate Labor Law, Judge Says CHANNEL NINE: Class Action Mulled Over Don Burke's Behavior CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Text Messages CHICAGO, IL: Park Ridge Residents Threaten Legal Action CONGREGATION OF HOLY CROSS: Oratory Wants Exclusion from Suit CORDIS CORP: Loses Bid to Appeal Vein Filters Class Action Ruling DOLLAR TREE: Court Certifies Class of Employees in "Snipes" Suit DOMETIC CORP: Time to Reply to "Papasan" Suit Extended DONALD TRUMP: Judge Unseals Settlement Documents in Labor Case DOUGHERTY COUNTY, GA: "Calhoun" Discovery Order Stayed DYNAMIC LEDGER: Okusko Sues Over Sale of Unregistered Securities EOG RESOURCES: "Ferguson" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation EQUIFAX INC: Faces "St. Clair" Suit in N.D. Ga. Over Data Breach EXETER FINANCE: Ct. Denies Class Certification Bid in "Ginwright" FACEBOOK INC: CJEU to Decide on Austrian Activist's Privacy Suit FITBIT INC: Federal Judge Refuses to Grant Summary Judgment FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit on Unpaid Wages FORECLOSURE EXPEDITORS: Court Narrows Claims in "Hamilton" Suit FOXTEL: Australian Workers File Wage Theft Class Action FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Denial of "Wood" Class Cert Affirmed FREEDOM 1ST: Havidic Seeks to Recover Pay for Off-the-Clock Work GIGAMON INC: "Carpenter" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation GIGAMON INC: "Stouffer" Suit Challenges Acquisition by Elliott GRANBY'S COLLEGE: Class OK'd for Ex-Students Claiming Abuse HAKKASAN NYC: Can Compel Arbitration in "Zhu" FLSA Suit HCP INC: Robbins Geller, Motley Rice to Lead in Securities Suit HERTZ RENTAL: Settles Parking Violation Ticket Class Action HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Deal in Shareholder Derivative Suit Affirmed HLO COLLECTION: Accused by "Muhammad" Suit of Violating FDCPA HOF'S HUT: Court Dismisses "MacKinnon" TCPA Suit with Prejudice HOME PERFORMANCE: "Kleeklamp" Sues to Recover Overtime Pay HONDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit JUST FOR LAUGHS: Quebec Women Seek Class Action v. Co-Founder KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Court Grants Dismissal of "Viggiano" Suit LEMAN USA: Deprives Office Workers of Overtime, Malicki Claims LITTLE CAESAR'S: "Ishaq" Labor Suit Claims Overtime Pay M-I LLC: "Coder" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay M-I LLC: Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in FCRA Class Action MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Scheck Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA MICHAEL FOODS: Judge Approves $75MM Class Action Settlement MIDLAND CREDIT: "Gold" Suit Disputes Vague Collection Letter MIDLAND CREDIT: Can Arbitrate FDCPA Claims in "Thomas" MINEBEA MITSUMI: Feb. 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set MONSANTO COMPANY: Skundrick Sues Over Roundup(R)-Related Lymphoma NALCOR ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over River Flooding NATIONAL OILWELL: "Esqueda" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Damages NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: "Fennel" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls NEVSUN RESOURCES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Eritreans' Class Action NEW GENERATION: "King" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA NFL: Counsel's Ties to Litigation Funder Questioned NOVAN INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit OCERA THERAPEUTICS: "Franchi" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation OMEGA PROTEIN: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action PATIENT INNOVATION: Tomala Estate Seeks to Recover Wages and OT PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Aikens" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice PPG ARCHITECTURAL: "Cortese" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: "Gales" Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND: Rob Ford Lawyer Joins E-Gaming Lawsuit PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Court Won't Certify Drivers Class PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Sued by Johnson for Breach of Fiduciary Duty QUIK NOTARY SERVICES: "LaBorde" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay RACING INDUSTRIES: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages RECOVER HEALTH: Accused by "Marrero" Suit of Not Paying Overtime ROBERT BOSCH: Must Face Volkswagen Dealers' Class Action RYB EDUCATION: Jan. 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set SERVCO SUBARU: Distributor Sued Over Soy-Based Auto Parts SHAUN'S TOWING: "Durrant" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay SHOWTIME NETWORKS: Mayweather-McGregor Suit Sent to Arbitration SOUTHERN STAR: "Evans" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages STAFFMARK HOLDINGS: Court OKs $5.6MM Settlement in "Fronda" Suit STATE FARM: "Davis" Suit Says Insurance Fund Illegally Siphoned STEPS IN HOME CARE: "Diaz" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay TANGOE INC: March 8 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set TD BANK: "Lawrence" Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Charges TENNESSEE: Hepatitis C-Infected Inmates' Class Action Okayed TESLA INC: Black Workers Sue Over Racial Discrimination TEXAS FARM: "English" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations TEZOS: Faces Securities Class Action in California TEZOS: Faces Third Class Action Over ICO TOTAL CARD: "Cooper" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations TRAVELPORT: Settles Antitrust Class Action in New York TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Feb. 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set UBER TECHNOLOGIES: More Suits After Data Breach Cover Up UNITED STATES: Court Enjoins ICE From Removing Indonesian Aliens UNIVERSAL HANDICRAFT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Mollicon" Suit UNIVERSITE LAVAL: Judge Rejects Motion to Stay Class Action UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS: Lawsuits Over Sexual Assaults Resolved US BANK: "Guiette" TCPA Suit Transferred to D. Colo. WELLS FARGO: Faces New 401(k) Fiduciary Class Suit WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC: Massey Files Adversary Suit Under WARN Act WOODFORD TRANSPORTATION: Water Outage Class Settlement Approved WOODLAKE CC: Attorney General Pledges to Uphold Action WORK OUT WORLD: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Susinno" TCPA Suit * Fight to Preserve Mandatory Arbitration Is Bad Policy * Illinois Employers Face Class Actions Over BIPA Violations * Vaginal Mesh May Be Banned in Britain Due to Complications ********* A & J FAMILY: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime for Janitors ----------------------------------------------------------------- NEFTALI OCHOA PEREZ, MARIA I. LOPEZ VEGA, and AMALIA VEGA, on behalf of themselves, individually, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. A & J FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-03615 (S.D. Tex., November 28, 2017), alleges that the Plaintiffs and other janitors employed by the Defendant are entitled to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, as well as other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Janitors are required to work more than 40 hours per week but the Defendant has a longstanding policy of failing to compensate the janitors at least the minimum wage for every hour worked, as well as failing and refusing to compensate the janitors for overtime at 1.5 times their hourly rate, as required by the FLSA, according to the complaint. A & J Family Investments, LLC, provides janitorial services for various American Multi Cinema (AMC) movie theaters throughout the greater Houston area. The Company employs janitors to clean the theaters.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Telephone: (832) 778-8182 Facsimile: (832) 778-8353 E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com - and - Lauren M. Serper, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LAUREN M. SERPER, P.C. 3405 Edloe Street, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (713) 278-9398 Facsimile: (713) 785-0808 E-mail: laurenserper@gmail.com ACORDA THERAPEUTICS: "Hague" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hague, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., Ron Cohen, David Lawrence, and Michael Rogers, Case No. 1:17-cv-08997 (S.D. N.Y., November 17, 2017), seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Acorda's securities between April 18, 2016 and November 14, 2017. Plaintiff Michael Hague acquired Acorda securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of alleged corrective disclosures, says the complaint. Defendant Acorda is a biotechnology company with a focus on the identification, development, and commercialization of therapies for neurological disorders. Defendant Acorda is headquartered in New York, with principal executive offices located at 420 Saw Mill River Road, Ardsley, New York 10502. Acorda's stock trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "ACOR." The Individual Defendants are officers of Acorda. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com AIDA: Thousands of Door-to-Door Sales People to Join Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reports that thousands of Australian door-to-door sales people are expected to join a A$100 million dollar class action over wage theft and bullying while working for some of the nation's biggest companies. The class action, being launched on Nov. 28, names four sales contractors -- Aida, Credico, Global Interactive and the PCA Group -- which represented some of Australia's biggest companies and charities including Foxtel, Telstra, Optus, AGL and The Red Cross. It claims some workers were making as little as A$3.67 an hour selling products door-to-door or in shopping malls. "The action will help expose the practice of sham contracting, which is estimated to impact on almost 345,000 Australians in any one calendar year, according to an analysis of ABS data," Godfrey Moase from the National Union of Workers said in a statement on Nov. 27. It's estimated 5000 people will join the action backed by the NUW and Chamberlains Law Firm. "This will be Australia's first class action to simultaneously pursue the marketing company and also take aim at clients, directors and advisors that knew about the exploitation but decided to profit anyway," Rory Markham from Chamberlains Law Firm said in a statement. Some of the claimants say that they went weeks without pay and were isolated from friends and family because they were constantly moving around Australia and had no fixed address. The NUW said for people to join the action, they need to be paid up members of the union but "further special consideration will be given to claimants in particularly vulnerable situations". It comes in the wake of a major A$85 million class action against Appco, which is alleged to have engaged in sham contracting. [GN] ALKERMES PLC: Jan. 22 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notified investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Alkermes plc ("Alkermes" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ALKS) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Alkermes securities between February 24, 2015, and November 3, 2017 both dates inclusive, (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/alks. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Alkermes plc is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of treatments for central nervous system disorders such as addiction, schizophrenia, depression and diabetes. The Company's marketed products include Vivitrol (naltrexone for extended-release injectable suspension), a treatment for alcohol and opioid dependence. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Alkermes systemically engaged in deceptive marketing campaigns to influence policymakers to use Vivitrol in addiction treatment programs over more scientifically proven and efficacious alternatives; (2) the foregoing conduct, when disclosed, would foreseeably subject Alkermes to heightened regulatory and legislative scrutiny; (3) accordingly, the Company's revenues derived from Vivitrol during the Class Period were unsustainable; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Alkermes shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. On June 11, 2017, The New York Times published an article entitled "Seizing On Opioid Crisis, a Drug Maker Lobbies Hard for its Product." The article described Alkermes' aggressive efforts to market Vivitrol while denigrating the efficacy of other addiction treatments. Following this news, Alkermes stock dropped $2.19 per share, or 3.55%, to close at $59.47 on June 12, 2017. Then on November 6, 2017, U.S. Senator Kamala Harris revealed that she is opening an investigation into the Alkermes sales practices for its opioid-addiction treatment Vivitrol. Senator Harris said that the Company "aggressively marketed" its medication, convincing judges and prison officials to use it rather than more proven addiction treatments and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying policymakers. Following this news, Alkermes stock dropped $2.23, or 4.37%, to close at $48.76 on November 6, 2017. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/alksor you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Alkermes you have until January 22, 2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC -- http://www.bgandg.com-- is a corporate litigation boutique. Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of its clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. [GN] ALLERGAN INC: "FWK" Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------ FWK Holdings, LLC, on behalf of itself and all those similarly situated v. Allergan, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00747 (E.D. Tex., November 17, 2017), seeks to recover treble damages, interest, costs of suit and attorneys' fees under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. This civil antitrust action arises from Allergan's scheme to unlawfully prolong its monopoly in the market for prescription cyclosporine emulsion sales in the United States. Plaintiff FWK Holdings, LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, with its principal place of business located in Glen Ellyn, Illinois. FWK is the assignee of the claims of the Frank W. Kerr Co. During the relevant period, Frank W. Kerr Co. purchased Restasis directly from Allergan at supra-competitive prices as a result of Allergan's scheme. Defendant Allergan, Inc. is a corporation organized under Delaware state law with its principal place of business located in Irvine, California. Allergan is the holder of approved New Drug Application No. 50-790 for Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion, 0.05%, sold under the Restasis trademark. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: S. Calvin Capshaw, Esq. Elizabeth L. DeRieux, Esq. CAPSHAW DERIEUX, LLP 114 E. Commerce Ave. Gladewater, TX 75647 Tel: (903) 845-5770 E-mail: ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com ederieux@capshawlaw.com ANN ARBOR, MI: Sued Over Footing Drain Disconnection Program ------------------------------------------------------------ Ryan Stanton, writing for Mlive, reports that the city of Ann Arbor is facing a new federal lawsuit over its footing drain disconnection program, claiming the city imposed "forced labor" on an estimated 3,000-plus residents by requiring them to maintain mandatory sump pumps in their homes. Local attorney Irvin Mermelstein, who has been fighting the city over the issue for several years, filed a new class-action complaint against the city in U.S. District Court in late October, repeating many previously litigated claims that the program was illegally implemented. Those arguments have failed to convince state court judges. City Attorney Stephen Postema confirmed on Monday, Nov. 27, that the city now has been formally served with the new federal complaint and his office is reviewing it and will be responding. Attached to the 51-page complaint are 28 pages of exhibits. Mr. Mermelstein notes the documents include a series of allegations related to non-permitted discharges of raw sewage into the Huron River and other local waters. With the help of New York attorney Dan O'Brien, Mr. Mermelstein is bringing the case against the city on behalf of four named plaintiffs who are Ann Arbor residents who've gone through the city's FDD program: Anita Yu, who lives on Georgetown Boulevard, Lynn Lumbard, who lives on Avondale Avenue, and John Boyer and Mary Raab, who live together on Delaware Drive. The complaint also identifies "all others similarly situated" as plaintiffs in the case, indicating that's believed to be more than 3,000 people. Messrs. Mermelstein and O'Brien were unsuccessful in previous attempts to sue the city on behalf of the same named plaintiffs. The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the city earlier this year in two cases challenging the legality of the FDD program, reaffirming rulings by Washtenaw County Circuit Judge Tim Connors and dismissing the cases. The FDD program, started by the city in 2001 to address problems with basement sewage backups, has required many homeowners in targeted neighborhoods to disconnect footing drains around their homes and install mandatory sump pumps. That diverts stormwater away from the city's sanitary sewer system and instead to the stormwater drainage system. City officials have maintained over the years that the program was both legal and effective at reducing basement sewage backups. The city is no longer requiring homeowners to go through the program. Some residents have argued the city's stormwater drainage system is inadequate, becoming overwhelmed in heavy rainstorms, and some have complained they've experienced basement flooding and water problems they didn't have before the city made them disconnect their footing drains and install sump pumps. Some residents also argue it's a burden to live with and maintain the sump pumps, limiting their enjoyment of their homes. Connors last year dismissed the two cases in which residents argued the FDD work done on their homes, including mandatory installation of sump pumps, represented a government taking of private property. The city and the trial court judge both disagreed with the plaintiffs, and so did the Michigan Court of Appeals. The new lawsuit once again argues the city's FDD program amounted to a government taking of private property by means of physical invasion and permanent physical occupation. "The mandatory FDDs, and the resulting takings of plaintiffs' private property and deprivation of their rights to the exclusive use and occupation of their homes, were initiated and completed without any steps taken by the city toward condemnation proceedings under Michigan law, including the payment of just compensation," it states, arguing the mandatory FDD construction "disabled the functioning systems for storm water drainage designed and built into the plaintiffs' houses between 1946 and 1973, as required by applicable codes and the permits issued thereunder at the time." The lawsuit argues the city's sewer system did not keep pace with new development as the city saw significant population growth over the last several decades, going from less than 68,000 residents in 1960 to more than 114,000 as of 2000. It references combined sewage overflows into the Huron River going back to the 1960s. One of the exhibit documents shows a 2016 storm drain map of Ann Arbor, including county and city storm sewers. Two circled areas on the map show the areas where all or nearly all of the plaintiffs' houses are located, the lawsuit states, arguing there are no separate city storm sewers in those areas. "In contrast, the center of the city has had extensive separate storm sewer construction," the lawsuit states, arguing the city had failed to construct separate and functioning storm drains in the areas where plaintiffs' homes are located. A 2016 map of city and county storm drains in Ann Arbor included as an exhibit in a federal lawsuit against the city of Ann Arbor. Another one of the exhibits is a copy of a 1973 city ordinance that the plaintiffs argue "grandfathered" their houses, meaning they didn't have to comply with new requirements for drainage of stormwater in new subdivisions (including runoff and from footing drain systems) into separate, fully enclosed storm sewers, and a prohibition against the discharge of stormwater into sanitary sewers as of 1973. The lawsuit recalls the circumstances that led the city to start the FDD program in 2001 as a lower-cost way to address sewage problems and concludes "the mandatory ongoing and perpetual responsibilities imposed on present and future owners for the observation, inspection, operation, repair and maintenance of the pumps and related equipment represent an unreasonable financial and personal burden upon the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property," constitute "forced labor," and "represent an inappropriate delegation by the city to its citizens of its governmental obligations pertaining to the capacity, maintenance and operation of the city's sewage system." The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for what they see as a government taking of their private properties, and for their work, physical labor and the expenses they have incurred. "Without the cost savings to the city achieved by the use of forced labor performed by FDD homeowners and the payment by them of all expenses of their performance, the FDDP would not have been viable," the complaint states. The plaintiffs also are seeking injunctive relief, asking the court to require the city to permit residents to reverse, correct and remedy the effects of the footing drain disconnects. They also want a judgment declaring the city's FDD program was unconstitutionally implemented and includes the use of mandated labor in violation of federal law, that it improperly resulted in takings of private property without just compensation, and that it improperly did so without condemnation proceedings. They're also asking the court to require the city to pay their attorney fees. [GN] ARRAY BIOPHARMA: Sued for Making False Statements on Cancer Drug ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT NAUMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ARRAY BIOPHARMA INC., RON SQUARER, DAVID HORIN, JASON HADDOCK, Case No. 1:17-cv-02848-STV (D. Colo., November 28, 2017), accuses the Defendants of making false and misleading statements, and failing to disclose that Array's NEMO study failed to show sufficient clinical benefit of the binimetinib NDA in use for patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma. Array is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of targeted small molecule drugs to treat patients afflicted with cancer. The Company's lead cancer drug binimetinib (MEK162) was evaluated in multiple trials and combinations, including a Phase 3 "NEMO" study versus dacarbazine in unresectable or metastatic NRAS-mutant melanoma patients. Founded in 1998, the Company is headquartered in Boulder, Colorado. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Hui M. Chang, 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 - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 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 AUSTRALIA: Darwin Residents Mull PFAS Contamination Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Notzon, writing for ABC, reports that dozens of Darwin residents have met with lawyers to discuss potentially becoming the fourth group to sue the Defence Department over Australia's growing PFAS contamination crisis. A total of 18 Defence bases across the country have been identified as being contaminated with the group of chemicals, including PFOS and PFOA, which stem from the previous use of firefighting foam at Air Force bases. The potential Darwin class action would join those already underway by affected PFAS residents near bases in Williamtown, New South Wales, and Oakey in Queensland, as well as a third being considered in the Northern Territory town of Katherine, where PFAS chemicals have seeped into bores used for drinking and irrigation. The current area being investigated by Defence in Darwin stretches from the suburb of Millner to Winnellie and out to sea. "It was interesting to hear what they had to say and it was really interesting to see what Defence is doing in response to this," a woman who only wanted to be identified as Jane said. "I want to investigate further, but possibly [I would join the class action]." Jane detailed how Defence came onto her property, which is within its PFAS investigation area, to test her bore for the chemicals last year. "My impression at the time was that it was not serious, that they just wanted to test the bore to see if there were some PFAS chemicals," she said. "They indicated it was used in the 70s and 80s and there was no reason for me to feel alarm from the initial letter I received." Jane said she had not received the results from the test and did not recall Defence telling her that her property was within an investigation area. PFAS chemicals have been found in Darwin's Rapid, Ludmilla and Bleeser creeks but a Northern Territory Government report released in July determined that while fish and crustaceans in the waterways were contaminated with the substances, they were still safe to eat. In September, the discovery of the chemicals at a site near Darwin airport delayed the construction of a multi-million-dollar pond in Marrara designed to prevent flooding. "Once again people really are surprised that this contamination is around, surprised they haven't heard anything from the Department of Defence about it and surprised that they have never really heard of PFAS and so to find out that you're under an investigation area is quite alarming," special counsel at Shine Lawyers Joshua Aylward said. Mr Aylward said like the class action being eyed in Katherine, the one for Darwin residents would focus on property value and impact on businesses. The Federal Government maintains there is no consistent evidence that exposure to PFOS and PFOA causes adverse health effects and the class action would not be able to focus on this area. "It's just canvassing whether the people of Darwin are interested in a class action, just as they are in Katherine and Oakey and so we'll be back again in a couple of weeks and running more community meetings to see if there are people in Darwin who are interested," Mr Aylward said. Jingili resident and former CLP candidate Steven Klose said the water table underneath his property had tested positive to PFAS and he would be looking to join legal action. "It's a fight that I want to take to the Government and the Federal Government and to the people in general. This is a serious issue and it needs to be exposed more," Mr Klose said. "The more information the better, the more public awareness the better. More people need to be aware of where this contamination is so they can avoid it." Defence said it was not aware of the details of the proposed class action in Darwin, but it remained committed to working with communities to manage issues arising from PFAS contamination. The next community walk-in session with Defence in Darwin was scheduled for Wednesday, December 6. [GN] AUSTRALIA: Law Firm Invites Darwin Residents to Join PFAS Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- ABC reports that some Darwin residents heard for the first time that their properties could be impacted by the national PFAS contamination crisis. Letters in the mail from Shine Lawyers invited families living near the RAAF Base Darwin to be part of a class action against the federal defence department. The law firm hosted a meeting in Darwin. Residents spoke to ABC Radio Darwin's news journalist Nancy Notzon. [GN] AVEO: Hundreds of Former Residents Sign Up for Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Adele Ferguson, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that hundreds of former Aveo residents have signed up for two separate class actions against the retirement village giant following a media investigation that uncovered a series of questionable business practices at the company. Lawyers for Levitt Robinson are charging ahead with a class action they estimate at $30 million after securing a litigation funder and lodging formal paperwork in the Federal Court last month. At the same time, Maurice Blackburn is investigating a no-win no- fee action on behalf of residents. The actions follows a joint Fairfax Media and Four Corners investigation which found that Aveo was engaging in practices that included churning residents, fee gouging, misleading marketing promises, such as safety and emergency services. The Levitt Robertson class action is open to anyone who terminated an Aveo contract after 2015 and specifically focuses on the company's strategy to change freehold titles to leasehold, named the Aveo Way. It is being alleged that freehold unit owners' rights as members of strata title villages and the value of their property interests, have suffered as a result of the Aveo Way. Maurice Blackburn is open to anyone who terminated an Aveo contract after 2013. It focuses on unfair contract terms, including high exit fees and maintenance costs. Professor Murray Gillin is one of 200 retirees who have signed up for the Levitt Robinson claim. Professor Gillin, who lectured in entrepreneurship and innovation at Swinburne University, told Fairfax Media his decision to sell his townhouse and move into a retirement village at Sackville Grange in Melbourne's blue ribbon suburb of Kew, ultimately cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars in exit fees, forgone capital gains and other fees including maintenance fees. He bought the freehold property in March 2010 for $850,000 and walked away after six years with $669,076, after the various fees were deducted. In contrast, a similar property in the next street resulted in a 25.6 per cent capital gain. "I think the income incentive of Aveo overrides the care factor," he said. "The company loves to pontificate how they care but they use techniques through marketing that exploit the elderly." Professor Gillin said during his time at Aveo Sackville Grange he came into contact with some resident's at Aveo's Veronica Gardens retirement village, who were unhappy with Aveo's strategy to buy freehold units and convert villages to leasehold, alleging Aveo was acquiring the freehold rights at virtually no cost. Retired diplomat John Lander -- who was Australia's first ambassador to Iran after the hostage crisis in 1974 -- and who lived in the Veronica Gardens retirement village has previously described buying into an Aveo village as a "get poor quick scheme" and a process of impoverishment of the occupant." After leaving Aveo, Professor Gillin and his wife Loris moved to Queensland, where they are living in a complex that has no exit fees and the weekly maintenance fees are far lower than they were paying at Aveo. He says they when sell they won't need to use an Aveo real estate agent. When he sold his unit at Sackville Grange he paid Aveo a fee of 3 per cent, which he says was above the going rate. "We have the same facilities that we had at the village but there are no financial traps," he said. Maurice Blackburn principal Brooke Dellavedova said the class action she was looking at was different to the Levitt Robinson claim and former residents or their family members could sign up for both. "We're looking at terms of those contracts that we say may be unfair and come into play when the contract was terminated," she said. "We're looking at exorbitant exit fees, terms relating to capital gains and losses and expensive maintenance fees. They are really terms that bite when the resident terminates the contract," she said. Ms Dellavedova said Aveo's exit fees of up to 40 per cent higher were "substantially more" than what other providers are charging. "It makes it very difficult for people to re-enter the property market or another village if that's what they want to do," Ms Dellavedova said. Aveo filed its defence to the Levitt Robertson action on November 24 afternoon following an inquiry from Fairfax Media. A spokesman for the company said: "Aveo denies that the introduction of the Aveo Way programme to units previously held as freehold units has caused loss to those residents looking to sell their freehold units, and denies that it failed to disclose any relevant information about the effects of the Aveo Way programme on those units." Levitt Robinson senior partner Stewart Levitt said Aveo's changes to management contracts had depressed resale values across Aveo villages. "We are seeking compensation for owners and former owners, representing the difference in value of what they should have received and what they did receive, if they have sold their dwellings since early 2015," he said. "The class action also seeks the return of sales commissions which Aveo has been charging residents to sell their units to themselves. Aveo is not alone in taking advantage of elderly people at a very vulnerable stage in their lives." [GN] BAKER HUGHES: $3MM FLSA Class Settlement Has Final Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement and Granting Motion for Attorney's Fees and Cost in the case captioned MARC McCULLOCH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BAKER HUGHES INTEQ DRILLING FLUIDS, INC., et al., Defendant, No. 1:16-cv-00157-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal.). The Claims Administrator distributed 52 notices of settlement to all the class members, which includes the 20 California class members, the 16 Pennsylvania class members, and the remaining opt- ins. All 52 class members are participating in the settlement for a 100 percent participation rate. The following classes are certified: California Class: All individuals who performed directional drilling services for defendants as consultants/independent contractors in California at any time since February 2, 2012 to April 10, 2017, and who do not communicate a timely written request for exclusion from the Settlement. Pennsylvania Class: All individuals who performed directional drilling services for defendants as consultants/independent contractors in Pennsylvania at any time since February 2, 2013 to April 10, 2017 and who do not communicate a timely written request for exclusion from the settlement. Two notices were re-mailed and the remaining six received notice by e-mail from Rust Consulting. The settlement notices advised all class members of their individual settlement amount, and the notice forms also apprised the plaintiffs of the projected attorneys' fees and costs associated with this class action. None of the Rule 23 class members, or any of the FLSA Opt-ins, has objected to the amounts set forth therein. Accordingly, the court finds that adequate notice has been given to all the class members. The court finds that the settlement, as posited by the parties, appropriately balances the strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs' case specifically with respect to employer status, FLSA exemptions, and hours worked, while providing significant recovery for class members. This settlement is particularly fair and reasonable since, according to the parties, it will pay out 92 percent of the plaintiffs' realistic value of the claims after attorneys' fees and costs. It is clear that plaintiffs' case, despite its strengths, was seriously contested by defendants in this litigation. The total settlement amount offered here is $3,000,000. The average settlement payment per person amounts to $42,625 after attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs have requested $750,000 in attorneys' fees and $20,000 costs. Unexpended costs are included in the settlement allocation. Plaintiffs estimate $40,000 to be deduced for half of the employer-side taxes. Approximately $2,190,000 has been allocated to the 48 opt-in plaintiffs and class members, to be distributed based on their individual earnings and the total number of days worked. This settlement amount is fair and reasonable in relation to the potential recovery and the court's analysis of that issue remains unchanged. The amount offered in the settlement supports final approval of the settlement. Plaintiffs' counsel was able to use this information during class interviews and was able to assess the value of the plaintiffs' claims prior to mediation. As a result of productive discovery, the parties were able to engage in arms-length negotiations to reach a settlement in this case. Based on their years of experience, plaintiffs' counsel believes the settlement is fair and reasonable and presents clear advantages over continued litigation, prompt and certain payment. According to the parties, this agreement was procured by arms- length negotiations through a mediator and by experienced counsel on both sides after significant investigation. As stated, no Rule 23 class members have objected to the settlement and all FLSA Opt-ins have returned their claim forms. The parties maintain that in light of these steps, the 100 percent participation rate, and the lack of any objections having been received, the settlement agreement warrants approval. Accordingly, consideration of this factor weighs significantly in favor of granting final approval and the court therefore approves the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The parties maintain that the settlement agreement satisfies Lynn's Food Stores, which is a less rigorous standard than Rule 23.While defendants' status as an employer, the applicability of the FLSA exemptions, and total number of hours worked by plaintiffs were disputed, the court finds the agreement reasonable because the class members will receive 92 percent of the estimated potential value of their claims. In addition, all FLSA Opt-ins are participating in the settlement. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, in the event settlement checks remain uncashed after 90 days, those funds shall be donated to Legal Aid at Work, formerly known as the Legal Aid Society Employment Law Center, as a cy pres beneficiary. Legal Aid at Work is a non-profit organization that works to ensure that all workers benefit from the laws that regulate pay and work hours. The court finds a sufficient nexus between the class and Legal Aid at Work, and accordingly approves it as the cy pres beneficiary. Plaintiffs' counsel's fees under the lodestar method amount to $189,927.50 and represents 637.5 hours of billable work at an hourly rate of $175 for paralegals, $350 for associate attorneys, and $525 for partners. Additionally, plaintiffs' counsel anticipates an additional forty hours of work to resolve the case, which brings the lodestar value to $203,052.50. The hours spent in calculating the lodestar method include: investigating claims, interviewing potential class members and opt-in plaintiffs, preparing discovery, reviewing documents, drafting the motion for conditional certification, preparing and taking depositions, assessing damages, conducting mediation, and briefing the motion for preliminary approval of class settlement as well as the current motion. Of the 637.5 hours, Attorney Daniel Brome billed 265.8 hours at an hourly rate of $350. Attorney Brome has been practicing law for six years, since 2011. Attorney Michele Fisher expended 41.5 hours on the case at an hourly rate of $525. Attorney Fisher has been practicing law for over 17 years, has been partner at Nichols Kaster, LLP since 2008, and has represented over 100,000 individuals in wage and hour cases particularly in the oil and gas industry. Attorney Mathew Morgan expended 49.5 hours on the case at an hourly rate of $525. (He was admitted to the California Bar in 2000 and became partner in 2011. The court finds these rates consistent with the rates applied in other cases using the lodestar cross-check method. Here, awarding attorneys' fees at a 25 percent benchmark of the common fund would yield a lodestar multiplier of 3.95, which is within the range of acceptable lodestar multipliers previously approved by this court and others. Accordingly, and in light of the significant relief obtained by counsel on behalf of the class members, the court finds that the requested attorneys' fee award is reasonable. As indicated in counsel's supplemental declaration, counsel incurred $16,537.49 in unreimbursed costs during the course of litigation. At the time of preliminary approval, plaintiffs' counsel had incurred $15,857.64 in unreimbursed costs during the course of litigation and based on this amount, requested $20,000 based on future anticipated costs. These costs include filing fees, postage, Westlaw and PACER usage, deposition expenses, and expenses related to travel in connection with this suit. Since the actual amount expended is less than the requested amount of $20,000, the difference of $3,462.51 will be allocated pro rata to plaintiffs. The court finds that these are reasonable expenses to be properly awarded in the amount sought. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 27, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yczss8lk from Leagle.com. Marc McCulloch, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew H. Morgan -- morgan@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice. Marc McCulloch, Plaintiff, represented by Michele R. Fisher -- fisher@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice & Daniel Solomon Brome -- dbrome@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, LLP. Baker Hughes Inteq Drilling Fluids, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amber Rogers -- arogers@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams, LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin White -- kwhite@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP, pro hac vice & Michael Brett Burns -- mbrettburns@hunton.com -- Hunton and Williams. Baker Hughes, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amber Rogers, Hunton & Williams, LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin White, Hunton & Williams LLP, pro hac vice & Michael Brett Burns, Hunton and Williams. CAFE PAPILLON: "Besil" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Damian Besil, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Cafe Papillon Inc., and Jose Revilla-Albo, Case No. 1:17-cv- 24198 (S.D. Fla., November 17, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Damian Besil is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff worked as a cook for the Defendants. Defendants owned and operated a restaurant doing business as Cafe Papillion located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. One Flagler 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Tel: (305) 901-1379 Fax: (561) 288-9031 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com hsolis@workingforyou.com CANADA: Deal Reached in RCMP LGBTQ Persecution Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- RD News Now reports that a lawyer says a group of people seeking to sue the government over alleged state-sanctioned persecution for their sexual orientation have reached an agreement in principle. Doug Elliott says details of the agreement will be released to coincide with the apology. The agreement comes ahead of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's promised apology, which will acknowledge how members of the military, RCMP and civil service were discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation between the 1950s and 1990s. Plaintiffs in the proposed class-action said they were persecuted and forced out of their jobs in the military and federal government. Trudeau will also address people outside those circles who were convicted of criminal charges linked to consensual sexual activity with same-sex partners. Also on November 28, the Liberal government will introduce legislation to expunge the criminal records of Canadians previously convicted of consensual sex with same-sex partners. [GN] CANADA: Gov't Sets Aside $100MM for LGBTQ Purge Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Jim Bronskill, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that the Trudeau government has earmarked more than $100 million to compensate members of the military and other federal agencies whose careers were sidelined or ended due to their sexual orientation. The money will be paid out as part of a class-action lawsuit settlement to employees who were investigated, sanctioned and sometimes fired as part of the so-called "gay purge." An agreement in principle in the court action emerged on Nov. 24, just days before the government delivers a sweeping apology for discrimination against members of the LGBTQ community. Details of the agreement must still be worked out by the parties and approved by the Federal Court, but it's expected that several thousand people will be eligible for the financial compensation. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will deliver the apology -- which is expected to surpass what other countries have done to make amends to LGBTQ people -- in the House of Commons following question period on Nov. 28. A clear and unequivocal expression of regret to all affected is necessary to acknowledge the mistakes so "they will never happen again," said Liberal MP Randy Boissonnault, a special adviser to the prime minister on sexual orientation and gender issues. Among apology-related initiatives, the government is putting $250,000 toward community projects to combat homophobia and provide support for people in crisis. In addition, it plans a commemoration in 2019 of the 50th anniversary of the federal decriminalization of homosexual acts. The government also plans to table legislation on Nov. 28 to expunge the criminal records of people convicted of consensual sexual activity with same-sex partners, whether in civilian or military courts. Those eligible will be required to apply for expungement; requests may be submitted on behalf of deceased people who were convicted. The apology and associated efforts to recognize past wrongs will be genuinely historic, said Gary Kinsman, a sociology professor at Laurentian University and a leading scholar on the injustices for many years. "It's also been an incredibly long time coming," said Mr. Kinsman, a spokesman for the We Demand an Apology Network, which includes people directly affected by the purge campaign as well as supporters and researchers. "I'm very saddened by the fact that many of the people who really needed to be apologized to have passed away," Mr. Kinsman said in an interview. "It should have happened decades ago, in my view." The discriminatory policies that often ruined careers and lives had their roots in federal efforts that began as early as the 1940s to delve into the personal lives of people who were considered security risks. There is no evidence of a gay or lesbian employee ever giving information to Soviet agents or another foreign power, Mr. Kinsman said. On the contrary, victims of the purge say the only ones who tried to blackmail them were the RCMP or military security, trying to elicit information about friends and acquaintances in the public service. "Really what it was about was pushing lesbians and gay men outside the fabric of the nation, defining our sexualities as being somehow a security risk," Mr. Kinsman said. "And on the other side, defining heterosexuality as the national safe and secure sexuality." The apology is expected to include a federal commitment to reveal more of the hidden historical record of the government's discriminatory policies and practices. [GN] CANADA: Trudeau Apologizes for Abuse at Indigenous Schools ---------------------------------------------------------- Ian Austen, writing for The Seattle Times, reports that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau offered a broad and emotional apology to indigenous people in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, where for much of the 20th century indigenous children were compelled to attend boarding schools that separated them from their families and cultures and, in many cases, subjected them to abuse. In addition to the apology, the Canadian government settled a class-action lawsuit and will provide about 50 million Canadian dollars to about 900 former students of the five schools, which endured until 1980. The decision came after a decade-long controversy over the federal government's responsibility. In 2008, Trudeau's predecessor, Stephen Harper, apologized to indigenous people in the rest of Canada for a residential-school program the federal government operated from the 19th century until 1996. A national Truth and Reconciliation Commission later condemned that system as a form of "cultural genocide." Because Newfoundland and Labrador did not join Canada until 1949, its boarding-school system had different origins even if it had a similar legacy. Harper's government took the view that the abuses committed there in the early 20th century were not the federal government's fault. But in a ceremony in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland, at which victims also spoke, Trudeau said, "It's time for Canada to acknowledge its history for what it is: flawed, imperfect and unfinished. "For far too many students, profound cultural loss led to poverty, family violence, substance abuse and community breakdown. It led to mental and physical health issues that have impeded their happiness and that of their family. Far too many continue to face adversity today as a result of time spent in residential schools, and for that we are sorry." At the arts center where Trudeau spoke, organizers had stacked boxes of facial tissues. They were put to use. Trudeau blotted his eyes and dabbed his nose with a handkerchief, and former students and others in the crowd sobbed. Toby Obed, 45, a former student and one of the leaders of the class-action lawsuit, entered the stage after Trudeau in a jubilant mood, arms raised and shouting, "We did it." "We felt left out, forgotten and abandoned," said Obed, who had testified about being a victim of sexual assault. "Because I come from a patient and forgiving culture, I think it is proper for us to accept an apology from the government of Canada." Not everyone in the region's indigenous community was so forgiving. Grand Chief Greg Rich of the Innu Nation, an umbrella organization of indigenous groups, said in a statement that he wanted the apology to also recognize injustices suffered by aboriginal children in day schools, at an orphanage and in the child-welfare system. "Our elders are not ready to accept an apology that is made for such a small part of our experience," Rich said in his statement. The schools and related dormitories in Newfoundland and Labrador were set up by Moravian missionaries or the International Grenfell Association, a Newfoundland charity established by Wilfred T. Grenfell, a British surgeon, missionary and explorer. In an email, Keating Hagmann, chairman of the Grenfell Association, apologized for "not sheltering these individuals from the suffering they endured" and welcomed the government's apology. The Moravian Mission in North America did not respond to requests for comment. [GN] CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Makes Calls That Violate TCPA, Leeb Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- GREB LEEB, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. D/B/A SPECTRUM, Case No. 4:17-cv- 02780 (E.D. Mo., November 28, 2017), is brought to secure redress for the Defendant's alleged practice of calling the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and others using an automatic telephone dialing system and prerecorded voice, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Charter Communications, Inc., doing business as Spectrum, is an active Delaware corporation with offices located in St. Louis, Missouri. Charter -- through its subsidiaries, including Charter Communications Holdings, LLC and Charter Communications Operating, LLC -- offers cable, internet, and telephone services to consumers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan D. Sturycz, Esq. STURYCZ LAW GROUP LLC 100 N. Main, Suite 7 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (877) 314-3223 Facsimile: (314) 667-2733 E-mail: nathan@sturyczlaw.com CHEVRON U.S.A.: "Goodman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT --------------------------------------------------------- Jerald Goodman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and Does 1-30, Case No. 3:17-cv- 06649 (N.D. Calif., November 17, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California labor laws. Plaintiff Jerald Goodman worked exclusively for Chevron as a safety consultant from approximately January 2011 to October 2015. Defendant Chevron is in the business of providing safety personnel offering safety services to operators and other oil field services companies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: mparmet@brucknerburch.com CHINA AGRITECH: To Decide Clock-Tolling on Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Christine Stuart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed late December 8 to hear a case against a fertilizer manufacturer that will determine whether new named plaintiffs from prior failed class actions toll the statute of limitations. The appeal by China Agritech Inc. asks the court to reexamine its 1974 decision in American Pipe & Construction v. Utah, regarding when class actions are filed and whether the statute of limitations applies to all the plaintiffs if class certification is denied in a previous case. Michael Resh, the lead plaintiff in this case -- the third putative class action against China Agritech by shareholders -- saw the Ninth Circuit revive his class action after a federal judge ruled it had been filed outside the statute of limitations. According to the appeals court, the denial of class certification in the two previous class actions tolled the clock as to Resh's action. In urging the Supreme Court to grant review of the decision, attorneys for China Agritech said the Ninth Circuit's decision "will lead to obvious forum-shopping." The Ninth Circuit, however, said its decision will help prevent duplicate filings to keep the clock stopped. "The rule creates no unfair surprise to defendants because the pendency of a prior class suit has already alerted them 'not only [to] the substantive claims being brought against them, but also [to] the number and generic identities of the potential plaintiffs who may participate in the judgment,' Circuit Judge William Fletcher wrote for the panel earlier this year. "The rule also promotes economy of litigation by reducing incentives for filing duplicative, protective class actions because "[a] putative class member who fears that class certification may be denied would have every incentive to file a separate action prior to the expiration of his own period of limitations." Fletcher added "ordinary principles of preclusion and comity will further reduce incentives to re-litigate frivolous or already dismissed class claims, and will provide a ready basis for successor federal district courts to deny class action certification." Seth Aronson, Esq. -- saronson@omm.com -- of O'Melveny and Myers in Los Angeles represents China Agritech, and Charles Coleman, Esq. -- Charles.Coleman@lewisbrisbois.com -- of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith of Sacramento, California, represents the Resh plaintiffs. CITIGROUP INC: Court Certifies Plan Investors Class in ERISA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court, Southern District of New York, issued an Opinion and Order granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned MARYA J. LEBER, SARA L. KENNEDY, LESLIE HIGHSMITH, SHERRI M. HARRIS, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITIGROUP 401(k) PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE; THE BENEFIT PLANS INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF CITIGROUP, INC.; MICHAEL CARPENTER; PAUL COLLINS; JAMES COSTABILE; VIRGIL CUMMING; DAVID DODILLET; ROBERT GROGAN; WILLIAM HEYMAN; ROBIN LEOPOLD; ALAN MACDONALD; MICHAEL MURRAY; CHRISTINE SIMPSON; RICHARD TAZIK; TODD THOMSON; TIMOTHY TUCKER; DAVID TYSON; RONALD A. WALTER; GUY WHITTAKER; DONALD YOUNG; JAMES ZELTER; BRUCE ZIMMERMAN; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, No. 07-Cv-9329 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.). The action involves allegations of self-dealing and imprudent fiduciary conduct related to the administration of Citigroup's 401(k) Plan. The Plan is a defined contribution plan, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(34). The three named plaintiffs -- Marya J. Leber, Sara L. Kennedy, and Sherri M. Harris -- are all participants in the 401(k) Plan, and claim that the committees responsible for overseeing the Plan during the putative class period, along with those committees' individual members and officers, breached their fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty by persistently favoring certain investment options despite the fact that those options had higher management fees than comparable alternatives. In their Fourth Amended Complaint, plaintiffs bring three counts, reflecting three different ways in which defendants are alleged to have improperly favored Citigroup's proprietary funds and thereby breached their duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of the fiduciary standards outlined in sections 404(a) and 405 of ERISA. Leber, Kennedy, and Harris seek to represent a class that consists of all participants in the Plan except for defendants, defendants' beneficiaries, and defendants' immediate families who invested in any of the nine Affiliated Funds between October 18, 2001, and September 4, 2007. The Second Circuit's class standing doctrine focuses on the conduct of the defendant and whether that conduct implicates the same concerns for all putative class members. Here, despite the variations between the Affiliated Funds, investors in all nine funds have the same necessary stake in litigating whether defendants' conduct amounted to a breach of their fiduciary duties. Proving the existence and quantum of losses incurred by each Affiliated Fund is therefore a secondary inquiry. It is analogous to the damages inquiry, and it is well- established that the fact that damages may have to be ascertained on an individual basis is not sufficient to defeat class certification under Rule 23(a), let alone class standing. Second, the derivative posture of this action eliminates the Second Circuit's ultimate concern about situations in which misconduct must be proved on a fund-by-fund basis. In Retirement Board, the Second Circuit needed to be reassured that Plaintiffs themselves have any real interest in litigating the absent class members' claims. But in this litigation, plaintiffs are suing in a representative capacity and can prevail on behalf of the Plan so long as they show that defendants breached their duties of loyalty and prudence with respect to any of the Plan's investment options. Therefore, while plaintiffs will ultimately need to establish liability by proving that the Plan suffered losses through individual funds, this does not preclude them from satisfying the Second Circuit's class standing test. Because plaintiffs asserting 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2) claims in a derivative capacity can establish injury-in-fact by pointing to Plan losses and because, in any event, plaintiffs have class standing to assert breach of duty of loyalty and prudence claims on behalf of all Plan participants injured by defendants' common course of conduct, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have standing to bring all claims asserted in their Fourth Amended Complaint. The Court also found that commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied when plaintiffs' grievances raise questions of law or fact common to the class. The fact that Citigroup employees routinely sign releases waiving all claims against Citigroup, including claims brought under the ERISA statute does not preclude certification. In cases brought on behalf of a plan, most courts have held that individuals do not have the authority to release a defined contribution plan's right to recover for breaches of fiduciary duty, the consent of the plan is required for a release of 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2) claims. Because plaintiffs have raised common questions capable of generating common answers and because the individual issues identified by defendants do not pose an obstacle for certification, the Court concludes that the commonality prerequisite is satisfied. In this case, the funds that plaintiffs seek to represent are all proprietary funds and each of the claims concerns allegedly disloyal and imprudent conduct that impacted them in the same manner. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that plaintiffs' claims have the requisite level of congruence with those of the putative class members despite the fact that all class members did not all invest in the same funds. The Court concludes that the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) has been met. As defendants implicitly acknowledge by declining to contest adequacy, plaintiffs have an interest in pursuing the class's claims and do not have fundamental conflicts of interest with the other class members. Plaintiffs Leber and Kennedy have demonstrated their commitment to prosecuting this action by remaining class representatives for the course of this decade-long litigation. Plaintiffs have also demonstrated their capacity to protect the interests of the class by their appointment of qualified counsel. The only argument offered by defendants against Rule 23(b)(1)(B) certification is that this case does not involve a limited fund. But limited fund cases which involve situations in which a fund's assets are insufficient to satisfy all claims are just one of the traditional varieties of representative suit encompassed by Rule 23(b)(1)(B). Rule 23(b)(1)(B) also envisions actions charging 'a breach of trust by an indenture trustee or other fiduciary similarly affecting the members of a large class' of beneficiaries, requiring an accounting or similar procedure 'to restore the subject of the trust.' That is precisely the kind of action at issue here. Accordingly, certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) is appropriate and the Court need not address whether certification is also proper under either Rule 23(b)(1)(A) or Rule 23(b)(3). After certifying a class, the Court must also appoint class counsel that will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(1)(A), the Court must consider the following factors when appointing class counsel: (i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel's knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class. Counsel and their firms have significant prior experience litigating ERISA class actions involving similar fiduciary breach claims. Their ability to prosecute this action over an extended period of time, including during resource-intensive phases such as discovery, also demonstrates that they have the resources necessary to adequately represent the class. Accordingly, the Court appoints J. Brian McTigue and James Moore of McTigue LLP and Gregory Porter of Bailey & Glasser LLP as class counsel and David S. Preminger of Keller Rohrback LLP as liaison counsel. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 27, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7mcm4qa from Leagle.com. Marya J. Leber, Plaintiff, represented by David Steven Preminger -- dpreminger@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P.. Marya J. Leber, Plaintiff, represented by James Moore, Mctigue Law LLP, Bryan T. Veis, Mctigue Law LLP, 4530 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 300. Washington, DC 20016, pro hac vice, Gregory Y. Porter -- gporter@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser, LLP, James Brian McTigue, Mctigue Law LLP, pro hac vice, James A. Moore, McTigue & Veis LLP, 4530 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 300, Washington, DC 20016, pro hac vice & Patrick Owen Muench -- pmuench@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser, LLP. Sara L Kennedy, Plaintiff, represented by David Steven Preminger, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., James Moore, Mctigue Law LLP, Bryan T. Veis, Mctigue Law LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory Y. Porter, Bailey & Glasser, LLP, James Brian McTigue, Mctigue Law LLP, pro hac vice, James A. Moore, McTigue & Veis LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick Owen Muench, Bailey & Glasser, LLP. Leslie Highsmith, Plaintiff, represented by James Moore, Mctigue Law LLP. The Citigroup 401(k) Plan Investment Committee, Defendant, represented by Lewis Richard Clayton -- lclayton@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss, Karen R. King -- kking@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Timothy James Holland -- tholland@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. James Costabile, Defendant, represented by Lewis Richard Clayton, Paul Weiss, Karen R. King, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Timothy James Holland, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Robert Grogan, Defendant, represented by Lewis Richard Clayton, Paul Weiss, Karen R. King, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Timothy James Holland, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Robin Leopold, Defendant, represented by Lewis Richard Clayton, Paul Weiss, Karen R. King, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Timothy James Holland, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Christine Simpson, Defendant, represented by Lewis Richard Clayton, Paul Weiss, Karen R. King, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Timothy James Holland, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Richard Tazik, Defendant, represented by Lewis Richard Clayton, Paul Weiss, Karen R. King, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Timothy James Holland, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Timothy Tucker, Defendant, represented by Lewis Richard Clayton, Paul Weiss, Karen R. King, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Timothy James Holland, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Donald Young, Defendant, represented by Lewis Richard Clayton, Paul Weiss, Karen R. King, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Timothy James Holland, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. The Benefit Plans Investment Committee of Citigroup, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lewis Richard Clayton, Paul Weiss, Karen R. King, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP &Timothy James Holland, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Michael Carpenter, Defendant, represented by Lewis Richard Clayton, Paul Weiss, Karen R. King, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Timothy James Holland, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. CVS HEALTH: "Prescott" RICO Suit Transferred to New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the PBM Defendants' motion to transfer the case, JEANINE PRESCOTT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. C17-803RSL (W.D. Wash.), to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On March 17, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the District of New Jersey alleging collusion between pharmacy benefit managers ("PBMs") and drug manufacturers to unlawfully inflate the price of insulin, a life-saving drug used to treat diabetes. Four other class action lawsuits related to the pricing of insulin were also filed in the District of New Jersey around this same time. While waiting for the court in New Jersey to appoint interim lead counsel, the Boss, et al. v. CVS Health Corp. attorneys filed three separate lawsuits in other districts. On May 23, 2017, Johnson v. OptumRx Inc., was filed in the Central District of California. On May 24, 2017, the present case and Bewley, et al. v. CVS Health Corp., were filed here in the Western District of Washington. On Sept. 18, 2017, the Honorable David O. Carter, District Judge, transferred Johnson to the District of New Jersey based on the first-to-file rule. On Nov. 7, 2017, this Court similarly transferred Bewley. The Johnson, Bewley, and Boss complaints assert the same types of claims by similar classes of plaintiffs alleging the same unlawful collusion between the PBM defendants and drug manufacturer defendants. These drug manufacturer defendants produce insulin (Boss), Victoza (Johnson), and glucagon (Bewley), medications for people with diabetes. In the present case, the Plaintiffs assert similar claims based on the same alleged pricing scheme with respect to glucose test strips, a medical product for people with diabetes to monitor their blood sugar. Here, the PBM Defendants are the same, but the Manufacturer Defendants are different. The Manufacturer Defendants in the present case make glucose test strips, but they do not manufacture the diabetes medications at issue in the other lawsuits. The PBM Defendants ask the Washington Court to transfer the case to the District of New Jersey. They assert that the present case should be transferred pursuant to the first-to-file rule or 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) because multiple similar actions have already been filed in that district. The Plaintiffs and the Manufacturer Defendants oppose the motion to transfer. Based on the second factor, Judge Lasnik finds that transfer is not appropriate pursuant to the first-to-file rule. Unlike in Bewley, where every defendant had also been named in the Boss action, the Manufacturer Defendants here are not substantially similar to defendants in the New Jersey cases. The Defendant Manufacturers in the present case produce glucose test strips, but they do not also produce diabetes medications, like insulin, which are at issue in the other complaints. Because the parties are not substantially similar to warrant transfer under the first-to-file rule, the Judge Court instead considers transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). He finds that the District of New Jersey is equally if not more convenient than the Western District of Washington. Because of the similar litigation already pending in New Jersey, transfer is warranted to minimize duplicitous litigation and avoid inconsistent results. Additionally, the Defendant Manufacturers' opposition is in part based upon the fact that the New Jersey litigation was mired for several months in a conflict over the appointment of lead class counsel, and has not progressed much during that time. Now, however, the interim lead counsel has been appointed, and the litigation may proceed. The Judge, in the interest of justice, finds that transfer is warranted. For all of reasons he stated, Judge Lasnik granted PBM Defendants' motion to transfer. He directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the matter to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey as being related to Boss, and the other similar actions currently pending in that district. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/LAwuRW from Leagle.com. Jeanine Prescott, Plaintiff, represented by Derek W. Loeser -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK. Jeanine Prescott, Plaintiff, represented by Gretchen S. Obrist -- gobrist@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK. Michael Bewley, Plaintiff, represented by Derek W. Loeser, KELLER ROHRBACK & Gretchen S. Obrist, KELLER ROHRBACK. Scott Strumello, Plaintiff, represented by Derek W. Loeser, KELLER ROHRBACK & Gretchen S. Obrist, KELLER ROHRBACK. Julia Boss, Plaintiff, represented by Derek W. Loeser, KELLER ROHRBACK & Gretchen S. Obrist, KELLER ROHRBACK. Type 1 Diabetes Defense Foundation, Plaintiff, represented by Derek W. Loeser, KELLER ROHRBACK & Gretchen S. Obrist, KELLER ROHRBACK. CVS Health Corporation, Defendant, represented by Enu Mainigi -- emainigi@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, pro hac vice, Richmond T. Moore -- rtmoore@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, pro hac vice & Michael D. Hunsinger, THE HUNSINGER LAW FIRM. Caremark RX, LLC, Defendant, represented by Enu Mainigi, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, pro hac vice, Richmond T. Moore, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, pro hac vice & Michael D. Hunsinger, THE HUNSINGER LAW FIRM. Caremark RX, Inc, Defendant, represented by Enu Mainigi, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, pro hac vice, Richmond T. Moore, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, pro hac vice & Michael D. Hunsinger, THE HUNSINGER LAW FIRM. Express Scripts Holding Company, Defendant, represented by James A. Keyte -- james.keyte@skadden.com -- SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, pro hac vice, Patrick G. Rideout -- atrick.rideout@skadden.com -- SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, pro hac vice, Robert A. Fumerton -- robert.fumerton@skadden.com -- SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, pro hac vice & John S. Devlin, III -- devlinj@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL PC. Express Scripts, Inc, Defendant, represented by James A. Keyte, SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, pro hac vice, Patrick G. Rideout, SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, pro hac vice, Robert A. Fumerton, SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, pro hac vice & John S. Devlin, III, LANE POWELL PC. UnitedHealth Group, Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian D. Boone -- brian.boone@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Snyder -- john.snyder@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac vice, Trent M. Latta -- tlatta@mcdougaldlaw.com -- MCDOUGALD LAW GROUP P.S., William H. Jordan -- bill.jordan@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac vice & Shannon L. McDougald -- smcdougald@mcdougaldlaw.com -- MCDOUGALD LAW GROUP P.S.. OptumRx, Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian D. Boone, ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Snyder, ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac vice, Trent M. Latta, MCDOUGALD LAW GROUP P.S., William H. Jordan, ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac vice & Shannon L. McDougald, MCDOUGALD LAW GROUP P.S.. Abbott Laboratories, Defendant, represented by Andrew A. Kassof -- andrew.kassof@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Diana M. Watral, KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Emily Dodds Powell -- emilyp@calfoeakes.com -- CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC, James F. Hurst -- james.hurst@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Rachel B. Haig -- rachel.haig@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice & Angelo J. Calfo -- angeloc@calfoeakes.com -- CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew A. Kassof, KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Diana M. Watral, KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Emily Dodds Powell, CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC, James F. Hurst, KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Rachel B. Haig, KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice & Angelo J. Calfo, CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC. Abbott Diabetes Care Sales Corporation, Defendant, represented by Andrew A. Kassof, KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Diana M. Watral, KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Emily Dodds Powell, CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC, James F. Hurst, KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Rachel B. Haig, KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice & Angelo J. Calfo, CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC. Bayer Healthcare LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Murphy, MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, pro hac vice, David S. Rosenbloom, MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, pro hac vice, Megan E. Thibert-Ind, MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, pro hac vice & Philip S. McCune, SUMMIT LAW GROUP. BAR TACO: About 400 Sign on to Lawsuit -------------------------------------- Jennifer Turiano, writing for Greenwich Time, reports that about 400 people have contacted Marler and Clark, the Seattle-based law first specializing in food safety lawsuits, regarding a class action lawsuit against bartaco -- the Port Chester, N.Y. restaurant that was temporarily closed after a food handler there was diagnosed with hepatitis A. Two of those people were of the total five who contracted the illness and claim to have eaten at the restaurant, according to attorney Bill Marler. Others who signed on to or expressed interest in the suit were among the more than 3,000 people vaccinated after potential exposure to hepatitis A at bartaco between Oct. 12 and 23. Hepatitis A is a viral illness that affects the liver and can cause fatigue, fever, poor appetite, abdominal pain, diarrhea, jaundice and other problems. In response to the lawsuit, some have expressed support for the popular restaurant. "So (they are) blaming a person for carrying a virus that they didn't know they had until bartaco closed its doors and informed all of its patrons dating back to August of the exposure," Greenwich resident Nicole Schiano wrote in a Nov. 2 Facebook post. The illness typically shows no symptoms until roughly two weeks after contraction. "The poor soul who was carrying the virus is now carrying a huge guilt of all the people he/she possibly passed it to ... I really hope anyone with half a heart does not take part in this 'class- action law suit," Schiano wrote. Restaurant owner Christian Petroni of Fortina, a pizzeria with locations in Westchester County and Stamford, used to work as a chef at Barcelona Wine Bar in Greenwich -- which is owned by the same company as bartaco. He posted a photo of himself eating a taco outside the Port Chester restaurant on Nov. 7, receiving hundreds of likes on Instagram and Facebook. Bartaco representatives did not responded to requests for comment for this article. [GN] BARCLAYS PLC: May 18 Euribor Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------ If you transacted in Euribor Products[1] between June 1, 2005 and March 31, 2011, inclusive ("Class Period"), then your rights will be affected and you may be entitled to a benefit. The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of your rights in connection with the proposed settlements with Settling Defendants Barclays plc, Barclays Bank plc and Barclays Capital Inc. (collectively, "Barclays"), HSBC Holdings plc and HSBC Bank plc (collectively, "HSBC"), and Deutsche Bank AG and DB Group Services (UK) Ltd. (collectively, "Deutsche Bank") in the action titled Sullivan, et al. v. Barclays plc, et al., 13-cv-2811 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y.). The settlements with Barclays, HSBC, and Deutsche Bank (collectively, the "Settlements") are not a settlement with any other Defendant and thus are not dispositive of any of Plaintiffs' claims against remaining Defendants. The Settlements have been proposed in a class action lawsuit concerning the alleged manipulation of the Euro Interbank Offered Rate ("Euribor") and the prices of Euribor Products during the Class Period. The Settlements provide $309 million to pay claims from persons who transacted in Euribor Products during the Class Period. If you qualify, you may send in a Proof of Claim and Release form to potentially get benefits, or you can exclude yourself from the Settlements, or object to them. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312) authorized this Notice. Before any money is paid, the Court will hold a Settlement Hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlements. Who Is Included? You are a "Settlement Class Member" if you purchased, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in Euribor Products during the Class Period, and during the Class Period were either domiciled in the United States or its territories or, if domiciled outside the United States or its territories, you transacted Euribor Products in the United States or its territories during the Class Period. "Settlement Class Members" include, but are not limited to, all persons who during the Class Period traded CME Euro currency futures contracts, all persons who during the Class Period transacted in NYSE LIFFE Euribor futures and options from a location within the United States, and all persons who during the Class Period traded any other Euribor Product from a location within the United States or its territories. Contact your brokerage firm to see if you purchased, sold, held, or traded or otherwise had any interest in Euribor Products. If you are not sure you are included, you can get more information, including the Settlement Agreements, Mailed Notice, Plan of Allocation, Proof of Claim and Release, and other important documents, at www.EuriborSettlement.com ("Settlement Website") or by calling toll free 800-492-9154. What Is This Litigation About? Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, during the Class Period, conspired to manipulate and manipulated Euribor and the prices of Euribor Products. Defendants allegedly did so by using several means of manipulation. For example, panel banks that made daily Euribor submissions to Thomson Reuters, such as Barclays, HSBC, and Deutsche Bank, allegedly falsely reported their costs of borrowing in order to financially benefit their Euribor Products positions. Defendants also requested that other Defendants make false Euribor submissions on their behalf to benefit their Euribor Products positions. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants continuously conspired to fix the prices of Euribor Products in the over-the-counter market to financially benefit their own Euribor Products positions. In addition to coordinating Euribor submissions and agreeing on where to price Euribor Products, in order to effectuate their alleged manipulations of Euribor and Euribor Products during the Class Period, Defendants allegedly engaged in "pushing cash," transmitted false bids and offers, used derivative traders as submitters, and rigged bids and offers for Euribor Products. Plaintiffs have asserted legal claims under various theories, including the Sherman Act, the Commodity Exchange Act, the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and common law. Barclays, HSBC, and Deutsche Bank have consistently and vigorously denied Plaintiffs' allegations. What Do the Settlements Provide? Under the Settlements, Barclays agreed to pay $94 million, HSBC agreed to pay $45 million, and Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $170 million into the Settlement Funds. If the Court approves the Settlements, potential Settlement Class Members who qualify and send in valid Proof of Claim and Release forms may receive a share of the Settlement Funds after they are reduced by the payment of certain expenses. The Settlement Agreements, available on the Settlement Website, describe all of the details about the proposed Settlements. The exact amount each qualifying Settlement Class Member will receive from the Settlement Funds cannot be calculated until (1) the Court approves the Settlements; (2) certain amounts identified in the full Settlement Agreements are deducted from the Settlement Fund; and (3) the number of participating Class Members and the amount of their claims are determined. In addition, each Settlement Class Member's share of the Settlement Funds will vary depending on the information the Settlement Class Member provides on their Proof of Claim and Release form. The number of claimants who send in claims varies widely from case to case. If less than 100% of the Settlement Class sends in a Proof of Claim and Release form, you could get more money. How Do You Ask For a Payment? If you are a Settlement Class Member, you may seek to participate in the Settlements by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release to the Settlement Administrator at the address in the Settlement Notice postmarked no later than August 1, 2018. You may obtain a Proof of Claim on the Settlement Website or by calling the toll- free number referenced above. If you are a Settlement Class Member but do not file a Proof of Claim and Release, you will still be bound by the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreements if the Court enters an order approving the Settlement Agreements. What Are Your Other Options? All requests to be excluded from any of the Settlements must be made in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice and must be postmarked to the Settlement Administrator no later than April 13, 2018. All requests for exclusion must comply with the requirements set forth in the Settlement Notice to be honored. The Settlement Notice, available at the Settlement Website, explains how to exclude yourself or object. If you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by the Settlement Agreements and can independently pursue claims at your own expense. However, if you exclude yourself, you will not be eligible to share in the Net Settlement Funds or otherwise participate in the Settlements. The Court will hold a Settlement Hearing in this case on May 18, 2018, to consider whether to approve the Settlements and a request by the lawyers representing all Settlement Class Members (Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP) for an award of attorneys' fees of no more than twenty-three percent (23%) of the Settlement Funds for investigating the facts, litigating the case, and negotiating the settlement, and for reimbursement of their costs and expenses in the amount of no more than approximately $1,600,000.00. The lawyers for the Settlement Class may also seek additional reimbursement of fees, costs, and expenses in connection with services provided after the Settlement Hearing. These payments will also be deducted from the Settlement Funds before any distributions are made to the Settlement Class. You may ask to appear at the Settlement Hearing, but you do not have to. For more information, call toll free 800-492-9154 or visit the website www.EuriborSettlement.com [1] "Euribor Products" means any and all interest rate swaps, forward rate agreements, futures, options, structured products, and any other instrument or transaction related in any way to Euribor, including but not limited to, New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange ("LIFFE") Euribor futures contracts and options, Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME") Euro currency futures contracts and options, Euro currency forward agreements, Euribor-based swaps, Euribor-based forward rate agreements, and/or any other financial instruments that reference Euribor. CBRE INC: Arbitration Agreements Violate Labor Law, Judge Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Erin Mulvaney, writing for Law.com, reports that the real estate company CBRE Inc.'s mandatory arbitration agreements violate federal labor law, according to an administrative law judge ruling that highlighted controversial employee restrictions that are at the center of a U.S. Supreme Court case this term. Administrative law judge John Giannopoulos at the National Labor Relations Board ruled that the global commercial real estate firm's employment agreements violate labor law by requiring that disputes be handled through arbitration and not through "any class, collective or representative action." The administrative case, filed by a CBRE facility manager named Steve Thoma, is far from settled. But it exposes the potential broad impact that the Supreme Court litigation could have on the power of employees to form class actions. Dozens of pending labor cases involving major companies will be affected by the outcome of the high-court litigation. Littler Mendelson's Gordon Letter -- gletter@littler.com -- in Los Angeles, representing CBRE, was not immediately reached for comment. A CBRE spokesman said in a statement: "We believe that this decision does not accurately apply the law to the facts, and we plan to appeal." Attorneys for Mr. Thoma did not immediately respond to request for comment on the administrative law judge's ruling. Mr. Thoma has a pending civil case against CBRE and JPMorgan Chase that's on hold in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeals court, citing the action in the Supreme Court, is awaiting the outcome of the case there. In October, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a consolidated case that considered whether workplace arbitration agreements that ban class actions violate the labor law because they constrict employees' right to engage in "concerted activities." The consolidated cases before the justices are: National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA; Epic Systems v. Lewis; and Ernst & Young v. Morris. Mr. Thoma sued in California federal district court and filed a labor complaint in August with the NLRB, claiming he was misclassified as an exempt employee and therefore not entitled to overtime. His attorneys at California-based firm Baker, Curtis & Schwartz are seeking class action status for all similarly situated employees. Mr. Thoma's federal civil case alleges CBRE and Chase misclassified their facility managers to exempt them from overtime and other protections under California and federal law. The NLRB administrative judge, ruling on Nov. 24, called CBRE's arbitration agreement "unlawfully vague and likely to leave employees unwilling to risk violating the rule by exercising Section 7 rights," which allow workers to join together in concerted activity. Giannopoulos ordered CBRE to end agreements that restrict rights to file charges with the NLRB and rescind the arbitration agreement in all its forms. One issue that might arise in any appeal in Mr. Thoma's administrative case could focus on recusals. William Emanuel, one Trump's two appointees to the NLRB, is a former Littler Mendelson shareholder in Los Angeles. Employee-side labor attorneys have raised questions about whether and when Emanuel should be required to recuse in current disputes that have ties to his firm or to his former clients. Mr. Emanuel formerly represented CBRE and Chase, among 49 former clients that he said would cause him to recuse, for a year, unless he received a waiver, according to his financial disclosure filed at the U.S. Office of Government Ethics. The CBRE case was one of dozens noted in a letter sent to Emanuel by Senate Democrats asking the new board member to clarify his commitment to not participating in cases involving former clients. Staff for Senate Democrats identified dozens of pending cases before the NLRB that involve the 49 companies Emanuel noted in his financial disclosure documents. [GN] CHANNEL NINE: Class Action Mulled Over Don Burke's Behavior ----------------------------------------------------------- B&T Magazine reports that it appears Don Burke's attempts to explain revelations he was a serial abuser of women has done more harm than good. Appearing on Channel Nine's (his former employer) A Current Affair last night, Burke told interviewer Tracy Grimshaw that he was a victim of a social media "witch hunt". Mr. Burke, 70, did admit to a string of extra-marital affairs during the peak of his national TV fame and blamed undiagnosed Asperger's syndrome for his behaviour, something that has infuriated actual Asperger's sufferers. Following the ACA interview, Autism Awareness Australia tweeted: "Autism Awareness Australia is sickened tonight by Don Burke's excuse of undiagnosed Aspergers as a reason for his appalling behaviour. What kind of human sinks this low?" Mr. Burke told Ms. Grimshaw he had no recollection of the accusations against him, many dating back more than three decades. "I'm not that man at all," he said in the ACA interview. "I've got a lot of failings. Some of these things are despicable. "I am happy to say to the people of Australia: this is my story, make up your mind if I'm the most evil person that's ever lived, that's your decision. "If you can forgive me for the stupidity and the other things I have done then I am very grateful, but I think that's their decision not mine. "I have looked in the mirror and there's a lot I don't like. But that's up to the people of Australia to decide can they forgive me or not," Mr. Burke said. On the string of affairs, he added: "I think I've got a bit to apologise for to my family and also to the people who supported Burke's Backyard. There are things I've done that I'm not at all proud of." Meanwhile, Channel Nine may not escape the whole furore either after revelations senior management at the network turned a blind eye to Mr. Burke's behaviour back in the 90s and fostered a culture of endemic bullying. The Australian is reporting that Channel Nine could be exposed to a potential class action by Mr. Burke's accusers and could be in serious strife if it's found that Nine bosses were in anyway complicit. The Oz quotes Shine Lawyers defamation special counsel Roger Singh who has said media companies could be in serious strife if they are found to have breached their duty of care to their employees. Mr. Singh said: "You have to be able to demonstrate that there was a breach of duty of care and negligence on the part of the institution . . . on the basis that it knew, or ought to have known, the propensity of the offender to inflict abuse, but didn't take appropriate action." The problem for Nine could well be comments in the press from senior Nine figures during Mr. Burke's time with the network that appear to suggest they knew of his predatory behaviour. The then CEO of Nine, David Leckie, said of Mr. Burke: "I've been trying to think of Harvey Weinstein-type people [in Australia] and the only one I can ever come up with is Burke. He was a horrible, horrible man." While Mr. Leckie's predecessor at Nine, Sam Chisolm, said: "Don Burke was a disgrace because of his behaviour internally and externally" before adding he was a "terrible grub". To its credit, Nine has opened a full investigation into the allegations against Burke and encouraged any employee -- past or present -- to come forward. In Nine's defence, Mr. Burke's Backyard was made by Mr. Burke's own production company CTC Productions and not by Nine staff or at Nine's studios. In a statement to media, Nine said: "The allegations are extremely serious; the behaviour described is completely unacceptable and would not be tolerated at Nine today. "Nine has zero tolerance of sexual harassment and workplace bullying and no employee should be subjected to this kind of behaviour. Everyone is entitled to come to work confident that our workplace is safe, free from harassment and unacceptable behaviour will be dealt with effectively." [GN] CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- David O. Klein, Esq. -- dklein@kleinmoynihan.com -- of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that a putative class action text message lawsuit was filed in a Chicago federal district court against Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. ("Checkers") and its affiliate mobile marketer, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Why should sellers and mobile marketers ensure that their text messages are TCPA compliant? Checkers' Text Message Marketing Campaign Checkers operates more than 850 Checkers and Rally's drive-thru restaurants in 29 states and the District of Columbia. As an advertising vehicle for its fast food products, Checkers works with marketing affiliates to offer digital coupons and other promotions to prospective and existing customers. Some such promotions offer coupon codes for free Checkers or Rally's menu items to consumers who use their mobile phones to text a specific keyword to a designated five-digit short code. Louisiana resident Toby Branden, presumably enticed by a Checkers coupon offer, texted "Coupons" and "70117" to a Checkers mobile marketing short code. Mr. Branden alleges that mobile marketer Vibes Media, LLC ("Vibes") subsequently delivered multiple advertising text messages to her mobile phone number on Checkers' behalf. Text Message Lawsuit On November 3, 2017, Mr. Branden filed a putative class action text message lawsuit against both Checkers and Vibes in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 17- cv-7947) on behalf of all cell phone users who received unauthorized text messages from Checkers or Vibes. The complaint alleges that Checkers and Vibes violated the TCPA by sending commercial text messages to consumers without obtaining each recipient's prior express written consent to receive such messages. Braden's text message lawsuit claims that the Defendants texted thousands of consumers nationwide, and seeks damages of $500 to $1,500 per text message delivered. Are Your Text Message Marketing Practices Compliant? Text messaging (rather than voice or video calling) is now the most widely and frequently used smartphone feature. It should come as no surprise then that more sellers and marketers are capitalizing on the popularity of text messaging to promote their respective products and services to consumers. However, as the above-mentioned text message lawsuit demonstrates, text message marketing campaigns that are not TCPA compliant place sellers and their affiliate marketers at serious legal risk. In fact, text message marketing is classified as a subset of telemarketing, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rigorously enforce the TCPA and its implementing regulations against both text message marketers and traditional telemarketers. In addition, the Mobile Marketing Association (MMA) has established its own best practices and guidelines for text message marketing that are enforced by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association ("CTIA"). The CTIA reports non-compliant text message marketers to the major wireless carriers, which can shut down or suspend non-compliant text message marketing campaigns. In light of the foregoing, to avoid future legal action and regulatory surprises, sellers and marketers should consult with competent counsel concerning their text message marketing practices and procedures. [GN] CHICAGO, IL: Park Ridge Residents Threaten Legal Action ------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Johnson, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that plans for a community garden at North Park are on hold as the Park Ridge Park District contemplates its next steps following a legal threat from residents living near the park. An attorney retained by residents calling themselves the North Park Preservation Group has ordered the park district to "cease and desist" from any activities at North Park that go against its "dedicated purpose" -- in this case, that it be used only as a public "playground." The cease and desist order was laid out in a letter addressed to the park district's legal counsel and read by Park Board President Jim O'Brien during a Nov. 16 meeting. Legal action was also threatened by Parkside Drive resident Grant Petersen, who told the board that 110 residents have "signed on to be part of a class-action lawsuit to prevent the Park Ridge Park District from developing the land in North Park as a community garden or anything that is in violation of the public playground intent when the [North Park] deed was filed." O'Brien told the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate that no definitive decision has yet been made as to whether the park district will challenge the residents in court. The board held a closed-door discussion on the issue during the Nov. 16 meeting. "We're trying to figure out what, if anything, we can do at North Park, now or in the future," O'Brien said. The attorney's letter refers to the 1947 plat of subdivision for the park, which designates it as a "public playground." Neighbors living near North Park argue that taking away land in the park for a community garden violates the intent of the park. O'Brien said consideration of a 30-plot community garden at North Park has been "tabled" for the time being, and that the board has asked park district staff to present "alternative locations" that can be considered. "We don't plan to make any further decisions without notifying the public," he said. In recent months, residents living near North Park have appeared before the park board and park district staff to express opposition to the community garden proposal. In addition to their belief that a garden violates the original purpose of North Park, residents have given a variety of other reasons for their opposition, including that it will take space away from the five- acre park, draw crime and increased wildlife, interfere with stormwater drainage and be an "eyesore." The park district has proposed setting aside $75,000 in its capital budget next year for the creation of the garden. A 4-foot- tall "wire type" fence would surround the garden plots, which would be available to citizens to rent, said Terry Wolf, superintendent of buildings and grounds for the Park Ridge Park District. Plans call for the garden to be located just north of the existing playground and to the west of an existing walking path. Nan Parson, who was among a steering committee of residents interested in bringing a community garden to Park Ridge, told the park board that North Park's neighbors are "making a terrible mistake" by discouraging a garden there. "When I tell other residents of Park Ridge about this contention, they are shocked and ask, 'Why would people not want a garden in their neighboring park?' " Parson said. "[Opponents] are missing out on one of the most gratifying experiences one can have." Terri Schmidt, another member of the community garden steering committee, said she never realized the project would "become such a contentious issue" when she initially proposed it. Schmidt explained that she was also involved in starting a community garden at St. Paul of the Cross Catholic Church five years ago, and that the garden has since "yielded thousands of pounds of vegetables" for clients of the church's food pantry. "I never expected it to become such a huge issue here," Schmidt said. "I apologize for causing so much contention among the citizens of Park Ridge, but at the time, it sounded like a simple idea." O'Brien said he did not believe Park Ridge residents are opposed to community gardens in general, but rather it is the location that has been the point of consternation. "We're still working through this," he said. [GN] CONGREGATION OF HOLY CROSS: Oratory Wants Exclusion from Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that Montreal's Saint Joseph's Oratory wants to be excluded from a class-action lawsuit that alleges a Roman Catholic religious order sexually abused its members on the site. The oratory is seeking, from the Supreme Court, leave to appeal a Quebec Court of Appeal decision that authorized a lawsuit against the Congregation of Holy Cross, the oratory and other institutions. Holy Cross is the religious order that built the oratory and continues to provide religious services on the site. The lawsuit outlines alleged abuse carried out by a member of Holy Cross committed in the oratory during the 1950s. The oratory, which filed its leave request on November 24, said it is "exceptionally targeted as the only place cited and as an institution" in the latest lawsuit. It also questioned the legitimacy of the case, adding that a "judicial burden" is being wrongfully imposed on the oratory. SÇbastien Richard, a spokesperson for the victims, said in September, when the Court of Appeal authorized the lawsuit, that the oratory had "stayed silent for a long time" about the alleged abuse. In 2013, the Congregation of Holy Cross apologized and paid up to $18 million to compensate victims for abuse that occurred at three Quebec institutions (not including the oratory) over a five-decade span. [GN] CORDIS CORP: Loses Bid to Appeal Vein Filters Class Action Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tina Bellon, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 27 declined to take up an appeal by medical devices company Cordis Corp., which claimed that a series of lawsuits against it were improperly remanded to state court under the 2005 Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The company claimed plaintiffs alleging injuries from its vein filters transformed their state lawsuits into a mass action, removable to federal court under CAFA, by seeking to coordinate discovery, pre-trial motions and trials. [GN] DOLLAR TREE: Court Certifies Class of Employees in "Snipes" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned TERRY T. SNIPES, SR., an individual, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR TREE DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Virginia corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, No. 2:15-cv-00878-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff alleges that Dollar Tree's California handbook fails to provide non-exempt employees with legally compliant meal and rest periods in several ways. First, according to Plaintiff, Dollar Tree requires its employees to clock in and out in a manner that always benefits Dollar Tree. More specifically, Plaintiff claims that non-exempt employees, who are paid in 15-minute increments, cannot clock in more than seven minutes in advance of their scheduled shift, or more than seven minutes after their shifts end. This systemic practice results in underpayment to employees since they never monetarily benefit from Dollar Tree's automatic practice of rounding to the nearest 15-minute intervals. Here, the numbers involved easily satisfy the numerosity requirement. As confirmed by the Plaintiff's discovery, Dollar Tree employed a total of 783 non-exempt employees throughout its California facilities during the course of the designated period of April 1, 2011 to the present. Since numerosity is ordinarily presumed to the extent the proposed class size exceeds 40 individuals, Plaintiff has thus satisfied that requirement. Irrespective of whether they ultimately prove to be persuasive, the allegations lodged here by Plaintiff on behalf of other employees appear unquestionably to involve questions of law or fact common to the purported classes. Therefore this prerequisite for class action treatment is also satisfied. Given the fact that Plaintiff claims are predicated on allegedly uniform policies and practices that applied equally to all proposed class members, it would appear that Plaintiff's claims and injuries are typical of those suffered by the purported classes. Resolution of that question therefore also weighs in favor of class treatment. The final hurdle interposed by Rule 23(a) is that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. To satisfy constitutional due process concerns, absent class members must be afforded adequate representation before entry of a judgment which binds them. As for counsel, Rule 23(g) lists four factors for consideration: (1) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (2) counsel's experience in handling class actions or other complex litigation and the type of claims in the litigation; (3) counsel's knowledge of the applicable law; and (4) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class. Plaintiff's counsel represents that they are seasoned litigators with significant experience in wage-and- hour disputes and class actions. The Court has no reason to doubt these representations, and even Dollar Tree does not challenge the adequacy of Plaintiff's counsel. Thus, this prerequisite is satisfied on counsel's part as well. The predominance inquiry focuses on the relationship between the common and individual issues and tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. At the class certification stage, Plaintiff need only propose a valid method for calculating class wide damages such that a trier of fact could accurately calculate damages. Here, Plaintiff's counsel alleges they can discern from the daily and/or weekly timesheets both whether employees received the appropriate meal and rest period, and whether they were improperly subject to Dollar Tree's time rounding practice. Counsel also claims that they can determine which employees were uncompensated for time standing in line by comparing actual break times to actual employee time punches. Plaintiff's statistical expert, Keith Mendes, states that given time and attendance data for putative class members, he can estimate damages by applying the appropriate rate of pay to the net harm suffered by the employee. Mendes also proposes two methodologies for measuring the amount of time spent waiting in line to clock out for meal period. Plaintiff must also establish that the proposed class action is the superior method for resolving the dispute as compared to available alternatives. As Plaintiff indicates, relative to the cost of litigation each proposed member's individual claim is relatively small. This makes adjudication by a class action superior and weighs in favor of certifying a class. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 27, 2017 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybps2voe from Leagle.com. Terry T. Snipes, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Eugene Guzman - - anthony@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation. Terry T. Snipes, Plaintiff, represented by S. Brett Sutton -- brett@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation, PC, Jared Hague -- jared@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation, PC & Joseph Vidal Macias -- joseph.macias@maxmintegrated.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation, PC. Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey J. Mann -- mbrewer@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Kurt R. Bockes -- kbockes@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Lindbergh Porter, Jr. -- lporter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Steven B. Katz -- skatz@constangy.com -- Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete, LLP & Steven Woodrow Moore -- smoore@constangy.com -- Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete LLP. DOMETIC CORP: Time to Reply to "Papasan" Suit Extended ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CATHERINE PAPASAN, NELSON AND MARJORIE GOEHLE, ANDREW YOUNG, JIMMY BYERS, CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON, RICHARD AND LEAH VOLLBERG, TIMOTHY CHERRY, PAULA MEURER, JILL AND SID GARRETT, RICHARD LANDSHEFT, GARY GRAUS, GWENDOLYN AND LOUIS KING, and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DOMETIC CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-02117-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, granted the Dometic's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint. Dometic will answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint within 14 days after the later of (i) the Court's Order on Dometic's Motion to Transfer Venue and (ii) the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's decision on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer three other cases to the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/JrxdI3 from Leagle.com. Catherine Papasan, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Catherine Papasan, Plaintiff, represented by Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede -- ashleyb@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Nelson Goehle, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Andrew Young, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Jimmy Byers, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Christopher Johnston, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Richard Vollberg, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Leah Vollberg, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Sid Garrett, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Marjorie Goehle, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Dometic Corporation, Defendant, represented by Peter Allen Wald -- peter.wald@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Adam L. Rosenbloom -- adam.rosenbloom@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Emily Rose Goebel, Latham & Watkins LLP, Marcy Christina Priedeman -- marcy.priedeman@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP & Robert Christian Collins, III -- robert.collins@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP, pro hac vice. DONALD TRUMP: Judge Unseals Settlement Documents in Labor Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Charles V. Baglinov, writing for The New York Times, reports that in 1980, under pressure to begin construction on what would become his signature project, Donald J. Trump employed a crew of 200 undocumented Polish workers who worked in 12-hour shifts, without gloves, hard hats or masks, to demolish the Bonwit Teller building on Fifth Avenue, where the 58-story, golden-hued Trump Tower now stands. The workers were paid as little as $4 an hour for their dangerous labor, less than half the union wage, if they got paid at all. Their treatment led to years of litigation over Mr. Trump's labor practices, and in 1998, despite frequent claims that he never settles lawsuits, Mr. Trump quietly reached an agreement to end a class-action suit over the Bonwit Teller demolition in which he was a defendant. For almost 20 years, the terms of that settlement have remained a secret. But recently, the settlement documents were unsealed by Loretta A. Preska, a United States District Court judge for the Southern District, in response to a 2016 motion filed by Time Inc. and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Judge Preska found that the public's right to know of court proceedings in a class-action case was strengthened by the involvement of the "now-president of the United States." In a 21-page finding, Judge Preska wrote that "the Trump Parties have failed to identify any interests that can overcome the common law and First Amendment presumptions of access to the four documents at issue." On the campaign trail and as president, Mr. Trump has made curbing immigration one of his top priorities, seeking to close the borders to people from certain Muslim-majority countries and to deport immigrants who are here illegally. The settlement serves as a reminder that as an employer he relied on illegal immigrants to get a dangerous and dirty job done. Katie Townsend, litigation director of the Reporters Committee, called the decision a major victory that goes beyond this one case. "It makes clear that both the First Amendment and common law rights of public access apply to settlement-related documents in class actions," she said. Lawyers for Mr. Trump were not immediately available for comment. The documents show that Mr. Trump paid a total of $1.375 million to settle the case, known as Hardy v. Kaszycki, with $500,000 of it going to a union benefits fund and the rest to pay lawyers' fees and expenses. According to the documents, one of the union lawyers involved asked the judge to ensure "prompt payment" from Mr. Trump, suggesting "within two weeks after the settlement date." Mr. Trump jumped in to object. "Thirty days is normal," he said. At the time of the settlement, the court papers note, "this case has been litigated for 15 years and has already required three rounds of discovery, extensive motion practice, a 16-day trial and two appeals." Trump Tower was Mr. Trump's second solo project after leaving his father's real estate company, which developed working- and middle- class housing in Queens and Brooklyn. But before he could build a glassy condominium tower on what he considered to be a "Tiffany" of locations, Fifth Avenue and 56th Street, Mr. Trump had to demolish a venerable department store, the 12-story Bonwit Teller building. For the demolition work, Mr. Trump hired an inexperienced contractor, William Kaszycki of Kaszycki & Sons, for $775,000. Mr. Kaszycki specialized in window and job-site cleaning. His company was renovating an adjoining building for Bonwit Teller, where he employed undocumented Polish workers. Mr. Trump would later testify that he never walked into the adjoining building or noticed the Polish workers. But a foreman on the job, Zbignew Goryn, testified that Mr. Trump visited the site, marveling to him about the Polish crew. "He liked the way the men were working on 57th Street," Mr. Goryn said. "He said, 'Those Polish guys are good, hard workers.'" The demolition began in January 1980. It was hard, dirty work, breaking up concrete floors, ripping out electrical wiring and cutting pipes while laboring in a cloud of dust and asbestos. A smaller group of union demolition workers, who were paid much higher wages and, unlike the Poles, overtime, often made fun of their Polish co-workers, according to the testimony of Adam Mrowiec, one of the Polish laborers. "They told me and my friends that we are stupid Poles and we are working for such low money," he said. In 1998, Wojciech Kozak described to The New York Times the backbreaking labor on the job. "We worked in horrid, terrible conditions," Mr. Kozak said. "We were frightened illegal immigrants and did not know enough about our rights." Today, Mr. Kozak, now 75, lives at the O'Donnell-Dempsey Senior Housing building in Elizabeth, N.J. He has blue eyes and a strong handshake, but speaks through a special device because he had a tracheotomy for cancer. He proudly showed off his citizenship papers, dated Nov. 3, 1995. Mr. Kozak still recalls the work, and seeing Mr. Trump at the site in 1980. "We were working, 12, 16 hours a day and were paid $4 an hour," he said. "Because I worked with an acetylene torch, I got $5 an hour. We worked without masks. Nobody knew what asbestos was. I was an immigrant. I worked very hard." But Mr. Kaszycki stopped paying the men, and they eventually took their complaints to a lawyer named John Szabo. Mr. Szabo went to Thomas Macari, a vice president of the Trump Organization, threatening to place a mechanic's lien on the property if the men weren't paid. According to testimony, Mr. Macari began paying the men in cash himself. The delays and disruptions were adding to the pressure on the Trump Organization to meet its deadlines. One evening, Joseph Dabrowski testified, Mr. Trump arrived on site to tell the workers that he was taking charge. "I am telling you for the last time that Trump told us, 'If you finish this fast and I will pay for it,'" Mr. Dabrowski recalled in court. Still, there were problems. Mr. Szabo filed the lien, prompting Mr. Trump to ask for help from Daniel Sullivan, a labor consultant. Mr. Sullivan later testified that Mr. Trump described his "difficulties," and "that he had some illegal Polish employees." Mr. Trump, however, testified that he did he not remember that there were undocumented Polish workers on the job, or signing paychecks for the crew. "I really still don't know that there were illegal aliens," Mr. Trump said on the stand. Mr. Trump did, according to Mr. Szabo, have his lawyer call Mr. Szabo with a threat to call Immigration and Naturalization Service to have the men deported. Mr. Szabo got the Labor Department to open a wages-and-hours case for the men, which ultimately won a judgment of $254,000 against Mr. Kaszycki. Mr. Kaszycki had signed a contract with Local 79 of the House Wreckers Union. But while Mr. Kaszycki or Mr. Trump paid into the union welfare funds for the handful of union workers on the job, they had not done so for the bulk of the work force, the undocumented, nonunion Poles. A union dissident and former boxer, Harry Diduck, brought a case in federal court in 1983 against Mr. Kaszycki and, eventually, Mr. Trump and others, claiming that Mr. Kaszycki, the union president and Mr. Trump had colluded to deprive the welfare funds of about $600,000. A judge ruled that Mr. Trump was a legal employer of the Poles, but both sides appealed elements of his decision, with the total the welfare funds could get reduced to $500,000. On the eve of a second trial, Mr. Trump settled. Most of the records of the litigation were placed in a federal storage building where Time Inc. unearthed them in 2016. But the settlement documents remained under seal. After Judge Preska ordered them released, it turned out that two of the documents had been destroyed in routine housecleaning at the court. Wendy Sloan, a now-retired lawyer who represented the plaintiffs in the original case, had retained them, and provided them to the court. In one of them, Ms. Sloan noted that "in light of the unusually high profile of defendant Donald Trump, plaintiffs have agreed to confidentiality." Now that the documents have been released, Ms. Sloan said that "the settlement we obtained recovered 100 percent of the maximum amount plaintiffs could recover," plus lawyers fees and costs. "When you get one hundred cents on the dollar in a settlement, that is a great settlement," Ms. Sloan and Lewis M. Steel, another of the plaintiffs' lawyers, said in an email. [GN] DOUGHERTY COUNTY, GA: "Calhoun" Discovery Order Stayed ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned APRIL D CALHOUN, Plaintiff, v. WILLIE E LOCKETTE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-CV-153(LJA)(M.D. Ga.), Judge Leslie J. Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Albany Division, denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Certification of Class Action denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and granted the Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery and Motion to Stay Issuance of the Scheduling Order. The action was originally filed in the Superior Court of Dougherty County and was removed to the District Court by the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that she was incarcerated as a pretrial detainee in the custody of Defendant Sheriff Sproul, the Sheriff of Dougherty County, on April 22, 2017. The Plaintiff alleges that her Fourth and Sixth Amendment and due process rights under the federal Constitution and her rights under the Georgia Constitution were violated. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Superior Court Judge Lockette and Sproul are not alleged to have committed any transgressions in regard to her, but were named to allow the class to obtain full relief. She seeks a writ of prohibition, a writ of mandamus, an order supervising inferior court, both preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and the release of the Plaintiff and the proposed class members from jail. Before the Court are Calhoun's Motion for Preliminary Certification of Class Action, her Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery, and the Defendants' Motion to Stay Issuance of the Scheduling Order. Judge Abrams finds that the Plaintiff has not satisfied Rule 23(a)(2). The Complaint further makes clear that her claims are not typical of those in the class. Some members of the proposed class were given committal hearings while she was not. Furthermore, the Judge says the Plaintiff's individual claims are not applicable to those proposed class members that were purportedly deprived of rights under Georgia law at said committal hearings. Thus, the Plaintiff has not satisfied Rule 23(a)(3). The Plaintiff also has not demonstrated that her situation was or is sufficiently similar to those of the members of the class she seeks to represent such that she can fairly and adequately protect the class' interests. The broad class of all pretrial detainees in the Dougherty County Jail encompasses a wide variety of individualized circumstances, and the Plaintiff has made no attempt to explain how or why she is uniquely situated to represent all of those individualized circumstances. Thus, she has not satisfied Rule 23(a)(4). Accordingly, preliminary class certification is not appropriate. The Judge also finds that the Plaintiff presents no argument in her Motion for Preliminary Injunction. From the face of the Complaint, however, the Plaintiff has not met the required elements for a preliminary injunction. She does not present claims against two of three named Defendants. Further, much of the relief sought is not within the Court's power. Finally, it is not apparent that irreparable injury will be suffered unless an injunction is issued. Thus, a preliminary injunction is not appropriate. Based on the Court's preliminary review of the Complaint and the briefing submitted in connection with the Motions for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Abrams says a stay is appropriate as there may be valid defenses that would limit the scope of the Complaint. By staying discovery until the Motions for judgment on the pleadings are ruled upon, the parties will benefit by avoiding unnecessary discovery. The resulting harm is minimal when compared to that benefit. Accordingly, Judge Abrams denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Certification of Class Action, denied her Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and granted the Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery and Motion to Stay Issuance of the Scheduling Order. The discovery and the issuance of the scheduling order in the instant action are stayed pending the Court's ruling on the Defendants' Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/U82ZCR from Leagle.com. APRIL D CALHOUN, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES NORMAN FINKELSTEIN. WILLIE E LOCKETTE, Defendant, represented by MICHELLE J. HIRSCH -- mhirsch@law.ga.gov. VICTORIA S DARRISAW, Defendant, represented by MARY M. KATZ. KEVIN SPROUL, Defendant, represented by MARY M. KATZ. DYNAMIC LEDGER: Okusko Sues Over Sale of Unregistered Securities ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW OKUSKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DYNAMIC LEDGER SOLUTIONS, INC., THE TEZOS FOUNDATION, KATHLEEN BREITMAN, ARTHUR BREITMAN, and TIMOTHY DRAPER, Case No. 3:17-cv-06829 (N.D. Cal., November 28, 2017), alleges that in connection with Tezos' Initial Coin Offering, the Defendants raised approximately $232 million in digital cryptocurrencies by offering and selling unregistered securities in direct violation of the Securities Act of 1933. From July 1, 2017, through July 14, 2017, the Defendants ran the Tezos ICO during which they raised and were paid approximately 65,703 Bitcoin ("BTC") and 361,122 Ether ("ETH") -- worth approximately $232 million at the time. The primary purpose of the Tezos ICO was to raise funds to develop and establish a Tezos blockchain network and create a Tezos cryptocurrency, the Tezos Token ("XTZ"), according to the complaint. The Defendants have attempted to portray the Tezos ICO as a mere "fundraiser," under which "contributors" or "donors" made "donations," and would receive a certain number of promised Tezos Tokens, based on the amount "donated," that would be issued when, or if, the Tezos blockchain was launched, the Plaintiff alleges. In reality, the Plaintiff contends, the Tezos ICO was a clear offer and sale of securities because, inter alia, the Defendants touted, and Plaintiff and other Tezos ICO investors reasonably expected, that the XTZ investors were promised after the launch of the Tezos blockchain would be worth more than the BTC and ETH invested. DLS is a Delaware corporation founded in August 2015. DLS is controlled by the Breitman Defendants. Defendant Draper, through his firm Draper Associates, had, and may continue to still hold, an ownership interest in Defendant DLS. DLS owns all of the Tezos-related intellectual property, including the source code for the Tezos blockchain network still in development and the Tezos trademark. The Breitmans co-founded DLS and are domiciled in Mountain View, California. They have been married to each other at all relevant times. Tezos Foundation is a Swiss foundation based in Zug, Switzerland, that continues to seek not-for-profit status, but has not been granted such under Swiss law at this time. Tezos Foundation was created to store the so-called "donations" raised from the Tezos ICO. Tezos Foundation is described by Defendants as being managed by a three-person board. Timothy Draper is a billionaire venture capitalist that runs Draper Associates, a venture capital firm operating out of Menlo Park, California. Mr. Draper, through his firm Draper Associates, had an ownership interest in DLS during the Tezos ICO, and may continue to hold an interest.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 291-2420 Facsimile: (415) 484-1294 E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 636-7171 E-mail: ek@zlk.com EOG RESOURCES: "Ferguson" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Richard Ferguson, individually and for others similarly situated v. EOG Resources, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-03548 (S.D. Tex., November 17, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff Richard Ferguson, worked exclusively for EOG as an oilfield contractor, specifically as a drilling fluids engineer, from approximately March 2014 until April 2015. Defendant EOG Resources, Inc. is one of the largest independent crude oil and natural gas companies in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com litkin@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com mparmet@brucknerburch.com EQUIFAX INC: Faces "St. Clair" Suit in N.D. Ga. Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- KURTIS ST. CLAIR, KYLE MCCLURE, JEREMIAH SMITH, COURTNEY D. SMITH, JOSH RUPNOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EQUIFAX, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-04792-TWT (N.D. Ga., November 28, 2017), arises from a data breach at the Defendant. On September 7, 2017, Equifax disclosed the occurrence of a cybersecurity incident ("Data Breach") in which unauthorized persons gained access to the PII of approximately 143 million U.S. consumers held by Equifax. Based on its investigation, Equifax stated that the period of unauthorized access lasted approximately 10 weeks, from mid-May through July 2017. On October 2, 2017, Equifax disclosed that 2.5 million additional people were impacted by the breach. Equifax is one of the largest consumer credit reporting agencies in the world. Its core business -- the very reason for its existence -- is the collection, aggregation, and sale of the personally identifiable information ("PII") of hundreds of millions of U.S. consumers, usually without their knowledge or consent.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James M. Evangelista, Esq. David J. Worley, Esq. Kristi Stahnke McGregor, Esq. EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC 8100 A. Roswell Road, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30350 Telephone: (404) 205-8400 Facsimile: (404) 205-8395 E-mail: david@ewlawllc.com jim@ewlawllc.com kristi@ewlawllc.com - and - Ariana J. Tadler, Esq. Andrei V. Rado, Esq. Henry Kelston, Esq. MILBERG LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 50th Floor New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: atadler@milberg.com arado@milberg.com hkelston@milberg.com - and - Roger L. Mandel, Esq. LACKEY HERSHMAN, L.L.P. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 777 Dallas, TX 75219-4259 Telephone: (214) 560-2201 Telecopier: (214) 560-2203 E-mail: rlm@lhlaw.net EXETER FINANCE: Ct. Denies Class Certification Bid in "Ginwright" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BILLY GINWRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. EXETER FINANCE CORP., Defendant, Civil Action No. TDC-16-0565 (D. Md.), Judge Theodore D. Chuang of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied both Exeter's Motion for Summary Judgment and Ginwright's Motion for Class Certification. Exeter is an automobile finance company that purchases consumer contracts known as "consumer automobile retail installment contracts" from car dealerships. Once Exeter decides to purchase a contract, it stores an electronic copy of whatever credit application and retail installment contract forms were signed by the customer at the dealership. Exeter conducts and manages telephone calls to its customers through a system known as Aspect that automatically dials calls. On May 23, 2013, Ginwright purchased a vehicle from Baltimore Washington Auto Outlet ("BW Auto Outlet") of Hanover, Maryland and sought a loan to pay for it. Ginwright signed two documents relating to financing. On the first document, a credit application issued by a company called DealerTrack, Ginwright listed his cell phone number in the box for his home phone number and agreed to the following statement. The Credit Application authorized the dealership to solicit financial institutions to extend credit to Ginwright for the purchase of the vehicle. The same day, Ginwright also signed a Retail Installment Sale Contract with BW Auto Outlet, which established the conditions for purchasing the vehicle on credit and the terms for repayment of the loan. Ginwright has brought suit against Exeter alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and the Maryland Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("MTCPA"). He alleges that Exeter violated these laws by calling his cellular telephone repeatedly without his consent between June 2013 and July 2015. Pending before the Court are Exeter's Motion for Summary Judgment and Ginwright's Motion for Class Certification. Exeter seeks summary judgment in its favor based on its assertion that the evidence conclusively establishes that Ginwright provided "prior express consent" to receive autodialed calls, within the meaning of the TCPA and the MTCPA. According to Exeter, Ginwright provided this consent by signing the Credit Application and through oral conversations with Exeter representatives over the course of his loan. It further contends that Ginwright never validly revoked his consent to receive calls from Exeter. In his Motion for Class Certification, Ginwright seeks certification of the following class of all persons within the United States who, on or after Feb. 26, 2012 (i) received a non- emergency telephone call from Exeter (ii) to a cellular telephone (iii) through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system. Judge Chuang finds that Exeter's internal Shaw System loan servicing notes state that consent was not granted at various times over the life of the loan. Whether or not Ginwright orally consented to autodialed calls during loan servicing discussions does not alter the analysis. Although such statements could have provided an additional basis to find express consent, the lack of such statements does not undo his finding of express consent based on the undisputed fact that Ginwright provided his cell phone number on the Credit Application, which constitutes consent as a matter of law under the binding FCC ruling. Having found express consent based on the Credit Application, the Judge says it is not necessary to reach Exeter's other theories for establishing that Ginwright provided express consent. Moreover, he finds that the Shaw System loan servicing records list Ginwright as not having consented to calls on his cell phone on June 1, 2013; June 17, 2015; July 20, 2015; Sept. 8, 2015; and Sept. 9, 2015. Although Exeter claims that these notations suggest that Ginwright never asked Exeter to stop making phone calls to his cell phone, these entries, viewed in the light most favorable to Ginwright, provide some support for his contention that he told Exeter to stop calling his cell phone number. If a factfinder were to determine that Ginwright had revoked his consent, he could succeed on his TCPA and MTCPA claims, because there is no dispute that the calls to Ginwright continued unabated until July 30, 2015. With respect to Ginwright's Motion for Class Certification, Judge Chuang finds that the proposed class does not satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) or the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), and it may not be maintained under any other prong of Rule 23(b). The proposed class has been so broadly defined as to draw no distinctions between the type of calling system used and whether class members consented to receive calls or later revoked such consent. The Judge cannot find that the commonality requirement has been established. Whether Exeter's dialing system qualifies as an ATDS, does not appear to be in serious dispute and cannot be deemed to predominate over the individualized issues of consent, which will drive the outcome of individual claims. For these reasons, Judge Chuang denied both Exeter's Motion for Summary Judgment and Ginwright's Motion for Class Certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/z1HAB5 from Leagle.com. Billy Ginwright, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Howard Carney, Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd. Billy Ginwright, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M. Hutchinson -- dhutchinson@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Ingmar Bancroft Goldson, The Goldson Law Office & Martin Eugene Wolf, Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd. Exeter Finance Corp., Defendant, represented by Andrew Karl Stutzman -- astutzman@stradley.com -- Stradley Ronon Stevens and Young LLP, Brent D. Hitson -- bhitson@burr.com -- Burr and Forman LLP, pro hac vice, Christine Marie Debevec, Stradley Ronon Stevens and Young LLP, pro hac vice, John R. Chiles -- jchiles@burr.com -- Burr & Forman LLP, pro hac vice, John Christopher Suedekum -- csuedekum@burr.com -- Burr & Forman LLP, Matthew Thomas Mitchell - - mmitchel@burr.com -- Burr and Forman LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas Kelly Potter, III -- tpotter@burr.com -- Burr and Forman LLP, pro hac vice & Zachary D. Miller -- zmiller@burr.com -- Burr and Forman LLP, pro hac vice. Exeter Finance Corp., Counter Claimant, represented by Andrew Karl Stutzman, Stradley Ronon Stevens and Young LLP, Brent D. Hitson, Burr and Forman LLP, pro hac vice, Christine Marie Debevec, Stradley Ronon Stevens and Young LLP, pro hac vice, John R. Chiles, Burr & Forman LLP, pro hac vice, John Christopher Suedekum, Burr & Forman LLP, Matthew Thomas Mitchell, Burr and Forman LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas Kelly Potter, III, Burr and Forman LLP & Zachary D. Miller, Burr and Forman LLP. Billy Ginwright, Counter Defendant, represented by Benjamin Howard Carney, Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd, Daniel M. Hutchinson, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Ingmar Bancroft Goldson, The Goldson Law Office & Martin Eugene Wolf, Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd. Exeter Finance Corp., Counter Claimant, represented by Andrew Karl Stutzman, Stradley Ronon Stevens and Young LLP, Brent D. Hitson, Burr and Forman LLP, pro hac vice, Christine Marie Debevec, Stradley Ronon Stevens and Young LLP, pro hac vice, John R. Chiles, Burr & Forman LLP, pro hac vice, John Christopher Suedekum, Burr & Forman LLP, Matthew Thomas Mitchell, Burr and Forman LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas Kelly Potter, III, Burr and Forman LLP & Zachary D. Miller, Burr and Forman LLP. Billy Ginwright, Counter Defendant, represented by Benjamin Howard Carney, Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd, Daniel M. Hutchinson, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Ingmar Bancroft Goldson, The Goldson Law Office & Martin Eugene Wolf, Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd. FACEBOOK INC: CJEU to Decide on Austrian Activist's Privacy Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Techdirt reports that the Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems has appeared a few times on Techdirt, as he conducts his long- running campaign to find out what Facebook is doing with his personal data, and to take back control of it. In 2011, he obtained a CD-ROM (remember those?) containing all the information that Facebook held about him at that time. More dramatically, in 2015 Schrems persuaded the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that the Safe Harbor framework for transferring personal data from the EU to the US was illegal under EU laws because of the NSA's spying, as revealed by Edward Snowden. As Schrem's detailed commentary (pdf) on that CJEU judgment explains, the case was specifically about Facebook, although it applied much more generally. Last month, we wrote about another case, currently being referred to the CJEU, concerning Facebook's use of standard contractual clauses (SCCs) (pdf), also known as "model clauses". It's an alternative legal approach for transferring data across the Atlantic, and if the CJEU rules against Facebook again, it could make things rather difficult for the big US Internet companies (but ordinary businesses won't be affected much.) You might think that all these Facebook cases would be more than enough for any privacy activist, but not for Schrems, apparently. He is engaged in yet another legal action that involves Facebook. As Schrems explains: "[he] has sued Facebook over his private Facebook account at his home court in Vienna, Austria. Schrems accuses Facebook to massively violate strict European privacy laws. The lawsuit includes claims from invalid privacy policies all the way to data sharing with US intelligence services. In addition to bringing his personal claims, he also invited other users to sign over their rights to him, to form a so-called "Austrian style class action" against Facebook, in which he represents other users on a pro bono basis." This legal action is rather different from the others discussed above, and involves Schrems personally suing Facebook in Austria using civil law. Unusually, he also gathered 25,000 people to join him in a class action against Facebook, each asking for EUR500 damages. Because of the importance of the legal questions under discussion, Austria's supreme court referred them to the CJEU for a definitive ruling. As is usual, before the CJEU judges themselves rule, one of the court's Advocates General offered a legal opinion, which has just been published. Two questions were considered: whether Schrems could bring a case at all, and whether a class action was possible. Here's Schrems' explanation of what the Advocate General (AG) said for the first issue: Facebook tried to argue that Mr Schrems cannot bring a lawsuit at his home court, as he would not qualify as a consumer, but as a business. This is despite the fact that the courts have found, that the lawsuit is organized on a pro bono basis and he never used his Facebook account in any commercial way. The strategy of Facebook was to force Schrems to bring his lawsuit at Facebook's home court in Dublin -- where a single case of EUR500 could cost Millions in legal fees. This was clearly rejected by the AG, just like previously by the Higher Regional Court in Vienna: Individuals that fight for their rights as volunteers are not 'businesses' and can enjoy their consumer rights. The AG confirmed: Mr Schrems can bring a 'model case' in Vienna. On the second question: the advocate general accepted Facebook's point of view: An "Austrian style class action" is only admissible against an Austrian company -- but not if an Austrian consumer sues a company in another EU member state [Facebook's EU operations have their headquarters in Ireland]. Schrems spends some time explaining why he thinks the Advocate General is wrong, and it's worth reading his thoughts here, since Schrems is naturally something of an expert in this domain after all these years. But as he also points out, what counts is what the five judges who will consider the case at the CJEU decide. Although they usually accept the reasoning of the Advocate General, they don't have to and sometimes disagree. Schrems thinks their judgment will be handed down in January 2018, after which the case will go back to the Austrian courts to make a final ruling based on the CJEU's findings. [GN] FITBIT INC: Federal Judge Refuses to Grant Summary Judgment ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal judge refused to grant Fitbit summary judgment in a class action accusing it of lying that its wearable device can track sleep quality. The case is JAMES P. BRICKMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FITBIT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-02077-JD (N.D. Calif.). The plaintiffs are represented by Patrick Perotti and Frank Bartela of Dworken & Bernstein Co. in Painesville, Ohio. Fitbit is represented by William Stern, Erin Bosman and Julie Park of Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco and San Diego. FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit on Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that a class of workers claims Ford made them work off-the-clock for 15 minutes before and after their shifts and automatically deducted time for lunch breaks, regardless of whether they took one. The case is ROLLIN DYE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, No. ____ (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Andrew H. Haber, Esq. Dennis R. Favaro, Esq. Max Barack, Esq. FAVARO & GORMAN, LTD. 835 Sterling Avenue, Suite 100 Palatine, IL 60067 Tel: (847) 934-0060 Email: dfavaro@favarogorman.com ahaber@favarogorman.com mbarack@favarogorman.com FORECLOSURE EXPEDITORS: Court Narrows Claims in "Hamilton" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JEFFERY S. HAMILTON, and KALEIMAEOLE NOLA LINDSEY LATRONIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, V. FORECLOSURE EXPEDITORS INITIATORS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, and NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC., a Washington corporation, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 13-00145 DKW-KJM (D. Haw.), Judge Derrick K. Watson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawai'i granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' wrongful foreclosure and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage causes of action; and denied as to the Plaintiffs' Hawai'i Revised Statutes ("HRS") Section 480-2 claims. Defendants Northwest Trustee Services ("NWTS") and Foreclosure Expeditors/Initiators ("FEI") are entities that assisted mortgagees in the non-judicial foreclosures of the Plaintiffs' mortgages. In their First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), filed on April 24, 2013, the Named Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, allege that NWTS and FEI, plus several law firms and individual attorneys, violated state law during the course of non-judicial foreclosure proceedings. Hamilton and Latronic each executed mortgages to purchase real property in Hawaii, and each mortgage included a power-of-sale clause. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., the mortgagee under the Hamilton Mortgage, recorded the "Notice of Mortgagee's Intention to Foreclose Under Power of Sale" on or around Oct. 14, 2008, and the non-judicial foreclosure sale of Hamilton's property took place on Feb. 4, 2009. U.S. Bank, the assignee of the Latronic Mortgage, recorded its first "Notice of Mortgagee's Intention to Foreclose Under Power of Sale" on April 8, 2010, which was cancelled and followed by a subsequent Notice of Sale, recorded on May 13, 2010. The non-judicial foreclosure sale of Latronic's property took place on June 16, 2010. The Plaintiffs allege that their foreclosing mortgagees contracted with NWTS to assist in foreclosing on the Hamilton and Latronic mortgages, and NWTS, in turn, arranged for its affiliated law firm, Routh Crabtree Olsen, P.S. ("RCO"), to represent the foreclosing mortgagees in connection with the non-judicial foreclosures of those mortgages. According to them, NWTS authorized, ordered, directed, and/or reviewed and consented to the acts, policies, and practices of Defendants RCO and RCO Hawaii, LLC in connection with the non-judicial foreclosures of mortgages held by NWTS's clients. NWTS arranged for FEI to publish the Notices of Sale as required by HRS Section 667-5, but charged the foreclosing mortgagee amounts higher than what was actually paid to publish the Notices of Sale in newspapers of general circulation in the counties where the properties were located, without the mortgagees' knowledge or consent. Generally, the Plaintiffs allege three causes of action: (i) wrongful foreclosure; (ii) violations of HRS Section 480-2(a); and (iii) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage ("IIPEA"). As redress for the Defendants' repeated violations of HRS Section 480-2(a), wrongful foreclosure, and tortious interference with the prospective economic advantage of the Plaintiffs, each demands, inter alia, damages, treble damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs. NWTS and FEI ask dismissal, arguing that they cannot be liable for the wrongful foreclosure or HRS Chapter 480 claims against them as a matter of law because, as agents of a foreclosing mortgagee, they owe no duty by statute or under the common law to mortgagors. The Plaintiffs counter that they state cognizable claims both under the relevant statutes and also because a non-attorney agent owes a duty to use reasonable means to maximize the sales price when choosing to actively participate in a non-judicial foreclosure. The Defendants also move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' IIPEA cause of action as untimely and for failure to state a claim, which the Plaintiffs did not oppose. First, because no private cause of action exists against a mortgagee's agent based on alleged violations of the non-judicial foreclosure statute, HRS Chapter 667, and Hawai'i courts have yet to recognize such a cause of action under the common law, Judge Watson concludes that the Plaintiffs' wrongful foreclosure claim will be dismissed. Second, the Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that NWTS and FEI's conduct occurred in the course of trade or commerce' with the Plaintiffs, as is necessary to sustain a claim for unfair or deceptive acts or practices and unfair methods of competition under Section 480-2. Finally, the Plaintiffs' claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage fails to state a claim under the circumstances alleged and therefore will be dismissed. For these reasons, Judge Watson granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' wrongful foreclosure and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage causes of action. He denied the Motion, however, with respect to the Plaintiffs' HRS Section 480-2 claims. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/eS2cNA from Leagle.com. Jeffrey S. Hamilton, Plaintiff, represented by Brandee J. Faria, Perkin & Faria. Jeffrey S. Hamilton, Plaintiff, represented by Bridget Gallagher Morgan -- morgan@bsds.com -- Bickerton Dang LLLP, James J. Bickerton -- bickerton@bsds.com -- Bickerton Lee Dang & Sullivan, John F. Perkin -- perkin@perkinlaw.com -- Perkin & Faria, Raymond C. Cho, Affinity Law Group, Stanley H. Roehrig -- shroehrig@bsds.com -- Law Office of Stanley H. Roehrig & Van-Alan H. Shima, Affinity Law Group. Kaleimaeole Nola Lindsey Latronic, Plaintiff, represented by Brandee J. Faria, Perkin & Faria, Bridget Gallagher Morgan, Bickerton Dang LLLP, James J. Bickerton, Bickerton Lee Dang & Sullivan, John F. Perkin, Perkin & Faria, Raymond C. Cho, Affinity Law Group, Stanley H. Roehrig, Law Office of Stanley H. Roehrig & Van-Alan H. Shima, Affinity Law Group. Foreclosure Expeditors/Initiators LLC, Defendant, represented by Audrey Malia Yap, Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP, Edmund K. Saffery -- esaffery@goodsill.com -- Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP, Lynda L. Arakawa -- larakawa@goodsill.com -- Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP & Lauren K. Chun -- lchun@goodsill.com -- Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP. Northwest Trustee Services Inc., Defendant, represented by Audrey Malia Yap, Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP, Edmund K. Saffery, Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP, Lynda L. Arakawa, Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP & Lauren K. Chun, Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP. FOXTEL: Australian Workers File Wage Theft Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- 7News Melbourne reports that Australian workers who were paid as little as three dollars an hour have launched a million-dollar class action. They sold products for big companies including Foxtel and Telstra through labour hire agencies. Lawyers say their working conditions amounted to "modern-day slavery". "It's like, I suppose, being in a cult -- you had no way of getting out unless you were going to be carried out," former worker Clint Webb said. The workers are seeking compensation for wage theft, bullying and humiliation. "They end up in a job where they are working 60 to 70 hours a week and are pulling down just a few hundred bucks," National Union of Workers spokesman Godfrey Moase said. "That is terrible." Australia's minimum wage is $18 an hour, and the union will argue the companies have breached the Fair Work Act. [GN] FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Denial of "Wood" Class Cert Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Donald E. Wood, Appellant-Appellant, v. Richard J. Simmers, Chief, Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management, Appellee-Appellee, Case No. 17AP-269 (Ohio App.), Judge Lisa L. Sadler of the U.S. Court of Appeals of Ohio for the Tenth District, Franklin County, affirmed Franklin County Court's order affirming Oil and Gas Commission's order denying the Appellant's motion to certify a class. The Appellant is the owner of 16 oil and gas wells in Ohio. He is also an attorney licensed to practice law in Ohio. On July 6, 2015, the Appellee issued Chief's Order 2015-345, finding that the Appellant failed to maintain and/or file financial assurance with the Division as required by R.C. 1509.07(C). The chief's order required the Appellant to immediately suspend all oil and gas operations and, within 30 days of receipt of the order, do one of the following: execute and file a surety bond, certificate of deposit, irrevocable letter of credit, cash or cashier's check with the division; properly plug and abandon all wells; or transfer ownership of all his oil and gas wells to another qualified owner. On Aug. 3, 2015, the Appellant filed a notice of appeal to the commission, pursuant to R.C. 1509.36, from the July 6, 2015 chief's order. Therein, he argued the chief's order affected a change of policy in the Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management regarding financial assurance and such change in policy may be affected only by an amendment to the relevant provisions of the Ohio Revised Code or the Ohio Administrative Code, not by a chief's order. According to him, prior to July 6, 2015, the chief permitted well owners to establish proof of financial responsibility by filing a Form 3 Financial Statement. On Jan. 11, 2016, the Appellant filed a motion with the commission, pursuant to Civ.R. 23(B)(3), seeking certification of a class of existing, non-exempt well owners who received the chief's order prohibiting them from providing proof of financial responsibility by means of a Form 3 Financial Statement. In his motion, he represented that approximately 43 such well owners received the chief's order at issue in the case. On Nov. 18, 2016, the Commission issued an order denying the Appellant's motion to certify a class. It did not reach the merits of the Appellant's arguments regarding the lawfulness of Chief's Order 2015-345. Pursuant to R.C. 1509.37, the Appellant appealed to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas from the decision of the commission. On Jan. 4, 2017, he filed a motion requesting the common pleas court to certify a class action pursuant to Civ.R. 23(B)(3). In a decision and entry dated March 21, 2017, the common pleas court affirmed the commission's Nov. 18, 2016 order and denied his Jan. 4, 2017 motion to certify a class. The Appellant appealed to the court from the decision of the common pleas court. Judge Sadler explains that the common pleas court found that the Commission's decision to deny class certification was lawful and reasonable. Under such circumstances, R.C. 1509.37 required the common pleas court to affirm the order. Nothing in R.C. 1509.37 permits the common pleas court to entertain a motion for class certification in ruling on an appeal from the commission. Moreover, the Judge says Civ.R. 1(C) specifies that the civil rules where clearly inapplicable, will not apply to procedure (i) upon appeal to review any judgment, order or ruling or in all other special statutory proceedings. Because she finds that Civ.R. 23(B)(3) certification is clearly inapplicable in an R.C. 1509.37 appeal, class certification is unavailable to litigants in such an appeal. For these reasons, Judge Sadler held that the common pleas court did not err when it affirmed the order of the commission and denied the Appellant's motion for class certification. Accordingly, to the extent the Appellant's merit brief sets forth a reviewable assignment of error, she overruled it. Having overruled the Appellant's sole assignment of error, she affirmed the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Decision is available at https://is.gd/YtsIOw from Leagle.com. Donald E. Wood -- dwood@attorneydonaldwood -- for appellant. On brief: Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Gene D. Park, for appellee. Argued: Gene D. Park. FREEDOM 1ST: Havidic Seeks to Recover Pay for Off-the-Clock Work ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rose Havidic, James Jones and Clyde Ruff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Freedom 1st Transportation, LLC, and Josh Reinert Defendants, Case No. 17- cv-01859 (N.D. Ill., December 5, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wage compensation, liquidated damages and statutory penalties resulting from violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law and Illinois Wage Payment Collection Act. Freedom 1st provides transportation pursuant to various private and governmental contracts to transport special needs, disabled and elderly passengers to medical and other appointments. Plaintiffs worked as drivers who claim compensation for off-the- clock work that included vehicle pre-trip inspections, training programs, accounting of monetary receipts and other paperwork and parking the vehicle. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Russell J. Heitz, Esq. Law Office of Heitz & Bromberek, Ltd. 300 E. 5th Ave., Suite 380 Naperville, IL 60563 Tel: (630) 355-1458 Fax: (630) 355-4390 - and - David J. Fish, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. Kim Hilton, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 E. 5th Ave., Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Tel: (630) 355-7590 Fax: (630) 778-0400 Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com GIGAMON INC: "Carpenter" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Brian Carpenter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gigamon Inc., Corey M. Mulloy, Paul A. Hooper, Arthur W. Coviello, Jr., Joan Dempsey, Ted C. Ho, John H. Kispert, Paul Milbury, Michael C. Ruettgers, Robert E. Switz, and Dario Zamarian, Case No. 3:17-cv-06653 (N.D. Calif., November 17, 2017), is a class action complaint for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On October 26, 2017, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger ("Merger Agreement") between Gigamon and Elliott Management Corporation, pursuant to which the Company's shareholders stand to receive $38.50 in cash for each share of Gigamon stock they own, representing $1.6 billion in equity value. On November 13, 2017, in order to convince Gigamon shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Preliminary Proxy Statement on a Schedule 14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, says the complaint. Plaintiff Brian Carpenter is, and at all relevant times has been, a holder of Gigamon common stock. Defendant Gigamon provides a visibility platform to allow companies to manage, secure, and understand their data across their networks, and offers active visibility into physical and virtual network traffic. Defendant Gigamon is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal executive offices at 3300 Olcott Street, Santa Clara, California 95054. The Company's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "GIMO." The Individual Defendants are board of directors of Gigamon. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Tel: (424) 256-2884 Fax: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com GIGAMON INC: "Stouffer" Suit Challenges Acquisition by Elliott -------------------------------------------------------------- SPENCER STOUFFER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. GIGAMON INC., COREY M. MULLOY, PAUL A. HOOPER, ARTHUR W. COVIELLO, JR., TED C. HO, JOHN H. KISPERT, PAUL MILBURY, MICHAEL C. RUETTGERS, ROBERT E. SWITZ, JOAN DEMPSEY, and DARIO ZAMARIAN, Case No. 4:17-cv-06789-PJH (N.D. Cal., November 27, 2017), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Gigamon will be acquired by the New York-based private equity firm Elliott Management through its affiliates Ginsberg Holdco, Inc. ("Newco") and Newco's wholly-owned subsidiary, Ginsberg Merger Sub, Inc. On October 26, 2017, Gigamon's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Newco and Merger Sub. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Newco will purchase each issued and outstanding share of Gigamon common stock for $38.50 in cash, for a total value of approximately $1.6 billion. Upon completion of the Merger, Merger Sub will merge with and into Gigamon, with Gigamon surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Newco. Gigamon is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located in Santa Clara, California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. According to the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2016, Gigamon develops "innovative solutions that deliver pervasive, dynamic, and intelligent visibility into data-in-motion traveling across networks of any scale." The Company's Visibility Platform consists of a distributed system of visibility node that is deployed across an organization's infrastructure that is orchestrated from a common software management plane. The Company's Visibility Platform enables organizations to intelligently find, shape and move the relevant traffic to the appropriate security and monitoring tools with their operational environment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com - and - Carl L. Stine, Esq. Fei-Lu Qian, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 Facsimile: (212) 486-2093 E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com fqian@wolfpopper.com GRANBY'S COLLEGE: Class OK'd for Ex-Students Claiming Abuse ----------------------------------------------------------- Jason Magder, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that a judge has authorized a class-action lawsuit to go ahead against Granby's College Mont-Sacre-Coeur on behalf of former students who say they were sexually abused there. Robert Kugler, Esq. -- rkugler@kklex.com -- of the law firm Kugler, Kandestin, is leading the case. He said more than 70 people have come forward with abuse complaints over the years. The span of class action extends from 1932, when the school was founded, until 2008, when the order of Les Freres du Sacre Coeur was no longer in charge. "We expect more people will come forward," Kugler said. "The objective is to make sure that anyone who was sexually abused is eligible to benefit from this class action. We have heard from victims in the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s, so we have little doubt the abuse occurred before then and after then." Kugler said the extent of the alleged abuse seems to be larger than originally thought. "We have amended the class action to cover all the abusers who were disclosed to us and there were 11. There may be more; we don't know that," he said. In one of the cases, reported in the Gazette in 2016, a former student alleged that, starting at age 13 and from 1972 to 1975, he was abused more than 300 times when he was a boarder and Brother Claude Lebeau was a dorm supervisor. Now that the class-action suit has been authorized, it will take about a year to proceed to court. If it is successful, others who can show they have been abused by staff at the school could be eligible for compensation. Kugler said anyone who feels they have been a victim should contact him at 514-878-2861, Ext. 116. That also goes for others who have suffered from abuse in other situations. "We keep their names and any identifying information confidential, so they need to have no fear to come forward," he said. Kugler has experience with similar actions. On Nov. 17, he filed a petition for authorization in Quebec Superior Court, targeting the Servites de Marie religious order and College Servite, formerly known as College Notre-Dame des Servites, in Ayer's Cliff. The lead plaintiff in that case alleges he was repeatedly sexually abused by Father Jacques Desgrandchamps between 1973 and 1975. He says he was 12 when the abuse started. Desgrandchamps, who taught different subjects at the high school, asked him to help correct other students' history tests. Within a few days, he said, Desgrandchamps started inviting him to his room, where he sexually abused him on numerous occasions. The alleged acts included forced oral sex "several times a week" and, on one occasion, an attempt to sodomize him. In both cases, the accusations have not been proven in court. [GN] HAKKASAN NYC: Can Compel Arbitration in "Zhu" FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SUQIN ZHU, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. HAKKASAN NYC LLC, HAKKASAN HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 16 Civ. 5589 (KPF) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, and denied their request that the Court orders individual arbitration in the matter. Plaintiff Zhu commenced the putative collective action by filing the Complaint on July 13, 2016, on behalf of all persons employed by the Defendants as sous chefs and other similarly situated employees holding comparable positions after July 30, 2012. Plaintiff Zhu alleged that: (i) between March 17, 2013, and July 1, 2016, the Defendants failed to provide her with overtime compensation for time worked beyond 40 hours each workweek; (ii) her workdays frequently lasted longer than 10 hours, but the Defendants did not pay her spread of hours premium for every day in which she worked over 10 hours; (iii) the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiff and other members of the contemplated class as salaried, exempt employees; (iv) the Defendants did not provide the Plaintiff with proper written notice about the terms and conditions of her employment upon hire or upon pay increases in relation to their rate of pay, regular pay cycle, and rate of overtime pay; (v) the Defendants failed to provide detailed paystub information every payday; (vi) Zhu, who is Han Chinese, was required to work substantially more hours for the same pay as her Caucasian colleagues who performed similar work functions; and (vii) the Defendants provided Caucasian employees with more paid holidays than they did to Chinese employees. In lieu of answering the Complaint, the Defendants filed a pre- motion letter on Oct. 18, 2016, requesting leave to move to compel arbitration, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, of the Plaintiffs' claims alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law on a class and collective action basis, as well as individual discrimination claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. They also move to dismiss the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) or stay the action pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, and for costs and fees associated with the pre- motion letter. On Oct. 20, 2016, Plaintiff Zhu filed a letter motion requesting leave to file a motion to certify a collective action. On Oct. 21, 2016, Plaintiff Zhu filed a subsequent letter opposing the Defendants' pre-motion letter to compel arbitration in which Zhu argued that she was fraudulently induced into signing the agreement. At a pre-motion conference on Oct. 27, 2016, the Court considered Plaintiff Zhu's request for leave to file a certification motion and the Defendants' request for leave to file a motion to compel arbitration. At that conference, the parties indicated that they wished to engage in settlement discussions before engaging in motion practice. For that reason, the Court did not rule on the parties' letter motions. On Nov. 8, 2016, Nelson Leung and Lip Kuen Moy filed consent forms. The Court notes that it had not certified a collective action in the case and that, to this day, the Plaintiffs have filed neither a conditional certification motion nor an amended complaint adding Leung and Moy as the Plaintiffs. However, the parties' submissions refer to Leung and Moy as Individual Plaintiffs and state that Leung and Moy joined the case when they filed consents to sue. The Court adopts the parties' framework and, following the parties' lead, refers to Leung and Moy as the Plaintiffs in the action. On March 31, 2017, after the parties tried unsuccessfully to settle the case, the Court ordered the Defendants to file their motion to compel arbitration on or before April 20, 2017; the Plaintiffs to file their opposition by May 11, 2017; and the Defendants to file their reply, if any, by May 25, 2017. The parties filed their papers accordingly. Judge Failla finds that the Arbitration Agreement is valid and enforceable and that the Plaintiffs' claims fall within its scope. Accordingly, he granted the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. However, because the availability of collective arbitration is not a "question of arbitrability," he reserved the question for the arbitrator. The Judge similarly finds that the Plaintiffs' claim that the confidentiality clause is invalid under Cheeks is not a "question of arbitrability" and must therefore be decided in the first instance by the arbitrator. Pursuant to binding Second Circuit precedent, the Clerk of Court is ordered to stay the case pending the outcome of arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/1p25Ua from Leagle.com. Suqin Zhu, Plaintiff, represented by William Michael Brown -- wbrown@hanglaw.com -- Hang & Associates, PLLC. Suqin Zhu, Plaintiff, represented by Jian Hang -- jhang@hanglaw.com -- Hang & Associates, PLLC, William Michael Brown, Hang & Associates, PLLC & Jian Hang, Hang & Associates, PLLC. Lip Kuen Moy, Plaintiff, represented by Jian Hang, Hang & Associates, PLLC & Jian Hang, Hang & Associates, PLLC. Nelson Leung, Plaintiff, represented by Jian Hang, Hang & Associates, PLLC & Jian Hang, Hang & Associates, PLLC. Hakkasan NYC LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas Joseph Klein - - Douglas.Klein@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Felice B. Ekelman -- EkelmanF@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.. Hakkasan Holdings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas Joseph Klein, Jackson Lewis P.C. & Felice B. Ekelman, Jackson Lewis P.C. HCP INC: Robbins Geller, Motley Rice to Lead in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case styled Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund, Plaintiff. v. HCP, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-1106 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, appointed Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Motley Rice as lead counsel. The Court denied Albert J. Belle's and the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi ("Mississippi PERS")'s motions for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and approval of counsel; and granted the motion of Societe Generale Securities Services GmbH ("SGSS Germany") and the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System for appointment as the co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of Counsel. Plaintiff Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund brings the action on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Defendant HCP's common stock from March 30, 2015 through Feb. 8, 2016, inclusive. It alleges all the Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. It also alleges Defendant HCP and the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the 1934 Exchange Act. HCP is a real estate investment trust, and Defendant HCR ManorCare was its most significant client. Because of HCP's investment in ManorCare, HCP derived approximately 30% of its revenue from its leases with ManorCare during the class period. During the class period, the Defendants allegedly misrepresented ManorCare's financial performance, falsely assuring investors that HCP's ManorCare assets and revenue stream from its leases with ManorCare were secure and unimpaired. But during that time ManorCare was allegedly engaged in billing fraud, generating over $6 billion in false claims for reimbursement. This behavior eventually led to three whistleblower lawsuits, filed under seal in 2009 and 2011, and an investigation by the United States Department of Justice. The DOJ eventually intervened in the lawsuits, resulting in their public disclosure on April 20, 2015. HCP issued corrective disclosures the following day. But HCP allegedly continued to mislead its investors by downplaying the severity of the situation. HCP subsequently disclosed two impairment charges relating to its business dealings with ManorCare but continued to assure investors of ManorCare's profitability. Each disclosure brought with it a decline of less than three percent in HCP's stock. Finally, on Feb.9, 2016, HCP disclosed, among other things, that it had taken an $836 million non-cash impairment on its ManorCare lease assets and that ManorCare could no longer be relied upon to pay its rent. HCP's stock price declined 17% that day. The Plaintiff filed the action on May 9, 2016. On May 10, 2016, it published notice of the pendency of the action, giving purported class members until July 11, 2016, to move for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff. Three class members or groups of class members timely filed motions seeking to be appointed the Lead Plaintiff and to have their choice of counsel approved. One of those movants, Belle, reviewed the competing motions and subsequently filed a notice of non-opposition, recognizing he does not appear to have the largest financial interest in the action. This leaves Mississippi PERS and the group comprised of SGSS Germany and Birmingham. On Sept. 13, 2016, Judge Helmick held a hearing on the remaining two motions and took the matter under advisement. Judge Helmick denied Belle's and Mississippi PERS' motions for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and approval of counsel; and granted the motion of SGSS Germany and the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System for appointment as the co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of Counsel. He explains that SGSS Germany is a co-Lead Plaintiff, so it will not be the only decision-maker. And there is no evidence before him suggesting Birmingham has a relationship with SGSS Germany's affiliates. Further, SGSS Germany and Birmingham have both served or are serving as the Lead Plaintiffs in other securities class actions. They have represented to him that they fully appreciate and understand the Lead Plaintiff's role under the PSLRA and are prepared to execute their responsibilities accordingly. SGSS Germany has also declared that its independent legal department will be the internal corporate division overseeing the litigation and making decisions on its behalf. Neither Societe Generale SA nor SG Americas Securities, LLC will be involved in the case. Thus, the Judge is assured that SGSS Germany and Birmingham fully understand their obligations to actively represent the class and that they are prepared to vigorously pursue recovery on behalf of all the class members. Having already found Robbins Geller and Motley Rice experienced and capable, he will approve them as the Lead Plaintiffs' choice of counsel. Accordingly, Judge Helmick denied Belle's and Mississippi PERS' motions for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and approval of counsel. He granted the motion of SGSS Germany and Birmingham for appointment as the co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/CDucSW from Leagle.com. Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Scott D. Simpkins -- sdsimp@climacolaw.com -- Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli. Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Avi Josefson -- avi@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, Gerald H. Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, Jack Landskroner, Landskroner Grieco Merriman, John R. Climaco -- jrclim@climacolaw.com -- Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli & Rebecca E. Boon -- Rebecca.Boon@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman. Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, Plaintiff, represented by Ross M. Shikowitz -- ross@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, Jack Landskroner, Landskroner Grieco Merriman & Scott D. Simpkins, Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli. HCP, Inc., Defendant, represented by Audra J. Soloway -- asoloway@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Daniel J. Kramer -- dkramer@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Patrick J. Somers -- psomers@kbkfirm.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison & James A. King -- jking@porterwright.com -- Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur. HCR ManorCare, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael D. Meuti -- mmeuti@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, Jessie M. Gabriel -- jgabriel@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler & Thomas D. Warren -- twarren@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler. Lauralee Martin, Defendant, represented by Audra J. Soloway, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Daniel J. Kramer, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Patrick J. Somers, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison & James A. King, Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur. Timothy Schoen, Defendant, represented by Audra J. Soloway, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Daniel J. Kramer, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Patrick J. Somers, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison & James A. King, Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur. Paul A. Ormond, Defendant, represented by Michael D. Meuti, Baker & Hostetler, Jessie M. Gabriel, Baker & Hostetler & Thomas D. Warren, Baker & Hostetler. Steven M. Cavanaugh, Defendant, represented by Michael D. Meuti, Baker & Hostetler, Jessie M. Gabriel, Baker & Hostetler & Thomas D. Warren, Baker & Hostetler. Albert J Belle, Movant, represented by Katherine C. Ferguson -- kferguson@kmfylaw.com -- Kooperman Gillespie Mentel. Societe Generale Securities Services GmbH, Movant, represented by Christopher F. Moriarty -- cmoriarty@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice, Darren J. Robbins -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Gregg S. Levin -- glevin@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice, Jack Reise -- JReise@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, pro hac vice, Joseph F. Rice -- jrice@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice, Nathan R. Lindell -- nlindell@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Tricia L. McCormick -- TriciaM@rgrdlaw.com - - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, William H. Narwold -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice, Jack Landskroner, Landskroner Grieco Merriman & Richard M. Kerger, Kerger Law Firm. City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System, Movant, represented by Darren J. Robbins, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Gregg S. Levin, Motley Rice, Jack Reise, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, pro hac vice, Nathan R. Lindell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Tricia L. McCormick, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Jack Landskroner, Landskroner Grieco Merriman & Richard M. Kerger, Kerger Law Firm. HERTZ RENTAL: Settles Parking Violation Ticket Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that if your rental car company passed on a parking violation to you and added costs, you may qualify for a settlement. New claims allege Hertz passed on administrative and handling fees along with the ticket. A settlement means you could get $10 to $20 per incident if it happened to you during a certain period. The deadline to file was November 30, 2017. Hertz claims no wrongdoing in settling. Think back. Did you buy a laptop, computer, cell phone, cordless power tool or anything else powered by a lithium-ion battery between 2001 and 2011? I'm guessing you did, and it could mean money for you. Lawsuits allege the top makers of those batteries schemed to raise and fix prices. It's a $45 million settlement and the payout is determined by how many people file a claim. The deadline to file was November 29, 2017. The makers claimed no wrongdoing in settling this lawsuit. Have you been looking for relatives or wanted to know your own genetic health risks? If you tried 23andme in the past, you could get a little money back, $12 cash or a $40 certificate. That's the settlement after a lawsuit alleged the company misrepresented their products. It affects purchases made between 2007 and 2013. The deadline to file a claim was December 6, 2017. The company claims no wrongdoing in settling this lawsuit. [GN] HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Deal in Shareholder Derivative Suit Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases styled In re: HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. STANLEY MORRICAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, A. J. COPELAND, Objector-Appellant, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY; et al., Defendants-Appellees, VINCENT HO, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee. In re: HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, STANLEY MORRICAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, HARRIET STEINBERG, Objector- Appellant, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY; et al., Defendants- Appellees, VINCENT HO, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee, Case Nos. 15-16688, 15-16690 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's approval of the settlement. In the shareholder derivative suit, the Ninth Circuit reviews a settlement agreement that included corporate governance reforms but no monetary compensation for shareholders. The appeal stems from HP's failed acquisition of Autonomy Corp. The Appellate Court finds that the reforms in the settlement set forth an extensive, detailed list of procedures for HP to follow in future mergers and acquisitions. The settlement also gave shareholders the right to sue to enforce its terms, including the governance reforms -- a right they would not have had absent the settlement. The district court's finding that the litigation influenced HP's decision to adopt the corporate governance reforms was supported by the record. The record also supports the district court's conclusion that the settlement negotiations were not collusive. The Appellate Court finds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the scope of the release. Objectors cite no circuit authority for their argument that a liability release can only encompass those defendants who made a concrete contribution to the settlement; indeed, we have acknowledged some authority to the contrary. It also finds that none of the objections to the notice of settlement have merit. Most of Objectors' concerns amount to the argument that the notice did not contain every conceivable detail of the settlement. There was also sufficient time to lodge objections. More than three months elapsed between publication of the notice and the objection deadline; the Appellate Court has approved much shorter deadlines. The Appellate Court also finds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in keeping certain documents sealed following final judgment. The district court adopted the special master's detailed consideration of whether HP's limited sealing motions should be granted. The special master found that HP provided compelling reasons to justify its sealing motion, including that the documents at issue included trade secrets, material protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, and confidential whistleblower information. Finally, the Appellate Court finds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award attorneys' fees to Rodney Cook. Cook claims he conferred a substantial benefit on HP by influencing the district court's decision to order the removal of a retention agreement from the settlement. That position is belied by the district court's pointed finding that its decision on the removal order had nothing to do with Cook. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/tmMA9n from Leagle.com. HLO COLLECTION: Accused by "Muhammad" Suit of Violating FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------------- ISXAAQ MUHAMMAD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HLO COLLECTION SERVICES, LLC and NICHOLAS G. HIGGINS, PC, Case No. 0:17-cv-05252 (D. Minn., November 28, 2017), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to meaningfully convey the name of the creditor to whom the alleged debt of the Plaintiff is owed. The Defendants are entities that are engaged, by use of the mails and telephone, in the business of attempting to collect debts. The Defendants regularly collect or attempt to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due, another.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: JD Haas, Esq. JD HAAS AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC 9801 Dupont Ave. South, Suite 430 Bloomington, MN 55431 Telephone: (952) 345-1025 Facsimile: (952) 854-1665 E-mail: jdhaas@consumerlawinfo.com HOF'S HUT: Court Dismisses "MacKinnon" TCPA Suit with Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice the case, STEVE MACKINNON, Plaintiff, v. HOF'S HUT RESTAURANTS, INC., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01456-JAM-DB (E.D. Cal.). In April 2017, the Plaintiff made a dinner reservation at Lucille's Smokehouse Bar-B-Que in Rocklin, California, a restaurant owned by the Defendant. When making the reservation, Plaintiff was asked for and provided his cellphone number to the restaurant. The restaurant later sent the Plaintiff a text message confirming his reservation. In response, the Plaintiff filed the class-action lawsuit on July 13, 2017, alleging that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), by sending the text message. The Plaintiff concedes that he likely provided express consent to the Defendant to alert him when his dinner reservation was ready but contends that this is insufficient to absolve the Defendant of liability under the TCPA because the Defendant's message included or introduced advertising which the Plaintiff did not consent to receive in writing. The Defendant moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff opposes. Judge Mendez finds that that the Defendant's text message confirming the Plaintiff's dinner reservation does not constitute telemarketing or advertising because it is informative and non- telemarketing in nature. The Plaintiff received a text message that confirmed a reservation for an upcoming dinner that he initiated. And the "View specials" link would have facilitated the transaction that he initiated. The Plaintiff's reliance on Pedro-Salcedo as persuasive or binding authority is, therefore, misplaced. Because he finds that the Defendant's text message to the Plaintiff was not an advertisement, the Judge says the Plaintiff's written consent was not required before he received the text message. Instead, only the Plaintiff's express consent was required. The Plaintiff provided the Defendant with express consent to receive a text message regarding his dinner reservation by providing his phone number to the Defendant. Since he has found that the Plaintiff's allegations establish that he provided the requisite consent to receive the Defendant's text message, the inquiry ends. Judge Mendez needs not, and does not, reach the issue of (i) whether the Defendant used an Automatic Telephone Dialing System in sending the text message giving rise to this lawsuit and (ii) whether the Plaintiff is within the zone of interest that Congress intended to be protected by the TCPA. Finally, the Plaintiff seeks leave to amend should the Court grant the motion to dismiss. The Judge explains that the Plaintiff has pleaded no facts that legally support his TCPA claim. And the Plaintiff has not pointed to any additional facts showing that amendment could save his claim. The Judge will deny Plaintiff's request. For these reasons, Judge Mendez granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/QqAOyJ from Leagle.com. Steve Mackinnon, Plaintiff, represented by Michael James Aschenbrener -- masch@kamberlaw.com -- KamberLaw, LLC. Steve Mackinnon, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Thomas Fraser - - mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net -- The Fraser Law Firm, P.C.. Hof's Hut Restaurants, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joshua Briones -- JBriones@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin & Nicole V. Ozeran -- NVOzeran@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, PC. HOME PERFORMANCE: "Kleeklamp" Sues to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------- Maria Kleeklamp, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Home Performance Alliance, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00660 (M.D. Fla., December 1, 2017), seeks overtime compensation for hours rendered in excess of forty hours per work week with corresponding liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and expenses of the litigation, prejudgment interest and any other further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Home Performance is into the business of installing storm windows and doors where Kleeklamp worked for the Defendant as a salesperson. She was terminated in June 27, 2017 and she seeks to recover her final pay and unpaid overtime wages. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Bill B. Berke, Esq. BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A. 4423 Del Prado Blvd. S. Cape Coral, FL 33904 Telephone: (239) 549-6689 Email: berkelaw@yahoo.com HONDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that consumers claim in a federal class action that Honda Civic 2016-18 models with CVT transmissions may not be in "park" when so indicated, making them dangerous. The case is HEATHER FLOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a California Corporation, and HONDA NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-8744 (C.D. Calif.). Attorneys for Plaintiff, Heather Floyd: Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore Maya, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Tel: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com -- and -- Greg F. Coleman, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Tel: (865) 247-0080 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- and -- Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 900 W. Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Tel: 919-600-5000 Fax: 919-600-5035 Email: Dan@wbmllp.com Hunter@wbmllp.com JUST FOR LAUGHS: Quebec Women Seek Class Action v. Co-Founder ------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that several Quebec women are seeking permission to file a class-action lawsuit against Just For Laughs co-founder Gilbert Rozon for alleged sexual assault. The women, who have created a group called "Les Courageuses" ("The Courageous Ones"), issued a statement through one of the two legal firms representing them. They say they hope their action inspires other victims of sexual assault to come forward, in Quebec and elsewhere. In their statement, they allege Mr. Rozon abused at least 20 women between 1982 and 2016, but they also believe that number is "just the tip of the iceberg." Mr. Rozon, 63, stepped down as president of Just For Laughs in November following allegations from at least 10 women that he either sexually harassed or sexually assaulted them. Just For Laughs has mandated RBC Capital Markets to look into the various possible options surrounding the sale of Mr. Rozon's stake, a process that is ongoing. The Just For Laughs Group has said it intends to continue as normal with its projects. [GN] KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Court Grants Dismissal of "Viggiano" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned AMY VIGGIANO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., Defendant, Civ. Action No. 17-0243-BRM-TJB (D.N.J.). Plaintiff Amy Viggiano asserts claims against Defendant for alleged violations Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The case arises from text messages Plaintiff received from Defendant on her cellular phone in 2016. Plaintiff initially consented to receive the texts, but she later withdrew her consent by replying to the automated texts with a variety of messages. Defendant continued to send texts to Plaintiff that indicated the only way Plaintiff could opt out of the texts would be to text STOP to Defendant. Here, Plaintiff admits she "consented to receive automated commercial text messages from Defendant." Defendant does not deny it used an ATDS to send texts to Plaintiff for a commercial purpose. The only issue, therefore, is whether Plaintiff has pled facts that support a finding she revoked consent in a reasonable manner such that Defendant's continued texts violated the TCPA. In Epps v. Earth Fare, Inc., No. 16-8221, 2017 WL 1424637, (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017), a case with nearly identical facts, the Central District of California dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Epps court found the plaintiff had failed to state a valid TCPA claim because heeding Defendant's opt-out instruction would not have plausibly been more burdensome on Plaintiff than sending verbose requests to terminate the messages. The Epps court also found the plaintiff failed to allege the defendant made it difficult or impossible to effectuate revocations. The Court finds the Epps' court analysis and reasoning persuasive. Plaintiff ignores the Epps court's reasoning that Epps failed to allege the defendant deliberately designed a system that made it difficult or impossible to opt out. The Epps court's remark about the comparative ease of texting STOP versus replying with several sentences was not essential to its ruling. The Court in this case reaches the same conclusion in this matter. Plaintiff does not allege Defendant's purposefully made opting out difficult or impossible. Rather, Plaintiff bases her claim on the fact that Defendant specified a means of opting out. The FCC's ruling are clear a caller may not designate a method of opting out in ways that make it difficult or impossible to effectuate revocations. Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary defy both the FCC's rulings and common sense. The Court has reviewed and taken notice of Plaintiff's supplemental submissions, as well as her sur reply. Nevertheless, the Court finds Plaintiff has not plausibly pled a TCPA violation. Therefore, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. As the Court finds Plaintiff has not plausibly pled a TCPA violation, the Court need not reach Defendant's arguments regarding the class allegations. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 27, 2017 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7yzmyz4 from Leagle.com. AMY VIGGIANO, Plaintiff, represented by GERALD H. CLARK, Clark Law Firm, PC, 811 Sixteenth Avenue. Belmar, NJ 07719 AMY VIGGIANO, Plaintiff, represented by MARK W. MORRIS, CLARK LAW FIRM, 811 Sixteenth Avenue, Belmar, NJ 07719 KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., Defendant, represented by JEFFREY S. JACOBSON -- jjacobson@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP, LAURI A. MAZZUCHETTI -- lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN, LLP & VINCENT P. RAO, II -- vrao@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP. LEMAN USA: Deprives Office Workers of Overtime, Malicki Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- JODIE L. MALICKI on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LEMAN U.S.A., INC., a Domestic Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-01674 (E.D. Wisc., November 28, 2017), alleges that the Defendant operates an unlawful compensation system that deprives current and former non-exempt office and warehouse employees of their wages earned for all compensable work performed each workweek, including overtime. Leman U.S.A., Inc., is a Sturtevant, Wisconsin corporation that provides transportation and logistical services throughout the United States. The Company operates multiple locations throughout the United States, in addition to its Wisconsin location, including offices in Atlanta, Georgia; Charlotte, North Carolina; Chicago, Illinois; Houston, Texas; Los Angeles, California; Miami, Florida; and New York, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. Kelly L. Temeyer, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com ktemeyer@walcheskeluzi.com LITTLE CAESAR'S: "Ishaq" Labor Suit Claims Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Ijaz Ishaq and Fehzen Khan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Little Caesar's Northeast (3- 11), Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-07009, (E.D. N.Y., December 1, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees and prejudgment and post-judgment interest associated with the bringing of this action, plus any additional relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Defendants operate as a chain of pizzerias named "Little Caesar's," where Plaintiffs worked as store staff in different store locations. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Darren P. B. Rumack, Esq. THE KLEIN LAW GROUP 11 Broadway Suite 960 New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 344-9022 Fax: (212) 344-0301 M-I LLC: "Coder" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------ Robert Coder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Murray Alford, Craig Dawson, Michael Maloy, Robert Theiss and Cory Veuleman v. M-I, LLC, Case No. 17-cv-15074 (E.D. La., December 6, 2017), seeks to recover from the defendant unpaid overtime compensation, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is supplier of drilling fluid systems used to improve drilling performance by anticipating fluids-related problems, fluid systems and specialty tools designed to optimize wellbore productivity, production technology solutions to maximize production rates and environmental solutions that safely manage waste volumes generated in both drilling and production operations. Coder worked for M-1 as a drilling fluid specialist. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per work week due to on-call duties. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen N. Elliott, Esq. Kenneth J. Deroche, Jr., Esq. BERNARD, CASSISA, ELLIOTT & DAVIS 3838 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 3050 Metairie, LA 70002-8357 Telephone: (504) 834-2612 Fax: (504) 838-9438 M-I LLC: Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in FCRA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Annica Bianco, Esq., of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an article for Lexology, WROTE that on November 12, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case that would have clarified an important issue in Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) litigation, a popular source of no-injury class action litigation. The petition sought review of a Ninth Circuit decision in a putative class action holding that an "informational injur[y]" constitutes a "real-world harm" sufficient to establish standing for purposes of FCRA litigation. Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 4, M-I LLC v. Syed, No. 16-1524 (June 19, 2017). What constitutes an informational injury, practically speaking? The answer is far from clear. In Syed, the alleged "informational injury" arose from the simple fact that the prospective employer combined into one document the required FCRA disclosure with a liability waiver. Syed v. M-I, LLC, 853 F.3d 492, 499 (9th Cir. 2017). Plaintiff's signature on that single document served as both an authorization for the employer to procure his consumer report and as a broad release of liability. Id. Plaintiff alleged that the combination generated confusion concerning his rights and that he would not have authorized the disclosure had it been a standalone document. Id. The Ninth Circuit held those allegations were sufficient to establish standing. Id. at 500. Stated more generally, the Ninth Circuit found that an informational injury can arise in the FCRA context "when applicants are deprived of their ability to meaningfully authorize [a] credit check." Id. at 499. In reaching this conclusion, the court reasoned that FCRA's requirement that a job candidate authorize the collection of consumer information by a prospective employer creates a right to privacy because the candidate can withhold permission. Id. But the takeaway is broader: so-called "informational injuries" can provide the requisite injury-in-fact to establish standing to pursue a FCRA claim. This is important because FCRA violations can result in statutory penalties ranging from $100 to $1,000 per violation, as well as punitive damages at the discretion of the court, and attorneys' fees and costs. On a class level, these numbers add up. In a 1,000 member class, for example, statutory penalties alone can reach $1,000,000. Syed broadened the universe of harms that may give rise to a FCRA claim, and following the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in Syed, the concept of an "informational injury" will continue to be subject to broad judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court's decision not to hear Syed is also important because it leaves intact the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the merits. After finding the plaintiff had standing, the court went on to hold that the prospective employer's combination of the required FCRA disclosure with a liability waiver was not only a statutory violation, but a willful violation of the statute. Id. at 503. Effectively, the court held that the combination of the forms was knowing or reckless. Id. (citing Safeco Insurance co. of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007)). Under this precedent, employers will continue to face the risk of FCRA liability from even technical violations. The landscape is different in other circuits. In August of this year, for example, the Seventh Circuit considered an analogous situation to Syed and came to the opposite conclusion. Groshek v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 865 F.3d 884 (7th Cir. 2017). In that case, the plaintiff alleged that the prospective employer's failure to provide a FCRA compliant disclosure constituted a concrete informational injury. In Groshek, like Syed, the alleged violation stemmed from the inclusion of "extraneous information" in the disclosure. Id. at 885. The Seventh Circuit found, however, that while the plaintiff had alleged a statutory violation, it was "completely removed from any concrete harm or appreciable risk of harm." Id. at 887. But Groshek distinguished Syed on the facts. The Seventh Circuit reasoned that Syed, unlike Groshek, presented factual allegations plausibly suggesting that the disclosure, as structured, created confusion, and that the plaintiff in Syed would not have signed the disclosure had it been a standalone document, as required by the FCRA. Id. at 889. The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari preserves this arguable split in circuit authority for now. But if the plaintiff in Groshek has his way, the issue will be before the Supreme Court soon. On October 30, 2017, the Groshek plaintiff petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari. Until the Supreme Court decides whether to hear the Groshek appeal, employers concerned about potential FCRA liability should give careful attention to their disclosure forms to ensure they comply with the letter of the statute, to minimize the risk of litigation. If certiorari is granted, regardless of how the Supreme Court decides the matter, the issue of FCRA standing and injury could finally be clarified. [GN] MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Scheck Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA SCHECK, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:17-cv- 02480-JRA (N.D. Ohio, November 27, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Maxim Healthcare is a large and sophisticated corporation which, through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 425-8171 E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew Biller, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC Easton Town Center 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 604-8759 Facsimile: (614) 583-8107 E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com - and - Andrew Kimble, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513) 665-0213 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: akimble@msdlegal.com MICHAEL FOODS: Judge Approves $75MM Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Angela Mueller, writing for Biz Journals, reports that a judge has approved a $75 million settlement of a class action lawsuit against Michael Foods, a subsidiary of St. Louis-based Post Holdings Inc. The suit, filed in 2008 in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleged Michael Foods took part in a price-fixing conspiracy. [GN] MIDLAND CREDIT: "Gold" Suit Disputes Vague Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------------------ Libby Gold, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Midland Funding LLC, Midland Credit Management, Inc. and Encore Capital Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-07048, (E.D. N.Y., December 4, 2017), requests statutory damages, actual damages and attorney's fees and costs of suit along with injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On or about November 30, 2016, Defendants sent the Plaintiff a collection letter seeking to collect a debt. Said latter failed to clearly, explicitly and unambiguously convey the amount of the debt and was void of an explanation about the "timing and system limitations" as well as the amount of the "current balance." New York City regulations require that a debt collector must provide a consumer with specific information about the consumer's rights regarding a time-barred account in every communication with the consumer. Midland Funding is engaged in the business of taking title to charged-off consumer debts, including credit card, auto deficiency and telecom receivables purchased from national financial institutions, major retail credit corporations, telecom companies and resellers of such portfolios. Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Telephone: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Can Arbitrate FDCPA Claims in "Thomas" ------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a Memorandum of Decision and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned NIEASHA THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, No. 2:17-cv-00523 (ADS)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y.). The Plaintiff, Nieasha Thomas, commenced the action against the Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Plaintiff, who is a New York resident, incurred a personal debt to Credit One Bank, N.A., who is not a party to the action. The Plaintiff fell behind on her debt payments. At some point, the debt was transferred to the Defendant. In an effort to collect the debt, the Defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiff. The Second Circuit has held that debt collectors are required to disclose to consumers that their balance may increase due to interest and fees. In Avila v. Riexinger & Assocs., LLC, 817 F.3d 72, 76-77 (2d Cir. 2016), the court said that a "statement of an amount due, without notice that the amount is already increasing due to accruing interest or other charges, can mislead the least sophisticated consumer into believing that payment of the amount stated will clear her account." Here, the Defendant argues that Avila is inapplicable because the letter is clear that interest is not accruing. The Court disagrees. First, the Plaintiff alleges that interest was accruing during the relevant period. The Court must accept the Plaintiff's allegations as true at this stage of the litigation. Second, while the letter states that interest and fees are zero at the time the letter was sent, it does not state whether interest would accrue at a later date. This is further clouded by the fact that the letter classifies the amount owed as the "current balance," implying that interest may accrue. The letter does not clearly state that that the Plaintiff could resolve all of her debt if she pays $633.56. Instead, it leaves open the possibility that interest would have accrued during the mailing of payment. In the Court's view, the Defendant did not meet the minimum standard set out by Avila, because the letter does not state when, if ever, the amount owed by the Plaintiff would increase. The Court is hard pressed to believe that the Defendant would deem the Plaintiff's account satisfied in full if the Plaintiff paid $633.56 two years after the letter was sent. Therefore, the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to plausibly plead claims for relief under Sections 1692e and 1692g based on the letter's failure to adequately convey the debt. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss those claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is denied. While the Court took issue with language contained elsewhere, it did recognize that the language follows almost verbatim the language of Section 1692g(a) -- that is, it does not indicate that a writing is required to contest a debt, but rather only to trigger the debt collector's obligations to obtain and provide verification of the debt. Similarly, other courts in this circuit have found that notices that track the statutory language comply with the FDCPA. Therefore, as the Defendant's letter tracks the statutory language of Section 1692g, which was held by the Second Circuit to not be misleading, it does not violate Section 1692g or Section 1692e. It does not violate Section 1692g because the letter contemplates allowing the Plaintiff to dispute the debt orally, and it does not violate Section 1692e because it is not misleading as to whether a dispute must be made in writing. Nor does the Court find that, when read as a whole, the debt letter is misleading. While the back of the letter encourages debtors to retain several addresses for their records, including an address to which a debtor can mail disputes, it also provides the phone number again and states that "[t]his does not alter or amend your validation rights as described on the front side of this letter." Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot sustain claims for violation of Sections 1692g or 1692e, and the Defendant's motion to dismiss those claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is granted. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint is granted in part, and denied in part. The Court finds that the case clearly falls within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement. The relevant provision defines Claims, which according to the Arbitration Agreement may be submitted to mandatory, binding arbitration by either party, as including "collections matters relating to your account. Unquestionably, the Plaintiff's FDCPA claims arise out of the Defendant's attempts to collect the Plaintiff's credit card account debt. In her briefing, the Plaintiff has not advanced any arguments to the contrary. Therefore, the Plaintiff's individual FDCPA claim clearly falls well within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement. Having determined that Plaintiff's remaining FDCPA claims are within the scope of and subject to the broad arbitration clause of the Credit Card Agreement, and because the Defendant has requested a stay, section 3 of the FAA mandates that the court stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration. The Court finds that the Plaintiff's remaining claims are subject to the arbitration clause in the applicable Credit Card Agreement, and the proceedings in this action must therefore be stayed pending the outcome of arbitration. The Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay this matter pending arbitration is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 27, 2017 Memorandum of Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y74q2xyv from Leagle.com. Nieasha Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Craig B. Sanders -- csanders@barshaysanders.com -- Barshay Sanders, PLLC. Nieasha Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Barshay -- dbarshay@barshaysanders.com -- Sanders Law, PLLC. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dana Brett Briganti -- dbriganti@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Ellen Beth Silverman -- esilverman@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Cullertson & Han Sheng Beh -- hbeh@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. MINEBEA MITSUMI: Feb. 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In Re: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION Case No. 12-md-02311 Honorable Marianne O. Battani In Re: SMALL BEARINGS CASES THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS 2:17-cv-04201-MOB-MKM 2:17-cv-10853-MOB-MKM NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS ACTION WITH MINEBEA DEFENDANTS AND HEARING ON SETTLEMENT APPROVAL TO: ALL INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED SMALL BEARINGS IN THE UNITED STATES DIRECTLY FROM A DEFENDANT DURING THE PERIOD FROM JUNE 1, 2003, THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2017. PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY LITIGATION NOW PENDING IN THIS COURT. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE AND WHY WAS IT SENT TO ME? This Notice is given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of a proposed settlement with Defendants MINEBEA MITSUMI Inc., NMB (USA), Inc., and NMB Technologies Corporation (collectively, "Minebea"). Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Minebea has made a payment in the amount of $9,750,000 (the "Minebea Settlement Fund"), and will provide cooperation to assist Plaintiff in the prosecution of the claims against the Defendants in a related action. This litigation is part of coordinated legal proceedings involving a number of parts used in motor vehicles and other products. The litigation, and the proposed settlement, relate solely to Small Bearings purchased directly from a Defendant. These proceedings do not relate to, and have no effect upon, cases involving any other product or purchaser. For purposes of the proposed settlement, "Small Bearings" refers to bearings whose outer diameter is 30 millimeters or less. Small Bearings are used in numerous applications, including but not limited to the following automotive applications: air conditioning compressors, alternators, anti-lock braking systems, cooling fans, fuel pumps, motors for electric control systems, starters, steering systems, transmissions, water pumps, wheels, and windshield wiper motors. If you purchased Small Bearings in the United States directly from any of the Defendants identified below during the period from June 1, 2003, through February 15, 2017 (the "Class Period"), you are a member of the Minebea Settlement Class and have the rights and options summarized here: * You may remain in the Minebea Settlement Class and be eligible to share in the Minebea Settlement Fund under a claims procedure that will be instituted in the future; * You may exclude yourself from the Minebea Settlement Class, in which case you will not be bound by the settlement and will not be eligible to share in the Minebea Settlement Fund; * If you do not exclude yourself from the Minebea Settlement Class, you may object in writing to the proposed settlement or to the request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses, and appear at the hearing where the Court will determine whether the proposed settlement should be approved as fair, adequate and reasonable, and whether a portion of the Minebea Settlement Fund may be used to pay for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses; and * You may enter an appearance in the litigation through your own counsel at your own expense. You do not need to take any action at this time if you wish to remain in the Minebea Settlement Class. You should retain all of your records of Small Bearings purchases for use in the claims procedure that will be instituted at a later date. WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT CLASS? On May 23, 2017, the Court certified a Direct Purchaser Minebea Settlement Class for purposes of disseminating notice of the proposed settlement, defined as follows: All individuals and entities (excluding any Defendants and their present and former parents, subsidiaries and affiliates) that purchased Small Bearings in the United States directly from one or more Defendants from June 1, 2003 through February 15, 2017. For purposes of this Minebea Settlement Class definition, the following entities are Defendants: MINEBEA MITSUMI Inc.; NMB (USA), Inc.; NMB Technologies Corporation; NSK Ltd.; NSK Americas, Inc.; and NSK Corporation. Plaintiff McGuire Bearing Company has been appointed by the Court to serve as the Class Representative for the Minebea Settlement Class. The Court has appointed the law firms of Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC; Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios LLP; Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.; Cera LLP; and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC to serve as Settlement Class Counsel for the Minebea Settlement Class. WHAT IS THIS LITIGATION ABOUT? In 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of direct purchasers of Small Bearings against Defendants NSK Ltd., NSK Americas, Inc., and NSK Corporation (the "NSK Defendants") (the "NSK Action"). In March 2017, Plaintiff McGuire Bearing Company filed a class action complaint alleging that Minebea conspired with the NSK Defendants to suppress and eliminate competition for Small Bearings by agreeing to raise, fix, maintain, and stabilize prices, and to allocate markets and customers, for Small Bearings sold in the United States, in violation of federal antitrust laws. Plaintiff further alleges that as a result of the conspiracy, it and other direct purchasers of Small Bearings have been injured by paying more for those products than they would have paid in the absence of the alleged illegal conduct. Plaintiff seeks recovery of treble damages, together with reimbursement of ligation costs and expenses and an award of attorneys' fees. Minebea denies Plaintiff's allegations, and has agreed to settle this matter in order to avoid the expense and burden of further litigation. The Court has not issued any findings or rulings with respect to the merits of Plaintiff's claims or Minebea's defenses. This is a settlement with Minebea only. The litigation against the NSK Defendants will continue. WHAT RELIEF DOES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Plaintiff, on behalf of the Minebea Settlement Class, has entered into a settlement agreement with Minebea dated February 15, 2017, in which Minebea has agreed to pay $9,750,000 into an escrow account. The Settlement Agreement gives Minebea the right to withdraw from the settlement based upon valid and timely requests for exclusion by members of the Minebea Settlement Class if such requests for exclusion exceed a specified threshold. Minebea has also agreed to cooperate with Plaintiff in the prosecution of the lawsuit against the NSK Defendants, by providing the following cooperation: (a) production of documents, data, and other information potentially relevant to Direct Purchaser Plaintiff's claims; (b) assistance in understanding information produced to Direct Purchaser Plaintiff and using such information at trial; (c) meetings between Settlement Class Counsel and Minebea's attorneys, to provide proffers of information relevant to the NSK Action; (d) witness interviews; (e) depositions; and (f) trial testimony. Settlement Class Counsel agreed to the proposed settlement to ensure a fair and reasonable resolution of Plaintiff's claims, and to provide benefits to the members of the Minebea Settlement Class, while recognizing the existence of complex, contested issues of law and fact, the risks inherent in such complex litigation (including the risk of no recovery), and the likelihood that without a settlement, future proceedings would take several years and be extremely costly. Settlement Class Counsel believe that it is in the best interests of the Minebea Settlement Class to enter into the proposed settlement and resolve this litigation as to Minebea. This Notice is only a summary of the terms of the proposed settlement. The Settlement Agreement contains other important provisions, including the release of certain claims against Minebea. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is on file with the Clerk of Court and available online at www.AutoPartsAntiTrustLitigation.com. The proposed settlement must receive final approval by the Court in order to become effective. If you are a member of the Minebea Settlement Class and the proposed settlement is approved and becomes effective, you will be bound by its terms, including the release provisions. If you wish to object to approval of the Minebea settlement, you may do so, but only in accordance with the procedures set forth below. If you do not object to the Minebea settlement, you do not need to take any action at this time to indicate your support for, or lack of objection to, the settlement. HOW DO I REMAIN IN THE SETTLEMENT CLASS AND WHAT HAPPENS IF I DO? If you are a member of the Minebea Settlement Class, you will automatically remain in the Class unless you elect to be excluded. If you wish to remain in the Class, you do not need to take any action at this time; your interests will be represented by the Class Representative and by Settlement Class Counsel. You will have no responsibility to individually pay attorneys' fees or expenses. Any attorneys' fees and expenses will be paid solely from the Minebea Settlement Fund and must be approved by the Court. If you choose, you may also have your own attorney enter an appearance on your behalf and at your expense. If you remain in the Minebea Settlement Class and a final judgment order dismissing Minebea from the litigation becomes final and unappealable, you will be bound by that judgment. As a member of the Minebea Settlement Class, you will be eligible to share in the Minebea Settlement Fund pursuant to a claims procedure that will begin at a later date. Settlement Class Counsel are not presently asking the Court to distribute any Minebea Settlement Fund proceeds. If you remain a member of the Minebea Settlement Class, you will receive additional notice at a later date and you will have an opportunity to object to and be heard in connection with the proposed plan of distribution at that time. Do not dispose of any document that reflects your purchases of Small Bearings in the United States directly from any Defendant during the period from June 1, 2003, through February 15, 2017. You may need those documents to complete a claim form in the future, which would be subject to inquiry and verification if the Minebea settlement is approved. WHAT IF I DO NOT WANT TO REMAIN IN THE SETTLEMENT CLASS? If you wish to exclude yourself from the Minebea Settlement Class, you must send a request for exclusion, in writing, via certified mail, return receipt requested, postmarked no later than January 8, 2018, to Settlement Class Co-Lead Counsel and to counsel for Minebea, at the addresses set forth below, and to the following address: Small Bearings Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation P.O. Box 3560 Portland, OR 97208-3560 Your request for exclusion must include the full name and address of the purchaser (including any predecessor or successor entities and any trade names). You are also requested to identify the Defendant(s) from which you purchased Small Bearings during the Class Period, the type of Small Bearings purchased, and the dollar amount of those purchases. If you validly exclude yourself from the Minebea Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any decision concerning the Minebea settlement and you may individually pursue any claims you may have against Minebea at your own expense, but you will not be eligible to share in the Minebea Settlement Fund. HOW WILL SETTLEMENT CLASS COUNSEL BE PAID? The Court has appointed the law firms identified above as Settlement Class Counsel. These law firms and the other Settlement Class Counsel will file a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of their out-of-pocket costs and expenses. The request of Settlement Class Counsel for attorneys' fees will not exceed 33 and 1/3 percent of the Minebea Settlement Fund. The application for attorneys' fees and litigation costs and expenses will be filed on or before December 18, 2017. If you remain in the Minebea Settlement Class and you wish to object to the requests for attorneys' fees and litigation costs and expenses, you must do so in writing in accordance with the procedures for objections set forth below. If you do not oppose these requests, you do not need to take any action in that regard. WHEN WILL THE COURT DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AND FEE REQUEST, AND HOW CAN I TELL THE COURT WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT AND FEES? The Court will hold a hearing on February 28, 2018, at 1:00 p.m., at the Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, Courtroom 272, to determine whether the proposed Minebea settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court will also consider at the hearing whether to approve Settlement Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation costs and expenses from the Minebea Settlement Fund. The hearing may be rescheduled without further notice to you. If you do not exclude yourself from the Minebea Settlement Class and you wish to object to the Minebea settlement or to the request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses, you must do so in writing. Your objection must include the caption of this litigation, must be signed, and be filed no later than January 8, 2018, with the Clerk of Court, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, and mailed to the following counsel, postmarked no later than January 8, 2018: Steven A. Kanner FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 Joseph C. Kohn KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 Gregory P. Hansel PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP One City Center, P.O. Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112-9546 Telephone: (207) 791-3000 Eugene A. Spector SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Co-Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Minebea Settlement Class James L. Cooper ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20014-3743 Telephone: (202) 942-5014 Counsel for the Minebea Defendants If you do not object to the proposed Minebea settlement or to the request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses, you do not need to appear at the hearing or take any other action at this time. WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I WANT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR IF MY ADDRESS CHANGES? If this Notice reached you at an address other than the one on the mailing label, or if your address changes, please send your correct address to the address below. Small Bearings Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litgation P.O. Box 3560 Portland, OR 97208-3560 The Settlement Agreement, Complaint, and other public documents filed in this litigation are available for review during normal business hours at the offices of the Clerk of Court, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, and through the Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system after registration and payment of a modest fee. Copies of the Settlement Agreement and certain other documents relevant to this litigation are available at www.AutoPartsAntiTrustLitigation.com. Questions concerning the proposed settlement, this Notice, or the litigation may be directed to any of the Settlement Class Counsel identified above. Please do not contact the Clerk of the Court or the Judge. Dated: November 14, 2017 BY ORDER OF: The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division MONSANTO COMPANY: Skundrick Sues Over Roundup(R)-Related Lymphoma ----------------------------------------------------------------- PHILLIP SKUNDRICK v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 1:17-cv-01887-CL (D. Ore., November 27, 2017), alleges that the Defendant's Roundup(R) products and glyphosate are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Mr. Skundrick brings the action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to herbicide Roundup(R) containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, he alleges that he developed Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, specifically large B-cell lymphoma. Monsanto is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and is the world's leading producer of glyphosate. The Company is engaged in the business of designing, developing, manufacturing, testing, packaging, marketing, distributing, labeling, and selling of Roundup.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Kafoury, Esq. KAFOURY & MCDOUGAL 411 SW Second Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 224-2647 Facsimile: (503) 224-2673 E-mail: Kafoury@kafourymcdougal.com - and - Richard W. Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC 865 S. Dixie Dr. Vandalia, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435-7500 Facsimile: (937) 435-7511 E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com NALCOR ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over River Flooding ----------------------------------------------------- The Telegram reports that a proposed class action lawsuit filed against Nalcor Energy and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador alleges the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project caused the flooding that led to the emergency evacuation of the Mud Lake area and subsequent damage to properties. The class action, which must be certified by the court before advancing to trial, is being led by Wagners Law Firm of Halifax and seeks to recover losses for the residents affected by the flooding. It alleges that the actions of government and the Crown corporation in relation to the project constituted unreasonable interference with residents' property rights and that their actions have been negligent. Last spring, Mud Lake suffered severe flooding after an ice jam just downstream forced spring runoff water into the community. Locals said that while the community has flooded before, they'd never experienced anything like that. Nalcor Energy said the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam wasn't to blame, but persistent questions caused the government to commission an independent study by Dr. Karl-Erich Lindenschmidt to determine what happened. The results of the study, released in October, concluded that the project was not to blame. "The high freshet discharge that occurred during May 2017 was caused by natural events, particular the rain-on-snow event in the middle basin of the Churchill River and the high rainfall event just prior to and during the May 2017 flood," Mr. Lindenschmidt concluded in the report. "The Muskrat Falls spillway was operated in such a manner as to release the same amount of water through the spillway that was flowing into the reservoir; hence, the ice-jam flood event of 17 May 2017 along the lower reach of the Churchill River cannot be attributed to the operations of the spillway." Raymond Wagner, lawyer for the residents, says the report was not definitive. "The consultants retained by the province and Nalcor received preliminary data from the federal government and Nalcor. We have concerns with the integrity and completeness of the data they have reviewed, and they themselves have reiterated their review is only preliminary. And even on the basis of their preliminary review, they have pointed out that the flood forecasting system in place is inadequate," Mr. Wagner stated in a new release announcing the class action, noting that other experts' opinion will be consulted as litigation advances. [GN] NATIONAL OILWELL: "Esqueda" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Damages --------------------------------------------------------- Marco Esqueda, on behalf of himself individually, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P. Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-03687 (S.D. Tex., December 5, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime as well as other damages, including damages for unlawful retaliation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was hired and employed by National Oilwell Varco at its Houston, Texas location as a welder. Esqueda claims he was denied overtime wages for hours worked above forty. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Phone: (832) 778-8182 Facsimile: (832) 778-8353 Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: "Fennel" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Fennel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly- situated, Plaintiff, v. Navient Solutions, LLC, Xerox Education Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02083 (M.D. Fla., December 4, 2017), seeks compensatory damages including interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Telephone Consumers Protection Act. Defendants attempted to collect a debt incurred by Fennel arising from a student loan. They placed unauthorized calls to Fennel's cellular phone using an automatic telephone dialing system with a pre-recorded or artificial voices. Plaintiff expressly revoked any prior express consent to receive calls to her cellular phone. [BN] Navient Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.navient.com/about -- provides loan management, servicing and asset recovery solutions to clients in higher education and business clients, as well as federal, state, and local governments. The company offers financial services in the areas of education loan, private student loan and asset recovery. Xerox Education Services, now Conduent Education Services, -- https://www.conduenteducation.com -- is a business process services company headquartered in New Jersey. It was formed in 2017 as a divestiture from Xerox and manages campus-based loans and receivables in higher education institutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher W. Boss, Esq. BOSS LAW 9887 4th St. North, Suite 202 St. Petersburg FL 33702 Telephone: (727) 471-0039 Fax: (888) 503-2182 Email: CPService@protectyourfuture.com - and - W. Craft Hughes, Esq. Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120 Galleria Tower I Houston, TX 77056 Phone: (713) 554-2377 Fax: (888) 995-3335 Email: craft@hughesellzey.com jarrett@hughesellzey.com NEVSUN RESOURCES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Eritreans' Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Gabrielle Giroday, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the move by a British Columbia company to stop a class action on behalf of Eritreans who say they were forced to work in a mine has failed. In Araya v. Nevsun Resources Ltd., 2017 BCCA 401, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia has nixed the move by Nevsun to have the action dismissed in British Columbia. The plaintiffs in the class action are three Eritrean refugees who allege they were forced to work in a gold mine in the country in Northeast Africa. According to the ruling, the mine is partially owned by Nevsun and partially owned by Eritrean state companies. "There is no doubt that in pursuing claims under [customary international law], the plaintiffs face significant legal obstacles, including states' legitimate concerns about comity and equality and the role of the judiciary as opposed to that of the legislature. It is not necessarily the case, however, that the recognition of a [customary international law] norm against torture as the basis for some type of private law remedy in this instance would bring the entire system of international law crashing down," said the ruling by Justice Mary Newbury, with justices Peter Willcock and Gail Dickson agreeing. The class action is based on allegations by the former miners that "international law norms against forced labour, slavery and torture were violated during the construction of the mine," according to the ruling. Efforts to sue the company are on behalf of more than 1,000 people who allegedly "had been conscripted into the military under the Eritrean National Service Program and deployed at the mine," it said. "The plaintiffs assert that Nevsun engaged the Eritrean military and corporations controlled by it and by the [People's Front for Democracy and Justice] to build the mine and related infrastructure. For this purpose, the military deployed or provided forced labour, conscripted under Eritrea's National Service Program," said the ruling. "The plaintiffs say they were among those forced to work at the mine in inhuman conditions and under the constant threat of physical punishment, torture and imprisonment, even after they had served their periods of conscription in the military." In the proceeding, Nevsun had applied to have an earlier decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia overturned, Araya v. Nevsun Resources Ltd., 2016 BCSC 1856. Nevsun applied under the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act to have the action stayed, arguing that Eritrea would be the appropriate place for the dispute to be resolved. "Most important for purposes of this appeal, Nevsun denies that the courts of this province have, or should take, jurisdiction to try the case at all. Although a British Columbia court has territorial jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that the company is "ordinarily resident" in the province. . . Nevsun submits that British Columbia is not the most appropriate forum for the determination of the plaintiffs' claims and that the forum conveniens would be an Eritrean court or other tribunal," said the ruling. It also argued that the action should be stayed based on the act of state doctrine, which limits courts from adjudicating matters that involve other governments within their own respective territory. Lastly, it contended that any action based on customary international law should be quashed, over the assertion that no right to civil remedies in Canada for torture if an incident occurs in a foreign country. However, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia stated the case could proceed. "We have seen that international law is 'in flux' and that transnational law, which regulates 'actions or events that transcend national frontiers' is developing, especially in connection with human rights violations that are not effectively addressed by traditional 'international mechanisms'. . .," said the ruling. "Other jurisdictions have been willing to hold corporate actors accountable for violations of jus cogens [compelling law]; and over time, the doctrine of act of state has been limited by public policy considerations said to be part of domestic law." Arlene O'Neill -- aoneill@grllp.com -- partner at Gardiner Roberts LLP, says the case is important when it comes to the standards that private companies are going to be held to when they're operating overseas. "I think it's quite clear that the standards are going up, and certainly, the standards is public opinion are going up," says Ms. O'Neill, who was not involved in the case. "Companies when they go overseas, and they go into these joint ventures, they are in the court of public opinion -- in Western countries -- you're not going to be able to dip down to local, lower-level of law and say that somehow you're exempt, from something that is well-accepted, as morally wrong." [GN] NEW GENERATION: "King" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- KEANDRA KING, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. NEW GENERATION HEALTH SVCS, INC., A GEORGIA CORPORATION, Case No. 1:17-cv-04785-MHC (N.D. Ga., November 28, 2017), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover from the Defendant alleged unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. New Generation is a health care services company with its principal place of business in Stockbridge, Georgia, which is in Henry County, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com NFL: Counsel's Ties to Litigation Funder Questioned --------------------------------------------------- Max Mitchell, writing for Law.com, reports that a lead attorney in the NFL concussion settlement has been very critical of numerous third-party litigation funding companies that have loaned money to retired players involved in the class action, but it is his alleged failure to publicly disclose his history with another litigation funding company that has raised some eyebrows recently. [GN] NOVAN INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Novan, Inc. ("Novan" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:NOVN) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Middle District of North Carolina, and docketed under 17-cv-01066, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Novan's stock: (1) 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 (the "IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (2) on the open market between September 26, 2016 and August 1, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Novan securities between September 26, 2016, and August 1, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until January 2, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and amount of shares purchased. Novan is a clinical-stage drug development company that focuses on the development and commercialization of nitric oxide-based therapies in dermatology. 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. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and outlook, specifically regarding SB204. Specifically, (i) Defendants repeatedly stated that Novan had commenced and performed two identically designed Phase 3 clinical trials of SB204; (ii) 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 (iii) 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, 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 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%. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] OCERA THERAPEUTICS: "Franchi" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ocera Therapeutics, Inc., Eckard Weber, Linda S. Grais, Willard Dere, Steven P. James, Nina Kjellson, Anne M. Vanlent, Wendell Wierenga, MAK LLC, MEH Acquisition Co., and Mallinckrodt plc, Case No. 3:17-cv-06636 (N.D. Calif., November 17, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on November 2, 2017, pursuant to which Ocera Therapeutics, Inc. will be acquired by affiliates of Mallinckrodt plc. The Plaintiff alleges that the solicitation statement omits material information with respect to the proposed transaction, which renders the solicitation statement false and misleading. Plaintiff Anthony Franchi is the owner of Ocera common stock. Defendant Ocera is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company targeting acute and chronic orphan liver diseases. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices at 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 615, Redwood City, CA 94065. Ocera's common stock is traded on the NasdaqCM under the ticker symbol "OCRX." The Individual Defendants served as directors of Ocera. Defendant Mallinckrodt plc is an Irish public limited company, the ultimate parent entity of Parent and Merger Sub, and a party to the Merger Agreement. Defendant Parent is a Delaware limited liability company, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Mallinckrodt plc, and a party to the Merger Agreement. Defendant Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation, a direct wholly- owned subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Tel: (310) 208-2800 Fax: (310) 209-2348 E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com OMEGA PROTEIN: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., disclosed that it has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of holders of Omega Protein Corporation ("Omega") (NYSE:OME) common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of Omega by Cooke, Inc. and its affiliate ("Cooke") announced on October 6, 2017 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Omega, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Cooke, is captioned Franchi v. Omega Protein Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv- 02805 (D. Nev.). If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl- legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/. On October 5, 2017, Omega entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Cooke. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Omega will receive, for each share of Omega they own, $22.00 in cash (the "Proposed Transaction"). Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Preliminary Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement, which recommends that Omega stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary to enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with respect to Omega's financial projections, the analyses performed by Omega's financial advisor, and the background of the Proposed Transaction. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Omega common stock. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 26, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- regularly prosecutes securities fraud, shareholder corporate, and shareholder derivative litigation on behalf of shareholders in state and federal courts throughout the United States. [GN] PATIENT INNOVATION: Tomala Estate Seeks to Recover Wages and OT --------------------------------------------------------------- The Estate of Alexandra Tomala, to be administered by Boguslawa Tomala individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated as class representative under Illinois Law and/or as members of the Collective as permitted under the Fair Labor Standards Act v. Patient Innovation Center, NFP and Christopher Gay and Angelica Magana Named as an Employers under the FLSA and IWPCA, Case No. 1:17-cv-08530 (N.D. Ill., November 27, 2017), alleges that the Plaintiff and the proposed class members are entitled to be paid at least minimum wage for all hours worked and to receive time and half for all hours worked over 40 hours per week pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Patient Innovation Center is a corporation or business, which does business in Illinois. PIC is a provider of assistance to customers seeking to register or use insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Ireland, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND 636 Spruce Street South Elgin, IL 60177 Telephone: (630) 464-9675 Facsimile: (630) 206-0889 E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Aikens" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Leonard D. Wexler of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed without prejudice the case captioned SHARON AIKENS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CV 16-1159 (E.D. N.Y.). Aikens, owed a debt on a Capital One credit card, which was subsequently purchased by the Defendant. PRA then contacted the Plaintiff in an attempt to collect on her debt. On March 11, 2015, the Plaintiff and PRA entered into an oral agreement over the telephone, whereby PRA would automatically debit the Plaintiff's checking account each month in the amount of $32.91 until her debt was satisfied. PRA began debiting her checking account in April 2015 and continues to do so to date. The Plaintiff commenced the within putative class action on March 8, 2016, alleging that PRA violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA") by failing to obtain her consent for the monthly automated electronic transfers in writing. She alleges that PRA further violated the EFTA by failing to provide her with a copy of her signed, written authorization. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs. PRA now moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of jurisdiction, on the grounds that the Plaintiff does not have standing to pursue the action because she has not suffered a "concrete injury," as defined by the Supreme Court's holding in Snokeo. Inc. v. Robins. The Plaintiff opposes the motion. Judge Wexler finds that the Plaintiff amassed a debt that she failed to pay. After acquiring that debt, PRA entered into a monthly payment plan with her, which she authorized and agreed to, whereby PRA would debit her checking account each month. Now, the Plaintiff seeks to obtain money damages from PRA for allegedly violating the EFTA by not obtaining her agreement in writing. The Judge says there is no concrete injury here. The Plaintiff authorized PRA to withdraw money from her account to repay the debt she owed. PRA did not take more money than was agreed to. Nor did they withdraw the money from any other account than that which Plaintiff authorized. The Judge fails to see how the Plaintiff suffered any injury here whatsoever. Since the Plaintiff has failed to establish standing to bring the within action, Judge Wexler granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and the action is dismissed without prejudice. He directed the Clerk of the Court to enter an Amended Judgment consistent with the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Amended Order is available at https://is.gd/UkzJoz from Leagle.com. Sharon Aikens, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Alan Auslaender -- jauslaender@consumerlawinfo.com -- The Aslaender Firm P.C.. Sharon Aikens, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Rolland -- mrolland@rollandlegal.com -- Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC, pro hac vice. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, represented by David L. Hartsell -- dhartsell@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Michael James Van Riper -- mvanriper@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP & Sarah Zielinski - - szielinski@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice. PPG ARCHITECTURAL: "Cortese" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert P. Cortese, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v. PPG Architectural Coatings, N.A., Case No. 2:17-cv- 01501 (W.D. Pa., November 17, 2017), seeks to recover damages for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff Robert P. Cortese resides in Baldwin Township, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff worked for Defendant from March 2004 until on or about October 12, 2017. Defendant PPG Architectural Coatings N.A. is a division of PPG Industries, Inc. Defendant develops, manufactures, and sells paints and stains to homeowners and professionals around the country. Defendant maintains its principal place of business at 400 Bertha Lamme Drive, Cranberry Township, PA 16066. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. First & Market Building Suite 650, 100 First Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1514 Tel: (412) 227-0763 Fax: (412) 774-1994 E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com - and - John R. Linkosky, Esq. JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOCIATES 715 Washington Avenue Carnegie, PA 15106 Tel: (412) 278-1280 Fax: (412) 278-1282 E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: "Gales" Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Gales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Prime Communications Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv- 02528 (N.D. Ohio, December 4, 2017), seeks unpaid wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Prime Communications Inc. is an authorized reseller of electronic equipment for AT&T. Defendant operates over 50 retail locations in the State of Ohio where Gales was employed by Defendant as a Retail Store Manager. Plaintiff claims to be denied overtime compensation for all of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek due to Defendant's failure to keep accurate time-keeping records. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Chastity L. Christy, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND: Rob Ford Lawyer Joins E-Gaming Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Teresa Wright, writing for The Guardian, reports that a high- profile Toronto lawyer whose former clients include the late Rob Ford is now representing three people named in P.E.I.'s ongoing $50 million e-gaming lawsuit. Gavin Tighe has been retained to represent Bill Dow, Gary Scales and Tracey Cutcliffe. Tighe successfully defended Ford in a $6 million defamation lawsuit in 2013 brought against him by a Toronto restaurateur. He has also represented other high-profile clients and specializes in professional liability at Gardiner Roberts LLP in Toronto. He recently joined the team of lawyers involved in the P.E.I. e- gaming lawsuit after the company suing the P.E.I. government - Capital Markets Technologies (CMT) -- added a number of additional defendants. All of those in the long list of defendants named in the e-gaming suit, who are currently or were formerly employed by the province, are being represented by local lawyer Jonathan Coady, Esq. -- jcoady@stewartmckelvey.com -- of Stewart McKelvey. Another defendant, private businessman Paul Jenkins, has retained Ken Godfrey of Campbell Lea for legal representation in the case. Tighe, meanwhile, will represent the three lawyers named in the case. The e-gaming suit and Tighe's role in it came up in the P.E.I. legislature Friday, when Opposition MLA Steven Myers questioned why "Rob Ford's 'crazy town' lawyer" was added to the case. Myers also questioned why, eight months after the CMT lawsuit was filed in court, government has not yet filed a statement of defence or any other legal response. The Guardian has confirmed the reason is due to a number of legal procedures that have led to delays. One of those procedures involved CMT having to retain a new legal representation after its lawyer, John W. Findlay, was suspended from practising law by the Law Society of Upper Canada in July. He was also placed under investigation for $1.5 million missing from a class action settlement fund involving a wholly unrelated case Findlay was involved in dating back to 2006. Another procedural delay was caused by CMT adding extra defendants to the e-gaming suit after it was already filed it in court. Doing this requires either the consent of the court or of the defendants. Locating the new defendants and allowing them time to get legal representation and determine their legal options takes time. "Given that the plaintiffs need to fix their claim to correct errors and add more defendants, the government does not have any obligation to file a defence at this time," Coady said in a statement to The Guardian. "When the claim is finally amended and fixed by the plaintiffs, we will file a full defence. That is the usual -- and the most efficient -- practice when dealing with corrections and amendments." The Guardian has also confirmed Tighe was retained to defend Dow, Cutcliffe and Scales by the Canadian Legal Insurance Association and that his legal fees will be covered by their insurance claims. A hearing will likely be held in the winter of 2018 to determine a number of preliminary procedural issues regarding the case, including a likely request for CMT to post additional security for costs for the new defendants. In their statement of claim filed in March, the plaintiffs (CMT and a subsidiary numbered company) are seeking $50 million in damages for allegations that include misfeasance in a public office by several of the defendants, a breach of fiduciary duty and wrongful acts of spoliation of documents said to be crucially relevant to the case. That court filing came after P.E.I. Supreme Court Justice Gordon Campbell struck out a previous statement of claim in February 2016. Campbell said in his decision it constituted an abuse of the processes of the court. But the decision also allowed the plaintiffs to file a new statement of claim. Capital Markets Technologies was a shareholder in a company that worked with the province and the Mi'kmaq Confederacy of P.E.I. in 2011-12 on a plan to make P.E.I. an internet gambling regulator for the Country. The plan was abandoned after it was determined to be illegal, but has been the focus of ongoing criticism and scrutiny, including an investigation by the auditor general. [GN] PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Court Won't Certify Drivers Class -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois issued a Memorandum and Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned ROBERT MURPHY, Individually and as the Representative of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-378-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.). PTI is a corporation that provides transportation services. Plaintiff Robert Murphy and the putative class members were employed by PTI as drivers assigned to provide ground transportation services to the Union Pacific Railroad, allegedly in connection with track replacement work on the Illinois High Speed Rail Project. The crux of Murphy's claim is that this work falls within the scope of the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act (IPWA), but that he and the putative class members were paid less than the applicable prevailing wage. Murphy moves for class certification under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He seeks to represent a class defined as follows: Current and former PTI employees who are or were employed by defendant as drivers and provided ground transportation services of train crews to the Union Pacific railroad in conjunction with the construction of the Illinois High Speed Rail project and were not paid the prevailing wage in accordance with Illinois law since 2010. Murphy's assertion that there are 45 potential class members who performed this type of work for PTI on the High Speed Rail Project is supported only by the Declaration of Murphy's counsel. Murphy has not proffered any facts or argument as to why or how joinder would actually be impractical in this case. Rather, he rests on the proposition that a proposed class of 40 members is generally considered impractical for joinder. But, actual rather than presumed compliance with Rule 23(a) is required for class certification. This is especially the case when, as here, there has been no showing that 45 is an accurate estimate of the putative class size. Because Murphy has failed to sufficiently establish the number of potential class members or to show that joinder would be impractical, he has failed to satisfy the numerosity requirement. In this case, the proposed class members' claims all arise under the same statute and involve common legal issues. In order to determine whether PTI is liable to any putative class member, the Court must determine whether the IPWA applies to the High Speed Rail Project in general and whether the type of work performed by the drivers on the project falls within the scope of the IPWA. This meets the low threshold for commonality. Murphy has made a sufficient showing that PTI had a policy of paying its drivers based on a scale that was less than what might have been dictated had the IPWA's provisions been applied. Although Murphy may or may not have performed work as a blocker while employed on the High Speed Rail Project, it appears that this was secondary to his defined duties, and therefore does not set him apart from the other putative class members so as to render his claim atypical. While a potentially unique defense and credibility questions may apply to Murphy's claim as discussed in the Court's adequacy analysis below, his claim clearly arises from the same practice and course of conduct by PTI that gives rise to the claims of the other putative class members. Thus, the typicality requirement is satisfied. Murphy's felony convictions are not a per se bar to being a class representative. In fact, it is unclear from the record whether his convictions would ultimately be independently admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 609. What is problematic, however, is Murphy's failure to disclose the convictions in discovery. Taking an active and honest and attentive and role in discovery is one of the hallmarks of an otherwise adequate class representative. If he intentionally did not tell class counsel about his past convictions in an attempt to conceal them, then he lacks the basic honesty required of the position. If, as he claims, Murphy missed the glaring inaccuracy in his sworn statement because he "breezed through it and did not really read the responses before signing, then he failed his obligation to be active and attentive." Similarly, his failure to correct the inaccuracy after he fully read his responses also sheds a questionable light on his willingness and ability to meet his fiduciary obligations to the class. Murphy's failure to disclose his convictions in discovery potentially raises a question regarding his credibility. That issue, coupled with PTI's potential defense to Murphy's claim may significantly hamper his ability to meet his fiduciary obligations to the class. For these reasons, the Court concludes that Murphy is not an adequate class representative. Here, Murphy proceeds under Rule 23(b)(3), which allows for certification upon a finding that questions of law or fact common to members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for resolving the controversy. Rule 23(b)(3) also requires that a class action be superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Rule 23(b)(3) was designed for situation in which the potential recovery is too slight to support individual suits, but injury is substantial in the aggregate. Conversely, class treatment may be rejected when, as is true in this case, all or almost all of the claims are likely to be large enough to justify individual litigation Murphy estimates damages of $835,373.53 -- $412,921.16 in unpaid wages and $422,452.37 in statutory damages. Accepting for the sake of analysis Murphy's estimate of 45 class members, this averages out to over $18,000 per class member, although each member's share of the recovery would vary based upon how many hours they worked. Additionally, the IPWA contains a provision for payment of attorneys' fees in a successful suit, making it more economically feasible for individual plaintiffs to bring suit than in many class action contexts. These factors suggest that individual litigation is the superior method for resolving these claims. As Plaintiff Robert Murphy has failed to meet his burden under F.R.C.P. 23(a) and 23(b) with respect to numerosity, adequacy of representation and predominance, his Motion for Class Certification is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 27, 2017 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycg3evvs from Leagle.com. Robert Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph H. Cassell -- jhcassell@eronlaw.net -- Eron Law Office, P.A. Robert Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by Mark M. Silvermintz, Kunin Law Offices, LLC, 412 Missouri Avenue, East St. Louis, IL 62201 & Terry D. Smith, Law Office of Terry D. Smith, 13509 W 10th Ct N Wichita, KS, 67235-7031 Professional Transportation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Meredith A. Lopez -- meredith.lopez@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Robert W. Stewart -- robert.stewart@ogletree.com- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC & Michael D. Ray -- michael.ray@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins et al. Generally Admitted. PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Sued by Johnson for Breach of Fiduciary Duty --------------------------------------------------------------- Jenny M. Johnson, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the Providence Health & Service 403(b) Value Plan v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES, PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE, and JOHN AND JANE DOES #1-25, Case No. 2:17-cv-01779 (W.D. Wash., November 28, 2017), is brought for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Defendants, who during the Class Period are or were fiduciaries of the Providence Health & Services 403(b) Value Plan (the "Plan"), have violated their fiduciary duties owed to the Plan and its participants, including her, Ms. Johnson contends. Providence Health & Services, the Plan Sponsor, is a health care system operating in approximately 900 locations across the western United States, with its principal place of business in Renton, Washington. Providence Health & Services Human Resources Committee is comprised of employees of Providence. The Committee has the authority to determine the investment funds made available under the Plan and to develop and oversee the implementation of any investment education program. The Doe Defendants are members of the Committee and/or Providence executives in charge of Human Resources during the Class Period, who are unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Murphy, Esq. Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Mark G. Boyko, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com gporter@baileyglasser.com mboyko@baileyglasser.com - and - Robert A. Izard, Esq. Mark P. Kindall, Esq. Doug P. Needham, Esq. IZARD KINDALL & RAABE LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com mkindall@ikrlaw.com dneedham@ikrlaw.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 822-0268 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: mgyandoh@ktmc.com QUIK NOTARY SERVICES: "LaBorde" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- Greta A. LaBorde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Quik Notary Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-14086 (E.D. La., December 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, post- judgement interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and any and all other damages allowed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Quik Notary operated a private automobile license bureau or tag agency under contract with the state of Louisiana, preparing and notarizing home and property contracts. LaBorde was employed by Defendant as notary and public tag agent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brett M. Powers, Esq. DUBOSE LAW FIRM, PLLC 4310 N. Central Expressway Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (504) 581-9322 Facsimile: (504) 324-0155 Email: bpowers@duboselawfirm.com RACING INDUSTRIES: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- Jose Garcia, Porfirio Garcia and Enio Garcia, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Racing Industries, Inc. and Ameet Bhambhani, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-07089, (E.D. N.Y., December 5, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, and statutory damages under the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Racing Industries, Inc. is engaged in the manufacture of catalytic converters for passenger cars and industrial vehicles where Plaintiffs worked at its facilities located at 901 Scott Avenue, Calverton, New York 11933, regularly working more than forty hours in a workweek, but were not paid overtime. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 103 Cooper Street Babylon, NY 11702 Tel. (631) 257-5588 Email: promero@romerolawny.com RECOVER HEALTH: Accused by "Marrero" Suit of Not Paying Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH MARRERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RECOVER HEALTH, INC., Case No. 0:17-cv-05236-DSD-TNL (D. Minn., November 28, 2017), alleges that the Plaintiff and others were paid per client visit and were not paid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Ms. Marrero and members of the putative classes provided medical care for Recover Health clients in their homes, coordinated care with the clients' doctors, and charted and recorded the care provided. Recover Health, Inc., is a business corporation incorporated in Florida with a registered office in Minnetonka, Minnesota. Recover Health provides home care and support services to children, adults, and seniors in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nebraska. The Company provides skilled nursing services, mental health services, 24-hour private duty nursing services, therapy services (physical, occupational, speech, and respiratory), personal care services, homemaker services, and independent living services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Zoeller, Esq. Caitlin M. Madden, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 409 East Main Street Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 257-0040 E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com cmadden@hq-law.com - and - Adam Hansen, Esq. APOLLO LAW LLC 400 South 4th Street, Suite 401M - 250 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: (612) 927-2969 E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com ROBERT BOSCH: Must Face Volkswagen Dealers' Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a class-action lawsuit against the Robert Bosch company filed by Volkswagen dealers concerning the role Bosch played in Volkswagen's emissions scheme won't be dismissed by a federal judge. Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved the $1.67 billion settlement for hundreds of VW dealerships that sued the automaker. The dealer lawsuit alleges that Bosch worked with Volkswagen to sell as many of the "clean-diesel" vehicles as possible by misrepresenting the diesel vehicles as good for the environment and in compliance with federal laws. The dealers said Bosch worked with Volkswagen to equip diesel vehicles with emissions "defeat devices" that caused the cars to pass emissions tests in the lab, but were illegal to drive on the roads. Franchise dealers across the country purchased diesel vehicles from Volkswagen and sold those vehicles to consumers, unaware of the defeat devices. Dealers didn't learn the cars sitting on their lots were useless until the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the fraud. The judge said in court documents the actions of VW and Bosch made the diesel vehicles "unsaleable." Based on the lawsuit, the defeat devices in the diesel cars are part of the electronic control units which controls engine and emission controls known as EDC17. But Bosch and Volkswagen worked together to turn the EDC17 into a defeat device, something VW couldn't have modified without Bosch's involvement. In fact, the lawsuit says Bosch typically locked the EDC17 to prevent customers from making significant changes on their own. Bosch tried to convince the judge the ruling wasn't fair, but the judge upheld all claims that the company was a knowing participant in a scheme to defraud dealers and customers. The lawsuit includes internal VW emails that reference Bosch in the illegal activity. A n email from 2006 is a good example, in which Dieter Mannigel, of the U.S. diesel engines division, emailed Hanno Jelden, head of Volkswagen's powertrain electronics division, about the "US07" project. "Have you spoken with Bosch about the issue of US07 . . .? This issue is slowly becoming critical . . . . I came away from our meeting with Mr. Krebs [who joined Volkswagen from Audi in 2005] with the following: When we use the 'acoustic function,' it should have an appearance that won't get us in trouble . . . . He is very skeptical about its implementation on the U.S. market: for one thing due to the very critical liability situation . . . . In my opinion, the requirement of 'nondiscoverability' has neither been met for the Nov. 27 function nor the planned expansion. The FP sheet for the expansion has been submitted to Bosch. How do we proceed?" In relation to the email, the judge wrote: "The express references in this email to the 'acoustic function,' the 'US07' project, and the importance of not getting caught illustrate Volkswagen's deception in undertaking the emissions scheme. But the email also casts Bosch as a strategic partner in the scheme. The 'issue' discussed appears to be how to implement the 'acoustic function' in the U.S. without being discovered. And Mannigel asks if Jelden has 'spoken with Bosch about the issue,' suggesting that Bosch might be able to help hide the "acoustic function" from U.S. regulators." [GN] RYB EDUCATION: Jan. 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against RYB Education, Inc. ("RYB" or the "Company") (NYSE:RYB) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-09261, is 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 (the "IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (2) on the open market between September 27, 2017 and November 22, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased RYB securities between September 27, 2017, and November 22, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until January 26, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e- mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and amount of shares purchased. 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. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 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 to 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. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN] SERVCO SUBARU: Distributor Sued Over Soy-Based Auto Parts --------------------------------------------------------- US News reports that a Maui resident has filed a class-action lawsuit against a Hawaii Subaru distributor, claiming soy-based insulation in wiring and fuel hoses attracted rats that damaged her car. In the lawsuit filed against Servco Subaru Inc., attorneys representing Diane Shuey claim the car company changed their products to use a material that attracts rodents, Hawaii News Now reported . Shuey bought a new Subaru Forester in 2015 and started experiencing damage from rats a couple of months later. "It was a nightmare after just two months of driving this thing, and it has continued for two years," Shuey said. "I love my Subaru. I'm so frustrated and I'm very disappointed in Subaru Corporation." Shuey said the rat-related issues were not covered by the warranty and cost her more than $3,000 in repairs. Chris Bouslog, Esq. an attorney representing Shuey, said say rodent damage on cars is not uncommon. The lawsuit seeks a full refund for the cars. "Cars have been coming in for this kind of repair and this kind of obvious rodent damage," Bouslog said. Company officials declined to comment on the specifics of the suit, but provided a statement. "Our customers and their safety are our priority and, as we do with all vehicle complaints, our policy is to work with each customer to try to reach a mutually agreeable resolution," the company said in the statement. [GN] SHAUN'S TOWING: "Durrant" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Durrant, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Shaun's Towing And Recovery, LLC and Shaun Healy, Individually, Defendants, Case 17-cv-02932 (D. Colo., December 6, 2017), seeks all unpaid overtime and other damages, all available relief, including compensation, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, Colorado Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act. Shaun's is towing company currently serves Aspen, Snowmass Village, Woody Creek, Old Snowmass, Carbondale, Redstone and Glenwood Springs CO. Durrant worked for Shaun's as a driver. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 242 Linden Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Tel: (970) 214-0562 Email: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Tel: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com SHOWTIME NETWORKS: Mayweather-McGregor Suit Sent to Arbitration --------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Marrocco, writing for MMA Junkie, reports that a fan who sued Showtime over technical difficulties concerning "The Money Fight" is stuck in the fine print. A federal judge has ordered to arbitration a class-action lawsuit over the Aug. 26 boxing match between Floyd Mayweather and Conor McGregor, granting a motion filed by Showtime. The premium cable channel was hit with multiple class-action lawsuits because of the event, which encountered widespread delays and outages due to high demand. Denise Cote, a U.S. District Judge in the Southern District of New York, argued the plaintiff, Victor Mallh, agreed to resolve disputes outside the courtroom when he agreed to Showtime's terms of service before buying the event, which cost $99.95 to purchase in high definition via online and broadcast pay-per-view. Cote was unconvinced by claims from Mallh's attorneys that Showtime didn't properly notify fans of their rights. "Because notice of the arbitration clause and class-action waiver was reasonably conspicuous and Mallh unambiguously manifested assent, Showtime's motion to compel arbitration is granted," she wrote. Mallh is one of several fight fans suing Showtime, claiming the network promoted and made money from the event despite delivering a faulty product. One suit named UFC corporate parent Zuffa and William Morris Endeavor (WME) as co-defendants. Several suits claim the class-action damages are in excess of $75,000 and "the amount in controversy" is over $5 million. Shortly after the first suit was filed, Showtime told MMAjunkie it had received a "a very limited number of complaints" and offered a refund to any of its customers who'd couldn't watch the event. UFC President Dana White also promised refunds to those who purchased the event on UFC Fight Pass and ran into trouble as the online digital network was overwhelmed by traffic. White later claimed the spectacle showdown between UFC lightweight champ McGregor (21-3 MMA, 9-1 UFC, 0-1 boxing) and boxing king Mayweather (50-0 boxing) set a record for the most lucrative pay- per-view event in history, drawing 6.7 million worldwide buys to beat Mayweather's "Fight of the Century" against Manny Pacquiao. For complete coverage of "The Money Fight," check out the UFC Events section of the site. [GN] SOUTHERN STAR: "Evans" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Angela Evans, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Southern Star Restaurant Management, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02918, (M.D. Fla., December 6, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and damages resulting from violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Southern Star operates Dunkin Donuts and Baskin Robbins franchise restaurants in Tampa and Hillsborough County where Evans worked as a shift leader. She seeks overtime pay for her hours above 40 per week. When Evans requested time off to care for her ailing father, her work hours were cut off. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Saba, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave., Ste. 300 Tampa, FL 33602-3343 Tel: (813) 224-0431 Fax: (813) 229-8712 Email: csaba@wfclaw.com STAFFMARK HOLDINGS: Court OKs $5.6MM Settlement in "Fronda" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Settlement Approval in the case captioned EARL FRONDA, Plaintiff, v. STAFFMARK HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv- 02315-MEJ (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff asks the Court to (1) preliminarily approve the proposed settlement, (2) certify for settlement purposes a settlement class, (3) appoint Plaintiff as class representative, (4) appoint class counsel and settlement administrator, (5) direct the dissemination of the notice of settlement to the class, and (6) schedule a final approval hearing and hearing on class counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and incentive award. Plaintiff was jointly employed by Staffmark, CBS Personnel, and CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc. Plaintiff filed the operative TAC and asserts eight claims based on California state law: (1) Failure to Provide Meal Periods, (2) Failure to Provide Rest Periods, (3) Failure to Pay Hourly Wages, (4) Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements, (5) Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages, (6) Failure to Pay Wages without Discount, (7) Unfair Competition, and (8) Civil Penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The Settlement Class is defined as any and all individuals employed by the CBS Defendants at CEVA Freight, LLC, CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc. and/or any other location of CEVA, CEVA's parents or any CEVA-related entity operating in California during the Class Period. The Class Period is defined as April 17, 2011 through the date the Court preliminarily approves the Settlement. The Settling Defendants agree to pay a maximum Settlement Sum of $5,600,000. This figure includes (1) payments to Class Members, (2) Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and costs, (3) administration costs, (4) any enhancement award to Plaintiff, and (5) payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). The Settlement provides for all Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and costs to be paid from the Settlement Sum. Class Counsel will seek up to one-third of the Settlement Fund, that is, $1,866,666.67. Enhancement awards will be deducted from the Settlement Sum. Plaintiff will seek an enhancement award of no more than $10,000. The Settlement provides for $100,000 as payment for the PAGA claims. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 2699(i), $75,000 will be paid to the LWDA. The Court certifies for settlement purposes the Class as defined in section 1.1(b)(12) of the Settlement. The Court noted that Plaintiff estimates there are approximately 4,407 Class Members. Given the size of the class, joinder is impracticable. Like other Class Members, Plaintiff worked for the CBS Defendants during the Class Period and in a warehouse position that is at issue in this litigation and included in the Class. Thus, Plaintiff was subject to the same allegedly unlawful employment practices and policies as other Class Members. Plaintiff raises the same claims as other Class Members; he does not assert any individual claims or defenses. The Court therefore finds Plaintiff satisfies Rule 23(a)(3). Moreover, the Court noted that nothing in the record indicates Plaintiff has a conflict of interest or antagonism with Class Members. On the contrary, Plaintiff has actively worked to prosecute this action on behalf of the Class. He has engaged in ongoing communications with his Counsel, including providing Counsel with background information, assisting with responses to written discovery, participating in two days of mediation, and reviewing the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff adequately represents the Class' interests. Rule 23(a)(4) is satisfied. The Court is satisfied the Settlement is the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations. The parties negotiated the Settlement under the guidance of a mediator. The use of a mediator, though not dispositive, supports a finding that the Settlement is not the product of collusion. In light of the potential risks of continued litigation, the Court finds these factors favor preliminary approval. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 27, 2017 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybf4hb76 from Leagle.com. Earl Fronda, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh -- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group. Earl Fronda, Plaintiff, represented by Howard Scott Leviant -- scott@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & Thomas Alistair Segal -- thomas@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group. Staffmark Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan McClellan Steward -- ssteward@aalrr.com -- Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud and Romo, Barbara Shellem Van Ligten -- bvanligten@aalrr.com -- Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo & Timothy Michael Wojcik -- twojcik@aalrr.com -- Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud Romo. CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas G.A. Johnston -- douglas.johnson@mindbodyonline.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., Nicole Elizabeth Forde -- Nicole.forde@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Fraser Angus McAlpine -- Fraser.McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.. CBS Personnel Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Susan McClellan Steward, Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud and Romo. STATE FARM: "Davis" Suit Says Insurance Fund Illegally Siphoned --------------------------------------------------------------- Theresa L. Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. State Farm & Casualty Company, Case No. 17-cv-08773 (C.D. Cal., 2017, December 5, 2016), seeks to recover amounts that Defendant has charged and collected in excess of amounts authorized by the express terms of their policies; compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages; injunctive relief; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and such other relief resulting from breach of contract. Plaintiff purchased from Defendant a flexible premium adjustable insurance policy. Davis accuses the Defendant of improperly draining monies they have accumulated in the Account Values under her policies. State Farm Life Insurance Company is a life insurance company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois, and maintains its principal place of business in Bloomington, Illinois. Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq. Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Tel: (415) 981-4800 Fax: (415)981-4846 Email: dcg@girardgibbs.com eak@girardgibbs.com amo@girardgibbs.com. - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. Ethan Lange, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com stueve@stuevesiegel.com lange@stuevesiegel.com - and - John J. Schirger, Esq. Matthew W. Lytle, Esq. Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq. MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC 4520 Main Street, Suite 1570 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 561-6500 Facsimile: (816) 561-6501 Email: jschirger@millerschirger.com mlytle@millerschirger.com jfeierabend@millerschirger.com STEPS IN HOME CARE: "Diaz" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- Teresa Fuentes Diaz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. Steps in Home Care Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-09459 (S.D. N.Y., December 1, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, unpaid spread-of- hours and split-shift premiums pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Steps in Home Care Inc. is a home health care provider located at 3 Barker Avenue, 2nd Floor, White Plains, New York 10601. Diaz worked as a Home Health Aide working in excess of 40 hours per week. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Weisenberg, Esq. THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C. 401 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 571-2000 Fax: (212) 571-0505 Email: benjamin@ottingerlaw.com TANGOE INC: March 8 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP disclosed that the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of securities of Tangoe, Inc. (OTCMKTS:TNGO): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TANGOE, INC. ("TANGOE") SECURITIES FROM MAY 10, 2013 THROUGH JUNE 16, 2017, INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, that a hearing will be held on March 8, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable Vanessa L. Bryant, United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Abraham A. Ribicoff Federal Building, 450 Main Street, Annex 135, Hartford, Connecticut, 06103, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of $2,550,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Co- Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $125,000, and an incentive payment of no more than $10,000 to Lead Plaintiff, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated October 2, 2017 (the "Settlement Stipulation"). If you purchased Tangoe securities during the period from May 10, 2013 through June 16, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in Tangoe securities. If you have not received a postcard, providing instructions for receiving a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies by writing to or calling Tangoe, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 3, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website, www.strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form postmarked no later than February 22, 2018, to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than February 8, 2018, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice to the Claims Administrator. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Co-Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiff must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than February 15, 2018 by each of the following: Clerk of the Court United States District Court District of Connecticut Abraham A. Ribicoff Federal Building 450 Main Street Hartford, CT 06103 CO-LEAD COUNSEL: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Jeffry Krinsk, Esq. David J. Harris, Jr., Esq. FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS: William H. Paine, Esq. Dan Willey, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Lead Counsel: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Tel.: 215-600-2817 Jeffry Krinsk, Esq. David J. Harris, Jr., Esq. FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel.: (619) 238-1333 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: November 13, 2017 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT [GN] TD BANK: "Lawrence" Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Charges ------------------------------------------------------- Britney Lawrence, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TD Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-12583 (D. N.J., December 5, 2017), seeks actual and/or statutory damages, all recoverable compensatory and other damages sustained, restitution and disgorgement of all illegally-obtained amounts, refund of all overdraft fees charged on one-time debit card transactions for Uber and/or Lyft rides, statutory prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any amounts, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief resulting from breach of contract and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Plaintiff alleges TD Bank of charging standard overdraft fees on one-time debit card transactions with Uber and/or Lyft, in violation of its contracts with accountholders. Lyft and Uber are not subscription services wherein customers pay a monthly fee and such transactions do not occur automatically. TD Bank is a national bank providing retail banking services through the State of New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. MCCUNEWRIGHT, LLP 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0580 Email: jgs@mccunewright.com mds@mccunewright.com - and - Richard D. McCune, Esq. Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq. Michele M. Vercoski, Esq. McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP 3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 Email: rdm@mccunewright.com jkk@mccunewright.com mmv@mccunewright.com - and - E. Adam Webb, Esq. G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Tel: (770) 444-9325 Fax: (770) 444-0271 Email: Adam@WebbLLC.com Franklin@WebbLLC.com - and - Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 Email: streisfeld@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 973-0900 Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20009 Tel: (202) 615-3948 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Taras Kick, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 201 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 395-2988 Facsimile: (310) 395-2088 Email: Taras@kicklawfirm.com - and - Francis J. Flynn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR. 6220 West Third Street, #415 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Tel: (314) 662-2836 Email: francisflynn@gmail.com - and - Corey D. Sullivan, Esq. SULLIVAN LAW & ASSOCIATES 1336 E. Allendale Drive Bloomington, IN 47401 Tel: (314) 971-9353 Email: sullivcd@gmail.com - and - Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq. CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC 308 Hutchinson Road Ellisville, MO 63011 Tele: (314) 541-0317 Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com TENNESSEE: Hepatitis C-Infected Inmates' Class Action Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------ Robin Bull, writing for USA Herald, reports that in 2016, two Tennessee inmates with hepatitis c filed a lawsuit after an investigation by USA Today Network revealed that close to 3,500 inmates had been diagnosed, but only eight had received treatment. As of 2017, Neysa Taylor, spokesperson for the Tennessee Department of Corrections, stated that there are now approximately 4,116 infected with the fatal condition. A total of 25 inmates have received treatment in the last year, and six are currently undergoing treatment. Federal Judge Grants Class Action Status In May 2017, U.S. District Chief Judge Waverly Crenshaw granted Tennessee inmates class action status. If the inmates are successful in their federal lawsuit, all inmates in Tennessee with hepatitis c would be able to receive the life-saving treatment. The average price for hepatitis c treatment in the United States is close to $1,000 per day. The total cost is around $90,000. Florida Judge Recently Ruled Not Treating Inmates for Hep C Violates Their Constitutional Rights On November 17, 2017, U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued an order in a lawsuit filed by Tampa inmates that the Florida Department of Corrections weren't upholding their Constitutional obligation of inmates with hepatitis c. Judge Walker wrote that "Here, FDC's history of past misconduct leads this court to believe that future injury is imminent. Specifically, this court finds that FDC will not treat HCV-infected inmates in an appropriate and timely manner." Judge Walker also wrote that he believed FDC's decision to not treat inmates with hepatitis c was because of budgetary concerns from private companies running the prisons. He also wrote that the court would not tolerate any "foot dragging" and gave Florida DOC until December 1, 2017 to come up with a plan and to start treating the most severely ill inmates first. Between the rulings of both U.S. District Chief Judge Waverly Crenshaw and U.S. District Judge Mark Walker, inmates around the nation affected with hepatitis c may be able to get treatment for the often deadly liver disease. [GN] TESLA INC: Black Workers Sue Over Racial Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------- Democrat Now reports that black workers at Tesla's Fremont, California factory have filed a class-action lawsuit accusing Tesla of being a "hotbed for racist behavior." A former African American worker at Tesla says he was routinely called the N-word while working at the factory, and that after he complained, he was fired for not having a positive attitude. Tesla is also facing lawsuits accusing the company of discriminating against LGBT workers and older workers. [GN] TEXAS FARM: "English" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations -------------------------------------------------- Heather English, Joe Hawley, and Robin Broussard, and other similarly situated employees v. Texas Farm Bureau Business Corporation, Texas Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Texas Farm Bureau Underwriters, Farm Bureau County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas, Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company, and Texas Farm Bureau, Case No. 6:17-cv-00323 (W.D. Tex., November 17, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are residents of Texas and worked as insurance agents for the Defendants. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees have all been victimized by Defendants' common policy and plan to violate their rights under the FLSA by denying them proper overtime compensation. The Defendants operate a business enterprise selling insurance- related services and products, including auto, home/property, farm/ranch, life, and health insurance. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Eddie Williams, Jr., Esq. Brian A. Abramson, Esq. Sean M. McCarthy, Esq. WILLIAMS KHERKHER HART BOUNDAS, LLP 8441 Gulf Freeway, Suite 600 Houston, TX 77017 Tel: (713) 230-2200 Fax: (713) 643-6226 E-mail: jwilliams@williamskherkher.com babramson@williamskherkher.com smccarthy@williamskherkher.com - and - Daniel O. Goforth, Esq. Ryan D. King, Esq. Avi Moshenberg, Esq. GOFORTH KING MOSHNEBERG LLP 1900 Pennzoil South Tower 711 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 650-0022 Fax: (713) 650-1669 E-mail: dangoforth@goforthlaw.com ryanking@goforthlaw.com avimoshenberg@goforthlaw.com - and - Kelly E. Cook, Esq. Warren A. Berlanga, Esq. WYLY & COOK, PLLC 4101 Washington Ave. 2 nd Floor Houston, TX 77007 Tel: (713) 236-8330 Fax: (713) 863-8502 E-mail: kcook@wylycooklaw.com wberlanga@wylycooklaw.com TEZOS: Faces Securities Class Action in California -------------------------------------------------- Sophia Morris, writing for Law360, reports that an investor in the Tezos blockchain network accused the company's executives of offering the cryptocurrency as securities in its initial coin offering without first registering with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, according to a proposed class action filed on Nov. 26 in California federal court. GGCC LLC and its managing member Brian Beeman accused Arthur and Kathleen Breitman, founders of Dynamic Ledger Solutions Inc., which owns the Tezos source code, of violating federal securities laws by misleading investors about the status of the Tezos network. [GN] TEZOS: Faces Third Class Action Over ICO ---------------------------------------- Rachel McIntosh, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that the Tezos ICO, which raked in a whopping $400 million, has been the subject of much controversy in recent weeks. Following a highly publicized spat between the individuals at the core of the Tezos project, not one, not two, but three separate class-action lawsuits are seeking the return of the ETH and BTC contributed to the ICO. The latest lawsuit, which is being brought by the Restis Law Firm, P.C. and Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, echoes the arguments of the two that preceded it: the Tezos tokens, which were marketed to ICO participants as securities, were never legally registered as such. The suit seeks to "recover bitcoin and ethereum contributed to the Tezos ICO, along with any corresponding appreciation in value of those invested assets, or the equivalent in monetary damages or restitution" for its plaintiffs. The initial lawsuit was filed on October 25, just a few days after Tezos caught a wave of negative attention for a public dispute between its founding members and the Tezos Foundation head. The suit was brought by the Taylor-Copeland Law firm, and accused Gevers, the Breitmans, and Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc., of "selling unregistered securities, committing securities fraud, false advertising and unfair competition," according to a report from CoinDesk. David Silver, a partner at the Florida-based SilverMiller firm, filed the second suit in mid-November. The language in the second suit was a bit more direct in its accusation of the Breitmans and the Tezos Foundation of outright deception: "Notwithstanding the defendants' attempts to avoid governmental and private scrutiny, it is clear that the financiers were indeed profit-seeking investors in a security and that Defendants promoted and conducted an unregistered offering of securities, not a charitable fundraiser." The reference to a charitable fundraiser is related to the language of the Tezos ICO, which described contributions as "non- refundable donations". The Tezos drama has a few main characters. First, there are Kathleen and Arthur Breitman, owners of Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc., and founders of the Tezos blockchain project. In the opposing corner is Johann Gevers, who founded the Switzerland- based non-profit, the Tezos Foundation. The story goes something like this: after starting the Tezos project, Kathleen and Arthur wanted to shift the ownership of Tezos' intellectual property to the Tezos Foundation, a move that allegedly would have allowed them to take a $20 million pay-out "without getting their hands dirty in Switzerland", according to a report from Finews. The real trouble began when the network's founding couple, Kathleen and Arthur Breitman, accused the head of the Tezos Foundation, Johann Gevers, of deceptively arranging a $1.5 million bonus for himself. Additionally, the Breitmans did not have many kind things to say about Gevers as the leader of the foundation; in an emailed statement to Fortune, Kathleen Breitman said that Johann was an incompetent "roadblock" who failed to fulfill the basic duties required of his position. The accusations were formally laid out in a 9-page letter saying that Gevers was guilty of "self-dealing, self-promotion and conflicts of interest." In an interview with Reuters, Gevers fired back at the Breitmans, accusing them of organizing an illegal coup to oust him from the foundation. "This is attempted character assassination," said Gevers "It's a laundry list of misleading statements and outright lies." The drama surrounding the accusations sent the price of Tezos token futures spiraling. The tokens, which have been affectionately named 'Tezzies', dropped roughly 60% in the wake of the drama. Kathleen Breitman told Fortune that the company's plans to release the Tezzies to ICO participants in February remained unchanged. On October 25, the same day that the first class-action suit was filed, the Breitmans took the stage at the Money2020 conference in Las Vegas. "This will blow over once the board meets in a few days," said Kathleen. She was mistaken. [GN] TOTAL CARD: "Cooper" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------- Christopher Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Total Card, Inc., a South Dakota corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-04306 (S.D. Ind., November 17, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff, Christopher Cooper is a citizen of the State of Indiana, residing in the Southern District of Indiana, from whom Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt, which was allegedly owed to United Consumer Financial Services. Defendant Total operates a nationwide debt collection business and attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state, including consumers in the State of Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Philipps, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. Angie K. Robertson, Esq. PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Tel: (708) 974-2900 Fax: (708) 974-2907 E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com mephilipps@aol.com angiekrobertson@aol.com TRAVELPORT: Settles Antitrust Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------ Tnooz reports that Travelport reached a settlement agreement in an antitrust lawsuit charging the three western GDS companies with conspiring to avoid competing with each other. Sabre and Amadeus remain defendants in the class action lawsuit, filed in 2015 in the U.S. District Court in New York City. In submissions requesting approval of the settlement, the plaintiffs said it provides for Travelport's cooperation in the ongoing prosecution of the case. They said Travelport also agreed to authenticate the vast number of documents it has already produced and to pay $117,000 to their lawyers for litigation expenses. In a statement, Travelport made it clear that the settlement was not prompted by the merits of the case but by a desire to make it go away: "Travelport acknowledges that it has reached a settlement with the plaintiffs in the matter of Gordon, et al. v. Amadeus IT Group, S.A., which, if approved by the court, would resolve all pending claims against Travelport in the case. As noted in the settlement agreement itself, Travelport denies that it committed any violations of law or engaged in any unlawful act or conduct, nor is Travelport aware of any evidence to the contrary. Travelport, to avoid the legal expense and distraction of ongoing litigation, agreed to settle the case on terms that will allow the company to focus on continuing to provide a transparent, pro-competitive platform to connect travel buyers and travel sellers." The complaint is unusual in that it was brought by a group of 21 consumers and "all others similarly situated," who presumably would have had little or no direct contact with GDS companies. The class action seeks to represent "all U.S. residents who purchased a ticket on American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, United, US Airways, AirTran, Alaska or JetBlue between June 1, 2006 [the year full-content agreements were introduced], and the present." The plaintiffs claim that the GDS companies' practices have kept air fares artificially high by forcing airlines to accept to accept a nearly identical contract provision prohibiting the airlines from offering different content or lower prices through other distribution channels. It was part of a plan "to strangle airlines' ability to negotiate fees and offer differentiated content," they said. Much of the material in the original complaint was similar to verbiage used in US Airways' lawsuit vs. Sabre. It also appeared to borrow heavily from American Airlines' 2011 lawsuits against Sabre and Travelport, which were settled. The case is currently in the discovery phase. Judge Katherine Polk Failla has not yet set a trial date. [GN] TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Feb. 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------ The following is being released by Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. pursuant to an Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CITY OF MONROE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, derivatively on behalf of TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FOX, INC., Plaintiff, v. RUPERT MURDOCH, LACHLAN MURDOCH, JAMES MURDOCH, CHARLES G. CAREY, DAVID F. DEVOE, RODERICK I. EDDINGTON, ROGER S. SILBERMAN, JACQUES A. NASSER, JAMES W. BREYER, JEFFREY W. UBBEN, VIET DINH, DELPHINE ARNAULT, TIDJANE THIAME, AND THE ESTATE OF ROGER AILES, DEFENDANTS, and TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FOX, INC., Nominal Defendant. C.A. No. 2017-0833-AGB SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF DERIVATIVE ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF DERIVATIVE ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FOX, INC. ("FOX" OR THE "COMPANY") AS OF THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON NOVEMBER 20, 2017. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE ACTION. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Delaware Court of Chancery and a Scheduling Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), of the pendency of the above-captioned stockholder derivative action (the "Action"), which was brought by plaintiff City of Monroe Employees' Retirement System ("Plaintiff") on behalf of and for the benefit of the Company. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Parties have reached a proposed settlement of the Action (the "Settlement"), subject to Court approval, as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release, dated as of November 20, 2017 (the "Stipulation"). Pursuant to the Stipulation, as consideration for the Settlement, the Director and Officer Defendants and the Ailes Estate will cause their insurers to make a payment of $90 million in cash, less the amount of any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court to Plaintiffs' Counsel, to the Company, and the Company shall implement the corporate and compliance enhancements set forth in Exhibit A to the Stipulation. A more detailed description of the Settlement terms, as well as a description of the history of the Action and an explanation of stockholders' legal rights with respect to the Settlement, is provided in the full Notice of Pendency of Derivative Action, Proposed Settlement of Derivative Action, Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"). Each of the Notice and the Stipulation has been filed as an exhibit to a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 30, 2017, and the Notice and Stipulation are available for review in the "Governance" section of the Company's website, www.21cf.com. A hearing will be held before the Court on February 9, 2018, at 2:00 p.m., in the Delaware Court of Chancery, New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 (the "Settlement Hearing"). At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will, among other things: (a) determine whether the Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders; (b) determine whether the Court should enter a Final Order and Judgment, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit E to the Stipulation, dismissing the Action with prejudice, and settling, releasing, and enjoining prosecution of any and all Released Plaintiff's Claims (as defined in the Stipulation) against the Released Defendants' Parties (as defined in the Stipulation); (c) consider the application by Co-Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses; (d) hear and determine any objections to the Settlement or Co-Lead Counsel's fee and expense application; and (e) rule on such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. Stockholders do not need to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any objections to the proposed Settlement or Co-Lead Counsel's fee and expense application must be filed with the Court and delivered to Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants' counsel such that they are received no later than January 26, 2018, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please Note: Because the Action was brought as a derivative action, which means that it was brought on behalf of and for the benefit of the Company, the benefits from the Settlement will go to the Company. Individual Fox stockholders will not receive any direct payment from the Settlement. Also, please note that there is no proof of claim form for stockholders to submit in connection with this Settlement, and stockholders are not required to take any action in response to this notice. DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER IN CHANCERY REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions regarding this notice and the Settlement should be made to Co-Lead Counsel: Mark Lebovitch, Esq. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 (800) 380-8496 www.blbglaw.com Michael J. Barry, Esq. Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. 123 S. Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 622-7000 www.gelaw.com Dated: November 30, 2017 By Order of the Court SOURCE Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. Related Links http://www.21cf.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: More Suits After Data Breach Cover Up -------------------------------------------------------- The Washington Post reports that after Uber revealed that it paid hackers $100,000 to keep quiet about stealing the personal information of 57 million customers and drivers, the company is now facing at least three potential class-action lawsuits -- including in Oregon -- and separate investigations by the attorneys general of New York, Missouri, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Illinois. The company said it also has been contacted by the Federal Trade Commission. The legal action against Uber comes as the beleaguered ride hailing company is still reeling from high-profile sexual harassment complaints and ongoing federal probes of possible bribery, theft of trade secrets, and discriminatory pricing. Uber waited more than a year to disclose the massive data breach. Hackers accessed the names, email addresses and phone numbers of millions of passengers, and about 600,000 drivers had their license numbers compromised. Adding to concerns about the sizable delay in notifying the public, elected officials and security experts are scrutinizing Uber's decision to pay a ransom to the hackers in exchange for deleting the stolen data and keeping the incident secret. Since Uber first disclosed the data breach earlier this week, five attorneys general have launched investigations into the company. "We have serious concerns about the reported conduct," said Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, Esq. in a statement. Beyond Healey's probe, attorneys general Eric Schneiderman, Esq. of New York, Lisa Madigan, Esq. of Illinois and George Jepsen, Esq. of Connecticut are also looking into the matter. Though these three have not revealed the exact nature of their investigations, many state laws require that companies notify customers when their data has been stolen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, another state attorney general who has opened an investigation into Uber, recently also announced a probe into Google's handling of consumer data and potential anti-competitive behavior as a dominant search engine. The Uber data breach has also prompted individual customers to action. Plaintiffs have filed three separate lawsuits in California and Oregon that allege Uber was negligent in its failure to protect consumer data. The suits also claim that consumers were harmed by having their data compromised without being notified in a timely manner. In each case, the plaintiffs are seeking to sue Uber as part of a class action. "None of this should have happened, and I will not make excuses for it," said Uber Chief Executive Dara Khosroshahi in a blog post detailing the data breach. "While I can't erase the past, I can commit on behalf of every Uber employee that we will learn from our mistakes." The two individuals who led the company's response to the data breach have been removed, he said. In response to the investigations, an Uber spokesman said in a statement November 24, "We've been in touch with several Attorney General Offices and the (Federal Trade Commission) to discuss this issue, and we stand ready to cooperate with them going forward." A spokesman for the FTC told the Washington Post in a statement, "We are aware of press reports describing a breach in late 2016 at Uber and Uber officials' actions after that breach. We are closely evaluating the serious issues raised." As the nation's top consumer privacy watchdog, the FTC can take law enforcement action against companies to ensure that they live up to their privacy and security promises. The commission has previously gone after businesses that have misled consumers by failing to safeguard sensitive information. [GN] UNITED STATES: Court Enjoins ICE From Removing Indonesian Aliens ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Removal in the case captioned LIA DEVITRI, et al., Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v. CHRIS CRONEN, et al., Respondents/Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-11842-PBS (D. Mass.). Petitioners seek stays of their removal so that they are not removed before they have the opportunity to file motions to reopen based on changed country conditions. Petitioners are 51 Indonesian Christians who fear religious persecution in Indonesia and are subject to final Orders of Removal. All Petitioners reside in New Hampshire. In 2010, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) instituted a humanitarian program called Operation Indonesian Surrender, through which Petitioners were granted Orders of Supervision, allowing them to seek employment and subjecting them to certain mandatory conditions. Petitioners also received temporary stays of removal that were renewed over multiple years. In the summer of 2017, these individuals were informed that they would be removed from the United States. They filed this habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, raising claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The only issue before the Court is whether the Court has subject- matter jurisdiction. Petitioners assert that the Court has habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241(c). Here, Petitioners challenge a condition of their custody, specifically, ICE's abrupt change in policy regarding participants in Operation Indonesian Surrender' and the unfairly compressed timetable of the issuance of the Denials of Stays and/or Notices of Revocation of Release. Essentially, Petitioners argue that the sudden policy change, combined with the 30-30 order, is preventing them from exercising their due process rights" and their statutory right to move to reopen. Since Petitioners' challenge is tied to a term of their Orders of Supervision (OSUPs) habeas jurisdiction is proper. Petitioners concede, as they must, that the Court has no jurisdiction to review the decision to execute their removal orders, but they argue that they have a statutory right to move to reopen based on changed country conditions that arose after the Orders of Removal became final. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution dictates that the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. Congress may decide to create adequate and effective alternatives to habeas corpus relief without offending the Suspension Clause. Despite the jurisdiction-stripping language of 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(g), the Court concludes that it has subject-matter jurisdiction under both 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 to ensure that there are adequate and effective alternatives to habeas corpus relief in the circumstances of this case. If the jurisdictional bar in 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(g) prevented the Court from giving Petitioners an opportunity to raise their claims through fair and effective administrative procedures, the statute would violate the Suspension Clause as applied. The Court finds that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over Counts I and II in the SAC. The Court dismisses without prejudice Count III addressed in the companion case. The government is hereby temporarily enjoined from removing all Petitioners named in the SAC until the Court rules on the motion for preliminary injunction or until further order of the Court. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 27, 2017 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybf4hb76 from Leagle.com. Lia Devitri, Plaintiff, represented by Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero -- rrauseoricupero@nixonpeabody.com -- Nixon Peabody, LLP. Lia Devitri, Plaintiff, represented by Sydney Pritchett -- spritchett@nixonpeabody.com -- Nixon & Peabody, LLP, W. Daniel Deane -- ddeane@nixonpeabody.com -- Nixon Peabody LLP, Adriana Lafaille, American Civil Liberties Union, Anand Balakrishnan, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Gilles R. Bissonnette, American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Judy Rabinovitz, American Civil Liberties Union, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Matthew Segal, American Civil Liberties Union, 211 Congress St., Boston, MA, 02110-2410 & Nathan P. Warecki -- nwarecki@nixonpeabody.com -, Nixon Peabody LLP. Eva Grasje, Plaintiff, represented by Adriana Lafaille, American Civil Liberties Union, Anand Balakrishnan, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Gilles R. Bissonnette, American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Judy Rabinovitz, American Civil Liberties Union, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Matthew Segal, American Civil Liberties Union, Nathan P. Warecki, Nixon Peabody LLP, Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Sydney Pritchett, Nixon & Peabody, LLP & W. Daniel Deane, Nixon Peabody LLP. Syane Kaloh, Plaintiff, represented by Adriana Lafaille, American Civil Liberties Union, Anand Balakrishnan, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Gilles R. Bissonnette, American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Judy Rabinovitz, American Civil Liberties Union, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Matthew Segal, American Civil Liberties Union, Nathan P. Warecki, Nixon Peabody LLP, Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Sydney Pritchett, Nixon & Peabody, LLP & W. Daniel Deane, Nixon Peabody LLP. John Londa, Plaintiff, represented by Adriana Lafaille, American Civil Liberties Union, Anand Balakrishnan, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Gilles R. Bissonnette, American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Judy Rabinovitz, American Civil Liberties Union, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Matthew Segal, American Civil Liberties Union, Nathan P. Warecki, Nixon Peabody LLP, Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Sydney Pritchett, Nixon & Peabody, LLP & W. Daniel Deane, Nixon Peabody LLP. Meldy Lumangkun, Plaintiff, represented by Adriana Lafaille, American Civil Liberties Union, Anand Balakrishnan, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Gilles R. Bissonnette, American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Judy Rabinovitz, American Civil Liberties Union, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Matthew Segal, American Civil Liberties Union, Nathan P. Warecki, Nixon Peabody LLP, Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Sydney Pritchett, Nixon & Peabody, LLP & W. Daniel Deane, Nixon Peabody LLP. Martin Lumingkewas, Plaintiff, represented by Adriana Lafaille, American Civil Liberties Union, Anand Balakrishnan, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Gilles R. Bissonnette, American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Judy Rabinovitz, American Civil Liberties Union, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Matthew Segal, American Civil Liberties Union, Nathan P. Warecki, Nixon Peabody LLP, Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Sydney Pritchett, Nixon & Peabody, LLP & W. Daniel Deane, Nixon Peabody LLP. Meive Lumingkewas, Plaintiff, represented by Adriana Lafaille, American Civil Liberties Union, Anand Balakrishnan, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Gilles R. Bissonnette, American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Judy Rabinovitz, American Civil Liberties Union, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Matthew Segal, American Civil Liberties Union, Nathan P. Warecki, Nixon Peabody LLP, Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Sydney Pritchett, Nixon & Peabody, LLP & W. Daniel Deane, Nixon Peabody LLP. Terry Rombot, Plaintiff, represented by Adriana Lafaille, American Civil Liberties Union, Anand Balakrishnan, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Gilles R. Bissonnette, American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Judy Rabinovitz, American Civil Liberties Union, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Matthew Segal, American Civil Liberties Union, Nathan P. Warecki, Nixon Peabody LLP, Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Sydney Pritchett, Nixon & Peabody, LLP & W. Daniel Deane, Nixon Peabody LLP. Agus Setiawan, Plaintiff, represented by Adriana Lafaille, American Civil Liberties Union, Anand Balakrishnan, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Gilles R. Bissonnette, American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Judy Rabinovitz, American Civil Liberties Union, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Matthew Segal, American Civil Liberties Union, Nathan P. Warecki, Nixon Peabody LLP, Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Sydney Pritchett, Nixon & Peabody, LLP & W. Daniel Deane, Nixon Peabody LLP. Freddy Sombah, Plaintiff, represented by Adriana Lafaille, American Civil Liberties Union, Anand Balakrishnan, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Gilles R. Bissonnette, American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Judy Rabinovitz, American Civil Liberties Union, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Matthew Segal, American Civil Liberties Union, Nathan P. Warecki, Nixon Peabody LLP, Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Sydney Pritchett, Nixon & Peabody, LLP & W. Daniel Deane, Nixon Peabody LLP. Chris M. Cronen, Defendant, represented by Rayford A. Farquhar, United States Attorney's Office, Michael A. Celone, United States Department of Justice; Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation-District Court Section, Michael P. Sady, United States Attorney's Office, Vinita B. Andrapalliyal, United States Department of Justice & William C. Silvis, United States Department of Justice. Timothy Stevens, Defendant, represented by Rayford A. Farquhar, United States Attorney's Office, Michael A. Celone, United States Department of Justice; Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation-District Court Section, Michael P. Sady, United States Attorney's Office, Vinita B. Andrapalliyal, United States Department of Justice & William C. Silvis, United States Department of Justice. Elaine C. Duke, Defendant, represented by Rayford A. Farquhar, United States Attorney's Office, Michael A. Celone, United States Department of Justice; Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation-District Court Section, Michael P. Sady, United States Attorney's Office, Vinita B. Andrapalliyal, United States Department of Justice & William C. Silvis, United States Department of Justice. Pro Se Party John A. Hawkinson, Intervenor, Pro Se. UNIVERSAL HANDICRAFT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Mollicon" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied Defendants Universal Handicraft and Shay Sabag Segev's motions to dismiss the case, Lisa Mollicone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Universal Handicraft d/b/a Deep Sea Cosmetics d/b/a Adore Organic Innovations, and others, Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-21468-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.). The consolidated action began as two cases -- one filed by Plaintiff Mollicone in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and the other filed by Plaintiff Millie Land in this district before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga, in which the Plaintiffs assert claims against the Defendants based upon allegedly false and misleading representations with respect to the anti-aging properties of cosmetics manufactured, marketed and sold by the Defendants. Before Mollicone's case was transferred to this Court from California, the District Judge ruled upon the Defendants' previous motions to dismiss, in which Universal challenged the court's subject matter jurisdiction and the sufficiency of the allegations in the first amended complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Universal argued that Mollicone lacked standing (i) to seek injunctive relief because she failed to demonstrate that she is threatened with a concrete and particularized injury; (ii) to assert claims regarding products she did not buy; and (iii) to assert claims based on laws of states outside California and New Jersey. In addition, and relevant to the Court's consideration of the present motion, Universal argued that Mollicone failed to plead her fraud-based claims with particularity and that her allegations supported only a claim for lack of substantiation under California law. In her order, Judge Christina Snyder denied Universal's motion on these grounds. Thereafter, Mollicone filed a second amended complaint, which Universal answered. Subsequently, pursuant to Universal's motion, Judge Snyder transferred Mollicone's case to this district. Upon the parties' stipulation, this Court consolidated Mollicone's case with Plaintiff Land's case, and required the Plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint. In response to the third amended complaint, the Defendants have filed the instant motions to dismiss. Universal also moves, in the alternative, to strike certain allegations in the third amended complaint, and for a more definite statement. Judge Scola denied Universal Handicraft's motion to dismiss and its alternative relief. Judge Scola explains that while he recognizes that the substantive counts in the third amended complaint are not a model of drafting and reincorporate the allegations preceding them, he does not find that such a technical violation alone renders the third amended complaint so confusing as to justify dismissal in the case. Also, the Plaintiffs have not yet sought class certification in the case, thus, whether or not a particular class should be certified is an inquiry better reserved after full briefing of a motion for class certification, and a full consideration of the relevant factors under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Land relied on any advertising, label, or statement prior to purchasing the Defendants' product. Finally, the allegations and attachments that Universal now seeks to strike, or that Universal contends require a more definite statement, are identical to allegations and attachments to the first and second amended complaints, and which Universal did not challenge. Because he finds the Plaintiffs' allegations to be sufficient, the Judge denied Segev's motion. With respect to the allegations of corporate officer liability and alter ego, he finds the third amended complaint to be sufficient to withstand dismissal. Whether the Plaintiffs will ultimately be able to prove that Segev should be held liable pursuant to these theories is a determination for another day. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Omnibus Order is available at https://is.gd/vxtTdn from Leagle.com. Lisa Mollicone, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Houchin -- mike@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, pro hac vice. Lisa Mollicone, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald Marron -- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Office of Ronald A. Marron, APLC, pro hac vice & Cullin Avram O'Brien -- cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com -- Cullin O'Brien Law, P.A.. Universal Handicraft, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anna L. Heller -- jimheller@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor, Brett Nicole Taylor -- btaylor@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor, Jeffrey David Feldman -- jfeldman@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor & Nathan Dooley -- ndooley@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor. Universal Handicraft, Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan Joy Latham -- slatham@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor. Shay Sabag Segev, Defendant, represented by Anna L. Heller, Cozen O'Connor, Brett Nicole Taylor, Cozen O'Connor, Jeffrey David Feldman, Cozen O'Connor, Nathan Dooley, Cozen O'Connor & Susan Joy Latham, Cozen O'Connor. UNIVERSITE LAVAL: Judge Rejects Motion to Stay Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action continues. On November 27, 2017, Justice Simon Hebert has rendered his decision regarding the motion for a stay of proceeding filed by Universite Laval in September. The judge rejected the University's request for a suspension of the class action proceedings until the Federal Court of Appeal releases its ruling in the case opposing Access Copyright to York University. In his judgment, the judge states that the court has not been satisfied that the savings that may emanate from the decision in the case in the Federal Court would be important enough as to suspend this class action which started more than three years ago, in November 2014. Copibec also takes this opportunity to correct inaccurate information that has been published after the release of the class action notice in September. Copibec wishes to recall that: Copibec is not a "publishers' cartel". Copibec is a non-profit social enterprise created by the author and publisher community. Authors and publishers are represented equally on our Board of Directors, with a director from each category alternating as Chair. Daniele Simpson, from the Union des ecrivaines et des ecrivains du Quebec (UNEQ) representing Quebec writers, is Copibec Chair this year. The very first agreements governing the content reproduced by educational institutions were in fact negotiated by UNEQ. Copibec licences do not "duplicate existing expenditures" by universities. Every year, thousands of copy log entries (content uses) are compiled by Copibec under the university licences. Most of those uses relate to pages in monographs (non-serial publications) rather than serial publications such as scientific journals. Content from books actually represents 79% of the uses reported annually by universities with licences. And of course, Copibec licences do not require users to report content reproduced under a separate publisher's licence. Copibec licences reflect how universities operate today. The royalty payable to authors, visual artists and their publishers by universities has been reduced by nearly 50% since 2012, falling to $13.50 per student for the 2017-2021 period. This substantial decline amply reflects evolving practices within universities, which are now benefiting from a very advantageous royalty rate for the millions of copies they make each year. The purpose of the class action against Universite Laval is to protect the rights of authors and publishers. The class action has been launched by and on behalf of authors, publishers and their representatives, including Copibec. The decision to go ahead with the action was made by our Board of Directors, which has as many directors from the author category as the publisher category. Various individual authors and publishers have also signed statements as members of the class. The action is not intended to protect Copibec's business model but rather to ensure that authors and publishers receive compensation when their works are used. On behalf of the members of the class action, Copibec is therefore pleased with the decision rejecting Laval University's application for stay. A new deadline in this collective action whose first request dates from November 2014 has been avoided and Copibec hopes that hearings will take place as soon as possible. To stay up to date on developments in the class action, please go to the Copibec website or contact us at actioncollective@copibec.ca About Copibec Copibec is a non-profit social enterprise created in 1998 by the Union des ecrivaines et des ecrivains quebecois (UNEQ) and the Association nationale des editeurs de livres (ANEL) to manage the reproduction rights for content in paper and digital formats. It has the authority to manage reproduction rights for thousands of Quebec authors and publishers as well as the authors and publishers represented by reproduction rights organizations in about 30 countries, including the United States, France and Belgium. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS: Lawsuits Over Sexual Assaults Resolved ------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Margolies, writing for KCUR, reports that two former student athletes who sued the University of Kansas after claiming they were sexually assaulted on campus have dismissed their Title IX cases against the university. Both lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they can't be refiled. Typically, such dismissals mean the cases have been settled out of court. Dan Curry, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, would say only that the cases had been "resolved." A spokesman for KU could not immediately be reached for comment. The separate lawsuits by Daisy Tackett and Sarah McClure, both former varsity rowers, alleged that KU was indifferent to their reports of harassment and retaliated against them after they reported being assaulted by a football player in Jayhawker Towers, a KU residence hall. Ms. Tackett claimed she was raped by the football player in the fall of 2014. Ms. McClure claimed she was sexually assaulted by the same player in August 2015. Ms. Tackett and Ms. McClure both sought damages under Title IX, the federal law that bars sex discrimination in education. A federal judge declined to dismiss their lawsuits after ruling that the dismissal of a separate class action lawsuit against KU over sexual assaults on campus did not preclude their individual claims. The class action case alleged that KU's residence halls had for years been "home to a known, persistent and growing problem of instances of sexual assault." KU termed those allegations "baseless." In her lawsuit, which was filed in March 2016, Ms. Tackett alleged that at least four other sexual assaults had been reported at Jayhawker Towers before she was allegedly raped and two others assaults after that. The Kansas City Star reported that the university in March 2016 recommended that the football player be expelled after finding he had engaged in "non-consensual sex" with Ms. Tackett and violated KU's sexual harassment policy in McClure's case. The player, Jordan Goldenberg Jr., is no longer at the university. Ms. Tackett also claimed that the rowing team coach retaliated against her after she reported what happened, telling her she couldn't attend a training trip in December 2015 in Florida. Ms. Tackett withdrew from KU in January 2016 and moved to Florida to be with her parents. Ms. McClure quit the rowing team and KU canceled her athletic grant the next day. Before that Ms. McClure alleged, she and other members of the rowing team were regularly berated by the team's coach, Rob Catloth, about their weight and, in her case, her medical condition. [GN] US BANK: "Guiette" TCPA Suit Transferred to D. Colo. ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Virginia Guiette, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. Bank National Association, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-01859 (D. Minn., June 1, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court of Colorado on December 4, 2017 under Case No. 17-cv-02915. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages including interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Telephone Consumers Protection Act (TCPA). Defendant is a major bank and financial service provider for consumer accounts. It used an automatic telephone dialing system when it made the phone calls promoting their services with pre- recorded or artificial voices on Plaintiff's phone without her express consent, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony P. Chester, Esq. Robert L. Hyde, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (952) 225-5333 Facsimile: (800) 635-6425 Email: tony@westcoastlitigation.com Defendant is represented by: Bryan C. Keane, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 50 S 6th St Ste 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498 Tel: (612) 492-6638 Fax: (952) 516-5608 Email: keane.bryan@dorsey.com - and - Divya Shenoy Gupta, Esq. Eric J. Troutman, Esq. Plaza Tower 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 2000 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (714) 800-1493 Email: gupta.divya@dorsey.com WELLS FARGO: Faces New 401(k) Fiduciary Class Suit -------------------------------------------------- John Sullivan, writing for 401K Specialist Mag, reports that the perennial political pi§ata that is Wells Fargo finds itself in the litigation line of fire once again, as a proposed class action suit was filed against the use of certain investments in its employee 401k plan. "The lawsuit, filed Nov. 17 in a Minnesota federal court, accuses the banking giant of filling its 401(k) plan with expensive and poorly performing investment funds that earned fees for Wells Fargo," according to Bloomberg BNA. "The company is also accused of failing to use its 'enormous size' as the third-largest 401(k) plan in the country -- with nearly $40 billion in assets at one point -- to negotiate for lower fees." The news service notes that the claims echo "those in a 2016 lawsuit that Wells Fargo defeated when a federal judge determined that the company couldn't be liable under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act for "failing to choose the cheapest fund" for its 401(k) plan. "This newer lawsuit against Wells Fargo also attacks the company's decision to keep a money market fund in its 401(k) plan when a "cheaper and better performing stable value fund" was already in the plan." High fees, proprietary funds and overall fiduciary failure are of course a major focus if industry, legal and regulatory attention, especially in light of the ongoing drama and "will it, won't it" questions surrounding the DOL's implementation of it's Conflict of Interest Rule (known colloquially as the fiduciary rule). Gucci and DST are just two recent cases to be filed alleging a fiduciary breach. Additionally, a number of the nation's most well-known and respected colleges and universities have been the subject of legal action over the 403b plans offered to their employees. University of Pennsylvania, Duke University, John Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, New York University, Yale and Columbia, were all subjects of such suits. [GN] WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC: Massey Files Adversary Suit Under WARN Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elton Massey, Kirt Hurlburt, Patricia Adams, John Jennings, Johnnie Hogll, and Katrina Baker, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC, WECTEC LLC, WECTEC Staffing Services, LLC, and WECTEC Global Project Services, Inc., Case No. 17-01215-mew (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., November 9, 2017), was filed as a class action adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy case of Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-10751 (MEW). The complaint is brought for alleged violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the South Carolina Payment of Wages law. The Plaintiffs and the proposed class are employees of the Defendants, who worked at or reported to the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, located in Jenkinsville, South Carolina, until their employment was terminated without cause on their part in violation of the WARN Act on July 31, 2017, or within 30 days of that date, or as the reasonably expected consequence of the mass layoffs or plant closing at the VC Summer Location, that occurred on July 31. WEC is a Delaware limited liability company, with its headquarters located in Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania. WEC owns 100% of Defendant WECTEC. WECTEC is a Delaware limited liability company, with its principal office located in Cranberry Township. WECTEC owns 100% of Defendants WECTEC Staffing and WECTEC Global. WECTEC Global is a Louisiana corporation, with its principal office located in Cranberry Township. WECTEC Staffing is a Delaware limited liability company, with its principal office located in Cranberry Township. WECTEC Global and WECTEC Staffing ran the "service business" of WEC and WECTEC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raymond Lemisch, Esq. Charles A. Ercole, Esq. Lee D. Moylan, Esq. KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG LLP 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 569-2700 E-mail: rlemisch@klehr.com cercole@klehr.com lmoylan@klehr.com WOODFORD TRANSPORTATION: Water Outage Class Settlement Approved --------------------------------------------------------------- WSAZ.com reports that a West Virginia judge has given preliminary approval to a $4 million class action settlement over a January 2015 tanker truck diesel spill that briefly shut down tap water supplies. According to The Register-Herald, Greenbrier County Judge Robert Richardson gave initial approval November 20 in the lawsuit against Kenneth Pritt, Woodford Transportation and Woodford Oil Company. The spill occurred when a tanker truck went into a tributary near Neola that feeds Anthony Creek. A news release says contaminants entered the Greenbrier River and caused Lewisburg officials to shut down water treatment plants. Water supplies were exhausted the next day. Officials began restoring water service the day after that. Businesses, schools and daycares were ordered closed. Affected residents and owners or workers of businesses are eligible to collect. [GN] WOODLAKE CC: Attorney General Pledges to Uphold Action ------------------------------------------------------ Jamie Baxley, writing for The Pilot, reports that State Attorney General Josh Stein says his office is continuing to monitor the situation at the troubled Woodlake Resort and Country Club near Vass. Woodlake CC Corp., the company that owns the gated subdivision, was sued by the state Attorney General's Office in January for repeatedly failing to follow through on promises to repair the dam at Lake Surf, which was drained last year amid concerns about the dam's stability in the wake of Hurricane Matthew. An agreement to dismantle the dam's deteriorated spillway was later reached in court between the state and Julie Watson, vice president of Woodlake CC Corp. But the company failed to comply with construction deadlines established in the agreement, forcing the state to step in to perform the work. In a recent interview with The Pilot, Stein said he will lead the effort to recoup the costs associated with the project after a series of inspections have been completed and the final bill is sent to Woodlake CC Corp. "My job at the Attorney General's Office is to represent (the state Department of Environmental Quality) in this litigation and make sure that the work is done properly and to try to collect on the cost of that work," Stein said. The cost of the project is expected to exceed $1 million, according to some estimates. The agreement between the state and Woodlake CC Corp. was authorized in the form of a consent judgment signed by Judge James Webb in Moore County Superior Court. The judgment clearly stated that Watson could be held in contempt of court if Woodlake CC Corp. failed to hold up its end of the deal. "Throughout the process, contempt has remained on the table as an option," said Laura Brewer, communications director for the Attorney General's Office. "But collection hasn't officially started because construction's not complete." The value of waterfront homes in Woodlake fell sharply after the state drained the 1,200-acre lake. A class action lawsuit against Woodlake CC Corp. was announced in October, with the plaintiffs blaming the company for causing property values to be slashed by 50 percent after a review by the county tax department. The plaintiffs also claim the company's continued collection of membership dues is part of "a scheme to coerce members to continue paying fees even though WLCCC was not providing the promised amenities," according to a civil summons delivered to Watson. Hope Carmichael, Esq. an attorney with Jordan Price Law Offices in Raleigh, is representing the homeowners. During a town hall-style meeting on Oct. 25, Carmichael said the plaintiffs would receive a default judgment if Woodlake CC Corp. failed to respond to the civil complaint within 30 days. David Watterson, one of the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit and the president of a committee that wants to restore water to the empty lake, said in an email November 24 it was not yet clear if Watson or any other representative of Woodlake CC Corp. had met the deadline. "We are still waiting to hear from our attorney as to whether Woodlake responded to our complaint," Watterson said. The Pilot was unable to obtain the latest information about the case from the Moore County Clerk of Court's Office, which was closed November 23 and 24 in observance of Thanksgiving. Two classes are being represented in the lawsuit. The first class consists of Woodlake residents whose property values have been adversely affected by the loss of the lake -- or, as Watterson put it during last month's meeting, "virtually everyone who lives at Woodlake." The second class consists of residents who have paid membership dues to use the lake, golf courses and other amenities at the resort since May 29, 2015. In the civil summons, the plaintiffs claim Woodlake CC Corp. "offered memberships to property owners living within the Woodlake subdivision at levels ranging from $1,944.21 to $2,955.48, depending on the level of amenity access desired." The company allegedly "did not allow members to reduce their level of membership, even when the amenities for which they were paying were unavailable," according to the summons. "Members were unable to simply stop paying due to the threat that Woodlake CC Corp. would terminate their club membership entirely, thus requiring an additional $25,000 new member fee in the future should they ever wish to rejoin." Indeed, the website for Woodlake Resort and Country Club still advertises the empty lake as the development's "centerpiece . . . offering members boating, swimming, fishing and water skiing." In addition to the forthcoming bill from the state, Woodlake CC Corp. owes money to several businesses, including two engineering firms that claim to be owed more than $367,000 for unpaid services. Because of the company's debts, Carmichael said the lawsuit is not likely to win payouts for Woodlake residents. "If we thought the defendant had $20 million sitting in the bank, the $20 million diminution of property value that you've all suffered might result in checks coming," she said during the meeting in Vass. According to Carmichael, a judgment against Woodlake would instead allow homeowners to take control of the dam and lake through a foreclosure auction. Watterson and the other plaintiffs hope to eventually refill the lake, which should restore value to their property and bring back the amenity they say attracted them to the subdivision in the first place. Stein says he's sympathetic to the plight of residents at Woodlake. "It's a real problem, and we're working it out," he said. "We want to do everything we can to look out for the people there, but as I said, our top priority has to be public safety." [GN] WORK OUT WORLD: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Susinno" TCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Peter G. Sheridan of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case styled NOREEN SUSINNO, Plaintiff, v. WORK OUT WORLD, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-cv-5881 (PGS) (D. N.J.). The Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") individually and behalf of a putative class of people who received phone calls from Defendant Work Out World ("WOW"), contrary to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). According to the Complaint, in July 28, 2015, WOW used an automatic dialing system that left a pre-recorded message in the Plaintiff's voicemail system. The following month, WOW served the Plaintiff an Offer of Judgment, pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, in the amount of $1,501 and provided a proposed Order for a Stipulated Permanent Injunction in full satisfaction of her claims. The Plaintiff rejected this offer. However, on March 30, 2016, WOW deposited the $1,501 amount, arising from the TCPA violation, into the Plaintiff's credit card account ending in 6716. The Plaintiff claims to have never received payment; instead, she maintains that WOW deposited funds into her employer's credit card account, not her own. Relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, WOW argues the Court should enter a final judgment, over the Plaintiff's objections, since it has tendered all available relief. The Plaintiff responds, contending that a tender of complete relief of her individual claims does not render the class action claim moot, nor has WOW properly tendered payment to her, which may negate her individual cause of action. Judge Sheridan denied the WOW's motion to dismiss. He identifies two major problems with WOW's motion, both of which provide a basis for denial. First, there is a disputed fact. WOW claims it has deposited the $1,501 into an account payable to the Plaintiff, while she maintains that the said amount was transferred to a credit card that belongs to her employer. As such, there is clearly a material issue as to whether the Plaintiff has properly tendered payment such that would render her individual claims moot. Moreover, WOW's assertion that it has offered the entire class complete relief finds no support in the record. Not only did the Plaintiff rejected this offer, but WOW's offer did not provide any monetary relief to the putative class under 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3). As such, since WOW has failed to offer complete relief on the Plaintiff's class-wide claims, judgment is not warranted. Second, the Judge says, guided by Richardson v. Dir. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, even if the Plaintiff's individual claims were moot, she is entitled to seek class certification, under both the relation back doctrine and the picking off exception to mootness. Here, it is apparent that WOW sought settlement with the Plaintiff, in an attempt to thwart class certification. However, to deny class certification at this point, based solely on the Plaintiff's moot individual claim, would be to deprive her of a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted. In sum, the Judge says the Plaintiff may have a personal stake in the present matter, and she has a right to seek class certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/aTOVMh from Leagle.com. NOREEN SUSINNO, Plaintiff, represented by ARI HILLEL MARCUS -- ari@marcuszelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN LLC. NOREEN SUSINNO, Plaintiff, represented by YITZCHAK ZELMAN -- Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus Zelman, LLC. WORK OUT WORLD, INC., Defendant, represented by JOSHUA S. BAUCHNER -- jb@ansellgrimm.com -- ANSELL GRIMM & AARON. * Fight to Preserve Mandatory Arbitration Is Bad Policy ------------------------------------------------------- Scott McCleskey, writing for Reuters, reports that those who fight against regulation for a living routinely trot out a few fundamental principles to fortify their arguments. One is that consumers should have free choice: the government should not prohibit products or services on the presumption that it knows better than the customer. Another is that "one-size-fits-all" solutions are bound to fail and should not be imposed on the industry or its customers. A judge wearing white gloves stands before a special session of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on the occasion of the 225th anniversary of the first session of the court in New York November 4, 2014. Following these principles is wise, and helps keep free markets fair and efficient. So, it's ironic and disturbing that these principles were ignored when the financial industry and its supporters in Congress rushed through a resolution which reversed a ban on mandatory arbitration clauses in the financial industry. Reversing the ban leaves financial institutions free to impose closed-door arbitration on all future disputes with customers, blocking recourse to the civil court system regardless of the circumstances. A bit of background: for years, it has been industry practice that when you open a bank or brokerage account, you agree to take disputes with the bank to arbitration, surrendering your right to participate in a class-action lawsuit. Last July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), much maligned by regulation opponents, banned these mandatory arbitration clauses on the grounds that they are unfair to consumers. But with last year's elections there's a new sheriff in town, and Congress managed to squeak out a revocation of the CFPB rule (with a tie vote broken by Vice President Mike Pence), which was duly signed by President Donald Trump. The industry's public posture is that arbitration is good for consumers and class-action lawsuits are bad. This is in fact true, in most circumstances. The Alternative Dispute Resolution service offered by the Financial Industry Regulation Authority (FINRA) is a model of efficient and fair dispute resolution that provides small investors an alternative to settling disputes, faster and cheaper than hiring a lawyer and going to court. In most cases, arbitration is undeniably the best course for the aggrieved investor. But not always. Singing the virtues of arbitration would have been a compelling argument against the CFPB rule if it sought to ban arbitration. But it did no such thing. Instead, it prohibited firms from requiring customers to waive their right to pursue litigation, by embedding it in a contract whose terms they cannot negotiate. That means that arbitration is not really Alternative Dispute Resolution, since there's nothing for it to be an 'alternative' to. This is Substitute Dispute Resolution. So if arbitration is usually in the customer's best interest, why get all worked up about prohibiting litigation? The plain answer is that in some cases class-action suits are more appropriate. Class-action suits have a public image roughly on par with opioids and bump-stocks on rifles, but their value comes clear in cases where customer abuse is widespread. Pick a financial industry scandal over the past five years and there's a good chance that thousands of customers were victim to the same pattern of abuse. Unpopular as they are, class-action suits are a legitimate avenue for pursuing civil justice and should not be limited in this way. Blocking their use deprives the customer of an important path to redress, and this is no more appropriate when done by a commercial enterprise than by a government body. The right to litigate in court is something worth defending. Important matters of principle are at stake, and they are the very principles espoused by advocates of free markets: freedom of choice, level playing fields, no one-size-fits-all regulation. But mandatory arbitration runs counter to all these principles: it is a one-size-fits-all solution that reduces consumer freedom of choice and assumes that the firms know what is best for their customers better than the customers themselves. Moreover, the financial industry will now have difficulty fighting future rules by invoking the principles they now find convenient to ignore. A less diplomatic writer would put it this way: it smacks of hypocrisy. This abandonment of principle is compounded by Congress rushing the resolution through without the same level of consideration and analysis that is invariably demanded of new regulations (the CFPB spent five years studying the issue before issuing its rule). The weapon of choice was the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a little gem of partisanship that allows Congress to overturn new regulations by federal agencies and bar their reinstatement, but only within a short window of time. Passed in 1996, the CRA had only been used once (16 years ago) until this year: it has been used fifteen times since February to revoke Obama-era rules before the window closed. So the fight to preserve mandatory arbitration is bad policy, contrary to free market principles, and was rushed through without the same level of scrutiny required of new rules. It's also one more thing: bad for business. Firms spend good money persuading clients and potential clients that the firm and its employees are trustworthy advisors whose main interest is their clients' financial well-being. But an uninterrupted chain of scandals has given the industry the burden of proving its trustworthiness. Lobbying to preserve the industry's right to limit a wronged client's options does not reinforce the image the industry needs to maintain. The move also threatens to undercut industry efforts to roll back so-called fiduciary rules which seek to formalize the duty of financial firms with respect to how they treat their customers. In effect, the industry is saying "we'll act in our customers' best interests, and when we don't we'll decide which path they should take to take action against us." Underlying in the industry's argument is that class-action litigation is expensive for the firm and the costs will be passed on to customers. But this argument rests on the implicit assumption that eliminating mandatory arbitration clauses will lead to a flood of class-action suits, and that's not likely. It takes time, effort, and money to establish a class-action suit, which must then be certified by the courts as eligible for class- action status. They really only make sense when arbitration doesn't make sense, when the conduct in question is widespread. Financial institutions could take a less coercive approach to encourage, but not mandate, the use of arbitration. They do a lot of customer education already, and could extend this to the merits of arbitration. They could also provide an incentive for customers to voluntarily waive their right to civil litigation, for instance by giving better terms for accounts opened with an agreement to settle disputes through arbitration. Surely that fits better with a client-centered culture than dictating the rules of a divorce on the way to the altar. In the end, arbitration is usually the best course for the client, but the CFPB failed in its bid to ban mandatory arbitration agreements and now it's up to financial firms to disavow them. [GN] * Illinois Employers Face Class Actions Over BIPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel B. Pasternak, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that Illinois enacted its Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") in 2008 to regulate, among other things, employer collection and use of employee biometric information. Biometrics is defined as the measurement and analysis of physical and behavioral characteristics. This analysis produces biometric identifiers that include things like fingerprints, iris or face scans, and voiceprints, all of which can be used in a variety of ways, including for security, timekeeping, and employer wellness programs. Illinois is not the only state with a biometrics privacy law on its books, however, its version is considered the nation's most stringent. BIPA requires a business that collects and uses biometric data to protect the data in the same manner it protects other sensitive or confidential information; to establish data retention and destruction procedures, including temporal limitations of three years; to publish policies outlining its biometric data collection and use procedures; and to obtain prior, informed consent from any individuals from whom it plans to obtain and use biometric data. The statute also requires businesses to notify employees in the event of a data breach. Protection of biometric data is viewed as critical because, unlike passwords comprised of letters, numbers, or typographical characters, biometric data is unique and cannot be replaced or updated in the event of a breach. Technology now allows biometric data to be captured surreptitiously, such as recording a voice over the phone, or face mapping individuals in a crowd or through photographs, increasing the risk for its theft or unauthorized or at least, unknown, use. In fact, these more furtive methods of collecting and using biometric data is what led to the filing of five BIPA class action lawsuits in 2015 -- four against Facebook, and one against online photo website Shutterfly -- that alleged these companies used facial recognition software to analyze online posts, but did not comply with BIPA's consent or other procedural requirements. These first lawsuits brought attention to the private right of action authorized under BIPA, which provides that any "aggrieved" person may sue and recover $1,000 for each negligent violation and $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation, or, in both circumstances, actual damages if greater than the statutory damages. Prevailing parties may also recover their attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiffs' employment bar recently has gotten seriously into the BIPA class action game; since August 2017, approximately 30 lawsuits have been filed in Cook County, Illinois (where Chicago is), alone. These putative class actions have been filed against employers in many industries including gas stations, restaurants, and retail, and typically involve the employer's use of fingerprint operated time clocks. The cases allege that the defendant employers failed to obtain proper informed consent or fail to maintain and inform employees about policies on the company's use, storage, and destruction of biometric data. Many of these lawsuits also allege the employer companies have improperly shared employee biometric data with third-party time clock vendors, and some even name the vendor as a defendant. In addition to the obvious cost of class action litigation, these suits present additional legal challenges because many aspects of BIPA remain untested. For example, the statutory term "aggrieved" person leaves open the question whether a plaintiff must be able to prove actual harm in order to recover. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York both have dismissed BIPA suits for lack of standing where the plaintiffs did not allege actual harm. The latter case, Santana v. Take-Two Interactive Software, is currently before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which heard oral argument in October 2017, but has not yet issued its ruling. Other aspects of BIPA also remain in flux -- such as whether facial recognition through photography is biometric data, as defined under the statute, and what forms of consent are compliant. On the other side, defendants are challenging the constitutionality of the damages provisions, arguing that their potentially disproportionate nature to any actual harm violates due process. As these issues are flushed out under BIPA, they are certain to affect other states who have already enacted, or may seek to enact, laws regarding use of biometric data. [GN] * Vaginal Mesh May Be Banned in Britain Due to Complications ------------------------------------------------------------ Kate Sheridan, writing for Newsweek, reports that a type of mesh used in the vagina and linked to serious and painful complications may be banned in the United Kingdom. According to the BBC, the U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) may recommend the devices be used only in research. The mesh is intended to help keep women's pelvic organs in place inside their bodies. The problem may sound extreme, but it is both real and common. The condition, known as pelvic organ relapse, or POP, happens because organs move around during pregnancy and delivery. As a result, the muscles that keep a woman's uterus and bladder in place can weaken, causing the organs to drop down. The shift can be uncomfortable and make it difficult for women to control their bladders. Some organs may even start to poke out from the vaginal opening. An estimated 200,000 American women undergo surgery following childbirth to treat POP. But for some women, the mesh has caused more problems than it has solved. The plastic mesh meant to secure the placement of their organs began to cut into their tissue instead, causing extreme pain. About one in 15 women who had the mesh implanted in the U.K. eventually had it taken out, The Guardian reported in August. These mesh implants have also been controversial in the United States. One woman, Ella Ebaugh, 51, was awarded $57 million in damages after she sued the manufacturer of the mesh used to treat her urinary incontinence. In the U.S., nearly 55,000 people are suing Johnson & Johnson, a major manufacturer of the product, according to the company's 2016 annual report. Class-action lawsuits against the company have also been filed in Israel and Canada. Other class-action lawsuits over the mesh are ongoing in the U.S. and Australia, The Guardian reported in September. In April, Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay $20 million to a woman in New Jersey for mesh-related damages, Bloomberg reported. In 2016, California, Washington and Kentucky sued the company over its marketing of the device, alleging that the company didn't provide enough information about the mesh's possible side effects. (The company told Reuters that the subsidiary that marketed the mesh, Ethicon, "acted appropriately and responsibly.") Many of the lawsuits emphasize the extraordinary pain linked with the mesh. One woman told the BBC that she had to quit her job; another said she considered suicide and that she and her husband haven't been able to have sex in four years. One woman, writing about her experience in an opinion piece for The Guardian, said a lawyer had contacted her about women who say the mesh eventually forced them to have their bladders removed. Britain's national healthcare system, the NHS, isn't obliged to follow NICE's recommendations, the BBC noted. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not regulate doctors' medical decisions directly, but if the agency were to take the extraordinary step of mandating a recall of the devices, that could be binding on manufacturers. The FDA has known for several years about the hazards of this product, first approved to treat POP in 2002. By 2010, the FDA had already received nearly 4,000 reports of adverse events associated with the mesh, according to documents from a meeting held in 2011 to review the use of the device; three people died because of complications after the mesh-placing surgery between 2008 and 2010. After that meeting, the agency concluded that serious complications were "not rare" and that there wasn't "conclusive evidence" that the mesh actually made surgeries more effective for patients. Short of a recall, the FDA has done other things to address the issues with the mesh, reclassifying both the product and the instruments used with it to categories that give the agency more oversight. The agency also asked companies with instruments used with the mesh that are already on the market to go back to the FDA for clearance by January 2018, according to the Federal Register. However, no steps to outright ban vaginal mesh in the U.S. have yet been taken. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Joseph Cardillo at 856-381- 8268. * * * End of Transmission * * *