/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180223.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, February 23, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 40 Headlines ABACUS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York ABC FINANCIAL: "Coulter" Suit Seeks Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania ADVANCE AUTO: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Early-Riley" Suit in S.D. Ca. AMALGAMATED BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. of New York AMERICAN WEB: Faces "Hengle" Suit in E.D. Virginia AMERICOLOR LLC: "Woldman" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT under FLSA AMY SCHERBER INC: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York APPLE INC: Lankford, et al. Sue over iOS 11 Software Updates APPLIED MACHINERY: "Remond" Suit Seeks overtime pay under FLSA AQUENT INC: "Segal" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California ARIZONA BOARD: Sued in Arizona Over Alleged Gender Discrimination ARRO CORPORATION: Bolds Alleges Misuse of Biometric Information AT&T MOBILITY: Day Appeals N.D. Ga. Ruling to Eleventh Circuit BAIO ENTERPRISES: "Hunter" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Richards & Belardo Sue over Hurricane Costs BARNSCO INC: "Nichols" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA BELLICUM PHARMA: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action Suit BEST & CO: Faces "Carranza" Class Suit in New York BILLIONAIRE BOYS: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York BITCONNECT: Stull, Stull Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit BRAVURA INFORMATION: "Miller" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA CANADA GOOSE: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D.N.Y. CASCADIAN THERAPEUTICS: Jaso Balks at Seattle Genetics Merger CHERNE CONTRACTING: Parker Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Alvarez" Class Suit Over Automated Calls COLUMBIA GOURMET: Faces "Cortes" Suit in S.D. of New York CREDIT SUISSE: Former Broker Files Class-Action CRST INTERNATIONAL: "Perez" Suit Transferred to N.D. Iowa DALEY'S MEDICAL: Ramsey Sues over Misuse of Biometric Data DEALS ON BROADWAY: Doesn't Pay Staff Overtime, Monica Claims DIVINE ANJU: "Labata" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law DONALD J. TRUMP: Kersey Appeals D. Mass. Ruling to First Circuit EQUINOX HOLDINGS: "Rosales" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA FARMERS GROUP: Fails to Pay Wages, Pham Says FEDEX GROUND: "Anderson" Suit Moved to N.D. California FIRST BANCTRUST: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Suit FITBIT INC: Pomerantz, Glancy Prongay Inks $33MM Settlement FLEXICORPS INC: Thome Sues over Misuse of Biometric Data FUYAO GLASS: Judge Gives Workers Class-Action Status G.E.C. RESTAURANT: Faces "Conner" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania GC SERVICES: Faces "Savage" Suit in New York Supreme Court GC SERVICES: "Reyes" Suit Seek Damages for Conn. Consumers GCB SERVICES: "Wren" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA GENERAL MOTORS: "Won" Suit Moved to Eastern District of Michigan GENERAL MOTORS: Jenkins, et al. Sue over AC System Defect GLOBAL EAGLE: M&M Hart Trust Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit GOOGLE INC: Class-Action Lawsuit Over Pixel Mic Drops GRAND CAMPUS: Weiss Sues over Spam Advertisements HEALTH INSURANCE: Accused by "Hicks" Class Suit of Violating TCPA HERITAGE HOME: Faces "Kiler" Suit in Eastern District New York INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D.N.Y. INTEL CORPORATION: Faces "Ali" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports JAKE'S FRANCHISING: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York JAMES PERSE: Fails to Pay OT for All Hours Worked, Diaz Says JAMES PERSE: "Marett" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Faces "Jones" Suit in N.D. California JING WAH CHINESE RESTAURANT: Faces "Lin" Suit in E.D.N.Y. JULLIARD SCHOOL: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Sembhi Balks at Celgene Merger Deal K&D HOME: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime, "Kidd" Alleges KADLEC REGIONAL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Grego" Class Suit LAW OFFICE OF PERRI: Faces "Maximov" Suit in E.D.N.Y. MATTY & MERK: Faces "Prazdnik" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania MDA CITY: Hamilton, et al. Sue over Deceptive Rental Terms MDL 2741: "Joffe" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. MDL 2741: "Mayo" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. MDL 2741: "Nahler" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. MDL 2741: "Ragland" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. MDL 2741: "Beams" Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. METLIFE INC: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit MICHIGAN, USA: 6th Cir. Appeal Filed in Fowler v. State Secretary MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Lechner Files ERISA Class Suit in Nebraska NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Eleventh Cir. Appeal Filed in "Majesko" Suit NEW ALBERTSON'S: Bruhn Sues over Collection of Biometric Data NORMAN NOBLE: "Hill" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA NORTHFIELD BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. California OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Hustig Sues over Securities Law Violations OSI SYSTEMS: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action PENTAGON FEDERAL: Neal Files Suit Over Property Damage PENTAGON FEDERAL: Neal Files Suit Under Truth in Lending Act PERFECT PASTA: "McConnell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime PHILADELPHIA, PA: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "J. C." Suit PHILLIPS & COHEN: Steffek Sues over Debt Collection Practices PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Dennis" Suit in N.D. Georgia PHILIPS BRYANT PARK: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York POINTER TELOCATION: Applicant Seeks Withdrawal of Class Claim PURDUE PHARMA: New Castle City Sues over Prescription Opioids RED LOBSTER: "Demarest" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law RISTORANTE NUMERO: Fails to Pay Florida's Mandated Minimum Wages SAN JOSE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hernandez" Action Claims SANTA MONICA AMUSEMENTS: White Seeks OT & Minimum Wages SEARS HOLDINGS: Smith & Alberton Sue over Defective Dryer Covers SEATTLE, WA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hooper" Class Suit SELIP & STYLIANOU: Faces "Natela" Suit in District of New Jersey SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Elastomeric Coating Ads Deceptive, Sluder Says SOUTHCROSS ENERGY: Sued in N.D. Tex. Over American Merger Plan SPARK OF HOPE: "Gayle" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida SUNNY JEWANEE: "Qureshi" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA SUPER MICRO: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action SUPER MICRO: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action SUPER MICRO: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action TJD TRANSPORTATION: "Gaye" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Back Wages TOLL GLOBAL: Marquez Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under Labor Code TOWN SPORTS: Faces "Kolomiichuk" Suit in S.D. New York TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Transferred "Dagher" Class Suit to E.D.N.C. TWIN KITTY: "Saavedra" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Meyer Appeals Order Compelling Arbitration UNITED PARCEL: Faces "Castro" Suit in S.D. New York UNIVERSAL HANDICRAFT: Transferred "Mollicone" Suit to S.D. Fla. UPA LLC: Carpenter Wants Rent Payments Returned VERIPRO SOLUTIONS: Faces "Doest" Suit in Northern District Texas VICE MEDIA: "Rose" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages under FLSA VODAFONE GROUP: Korry Sues over Drop in ADR Price WELLS FARGO: Purple Mountain Trust Sues over Share Price Drop WILLIAMS SONOMA: Fails to Pay All Overtime Wages, Arellano Says ZOCO PRODUCTIONS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Burbon Alleges Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Claims vs. Wetzel in "Brown" Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Budd Co. Can't Add Expert Witness in "Little" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Can Appeal Ruling in "Terwilliger" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rohr Witness to be Deposed After Discovery ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Witness Depositions Stipulations Entered ********* ABACUS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Abacus International Capital Corp. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Abacus International Capital Corp. d/b/a Abacus Federal Savings Bank, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00961 (E.D. N.Y., February 13, 2018). Abacus International Capital Corp. is a bank in the United States founded in December 1984 by a group of business leaders from the Chinese American community in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C. 337 Avenue W, Suite 2f Brooklyn, NY 11223 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (347) 665-1545 Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com ABC FINANCIAL: "Coulter" Suit Seeks Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled RAMSEY COULTER and EMILY COULTER, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. CI-18-00252, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Allentown) of on Feb. 14, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00650-LS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Lawrence F. Stengel. ABC Financial provides health club software and billing services to the fitness industry primarily in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas J. Linker, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 78 John Miller Way, Suite 430 Kearny, NJ 07032 Telephone: (862) 2273106 E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com Attorneys for Defendant: Carl Engel, Esq. COHEN SEGLIALS PALLAS REENHALL & FURMAN PC 30 South 17th Street, 19th Fl Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 564 1700 E-mail: cengel@cohenseglias.com ADVANCE AUTO: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of purchasers of Advance Auto Parts, Inc. securities during the period between November 14, 2016 through August 15, 2017, inclusive. Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until April 9, 2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in Advance Auto Parts securities during the Class Period. Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has yet been certified in the above action. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose during the Class Period that integration issues surrounding Advance Auto's Carquest acquisition resulted in systemic inefficiencies and cannibalization of sales and increased competition was negatively impacting sales. According to the complaint, following a May 24, 2017 report of disappointing first quarter fiscal 2017 financial and operational results, including a quarterly sales decrease of 3.0% and quarterly decrease in gross profit, and an August 15, 2017 report of disappointing second quarter fiscal 2017 financial and operational results and lowering of its guidance, the value of Advance Auto shares declined significantly. If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment in Advance Auto Parts securities purchased on or after November 14, 2016 and held through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-6616. Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating securities and other class action cases and have been advocating for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the class. Charles J. Piven, Esq. Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation 1925 Old Valley Road Stevenson, Maryland 21153 Telephone: 410-415-6616 Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Early-Riley" Suit in S.D. Ca. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc. The case is styled as D'Anthony Early-Riley, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00345-DMS-AGS (S.D. Cal., February 13, 2018). AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc. operates as a debt collection agency in the United States. It offers online payment services. It serves financial services institutions, public utilities, governmental entities, telecommunications carriers, retailers, and healthcare providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald Marron, Esq. Law Office of Ronald Marron 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Tel: (619) 696-9006 Fax: (619) 564-6665 Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com AMALGAMATED BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. of New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amalgamated Bank. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Amalgamated Bank, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00962 (E.D. N.Y., February 13, 2018). Amalgamated Bank provides personal and commercial banking products and services to working families, unions, commercial real estate industries, healthcare markets, institutional investors, law firms, non-profits, and political organizations in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C. 337 Avenue W, Suite 2f Brooklyn, NY 11223 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (347) 665-1545 Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com AMERICAN WEB: Faces "Hengle" Suit in E.D. Virginia -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Web Loan, Inc. The case is styled as George Hengle and Lula Williams, on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00100-REP (E.D. Va., February 13, 2018). AWL is an online direct short-term loan lender.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Kelly & Crandall PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Rd, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Tel: (703) 424-7570 Fax: (703) 591-9285 Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com - and - Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Kelly & Crandall PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Rd, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Tel: (703) 424-7576 Fax: (703) 591-0167 Email: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com - and - Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. Kelly & Crandall PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Rd, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Tel: (703) 640-3334 Fax: (703) 591-0167 Email: casey@kellyandcrandall.com - and - James Wilson Speer, Esq. Virginia Proverty Law Center 919 E Main Street, Suite 610 Richmond, VA 23219 Tel: (804) 782-9430 Fax: (804) 649-0974 Email: jay@vplc.org AMERICOLOR LLC: "Woldman" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEIL WOLDMAN, individually and on behalf of all similarly- situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. AMERICOLOR, LLC and PAUL HERSCHKOWITZ, MATTHEW HERSCHKOWITZ, and KORY HERSCHKOWITZ, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00151 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Defendants committed violations of the FLSA by requiring and/or suffering or permitting their non- exempt employees, including Plaintiff, to routinely work more than 40 hours per week without payment of overtime compensation. Americolor is in the printers' services including folding and collating.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trevor Howell, Esq. HOWELL LAW, PLLC Custom House 701 Broadway, Suite 401 Box 1 Nashville, TN 372203 E-mail: Trevor@howelllawfirm.com - and - Peter F. Klett, Esq. R. Cameron Caldwell, Esq. Fifth Third Center 424 Church Street, Suite 800 Nashville, TN 37219-2392 Telephone: (615) 244 6538 E-mail: pllett@dickinson.com ccaldwell@dickinson.com AMY SCHERBER INC: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amy Scherber, Inc. The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Amy Scherber, Inc. doing business as: Amy's Bread, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01250 (S.D. N.Y., February 13, 2018). Amy's Bread is one of NYC's best bakeries, serving handmade artisanal breads, cookies, cakes and pastries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com APPLE INC: Lankford, et al. Sue over iOS 11 Software Updates ------------------------------------------------------------ BRADY LANKFORD, TRENT CLINTON GO, and JODIE L. KASUN, the Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv- 00257-HNJ (N.D. Ala., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover damages against Defendant for pushing a software "upgrade" onto existing iPhone device owners which seriously degraded the battery life of the device, dramatically reducing its use as a mobile device. This class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of owners of Apple iPhone devices who accepted Apple's invitation to download one or more iOS 11 Software Updates onto their existing iPhone device which had the effect of seriously degrading the battery life on their device. As a result of the deleterious effect of the iOS 11 "upgrade," many such owners, like Plaintiff Jodie L. Kasun, junked their existing iPhone and purchased newly available iPhone 8 or X series devices in order to have a reliable mobile device. Others, like Plaintiffs Brady Lankford and Trent Clinton Go, are still suffering from the inconvenience of an unreliable phone. Apple knew or should have known of the serious negative impact iOS 11 would have on the battery life of existing iPhones, yet the company took no action to warn owners against downloading the software update, nor to provide a fix such as allowing a downgrade to purge the offending iOS 11 software from affected devices. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric J. Artrip, Esq. D. Anthony Mastando, Esq. MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC 301 Washington St., Suite 302 Huntsville, Alabama, 35801 Telephone: (256) 532 2222 Facsimile: (256) 513 7489 E-mail: artrip@mastandoartrip.com tony@mastandoartrip.com APPLIED MACHINERY: "Remond" Suit Seeks overtime pay under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- RICHMOND REMOND on behalf of himself individually, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. APPLIED MACHINERY CORPORATION, NABORS CORPORATE SERVICES INC., and NABORS INDUSTRIES INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00460 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants do not pay their Welders overtime as required by the FLSA. Instead, Defendants pay its Welders straight time, not time and a half for overtime hours worked. Because these workers are employees under the FLSA, Richmond Remond, and the other Welders are entitled to recover unpaid overtime as well as other damages, including damages for unlawful retaliation. The Defendants provide drilling services for its customers throughout the oil and gas industry.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiffs: Angel S. Brown Reveles, Esq. BROWN REVELES LAW GROUP 3102 Maple Ave., Suite 400 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (469) 249 2239 Facsimile: (469) 442 0124 E-mail: angel@brownreveleslawgroup.com AQUENT INC: "Segal" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Elizabeth Segal, individually, and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Aquent, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation; Scout Exchange, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Vitamin T, an unknown entity; John Chuang, an individual; Doug Kaplan, an individual; Cheryl King, an individual; and Ken Lazarus, an individual; DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No. 37-2017- 00043402-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Feb. 13, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00346-LAB-JLB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Larry Alan Burns. Aquent is a staffing company specializing in placing temporary employees in marketing and creative industries. According to Staffing Industry Analysts, it is among the "largest marketing/creative staffing firms in the United States".[BN] Attorneys for Elizabeth Segal: Thomas D Rutledge, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS D RUTLEDGE 500 West Harbor Drive, Suite 1113 San Diego, CA 92102 Telephone: (619) 886 7224 Facsimile: (619) 259 5455 E-mail: thomasrutledgelaw@gmail.com Attorneys for Aquent, Inc. and Scout Exchange, LLC: Elizabeth Mary Levy, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 277 7200 Facsimile: (310) 201 5219 E-mail: elevy@seyfarth.com ARIZONA BOARD: Sued in Arizona Over Alleged Gender Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia MacCorquodale, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Arizona Board of Regents, Case No. 4:18-cv- 00028-RCC (D. Ariz., January 22, 2018), seeks redress for systematic gender discrimination in employment. Arizona Board of Regents is a corporate entity created by state law for the purpose of administering Arizona's public universities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Merle Joy Turchik, Esq. TURCHIK LAW FIRM, P.C. 2205 E. Speedway Blvd. Tucson, AZ 85719 Telephone: (520) 882-7070 Facsimile: (520) 203-0175 E-mail: merle@turchiklawfirm.com - and - David Sanford, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 1666 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 499-5201 Facsimile: (202) 499-5199 E-mail: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com ARRO CORPORATION: Bolds Alleges Misuse of Biometric Information --------------------------------------------------------------- ALEA BOLDS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff v. ARRO CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH01811 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and storage of individuals' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. This case concerns the misuse of individuals' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information by recruitment and staffing agency which is capturing, converting, transferring, storing and using its workers' biometric information without lawful consent. The Defendant does this through the use of biometric scanning devices and associated software technology which captures a person's fingerprint information derived from their fingerprints to authenticate the identity of such persons in the future. New technology has allowed consumers to pay their bills, secure financial accounts, and purchase physical goods, all with their biometric information, which is often a fingerprint. Unfortunately, along with the increased utility of biometric technology, so too has come grave privacy risks associated with the dissemination and unregulated collection of biometric information. Indeed, the permanent and irreplaceable nature of one's biometrics makes the illegal collection of the biometrics a significant public problem with far-reaching consequences, including irreversible identify theft and potential financial ruin. According to the lawsuit, so substantial is the risk from the wide collection of biometric information by private companies that numerous state legislatures, including Alaska, Connecticut, Montana, Michigan, Texas, New Hampshire, and Washington, have introduced legislation to regulate the collection and use of such sensitive information in an effort to stem the unique problems created by the irreplaceable nature and unique identifying characteristics of biometrics. The Illinois Legislature was the first to pass such legislation into law. In 2007, after a company specializing in the collection of biometric information filed for bankruptcy protection, effectively putting consumers' biometrics up for sale to the highest bidder, the Illinois Legislature knew that the liquidation proceedings created a serious risk that millions of fingerprint records would be sold as an asset or otherwise distributed without the consent, or even knowledge, of the persons to whom such fingerprints belonged. Recognizing the serious, irreversible harm that can come from the unregulated collection and use of biometric information, Illinois passed detailed regulations addressing the collection, use, retention, and transmission of biometric identifiers and biometric information by private entities, such as Defendant. A "biometric identifier" is any personal feature that is unique to an individual and includes fingerprints, iris scans, and palm scans, among others. "Biometric information" is any information captured, converted, stored, or shared based on a person's biometric identifier which is used to identify an individual. Arro Corporation provides contract manufacturing, processing, logistics, and warehousing services for food and food ingredient companies.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Myles McGuire William, Esq. P.N. Kingston, Esq. Jad Sheikali, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th FL Chicago, IL 6060 Telephone: (312) 893 7002 Facsimile: (312) 275 7895 E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com wkingston@mcgpc.com jsheikali@mcgpc.com AT&T MOBILITY: Day Appeals N.D. Ga. Ruling to Eleventh Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Roy A. Day filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Roy Day v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-03294-RWS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was filed in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia (Case No. 16EV005512), and was removed on December 1, 2016, to the District Court. The complaint alleges violation of federal and state antitrust laws by coercing the Plaintiff to purchase a new mobile device to obtain an "authentic" Microsoft Windows Phone operating system software update, thus preventing Day from having his mobile phone "unlocked." The appellate case is captioned as Roy Day v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-10307, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before February 23, 2018, as to Appellee AT&T Inc. Plaintiff-Appellant ROY A. DAY, on behalf of himself and as Class Action on behalf of others similarly situated, in Tarpon Springs, Florida, appears pro se.[BN] Defendants-Appellees AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, AT&T INC. and RANDALL L. STEPHENSON are represented by: Joshua Cole Hess, Esq. John P. Jett, Esq. KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP 1100 Peachtree St., Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 815-6500 E-mail: jjett@kilpatricktownsend.com jchess@kilpatricktownsend.com BAIO ENTERPRISES: "Hunter" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Hunter, the Plaintiff, v. Baio Enterprises, Inc., an Arizona corporation, and Martha A. Baio, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18- cv-00503-DGC (D. Ariz., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover equitable relief, minimum wage, overtime pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated current and former Case Aides of Defendants. The Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs overtime under the FLSA, and who were therefore not paid one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Telephone: (480) 382 5176 Facsimile: (602) 956 1409 E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com chris@bendaulaw.com BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Richards & Belardo Sue over Hurricane Costs ---------------------------------------------------------------- DARYL RICHARDS and LORETTA S. BELARDO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00004 (D.V.I., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to damages caused by Defendant violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising out of Scotiabank's unlawful conduct. This is a class action on behalf of Virgin Islands homeowners who have mortgages with the Bank of Nova Scotia and have been denied insurance coverage for hurricane damage under Scotiabank's force- placed insurance policy. Scotiabank purchases force-placed insurance for a borrower's property when a borrower fails to maintain or renew his or her own coverage. After Hurricanes Irma and Maria struck the Virgin Islands in September 2017, Scotiabank's borrowers with force- placed insurance contacted Scotiabank to make property damage claims under the force-placed policy. Scotiabank is the named insured under the policy, so the borrowers could not file their claims directly with the insurer. However, Scotiabank has a contractual duty to file claims under its force placed policy. That is because Scotiabank's mortgage agreement obligates Scotiabank to use the proceeds of the policy to repair the borrower's home or to reduce the borrower's loan balance. Scotiabank has refused to file or process the claims and stonewalled borrowers' attempts to get information about their claims. As a result, the borrowers cannot repair their hurricane- damaged homes. On information and belief, Scotiabank has implemented a company-wide policy of refusing to file force- placed claims, either because there is no applicable insurance coverage or because it has a reinsurance obligation or other financial motive for preventing claims from being paid. The Bank of Nova Scotia, operating as Scotiabank, is a Canadian multinational bank. It is the third largest bank in Canada by deposits and market capitalization.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Vincent Colianni, II, Esq. Vincent A. Colianni, Esq. COLIANNI & COLIANNI LLC 1138 King Street Christiansted, VI 00820 Telephone: (340) 719 1766 Facsimile: (340) 719 1770 E-mail: mailbox@colianni.com BARNSCO INC: "Nichols" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- ERNEST NICHOLS on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BARNSCO, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00366-M (N.D. Tex., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. This case implicates the longstanding pay policy of Barnsco, Inc., which fails to properly compensate its non-exempt employees for all the work they performed. Employers are not required to pay employees for meal periods if the meal period is completely uninterrupted. However, Defendant automatically deducted thirty minutes to one hour from each shift worked by its employees, regardless of whether the employee actually took the meal break, or attempted to take a meal break but was continuously interrupted due to the demands of the job. As such, Defendant denied wages for on-duty meal periods under an illegal pay policy and practice. Under this policy, non-exempt employees were not completely relieved of duties during meal periods and were denied pay for those on-duty meal periods. Defendant violated the FLSA and state law by knowingly and willfully permitting Plaintiff and Class Members to perform work and/or remain on duty during their meal breaks but subjecting them to an automatic one-hour meal break deduction from their wages. Defendant had notice that Plaintiff and Class Members expected to be paid for their work on an hourly basis. Defendant received the value of Plaintiff's and Class Members' work during the automatically deducted 30-minute meal periods without compensating them for their services. Defendant willfully, deliberately, and voluntarily failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members compensation for work performed. Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA because of the mandate that non-exempt employees, such as Plaintiff and the Class Members, be paid at one and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 within a single week. See 29 U.S.C. section 207(a). Defendant's conduct violates state law because Defendant and Plaintiff had an enforceable agreement whereby Plaintiff agreed to perform work for Defendant, and in return Defendant was to pay Plaintiff and Class Members at an agreed hourly rate for all time in which they performed compensable work. Even if no enforceable agreement exists, Defendant received and accepted valuable services from Plaintiff and Class Members with notice that they expected to be paid hourly for these services, yet Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members for services performed on Defendant's behalf during the automatically-deducted meal periods. Barnsco sells, and services concrete construction materials and equipment for concrete contractors. It offers bagged materials, bits and adapters, blades, chemicals, erosion and sediment control, fasteners and anchors, forming material, hand tools, heavy equipment, light equipment, and moisture protection product.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (281) 885 8844 Facsimile: (281) 885 8813 E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com - and - John Neuman, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (281) 885 8630 Facsimile: (281) 885 8813 E-mail: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com BELLICUM PHARMA: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. securities during the period between May 8, 2017 and January 30, 2018, inclusive. Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until April 9, 2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in Bellicum securities during the Class Period. Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has yet been certified in the above action. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose during the Class Period that a substantial undisclosed risk of encephalopathy was associated with the Company's lead product candidate BPX-501. According to the complaint, following a January 30, 2018 press release announcing that the Company had received notice from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that U.S. studies of BPX-501 have been placed on a clinical hold following three cases of encephalopathy deemed as possibly related to BPX-501, the value of Bellicum shares declined significantly. If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment in Bellicum securities purchased on or after May 8, 2017 and held through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-6616. Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating securities and other class action cases and have been advocating for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the class. Charles J. Piven, Esq. Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation 1925 Old Valley Road Stevenson, Maryland 21153 Telephone: 410-415-6616 Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com [GN] BEST & CO: Faces "Carranza" Class Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Best & Co. Hair Cutters Ltd., Nubest Personal Fitness Salon, Inc., and Michael Mazzei. The case is captioned Washington Carranza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best & Co. Hair Cutters Ltd., Nubest Personal Fitness Salon, Inc., and Michael Mazzei, Case No. 716200/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 23, 2018). The Defendants own and operate a hair salon in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: (718) 740-2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com BILLIONAIRE BOYS: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Billionaire Boys Club, LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Billionaire Boys Club, LLC and Billionaire Boys Club and Ice Cream Retail Operations, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01216 (S.D. N.Y., February 12, 2018). Billionaire Boys Club and Ice Cream is an American and Japanese clothing retailer featuring two lines of clothing established by Pharrell Williams and Nigo, founder of clothing label BAPE.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Law Offices of Bradly G. Marks 280 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10010 Tel: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (212) 254-4202 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com BITCONNECT: Stull, Stull Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull & Brody disclosed that it and Eggnatz | Pascucci have filed a lawsuit against BitConnect, BitConnect LTD, BitConnect International PLC and BitConnect Trading LTD (collectively "BitConnect"), and others, alleging violations of federal securities laws, and other violations of state law, relating to the BitConnect lending and staking programs. The case alleges that BitConnect held itself out as "the cryptocurrency revolution" purported to "[b]uild trust and reputation in [a] bitcoin and cryptocurrency ecosystem with [an o]pen-source platform." BitConnect stated that "Investing on BitConnect platform . . . is a safe way to earn a high rate of return on your investment without having to undergo a significant amount of risk." The case further alleges that BitConnect willfully and fraudulently failed to disclose material facts when offering the BitConnect investments, which caused its price to plummet drastically. If you invested with BitConnect and you have questions about your legal rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael Klein, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody by e-mail at BitConnect@ssbny.com, by calling toll-free 1-212-687-7230 x147, by fax to 1-212-490-2022, or by writing to Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017. You can also visit our website at www.ssbny.com. You may retain Stull, Stull & Brody, or other counsel of your choice, to represent you. Stull, Stull & Brody has litigated many class actions for violations of securities laws in federal courts over the past 40 years and has obtained court approval of substantial settlements on numerous occasions. Stull, Stull & Brody maintains offices in New York and Beverly Hills. [GN] BRAVURA INFORMATION: "Miller" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN MILLER, GEORGE MUNN, RAMIRO GARRIDO, and DENNIS COHEN, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BRAVURA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, INC., and CLAUDINE ADAMS, the Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-00041 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated persons are current and former Aerostat Operators who were/are not paid full wages for all hours worked or overtime compensation at a rate not less than 1.5 times the regular rate at which they were/are employed for work performed in excess of 40 hours per workweek, as required by federal law, for the three year period immediately preceding the filing of this action.[BN] Attorney-In-Charge For Named Plaintiffs, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated: Cynthia R. Levin Moulton, Esq. Lance C. Arney, Esq. Moulton, WILSON & Arney, L.L.P. 800 Taft Street Houston, TX 77019 Telephone: (713) 353 6699 Telecopier: (713) 353 6698 E-mail: cmoulton@moultonwilsonarney.com larney@moultonwilsonarney.com - and - Peter R. Rosenzweig, Esq. Kleinbard LLC One Liberty Place, 46th Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 443 4120 Facsimile: (215) 568 0140 CANADA GOOSE: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Canada Goose USA, Inc. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Canada Goose USA, Inc. doing business as: Canada Goose, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00910 (E.D. N.Y., February 12, 2018). Canadian Goose Inc. is a Canadian manufacturer of winter clothing.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. CASCADIAN THERAPEUTICS: Jaso Balks at Seattle Genetics Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- JEFF JASO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CASCADIAN THERAPEUTICS, INC., CHRISTOPHER S. HENNEY, ROBERT W. AZELBY, GWEN A. FYFE, STEVEN P. JAMES, TED W. LOVE, SCOTT D. MYERS, DANIEL K. SPIEGELMAN SEATTLE GENETICS, INC., and VALLEY ACQUISITION SUB, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00241 (W.D. Wash., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants violations of Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Solicitation Statement. This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on January 31, 2018, pursuant to which Cascadian Therapeutics Inc. will be acquired by Seattle Genetics, Inc. and Valley Acquisition Sub, Inc. On January 30, 2018, Cascadian's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Seattle Genetics. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer, scheduled to expire on March 9, 2018, and shareholders of Cascadian will receive $10.00 in cash for each share of Cascadian common stock that they own. On February 8, 2018, Defendants filed a Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading. Cascadian Therapeutics is a biotechnology company dedicated to the development of oncology products that can improve the lives and outcomes of cancer patients.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Roger Townsend, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND, PLLC 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 652 8660 Facsimile: (206) 652 8290 E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com - and - RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295 5310 - and - RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324 6800 CHERNE CONTRACTING: Parker Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------------- EATRICE PARKER on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHERNE CONTRACTING CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18892816 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under California Labor Code. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed state- wide class of hourly non- exempt on-site employees who worked at Cherne locations in California to challenge Defendants': (a) policy and practice of failing to pay any wages whatsoever, including the minimum wage, to employees for compensable travel time, including time spent traveling and/or waiting for and/or operating company-provided transportation to, from and/or within the refineries and other facilities; (b) policy and practice of violating California Labor Code section 510 and IWC Wage Order 16-2001 by failing to pay overtime wages to employees who worked more than eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a week; (c) policy and practice of violating California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512, and IWC Wage Order 16-2001 by failing to provide meal periods to employees, including second meal periods to employees who worked more than 10 hours in a day; (d) policy and practice of violating California Labor Code Sec. 226.7 and IWC Wage Order 16- 2001 by failing to authorize and permit third rest periods to employee who worked more than 10 hours in a day; (e) policy and practice of violating California Labor Code section 226 by failing to, provide complete and accurate itemized wage statements; and (f) policy and practice of violating California Labor Code sections 201-203 by failing to pay former employees all wages due and owing at the time of discharge or voluntary quit. The Plaintiff is an adult who worked for Defendants as a non- exempt hourly employee. She worked for Defendants as a driver from approximately June 30, 2015 through February 20, 2017 at the Tesoro refinery located in Martinez, California. Cherne Contracting Corporation operates as a general, heavy industrial, and mechanical contractor. It offers construction services in equipment, civil/structural, electrical, instrumentation, and insulation work; and mechanical services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric A. Grover, Esq. Robert W. Spencer, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 543 1305 Facsimile: (415) 543 7861 E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com rspencer@kellergrover.com - and - Scot Bernstein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 447 0100 Facsimile: (916) 933 5533 E-mail: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Alvarez" Class Suit Over Automated Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Alvarez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00151-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal., January 23, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called party. Client Services, Inc. operates a business that offers mortgage modifications and credit card rate reductions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 Facsimile: (866) 431-3292 E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com - and - Joshua Swigart, Esq. Yana A. Hart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com yana@westcoastlitigation.com COLUMBIA GOURMET: Faces "Cortes" Suit in S.D. of New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Columbia Gourmet Deli Corp. The case is styled as Aurelio Cortes and Mateo de la Cruz Casarrubias, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Columbia Gourmet Deli Corp. doing business as: Columbia Gourmet Deli, Rodolfo Ovalles and Azeez Ali, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01263 (S.D. N.Y., February 13, 2018). Defendants own, operate, or control a gourmet deli, located at 3905 Broadway, New York, New York 10032 under the name "Columbia Gourmet Deli".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 Email: michael@faillacelaw.com CREDIT SUISSE: Former Broker Files Class-Action ----------------------------------------------- Jed Horowitz, writing for Advisor Hub, reports that a former Credit Suisse broker in San Francisco has brought a class-action lawsuit against the bank seeking hundreds of millions of dollars of deferred stock he claims was withheld from him and other brokers who did not move to Wells Fargo Advisors after the Swiss bank shuttered its U.S. broker-dealer operations. Christopher Laver, who joined UBS Financial Services in 2015 after working for 13 years at Credit Suisse Securities (USA), alleges that Credit Suisse deliberately arranged a recruiting deal with Wells rather than an outright sale to avoid triggering a change-of-control in brokers' employment agreements that would have accelerated deferred compensation payments. Brokers who joined Wells collected their deferred shares. The lawsuit, filed February 7 in federal district court in San Francisco, also alleges that many brokers turned down offers from Wells Fargo out of concern over its ability to serve their customers. "Wells Fargo was incapable of and/or ill-suited to handle certain significant portions of Credit Suisse advisers' business, and Wells Fargo maintained a different type of client base than Credit Suisse advisers," the lawsuit says. "At the time it entered into the 'recruiting agreement' with Wells Fargo, Credit Suisse knew and expected that many of the Credit Suisse financial advisers would not and/or could not work for Wells Fargo." The case supplements dozens of arbitration claims that former Credit Suisse brokers have filed to collect back pay, and to avoid repaying balances on promissory notes that the bank is demanding. Credit Suisse has asserted that it is entitled to keep the deferred compensation, which the lawsuit says may be as much as $300 million, because the brokers "resigned" rather than join Wells Fargo. Karina Byrne, a Credit Suisse spokeswoman, said that if they had accepted Wells purported offers they would have received all their deferred pay. She also contested the lawsuit's allegation that a change of control would have triggered accelerated awards of the deferred shares. "Those who chose not to accept those offers had negotiated equally or more lucrative compensation packages from competing institutions that also covered the same contingent deferred compensation at issue here, consistent with standard industry practice," she wrote in an e-mail. "Simply put, the plaintiff here is looking to be paid the same money twice." About one-third of Credit Suisse's 336 U.S. brokers joined Wells Fargo in late 2015 and early 2016, with another 101 joining UBS, according to documents reviewed by AdvisorHub. Wells Fargo officials said during the recruiting period that it was not interested in hiring all of the Credit Suisse brokers. (Credit Suisse, meanwhile, has filed a raiding complaint against UBS.) The putative class-action lawsuit was made on behalf of brokers with unvested compensation awards who were effectively "terminated" between Oct. 20, 2015 and March 31, 2016, because their "private bank" went out of business, according to the lawsuit. Robert Nelson, Esq. a lawyer representing Laver, said the class likely includes more than 200 people. Byrne said Credit Suisse will "vigorously defend" itself against the lawsuit. Separately, dozens of Credit Suisse brokers who have joined Wells Fargo are grousing that the bank has reneged on promises of getting near-exclusive access to Credit Suisse retail syndicate deals for their clients. [GN] CRST INTERNATIONAL: "Perez" Suit Transferred to N.D. Iowa --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Jesus Perez, as an individual, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. CRST International, Inc., an Iowan corporation; CRST Expedited, Inc., an Iowan corporation; and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-01081, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa (Cedar Rapids) on Feb. 14, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00023-LRR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Linda R Reade. CRST International is a freight company based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Founded in 1955 by Herald and Miriam Smith, it is a privately held company with a current fleet of about 4,500 trucks and annual revenues of $1.5 billion.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S Morrison, Esq. Jessica Sun Choi, Esq. ALEXANDER KRAKOW AND GLICK LLP 401 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1000 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 394 0888 Facsimile: (310) 394 0811 - and - Nicolas Orihuela, Esq. HURWITZ ORIHUELA AND HAYES LLP 5757 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 503 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: (323) 965 2103 Facsimile: (323) 965 2146 Attorneys for Defendants: Megan Emslie Ross, Esq. Adam J Eakman, Esq. Charles Andrewscavage, Esq. Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq. R Jay Taylor, Jr., Esq. SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON AND FEARY LLP 2 North Lake Avenue Suite 560 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 795 4700 Facsimile: (626) 795 4790 DALEY'S MEDICAL: Ramsey Sues over Misuse of Biometric Data ---------------------------------------------------------- AQUEELA RAMSEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. DALEY'S MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, INC. d/b/a BUD'S AMBULANCE, the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-01935 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs and the proposed Class' sensitive, private, and personal biometric data. The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant in Illinois, including in Cook County, Illinois. While most employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Defendant mandated and required that its employees have their hand and/ or fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- hand and/ or fingerprint biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendant's employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a biometric database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed -- such as in the recent Equifax data breach -- employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking, and other improper or unlawful use of this information. As an employee of Defendant, Plaintiff has been required to "clock in" and "clock out" of work shifts by having her hand and/ or fingerprint scanned by a biometric timeclock which then identified each employee, including Plaintiff. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act expressly obligates Defendant to obtain an executed, written release from an individual, as a condition of employment, in order to capture, collect, and store an individual's biometric identifiers or biometric information, especially a fingerprint, handprint, or hand geometry scan, and biometric information derived from it. Founded in 2001, Daley's Medical Transportation is a mid-sized organization in the miscellaneous retail stores industry located in Dolton, IL. It has 120 full-time employees and generates an estimated $16.3 million in annual revenue.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: 314 833 4825 E-mail: bwise@prwlegal.com plesko@gmail.com DEALS ON BROADWAY: Doesn't Pay Staff Overtime, Monica Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ ANTONINA "MONICA" MONICA, Individually And On Behalf Of All Other Employees Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Deals On Broadway Corp. d/b/a Deals On Broadway, and Jalal Saab, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01342 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Lian Zhu, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY, 11354 Telephone: (718) 353 8588 E-mail: lzhu@hanglaw.com DIVINE ANJU: "Labata" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------------- AMY LABATA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIVINE ANJU, LLC and DIVINE INVESTORS LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 151295/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to recover wages and benefits pursuant to New York Labor Law. This action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a putative class of individuals who are presently or were formerly employed at KFC restaurants in New York by Divine Anju, LLC and Divine Investors, LLC from February 2012 to the present. The Plaintiff's duties included but were not limited to: operating the cash register, stocking shelves, assisting customers, and sweeping the floor. According to the complaint, beginning in approximately February 2012 and, upon information and belief, continuing through the present, Defendants required Plaintiffs to wear uniforms but did not offer to launder them or to provide the uniform maintenance pay. The Plaintiff normally worked more than 20 and sometimes more than 30 hours per week. As a condition of employment, Plaintiff was required to wear a uniform. The Plaintiff was provided with one red uniform with KFC's logo on it. Defendants did not launder or otherwise maintain the uniforms of Plaintiff and members of the putative class. Defendants also did not provide Plaintiff with the weekly uniform maintenance stipend set forth in 12 NYCRR 146-1.7. There are more than eleven employees that are employed by Defendants that are required to wear uniforms, like Plaintiff.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP Jack L. Newhouse 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com DONALD J. TRUMP: Kersey Appeals D. Mass. Ruling to First Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff George E. Kersey filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in his lawsuit titled Kersey v. Trump, Case No. 1:17-cv- 11635-ADB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston. The appellate case is captioned as Kersey v. Trump, Case No. 18- 1056, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 25, 2018, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing. Mr. Kersey filed a self-prepared, class action complaint naming Donald J. Trump, individually, as the sole defendant. With the complaint, Kersey also filed an Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Mr. Kersey alleges that he participated in the Second World War against Nazism and now files the action "to defend the Constitution and to remove the Defendant from office." He seeks to bring the suit as a class action on behalf of more than 100 proposed class members pursuant to the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff-Appellant GEORGE E. KERSEY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se.[BN] EQUINOX HOLDINGS: "Rosales" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE ROSALES, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00356-B (N.D. Tex., Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The case is a collective action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, by Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, who were formerly or are currently employed by Equinox as personal trainers. The Plaintiff Rosales is one of a number of personal trainers who are or were formerly employed by Defendant and whose compensation was improper under the FLSA because Defendant failed and refused to compensate Plaintiffs for all hours worked and for their overtime hours worked. As their employer, the Defendant required and/or permitted Plaintiff and the other personal trainers to routinely work in excess of 40 hours per week, many of which were off-the- clock hours, but failed or refused to compensate them for all hours worked and for their overtime hours worked in accordance with the FLSA. Specifically, Equinox misclassifies personal trainers as exempt from the FLSA, and fails to pay them one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked over forty in a workweek. Additionally, Equinox requires personal trainers to work off-the-clock in addition to their clock time hours, and fails to pay them for all hours worked, resulting in a failure to pay the personal trainers at a rate of at least the minimum wage for all hours worked. Such conduct by Equinox is a violation of the FLSA which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated at a rate of at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked and for their overtime work at a rate of at least one and one- half times their regular hourly rate. Because the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees are non- exempt covered employees pursuant to the FLSA and have not been paid by Equinox pursuant to the wage and hour provisions of the FLSA, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees, seeking legal and equitable relief provided under the FLSA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Corinna Chandler, Esq. CHANDLER LAW, P.C. 3419 Westminster Ave. No 343G Dallas, TX 75205 Telephone: (972) 342 8793 Facsimile: (972) 692 5220 E-mail: chandler@chandlerlawpc.com FARMERS GROUP: Fails to Pay Wages, Pham Says -------------------------------------------- LANI PHAM, an individual; on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS SPECIALITY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC693777 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff often worked more than 8 hours in a day and/or 40 hours in a week. The Plaintiff was not paid for all hours worked. The Plaintiff was not also paid overtime premium pay due for the overtime hours worked. The Defendants did not provide rest periods. Defendants did not also provide meal periods. The Defendants knowingly failed to pay all wages due to Plaintiff and those similarly situated. Farmers Insurance Group is an American insurer group of automobiles, homes and small businesses and also provides other insurance and financial services products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Esq. SCHWARTZ LAW, P.C. FILED 629 Camino de los Mares, Suite 203 San Clemente, CA 92673 Telephone: (888) 730 0529 E-mail: jeff@JeffSchwartzLaw.com - and - J.D. Henderson, Esq. Law Offices of J.D. Henderson 215 North Marengo Avenue, Suite 322 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 529 5891 E-mail: JDLAW@charter.net FEDEX GROUND: "Anderson" Suit Moved to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Robert Anderson and Marques T. Sutton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Fedex Ground Package System Inc., a Delaware Corporation and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC677625, was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland) on Feb. 13, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00907-DMR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. provides business-to-business package shipping and ground delivery services. The company provides day-certain service to every business address in the United States and Canada, as well as residential delivery to through its FedEx Home Delivery service.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Bradley Cooper, Esq. THE COOPER LAW FIRM, P.C. 4000 Barranca Ave., Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92604 Telephone; (949) 724 9200 Facsimile: (949) 724 9255 E-mail: scott@cooper-firm.com - and - Alreen Haeggquist, Esq. Amber L. Eck, Esq. Kathleen Ann Herkenhoff, Esq. Samantha A Smith, Esq. HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 2050 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 342 8000 Facsimile: (619) 342 7878 E-mail: alreenh@haelaw.com ambere@haelaw.com kathleenh@haelaw.com samanthas@haelaw.com Attorneys for Defendant: Alexander Miller Chemers, Esq. Betsy Johnson, Esq. Evan Reed Moses, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239 9800 Facsimile: (213) 239 9045 E-mail: alexander.chemers@ogletreedeakins.com betsy.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com evan.moses@ogletreedeakins.com FIRST BANCTRUST: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of holders of First BancTrust Corporation common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of First Bank by First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc. and its affiliate ("First Mid") announced on December 11, 2017 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against First Bank, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and First Mid, is captioned Parshall v. First BancTrust Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-00218 (D. Del.). 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., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/. On December 11, 2017, First Bank entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with First Mid. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of First Bank will receive 0.80 shares of First Mid common stock and $5.00 in cash for each share of First Bank they own (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 Form S-4 Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement omits material information with respect to, among other things, First Bank's and First Mid's financial projections, the analyses performed by First Bank's financial advisor, and potential conflicts of interest. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of First Bank common stock. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 9, 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. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware, Garden City, New York, and San Francisco, California, has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions, shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions. Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Tel: 888-969-4242 302-295-5310 Fax: 302-654-7530 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com [GN] FITBIT INC: Pomerantz, Glancy Prongay Inks $33MM Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announce that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of Fitbit, Inc. securities. Summary Notice Of Proposed Class-Action Settlement To: All Persons Who Purchased Fitbit, Inc. securities between June 18, 2015 and May 19, 2016, inclusive. A hearing will be held on April 20, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Susan Illston at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 1, San Francisco, CA 94102, to determine: (1) whether the proposed Settlement for $33 million in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair and reasonable; (3) whether the application for an award of attorneys' fees of up to $9,240,000 and reimbursement of expenses of not more than $250,000 and an payment of no more than $5,000 to each of the five Class Representatives for their reasonable costs and expenses should be approved; and (4) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants, as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") filed with the Court. If you have not received the detailed Notice of Proposed Class- Action Settlement (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain them free of charge at www.FitBitSecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the Settlement Administrator at Fitbit Securities Litigation, c/o Settlement Administrator, 1801 Market Street, Suite 660, Philadelphia, PA 19103. If you purchased Fitbit Inc. ("Fitbit") securities between June 18, 2015 and May 19, 2016, inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Settlement. As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any Judgment entered in the Action, whether or not you make a claim, unless you request exclusion from the Settlement Class, in the manner set forth in the Notice, no later than April 10, 2018. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to share in the Settlement proceeds, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked no later than April 15, 2018 establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or application for attorneys' fees and expenses must be made in writing and must be provided to the Court and parties, in the manner set forth in the Notice, no later than April 3, 2018. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Class Counsel at the addresses below. Brian P. Murray, Esq. Garth A. Spencer, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com gspencer@glancylaw.com -- and -- Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Murielle Steven Walsh, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, Floor 20 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Dated: January 19, 2018 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [GN] FLEXICORPS INC: Thome Sues over Misuse of Biometric Data -------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY THOME, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. FLEXICORPS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-01751 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs and proposed Class' sensitive, private, and personal biometric data. The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant in Illinois. While most employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Defendant mandated and required that its employees have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendant's employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a biometric database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed -- such as in the recent Equifax data breach -- employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking, and other improper or unlawful use of this information. As an employee of Defendant, Plaintiff has been required to "clock in" and "clock out" of work shifts by having his fingerprint scanned by a biometric timeclock which then identified each employee, including Plaintiff. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act expressly obligates Defendant to obtain an executed, written release from an individual, as a condition of employment, in order to capture, collect, and store an individual's biometric identifiers or biometric information, especially a fingerprint, handprint, or hand geometry scan, and biometric information derived from it. The Defendants lacked retention schedules and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiffs and the Class' biometric data and has not destroyed Plaintiffs or the Class' biometric data as required by BIPA. Plaintiff and the putative Class are aggrieved by Defendant's failure to destroy their biometric data when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied or within three years of employees' last interactions with the company. Plaintiff and the putative Class have suffered an injury in fact based on Defendant's violations of their legal rights.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER RoscO WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: (314) 833 4825 E-mail: bwise@prwlqral.com plesko@gmail.com FUYAO GLASS: Judge Gives Workers Class-Action Status ---------------------------------------------------- Thomas Gnau, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that a federal judge has granted class-action status to Fuyao Glass America workers and former workers in a lawsuit against the company. The class-action status will include current and former Fuyao production workers in the last three years, and attorneys for those suing Fuyao now have permission to contact those people. The workers involved in the lawsuit so far -- about 13 -- have alleged that the Moraine manufacturer of auto safety glass has not properly paid workers for overtime work or did not completely relieve them of duties for unpaid meal breaks and other times The company has denied the allegations and is fighting the lawsuit, which was first filed in Dayton's federal court last June by a former Fuyao employee. "The allegations in the complaint and the plaintiffs' declarations agree that defendant's (Fuyao's) staff share similar primary job duties and responsibilities and are alleged to be victims of the same policy, decision and practice to deny them overtime pay," wrote Judge Thomas Rose, in a decision dated February 7. "This suffices to consider plaintiffs and putative collective members and sub-class members similarly situated for purposes of conditional certification," Rose added. The judge ordered Fuyao to give plaintiffs' attorneys a list of prospective class members -- people who have worked for Fuyao in the last three years. Fuyao has 14 days to provide the plaintiffs' attorneys the workers' and former workers' names, job positions, last-known mailing addresses, last-known telephone numbers, email addresses and other information. Attorneys for those suing Fuyao have also asked to give workers and former workers 60 days to "opt in" to the lawsuit, Rose wrote. (In an amended filing, Rose raised that number to 90 days.) Attorneys may contact workers via U.S. postal mail and email. Scott Young, an attorney for Fuyao, said: "Fuyao Glass America (FGA) denies any allegations by the plaintiffs that they were not properly paid by FGA." Young and his colleagues then took the position "that class certification is not appropriate." A message seeking comment was sent February 8 morning to attorneys representing Fuyao. [GN] G.E.C. RESTAURANT: Faces "Conner" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against G.E.C. Restaurant Management & Design, LLC. The case is styled as Mary Conner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. G.E.C. Restaurant Management & Design, LLC doing business as: Green Eggs Cafe, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00614-MSG (E.D. Penn., February 12, 2018). The case docket lists nature of suit as a civil rights action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. K. LEE, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 EAST 39TH STREET SECOND FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com GC SERVICES: Faces "Savage" Suit in New York Supreme Court ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit filed against GC Services Limited Partnership was brought before the New York Supreme Court on February 13, 2018. The case is styled as Rosa Savage on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 613619/2017. GC Services is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of call center management and collection agency services in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MITCHELL L. PASHKIN, ESQ. 775 PARK AVE, SUITE 255 HUNTINGTON, NY 11743 Tel: (631) 629-7709 The Defendant is represented by: EMILY KIRSCH, ESQ. 150 EAST 58TH STREET, 22ND FLR NEW YORK, NY 10155 Tel: (212) 832-0170 GC SERVICES: "Reyes" Suit Seek Damages for Conn. Consumers ---------------------------------------------------------- Icela Reyes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GC Services Limited Partnership and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:18-cv-00151 (D. Conn., January 25, 2018), is brought on behalf of a class of Connecticut consumers seeking damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. GC Services Limited Partnership is a "debt collector" with an address in Houston, Texas. The Defendant uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another. John Does are fictitious names of individuals and businesses alleged for the purpose of substituting names of the Defendants whose identities will be disclosed in discovery and should be made parties to the action.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. RC LAW GROUP, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@rclawgroup.com GCB SERVICES: "Wren" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------- CORNELIUS WREN on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GCB SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00168-LMB-MSN (E.D. Va., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover all unpaid wages and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the employees he seeks to represent are current and former workers classified as independent contractors and paid on a day rate basis by GCB Services, LLC. The Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Class Members at the rate of time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek as required under the FLSA. The Defendant violated the FLSA by misclassifying the Plaintiff and Class Members as independent contractors instead of as employees. Consequently, Defendant's compensation policy violates the FLSA's mandate that non-exempt employees, such as the Plaintiff and Class Members, be compensated at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked over 40 in a week. GCB provides optimal engineering and business solutions for the wireless telecom industry by offering professional wireless network design, optimization and deployment services. Currently Wireless Industry is moving through a rapid metamorphosis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don Foty, Esq. Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523 0001 Facsimile: (713) 523 1116 E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com GAssaad@kennedyhodges.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Won" Suit Moved to Eastern District of Michigan ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Jones Won, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. General Motors Company, General Motors Holdings LLC, and General Motors LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-04819, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Flint) on Feb. 13, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18- cv-10508-MFL to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. General Motors Company, commonly abbreviated as GM, is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial services.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendants: Guyon H. Knight, Esq. Mark S. Cheffo, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849 7128 Facsimile: (212) 849 7100 GENERAL MOTORS: Jenkins, et al. Sue over AC System Defect --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RYAN JENKINS, YAMET GARCIA, and CARL WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-10507-MFL (N.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2018), the Plaintiffs bring this action for themselves and on behalf of all persons who purchased or leased in California certain vehicles equipped with uniform and uniformly defective air conditioning Systems designed, manufactured distributed, and sold/leased by General Motors Company and/or its related subsidiaries or affiliate. The vehicles at issue in this action include the 2015-2017 Cadillac Escalade, 2014-2016 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, 2015-2017 Chevrolet Suburban, 2015-2017 Chevrolet Tahoe, 2014-2016 GMC Sierra 1500, and 2015-2017 GMC Yukon. These Class Vehicles' air conditioning systems ("AC Systems") have a serious defect that causes the AC Systems to (a) crack and leak refrigerant; (b) lose pressure within the AC System; and (c) fail to properly function to provide cooled air into the Vehicle's passenger cabin. The AC System is substantially the same, from a mechanical engineering standpoint, in all Class Vehicles, in that the AC Systems in all Class Vehicles are made up of substantially the same components and all employ the same general mechanism to deliver cooled air to the passenger cabin. The AC System in the Class Vehicles is defective because it is insufficiently strong and durable to perform its intended function -- providing cooled air into the passenger cabin of the Vehicle -- and to withstand the internal pressures and external forces that the System encounters during normal and expected use and conditions. The AC System failure can first occur at low mileages, within the 36,000 mile New Vehicle Express Warranty period. Because of the high number of failures, AC System replacement parts are on national backorder and the wait for replacement parts is long -- often many months -- during which time Plaintiffs and Class Members must suffer without a functioning AC System in their Vehicles. Moreover, GM's replacement of faulty AC System components with equally defective replacement parts leaves the AC System susceptible to repeated failure and thus does not permanently remedy the AC System Defect. When the AC System fails outside of the warranty period, consumers are forced to pay between $150 and $2000 out of pocket to repair their AC Systems with the same defective parts, and still are subjected to the same long wait times for backordered parts. The long wait times for backordered GM parts meant many consumers were forced to buy aftermarket replacement parts because there was no timeline for when GM parts would be available. The AC System Defect inhibits Plaintiffs and Class Members' expected, comfortable, and safe use of their Vehicles, and requires Class Members to go months without functioning AC Systems while waiting for replacement parts, and to pay for equally defective replacement parts that themselves are susceptible to failure. The AC System Defect creates a safety risk for Plaintiffs and Class Members because AC System failure subjects the occupants of the Vehicles to unsafely high temperatures and can lead to decreased visibility due to fogging of the windows and an inability to use the AC System to de-fog the windows. According to the complaint, prior to sale or lease of the Vehicles at issue, GM knew of the AC System Defect through sources such as pre-release evaluation and testing; repair data; replacement part sales data; early consumer complaints made directly to GM, collected by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration's Office of Defect Investigation, and/or posted on public online vehicle owner forums; testing done in response to those complaints; aggregate data from GM dealers; and other internal sources. Yet despite this knowledge, GM failed to disclose and actively concealed the AC System Defect from Class Members and the public, and continued to market and advertise the Class Vehicles as "reliable," "durable," with "functional," "customer-focused" interior AC Systems, which they are not. GM has failed to provide a permanent in-warranty fix for the Defect within a reasonable time, forced Class Members to wait unreasonable lengths of time for repairs, and/or pay out-of- pocket to replace broken AC System components with equally defective replacement parts. As a result of GM's alleged misconduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members were harmed and suffered actual damages, including that the Class Vehicles contain defective AC Systems, have manifested, and continue to manifest, the AC System Defect, and that GM has not provided a permanent, no-cost remedy for this Defect within a reasonable amount of time. Furthermore, Plaintiffs and Class Members have incurred, and will continue to incur, out-of-pocket unreimbursed costs and expenses relating to the AC System Defect.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the proposed Class: Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. Mark P. Chalos, Esq. Annika K. Martin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956 1000 Facsimile: (415) 956 1008 E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com mchalos@lchb.com akmartin@lchb.com - and - Patrick Newsom, Esq. BRUNO NEWSOM PLLC 40 Music Square E. Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 251 9500 Facsimile: (615) 345 4188 E-mail: patrick@brunonewsom.com GLOBAL EAGLE: M&M Hart Trust Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs M and M Hart Living Trust and Randi Williams filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled M and M Hart Living Trust, et al. v. Global Eagle Entertainment Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01479-PA-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was filed on February 23, 2017, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of Global Eagle between July 27, 2016 and Feb. 17, 2017, both dates inclusive. On July 27, 2016, Global Eagle announced that it had completed its previously announced acquisition of Emergency Markets Communications ("EMC"), a communications services provider to maritime and hard-to-reach land markets. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies, the complaint alleges. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Global Eagle was unable to timely and properly account for the EMC acquisition; (ii) consequently, the Company lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (iii) as a result, Global Eagle's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The appellate case is captioned as M and M Hart Living Trust, et al. v. Global Eagle Entertainment Inc., et al., Case No. 18- 55122, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants M and M Hart Living Trust and Randi Williams' opening brief is due on March 30, 2018; -- Appellees David M. Davis, Global Eagle Entertainment, Inc. and Thomas E. Severson Jr.'s answering brief is due on April 30, 2018; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants M AND M HART LIVING TRUST, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, and RANDI WILLIAMS are represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. Adam McCall, Esq. Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 E-mail: AApton@zlk.com amccall@zlk.com nporritt@zlk.com Defendants-Appellees GLOBAL EAGLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., DAVID M. DAVIS and THOMAS E. SEVERSON, Jr., are represented by: James G. Kreissman, Esq. Stephen Patrick Blake, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 2475 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 251-5080 E-mail: jkreissman@stblaw.com sblake@stblaw.com GOOGLE INC: Class-Action Lawsuit Over Pixel Mic Drops ----------------------------------------------------- Chris Merriman, writing for The Inquirer, reports that Google is facing a class action lawsuit over problems with the original Pixel phone. Plaintiffs in the case have suggested that Google knowingly sold phones that were defective and that after replacing them under warranty, they were still borked. Google has admitted there was an issue which was caused by "a hairline crack in the solder connection on the audio codec" which manifested when the phone's temperature raised as the microphone cutting out. As such it was a random, intermittent fault that was almost impossible to identify quickly. As such, some users in the suit didn't claim during the warranty period and feel vindicated that they weren't going loco. When the Pixel 2 (particularly the XL version) started to go wrong, Google responded by offering a warranty extension. But for first-gen Pixel users, no such courtesy has been extended, and they're not happy. Even so, there could well be a similar suit over the Pixel 2 brewing too. Girard Gibbs LLP is heading up the ambulance chase, and sure enough, it is also spearheading the Pixel 2 action as well. What's concerning about all this is that on one hand, it's a lawsuit against a company that hasn't been all that unreasonable. But, by the same token, as Google continues its push to become a name in the hardware space, it has now released two flagship devices that are lawsuit worthy. Action against the well-received Pixel 1 is a little more surprising, as it hasn't been plagued by nearly as many issues as the LG made Pixel 2 XL, which despite being brilliant on paper, has suffered a catalogue of errors. The crux of the original Pixel case will come down to whether a judge believes that Google was deliberately negligent in not finding the hairline crack. It's not a case of assigning guilt - Google has fessed up to the fault. It's about whether it was malicious or not, and our money is that Google can make that go away pretty easily. [GN] GRAND CAMPUS: Weiss Sues over Spam Advertisements ------------------------------------------------- LAURA WEISS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. GRAND CAMPUS LIVING, INC., a Texas corporation, and ASPEN HEIGHTS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00434-SEB-TAB (D. Ind., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unauthorized text message advertisements, and an award of the greater of actual or statutory damages to the class members, as well as costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and pre-judgment interest from the date of filing this suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against Defendants, to stop Defendants' unlawful practice of sending unauthorized text message advertisements to consumers' cellular telephones, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. In an effort to promote their rental housing properties, Defendants, property management companies with numerous student residential properties across the United States, engaged in an invasive and unlawful form of marketing by transmitting unauthorized advertisements in the form of text message calls to the cellular telephones of individuals throughout the country. According to the complaint, by causing the transmission of unauthorized text message calls, Defendants have violated consumers' statutory rights, invaded their privacy, and caused actual harm to consumers because such text messages occupy phone storage space and consumers have to pay their cell phone service providers for the receipt of such unauthorized messages. Grand Campus Living, Inc. provides property management and consulting services to owners. It offers resident retention programs. The company is based in Dallas, Texas. As of January 10, 2013, Grand Campus Living, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Lincoln Property Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fred Schultz, Esq. GREENE & SCHULTZ 520 North Walnut Street Bloomington, IN 47404 Telephone: (812) 336 4357 Facsimile: (812) 336 5615 E-mail: fred@greeneschultz.com - and - Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893 7002 Facsimile: (312) 275 7895 E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com HEALTH INSURANCE: Accused by "Hicks" Class Suit of Violating TCPA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amandra Hicks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Case No. 8:18-cv- 00216-VMC-AEP (M.D. Fla., January 25, 2018), arises from the alleged illegal actions of Health Insurance in negligently, knowingly, and willfully placing automated and prerecorded calls to the Plaintiff's cellular phone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Health Innovations is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Tampa, Florida. Health Innovations is a medical insurance sales corporation with a focus on short- term and limited medical plans. Health Innovations operates a "cloud" based platform to facilitate the sale of, in addition to the billing and collection of, insurance plans and associated premiums.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tamra Givens, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C. 43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 HERITAGE HOME: Faces "Kiler" Suit in Eastern District New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heritage Home Group, LLC. The case is styled as Marion Kiler, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Heritage Home Group, LLC doing business as: Thomasville, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00941 (E.D. N.Y., February 13, 2018). Heritage Home Group offers designing, manufacturing, sourcing and retailing of home furnishings.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Industrial and Commercial Bank of China USA, National Association. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China USA, National Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv- 00955 (E.D.N.Y., February 13, 2018). Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (USA) NA, a chartered national bank, provides personal and corporate banking services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C. 337 Avenue W, Suite 2f Brooklyn, NY 11223 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (347) 665-1545 Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com INTEL CORPORATION: Faces "Ali" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Meerain Ali, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Intel Corporation, Brian M. Krzanich and Robert H. Swan, Case No. 4:18-cv-00507-YGR (N.D. Cal., January 23, 2018), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) a fundamental security flaw in Intel's processor chips renders them susceptible to hacking; (ii) software updates to fix the problems in Intel's processor chips could cause Intel chips to operate 5-30 percent more slowly; and (iii) as a result, Intel's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Intel Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells computer components and related products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (818) 532-6499 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com JAKE'S FRANCHISING: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jake's Franchising, LLC. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jake's Franchising, LLC doing business as: Wayback Burgers, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00940 (E.D. N.Y., February 13, 2018). Wayback Burgers, previously known as Jake's Wayback Burgers, is an American fast casual restaurant chain based in Cheshire, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11217 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com JAMES PERSE: Fails to Pay OT for All Hours Worked, Diaz Says ------------------------------------------------------------ FELIPE DIAZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JAMES PERSE ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC693969 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the California Labor Code. The Defendants employed Plaintiff and other persons as hourly- paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California, including the County of Los Angeles. The Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other class members and classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and failed to compensate them for all hours worked and missed meal periods and/or rest breaks. The Defendants directly hired and paid wages and benefits to Plaintiff and the other class members to employ hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California. The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over eight hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California. This pattern and practice involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of California law. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other class members were entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not receiving accurate overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUST1CE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265 1020 Facsimile: (818) 265 1021 - and - AmirNayebdadash, Esq. Heather Davis, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP 136 Main Street, Suite A El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 290 3095 Facsimile: (866) 264 7880 JAMES PERSE: "Marett" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned Lucia Marett, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. James Perse Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00530 (S.D.N.Y., January 22, 2018), has been voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice against the defendant(s), according to the case's docket entry dated February 13, 2018. This is a civil rights action suit against James Perse for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to, and independently usable by, the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. James Perse Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates James Perse Stores which provide to the public important and enjoyable goods and services such as clothing, shoes, bags, accessories, and furniture, amongst other items. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 Facsimile: (718) 504-7555 JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Faces "Jones" Suit in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Venus Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00897 (N.D. Cal., February 12, 2018). Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC operates as a debt solutions provider of recovery services for consumer charged-off accounts, credit grantors, and accounts receivable portfolio owners.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. JING WAH CHINESE RESTAURANT: Faces "Lin" Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jing Wah Chinese Restaurant Inc. The case is styled as Jian Wu Lin, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jing Wah Chinese Restaurant Inc., Yi Ping Ou and John Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00933 (E.D. N.Y., February 13, 2018). Jing Wah Chinese Restaurant Inc. is located at 8720 Liberty Ave, Jamaica, NY 11417, USA.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. JULLIARD SCHOOL: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Julliard School. The case is styled Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Julliard School, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01276 (S.D. N.Y., February 13, 2018). The Juilliard School, founded in 1905, is a world leader in performing arts education.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C. 337 Avenue W, Suite 2f Brooklyn, NY 11223 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (347) 665-1545 Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Sembhi Balks at Celgene Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------ AMARDEEP SEMBHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JUNO THERAPEUTICS, INC., HAL BARRON, HANS BISHOP, THOMAS DANIEL, ANTHONY EVNIN, JAY FLATLEY, RICHARD KLAUSNER, ROBERT NELSEN, HOWARD PIEN, RUPERT VESSEY, MARY AGNES WILDEROTTER, CELGENE CORPORATION, and BLUE MAGPIE CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00229 (W.D. Wash., Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to enjoin a proposed transaction or, in the event the proposed transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from violation of the federal securities laws by Defendants. The Plaintiff brings this stockholder class action on behalf of herself and all other public stockholders of Juno Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for violations of Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and for breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to Celgene Corporation and Blue Magpie Corporation as a result of an unfair process for an unfair price, and to enjoin a tender offer in which Celgene will acquire each outstanding share of Juno common stock for $87.00 per share in cash, with a total valuation of approximately $9 billion. The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a January 22, 2018, filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger. Thereafter, on January 16, 2018, Juno filed a Solicitation/ Recommendation Statement on February 2, 2018 with the Securities and Exchange Commission in support of the Proposed Transaction. The Proposed Transaction is unfair and undervalued for a number of reasons. Significantly, the 14D-9 describes an insufficient sales process sin which Celgene, already owner of 9.7% of all outstanding Juno stock, was shown significant favoritism by the Board. Indeed, the Juno Board was dominated by three directors closely aligned with, or employed by, Celgene. Juno's stock ownership emanates initially from a June 2015 announcement of a 10-year collaboration between Juno and Celgene for the development and commercialization of immunotherapies. In fact, only one interested third party was even given an opportunity to be part of the sales process, and no public outreach or market check was undertaken at any point. In addition to this blatant bias, as the Merger Agreement requires only 50% of all outstanding stock to be tendered in favor of the Proposed Transaction to meet the minimum requirements to consummate the transaction, Celgene's ownership of nearly 10% of the Company and the fact that Defendants Daniels, Vessey and Nelson are so closely aligned with Celgene, will significantly reduce the amount of shares required to be tendered in favor of the Proposed Transaction to result in its consummation. Next, it appears as though the Board has entered into the Proposed Transaction to procure for themselves and senior management of the Company significant and immediate benefits while the Company's stockholders are cashed out at an unfair price. For instance, pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, upon the consummation of the Proposed Transaction, Company Board Members and executive officers will be able to exchange large, illiquid blocks of Company stock for massive payouts, in addition to receiving cash in exchange for all outstanding and unvested options and/or other types of restricted stock units. Moreover, certain Directors and other insiders will also be the recipients of lucrative change-in-control agreements, triggered upon the termination of their employment as a consequence of the consummation of the Proposed Transaction. 8. Of significant note, Defendant Hans E. Bishop will receive more than $205 million in cash pursuant to the terms of the Proposed Transaction. Additionally, funds associated with Arch Venture Partners VII, L.P., through Director Defendant Robert Nelsen, managing director of Arch, will receive over $922 million in cash for its currently illiquid block of Juno stock. In sum, the directors and officers of Juno will extract nearly $1.3 billion in cash for themselves or private equity funds they represent at the close of the Proposed Transaction, representing approximately 13% of the total value of the Proposed Transaction. Such a large payday has clearly tainted the motivations of the Board in approving the Proposed Transaction. Juno Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company founded in 2013 through a collaboration of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and pediatrics partner Seattle Children's Research Institute.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Roger Townsend, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670 Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 652 8660 Facsimile: (206) 652 8290 E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com - and - Evan Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 667 6200 Facsimile: (610) 667 9029 E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com mackerman@brodskysmith.com K&D HOME: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime, "Kidd" Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH KIDD, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. K&D HOME HEALTH CARE CORP., and NORMA DENTON, individually, Case No. 0:18-cv-60167-BB (S.D. Fla., January 25, 2018), alleges that the Defendants have unlawfully deprived the Plaintiff and other employees of minimum wage and overtime compensation during the course of their employment -- in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. K&D is a Florida corporation located and transacting business within Broward County in Plantation, Florida. Norma Denton, a resident of Florida, is the President and operator of the Defendant Company. K&D is a home health aide agency that has been operating in Broward County since 2004. According to its own Web site, K&D holds itself out to the community as a Medicare and Medicaid certified Home Health Care Agency with two locations in South Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardslaw.com Jordan@flsafirm.com KADLEC REGIONAL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Grego" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Andrew Grego and Maria Doroshchuk filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit entitled Andrew Grego, et al. v. Kadlec Regional Medical Center, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv- 05150-RMP, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Richland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on November 14, 2016, against Kadlec Regional Medical Center, Cardon Healthcare Network LLC d/b/a Cardon Healthcare Networkde and Cardon Outreach, and Cardon Healthcare Holdings. The Defendants operate a general medical and surgical hospital in Richland, Washington. The appellate case is captioned as Andrew Grego, et al. v. Kadlec Regional Medical Center, et al., Case No. 18-35064, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by February 26, 2018; -- Transcript is due on March 27, 2018; -- Appellants Maria Doroshchuk and Andrew Grego's opening brief is due on May 7, 2018; -- Appellees Cardon Healthcare Holdings, Cardon Healthcare Network, LLC and Kadlec Regional Medical Center's answering brief is due on June 5, 2018; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ANDREW GREGO and MARIA DOROSHCHUK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Darrell Cochran, Esq. Kevin Michael Hastings, Esq. Christopher Eric Love, Esq. PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS KOSNOFF PLLC 911 Pacific Avenue Tacoma, WA 98402 Telephone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654 E-mail: darrell@pcvalaw.com kevin@pcvalaw.com chris@pcvalaw.com Defendant-Appellee KADLEC REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, a Washington non-profit corporation, is represented by: Bradley Lloyd Fisher, Esq. Rebecca J. Francis, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-3045 Telephone: (206) 757-8285 E-mail: bradfisher@dwt.com rebeccafrancis@dwt.com Defendants-Appellees CARDON HEALTHCARE NETWORK, LLC, a Delaware for-profit corporation, DBA Cardon Healthcare Networkde, DBA Cardon Outreach, and CARDON HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, a Delaware for- profit corporation, are represented by: Ralph Howard Palumbo, Esq. YARMUTH WILSDON PLLC 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 516-3800 E-mail: palumbo@yarmuth.com LAW OFFICE OF PERRI: Faces "Maximov" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Law Office of Perri E. Frosch, Esq. The case is styled Liel Maximov as parent and guardian of Shaina Maximov on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Law Office of Perri E. Frosch, Esq., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00965 (E.D. N.Y., February 13, 2018). The Law Office of Perri E. Frosch is a law firm regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julius Toonkel, Esq. Law Office of Julius Toonkel 45 Broadway-27th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 269-7511 Fax: (212) 269-7514 Email: jtnylaw@yahoo.com MATTY & MERK: Faces "Prazdnik" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matty & Merk, LLC. The case is styled as Leonid Prazdnik, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Matty & Merk, LLC doing business as: Hershel's East Side Deli, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00615-RBS (E.D. Penn., February 13, 2018). Based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Hershel's East Side Deli serves breakfast, lunch, dinner and coffee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. K. LEE, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 EAST 39TH STREET SECOND FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com MDA CITY: Hamilton, et al. Sue over Deceptive Rental Terms ---------------------------------------------------------- JACOB HAMILTON, & LAUREN DESCHENES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MDA CITY APARTMENTS, LLC & VILLAGE GREEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-01890 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to recover statutory damages equal to two times the security deposit of each putative class member; reasonable attorney's fees, plus litigation expenses and costs of suit; and such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. The property at 63 E. Lake Street in Chicago is a multi-unit residential apartment building with more than 150 apartments. At all times within the two years before this case was filed MDA has been a person in whom is vested all or part of the legal title to the Building, or all or part of the beneficial ownership and a right to present use and enjoyment of the Building. At all times within the two years before this case was filed VG has been the lessor and management of the Building. On July 21, 2017, Plaintiffs and VG entered into a written rental agreement for a dwelling unit numbered 501 at the Building. The security deposit under the Lease was $150.00. The address of the financial institution where Plaintiffs' security deposit held was nowhere disclosed in the rental agreement signed by the Plaintiffs. Defendants failed to disclose in writing on its Chicago rental agreements the address of the financial institution where the security deposit was held to Plaintiffs and dozens of other tenants who entered into new or renewal leases at the Building in the two years before this case was filed. MDA City Apartments, LLC offers furnished suites and apartments. The company provides housing with standard amenities and services which include high speed Internet, Air Conditioning, breakfast bar, and garbage disposal. MDA City Apartments, LLC was incorporated in 2003 and is based in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Krolik, Esq. Mark Silverman, Esq. MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD. 225 W. Washing Ton Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 MDL 2741: "Joffe" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on December 6, 2017 entitled Jeffrey F. Joffe and Laurie Rodetsky Joffe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 2:17-cv-00667 was transferred on January 19, 2018 from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00430-VC to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs asserts product-liability claims. The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2741. According to an order entered by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in the litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of California and assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. Monsanto Company own and operate a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George T. Williamson, Esq. FARR, FARR, EMERICH, HACKETT, CARR AND HOLMES, PA 99 Nesbit St Punta Gorda, FL 33950 Telephone: (941) 639-1158 E-mail: gwilliamson@farr.com MDL 2741: "Mayo" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit filed on December 27, 2017 styled Foster and Patricia Mayo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:17-cv- 02930 was transferred on January 19, 2018, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00433-VC to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs asserts product-liability claims. The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2741. According to an order entered by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in the litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of California and assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. Monsanto Company own and operate a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: "Nahler" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on December 22, 2017 styled Neal and Mary Ann Nahler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:17-cv- 02921 was transferred on January 19, 2018 from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00432-VC to the proceeding. The action is for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2741. According to an order entered by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in the litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of California and assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. Monsanto Company own and operate a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: "Ragland" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on December 22, 2017 captioned Dorothy Ragland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:17-cv-02919 was transferred on January 19, 2018 from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00431-VC to the proceeding. The action is for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2741. According to an order entered by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in the litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of California and assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. Monsanto Company own and operate a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: "Beams" Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned David Beams v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:18-cv-00107 (E.D. Miss., January 28, 2018), has been transferred to the Northern District of California under multidistrict litigation IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2741. This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. It is the world's leading producer of glyphosate. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com METLIFE INC: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of MetLife, Inc. securities during the period between February 27, 2013 and January 29, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until April 6, 2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in MetLife securities during the Class Period. Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has yet been certified in the above action. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose during the Class Period that MetLife's practices and procedures used to estimate its reserves set aside for annuity and pension payments were inadequate and MetLife had inadequate internal controls over financial reporting. According to the complaint, following a December 15, 2017 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") announcing that the Company had been unable to locate some of the Company's annuitant population and planned to provide an update upon the filing of MetLife's Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2017; a December 15, 2017 article which discussed the extent and duration of MetLife's failure to pay pension benefits; and, a January 29, 2018 press release announcing that MetLife would reschedule its earnings releases and conference calls for the fourth quarter of and full year of 2017, that the Company had identified material weaknesses in its internal controls, that the Company would have to revise certain of its prior financial statements, and that the SEC and New York Department of Financial Services had made inquiries to MetLife with respect to the foregoing issues, the value of MetLife shares declined significantly. If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment in MetLife securities purchased on or after February 27, 2013 and held through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-6616. Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating securities and other class action cases and have been advocating for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the class. Charles J. Piven, Esq. Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation 1925 Old Valley Road Stevenson, Maryland 21153 Telephone: 410-415-6616 Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com [GN] MICHIGAN, USA: 6th Cir. Appeal Filed in Fowler v. State Secretary ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Ruth Johnson filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit titled Adrian Fowler, et al. v. Ruth Johnson, Case No. 4:17-cv-11441, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Flint. Ruth Johnson is the Secretary of State of Michigan. The appellate case is captioned as Adrian Fowler, et al. v. Ruth Johnson, Case No. 18-1089, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 17, 2018, the District Court issued an Opinion and Order granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the case. On the day the Plaintiffs initiated the action, they also filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the Defendant from suspending the driver's licenses of people unable to pay their traffic debt. Under Michigan's Motor Vehicle Code, the failure to follow certain traffic laws results in a civil infraction that includes a fine. For each civil infraction, a judge can order costs of up to $100 and, in the majority of cases, must also impose a mandatory justice system assessment of $40. Any fine, cost, or fee remaining unpaid after fifty-six (56) days incurs a 20% late fee. Michigan law provides that twenty-eight (28) days after a person fails to answer a traffic citation or notice to appear in court for a citation, the court must notify the person that the failure within fourteen (14) days to appear in court or comply with an order or judgment of the court (including the failure to pay all fines, costs, fees, and assessments) will result in the Secretary of State suspending his or her driver's license. Plaintiffs Adrian Fowler and Kitia Harris are Michigan residents, who claim to have had their driver's licenses suspended pursuant to the aforementioned statutory provisions. The Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint that the Defendant's indefinite suspensions of their driver's licenses because of their inability to pay court debts violated their constitutional rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees ADRIAN FOWLER, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, and KITIA HARRIS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by: Phil Telfeyan, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW 400 Seventh Street, N.W., Suite 602 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 505-2058 E-mail: ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org Defendant-Appellant RUTH JOHNSON, Michigan Secretary of State, in her official capacity, is represented by: Denise C. Barton, Esq. John G. Fedynsky, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 30736 Lansing, MI 48909 Telephone: (517) 373-6434 Facsimile: (517) 373-6434 E-mail: bartond@michigan.gov fedynskyj@michigan.gov MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Lechner Files ERISA Class Suit in Nebraska ----------------------------------------------------------- TAMERA S. LECHNER, individually, on behalf of the MUTUAL OF OMAHA 401(k) LONG-TERM SAVINGS PLAN and on behalf of a class of all those similarly situated v. MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, Case No. 8:18-cv-00022-JFB-CRZ (D. Neb., January 25, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Mutual of Omaha 401(k) Long-Term Savings Plan and as a class action on behalf of all similarly situated participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plan is an individual account, defined contribution pension plan covered by the ERISA. The Plan is funded by a combination of salary withholding by plan participants and employer matching contributions. The Plan is a participant-directed, individual account, defined contribution retirement savings plan covered by ERISA. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company is an insurance company incorporated under the laws of the state of Nebraska. Mutual of Omaha sponsors the Plan to provide retirement benefits to employees of Mutual of Omaha and certain of its subsidiaries, including its wholly owned subsidiary, United of Omaha Life Insurance Company. The identities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq. John J. Nestico, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 8501 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 270 Scottsdale, AZ 85253 Telephone: (480) 315-3841 Facsimile: (866) 505-8036 E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com jnestico@schneiderwallace.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Kyle G. Bates, Esq. James A. Bloom, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com kbates@schneiderwallace.com jbloom@schneiderwallace.com - and - Todd S. Collins, Esq. Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Ellen T. Noteware, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: tcollins@bm.net scarson@bm.net enoteware@bm.net NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Eleventh Cir. Appeal Filed in "Majesko" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Alyssa Majesko filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Alyssa Majesko v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00222-MHC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint alleges that Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and Nationwide Affinity Insurance Company of America regularly refused to pay for the diminished value to leased vehicles when they suffered a covered loss under lessee's insurance policy issued in the State of Georgia. The complaint also alleges that Nationwide's policy violates Georgia law. Similar policies by other insurers may entitle policyholders to seek recovery in a separate case. The appellate case is captioned as Alyssa Majesko v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 18-10132, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or before February 9, 2018, as to Appellee Nationwide Affinity Insurance Company of America.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ALYSSA MAJESKO, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, is represented by: Jonathan E. Hawkins, Esq. Halsey G. Knapp, Jr., Esq. Patricia King Minton, Esq. KREVOLIN & HORST, LLC 1201 W Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3250 Atlanta, GA 30309-3449 Telephone: (404) 888-9700 Facsimile: (404) 888-9577 E-mail: Hawkins@khlawfirm.com hknapp@khlawfirm.com minton@khlawfirm.com - and - Kristina M. Jones, Esq. John Da Grosa Smith, Esq. SMITH, LLC 1320 Ellsworth Industrial Blvd. NW, Suite A1000 Atlanta, GA 30318-4150 Telephone: (404) 605-9680 E-mail: kjones@smithlit.com jdsmith@smithlit.com Defendants-Appellees NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and NATIONWIDE AFFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA are represented by: Nathan L. Garroway, Esq. Jeffrey A. Zachman, Esq. DENTONS US, LLP 303 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 5300 Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (404) 527-4000 E-mail: nathan.garroway@dentons.com jeffrey.zachman@dentons.com NEW ALBERTSON'S: Bruhn Sues over Collection of Biometric Data ------------------------------------------------------------- GREGG BRUHN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NEW ALBERTSON'S, INC. d/b/a JEWEL- OSCO, CERBERUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., AB ACQUISITIONS, LLC, ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, LLC, and AMERICAN DRUG STORES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-01737 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to recover statutory penalties, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other damages under the Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, when Jewel-Osco hires an employee to work in the pharmacy department, he or she is enrolled in an employee database(s). Jewel-Osco uses the employee database(s) to, among other things, monitor its employees. Jewel-Osco requires employees working in the pharmacy department to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric device to enable them to access the pharmacy computer system as well as to track functions performed by its pharmacy employees for both accountability and performance purposes. Unlike ID badges -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are a unique, permanent biometric identifier associated with each employee. This exposes Jewel-Osco employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a biometric database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed - such as in the recent Equifax and Uber data breaches - employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking, and other improper or unlawful use of this information, 5. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq., specifically to regulate companies that collect and store lllinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Despite this law, Defendants disregard their employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collect, store, use, and disseminate their biometric data in violation of BIPA. Jewel-Osco is a supermarket chain headquartered in Itasca, Illinois. Jewel-Osco operates 187 stores in Illinois, Iowa and Indiana, including stores located in Cook County, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 6060 Telephone: (312) 233 1550 Facsimile: (312) 233 1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com aficzko@stephanzouras.com NORMAN NOBLE: "Hill" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------- KHRYSTYNE HILL, the Plaintiff, v. NORMAN NOBLE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00360 (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is a collective action instituted by Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its hourly, non-exempt manufacturing employees, including Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees, for all time worked and overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek in violation of the FLSA, as well as a "class action" pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to remedy violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Norman Noble provides contract manufacturing services to the medical and aerospace industries. It offers vascular products, including finished class III implants and devices, which include stents and heart valves; endoscope components and finished biopsy forceps devices; and arthroscopy products.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: 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, Ohio 44113 Telephone: (216) 696 5000 Facsimile: (216) 696 7005 E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com NORTHFIELD BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northfield Bank. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Northfield Bank, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00960 (E.D. Cal., February 13, 2018). Northfield Bank offers a full line of personal and commercial banking services to the Staten Island, Brooklyn and New Jersey community.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C. 337 Avenue W, Suite 2f Brooklyn, NY 11223 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (347) 665-1545 Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Hustig Sues over Securities Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL HUSTIG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. OBALON THERAPEUTICS, INC., ANDREW RASDAL, and WILLIAM PLOVANIC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00352-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Obalon common stock between October 5, 2016 and January 23, 2018, inclusive. Obalon is purportedly a medical device company that develops and commercializes medical devices to treat obese and overweight people by facilitating weight loss. The Company claims that its initial product offering is the Obalon balloon system, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved swallowable, gas-filled intragastric balloon designed to provide progressive and sustained weight loss in obese patients. On January 23, 2018, Obalon issued a press release disclosing that "a purported whistleblower contacted KPMG LLP, the Company's independent auditors, to make certain allegations relating to allegedly improper revenue recognition during the Company's fourth fiscal quarter of 2017." The Company further stated that "Obalon's Audit Committee will oversee an internal investigation of these allegations." On this news, Obalon's stock price fell $1.73 per share, or 33.3%, to close at $3.46 per share on January 23, 2018, on unusually heavy volume. The $3.46 closing price represented a total decline of $11.54, or nearly 77%, from the IPO price of $15.00 per share. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company recognized revenue in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting principles; (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls over accounting and financial reporting; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements and Defendants' statements about Obalon's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Obalon Therapeutics, a vertically integrated medical device company, focuses on developing and commercializing medical devices to treat obese and overweight people by facilitating weight loss. It offers the Obalon balloon system designed to provide weight loss in obese patients.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, 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: rprongay@glancylaw.com OSI SYSTEMS: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., disclosed to investors that a class action complaint was recently filed against OSI Systems, Inc. The complaint was brought on behalf of all purchasers of OSI Systems securities between August 21, 2013 and February 1, 2018, for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by OSI Systems' officers and directors. According to the complaint, on August 21, 2013, OSI announced that it had entered into a 15-year agreement to provide turnkey cargo and vehicle security screening services in Albania. However, OSI officials failed to disclose that OSI transferred 49% of its project company associated with the Albania contract- the entity to which all rights and obligations under the contract belong and therefore worth millions-to a holding company owned by an Albanian doctor for consideration of less than $5.00. Muddy Waters Research brought this information to light on December 6, 2017, when it reported that OSI obtained the contract in Albania through corruption. Immediately following the Muddy Waters report, OSI denied Muddy Waters' claims, calling them misleading. On February 1, 2018, OSI Systems effectively admitted that the Muddy Waters report was accurate, and announced that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had commenced an investigation into the Company's compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), and that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California (DOJ) had also said it intended to request information regarding FCPA compliance matters. Following this news, OSI's share price fell $12.00 per share, or over 18%, to close at $54.60 per share on February 2, 2018. If you purchased or otherwise acquired OSI Systems securities and continue to hold shares, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at (212) 355- 4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For additional information concerning the OSI Systems, Inc. lawsuit, please go to www.bespc.com/osis. For additional information about Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., please go to www.bespc.com. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Tel. No: 212-355-4648 E-mail: walker@bespc.com fortunato@bespc.com [GN] PENTAGON FEDERAL: Neal Files Suit Over Property Damage ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pentagon Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Tiffany Neal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00451- ELH (D. Md., February 13, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Ellen L. Hollander. The case docket lists nature of suit as Other Statutes - Consumer Credit, and Property Damage as cause of suit. Pentagon Federal Credit Union, widely known by its abbreviated name PenFed, is a United States federal credit union headquartered in McLean, Virginia, chartered and regulated under the authority of the National Credit Union Administration.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Nyombi, Esq. KNA PEARL 8701 Georgia Avenue, Suite 606 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 585-1568 Fax: (800) 250-7923 Email: anyombi@enylaw.com PENTAGON FEDERAL: Neal Files Suit Under Truth in Lending Act ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pentagon Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Tiffany Neal individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-00451-PWG (D. Md., February 13, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Paul w. Grimm. The case docket lists nature of suit as Torts - Personal, and Truth in Lending as cause of suit. Pentagon Federal Credit Union, widely known by its abbreviated name PenFed, is a United States federal credit union headquartered in McLean, Virginia, chartered and regulated under the authority of the National Credit Union Administration.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Nyombi, Esq. KNA PEARL 8701 Georgia Avenue, Suite 606 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 585-1568 Fax: (800) 250-7923 Email: anyombi@enylaw.com PERFECT PASTA: "McConnell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Grace McConnell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Perfect Pasta Enterprises L.L.C. and Jimmy's Pizza, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00011-CSM (D.N.D., January 22, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Jimmy's Pizza restaurant in North Dakota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David I. Moulton, Esq. Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com mparmet@brucknerburch.com PHILADELPHIA, PA: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "J. C." Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff J. C. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit titled J. C. v. Ford, et al., Case No. 2-15-cv-04745, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Defendants are Philadelphia Probation Officers. The appellate case is captioned as In re: J. C., Case No. 18- 1142, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Plaintiff-Petitioner J. C., individually and all others similarly situated, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, appears pro se.[BN] Defendants-Respondents NICHOLAS FORD, STEFFEN BOYD, JOSETTE SPRINGER, SHONDA WILLIAMS, JOHN W. HARRISON, E. MARTINEZ, STEVEN AUSTIN, DARLENE MILLER and CHARLES HOYT are represented by: Christopher P. Boyle, Sr., Esq. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN 620 Freedom Business Center, Suite 300 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (610) 354-8476 Facsimile: (610) 354-8299 E-mail: cpboyle@mdwcg.com - and - Martha Gale, Esq. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PENNSYLVANIA COURTS 1515 Market Street, Suite 1414 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 560-6300 PHILLIPS & COHEN: Steffek Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH STEFFEK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PHILLIPS & COHEN ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Delaware Corporation; and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00239 (E.D. Wisc., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, attorney fees, costs, and all other relief, equitable or legal in nature, as deemed appropriate by this Court, pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and all other common law or statutory regimes. The Plaintiff, on her own behalf and on behalf of the class she seeks to represent, and demanding a trial by jury, brings this action for the illegal practices of PHILLIPS & COHEN who used unfair, unconscionable, false, deceptive, and misleading practices, and other illegal practices, in connection with its attempts to collect alleged debts from the Plaintiff and others. The Plaintiff alleges Phillips & Cohen's collection practices violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Such collection practices include, inter alia, sending consumers written communications in an attempt to collect debts, which make false, deceptive, and misleading statements. Phillips & Cohen Associates provides debt recovery services in the United States and internationally. The company offers deceased account care, pre and post C/O, and pre-arbitration and litigation services, as well as bankruptcy recovery services, including on-line bankruptcy verification, fraud review, and proof-of-claim.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. Philip D. Stern, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081-1315 Telephone: (973) 379 7500 Facsimile: (973) 532 5868 E-Mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com philip@sternthomasson.com PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Dennis" Suit in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. The case is styled as Robert Dennis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. and John Does 1- 25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00632-AT-WEJ (N.D. Ga., February 12, 2018). Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. is a debt collection agency in Wilmington, Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq. Mason Law Group, LLC - GA 1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Tel: (404) 920-8040 Fax: (404) 920-8039 Email: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com PHILIPS BRYANT PARK: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Philips Bryant Park Hotel LLC. The case is styled Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Philips Bryant Park Hotel LLC doing business as: Bryant Park Hotel LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01224 (S.D. N.Y., February 12, 2018). Philips Bryant Park LLC (trade name Bryant Park Hotel) operates in the hospitality industry.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. POINTER TELOCATION: Applicant Seeks Withdrawal of Class Claim ------------------------------------------------------------- Pointer Telocation Ltd. -- a leading developer and operator of Fleet and Mobile Resource Management (MRM) solutions, disclosed that further to its announcement dated August 2, 2017, the applicant that filed an application to recognize a claim as a class action against the Company, has made a request from the courts in Israel, that his application should be withdrawn. This was due to the recognition that his claim had no basis. [GN] PURDUE PHARMA: New Castle City Sues over Prescription Opioids ------------------------------------------------------------- THE CITY OF NEW CASTLE, on behalf of itself and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., PURDUE PHARMA INC., THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., CEPHALON, INC. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ORTHO-McNEIL-JANSSEN, PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. N/K/A, JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICS INC., ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC., and ALLERGAN PLC, Case No. 180201036 (Pa. Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Feb. 13, 2018), seeks actual damages to recover costs of reimbursement of prescription opioids for long-term daily use and the cost of treatment of opioid addiction and other adverse medical conditions associated with long-term use incurred by the class members' health plans and paid directly by it. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, like many other cities, municipalities, counties and townships across this country are suffering from severe public health and safety crisis arising out of the unlawful and deceptive marketing and sale of prescription opioids by Defendants. The deceptive marketing and sale of prescription opioids for medical use in New Castle are responsible for an opioid epidemic addiction. As a result of the opioid epidemic, Plaintiff has suffered a public health and safety crisis. As a result of the opioid epidemic, Plaintiff has suffered public safety, lack of economic productivity and quality of life in its city. Further, Plaintiff has expended money to contain the epidemic and adverse impacts on public health and safety which has caused it to suffer damages. Further, the opioid crisis has affected the citizens of New Castle resulting in crime, family and social dysfunction. The opioid epidemic has caused health consequences to the citizens of New Castle. Finally, the city agencies have been responsible for coping and containing the epidemic crisis by expending unnecessary money to discharge their duties. The opioid epidemic has affected New Castle's agencies including police, fire and hospitals which has greatly increased costs to Plaintiff. The opioid epidemic has also affected the law enforcement authorities which include the criminal justice system, social services, health and municipal agencies. Plaintiff has been forced to incur substantial costs as a provider of health coverage to its employees, their families and emergency health services as a result of the opioid epidemic. The costs incurred by Plaintiff are similar to costs that are incurred by cities and municipalities across the country. The epidemic is directly a result of the commercial activities of Defendants. The opioid drugs that are prescribed by the Defendants are dangerous and have severe adverse side effects to its users. The Defendants marketed and promoted the prescription drugs for long- term use to treat chronic pain. However, the overwhelming weight of medical and scientific authority is that the prescription opioids should not be used for long term treatment or chronic pain. The opioids include brand name drugs like OxyContin and Percocet and generics like oxycodone and hydrocodone. The oxycodone is derived from properties similar to opium and heroin, such are highly addictive and dangerous and are regulated by the United States Food and Drug Administration as controlled substances. While opioids provide effective treatment for short-term, post- surgical and trauma-related pain, the Defendants have manufactured, promoted and marketed the opioids for management of pain by misleading consumers and providers regarding their appropriate use. Opioids should not be prescribed for long-term treatment. Opioids are addictive drugs. Defendants knew that barring exceptional circumstances, opioids are too addictive and too debilitating for long-term use. The Defendants knew with prolonged use, the effectiveness of opioids will be outweighed by the risks of side effects and addiction. Defendants knew of controlled studies where the risks of addiction and adverse outcomes were significantly minimized by prescribing opioids for limited short-term use. Despite this information, Defendants marketed opioids for long-term use creating a false perception of the safety and efficacy of opioids. Defendants had a highly deceptive marketing campaign that begin in the late 1990's up until 2006. Defendants were able to convince doctors to prescribe opioids for long-term use even though Defendants were aware of the negative consequences of using opioids for long-term use. Defendants were aware that opioid use should be short-term because opioids are addictive and debilitating under long-term use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Levin, Esq. Arnold Levin, Esq. Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500 Philadelphia, Pa 19106 Telephone: (215) 592 1500 RED LOBSTER: "Demarest" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law --------------------------------------------------------------- TYRA DEMAREST, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RED LOBSTER RESTAURANTS, LLC, RED LOBSTER HOSPITALITY, LLC, GMRI, INC., N AND D RESTAURANTS, LLC, N AND D RESTAURANTS, INC., and DARDEN CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 151338/2018 (N.Y Sup. Ct., Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to recover wages and benefits pursuant to the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, beginning in approximately February 2012 and continuing through the present, Defendants required Plaintiffs to wear uniforms but did not offer to launder them or to provide the uniform maintenance pay.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Jack L. Newhousev VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com RISTORANTE NUMERO: Fails to Pay Florida's Mandated Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN NEILAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, v. RISTORANTE NUMERO DIECI LTD., d/b/a LOUIE BOSSI, A Florida Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. CACE-18-003350 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial Cir. in and for Broward Cty., Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to recover Florida's mandated minimum wages for all hours worked to all servers who worked in the State of Florida, pursuant to Fla. Const. Art. X section 24. All working Floridians are entitled to be paid a minimum wage that is sufficient to provide a decent and healthy life for them and their families, that protects their employers from unfair low-wage competition, and that does not force them to rely on taxpayer-funded public services in order to avoid economic hardship. In 2004, the Florida legislature adopted this Section of the constitution that specifically mandated that all employers shall pay employees wages no less than the minimum wage for all hours worked in Florida, including tipped employees. According to the complaint, the Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and the class members the full minimum wage for one or more weeks of work contrary to Article X, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's deliberate underpayment of wages, Plaintiff and the class members have been damaged in the loss of minimum wages for one or more weeks of work during their employ with Defendant.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1950 Lee Road, Suite 213 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574 4999 Facsimile: (833) 423 5864 E-mail: cleach@leachfirm.com - and - RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (866) 344 9243 Facsimile: (954) 337 2771 E-mail: Richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com SAN JOSE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hernandez" Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. San Jose Mercury-News, LLC, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 5:18-cv-00145 (C.D. Cal., January 22, 2018), seeks to put an end to the Defendants' practice of using an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiff and Class Members seeking to solicit its services, without prior express consent of the called party. San Jose Mercury-News, LLC owns and operates a media and entertainment company in Silicon Valley, San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com SANTA MONICA AMUSEMENTS: White Seeks OT & Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------- FIONA WHITE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SANTA MONICA AMUSEMENTS, LLC DBA PACIFIC PARK, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC693970 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff and other persons as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California, including the County of Los Angeles. The Defendants, jointly and severally, employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, nonexempt employee, from May 2014 to January 2015, in the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other class members, classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and failed to compensate them for all hours worked and missed meal periods and/or rest breaks. The Defendants had the authority to hire and terminate Plaintiff and the other class members, to set work rules and conditions governing Plaintiffs and the other class members' employment, and to supervise their daily employment activities. Defendants exercised sufficient authority over the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs and the other class members' employment for them to be joint employers of Plaintiff and the other class members. Defendants continue to employ hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California. Plaintiff and the other class members worked over eight hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California. This pattern and practice involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of California law.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265 1020 Facsimile: (818) 265 1021 - and - Amir Nayebdadash, Esq. Heather Davis, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP 136 Main Street, Suite A El Segundo, California 90245 Telephone: (424) 290 3095 Facsimile: (866) 264 7880 SEARS HOLDINGS: Smith & Alberton Sue over Defective Dryer Covers ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SMITH and LISA ALBERTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SEARS HOLDINGS CORP., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv- 01142 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to redress Sears' violations of state and federal law, and to obtain relief from Sears, including, inter alia, damages and declaratory relief. In 1893 Sears, Roebuck and Company was founded and began selling sewing machines. In 1927, the name "Kenmore" first appeared on a Sears laundry appliance. Sears Holding Corporation (as it is now known) has marketed and sold appliances for generations, including clothes drying machines ("Dryers"), throughout the United States, including in Illinois. Sears has sold many of the Dryers it markets under the Sears and Kenmore brand names with defective dryer lint screen covers, a defect which manifests itself through an accumulation of lint and/or by protruding Dryer Lint Screen Covers, whether or not lint has accumulated. The accumulation of lint is a leading cause of dryer fires each year. There are 2,900 dryer fires reported each year causing deaths, injuries and property damage. It is estimated that 34% of these fires are the result of lint build- up. The Lint Screen Covers protrude into the machines so that they catch items of clothing and damage them. The protrusion allows excess lint to build up in the Dryers. The Defect results in consumers being forced to spend money on unnecessary repairs to both their clothing and to the Dryers themselves, and occurs in both Defendant's gas and electric Dryers. The only potential means of resolving the problems caused by the Defect is the removal of the Dryers' Lint Screen Covers, a thorough cleanout of accumulated lint, and a reinsertion of the Lint Screen Covers. However, this remedy does not work with all Dryers, and does not permanently resolve the Defect. Consumers must also -- for even this limited repair -- either spend money to hire a professional to perform the "repair" or attempt to perform the repair themselves, expending consumers' own time and effort without a promise of permanent success. The Internet is replete with consumer complaints about this pervasive Defect and the damaged clothing in which it results. Yet, at the time Sears sold the Dryers, it failed to adequately disclose that the Dryers are inherently defective as manufactured and/or designed. The Plaintiffs bring this class action to remedy Sears' violations of state and federal law in connection with its fraudulent and deceptive marketing and pricing scheme relating to the Dryers. Sears represents, through false and misleading advertising to potential customers, that the Dryers are capable of efficiently and effectively drying clothes, when in fact they damage consumers' clothing. Sears also inflates its Dryers' prices to reflect their purported drying capabilities. As a consequence of this scheme, consumers across the nation are paying more than they would otherwise pay had Sears disclosed the truth about the Dryers, and consumers receive a lower-quality product than Sears advertises.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class: Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Brian P. O'Connell, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782 4880 Facsimile: (312) 782 4485 E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com boconnell@caffertyclobes.com - and - Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 1101 Market Street Suite 2650 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 864 2800 Facsimile: (215) 964-2808 E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP 555 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200 0580 Facsimile: (610) 727 4360 E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com mds@mccunewright.com jbk@mccunewright.com SEATTLE, WA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hooper" Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Kayla Willis, Reavy Washington, Lisa Hooper, Brandie Osborne, The Episcopal Diocese Of Olympia, Trinity Parish of Seattle and Real Change filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Lisa Hooper, et al. v. City of Seattle, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00077-RSM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle. The appellate case is captioned as Kayla Willis, et al. v. City of Seattle, et al., Case No. 18-35053, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate case is styled Kayla Willis, et al. v. City of Seattle, et al., Case No. 17-80214. The lawsuit stems from the Defendants' enforcement of rules and guidelines that authorize the removal of unauthorized encampments from City-owned and Washington State-owned property. In 2008, the City enacted rules, the Multi-Departmental Administrative Rules 08-01 ("MDAR 08-01"), to establish, in part, standard procedures for the removal of unauthorized encampments, camping equipment, and personal property left on City-owned property. That same year, Washington State Department of Transportation ("WSDOT") also adopted guidelines, entitled WSDOT's Guidelines to Address Illegal Encampments within State Right of Way, establishing similar removal procedures for unauthorized encampments. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by February 22, 2018; -- Transcript is due on March 26, 2018; -- Appellants Lisa Hooper, Brandie Osborne, Real Change, The Episcopal Diocese of Olympia, Trinity Parish of Seattle, Reavy Washington and Kayla Willis' opening brief is due on May 3, 2018; -- Appellees City of Seattle, Rogar Millar and Washington State Department of Transportation's answering brief is due on June 4, 2018; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants KAYLA WILLIS, REAVY WASHINGTON, LISA HOOPER, BRANDIE OSBORNE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF OLYMPIA, TRINITY PARISH OF SEATTLE and REAL CHANGE are represented by: Emily Chiang, Esq. Nancy Lynn Talner, Esq. Breanne Schuster, Esq. ACLU OF WASHINGTON 901 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 Telephone: (206) 624-2184 E-mail: echiang@aclu-wa.org talner@aclu-wa.org bschuster@aclu-wa.org - and - Eric A. Lindberg, Esq. Todd Tyler Williams, Esq. CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP 1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98154-1051 Telephone: (206) 625-8600 E-mail: elindberg@corrcronin.com twilliams@corrcronin.com Defendant-Appellee CITY OF SEATTLE is represented by: Patrick Downs, Esq. Andrew Myerberg, Esq. Gregory Colin Narver, Esq. Gary Theodore Smith, Esq. SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 Telephone: (206) 684-8616 E-mail: patrick.downs@seattle.gov andrew.myerberg@seattle.gov gregory.narver@seattle.gov gary.smith@seattle.gov - and - Taki V. Flevaris, Esq. Matthew J. Segal, Esq. Gregory J. Wong, Esq. PACIFICA LAW GROUP 1191 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 245-1735 E-mail: taki.flevaris@pacificalawgroup.com matthew.segal@pacificalawgroup.com greg.wong@pacificalawgroup.com - and - Carlton W. Seu, Esq. SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE P.O. Box 94769 Seattle, WA 98124-4769 Telephone: (206) 684-8200 E-mail: carlton.seu@seattle.gov Defendants-Appellees WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, and ROGAR MILLAR, Secretary of Transportation for WSDOT, in his official capacity, are represented by: Alicia Orlena Young, Esq. Matthew David Huot, Esq. AGWA - OFFICE OF THE WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL (OLYMPIA) 7141 Cleanwater Drive SW Olympia, WA 98504 Telephone: (360) 709-6470 E-mail: AliciaO@atg.wa.gov SELIP & STYLIANOU: Faces "Natela" Suit in District of New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Selip & Stylianou, LLP. The case is styled as Iobidze Natela, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Selip & Stylianou, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01992 (D. N.J., February 12, 2018). Selip & Stylianou LLP is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Elastomeric Coating Ads Deceptive, Sluder Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- REGAN SLUDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the PLAINTIFF, v. THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY; THE SHERWINWILLIAMS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, USA, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:18-cv-01121 (N.D. Il., Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to recover actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees, to hold Defendants' accountable for the unfair, deceptive, untrue, and misleading advertising. The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of a nationwide and an alternative state sub-class of all similarly situated purchasers of Defendants' Duckback Deck & Dock Elastomeric Coating and Deck and Dock Solid Coating and SuperDeck Deck and Dock Coating. Despite knowing that the Products are defective, Defendants marketed, sold, and continue to sell them to millions of unsuspecting consumers. Defendants market and sell the Products as do-it-yourself products for use by consumers hoping to save time and money by repairing and revitalizing -- rather than replacing -- their existing decks and docks by covering the surface with a thick, weather-resistant coating. Defendants market the Products specially "designed to protect, resurface and waterproof old, damaged wood and concrete." Defendants market the Products as all-in-one products capable of resurfacing, sealing, and waterproofing surfaces. Defendants further claim the Products can be applied by homeowners ("easy to use, just clean deck or patio surface and apply with a roller"); protect, resurface, and repel water on old damaged wood and concrete; lock down splinters and bridge dimensionally unstable cracks on old damaged wood surfaces; are formulated to resist growth of mildew and algae on the coating's surface; and provide long-lasting protection against moisture and the damaging effects of the sun. The Defendants claim the Products are "designed to expand and contract along with the substrate while offering excellent scuff resistance for heavy duty foot traffic areas," such that the Products will not crack or peel following application. Contrary to Defendants' representations and illusory guarantees and warranties, the Products are plagued by design flaws that invariably result in peeling, cracking, and bubbling once exposed to the elements, all of which ultimately expose the underlying surface to environmental conditions that further degrade the remaining coating, as well as the surface to which it is applied. Despite longstanding knowledge of the Products' inherently defective nature, Defendants continue to manufacture, market, and sell them to the public -- and make misrepresentations and illusory guarantees and warranties -- while leaving consumers to shoulder the substantial removal and replacement costs required to return surfaces to their original condition once the Products invariably fail. But for Defendants' many misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiff and Class members would not have purchased the Products, or would have paid less for them, and would not have suffered the alleged damages. Founded in 1866, The Sherwin-Williams Company is a global leader in the manufacture, development, distribution, and sale of paints, coatings and related products to professional, industrial, commercial, and retail customers.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Edward A. Wallace, Esq. Richard L. Miller II, Esq. WEXLERWALLACE LLP 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346 2222 Facsimile: (312) 346 0022 E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com rlm@wexlerwallace.com - and - Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Patrick M. Wallace, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON&MASON LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600 5000 Facsimile: (919) 600 5035 E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com pat@wbmllp.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247 0080 Facsimile: (865) 522 0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Christopher Jennings, Esq. JOHNSON FIRM 2226 Cottondale Ln No. 210 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 777 7777 Facsimile: (888) 888 0612 E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com SOUTHCROSS ENERGY: Sued in N.D. Tex. Over American Merger Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- Robinson Iglesias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Southcross Energy Partners, L.P., Southcross Energy Partners GP, LLC, Southcross Holdings LP, Southcross Holdings GP LLC, Bruce A. Williamson, David W. Biegler, Andrew A. Cameron, Nicholas J. Caruso, Jason H. Downie, Wallace Henderson, Jerry W. Pinkerton, Cherokee Merger Sub LLC, and American Midstream Partners, LP, Case No. 3:18-cv-00158-N (N.D. Tex., January 22, 2018), is brought on behalf of all public unitholders of Southcross Energy Partners, L.P., to enjoin the Board's attempt to sell the Company to American Midstream Partners, LP through its wholly-owned subsidiary Cherokee Merger Sub LLC for approximately $815 million. According to the complaint, Southcross filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends that Southcross stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. However, the Registration Statement contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the sales process, financial projections prepared by Southcross management, and the financial analyses conducted by Jefferies, says the complaint. The failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as stockholders need such information in order to cast a fully-informed vote in connection with the Proposed Transaction, it adds. The Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest Southcross' public stockholders of the Company's valuable assets without fully disclosing all material information concerning the Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders. To remedy defendants' Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such problems are remedied. Southcross Energy Partners, L.P. together with its subsidiaries, provides natural gas gathering, processing, treating, compression, and transportation services in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. Jamie McKey, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3232 McKinney, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Shane T. Rowley, Esq. Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq. ROWLEY LAW PLLC 50 Main Street, Suite 1000 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 400-1920 Facsimile: (914) 301-3514 E-mail: info@rowleylawpllc.com SPARK OF HOPE: "Gayle" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Michael Gayle, and all others similarly situated under 29USC 216 (B), the Plaintiff, v. Spark of Hope, LLC and David Lam, the Defendants, Case No. CACE-17- 022328, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale) on Feb. 14, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:18-cv-60345-WPD to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas. Spark of Hope offers an outpatient treatment program for drug and alcohol abuse using holistic treatment including therapy and bio sound therapy beds.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jorge Freddy Perera, Esq. Perera Barnhart, Esq. PERERA BARNHART 12555 Orange Drive Second Floor Davie, FL 33330 Telephone: (786) 485 5232 Facsimile: (786) 485 1519 E-mail: freddy@pererabarnhart.com Attorneys for Defendants: Andrew Michael Gordon, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 1 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1010 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 467 7900 Facsimile: (954) 467 1024 E-mail: agordon@hinshawlaw.com SUNNY JEWANEE: "Qureshi" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Jamal Qureshi; and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Sunny Jewanee; Cypresswood Fortune, Inc.; Fallbrook Fortune, Inc.; Irvington Business, Inc.; Littleyork Enterprise, LLC; Louetta Fortune, Inc.; South Post Oak Business, L.L.C.; Suncroft Business, Inc.; and Wallisville Enterprise, Inc., the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:18-cv-00441 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act The Plaintiff seeks notice to issue to all employees of the named Defendants who together were victims of Defendant Jewanee's widespread and identical violations of the FLSA, of paying his employees' overtime wages with cash at straight-time hourly rates. This policy and practice violates the FLSA because it allows Defendant Jewanee not to pay his employees' overtime hours at the required premium overtime pay rate at time-and-one-half of the employee's base hourly rate. By Defendant Jewanee's failure to document the proper hours and pay owed to members of the Plaintiff Class, the Defendants also committed repeated violations of the recordkeeping requirements of the FLSA. Jewanee operates gasoline stations and convenience stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq. ALI S. AHMED, P.C. One Arena Place 7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920 Houston, Texas 77074 Telephone: (713) 223 1300 Facsimile: (713) 255 0013 E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com SUPER MICRO: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Super Micro Computer, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Northern District of California, and docketed under 18-cv-00838, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Super Micro securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Super Micro securities between January 27, 2017, and January 30, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have until April 9, 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 the number of shares purchased. Super Micro Computer, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and sells server solutions based on modular and open-standard architecture. The Company's products include servers, motherboards, chassis, and accessories. 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) Super Micro's financial statements contained accounting errors, including errors with respect to one of the Company's sales transactions; (ii) as such, the Company's internal controls were not effective; (iii) Super Micro lacked the capability to timely review and assess the impact of the foregoing issues; and (iv) as a result, Super Micro's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 29, 2017, post-market, Super Micro filed a Notice of Late Filing with the SEC, reporting that the Company "is not in a position to file its Form 10-K for fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 (the "Form 10-K"), in a timely manner because the Registrant cannot complete the Form 10-K in a timely manner without unreasonable effort or expense" and that "[a]dditional time is needed for the Company to compile and analyze certain information and documentation and complete preparation of its financial statements." On this news, Super Micro's share price fell $1.35, or 4.96%, to close at $25.85 on August 30, 2017. Then, on October 26, 2017, post-market, Super Micro reaffirmed its delay in filing the 10-K, stating that "[i]n connection with the in-process audit of the Company's financial results for the year ended June 30, 2017, a sales transaction was subject to additional inquiry and review". Super Micro advised investors that the transaction at issue "was originally recorded as revenue during the quarter ended December 31, 2016. However, prior to review by the Company's independent auditors and prior to the Company's public announcement of its results for the quarter, the recognition of revenue was reversed and the revenue was subsequently recognized in the quarter ended March 31, 2017." On this news, Super Micro's share price fell $1.23, or 5.65%, to close at $20.48 on October 27, 2017. On January 30, 2018, post-market, Super Micro announced that the Company's "Audit Committee has completed the previously disclosed investigation," and that "[a]dditional time is required to analyze the impact, if any, of the results of the investigation on the Company's historical financial statements, as well as to conduct additional reviews before the Company will be able to finalize its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017." Super Micro also announced the resignations of three executives: Wally Liaw, Senior Vice President of International Sales; Phidias Chou, Senior Vice President of Worldwide Sales; and Howard Hideshima, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"). Following this news, Super Micro's share price fell $1.83, or 7.4%, to close at $22.83 on January 31, 2018. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] SUPER MICRO: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Super Micro Computer, Inc. ("Super Micro" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:SMCI) on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company between August 5, 2016 and January 30, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Super Micro, headquartered in San Jose, California, designs, develops, manufactures and sells server solutions. The Company's products include servers, motherboards, chassis and other accessories. The Complaint asserts claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Super Micro was improperly and illicitly recognizing revenue on certain sales transactions; (2) the Company failed to implement and maintain proper internal controls over its financial reporting (3); Super Micro's revenues and income were artificially inflated as a result of its illicit business practices; (4) these practices caused the Company to be vulnerable to potential civil and criminal liability, and adverse regulatory action; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Super Micro's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and join the class action at www.saxenawhite.com. If you purchased Super Micro shares between August 5, 2016 and January 30, 2018, you may contact Lester Hooker (lhooker@saxenawhite.com) at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests. If you purchased Super Micro securities during the Class Period of August 5, 2016 through January 30, 2018 and wish to apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court by no later than April 9, 2018. You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class action. Please note that you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member. Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, and Massachusetts, concentrates its practice on prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf of institutions and individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States. [GN] SUPER MICRO: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Super Micro Computer, Inc. (NASDAQ:SMCI) from January 27, 2017 through January 30, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Super Micro investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Super Micro class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1229.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or dsadeh@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Super Micro's financial statements contained accounting errors, including errors with respect to one of the Company's sales transactions; (2) the Company's internal controls were therefore not effective; (3) Super Micro lacked the capability to timely review and assess the impact of the foregoing issues; and (4) as a result, Super Micro's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 9, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1229.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or dsadeh@rosenlegal.com. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has been ranked #2 in the nation by Institutional Shareholder Services for the number of securities class action settlements annually obtained for investors. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Daniel Sadeh, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212-686-1060 Toll Free: 866-767-3653 Fax: 212-202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com dsadeh@rosenlegal.com [GN] TJD TRANSPORTATION: "Gaye" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Back Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- MOUHAMADOU GAYE, Individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. TJD Transportation, TJD Limo, AND Djibril Gacou, Case No. 4:18-cv-00243 (S.D. Tex., January 25, 2018), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to recover alleged unpaid back wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post- judgment interest. TJD Transportation is a luxury town car and limousine service located in Houston, Texas. TJD Limo is a luxury town car and limousine service located in Houston. Djabril Gacou, a resident of Houston, is TJD's CEO and owner. TJD provides limousine transportation services to the greater Houston area. Mr. Gaye worked for TJD since September 2014 until August 20, 2017, as a limousine driver and was classified as an independent contractor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM 2537 S. Gessner Road, Suite 104 Houston, TX 77063 Telephone: (713) 223-8855 Facsimile: (713) 623-6399 E-mail: Ttran@tranlawllp.com - and - Nichole Nech, Esq. THE NECH LAW FIRM 800 Bering Drive, Suite 220 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 936-9496 Facsimile: (888) 557-7257 E-mail: nichole@nechtriallaw.com TOLL GLOBAL: Marquez Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------ CARLOS MARQUEZ, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TOLL GLOBAL FORWARDING (USA) INC., a corporation; TGF MANAGEMENT GROUP HOLDCO, INC., a corporation; INSPERITY EXPENSE MANAGEMENT, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC693823 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant consistently required Plaintiff and Class Members to perform work past their scheduled eight hours of work, however, Plaintiff and Class Members were not compensated for hours worked in excess of eight hours per day or 40 hours per week. This was a routine and habitual practice, which required Plaintiff and those similarly situated to work many hours "off the clock." Toll Global provides transportation support services. The Company offers courier services, warehousing and storage, business support, remote and resource logistics, freight forwarding, and supply chain management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. George B. Singer, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590 5550 Facsimile: (562) 590 8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net gsinger@mahoney-law.net TOWN SPORTS: Faces "Kolomiichuk" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Mykola Kolomiichuk, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. and Town Sports International, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv- 01223 (S.D. N.Y., February 12, 2018). Town Sports International Holdings is an operator of fitness centers in the Eastern United States and in Switzerland. Its brands include New York Sports Clubs, Boston Sports Clubs, Philadelphia Sports Clubs and Washington Sports Clubs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. Lemberg Law, LLC 43 Danbury Rd Wilton, CT 06897 Tel: (203) 653-2250 Fax: (203) 653-3424 Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Transferred "Dagher" Class Suit to E.D.N.C. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on November 21, 2017 styled Elias Dagher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Triangle Capital Corporation, E. Ashton Poole, Steven C. Lilly and Garland S. Tucker, III, Case No. 1:17-cv-09102, was transferred on January 19, 2018, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00015-FL to the proceeding. The case alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Triangle Capital Corporation is a specialty finance company that provides customized financing to lower middle market companies located primarily in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com SRudman@rgrdlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin Warren Pope, Esq. Israel Dahan, Esq. Michael R. Smith, Esq. KING & SPALDING, LLP 1180 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309-1763 Telephone: (404) 572-4897 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 E-mail: wpope@kslaw.com idahan@kslaw.com mrsmith@kslaw.com TWIN KITTY: "Saavedra" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- BEATRIZ SAAVEDRA, ERIKA ALFARO, and JASBLEIDY MONTEJO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE TWIN KITTY BAKERY CORP. (D/B/A LA GATA GOLOSA), TWO BROTHERS BAKERY CORP. (D/B/A LA GATA GOLOSA), SWEET KISS CORP. (D/B/A LA GATA GOLOSA), 8263 BAKERY CORP. (D/B/A LA GATA GOLOSA), JOHN CASTRO, JOSE CASTRO, WENDY A CASTRO, and MAX CASTRO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00932 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs were employees of Defendants. The Plaintiffs were employed as waitresses and cashiers at the three La Gata Golosa locations. The Plaintiffs were ostensibly employed as waitresses. However, they were required to spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to cleaning the restaurants, tables, windows and bathrooms, cooking, preparing food, stocking and organizing merchandise in the store, bringing supplies from the basement to the main floor, mopping, sweeping, taking out trash, preparing coffee. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiffs as waitresses in their payroll, but in actuality their duties required a significant amount of time spent performing the non-tipped duties alleged above. However, under both the FLSA and NYLL, Defendants were not entitled to take a tip credit because Plaintiffs' non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday, or 2 hours per day, whichever is less in each day. The Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising Plaintiffs' actual duties in payroll records by designating them as waitresses instead of non-tipped employees. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiffs at the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay them above the tip- credit rate, but below the minimum wage. Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 Facsimile: (212) 317 1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Meyer Appeals Order Compelling Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------- Spencer Meyer, the plaintiff in the lawsuit titled SPENCER MEYER, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. TRAVIS KALANICK and UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-9796 (JSR), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City), appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the order: (1) granting the motion by Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. to compel arbitration; (2) granting the motion by Defendant Travis Kalanick for judgment on the pleadings; (3) dismissing the case without prejudice to Plaintiff Spencer Meyer pursuing his claims in arbitration; and (4) denying as moot the motion by Plaintiff Spencer Meyer to join four additional plaintiffs, which Order was signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the District Court and entered in this action on November 27, 2017, and from any and all of the Court's rulings adverse to Plaintiff Spencer Meyer incorporated in, antecedent to, or ancillary to that Order. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court ruled that Uber can force an unhappy Connecticut customer's price-fixing case against the ride-service company into arbitration, after the customer said the proposed class action belonged in court because he never agreed to arbitrate. In an order dated November 22, Judge Rakoff also dismissed claims by the customer, Spencer Meyer, against former Uber Technologies Inc. Chief Executive Travis Kalanick, unless Meyer wished to arbitrate. The appellate case is captioned as SPENCER MEYER, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. TRAVIS KALANICK and UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 18-247, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ankur Kapoor, Esq. David Alan Scupp, Esq. Matthew L. Cantor, Esq. CONSTANTINE CANNON, LLP 335 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 350-2748 Facsimile: (212) 350-2701 E-mail: akapoor@constantinecannon.com dscupp@constantinecannon.com mcantor@constantinecannon.com - and - Brian Marc Feldman, Esq. Edwin Michael Larkin, III, Esq. Jeffrey A. Wadsworth, Esq. HARTER, SECREST & EMERY, LLP 1600 Bausch & Lomb Place Rochester, NY 14604 Telephone: (585) 232-6500 Facsimile: (585) 232-2152 E-mail: bfeldman@hselaw.com elarkin@hselaw.com jwadsworth@hselaw.com - and - Bryan Lee Clobes, Esq. Nyran Rose Rasche, Esq. Ellen Meriwether, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 1717 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 864-2800 Facsimile: (215) 864-2810 E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com nrasche@caffertyclobes.com emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com - and - James Hartmann Smith, Esq. John Christopher Briody, Esq. MCKOOL SMITH One Bryant Park, 47th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 402-9418 Facsimile: (212) 402-9444 E-mail: jsmith@mckoolsmith.com jbriody@mckoolsmith.com - and - Lewis Titus LeClair, Esq. MCKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 978-4000 Facsimile: (214) 978-4044 E-mail: lleclair@mckoolsmith.com - and - Andrew Arthur Schmidt, Esq. ANDREW SCHMIDT LAW PLLC 97 India Street Portland, ME 04101 Telephone: (207) 619-0320 E-mail: andy@maineworkerjustice.com Defendant Travis Kalanick is represented by: Peter M. Skinner, Esq. Alanna Cyreeta Rutherford, Esq. Joanna Christine Wright, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 575 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 Facsimile: (212) 446-2350 E-mail: pskinner@bsfllp.com arutherford@bsfllp.com jwright@bsfllp.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. Ryan Young Park, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 895-5235 Facsimile: (202) 237-6131 E-mail: kdunn@bsfllp.com rpark@bsfllp.com wisaacson@bsfllp.com Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., is represented by: Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq. Daniel G. Swanson, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7804 Facsimile: (213) 229-6804 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com dswanson@gibsondunn.com - and - Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 393-8200 Facsimile: (415) 393-8306 E-mail: jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com - and - Reed Michael Brodsky, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-5334 Facsimile: (212) 351-6235 E-mail: rbrodsky@gibsondunn.com UNITED PARCEL: Faces "Castro" Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Parcel Service, Inc. The case is styled as Elizabeth Castro, Aquanza Jones, Kaslyn Belgrave, Francis Cooper, Rawle Cummings, Scott DiBona, David Gotay and Jessica Grandy, on behalf of herself and other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01286 (S.D. N.Y., February 13, 2018). United Parcel Service is an American multinational package delivery company and a provider of supply chain management solutions.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE. UNIVERSAL HANDICRAFT: Transferred "Mollicone" Suit to S.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on December 6, 2017, captioned Lisa Mollicone, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Universal Handicraft, Inc., d/b/a "Deep Sea Cosmetics" d/b/a "Adore Organic Innovations;" and Shay Sabag Segev, Case No. 3:17-cv-02450, was transferred on January 23, 2018, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The District Court Clerk assigned 1:18-cv-20273 to the proceeding. The Defendants own and operate an import/export company that mostly deals with cosmetics products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan M. Dooley, Esq. Megan Peitzke, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213)892-7900 Facsimile: (213)892-7999 E-mail: ndooley@cozen.com mpeitzke@cozen.com UPA LLC: Carpenter Wants Rent Payments Returned ----------------------------------------------- BEATRICE CARPENTER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UPA, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, EVERGREEN TOWERS I, LP, an Illinois Limited, Partnership, EVERGREEN TOWERS II LP, an Illinois Limited Partnership, CULLEN DA VIS, an Individual d/b/a CULLEN J. DA VIS DEVELOPMENT LLC, and NEAR NORTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, an Illinois Not-For-Profit Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-01748 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to recover equitable relief including the rescission of a contract, and return of Plaintiffs' rent payments, in full, striking and deleting out the illegal provisions of the past leases and the injunction against the landlord about including those provisions in the future. The Plaintiff was and is a resident of the building located at 1333 N. Cleveland, in Chicago, Illinois. The tenants of the subject matter properties were represented by a tenant organization Tenants' Union, for which Plaintiff served as Secretary during the years on or about 2015 and 2016. The Plaintiff was and is a "handicapped" person as that term is defined in the United States Code of Federal Regulations, in so far as she is physically impaired and has substantial functional limitations in mobility resulting in her necessity for a wheelchair. According to records maintained by the Illinois Secretary of State, Defendant UPA, LLC was and is an Illinois Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business located at 73 70 N. Lincoln, Suite A, in Lincolnwood, Illinois. The Defendants enter into several types of lease agreements with tenants. The first agreement is the Lease agreement itself wherein Defendants use the Model Lease Form HUD-90 I 05-b document, inserting monetary terms specific to the tenant. On or about June 19, 2013, Defendants also provided Plaintiff another document that explains how the tenant rent is determined for HUD assisted residents in Project-Based Section 8 housing. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the ICFA through one or more of the following acts or omissions related to the condition of the building: a. Advertising a complete remodel, when Defendants did not perform a complete remodel; b. Advertising a building intended for use by elderly and handicapped/disabled tenants when the building and units were not accessible to handicapped/disabled and elderly due to non-working elevators, inaccessible bathtubs, inaccessible kitchen cabinets, and inaccessible laundry facilities for handicapped/disabled tenants; c. Failing to disclose the defects at the property, including and not limited to mold and holes in the walls; and d. Other fraudulent acts and/or omissions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Berton N. Ring BERTON N. RING, P.C. 123 West Madison Street, 15th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 781 0290 E-mail: bring@bnrpc.com VERIPRO SOLUTIONS: Faces "Doest" Suit in Northern District Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Veripro Solutions Inc. The case is styled as George Doest, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Veripro Solutions Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00119-O (N.D. Tex., February 12, 2018). Veripro Solutions Inc. helps clients repay outstanding debt using multiple solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. Marcus & Zelman LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Tel: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com VICE MEDIA: "Rose" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH ROSE, an Individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. the VICE MEDIA INC., a Delaware corporation, VICE MEDIA LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC693688 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 13, 2018), seeks monetary damages, including full restitution from Defendants as a result of Defendants' unlawful, fraudulent and/or unfair business practices, pursuant to the Federal Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are Delaware corporations based in Los Angeles, California and Brooklyn, New York that operate as a digital media and broadcasting company. Defendants create, edit, and produce youth focused media and content for various platforms, including for their online digital publications, channels, web series, television network, and HBO television series. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a channel manager and project manager, where she worked on creating and producing content for Vice Media. The Plaintiff and members of the proposed Classes are female employees who were/are employed by Defendants in California and/or New York Defendants' female employees face discrimination in pay, promotions, and other unequal opportunities in the terms and conditions of their employment. Through formal policies and widespread practices, Defendants' male leadership interferes with, limits, or prevents female employees from receiving equal pay for equal or substantially similar work compared to their male counterparts.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Michael S. Morrison, Esq. Jessica S. Choi, Esq. ALEXANDER, KRAKOW + GLICK LLP 401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000 Santa Monica, CA 90401 VODAFONE GROUP: Korry Sues over Drop in ADR Price ------------------------------------------------- KORRY PEARL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. VODAFONE GROUP PLC, VITTORIO A. COLAO and NICHOLAS JONATHAN READ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18- cv-01339 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Vodafone's American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between February 11, 2015 and January 10, 2018, both dates inclusive. Vodafone Group PLC is a mobile telecommunications company providing a range of services, including voice and data communications. The Company operates in Continental Europe, the United Kingdom, the United States, Asia Pacific, Africa, and the Middle East through its subsidiaries, associates, and investments. Founded in 1984, the Company is headquartered in Newbury, the United Kingdom, and its ADRs trade on the NASDAQ Global Select market under the ticker symbol "VOD." According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Vodafone had contravened Australian law by permitting customers to purchase pre-paid mobile phones without first verifying their identities; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, Vodafone shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and class members suffered significant losses and damages. On January 10, 2018, post-market, the Australian Communications and Media Authority announced that an investigation into Vodafone Australia revealed that VHA had contravened Australian law by permitting customers to purchase pre-paid mobile phones without first verifying their identities. Specifically, an update to VHA's website allowed customers "to select that their identity had been verified in a store and then proceed to activate their service through use of the website" without confirming that the customers' identities had in fact been verified, as required by law. VHA has entered into an enforceable undertaking with ACMA to ensure that its identity checks are up to date. On this news, Vodafone's American Depositary Receipt price fell $0.21 or 0.66%, to close at $31.44 per share on January 11, 2018. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 661 1100 Facsimile: (212) 661 8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com WELLS FARGO: Purple Mountain Trust Sues over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------- PURPLE MOUNTAIN TRUST, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, TIMOTHY J. SLOAN and JOHN RICHARD SHREWSBERRY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01318 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of Wells Fargo between January 13, 2017 and July 27, 2017, both dates inclusive. Wells Fargo & Company is a diversified financial services company providing banking, insurance, investments, mortgage, leasing, credit cards, and consumer finance. The Company operates through physical stores, the internet, and other distribution channels worldwide. Founded in 1852, the Company is headquartered in San Francisco, California, and its stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "WFC." On September 8, 2016, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau published a Consent Order with a Stipulation to its entry signed by Mary Mack, Executive Vice President of Wells Fargo Bank, detailing fraudulent practices at the Company, which were centered on a corporate culture intent on growing its cross- selling opportunities and unlawfully and without its customers' consent opening millions of unauthorized deposit and credit card accounts, and imposing a fine of more than $185 million. On July 27, 2017, post-market, The New York Times published an article entitled "Wells Fargo Forced Unwanted Auto Insurance on Borrowers." Citing an internal report prepared for Wells Fargo's executives, the article reported that "more than 800,000 people who took out car loans from Wells Fargo were charged for auto insurance they did not need," that "[t]he expense of the unneeded insurance pushed roughly 274,000 Wells Fargo customers into delinquency and resulted in almost 25,000 wrongful vehicle repossessions," and "that the bank owed $73 million to wronged customers." Following publication of this article, Wells Fargo's share price fell $1.41, or 2.58%, to close at $53.30 on July 28, 2017. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: 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 WILLIAMS SONOMA: Fails to Pay All Overtime Wages, Arellano Says --------------------------------------------------------------- TINA ARELLANO, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WILLIAMS SONOMA STORES, INC.; and 16 DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant, Case No. BC693760 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages and minimum wage under California Labor Code. According to the complaint, during the portions of Plaintiffs employment for which she was classified as a non-exempt employee, Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 8 hours per workday and/or more than 40 hours per workweek, but did not receive overtime compensation equal to one and one half times her regular rate of pay for working overtime hours. Specifically, Defendants payed Plaintiff non-discretionary bonuses based on the store achieving certain goals, and other forms of non-discretionary pay that are not excludable from the regular rate of pay. The Defendants fail to accurately calculate Plaintiffs regular rate of pay as a result of receiving Incentive Pay, as Plaintiff is only paid one-and-a-half times her base rate of pay for overtime hours, thereby causing Plaintiff to be underpaid all her required overtime wages. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. operates as home furnishing retailer. The company was incorporated in 1984 and is based in San Francisco, California. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Williams-Sonoma Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq. Matthew K. Moen, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292 2350 Facsimile: (424) 292 2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com mmoen@haineslawgroup.com ZOCO PRODUCTIONS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Burbon Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- LUC BURBON AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs, v. ZOCO PRODUCTIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01293 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2018), seeks permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually- impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually- impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi A. Naveh, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF AVI A. NAVEH, ESQ. 175 Varick Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Telephone: (646) 881 4471 Facsimile: (661) 430 4471 E-mail: avi@navehlaw.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228 9795 Facsimile: (212) 982 6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Claims vs. Wetzel in "Brown" Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Anne E. Covey of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirms the Centre County Common Pleas Court's (trial court) October 4, 2016 order sustaining the preliminary objections filed by the Appellees to the Complaint filed by past and current SCI- Rockview inmates Lamar Brown, Warren Evans, Joel Daniels, Ernest Norris, Rashan Mickens, and Shawn Johnson against Appellees and dismissing all claims pertaining to Lamar Brown. The Appellees in this case are: the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) Secretary John Wetzel; the Secretary's Office of Inmate Grievances and Appeals Hearing Examiners Dorina Varner and Keri Moore; State Correctional Institution at Rockview employees Douglas Sampsel, Heather Haldeman and Eric Tice; SCI- Rockview Superintendents Steven Glunt and Mark Garman; SCI- Rockview Facility Grievance Coordinator Jeffrey Rackovan; Brown's Unit Manager Samuel Condo; and SCI-Rockview Administration (collectively "Wetzel"). Lamar Brown is currently incarcerated at State Correctional Institution at Rockview. On March 16, 2016, Inmates filed the Complaint alleging that, as a result of DOC's administration -- failing to act on the knowledge of the existence of asbestos within the facility -- one or more Inmates were exposed to asbestos at some point between October 2014 and March 2016 while being confined at SCI-Rockview. Inmates demanded compensatory damages in the amount of $500,000 for each Inmate and other individuals to whom the allegations of the Complaint pertained, as well as punitive damages in an amount to be determined for each Inmate and other similarly-situated SCI-Rockview inmates. On April 12, 2016, Wetzel filed Preliminary Objections to Inmates' Eighth Amendment constitutional claim, negligence claim and fraud claim. On appeal, Brown argues that the trial court erred by dismissing his Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim on the basis that he did not suffer an injury. Specifically, Brown asserts that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), does not bar compensation for the actual increased risk of contracting an asbestos-related disease and serious damage to a prisoner's future health is actionable pursuant to Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994), and Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993). The Court disagrees with Brown and points out to Section 1997e(e) of the PLRA provides, in relevant part that: "No federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury..." The Court cites Simmons v. Pacor, Inc., 674 A.2d 232 (Pa. 1996), where the Supreme Court held that "asymptomatic pleural thickening is not a compensable injury which gives rise to a cause of action... The appellants are not precluded from subsequently commencing an action for an asbestos related injury when symptoms develop and physiological impairment begins." Further, "it is the general rule of this Commonwealth that there can be no recovery of damages for injuries resulting from fright or nervous shock or mental or emotional disturbances or distress unless they are accompanied by physical injury or physical impact." The Court notes that Brown alleged no physical injury. Because Inmates are not seeking to prevent future harm, but rather are seeking damages for risk of harm, the Court determines that the trial court properly dismissed Brown's Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim on the basis that he did not suffer an injury as required under the PLRA. The appealed case is Lamar Brown, Appellant, v. John Wetzel, Douglas R. Sampsel, M.C. Garman, Steven Glunt, Jeffrey Rackovan, Samuel Condo, Heather Haldeman, Eric Tice, Dorina Varner, Keri Moore, SCI Rockview Administration, No. 114 C.D. 2017, (Commw. Ct. Pa.). A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion, dated February 6, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yadfgnax from Leagle.com. Lamar Brown, for Appellant, Pro Se. Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, John Wetzel. Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, John Wetzel. Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, Dorina Varner. Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, Dorina Varner. Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, Eric Tice. Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, Eric Tice. Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, SCI Rockview Administration. Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, SCI Rockview Administration. Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, Douglas R. Sampsel. Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, Douglas R. Sampsel. Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, Jeffrey Rackovan. Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, Jeffrey Rackovan. Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, Keri Moore. Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, Keri Moore. Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, Heather Haldeman. Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, Heather Haldeman. Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, Steven Glunt. Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, Steven Glunt. Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, Garman, M.C. Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, Garman, M.C. Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, Samuel Condo. Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee, Samuel Condo. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Budd Co. Can't Add Expert Witness in "Little" -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas affirms Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale's January 3, 2018 decision denying Defendant The Budd Company's Motion for Leave to Add an Expert Witness and to Reopen Discovery for a Limited Purpose. Plaintiff Nancy Little brings this action individually and as the personal representative of the estate of her father, Robert L. Rabe, against Defendant The Budd Company. Plaintiff alleges that her father was exposed to asbestos-containing pipe insulation that Defendant placed in passenger railcars it manufactured. She contends that this exposure caused her father to develop asbestos-related malignant mesothelioma, causing his death on December 28, 2012. On January 6, 2017, Judge Gale entered a Scheduling Order that established various deadlines for the case's management, including a requirement that Defendant disclose its experts by June 23, 2017. On August 10, 2017, Defendant filed an unopposed motion to modify certain deadlines in the Scheduling Order, including an extension of its expert disclosure deadline until September 30, 2017. Judge Gale granted that request and entered a Revised Scheduling Order that established September 30, 2017, as Defendant's deadline to disclose experts. By the September 30, 2017 deadline, Defendant had identified eight expert witnesses in its Rule 26(a) disclosures. On November 6, 2017, Defendant's counsel sent an email to plaintiff's counsel disclosing a ninth expert witness -- Dr. Louis Burgher. The email also provided Dr. Burgher's curriculum vitae. Plaintiff asserts that Dr. Burgher will offer "only general, state-of-the-art opinions regarding the historical knowledge of the hazards of asbestos at various times in the 20th century. . ." On November 15, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion for Leave to Add an Expert Witness and to Reopen Discovery for a Limited Purpose - - 15 days after the Scheduling Order's deadline for disclosing experts had expired. Because Defendant's motion sought to amend a deadline established by the Scheduling Order, Judge Gale applied Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 -- the rule that governs modification of a Scheduling Order. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), "a schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." The advisory committee notes to this Rule provide: "The court may modify the schedule on a showing of good cause if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." In practice, this standard requires the movant to show the scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite the movant's diligent efforts. Rule 16's good cause requirement may be satisfied, for example, if a plaintiff learns new information through discovery or if the underlying law has changed. On January 3, 2018, Judge Gale denied the motion because he determined that Defendant had not established "good cause" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) to modify the Scheduling Order after the deadline for disclosing experts had expired. Judge Gale reasoned that Defendant had made no attempt to establish that it could not have met the deadline without due diligence. Instead, Defendant's reason for seeking leave to add an expert was because it had "come to the conclusion that this action will be furthered by retention of an additional expert." Judge Gale concluded that this reason -- Defendant's late realization that it would benefit from another expert -- did not provide the requisite good cause to grant Defendant leave to add an expert after the deadline established by the Scheduling Order had expired. Defendant asserts that Judge Gale applied an incorrect legal standard in his Order. Thus, Defendant contends, Judge Gale's Order is clearly erroneous and asks the Court to set aside Judge Gale's Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Defendant argues that Judge Gale applied the "good cause" standard that governs amendment of pleadings -- not requests for leave to add an expert. Defendant contends that the standard for leave to add an expert requires a party to satisfy a less onerous burden. And so, Defendant argues, Judge Gale's Order is clearly erroneous. Defendant thus asks the Court to modify Judge Gale's Order and allow it to use the testimony of Dr. Louis Burgher in this action. The Court finds that Defendant presented no facts showing that it has acted diligently. Instead, after securing one extension of time to designate experts, Defendant again has asked for leave to extend the deadline -- after its expiration -- to designate an expert simply because it came to the conclusion that the action will be "furthered" by an additional expert. Defendant provides no reason justifying a conclusion that it could not have come to this realization sooner. The Court concludes that Judge Gale did not apply an incorrect legal standard to Defendant's Motion for Leave to Add an Expert Witness and Reopen Discovery for a Limited Purpose. The Court determines that the Defendant has failed to establish that it acted with the requisite diligence justifying disclosure of an expert after the Scheduling Order's deadline has expired. Moreover, the Court holds that an extension would disrupt orderly administration of the case considering that Judge Gale already has extended the deadline for designating experts once, and an amendment of that deadline again will require the court to extend the discovery deadline a second time. These extensions, in turn, may affect the established dispositive motion deadline and trial date. Also, Defendant still has failed to provide a good reason for its delay. Although no evidence of bad faith exists, it appears that Defendant's late disclosure results from a lack of diligence. These factors favor denying Defendant's request for leave to add an expert. The Court thus holds that Judge Gale, exercising sound discretion, properly denied Defendant's Motion for Leave to Add an Expert Witness and Reopen Discovery for a Limited Purpose. A full-text copy of Memorandum and Order dated February 13, 2018 is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybrapkrv from Leagle.com The case is Nancy Little, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Robert L. Rabe, Plaintiff, v. The Budd Company, Defendant, Case No. 16-4170-DDC-KGG, (D. Kan.). Nancy Little, individually and as personal representative of the, Plaintiff, represented by E. Todd Hottman, Hottman Law Firm, John D. Roven -- info@rovenlaw.com -- Roven-Kaplan, LLP, pro hac vice & Kevin M. Camp -- kcam@jonesgranger.com -- Jones Granger, pro hac vice. The Budd Company, Defendant, represented by James E. Wynne -- wynne@butzel.com -- Butzel Long, PC, pro hac vice, Joseph E. Richotte -- richotte@butzel.com -- Butzel Long, PC, pro hac vice & Vincent Edward Gunter -- vgunter@rdm.law -- Rasmussen Dickey Moore, LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Can Appeal Ruling in "Terwilliger" ------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of New York has granted the Motion for leave to appeal filed in the case styled In the Matter of the Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Donald J. Terwilliger, etc., Appellant, v. Beazer East, Inc., etc., et al., Defendants, Honeywell International, Inc., etc., Respondent, Motion No. 2017- 1108, (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Order dated February 15, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y95lgcm2 from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rohr Witness to be Deposed After Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has entered a Stipulation and Order, approving the stipulation between Defendant The Boeing Company and Plaintiffs in the case styled Joseph Thrash and Chez Thrash, Plaintiffs, v. Cirrus Enterprises, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No. 3:17-cv-01501-JST, (N.D. Cal.). Due to scheduling conflicts, Defendant Rohr, Inc. ("Rohr") and Plaintiffs stipulate that the deposition of Rohr's 30(b)(6) witness can go forward after the discovery deadline currently set in this matter. Counsel for Boeing represents that each Defendant in this matter (Goodyear Aerospace Corporation; Honeywell International, Inc.; Rohr, Inc.; Lockheed Martin Corporation; Cirrus Enterprises LLC; Henkel Corporation; IMO Industries; and United Technologies Corporation) has been made aware of this proposed stipulation and each has concurred in the filing's content and have authorized the filing. A full-text copy of the Stipulation and Order dated February 13, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb5qajpn from Leagle.com. Joseph Thrash & Chez Thrash, Plaintiffs, represented by Benno Behnam Ashrafi, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Robert Allen Green, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Tyler Robert Stock, Weitz & Luxenburg, P.C. The Boeing Company, individually and as successor by merger to McDonnell Douglas Corporation, successor by merger with Douglas Aircraft Company, Defendant, represented by Dustin Clark Beckley -- dbeckley@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Brent Marshall Karren -- bkarren@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Freddy Israel Fonseca -- ffonseca@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. Lockheed Martin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian Thomas Clark -- clark@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP, Deborah Maria Parker -- parker@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP, Guy P. Glazier -- glazier@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP & Laura Patricia Yee -- yee@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP. United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ferlin Peregrino Ruiz -- ferlin.ruiz@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Michael J. Pietrykowski -- mpietrykowski@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, Megan Feeney Clark -- mfc@severson.com -- Severson & Werson, APC & Melissa Rose Badgett -- mbadgett@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP. Honeywell International Inc., formerly known as, Defendant, represented by Bo W. Kim -- BKim@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP & David T. Biderman -- DBiderman@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP. Rohr, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Michael Glaspy -- dglaspy@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. Henkel Corporation, individually and as s-i-i to Dexter Corp., Dexter Hysol Aerospace LLC, Defendant, represented by Allison Elizabeth Mullings -- Allison.Mullings@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP and Florence Anne McClain-Meza -- Florence.McClain@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey -- bbailey@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP, Frederick W. Gatt -- fgatt@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP and Ketul Dilip Patel -- kpatel@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Witness Depositions Stipulations Entered ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, at the behest of the Parties, has entered a Stipulation and Order regarding the depositions of expert witnesses: (1) Plaintiffs and Defendants have stipulated that it is not necessary to subpoena the opposing side's expert witnesses in this case. Any party who wants to take any opposing party's expert deposition in person can do so near the expert's location at the noticing party's expense. (2) Rather than having to serve a subpoena, a party may request dates of availability of an opposing party's experts, and, within 48 hours of such request, the opposing party will provide dates of their experts' availability for deposition. The requesting party may subsequently serve a notice of deposition including requests for production of documents at the deposition (subject to proper objections). The case is Joseph Thrash and Chez Thrash, Plaintiffs, v. Cirrus Enterprises, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No. 3:17-cv-01501-JST, (N.D. Cal.). A full-text copy of the Stipulation and Order dated February 14, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydh5u48a from Leagle.com. Joseph Thrash & Chez Thrash, Plaintiffs, represented by Benno Behnam Ashrafi, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Robert Allen Green, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Tyler Robert Stock, Weitz & Luxenburg, P.C. The Boeing Company, individually and as successor by merger to McDonnell Douglas Corporation, successor by merger with Douglas Aircraft Company, Defendant, represented by Dustin Clark Beckley -- dbeckley@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Brent Marshall Karren -- bkarren@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Freddy Israel Fonseca -- ffonseca@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. Lockheed Martin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian Thomas Clark -- clark@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP, Deborah Maria Parker -- parker@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP, Guy P. Glazier -- glazier@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP & Laura Patricia Yee -- yee@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP. United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ferlin Peregrino Ruiz -- ferlin.ruiz@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Michael J. Pietrykowski -- mpietrykowski@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, Megan Feeney Clark -- mfc@severson.com -- Severson & Werson, APC & Melissa Rose Badgett -- mbadgett@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP. Honeywell International Inc., formerly known as, Defendant, represented by Bo W. Kim -- BKim@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP & David T. Biderman -- DBiderman@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP. Rohr, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Michael Glaspy -- dglaspy@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. Henkel Corporation, individually and as s-i-i to Dexter Corp., Dexter Hysol Aerospace LLC, Defendant, represented by Allison Elizabeth Mullings -- Allison.Mullings@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP and Florence Anne McClain-Meza -- Florence.McClain@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey -- bbailey@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP, Frederick W. Gatt -- fgatt@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP and Ketul Dilip Patel -- kpatel@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2018. 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. * * * End of Transmission * * *