/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180306.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 6, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 47 Headlines 7 HILLS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Wages and OT Pay, Bertram Says 143 CAFE INC: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, "Ajala" Suit Claims ACCENTCARE INC: "Trammell" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class ACE INDUSTRIES: Faces "Fannis" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime ACUMEN ROBOT: Black et al. Sue over Sales of Onagofly F115 Drones ADMIN RECOVERY: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ADVANCED MEDICAL: Faces "Wright" Suit in California AMERICAN EXPRESS: Ivig Trucking Sues over Credit Card Application APEX ASSET: Winship Sues over Debt Collection APPLE INC: "Canoa de Oliveira" Suit Alleges Calif. UCL Violation ARS NATIONAL: Dionisio Sues over Debt Collection AVIACODE INC: Hazel Seeks to Certify Class of Medical Coders BANK OF AMERICA: "Boswell" Suit Seeks Certification of 5 Classes BANK OF THE WEST: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Mkhitarian Claims BAYWATCH INC: Faces "Caruso" Suit over Failure to Pay for OT BENJAMIN MOORE: Natura Brand Paint Ads Misleading, Keats Claims BIG HEART: Sturm Sues over Contaminated Dog Foods BIOVERATIV INC: Quigley Balks at Sanofi Merger Deal BNSF LOGISTICS: "Garza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages BONDED COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed BRIAD WENCO: "Fils" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Law BRIGADOON FITNESS: Gorss Motels Seeks to Certify Class BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces "Tung" Suit over Share Price Drop BUCK VALLEY: Faces "Wood" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime CARROLL MEMORIAL: "Sanders" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA CDK GLOBAL: Massey Chrysler Alleges Automobile Sales Price-Fixing CDK GLOBAL: Hoover Auto Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois CDK GLOBAL: Kenny Class Suit Transferred to North. Dist. Illinois CDK GLOBAL: Massey Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois CENTURY ARMS: Court Denies Redacted Bid for Class Certification CREDIT CONTROL: Rincon-Marin Seeks to Certify Consumers Class CREDIT PROTECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, says "McRobie" Suit CGR SERVICES: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification as Moot CHICAGO, IL: Educ Board Fails to Disclose Reinspection Report COLLECTO INC: Winship Sues over Debt Collection COLORADO: 10th Cir. Orders Enforcement of $50 Award in "Moore" COMCAST CABLE: Hodges Sues over Subscribers' Personal Info CORNING INCORPORATED: Faces "Read" Suit in W.D. New York DISNEY STORE: Faces "Burbon" Suit in. S.D. New York DST SYSTEMS: Scott Balks at SS&C Technologies Merger Deal DYNAMIC RECOVERY: "Siddiqi" Bid for Class Certification Nixed EDELMAN FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Brown" Suit Claims ENERMEX INTERNATIONAL: "Serrato" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ENHANCED RECOVERY: "Eady" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Carter" Suit in N.D. Georgia ERELEVANCE CORPORATION: Removes "Jaffe" Suit to N.D. Illinois ESSEX TECHNOLOGY: "Nowell" Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA EXPEDIA INC: Buckeye Tree, et al. Seek to Certify Class FAIRMONT FUNDING: Azulay Sues over Mortgage Loan Fraud FCA US: Vaugn Sues over Defective Chrysler 2017 Pacifica Vans FEDEX FREIGHT: Pina Seeks to Certify Operations Supervisors Class FRENCH BREAD: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA FUJIFILM HOLDINGS: Lowinger Balks at Xerox Merger Deal GET AROUND INC: Ponciano Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code GLYNN COUNTY, GA: "Coleman" Summary Ruling Partly Affirmed GSP TRANSPORTATION: "Campbell" Suit Seeks to Certify Class HMR OF ALABAMA: Court Dismisses "Cooley" Wage and Hour Suit HOLLAND LP: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, "Thomas" Suit Claims HOME DEPOT: "Manopla" Suit Seeks to Certify Class HOME DEPOT: 4th Cir. Affirms Remand of "Jackson" to State Court HUFFS RESTAURANT: "Garvin" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages HUGO BOSS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Chavez" Suit Says HYUNDAI CAPITAL: Made Unsolicited Calls, Sloatman Says ILLUMINA INC: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Fraud Suit IMPRESA AEROSPACE: Gutierrez Seeks OT Wages Under Labor Code INNOVAK INTERNATIONAL: All Pending Bids Denied in "Bohannan" Suit INTERNATIONAL PITA: Nevarez Seeks Unpaid OT under Labor Code INTERNATIONAL QUALITY: "Williamson" Suit Moved to S.D. Ohio JEREMY REVITCH: Revitch Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls JKB FINANCIAL: Faces "Salinas" Suit in California JOHN DOES: Samuel Sues over VIX-Linked Instruments Price-Fixing JULIE JONES: Plaintiffs Win More Time to Respond to Dismissal Bid KENNETH REES: India Banks Bid for Class Certification Denied LESCONCIERGES INC: Pivirotto Seeks Overtime Pay LOUISIANA: Commission Frederick Faces "Murphy" Class Suit M.L. ZAGER: Accused of Wrongful Conduct over Debt Collection MAGNOLIA HI-FI: "Bonomi" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida MANNA PRO: Rabbit Food Products Contain Corn, Hale Complains MATSU CORP: "Zhen Zhu" Suit Alleges FLSA and CMWA Violations MONSANTO COMPANY: "Hoskins" Suit Moved to N.D. California MONTERREY SECURITY: Lee Seeks Unpaid Wages MURATA MANUFACTURING: Cambridge Alleges Price-Fixing of Inductors NATIONAL GAS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Moore" Suit Claims NORDIC NATURALS: Elikman Sues over Mislabeling of Probiotics NORTH SHORE AGENCY: Veytsman Sues over Debt Collection OCWEN LOAN: Seeks to Deny Certification of "Stromberg" Class PALMER & REIFLER: "Cook" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes PEAK PROPERTIES: Antjuanyaakins Sues over Rental Agreement PEOPLE'S UNITED: Faces "Delacruz" Suit over Payment of Wages PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Smith Balks at Penn Merger Deal PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: "Safranski" Accord Has Final Court OK PURDUE PHARMA: Minute Men Sues over Sale of Prescription Opioids QDI 1: Faces "Lopez" Class Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SPIRIT AIRLINES: "Giavasis" Suit Alleges UCL Violations TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Weisberg Sues over TRINTELLIX Program TGI FRIDAYS: "Williams" Class Certification Bid Tossed TOLEDO COUNTRY CLUB: "McCullen" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Overstated User Community, Vanderheiden Says VAL VERDE: "Sehr" Suit Seeks to Certify Nurses Class WE DRIVE U: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, "Davis" Suit Claims WELLS FARGO: Nakamura Seeks to Certify Class of Service Members XEROX CORP: Carpenters Pension Fund Balks at Fuji Merger Deal ********* 7 HILLS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Wages and OT Pay, Bertram Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MARISSA BERTRAM, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 7 HILLS RESTAURANT, LLC DBA "SPQR", a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. CGC-18-564474 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay non- exempt workers employed by them minimum wages for all hours worked, as required by Labor Code. The Defendant routinely required Plaintiff and class members to report to work and perform work before their scheduled shift began, and stay at work and perform work after their scheduled shift ended. However, on a routine and systematic basis, Plaintiff and class members were clocked out of Defendant's timekeeping system when performing this work and were not compensated for the work they performed while clocked out. Plaintiff and class members were not paid minimum wages for all hours they worked.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelly Armstrong, Esq. Matihew J. Wayne, Esq. THE ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM 302 Caledonia Street, Suite 4 Sausalito, CA 94965 Telephone: (415) 331 4400 Facsimile: (415) 331 4407 E-mail: kelly@thearmstronglawfirm.com mwayne@thearmstronglawfirm.com - and - Jennifer Kramer, Esq. JENNIFER KRAMER LEGAL, APC 5015 Eagle Rock Boulevard, Suite 202 Los Angeles, CA 90041 Telephone: (213) 955-0200 Facsimile: (213) 226-4358 E-mail: Jennifer@laborlex.com 143 CAFE INC: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, "Ajala" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- MALIK AJALA and BLAGOJ VASILEV, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 143 CAFE INC., d/b/a TOSCANA 49; DORJAN KALAJA; DRITON MILA; RAMADAN MILA; and GAZMEND HODZIC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00831-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorney's fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Mr. Ajala worked as a server at Toscana 49 for a year, starting in December 2016. Mr. Vasilev worked at Toscana 49 as server from March 2017 through the present. 143 CAFE INC., d/b/a TOSCANA 49 is a New York Corporation, operating Toscana 49 restaurant in midtown Manhattan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Lucas Buzzard, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 688-2548 ACCENTCARE INC: "Trammell" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ESTELLA LYNN TRAMMELL Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACCENTCARE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01129-LY (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify a class of: "all current and former employees of Defendant who were treated by Defendant as FLSA non-exempt and were paid straight time for their intra-workday travel in the last three years." Plaintiff also asks the Court to authorize her counsel to send notices the Class members. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cXi8gODd The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Verrett, Esq. Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq. MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Commissioners House at Heritage Square 2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 782-0567 Facsimile: (512) 782-0605 E-mail: daniel@morelandlaw.com edmond@morelandlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Kimberly R. Miers, Esq. Melissa J. Ackie, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1400 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 982 7250 Facsimile: (512) 982 7248 E-mail: kmiers@littler.com mackie@littler.com ACE INDUSTRIES: Faces "Fannis" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jahni Fannis, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Ace Industries Construction LLC and Kyle Lavender, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00857-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the minimum wage rate for all hours worked and the required overtime premium rate for all hours worked over 40 per week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Kyle Lavender is a co-owner and senior manager of Ace. Defendant Lavender is an employer within the meaning of the FLSA and the New York Labor Law. Ace Industries Construction LLC is a New York corporation with principal place of business in Mount Vernon, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason L. Solotaroff, Esq. Aliaksandra R. Ramanenka, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 217 Centre Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 ACUMEN ROBOT: Black et al. Sue over Sales of Onagofly F115 Drones ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALLAN BLACK, CHRISTOPHER JONES, ROGER WATTS, and ROBERT MATOS RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACUMEN ROBOT INTELLIGENCE, INC. and DOES 1-100, the Defendant, Case No. BC694897 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 21, 2018), seeks to recover actual damages based upon Defendants' deceptive, fraudulent, and illegal practices relating to the national marketing and sale of the Onagofly drone marketed as Onagofly F115. The Defendants have perpetrated a scam upon the fast-growing drone-buying community by duping consumers into purchasing Onagofly FI15s that lack various specifications as advertised or, in some cases, by not even delivering a purchased Onagofly FI 15 at all. Defendants have placed in the marketplace for sale a product that does not live up to its billing and have not delivered on their own express promises in a number of important ways.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class: Gillian L. Wade, Esq. MILSTEIN JACKSON FILED FAIRCHILD & WADE LLP 10250 Constellation Boulevard, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 396 9600 Facsimile: (310) 396 9635 E-mail: gwade@majfw.com - and - Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA Telephone: (215) 985 9177 Facsimile: (215) 985 4169 E-mail: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com ADMIN RECOVERY: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CARLOS BEAUFRAND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADMIN RECOVERY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00269-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zzjXpCAZ The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com ADVANCED MEDICAL: Faces "Wright" Suit in California --------------------------------------------------- A class action suit was filed against Advanced Medical Personnel Services Inc., and Rise Medical Staffing LLC. The case is captioned as Tekary Wright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Advanced Medical Personnel Services Inc.; Rise Medical Staffing LLC; and Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00226320-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 30, 2018). Advanced Medical Personnel Services Inc operates as a therapy staffing agency. The Company specializes in the placement of allied health professionals and specialized nurses into skilled nursing facilities, hospitals, home health agencies, K-12 schools, and other healthcare organizations. Advanced Medical Personnel offers its services in the United States. Rise Medical Staffing, LLC provides short and long-term staffing solutions to healthcare facilities suffering from nurse staff shortages. Rise Medical Staffing, LLC was formerly known as HealthOne Staffing LLC and changed its name to Rise Medical Staffing, LLC in November 2012. The company was founded in 2003 and is based in Sacramento, California. As of April 27, 2016, Rise Medical Staffing, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Advanced Medical Personnel Services, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara San Diego, CA 92037 Phone: (858) 367-9913 Fax: (858) 551-1232 AMERICAN EXPRESS: Ivig Trucking Sues over Credit Card Application ----------------------------------------------------------------- IL YA VASIL YEV and IVIG TRUCKING CO., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC. and DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2018-L-001808 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Feb. 20, 2018), seeks to recover all actual damages suffered as a result of AmEx's acts and omissions relating to a credit card account application. According to the complaint, on February 2, 2017, the Plaintiffs called AmEx to inquire as to whether they were meeting the threshold spending levels to qualify for the promotional offer. Plaintiffs spoke with an employee and/or agent of AmEx who stated that the promotional offer did not apply to Plaintiffs' credit card account. The employee and/or agent of AmEx urged Plaintiffs to submit another application for another credit card account with AmEx over the phone to qualify for the promotional offer. At the urging of that employee and/or agent of AmEx, Plaintiffs did submit another application for another SimplyCash Plus Business Credit Card account with AmEx over the phone to qualify for the promotional offer. Plaintiffs were advised during the phone application process that they had been instantly approved for the second credit card account. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs received notice by mail that their second credit card account application had actually been denied, as Plaintiffs had reached the maximum number of such accounts that AmEx would approve within a period of a few months. Had Plaintiffs known that their second credit card account application would be denied for this reason, they never would have submitted such application, thereby risking a reduction in Plaintiff Vasilyev's credit score due to repeated credit report inquiries from AmEx.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Levin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 111 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 212 4355 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com APEX ASSET: Winship Sues over Debt Collection --------------------------------------------- MELISSA WINSHIP, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APEX ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01770-BRM-LHG (D.N.J., Feb. 7, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Brian R. Martinotti, and referred to Magistrate Judge Lois H. Goodman. Apex Asset Management, LLC provides custom solution. The Company offers system integration, health care conversion, front end training, and collection law. Apex Asset Management serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES WOLF &KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 Telephone: jkj@legaljones.com APPLE INC: "Canoa de Oliveira" Suit Alleges Calif. UCL Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Guilherme Rafael Canoa de Oliveira, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv- 00735 (N.D. Calif., February 2, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all non-U.S. residents injured by Apple's misconduct. Plaintiff Guilherme Rafael Canoa de Oliveira is a resident of Sao Paulo, Brazil. He purchased his iPhone 6s on November 17, 2016 in Sao Paulo. Plaintiff still owns this device. As of the date of filing, Plaintiff's device was running iOS 11.2.1. Defendant Apple is a California corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business in Cupertino, California. Apple is the designer and manufacturer of the iPhone and iOS software. Apple manufactures, designs, produces, and sells several types of electronic products, including, among others, personal computers, portable music players, cellular phones, and other communication devices. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eli R. Greenstein, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 400-3000 Fax: (415) 400-3001 E-mail: egreenstein@ktmc.com ARS NATIONAL: Dionisio Sues over Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------ GABRIEL DIONISIO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARS NATIONAL SERVICES, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01764-JMV-SCM (D.N.J., Feb. 7, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge John Michael Vazquez, and referred to Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion. ARS National Services, Inc. offers accounts receivable management services. It caters to financial services organizations; banks; and credit card companies. The company is based in Escondido, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES WOLF &KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com AVIACODE INC: Hazel Seeks to Certify Class of Medical Coders ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled BRIAN HAZEL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. AVIACODE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01065-BSJ (D. Utah), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a class pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act: "all current and former medical coders employed by Defendant at any time during the last three years"; and 2. directing Defendant to provide information to Plaintiff's counsel within 14 days; and 3. directing issuance of Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent form, plus a reminder, via mail and email A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=icyhtXJm The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric D. Barton, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave. Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701 1100 E-mail: ebarton@wcllp.com - and - Jack McInnes, Esq. MCINNES LAW LLC 3500 West 75th Street, Suite 200 Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 220 2488 Facsimile: (913) 273 1671 E-mail: jack@mcinnes-law.com - and - Patrick G. Reavey, Esq. Kevin C. Koc, Esq. REAVEY LAW LLC 1600 Genessee St Ste 303 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 474 6300 Facsimile: (815) 474 6302 E-mail: preavey@reaveylaw.com kkoc@reaveylaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: "Boswell" Suit Seeks Certification of 5 Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JOSHUA B. BOSWELL; on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, the general public, and as an "aggrieved employee" under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, the Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation doing business in California; BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national association bank doing business in California, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17- cv-06120-GW-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of these classes of individuals: 1. The California Overtime / B&P Code 17200 Class, consisting of the following persons: "all employees of Defendant, Bank of America, who at all relevant times were employees of Defendant, Bank of America, as Mortgage Loan Officers who were subject to Defendants' illegal practices of failing to pay overtime due at time and one half their regular rate under federal law for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek"; 2. The California Labor Code section 203 (Unlawful Forfeiture) Class, consisting of the following persons: "all employees of Defendant Bank of America employed in the state of California, who at all relevant times were employees of Defendant Bank of America as Mortgage Loan Officers and were subject to Defendant Bank of America's illegal practices not paying Plaintiff and all others similarly situated commission wages earned solely because they were not employed by the Defendant at the scheduled time of payment"; 3. The California Labor Code section 204 (Improper Pay Period) Class, consisting of the following persons: "all employees of Defendant, Bank of America, who at all relevant times were employees of Defendant, Bank of America, as Mortgage Loan Officers who were subject to Defendant, Bank of America's illegal practices of not paying Plaintiff and all others similarly situated for work performed within the proper pay period in violation of California Labor Code section 204"; 4. The California Labor Code section 1197.1 (Minimum Wage) Class, consisting of the following persons: "all employees of Defendant, Bank of America, who at all relevant times were employees of Defendant, Bank of America, who were subject to Defendant, Bank of America's illegal practices of requiring Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to work without payment of the minimum wage for all hours worked in violation of California Labor Code section 1194"; and 5. The California Labor Code section 226.7 (Rest Break) Class, consisting of the following persons: "all employees of Defendant, Bank of America, who at all relevant times were employees of Defendant, Bank of America, who were subject to Defendant, Bank of America's illegal pay practices that did not compensate Plaintiff and all others similarly situated for their rest breaks in violation of California Labor Code section 226.7. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hwRTubqf Attorneys for Plaintiff: Mark R. Thierman, Esq. Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah L. Jones, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK, LLP 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, NV 89511 Telephone: (775) 284 1500 E-mail: Mark@thiermanbuck.com Josh@thiermanbuck.com BANK OF THE WEST: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Mkhitarian Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- SILVANA MKHITARIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF THE WEST; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC691989 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 30, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, wages for meal and rest periods, liquidated damages and attorney's fees, pursuant to the California Labor Code. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California, including the County of Los Angeles. Bank of the West provides a range of financial services to consumers, businesses, and government agencies in the United States and the Pacific Rim. As of October 5, 2017, it operated through a network of approximately 600 branches and offices in 23 states and digital channels. The company was formerly known as First National Bank of San Jose and changed its name to Bank of the West in 1979. The company was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. Bank of the West is a subsidiary of Bancwest Holding Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 - and - Romina Keshishyan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROMINA KESHISHYAN 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 744-4124 BAYWATCH INC: Faces "Caruso" Suit over Failure to Pay for OT ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Amber L. Caruso; Devan Alisabeth Mccoole and Jade Gaudiello on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Bay Watch, Inc., d/b/a Club Alex's, Defendant, was moved from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Case No. 18-0138) to the Massachusetts Superior Court Norfolk County (Case No. 1882-cv-00138), on Jan. 31, 2018. Amber L. Caruso; Devan Alisabeth Mccoole and Jade Gaudiello on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Bay Watch, Inc., d/b/a Club Alex's, Defendant, Case No. 180138 (Mass. Cmmw., Jan. 31, 2018) seeks to recover proper minimum wages, proper overtime compensation, and earned customer gratuities. She also seeks the right to work without paying "house fees" and other fees. Plaintiff Devan Alisabeth Mccoole worked at Alex's as a bartender and server from approximately 2013 through 2017. Plaintiff Amber L. Caruso worked at Alex's as a massage therapist from approximately May 2017 through July 2017. Plaintiff Jade Gaudiello, worked at Alex's as a massage therapist from approximately May 2017 through July 2017. Bay Watch, Inc., d/b/a club Alex's own and operates Alex's, a strip club. Defendant owns and operates a strip club in Stoughton, Massachusetts, known as Alex's. Defendant employs or employed service staff at the club, including the named Plaintiffs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian A. Joyce, Esq. Joyce Law Group 776R Washington Street Canton, MA 02021 Telephone: (781) 821-2250 E-mail: bjoyce@joycelawgroup.com BENJAMIN MOORE: Natura Brand Paint Ads Misleading, Keats Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM KEATS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, V. BENJAMIN MOORE & CO.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 20, 2018), seeks to remedy the unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices of Defendant with respect to the advertising, marketing and sales of its Natura brand paint. According to the complaint, Natura Paints are advertised, marketed and sold as "green" paints that have "Zero VOCs," "Zero emissions," and "No harsh fumes." However, contrary to these representations, the Natura Paints in fact contain, emit and expose consumers to volatile organic compounds ("VOCs"). VOCs are emitted as gases from certain solids or liquids that are present in numerous household products such as paint. According to the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), health effects from VOCs include respiratory ailments, damage to the immune system, headaches, loss of coordination and nausea, damage to the liver, the kidney and the central nervous system and cancer. These health effects are particularly acute in infants, children, asthmatics and those suffering from allergies. VOCs are a primary contributor to indoor air pollution, where concentrations can be up to ten times higher than[outdoor concentrations (and even higher when using products that contain VOCs such as paint). VOCs are also an environmental hazard in that they react with sunlight and nitrogen oxides in air to form smog. Smog is a serious air pollutant that is especially harmful to senior citizens, children and people with heart and lung conditions such as emphysema, bronchitis and, asthma. Thus, many I consumers concerned about negative human and environmental health impacts actively seek products that do not contain or emit VOCS. Despite Defendants' marketing and advertising of Natura Paints as "green" paints that contain zero VOCs and emit no chemicals or hash fumes, Defendants know and intend that the Natura Paints, when applied as directed, emit VOCs and expose those breathing the air to these chemicals both during and after application. Benjamin Moore & Co., also known as Benjamin Moore Paints or simply Benjamin Moore, is an American company that produces paint. It is owned by Berkshire Hathaway. Founded in 1883, Benjamin Moore is based in Montvale, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Somers, Esq. Ryan Berghoff, Esq. LEXINGTON LAW GROUP 503 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 9411 Telephone: (415) 913 7800 Facsimile: (415) 759 4112 E-mail: esomers@lexlawgroup.com rberghoff@lexlawgroup.com BIG HEART: Sturm Sues over Contaminated Dog Foods ------------------------------------------------- NANCY STURM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIG HEART PET BRANDS, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01099 (N.D. Cal, Feb. 21, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendant from selling contaminated dog Foods. The Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint against defendant, to cause Defendant to disclose its pet food sold throughout the United States is adulterated and contains pentobarbital and to restore monies to the consumers and businesses who purchased the Contaminated Dog Foods during the time that Defendant failed to make such disclosures. The Plaintiff also seeks to bar Defendant from selling any dog food that contains any levels of pentobarbital. Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, labels, distributes, and sells Gravy Train Chunks in Gravy with Beef Chunks, Gravy Train Chunks in Gravy with TBone Flavor Chunks, Gravy Train Chunks in Gravy with Chicken Chunks, Gravy Train Strips in Gravy Beef Strips and Gravy Train with Lamb & Rice Chunks. The Contaminated Dog Foods contain pentobarbital, a barbiturate drug used as a sedative and anesthetic for animals, rendering it adulterated under relevant federal and state law. Pentobarbital is now most commonly used to euthanizing dogs and cats.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339 6900 Facsimile: (612) 339 0981 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com - and - Kevin A. Seely, Esq. Steven M. Mckany, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525 3990 Facsimile: (619) 525 3991 E-mail: kseely@robbinsarroyo.com smckany@robbinsarroyo.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Karla M. Gluek, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333 8844 Facsimile: (612) 339 6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com kgluek@gustafsongluek.com jbourne@gustafsongluek.com rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com - and - Charles Laduca, Esq. Katherine Van Dyck, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789 3960 Facsimile: (202) 789 1813 E-mail: kvandyck@cuneolaw.com charles@cuneolaw.com - and - Joseph Depalma, Esq. Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623 3000 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com scruzhodge@litedepalma.com BIOVERATIV INC: Quigley Balks at Sanofi Merger Deal ---------------------------------------------------- CATHERINE QUIGLEY, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIOVERATIV INC., JOHN G. COX, ALEXANDER J. DENNER, GENO J. GERMANO, LOUIS J. PAGLIA, BRIAN S. POSNER, and ANNA PROTOPAPAS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv- 10338 (D. Mass., Feb. 21, 2018), seeks to enjoin a proposed transaction or, in the event the proposed transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting from the Individual Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff brings this action as a public stockholder of Bioverativ, Incagainst the members of Bioverativ's Board of Directors for their violations of Section 14(d)(4), and Rule 14d- promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 14 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Section 20(a). Specifically, Defendants solicit stockholder approval of the sale of the Company to Sanofi in a tender offer by Sanofi's subsidiary Blink Acquisition Corp., through a recommendation statement that omits material facts necessary to make the statements therein not false or misleading. Stockholders need this material information to decide whether to tender their shares or pursue their appraisal rights. On January 22, 2018, the Company announced that it had entered into a definitive agreement by which Sanofi, through its wholly- owned subsidiary Merger Sub, would commence a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Bioverativ for $105.00 per share in cash. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $11.6 billion. On February 7, 2018, Merger Sub commenced the Tender Offer, which is set to expire at midnight, one minute after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time, on March 7, 2018. The Tender Offer provides that the number of shares of Bioverativ common stock that have to be validly tendered, together with the shares beneficially owned by Sanofi and its affiliates, if any, must represent at least one share more than 1/2 of the total number of outstanding shares of Bioverativ common stock as of the Expiration Date or at the time and date to which the Tender Offer has been extended. The Tender Offer is not subject to any financing condition. In connection with the commencement of the Tender Offer on February 8, 2018, the Company filed a Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with the SEC. The Recommendation Statement is materially deficient and misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose material information about the Company's financial projections, the financial analysis performed by the Company's financial advisor, and the process leading to the Merger Agreement. Without all material information Bioverativ stockholders cannot make an informed decision to exchange their shares in the Tender Offer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Donald J. Enright, Esq. Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 992 4523 Facsimile: (212) 363 7171 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com denright@zlk.com BNSF LOGISTICS: "Garza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Garza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BNSF Logistics, LLC., BNSF Railway Company, and Transportation Technology Services Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-00323 (S.D. Tex., February 4, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and litigation costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants misclassify their welders as independent contractors instead of as employees. In doing so, Defendants deny those welders the overtime they are entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Alejandro Garza worked for Defendants as welder and was misclassified as an independent contractor. He resides in Harris County, Texas. Plaintiff performed work for Defendants in Texas; Oklahoma; Colorado; and New Mexico within the last three years. Defendant BNSF Railway Company is one of the largest freight railroad networks in North America. It employs thousands of welders throughout the United States and North America. Defendant BNSF Logistics, LLC is a transportation intermediary that provides truckload, project cargo, ocean, rail, air, less than truckload, and intermodal services in North America. Defendant Transportation Technology Services, Inc. is an engineering and logistics company, specializing in handling various aspects of shipping by rail. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Tel: (832) 778-8182 Fax: (832) 778-8353 E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com BONDED COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled PATRICK MANIACI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BONDED COLLECTION CORPORATION, and COLONY BRANDS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00267-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5jorghTK The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com BRIAD WENCO: "Fils" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Law ----------------------------------------------------------- RAOUL LISSOUCK FILS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BRIAD WENCO, LLC d/b/a WENDY'S, the Defendant, Case No. 702749/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 22, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated assistant managers, who worked in New York State at a Wendy's and who worked more than 40 hours in a week and were not paid overtime during the period commencing six years prior to the filing of this action and continuing until such further date as the practices complained of are discontinued. According to the complaint, the Defendant has engaged and continues to engage in illegal and improper wage practices. The Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and other Assistant Managers as exempt from the overtime laws and failed to pay Plaintiff, and the similarly situated current and former Assistant Managers, for overtime of time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a week.[BN] Briad Kenco owns and operates quick service restaurants under the Wendy's franchise. The company is based in Florham Park, New Jersey. Briad Wenco, L.L.C. operates as a subsidiary of The Briad Group. Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative New York Class: Louis Ginsberg, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C. 1613 Northern Boulevard Roslyn, N.Y. 11576 Telephone: (516) 625 0105 BRIGADOON FITNESS: Gorss Motels Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut corporation, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly- situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. BRIGADOON FITNESS, INC., an Indiana corporation, BRIGADOON FINANCIAL, INC., an Indiana corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv- 00330-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of: "all those persons who were sent faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 and its implementing regulations. Rule 23(a) and (b) requirements are easily satisfied - the faxes were successfully sent to successfully sent to 10,490 fax numbers, Defendants' conduct is uniform as to all putative class members". The Plaintiff also asks the court to be appointed as class representative, as it has no conflicts and will actively and adequately prosecute this action. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vxZQvs9M The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ross M. Good, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368 1500 Facsimile: (847) 368 1501 BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces "Tung" Suit over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------ JENNIFER TUNG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, MICHAEL GIORDANO, FOUAD NAMOUNI, FRANCIS M. CUSS, GIOVANNI CAFORIO, LAMBERTO ANDREOTTI, and CHARLES A. BANCROFT, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01611 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 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 Bristol- Myers between January 27, 2015 and October 9, 2016. As of January of 2015, the Company's CheckMate-026 study investigating the use of Opdivo (nivolumab) monotherapy as first- line therapy in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer was underway. Founded in 1887, the Company was formerly known as "Bristol-Myers Company" and changed its name to "Bristol-Myers Squibb Company" in 1989. Bristol-Myers is headquartered in New York, New York, and its stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "BMY." 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) Bristol-Myers' CheckMate-026 trial was more likely to fail than Defendants were representing; (ii) Bristol-Myers' CheckMate-026 trial failed more severely than the Company indicated it did in its August 5, 2016 announcements and disclosures concerning the trial; and (iii) as a result, Bristol- Myers's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 5, 2016, the Company announced that its CheckMate-026 trial investigating the use of Opdivo (nivolumab) as monotherapy had failed because it did not meet its primary endpoint of progression-free survival. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $12.04 per share, or 16%, to close at $63.28 per share on August 5, 2016, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock price continued to fall on the next trading day, declining another $2.98 per share, or 4.7%, on unusually heavy trading volume, to close at $60.30 per share on August 8, 2016. On October 9, 2016, Bristol-Myers disclosed the final primary analysis of CheckMate-026, including the finding that overall survival was only 14.4 months for Opdivo versus 13.2 months for chemotherapy. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $5.62 per share, or 10.1%, to close at $49.81 per share on October 10, 2016, on unusually heavy trading volume. 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. Bristol-Myers is a global biopharmaceutical company that develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and sells pharmaceutical and nutritional products. Bristol-Myers products and experimental therapies address cancer, heart disease, HIV and AIDS, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, hepatitis, organ transplant rejection, and psychiatric disorders.[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 - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com BUCK VALLEY: Faces "Wood" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- KEITH WOOD and GABRIEL AVALOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUCK VALLEY DRYWALL, INC.; and RAJANI KONERU, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00631-WSD (N.D. Ga., Feb. 11, 2018) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as supervisors and constructions laborers. Buck Valley Drywall is a Georgia corporation engaged in the drywall and construction industry, supplying professional drywall repair and remodeling contractor services. Its principal place of business is 5901 Peachtree Dunwoody Rd, C-160, Atlanta, GA, 30328, which is in Dekalb County. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC 1800 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 343-2441 Facsimile: (404) 352-5636 E-mail: brandon@brandonthomaslaw.com CARROLL MEMORIAL: "Sanders" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLA SANDERS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CARROLL COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL and CARROLL COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00136-SRB (W.D. Mo., Feb. 22, 2018), seeks to recover damages, costs, and attorneys' fees for Defendants' wrongful termination of Plaintiff's employment in retaliation for Plaintiff's protected acts under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated who consent to join this collective action pursuant to the FLSA and Missouri Minimum Wage Law that they are entitled to compensation for automatically deducted but interrupted meal breaks, time spent working off-the-clock, and unpaid overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 for each work week, liquidated damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda Pennington Ketchum, Esq. Anne E. Baggott, Esq. DYSART TAYLOR COTTER McMONIGLE & MONTEMORE, P.C. 4420 Madison Avenue, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 931 2700 Facsimile: (816) 931 7377 E-mail: aketchum@dysarttaylor.com abaggott@dysarttaylor.com CDK GLOBAL: Massey Chrysler Alleges Automobile Sales Price-Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- MASSEY CHRYSLER CENTER, INC.; and MASSEY AUTOMOTIVE, INC, Plaintiffs v. CDK GLOBAL, LLC; and THE REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-42 (M.D. Ala., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover damages and injunctive relief under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and the antitrust laws of the U.S. The Plaintiffs alleged in the complaint that the Defendants engaged in a scheme to control the market for back-office computer applications used by automobile dealers; engaged in a conspiracy to allocate market share, reduce competition, and fix prices in the market for data management systems used by automobile dealers; and use their market power to lock automobile dealers into long-term service contracts, lasting up to seven years, with punitive terms that make it inordinately difficult and expensive for dealers to switch to another providers. CDK Global LLC provides integrated information technology and digital marketing solutions. The Company offers solutions that automate and integrate critical workflow processes from pre-sale targeted advertising and marketing campaigns to the sale, financing, insurance, parts supply, and repair and maintenance of vehicles. The Reynolds and Reynolds Company provides automobile dealership software, business forms and supplies, and professional services for car dealers and automakers in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Europe. The company also provides document services, including printing business documents; and consulting and training services. The Reynolds and Reynolds Company was formerly known as Universal Computer Systems, Inc. and changed its name to The Reynolds and Reynolds Company in October 2006. The company was founded in 1866 and is based in Kettering, Ohio. It has locations in Houston and College Station, Texas; Celina, Ohio; and internationally. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Daniel Miles, Esq. Archie I. Grubb, II, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com Archie.Grubb@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Ralph Edward Massey, Jr. CLAY MASSEY & ASSOCIATES 509 Church Street Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-1000 E-mail: em@claymassey.com - and - Michael Stephen Dampier, Esq. THE DAMPIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 55 North Section Street Fairhope, AL 36532 Telephone: (251) 929-0900 E-mail: steve@dampierlaw.com CDK GLOBAL: Hoover Auto Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on November 14, 2017 captioned Hoover Automotive, LLC d/b/a Hoover Dodge Chrysler Jeep Of Summerville, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CDK Global, LLC and The Reynolds and Reynolds Company, Case No. 3:17-cv-00864 was transferred on February 12, 2018, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv- 01057 to the proceeding. The case arises out of the Defendants' anticompetitive conspiracy designed to foreclose competition in the market for Dealer Management System Software ("DMS") in the United States. The Defendants are in the business of providing of IT and digital marketing solutions to the automotive retail industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. LARSON KING LLP 2800 Wells Fargo Place 30 East Seventh Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6500 Facsimile: (651) 312-6618 E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com The Defendant is represented by: Charles Grant Curtis Jr., Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1 East Main Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 663-5411 E-mail: ccurtis@perkinscoie.com CDK GLOBAL: Kenny Class Suit Transferred to North. Dist. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on January 24, 2018, styled Kenny Thomas Enterprises, Inc. (d/b/a Olathe Toyota), on behalf of itself and all those similarly situated v. CDK Global, LLC, and The Reynolds and Reynolds Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00029, was transferred on February 12, 2018, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-01056 to the proceeding. The case arises out of the illegal and anticompetitive practices of the Defendants in the markets for data management and integration systems sold to auto dealerships. The Defendants are in the business of providing of IT and digital marketing solutions to the automotive retail industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark H. Troutman, Esq. ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR LLC Two Miranova Place, Suite 700 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-2121 E-mail: mtroutman@isaacwiles.com CDK GLOBAL: Massey Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on January 25, 2018, entitled Massey Chrysler Center, Inc., and Massey Automotive, Inc., individually and on behalf of the class v. CDK Global, LLC and The Reynolds and Reynolds Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00042, was transferred on February 12, 2018, from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-01054 to the proceeding. The case arises out of the Defendants' anticompetitive conspiracy designed to foreclose competition in the market for Dealer Management System Software ("DMS") in the United States. The Defendants are in the business of providing of IT and digital marketing solutions to the automotive retail industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Archibald Irwin Grubb II, Esq. Wilson Daniel Miles III, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. Post Office Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (800) 898-2034 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com dee.miles@beasleyallen.com - and - Michael Stephen Dampier, Esq. THE DAMPIER LAW FIRM, P.C. P.O. Box 161 Fairhope, AL 36533 Telephone: (251) 929-0900 E-mail: stevedampier@dampierlaw.com - and - Ralph Edward Massey Jr., Esq. CLAY MASSEY & ASSOC PC 509 Church Street Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-1000 E-mail: em@claymassey.com The Defendant CDK Global, LLC is represented by: CDK Global, LLC 2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605 Montgomery, AL 36104 c/o CT Corporation System PRO SE The Defendant is represented by: The Reynolds and Reynolds Company 2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605 Montgomery, AL 36104 c/o CT Corporation System PRO SE CENTURY ARMS: Court Denies Redacted Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JEFFREY M ELTON, EZEKIEL M ORRIS, TOMMY JOHNSON , JUAN VALDES, and M AN VILLE SMITH, the Plaintiffs, CENTURY ARMS, INC.; CENTURY INTERNATION ALARMS CORP.; CENTURY ARMS OF VERMONT, INC.; and CENTURY INTERNATIONAL ARMS OF VERMONT, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21008-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Frederico A. Moreno entered an order denying a redacted motion for Class Certification. The Court has considered the motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is adjudged that the motion is denied as moot in light of the Court denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal. The Court requires Plaintiffs to file an un-redacted version of their motion for class certification. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gjn2lPhF CREDIT CONTROL: Rincon-Marin Seeks to Certify Consumers Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled PABLO RINCON-MARIN, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00007-VLB (D. Conn.), the Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant entered an order a. certifying a class of: "all consumers nationwide who were sent collection letters and/or notices from Defendant attempting to collect a consumer debt wherein said collection letters state both that 'Please note that a negative credit bureau report reflecting on your credit record may be submitted to a credit reporting agency by the current account owner if you fail to fulfill the terms of your credit obligations. This notice in no way affects any rights you may have,' and 'The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, LVNV Funding LLC will not sue you for it and LVNV Funding LLC will not report it to any credit reporting agency,' since January 3, 2016 through October 26, 2017; b. appointing Daniel Zemel and Peter M. Van Dyke as Class Counsel; and c. appointing Mr. Rincon-Marin as representative of the Settlement Class. The Court also preliminarily approves the proposed settlement agreement, approves the mailing of the notice and claim form to Settlement Class members, finds the mailing of such notice satisfies the requirements of due process, and imposes the following deadlines: 1. Class notice is to be mailed by March 26, 2018; 2. Settlement Class members shall have until May 10, 2018 to exclude themselves from, or object to, the settlement agreement. Any Settlement Class members desiring to exclude themselves from the action must serve copies of the request on the Class Administrator by the same date. Any Settlement Class members who wish to object to the settlement must submit an objection in writing to the District of Connecticut's Clerk's Office and serve copes of the objection on the Class Administrator by the same date.; 3. The parties shall file with the Court a report of the results of class notification, including the number of class members who excluded themselves from or objected to the settlement agreement, by June 11, 2018.; and 4. A final hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement agreement will take place on July 26, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., at 450 Main Street, Courtroom Three, before the undersigned. At the hearing, the Court will also determine whether to grant final approval to the settlement agreement and whether to grant the parties' requests for fees and expenses by Class Counsel. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=v68FRJyk CREDIT PROTECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, says "McRobie" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth McRobie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Credit Protection Association I, Inc., Case No. 5:18- cv-00566-JFL (E.D. Penn., February 12, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The Defendant provides businesses cost-effective credit management. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com CGR SERVICES: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification as Moot -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Vera Harris-Stewart, the Plaintiff, v. CGR Services, Inc., et al. the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04032 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Andrea R. Wood entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on February 21, 2018, in light of the Court's preliminary approval of the parties' class settlement, Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied as moot. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qFq0wrTI CHICAGO, IL: Educ Board Fails to Disclose Reinspection Report ------------------------------------------------------------- RIVERS OF LIVING WATER MINISTRIES INTERNATTONAL, an Illinois Not-For-Profit Corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a body politic and corporate, and the PUBLIC BUILDING COMMISSION OF CHICAGO, an Illinois Municipal Corporation, et. al., the Defendants, Case No. 2018CH02403 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Feb. 22, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused to the Plaintiff, as a result of the Defendants' failure to disclose a Three-Year Reinspection Report to the Church, prior to accepting its bid, and for any resulting injuries. The Plaintiff is a not for profit organization incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois with its principal place of worship in the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois. The Church currently rents space from a Chicago public school namely, Jensen Scholastic Academy Elementary School on the city's westside, where it holds church services on Sunday and through the week. The Defendant, the Board of Education of the City of Chicago, issued a general invitation to the public for the solicitation of bids for the purchase of Chicago public schools that were closed in 2013. The defendant is the legal title holder of record for the schools that were listed for sale by the Board. During the walk through, the Church was informed by a representative of the Board that the subject properties had been looted, meaning the electrical, mechanical, plumbing and air conditioning units, etc., were stolen from the properties and had to be either repaired or replaced. The Church considered this expense before it submitted its proposal and offer to the Board to purchase the Armstrong School and Annex building from the Board that its bid had been accepted but discovered it through reading an on line issue of DNA info Chicago. Shortly thereafter, the Church tendered a cashier's check to the Board in the amount of $25,000 or 10% of the amount of the bid. The Board executed the agreement and retained the money thereby creating a legally enforceable contract. On or about June 9, 2017, or several months after acceptance of the Church's bid, the Board emailed the Church the following documents: "Louis Armstrong School Assessment Report"; "floor plans"; and, the "Illinois Department of Public Health, AHERA Three-Year Reinspection, Asbestos Abatement Program School Information Form and Report". The Three-Year Reinspection Report ("Report") is a 76-page document that identified asbestos-containing materials at the Armstrong school. The Church did not know, nor could it have known about the presence of asbestos in the Armstrong school. The Board's bid solicitation alleged that all attachments, and any clarifications and addenda to the bid solicitation were available for download from the Board's website at: http://www.csc.cps.kl2.il.us/purchasing/bidopenings.html However, the Church maintains that the Web site did not work when it accessed it, and that there were no documents to be obtained therefrom. The site has since been disabled. The Church reasonably relied upon the Board's written representations in its bid solicitation because it knew that it would receive a quit-claim deed and that the as-is/where-is language meant that nothing was concealed from the Church which was known to the Board that would make the subject properties undesirable. Moreover, the Church asserts that if the report had been disclosed to it during the initial or pre-bid process, and not months later after the Board had accepted its offer to purchase the properties, then it would have had the option of not placing a bid on the subject properties altogether, or even perhaps, bidding lower than what was submitted, or ask that the Board deed the property to it for a nominal consideration to offset the cost of abatement, or as the seller assume the cost. The consequence of the concealment and late disclosure of the report resulted in the Church having to suffer substantial monetary damages and the loss of its bargain for which the Board has disclaimed liability. The Board denied responsibility, stating that the conveyance of the property was made on an "as-is/where-is" basis. The Board's disclaimer clause seeks to protect the Board from its fraudulent or negligent concealment of asbestos which is a known health hazard to the public. The Complaint contends that the law in Illinois is well settled that "as is" language in a real estate sale contract does not shield a seller from liability for fraud nor does it shield a seller who has fraudulently misrepresented the condition of property or who has intentionally concealed known facts. A seller of real estate who knows of facts materially affecting the value or desirability of property which are known or accessible only to him is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer. The Church has amicably sought to resolve the matter with the Board through Terrance L. Diamond of Neal and Leroy, LLC, the law firm designated by the Board to close the real estate transaction, but to no avail.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Sharp, Jr., Esq. ATTORNEYS FOR CHRIST N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (773) 727 8181 Facsimile: (877) 200 3015 COLLECTO INC: Winship Sues over Debt Collection ----------------------------------------------- MELISSA WINSHIP, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLLECTO, INC., d/b/a as EOS CCA; US ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 1:18-cv-01328-RMB- KMW (D.N.J., Jan. 30, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' unfair and unconscionable means to collect debt. Collecto, Inc., doing business as EOS/CCA, Inc., operates as a debt management and recovery resource company. It offers receivables collection services for banks, colleges and universities, student loan lenders, telecommunications companies, and other companies. The company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Norwell, Massachusetts. As of February 23, 2001, Collecto, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of EOS Holding GmbH. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF &KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com COLORADO: 10th Cir. Orders Enforcement of $50 Award in "Moore" -------------------------------------------------------------- L.R. Moore appeals an order arises out of a class action, Montez v. Hickenlooper. Montez was filed in the early 1990s by Colorado state prisoners who alleged that state officials were committing ongoing violations of disabled prisoners' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. In 2003, the parties entered into a consent decree, called a "Remedial Plan," setting forth the actions Defendants would take to bring the state prison system into compliance with the applicable statutes and establishing a procedure through which individual inmates could bring damage claims for injuries incurred. Specifically, the consent decree provided that the damage claims of individual class members would be determined by a special master, subject to abuse-of-discretion review by the district court. This class action resulted in presentation of individual damage claims to a special master. One of these claims was decided twelve years ago. The claimant, Mr. L.R. Moore, obtained a monetary award, but he has never been paid. He complains not only of the nonpayment but also of the failure to replace a stolen wheelchair and the inability to participate in settlement talks involving the class as a whole. The district court denied relief. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirms in part and reverses in part. In part, Mr. Moore seeks enforcement of the $50 award. The defendants acknowledge that they have not paid the award and do not question the enforceability of the award or the court's authority to order payment. Instead, the defendants contend that they can wait to pay until Mr. Moore completes an accurate W-9 tax form, which he has not done. The district court agreed with the defendants, and the Tenth Circuit engages in de novo review. In conducting this review, the Tenth Circuit concludes that the district court erred. The W-9 is an IRS form submitted to a payee by an individual or entity "who is required to file an information return with the IRS." R. Vol. II, at 147. But the defendants have not identified any requirement to file an information return for the payment to Mr. Moore. Cf. IRS Pub. 583, Information for Business Taxpayers, 1988 WL 485178, at *6 (rev. Nov. 1988) (stating circumstances in which an information return is required). But assuming that an information return is required and that the payment is reportable. In these circumstances, the Internal Revenue Code identifies steps that the payor can take in the absence of a W-9 form. These steps include actions such as adding backup withholding in certain circumstances. See 26 U.S.C. Sec. 3406(a); see IRS Pub. 1281 (Rev. 3-2017), Backup Withholding for Missing and Incorrect Name/TIN(s), 2017 WL 4317150, at *3. Instead of taking these steps, however, the defendants unilaterally disobeyed the special master's order without explaining the need for a W-9 form before paying the award. In the absence of such an explanation, the district court erred in failing to order enforcement of the $50 award. In the 2005 proceeding, Mr. Moore complained that his custom-made wheelchair had been stolen by prison staff and was never replaced with an equivalent model. The defendants responded that they were in the process of providing Mr. Moore with a new wheelchair, and the special master declined to order relief on Mr. Moore's complaint about his wheelchair. The defendants provided a wheelchair, but Mr. Moore alleges that the replacement was inadequate. With the passage of twelve years, it is too late for Mr. Moore to appeal the special master's 2005 order on the ground that it should have specified the type of wheelchair to be provided. See Order, filed Mar. 23, 2010, ECF No. 4381 (setting April 16, 2010, as the deadline for "any pro se compliance/enforcement claims for individual . . . injunctive or equitable relief" under the 2003 remedial plan). And he cannot obtain relief by enforcing the 2005 award because that award did not include relief on the claim involving the wheelchair. Thus, the district court did not err in sustaining the 2016 objection involving the wheelchair. The appeals case is LEWIS ROGER MOORE, Claimant-Appellant, and JESSE F. MONTEZ; DAVID BRYAN; GEORGE KARL; GILPIN EUGENE; JOHN ARMINTROUT; KENNETH GARCIA; RICHARD K. ALLEN; JIMMY R. BULGIER, as representatives of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN HICKENLOOPER; FRANK GUNTER, Former Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections; BEN JOHNSON, Former Warden of Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility; CHERYL SMITH, Medical Administrator at CTCF; ARI ZAVARAS, Executive Director of Colorado Department of Corrections; BOB FURLONG, Warden of Limon Correctional Facility; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BILL PRICE, Warden of the Arkansas Valley Correctional Center; R. MARK McDUFF, Warden of the Arrowhead Correctional Center, the Four Mile Correctional Facility, the Skyline Correctional Center, and the Pre-Release Correctional Center; GARY NEET, Warden of the Buena Vista Correctional Facility; WARREN DIESSLIN, Former Warden of the Buena Vista Correctional Facility; FRANK MILLER, Warden of the Centennial Correctional Facility; DONICE NEAL, Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary; MARK WILLIAMS, Warden of the Colorado Women's Facility; MARK McKINNA, Warden of the Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility; J FRANK RICE, Warden of the Denver Reception and Diagnostic Center; LARRY EMBRY, Warden of the Fremont Correctional Facility; TOM COOPER, Former Warden of the Fremont Correctional Facility; BILL BOGGS, Warden of the Rifle Correctional Facility; BILL BOKROS, Warden of the Pueblo Minimum Center; DAVID HOLT, Medical Administrator; JEAN MOLTZ, Medical Administrator; RON JOHNSON, Medical Administrator; DON LAWSON, Administration Director; BOB MOORE, Medical Supervisor; RONALD G PIERCE; JOHN DOES, Current and Former Wardens of any correctional facility maintained, operated or controlled by the Colorado Department of Corrections; JOHN ROES, Defendants- Appellees, No. 17-1115 (10th Cir.) A full-text copy of the Tenth Circuit's January 22, 2018 Order and Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7ykmxar from Leagle.com. COMCAST CABLE: Hodges Sues over Subscribers' Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Hodges, for himself, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18893264 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 21, 2018), seeks injunctive relief requiring Comcast to clearly and conspicuously notify cable subscribers in writing, at the requisite times, of the period during which it maintains Plaintiff's personally identifiable information, including video activity data and demographic data. According to the complaint, Comcast's treatment of personally identifiable video activity data and demographic data violates several provisions of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984. Comcast is subject to the Cable Act's protections for subscriber privacy set forth in 47 U.S.C. section because it is a "cable operator" as the term is defined in 47 15 11 u.s.c. section 551 (a)(2)(C). The Cable Act requires cable operators to provide written notice to their 17 11 subscribers, upon contracting and annually thereafter, "which clearly and conspicuously informs 18 11 the subscriber of-", among other things, "the period during which [PII collected with respectto the subscriber] will be maintained by the cable operator" Throughout the relevant period, Comcast's Privacy Notice has failed to clearly and conspicuously tell subscribers how long Comcast would maintain their personally identifiable information, including video activity data and demographic data. Instead, the Privacy Notice opaquely states that Comcast maintains information that personally identifies the subscriber while he or she subscribes to one or more of Comcast's services and for a period of time after the subscriber no longer subscribes to a Comcast service "if the information is necessary for the purposes for which it was collected or to satisfy legal requirements." This statement does not disclose how long Comcast maintains subscribers' PII Comcast's cable system automatically, generates, transmits, and collects data about subscribers' cable television viewing activity ("video activity data"), including which channels, programs, and advertisements subscribers view and for how long. Comcast also collects personally identifiable demographic data about its subscribers, including their age, gender, presence and age of children, education, occupation, ethnicity, marital status, household size, property ownership, mortgage/loan/insurance data, automotive ownership, general interests, magazine subscriptions, and wealth/financial status. This data is personally identifiable because it is linked to and concerns a particular subscriber. Comcast maintains this information in its audience database and uses it for a variety of advertising purposes including, inter alia, measuring the popularity of programs among subscribers based on their characteristics and targeting advertisements to specific households and groups of households based on their characteristics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ray E. Gallo, Esq. Dominic Valerian, Esq. GALLOLLP 1299 Fourth St., Suite 505 San Rafael, CA 94901 Telephone: (415) 257 8800 E-mail: rgallo@gallo.law dvalerian@gallo.law - and - Hank Bates, Esq. CARNEY, BA TES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 West 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312 8500 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com CORNING INCORPORATED: Faces "Read" Suit in W.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- John Read, Thomas R. McGrew, Jr., Suzanne Annunziata, Francis A. Annunziata, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Corning Incorporated, Corning Homes, Inc., John Does, Defendants, 6:18-cv-06131-DGL (W.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge David G. Larimer. Corning Incorporated manufactures and sells specialty glasses, ceramics, and related materials in North America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, and internationally. The company was formerly known as Corning Glass Works and changed its name to Corning Incorporated in April 1989. Corning Incorporated was founded in 1851 and is headquartered in Corning, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alan J. Knauf, Esq. KNAUF SHAW LLP 1400 Crossroads Building Rochester, NY 14614 Telephone: (585) 546-8430 Facsimile: (585) 546-4324 E-mail: aknauf@nyenvlaw.com DISNEY STORE: Faces "Burbon" Suit in. S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action suit has been filed against Disney Store USA, LLC. The case is captioned as Luc Burbon, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Disney Store USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01117-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge J. Paul Oetken, referred to Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox. Disney Store USA LLC operates as entertainment and media company. The company provides clothes, toys, home decor, movies, music, books, and video games for children. Disney Store USA is located in the United States. [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 E-mail: court@navehlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Samuel Sverdlov, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP (NYC) 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405 Telephone: (516) 476-5703 E-mail: ssverdlov@seyfarth.com DST SYSTEMS: Scott Balks at SS&C Technologies Merger Deal --------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN SCOTT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., STEPHEN C. HOOLEY, GARY D. FORSEE, CHARLES EDGAR HALDEMAN, SAMUEL G. LISS, JEROME H. BAILEY, JOSEPH C. ANTONELLIS, LOWELL L. BRYAN, and LYNN DORSEY BLEIL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00286-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 20, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding the stockholders vote on a proposed merger between DST Systems and certain affiliates of SS&C Technologies, Inc. and taking any steps to consummate a Proposed Merger unless, and until, material information is disclosed to DST Systems shareholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the proposed merger or, in the event the proposed merger is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act. The action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public holders of the common stock of DST Systems, Inc. against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On January 11, 2018, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's shareholders stand to receive $84.00 in cash for each share of DST Systems stock they own, representing $5.4 billion in enterprise value. On February 7, 2018, to convince DST Systems shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The materially incomplete and misleading Proxy independently violates both Regulation G, each of which constitutes a violation of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy, Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Merger, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and rendering certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and misleading. In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the financial forecasts for the Company that were prepared by the Company and relied upon by the Board in recommending the Company's shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Merger. The financial forecasts were also utilized by DST Systems' financial advisor, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, in conducting the valuation analyses in support of its fairness opinion. It is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed prior to the forthcoming stockholder vote to allow the Company's stockholders to make an informed decision regarding the Proposed Merger. For these reasons, and as set forth in detail herein, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. DST Systems, Inc. is an American provider of advisory, technology and operations outsourcing to the financial and healthcare industries, with more than 13,000 employees worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com mvangorder@faruqilaw.com DYNAMIC RECOVERY: "Siddiqi" Bid for Class Certification Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Shabih Siddiqi, the Plaintiff, v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 06126 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. held that the status hearing is continued to July 10, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff's motion for class certification is stricken without prejudice to refiling at a later date. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=n2lDjA9J EDELMAN FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Brown" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAYME BROWN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDELMAN FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00214-JVS- JDE (C.D. Cal., Feb. 7, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Edelman Financial Services LLC is a privately owned investment manager. It provides its services to individuals, trusts, estates, charitable organizations, foundations, pensions, retirement, and profit sharing plans, institutions, and small businesses. The firm operates as a subsidiary of The Edelman Financial Center, LLC. Edelman Financial Services LLC was founded in 1986, and is based in Fairfax, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Chase, Esq. Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq. Daniel J. Hyun, Esq. BISNAR|CHASE LLP 1301 Dove Street, Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 752-2999 Facsimile: (949) 752-2777 E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com jbeligan@bisnarchase.com dhyun@bisnarchase.com ENERMEX INTERNATIONAL: "Serrato" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- JOSE SERRATO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ENERMEX INTERNATIONAL, INC., ENERMEX RENTALS & SERVICE LLC and EDGAR H. PADILLA, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00548 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 22, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. According to the complaint, Enermex violated the FLSA by employing Serrato and other similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than 40 hours [but refusing to compensate them] for [their] employment in excess of 40 hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which [they are or were] employed. Enermex violated the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate time and pay records for Serrato and other similarly situated nonexempt employees as required by 29 U.S.C. section 211(c) and 29 C.F.R. pt. 516. Enermex is a UK Mexican Partnership with corporate offices in Mexico City and London, developed and structured to provide mutually equitable partnerships and commercial relationships.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. Bridget Davidson, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222 6775 Facsimile: (713) 222 6739 ENHANCED RECOVERY: "Eady" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DEMONTA EADY and DEBORAH EVANS, CASE NO. 3:17-cv-01008-TJC-PDB, the Plaintiff, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01008-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs seek the Court to certify three classes: Telephone Consumer Protection Act Class: "all individuals in the United States, to whom ERC -- between August 6, 2014 through the date of class certification -- placed a call using the HCI System to such individual's cellular telephone and where ERC lacked prior express consent to make the call. Plaintiffs seek to establish on behalf of the TCPA Class that the HCI System is an "ATDS" under 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) and enjoin ERC from continuing to use it to call the TCPA Class"; Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Class: "all individuals in the United States, to whom ERC -- between August 28, 2016 through the date of class certification -- placed a call using the HCI System in an attempt to collect a consumer debt and where ERC had placed at least 10 such calls to the individual at the same number over the prior two-week period"; Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act: "all individuals in the United States, to whom ERC -- between August 28, 2015 through the date of class certification -- placed a call using the HCI System in an attempt to collect a consumer debt and where ERC had placed at least 10 such calls to the individual at the same number over the prior two-week period." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3PyUVK9P The Plaintiff is represented by: David McDevitt, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC 5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (602) 845 5969 Facsimile: (866) 317 2674 E-mail: dmcdevitt@thompsonconsumerlaw.com EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Carter" Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc., and Equifax Information Services, LLC. The case is captioned as Shawnette Carter and Aleida Ruiz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax Inc.; and Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00626-TWT (N.D. Ga., Feb. 9, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The "Carter" suit is a member case in the multi- district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 2800. Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. The USIS segment offers consumer and commercial information services, such as credit information and credit scoring, credit modeling and portfolio analytics, locate, fraud detection and prevention, identity verification, and other consulting; mortgage loan origination information; financial marketing; and identity management services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle Anne Fuschetti, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP -CA 111 Sutter Street, Suite 975 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 795-2022 Facsimile: (415) 795-2021 - and - Edward Dewey Chapin, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP -CA 655 West Broadway, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 577-4253 Facsimile: (619) 577-4250 - and - Jason Paul Sander, Esq. JASON SANDER, ATTORNEY AT LAW 4314 Feagan Street Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 899-9784 E-mail: sanderjason@hotmail.com - and - Kevin Hunter Sharp, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 611 Commerce St., Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 97203 Telephone: (615) 434-7001 Facsimile: (615) 434-7020 ERELEVANCE CORPORATION: Removes "Jaffe" Suit to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of Olwen Jaffe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. eRelevance Corporation, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois (Case No. 2018-ch- 00268) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00994 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 7, 2018). eRelevance Corporation, Inc. provides a technology-enabled marketing automation service to small- and medium-sized businesses. The company users multiple digital communication channels, including email, text, Web, social, and automated conversations through an application and text messaging to generate leads. It serves healthcare, marketing, and real estate industries. The company was founded in 2013 and is based in Austin, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Louis Gerbie, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: dgerbie@mcgpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Jonathan Booker Cifonelli, Esq. PUGH JONES & JOHNSON, P.C. 180 North LaSalle St., Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 768-7800 E-mail: jcifonelli@pjjlaw.com - and - Walter Jones , Jr., Esq. PUGH JONES & JOHNSON, P.C. 180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60601-2700 Telephone: (312) 768-7800 E-mail: wjones@pjjlaw.com - and - Zeke Nathaniel Katz, Esq. PUGH JONES & JOHNSON 180 N LaSalle St, Suite 3400 Telephone: Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 768-7800 E-mail: zkatz@pjjlaw.com ESSEX TECHNOLOGY: "Nowell" Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA --------------------------------------------------------- Brian Nowell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Essex Technology Group, LLC doing business as Bargain Hunt; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 1:18- cv-00623-MLB-JFK (N.D. Ga., Feb. 9, 2018) alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to Judge Michael L. Brown and referred to Magistrate Judge Janet F. King. Essex Technology Group, Inc. provides business information and security solutions. The company was founded in 1994 and is based in Rochelle Park, New Jersey. Essex Technology Group, Inc. is a prior subsidiary of The Janis Group, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chant Yedalian, Esq. CHANT & COMPANY 1010 N, Central Avenue Glendale, CA 91202 - and - Charles Austin Gower , Jr. CHARLES A. GOWER, P.C. P.O. Box 5509 1425 Wynnton Road Columbus, GA 31906 Telephone: (706) 324-5685 E-mail: austin@cagower.com - and - Shaun Patrick O'Hara, Esq. CHARLES A. GOWER, P.C. P.O. Box 5509 1425 Wynnton Road Columbus, GA 31906 Telephone: (706) 324-5685 E-mail: shaun@cagower.com EXPEDIA INC: Buckeye Tree, et al. Seek to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled BUCKEYE TREE LODGE AND SEQUOIA VILLAGE INN, LLC, a California limited liability company, and 2020 O STREET CORPORATION, INC, D/B/A THE MANSION ON O STREET, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EXPEDIA, INC., a Washington corporation; HOTELS.COM, L.P., a Texas limited partnership; HOTELS.COM GP, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; ORBITZ, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; VENERE NET S.R.L DBA VENERE NET, LLC, an Italian limited liability company; and EXPEDIA AUSTRALIA INVESTMENTS PTY LTD., an Australian private company, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-04721-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on May 17, 2018, for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all hotels, lodges, inns, and motels located in the United States whose names appeared on Expedia.com, Hotels.com, Orbitz.com, or Travelocity.com (1) with whom Defendants did not have a booking agreement, or (2) with whom Defendants had a booking agreement to sell a specified number of rooms and whose names continued to appear on Expedia.com, Hotels.com, Orbitz.com, or Travelocity.com even after Defendants had sold the specified number of rooms, since August 17, 2012"; 2. appointing Buckeye Tree Lodge and Sequoia Village Inn, LLC, and 2020 O Street Corporation, Inc., d/b/a/ The Mansion on O Street, as the Class Representatives; and 3. appointing the law firms of Patterson Law Group, APC, and Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP as Class Counsel. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qX2q7sF5 The Plaintiffs are represented by: James R. Patterson, Esq. Allison H. Goddard, Esq. Jacquelyn E. Quinn, Esq. PATTERSON LAW GROUP 1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756 6990 Facsimile: (619) 756 6991 E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com ali@pattersonlawgroup.com jackie@pattersonlawgroup.com - and - CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP - and - PRATT & ASSOCIATES - and - RICHA LAW GROUP, P.C. FAIRMONT FUNDING: Azulay Sues over Mortgage Loan Fraud ------------------------------------------------------ ZIV AZULAY, the Plaintiff, v. FAIRMONT FUNDING LTD., MORTGAGE ELETRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., GMAC MORTGAGE LLC., GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC., DITECH FINANCIAL LLC., MTGLQ INVESTORS LP., THEIR HEIRS, SUCCESSORS AND SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, COLLECTIVELY, the Defendants, Case No. 1480-18 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 21, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants relating to foreclosure action on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. According to the complaint, on or about September 9, 2008, the plaintiff entered into a mortgage loan with the defendant Fairmont Funding Ltd. On or about September 9, 2008 the mortgage was assigned to MERS Inc., as NOMINEE for "Recording Purposes Only," for Faim1ont Funding Ltd. There was and is, no recorded "Power of Attorney" from Fairmont Funding Ltd to MERS Inc., granting MERS Inc., the power or rights to transfer the instrument by assignment or otherwise, to third-parties, as MERS Inc., only was appointed as "NOMINEE for Recording Purposes Only" for Freemont Funding Ltd. This "language" was carefully crafted to ensure that the "power" and "rights" of assignment and or transfer remained with Fairmont Funding who is the Originator and Owner of said mortgage, while MERS Inc., was the central depot for appointing Loan Servicers. On or about September 9, 2008, there was a loan modification by Freemont Funding Ltd., through MERS Inc., on behalf of the plaintiff, and MERS Inc., still acted as NOMINEE for "recording purposes ONLY" for and on-behalf of Freemont Funding LTD. 15. This again clearly establishes said fact, that the said loan was owned, controlled and operated by that "lender" who retained full authority and rights to the loan. On or about April 17, 2009, Fairmont Funding Ltd., as assignor assigns the mortgage to MERS Inc., in a purported "gap" assignment; whereby MERS Inc., was again acting "solely as NOMINEE for Fairmont funding Ltd. This assignment was recorded three years after the modification, in June of 2009, and the "gap" assignment was signed by Elpiniki M. Bechakas who apparently is NOT a MERS Inc., employee. The Plaintiffs and putative Class members seeks to recover actual damages they have sustained as a result of the improper filing of foreclosure suits and the improper filing of the Mortgage Assignments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek Warner, Esq. 195 Montague Street, Suite 1229 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 377 7211 Facsimile: (347) 707 7004 FCA US: Vaugn Sues over Defective Chrysler 2017 Pacifica Vans ------------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA VAUGN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv- 00065-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., Feb. 9, 2018) alleges that Defendant's Chrysler 2017 Pacifica minivans contain a serious safety defect that causes the vehicle's engine to shut off, idle only, or prevent acceleration. FCA US LLC, together with its subsidiaries, designs, engineers, manufactures, distributes, and sells vehicles primarily in the United States. The company offers passenger cars; utility vehicles, including sport utility and crossover vehicles; minivans; trucks; and commercial vans under the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and Ram brand names. It also distributes Fiat-brand vehicles and service parts; sells Mopar branded service parts and accessories; and provides service contracts to consumers, and contract manufacturing services to other vehicle manufacturers. The company was formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC and changed its name to FCA US LLC in December 2014. The company is headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan. FCA US LLC is a subsidiary of FCA North America Holdings LLC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon, Esq. Paula R. Brown, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com pbrown@bholaw.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Erich P. Schork, Esq. 1 North LaSalle Street, Suite 6400 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com e.schork@barnowlaw.com - and - T. Michael Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Ave., Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 641-5846 E-mail: mmorgan@forthepeople.com FEDEX FREIGHT: Pina Seeks to Certify Operations Supervisors Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled GUILLERMO PINA, on behalf of himself and al1 others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FEDEX FREIGHT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-24274-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to conditionally certify and authorize Plaintiff to mail and e-mail Notice of this lawsuit and Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff to: A. Operations Supervisors who performed work for Defendants nationwide during the last three years prior to the filing of Plaintiff's complaint until present who: (1) were classified as "exempt" from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime provisions; B. who were subject to Defendant's "Exemption"; and C. who were not paid proper overtime compensation (i.e. for the hours over 40 during any work week of their employment within the applicable statute of limitations period. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=drmOsRAu The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq. Nathaly Lewis, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com nl@rgpattorneys.com Counsel for Defendant: Joyce Ackerbaum Cox, Esq. Meagan L. Martin, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Post office Box 112 Orlando FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 649 4000 Facsimile: (407)841 0168 E-mail: jacox@bakerlaw.com mmartin@bakerlaw.com FRENCH BREAD: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Fernando Gonzalez, Gregorio Castillo, Morris Garcia, and Jose Morales, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. The French Bread Factory, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00201-LO-JFA (E.D. Va., Feb. 22, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiffs were blue collar workers who drove small delivery vans and made local deliveries of baked goods. The Plaintiffs regularly work more than 40 hours per week. Gonzalez typically begins work as early as 1:15 a.m. and gets Plaintiffs have had weeks in which they worked more than their typical number of hours. Until recently, Plaintiffs Gonzalez, Garcia, and Morales were paid a weekly salary. While being paid a salary, they received no overtime compensation for working more than 40 hours per week.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Philip Justus Dean, Esq. Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. CURWOOD LAW FIRM 530 E. Main Street, Suite 710 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 788 0808 Facsimile: (804) 767 6777 E-mail: pdean@curwoodlaw.com ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com FUJIFILM HOLDINGS: Lowinger Balks at Xerox Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT LOWINGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FUJIFILM HOLDINGS CORP., XEROX CORP., JEFF JACOBSON, GREGORY Q. BROWN, JOSEPH J. ECHEVARRIA, WILLIAM CURT HUNTER, ROBERT J. KEEGAN, CHERYL GORDON KRONGARD, CHARLES PRINCE, ANN N. REESE, STEPHEN H. RUSCKOWSKI and SARA MARTINEZ TUCKER, the Defendants, Case No. 650824/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Feb. 20, 2018), seeks to enjoin a change of control transaction and fraudulent scheme whereby Fuji will acquire majority ownership and control of Xerox, for virtually no money out of pocket. According to the complaint, the transaction is largely a result of Defendants seeking to insulate themselves from actions of Carl C. Icahn and Darwin Deason, two of Xerox's largest shareholders who have stated dissatisfaction with the Company's direction and management, and who are seek to make changes. Rather than address the legitimate concerns of Icahn and Deason, Defendants are seemingly destroying shareholder value and jettisoning the Company's potential value to entrench and enrich themselves. The Director Defendants, a majority of whom have secured for themselves officer or director positions with the new combined entity, have breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and all other Xerox shareholders by negotiating and approving a transaction that dramatically undervalues Xerox, provides a wholly inadequate control premium, if any, and disproportionately favors Fuji. If the deal is consummated, Xerox shareholders will be virtually powerless over the future direction of their investment and will have no opportunity to receive a true control premium for their shares. The lawsuit says Xerox and the Director Defendants are using their long-standing, joint venture agreements with Fuji as an excuse to justify this one-sided transaction. The joint venture agreements contain a "crown jewel" lock-up right that allows Fuji to control Xerox's intellectual property and manufacturing rights in the $36 billion Asia-Pacific market in the event Xerox were to sell just 30% of the Company to a competitor. This effectively blocks any chance of a transparent and fair sale process. Shockingly, Xerox and the Director Defendants fraudulently concealed this material fact from shareholders and other investors for almost 17 years, and did not reveal it until after the transaction with Fuji was announced. Fuji, however, handed Xerox and the Director Defendants a golden opportunity to terminate the joint venture agreements through Fuji's participation in a "WorldCom"-like accounting scandal at Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd., the Fuji-Xerox joint venture. In July 2017, Fuji released a more than 200-page independent investigation committee report that contained stunning findings and sharply criticized Fuji for its prominent role in contributing to the accounting scandal, given the substantial control Fuji had over Fuji Xerox's operations. As a result of the misconduct by Fuji and Fuji Xerox, Xerox had the right to terminate the joint venture agreements. The self-interested Director Defendants, however, ignored the opportunity or deliberately chose not to terminate the joint venture agreements. Had the Director Defendants terminated the joint venture agreements, they would have been able to engage in a fair and equitable bidding process and achieve a fair value and control premium for Xerox shareholders. According to the lawsuit, if the proposed Transaction is permitted to be consummated, the opportunity for Xerox shareholders to benefit from a full and fair market check and to receive a superior control premium will be lost forever because the improper, but terminable, lock-up rights Fuji has under the joint venture agreements will become permanent.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Lowinger, Esq. Mark Levine, Esq. Aaron L Brody, Esq. Michael Klein, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 687 7230 Facsimile: (212) 490 2022 GET AROUND INC: Ponciano Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------ AMANDA PONCIANO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GET AROUND, INC., a Delaware Corporation RESTITUTION, the Defendant, Case No. CGC-18-564459 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime compensation under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has had a policy of misclassifying non-exempt employees as independent contractors, thereby: (1) unlawfully failing to provide Plaintiff and similarly situated employees with overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess of eight in a day or 40 in a week; (2) unlawfully failing to provide Plaintiff and similarly situated employees with timely, statutorily-mandated meal and rest periods and/or failing to properly compensate them for meal and rest period violations; (3) willfully failing to provide Plaintiff and similarly situated employees with wages for hours worked on a weekly or semi-monthly basis; (4) willfully failing to provide Plaintiff and similarly situated employees with accurate semi- month itemized wage statements; (5) willfully failing to pay compensation owed in a prompt and timely manner to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees whose employment with Defendants has terminated; (6) failing to reimburse mandatory employee expenses; and (7) violating California's Unfair Competition Law. Getaround is an online car sharing or peer-to-peer carsharing service that allows drivers to rent cars from private car owners, and owners to rent out their cars for payment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rory Quintana, Esq. Ramsey Hanafi, Esq. QUINTANA HANAFI, LLP 870 Market Street, Suite 1115 Telephone: (415) 504 3121 Facsimile: (415) 233-8770 E-mail: info@qhplaw.com GLYNN COUNTY, GA: "Coleman" Summary Ruling Partly Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Georgia, Fourth Division, issued an Opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the trial court's judgment denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment in the appeals cases captioned Plaintiffs' Motion for COLEMAN, et al., v. GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA; COLEMAN, et al., v. GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA; COLEMAN, et al., v. GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA; A17A1843, A17A1844, A17A1845 (Ga. App.). The Colemans purchased certain real property in Glynn County known as Tax Parcel Number 04-01187. The Colemans applied for the Exemption on February 1, 2006. Their application was granted in 2006, and the Colemans' homestead exemption was in effect for the 2006 tax year. However, Glynn County used and continues to use 2006, as opposed to 2005, as the base year for calculating the amount of their homestead exemption. The assessed value for the property in 2006 was $133,800, whereas the assessed value of the property in 2005 was $70,006. Plaintiffs filed three class action lawsuits on behalf of themselves and all taxpayers similarly situated seeking refunds for taxes that were overpaid based on Glynn County's incorrect application of a local homestead exemption. On the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment in each case, the trial court entered a consolidated order denying the Colemans' motion and granting summary judgment to Glynn County. In Case Nos. A17A1843, A17A1844, and A17A1845, the primary issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in construing the terms of the homestead exemption. A secondary issue is whether the trial court erred in barring a portion of the asserted claims. The record shows that in 2000 the Georgia Legislature passed House Bills 1690 and 1691, which were local legislation providing the residents of Glynn County with a homestead exemption from ad valorem property taxes for county and school purposes (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Act" or the "Exemption"). The Ga. App. finds that the Act specifically defines the term base year as the taxable year immediately preceding the taxable year in which the exemption under the Act is first granted to the most recent owner of such homestead. The Colemans purchased their property in 2005; in so doing, they were certainly liable for a portion of the taxes in the 2005 tax year. Further, the Colemans applied for and were granted the Exemption in 2006, which was applicable for the 2006 tax year. Under a plain reading of the clear language of the Act, the term "base year" must be construed to mean the taxable year preceding the taxable year in which the homestead exemption was granted to the applicant. As to the Colemans, the correct base year for the purposes of the Exemption is 2005. In granting summary judgment to Glynn County, the trial court appeared to engraft language onto the Act which would require an applicant for the Exemption to be the owner of the qualifying property on January 1 of the base year, to apply for the homestead exemption in the base year, and to maintain their application until the following tax year in order to receive the Exemption. There is simply no reasonable authorization for such an interpretation in this case. Based on the plain language of the Act, the base year is merely the taxable year immediately preceding the taxable year in which the applicant was the owner of the property on January 1 in other words, the year prior to the year in which the homestead exemption was granted. The trial court's summary judgment with regard to this issue in Case Nos. A17A1843, A17A1844, and A17A1845 must be reversed. The Colemans next contend that the trial court erred: (i) in holding that they are barred from seeking a refund of taxes overpaid prior to 2008; and (ii) in holding that the class members would be barred from seeking a refund of taxes overpaid prior to 2010. As governmental bodies, the counties of this State are entitled to sovereign immunity and, thus, are not subject to suit for any cause of action unless provided for by statute. OCGA Section 48- 5-380 is the statute under which taxpayers may seek refunds from counties and municipalities. The statutory authorization to bring an action for a tax refund in superior court against a county is an express waiver of sovereign immunity, and the county's consent to be sued for a tax refund must be strictly construed. Under the respective versions of OCGA Section 48-5-380 that apply to the class-action lawsuits at issue, a taxpayer may request a refund of illegally and erroneously assessed taxes or overpaid taxes from the county within three years of the payment of such taxes and then file suit if such refund request is denied or not timely addressed within a specified time period. As the record shows that the Colemans filed the first class- action lawsuit on November 20, 2012, the class members would only be barred from recovering tax refunds for payments made prior to November 20, 2009. Accordingly, the trial court erred in establishing 2010 as the cut-off point for the class members' claims. Lastly, the Colemans contend that any refunds for tax payments they and the class members made that fall outside of the three- year window under OCGA Section 48-5-380 (b) may nevertheless be recoverable by way of mandamus, equity, injunction, or declaratory relief. The Court disagrees. In order to obtain mandamus relief, a claimant must establish that (1) no other adequate legal remedy is available to effectuate the relief sought; and (2) the applicant has a clear legal right to such relief. Here, neither the Colemans nor the class members have a clear legal right to any tax refunds for payments made outside the three-year window provided in OCGA Section 48-5-380 (b). To hold otherwise would render the provisions of OCGA Section 48-5-380 (b) meaningless. A full-text copy of the Ga. App.'s January 22, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y769557g from Leagle.com. Lacey Lee Houghton -- lhoughton@robertstate.com -- for Appellant. Laura Elizabeth Roberts, 5 Glynn AvenuePost Office Box 220Brunswick, GA 31521, for Appellant. James L. Roberts, IV, 2487 DEMERE ROAD SUITE 400, ST. SIMONS ISLAND, GA 31522, for Appellant. Jason Monroe Tate, 2487 DEMERE ROAD SUITE 400, ST. SIMONS ISLAND, GA 31522, for Appellant. Gregory Todd Carter, Strickland & Watkins LLP, PO Box 220, Brunswick, Georgia 31521, for Appellee. Emily Rose Hancock, 5 Glynn Avenue, Brunswick, Georgia 31520 for Appellee. Aaron Wylie Mumford, 701 2nd St., Brunswick, GA 31520, for Appellee. GSP TRANSPORTATION: "Campbell" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SUSAN CAMPBELL, Individually, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees, the Plaintiff, v. GSP TRANSPORTATION, INC., a South Carolina Corporation, d/b/a Thrifty Rental Car Franchisee, Dollar Rental Car Franchisee and Hertz Rental Car Franchisee; and JEFF SCHOEPFEL, Individually, Case No. 1:17-cv-00045 (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to: 1. authorize this case to proceed as a collective action against Defendant GSP Transportation, Inc. and Jeff Schopfel for overtime wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of Defendants managers who were misclassified as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA during the last three years who were subject to Defendant's practice requiring suffering and permitting Plaintiffs to work over 40 hours per week without overtime compensation; 2. issue an Order directing Defendant to immediately provide a list of names, last known addresses, and last known telephone numbers for all putative class members within the last three years; 3. issue an Order that notice be prominently posted at each of Defendant's locations where putative class members work, attached to current hourly employees' next scheduled pay check, and be mailed to the hourly employees so that they can assert their claims on a timely basis as part of this litigation; and 4. order that the Opt-In Plaintiffs' Consent Forms be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AJGGQPYo The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754 8001 Facsimile: (901) 754 8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com pjackson@jsyc.com HMR OF ALABAMA: Court Dismisses "Cooley" Wage and Hour Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned JACQUELINE COOLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HMR OF ALABAMA, INC. d/b/a Robert L. Howard Veterans Home, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-CV-01432-VEH (N.D. Ala.). Plaintiffs alleged in their Amended Complaint that the Defendant, HMR of Alabama, Inc., d/b/a Robert L. Howard Veterans Home (HMR), violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), by failing to pay them straight-time and/or overtime for work they performed during their unpaid lunch periods, and allegedly docking their work hours by 30 minutes for a meal period even if the Plaintiffs did not take a meal break. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendant owes them compensation pursuant to the theories of Quantum Meruit and Work and Labor Done (Count Two). The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order directing them to identify the type of compensable work performed in order to state a claim under the FLSA and have failed to allege the essential element of a quantum meruit claim that the Plaintiffs had an expectation of compensation. Plaintiffs, when they did take a lunch break, the Defendant routinely did not ensure that Plaintiffs were completely relieved of their work duties during their uncompensated meal breaks. Instead, during their lunch breaks, each plaintiff cared for patient needs and tended to patients. The Amended Complaint alleges that each Plaintiff worked multiple hours per workweek for which they received no compensation whatsoever. Without more detail, the allegations that each Plaintiff cared for patient needs and tended to patients, are inadequate vague allegations stating nothing more than the general responsibilities of a CNA and/or an LPN. Furthermore, it is not plausible that employees with the titles of Driver/Driver Coordinator and Concierge would be engaged in such conduct. In addition, some Plaintiffs were employed in the dual capacity positions of CNA/Concierge, CNA/Driver, CNA/Unit Clerk, and CNA/Machine Operator. The lack of specifics in the Amended Complaint makes it impossible to tell in what capacity the Plaintiffs who held these dual-capacity jobs were working during their lunch breaks. The Plaintiffs are in the best position to state the work they did during their uncompensated meal breaks, and have not done so. Count One will be dismissed. In Iraola & CIA, S.A. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 325 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2003) the Eleventh Circuit addressed this very issue in the context of a quantum meruit claim under Georgia law stating: "The plaintiff did not allege that it rendered its services in anticipation of compensation from the defendant." The Georgia Court of Appeals has stated that a recovery on a quantum meruit basis may not be obtained where the services (even if beneficial) are rendered with no anticipation that compensation is to be received. The law will not imply a promise to pay for services contrary to the intention of the parties. There can be no recovery for services rendered voluntarily and with no expectation at the time of the rendition that they will be compensated. The Plaintiffs do not cite, and this Court has not found, even a conclusory allegation in the Amended Complaint that the Plaintiffs expected to be paid for services which they performed on their meal breaks. Furthermore, no facts are pleaded which plausibly support such an allegation. Indeed, the Amended Complaint Employee Handbook, in which it automatically deducted a 30-minute uncompensated meal break per workday, from a non-exempt employee's workweek and that the Plaintiffs performed regular work responsibilities during the time designated as their uncompensated meal breaks. Count Two will be dismissed. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 22, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7hxqzpq from Leagle.com. Jacqueline Cooley, Heather Adams, Rosie Boyd, Ebony Byers, Shakelia Calhoun, Kimberly Campbell, Myrania Carlton, Jewell Chandler, Jalysa Embry, April Evans, Voncel Freeman, Leasa Gowers, Tasha Harris, Cecelia Hawkins, Elleon Herring, Almelia Hill, Johnnie Hollis, Shanelle Hurrell, Regina Isaac, Travis Ivy, Angela Jones, Santrecia Kelley, Sarah Marbury, Angela McCray, Margaret Mixon, Vanessa Moten, Patricia Parks, Denetha Petty, Betty Phillips, Patricia Robinson, Toinetta Sutton, Chervon Tanner, Treneia Toyer, Clarissa Truss, Sujutoria Truss, Cameka Turner, David Vaughan, Debra Vaughan, Jill Vaughan, Patricia Wallace, Constance Williams, Angela Wilson, Ruby Wilson & Andrea Wood, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael K. Beard, MARSH RICKARD & BRYAN PC, Allen Durham Arnold, FONTENEAU & ARNOLD LLC, Jane L. Mauzy, MARSH RICKARD & BRYAN PC, Kira Y. Fonteneau, FONTENEAU AND ARNOLD LLC &Richard J. Riley, MARSH, RICKARD & BRYAN P.C.,. 800 Shades Creek Parkway. Suite 600-D. Birmingham, Alabama 35209. HMR of Alabama, Inc., doing business as Robert L. Howard Veterans Home, Defendant, represented by Wesley C. Redmond -- wredmond@fordharrison.com -- FORD HARRISON LLP & Susan W. Bullock -- sbullock@fordharrison.com -- FORD HARRISON LLP. HOLLAND LP: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, "Thomas" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- AUBREY THOMAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOLLAND LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv- 00563 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Defendant paid Plaintiff $1,250 per week at the inception of his employment. Most recently, Defendant paid Plaintiff $1,294.40 per week. During the first year of Plaintiff's employment, Defendant on occasion also paid Plaintiff a bonus of approximately 6 cents per foot for jobs in which Plaintiff worked more than 1 mile per day. In addition, Defendant paid Plaintiff an annual company performance bonus in the amount of approximately $400. Until July 2017, Defendant stated on Plaintiff's Earning Statements a rate per hour. For example, Plaintiff's July 21, 2017 Earning Statement shows his regular earnings rate is $32.36 for 80 hours. Plaintiff thus works more than 40 hours per week in one or more work weeks. Ms. Thomas worked for Defendant as a salaried Superintendent at Defendant's railroad welding and railroad services company. Holland, L.P. provides electric flash-butt rail welding services. It offers mobile welding services, such as rail team welding, repair welding, turnout welding, roller line welding, portable plant welding, and transit system solutions; fixed plant welding services; and thermite welding services. The company was founded in 1935 and is based in Crete, Illinois. Holland, L.P. operates as a subsidiary of Curran Group, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 HOME DEPOT: "Manopla" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled AARON MANOPLA and EVELYN MANOPLA, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HOME DEPOT USA, INC., ATLANTIC WATER PRODUCTS and JOHN DOES 1- 25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01120-PGS-TJB (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to certify a class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=da7TKdwV The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross H. Schmierer, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 797 9951 E-mail: rschmierer@denittislaw.com The Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. and Marcus & Zelman, LLC, also serve as counsel to the Plaintiffs. HOME DEPOT: 4th Cir. Affirms Remand of "Jackson" to State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's Order remanding to state court the case captioned GEORGE W. JACKSON, Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INCORPORATED, Third Party Defendant-Appellant, and CAROLINA WATER SYSTEMS, INC.; CITIBANK, N.A., Defendants, No. 17-1627 (4th Cir.). Third-Party Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal the district court's order remanding this case to state court. Citibank, N.A., filed a debt collection action against George W. Jackson in the District Court Division of the General Court of Justice of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Citibank alleged that Jackson failed to pay for a water treatment system he purchased using a Citibank-issued credit card. Jackson filed an Answer in which he asserted a counterclaim against Citibank and third-party class action claims against Home Depot and Carolina Water Systems, Inc. (CWS). Jackson alleged that Home Depot and CWS engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices by misleading customers about their water treatment systems, and that Citibank was "jointly and severally liable to him because Home Depot directly sold or assigned the transaction to" Citibank. Home Depot filed a notice of removal citing federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). The district court denied Home Depot's motion to realign because it concluded that this was not a case where there are antagonistic parties on the same side, and granted Jackson's motion to remand because Home Depot did not meet the removal statute's definition of defendant. Under the general removal statute, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction may be removed by the defendant or the defendants" to the appropriate district court. The Fourth Circuit has also held that CAFA's expanded removal authority does not allow removal of a class action counterclaim asserted against an additional counter-defendant. Palisades Collections LLC v. Shorts, 552 F.3d 327, 331 (4th Cir. 2008) also held that an additional counter-defendant was not any defendant entitled to removal under Section 1453(b). First, it concluded that because an additional counter-defendant was not the defendant or the defendants under Section 1441(a), it could not be any defendant under Section 1453(b). It reasoned that any did not change the meaning of defendant, and that the inclusion of any at most allowed removal by a party that met the existing definition of defendant. Second, it examined the text of Section 1453(b) and concluded that the two references to any defendant eliminated specific removal restrictions but did not expand the definition of defendant. Home Depot first argues that Palisades does not survive Dart Cherokee because the Supreme Court's rejection of the anti- removal presumption in Dart Cherokee undermines Palisades's reasoning" and calls into question the application of Shamrock Oil under CAFA because of the unique federalism interests present in class action cases. The Court disagrees. The Court holds that the Supreme Court has not called into question Palisades's conclusion that an additional counter- defendant is not entitled to remove under Section 1441(a) or Section 1453(b), nor has it abandoned Shamrock Oil's definition of defendant" in the class action context. In Dart Cherokee, the Supreme Court held that a defendant's notice of removal need only include a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. In so holding, the Supreme Court remarked that no anti-removal presumption attends cases invoking CAFA, which Congress enacted to facilitate adjudication of certain class actions in federal court. A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's January 22, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7w3r5pk from Leagle.com. ARGUED: Sidney Stewart Haskins, II -- shaskins@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellant. David Kevin Lietz, VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A., Lady Lake, Florida, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Merritt McAlister -- mmcalister@kslaw.com -- J. Andrew Pratt -- apratt@kslaw.com -- Zheyao Li -- zli@kslaw.com -- Atlanta, Georgia, Antonio E. Lewis, KING & SPALDING, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Daniel K. Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Rashad Blossom -- rblossom@blossomlaw.com -- com BLOSSOM LAW PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Janet R. Varnell -- jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com -- VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A., Lady Lake, Florida, for Appellee. HUFFS RESTAURANT: "Garvin" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------- Judy Garvin, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. Huffs Family Restaurant, an unknown California business entity; Gaylee Duhem, an individual; Aurelio Delgado Franco, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, the Defendants, Case No. BC69514 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 22, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under California Labor Code. The Plaintiff is a former employee at Huff's. She worked as a waitress there from October 1990 to October 2017. The Plaintiff is informed and believes Huff's is owned by both Duhem and Franco. Duhem became owner or part owner of Huff's sometime in 2012. Prior to Duhem's takeover of the business. Huff's was a pleasant, fair place to work. The tips were good, and the management treated employees with respect. This is evidenced by Plaintiff's 22 years of continual employment prior to Duhem's takeover. According to the complaint, after the takeover, the culture at Huff's changed significantly. Not only did Duhem verbally humiliate the staff in front of customers for trivial, perceived slights, but started cutting the hours of employees for the reasons below. The Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff and other class members regularly worked more than five hours per shift and were entitled to a meal period of not less than 30 minutes without duty. The Plaintiff further alleges that other class members regularly worked more than 10 hours per shift and were entitled to a second meal period of not less than 30 minutes without duty. After the takeover, Duhem attempted to increase Huff's revenue by expanding its catering business. In order to accomplish this, she started cutting the hours of all staff so that they could be used as part of the off-the-books catering business. This was done to personally enrich Duhem at the expense of the rest of the staff; if they didn't agree to participate in the off-the-books catering arm of Huff's for an amount well below minimum wage, their hours were cut significantly. The Plaintiff refused to participate in the catering business because (1) Duhem refused to pay minimum wage for the catering work and (2) the catering work took time away from the more lucrative waitressing work, the income from which Plaintiff needed to survive. As a result, Plaintiff's hours were cut from 25+ hours a week, to 8 hours a week, to 9 hours a week, to nothing. Duhem also exploited her employees in other ways. Duhem forced Plaintiff and all other staff members to arrive for their morning shifts at 5AM to prepare the restaurant for opening at 6AM. However, Duhem would only pay Plaintiff for her time starting at 5:30 AM. Over the five years Plaintiff was employed at Huff's under the control of Duhem, she and other employees worked for hundreds of hours without pay, in violation of California law. Duhem would arrive at 5AM with the other employees to unlock the door to the restaurant for the staff to enter and prepare it for opening, but never paid Plaintiff or the other employees that extra half hour for their time spent opening the restaurant. She therefore knew employees were working without being paid but still forced them to work the unpaid hours. Duhem also forced Plaintiff to routinely work 7 to 8 hour shifts without meal or rest breaks, in violation of California law. Plaintiff spent hundreds of hours working without breaks since Duhem's takeover in 2012. Huff's is a restaurant operating in Long Beach, California. It is not registered with the Secretary of State and appears to be operating as a tradename for two individuals and is therefore either a sole proprietorship or unlicensed partnership.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin D. Petiprin, Esq. SPRETER & PETIPRIN, APC 17011 Beach Blvd, Ste 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5998 Tel: (714) 475-7801 Fax: (714) 276-1424 E-mail: ben@spreterlaw.com HUGO BOSS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Chavez" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Chavez, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hugo Boss Retail, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 18CV322644 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Jan. 31, 2018), is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and res periods. Hugo Boss USA, Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes fashion wear, accessories, and fragrances for men and women under BOSS and HUGO brands. It offers clothing, such as suits, tuxedos, formal wear, sports coats and vests, over coats, shirts, pants, polo shirts, T-shirts, sweaters and sweat shirts, jackets, jeans, casual pants and shorts, loungewear, swimwear, and underwear for men; and dresses, blouses and tops, suits, blazers, skirts, dress pants, jackets and coats, sweaters, jeans and casual pants for women. The company also provides tuxedo shoes, sneakers, casual shoes, boots, and leather accessories; children's fashion; licensed fragrances and perfumes; accessories, such as bags and luggage, wallets, watches and jewelry, socks, ties and bow ties, belts, hats, gloves, scarves, eyewear, home textiles, umbrellas, and writing instruments. It sells its products online, as well as through its own retail stores and outlets in the United States. The company was incorporated in 1988 and is based in New York, New York. Hugo Boss USA, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Hugo Boss AG. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Tuvia Korobkin, Esq. Stacey M. Shim, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2274 East Maple Avenue El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com sshim@haineslawgroup.com - and - Scott M. Lidman, Esq. Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq. LIDMAN LAW, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 322-4772 Facsimile: (424) 322-4775 E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com enguyen@lidmanlaw.com HYUNDAI CAPITAL: Made Unsolicited Calls, Sloatman Says ------------------------------------------------------ JOHN SLOATMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 693632 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 9, 2018) alleges that Defendants have made unsolicited calls in violation of the California Penal Code. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants made a recording of a call and fails to disclose to the Plaintiff that the call was being recorded. Hyundai Capital America, Inc. provides auto lending solutions and financial products for individuals and businesses in the United States. The company offers consumer vehicle financing and leasing financing services, as well as dealer inventory and facility financing services. It primarily serves Kia and Hyundai dealers. The company is headquartered in Irvine, California. Hyundai Capital America, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Hyundai Motor America, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com ILLUMINA INC: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Fraud Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned IN RE ILLUMINA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:16-cv-3044-L-KSC (S.D. Cal.). Defendant Illumina Inc. is a publically traded company that is engaged in the business of providing genetic sequencing products to customers in the medical, academic, and pharmaceutical industries. Customers use Illumina's products to sequence DNA for purposes of genetic analysis. Of special relevance to this motion, Illumina's product line includes three different sequencing systems: the HiSeq, the HiSeq X, and the NextSeq. The Plaintiff in this case is Natissisa Enterprises Ltd., an institutional investor that sold Illumina stock at a loss of about $1 million. Plaintiff alleges that the stock market tracked many of the above statements. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the forecasts caused Illumina stock to jump from $150.10 per share to $162.25 per share the next day, on unusually high-volume trading. Plaintiff further alleges that the corrective disclosure on announcing the 2016Q3 earnings miss, caused Illumina stock to fall from $184.35 per share to $136.18 per share within forty-eight hours, again on unusually high-volume trading. Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and other harmed investors, filed an amended class action complaint against Defendants alleging securities fraud in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The primary statements at issue are Defendants' financial forecasts. Defendants forecasted that third quarter revenue would fall in the $625 to $630 million dollar range; earnings per share would raise to as much as $3.58; and part of this growth would stem from increasingly strong HiSeq sales. Defendants argue these statements fall under the first prong of the Safe Harbor because they are forward looking statements identified as such and accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. Plaintiff disagrees, arguing that the Safe Harbor is inapplicable because meaningful cautionary language did not accompany the statements at issue. Defendants are correct. Plaintiff has not proven that Defendants had actual knowledge that they would fail to hit their earnings guidance. It is possible that Defendants believed they could hit their earnings forecast notwithstanding lower HiSeq sales. However, to survive this Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)6 motion, Plaintiff need not prove anything. It is sufficient if Plaintiff plausibly alleges facts showing that deliberate recklessness or an intention to deceive is no less likely an explanation of Defendants' motivation than an innocent explanation-such as a good faith belief that the projections would prove accurate. Taken together, this before-the-fact knowledge of lower HiSeq sales and after-the-fact statement recognizing a trend toward customers favoring certain features of the NextSeq systems plausibly suggest the following: Defendants knew HiSeq sales were in a state of decline at the time they forecasted an increase in HiSeq sales. Because Defendants justified their overall earnings guidance in part on increased HiSeq sales, the Court finds for purpose of this motion that Plaintiff has adequately alleged that Defendants knew their earnings guidance was misguided. The Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss as to the earnings projections and the underpinning assumptions regarding HiSeq sales. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misrepresented that they had adequate internal controls over financial reporting and could accurately forecast future performance. Plaintiff's argument is unpersuasive. The SOX certification makes no representation as to the soundness of Defendants' forecasting procedures. Indeed, the only statements Defendants appear to have made regarding their ability to forecast future results are boilerplate cautions to the effect that such forecasts can prove inaccurate. As to historical results and internal controls, Plaintiff's allegations are mere conclusions that fail to identify any reported historical results that were inaccurate or any internal control that failed. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants' motion with respect to claims based on the SOX certification and representations about Defendants' ability to provide accurate financial reporting and forecasting. The Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion as follows: Plaintiff's Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) claims based on the Sarbanes Oxley certification and representations about Defendants' ability to provide accurate financial reporting and forecasting are dismissed without prejudice. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, it must do so within twenty-one days of the entry of this order. Plaintiff's Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) claims based on Defendants' earnings projections and the underpinning assumptions regarding HiSeq sales may proceed. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 22, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8ehfjth from Leagle.com. Yi Fan Chen & Frontline Global Trading Pte. Ltd., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com - - Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Natissisa Enterprise Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Adam C. McCall -- amccall@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP. James McLeod, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice. Illumina, Inc., Defendant, represented by David A. Kronig -- dkronig@cov.com -- Covington and Burling LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Chen -- mychen@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP & Mark Putnam Gimbel -- mgimbel@cov.com -- Covington and Burling LLP, pro hac vice. Batali and Greenwald, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. IMPRESA AEROSPACE: Gutierrez Seeks OT Wages Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------ SANDRA GUTIERREZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. IMPRESA AEROSPACE, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC694784 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 20, 2018), seeks to recover regular and/or overtime wages under Labor Code. According to the complaint, Defendants, jointly and severally, employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, nonexempt employee from approximately September 2013 to approximately October 2014, in the State of California, County of Los Angeles. 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, foiling 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] Impresa Aerospace, LLC designs, manufactures, and supplies precision sheet metal parts, CNC-machined components, and assemblies for commercial jets, regional and business aircraft, military aircraft, and civil/military helicopters. The company's services include sheet metal fabrication, hydroform pressing, brake. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265 1020 Facsimile: (818) 265 1021 INNOVAK INTERNATIONAL: All Pending Bids Denied in "Bohannan" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MELISSA BOHANNAN, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. INNOVAK INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv- 00272-WKW-WC (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Keith Watkins entered an order denying all pending motions without prejudice with leave for the parties to renew, if necessary, after the stay is lifted. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JmgkOva6 INTERNATIONAL PITA: Nevarez Seeks Unpaid OT under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------ SERGIO NEVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as representatives of other aggrieved Employees, the Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL PITA BREAD, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC695071 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 22, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime under California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant willfully misclassified its employees as independent contractors to avoid properly paying them for their services and providing them with all benefits to which employees are entitled, including breaks and overtime, despite the fact they were clearly employees. The Plaintiff and Class members used Defendant's equipment and Defendant controlled the hours and days worked and work completed and the services performed were a necessary part of its regular business. Plaintiff worked six days per week and at least 8 hours per day. Despite this, Plaintiff was paid in cash at a flat rate of $600 per week regardless of the number of hours worked. The other Class members were subject to the same conduct regarding their compensation being paid in cash without any deductions and not being based, on actual hours worked. Despite the complete control over Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees and the work they performed, they were misclassified as independent contractors in violation of California Labor Code. The company makes and distributes pita bread to markets and restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. Ian M. Silvers, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP FILED 555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 432 8933 Facsimile: (562) 435 1656 E-mail:gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com INTERNATIONAL QUALITY: "Williamson" Suit Moved to S.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Shonda Williamson, individually and on behalf of others members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. International Quality Healthcare, Defendant, was moved from the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division (Case No. 2:17-cv-667) to the Southern District of Ohio Western Division Dayton (Case No. 3:18-cv-00035-WHR), on Jan. 31, 2018. Shonda Williamson, individually and on behalf of others members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. International Quality Healthcare, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-667 (S.D. Ohio, Jul. 31, 2017) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay the minimum wage rate for all hours worked and the required overtime premium rate for all hours worked over 40 per week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Plaintiff Shonda Williamson was employed as a home health aide from 2016 until approximately July 2017. International Quality Healthcare Corporation is a home care staffing agency of direct care workers for the developmentally disabled, the elderly, and any other individual in need of assistance. It provides services in the following areas: home health aide services, skill nurse services, social work, and rehabilitation services. Defendant operates and controls an enterprise and employs employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or has had employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. Bryant Legal, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com JEREMY REVITCH: Revitch Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY REVITCH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIRECTV, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01127 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 21, 2018), seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages arising out of and relating to DirecTV, LLC, negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting Plaintiff and class members on their telephones using an artificial or prerecorded voice without their prior express written consent within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, prior to the calls, Plaintiff never had any contact with Defendant. Plaintiff never consented in writing, or otherwise, to receive autodialed calls or prerecorded messages from Defendant to his cellphone. The Plaintiff never provided Defendant with his telephone number. The Plaintiff was harmed by the prerecorded call at issue in the form of the aggravation, nuisance, trespass, waste of time and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unwanted telephone calls; depletion of battery life resulting from unwanted incoming calls; and violations of his statutory rights. There are numerous online consumer complaints from people who never sought Defendant's services, but who, like Plaintiff, received unsolicited telemarking calls from Defendant. DirecTV is an American direct broadcast satellite service provider based in El Segundo, California and is a subsidiary of AT&T.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300 4455 Facsimile: (925) 407 2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jsmith@bursor.com ykrivoshey@bursor.com JKB FINANCIAL: Faces "Salinas" Suit in California ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JKB Financial Inc. The case is captioned as Christopher Salinas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jason Bartlett; Does 1 to 100; JKB Financial Inc.; Osborne William; Dave Roberts; US Educational Financial Solutions Inc, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00226913-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 9, 2018). JKB Financial Inc. provides debt relief services in Roseville, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Galen T Shimoda, Esq. JOHN DOES: Samuel Sues over VIX-Linked Instruments Price-Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID SAMUEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOES, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01593 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 2018), seeks to recover damages arising from Defendants' misconduct, including such trebled damages as provided by law, and injunctive relief enjoining the continuation of alleged manipulation of prices of VIX-Linked Instruments. According to the complaint, since its creation in 1993, the Cboe Volatility Index has emerged as an important financial indicator of market sentiment and volatility. Frequently referred to as the "fear gauge," VIX purports to measure expected thirty-day market volatility based on the real-time pricing of S&P 500 Index option contracts ("SPX Options") listed for trading on the Cboe Options Exchange ("Cboe"). Given that investors cannot invest directly in VIX, interest in financial instruments related to expected market volatility spawned the creation of VIX-linked futures ("VIX Futures") in 2004 and VIX-linked options ("VIX Options") in 2006. While VIX Options trade on the Cboe, VIX Futures trade on the Cboe Futures Exchange ("CFE"). More recently, billions of dollars in exchange-traded funds and exchange-traded notes linked to the pricing of VIX Futures ("VIX- Linked ETFs & ETNs") have been introduced to the market. These VIX-Linked ETFs & ETNs -- which provide investors with easier access to financial instruments related to expected market volatility and allow investors to bet that the prices of VIX Futures will either increase or decrease -- include, inter alia: VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short-Term ETN; VelocityShares Daily 2x VIX Short-Term ETN; ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF; ProShares Ultra VIX Short-Term Futures ETF; and iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures ETN. VIX Futures, VIX Options, and VIX-Linked ETFs & ETNs are collectively referred to as "VIX-Linked Instruments." Given that the VIX price is calculated based on the movement of real-time bid/ask quotes for SPX Options, and in some instances the actual prices of SPX Options, the pricing of VIX-Linked Instruments is subject to market manipulation by investors targeting the SPX Option market and the calculation of VIX. For example, in a recent research paper, Professor John M. Griffin of the McCombs School of Business at The University of Texas at Austin observed "highly statistically and economically significant trading volume spikes" in SPX Options during the monthly trading window in which the VIX price used to settle expiring VIX Futures and VIX Options is calculated. As explained by Prof. Griffin, "[t]he most natural explanation for these patterns appears to be attempted manipulation." Similarly, an anonymous whistleblower submitted a letter on February 12, 2018, to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures TradingCommission alleging that a "flaw [in the calculation of VIX] allows trading firms with sophisticated algorithms to move the VIX up or down by simply posting quotes on [SPX Options] and without needing to physically engage in any trading or deploying any capital." According to the Whistleblower Letter, this manipulative activity "has led to multiple billions in profits effectively [being] taken away from institutional and retail investors." According to a report from The Financial Times on February 13, 2018, Defendants' manipulative conduct has attracted the attention of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, which is investigating whether Defendants "influence[d] prices of derivatives based on the [VIX] benchmark." The Defendants colluded with each other to manipulate the prices of VIX-Linked Instruments. No one Defendant was capable of unilaterally manipulating the prices of VIX-Linked Instruments without fearing that ordinary market forces would counteract its efforts or that the other Defendants would manipulate the prices of VIX-Linked Instruments in an opposite direction -- thereby causing harm to the Defendant's investment positions. Defendants' manipulative conduct -- which violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, has caused, and continues to cause, injury to investors in VIX-Linked Instruments.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff David Samuel and the Proposed Class: Sharan Nirmul, Esq. Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq. Samantha Holbrook, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667 7706 Facsimile: (610) 667 7056 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com snirmul@ktmc.com kjustice@ktmc.com gjarvis@ktmc.com sholbrook@ktmc.com JULIE JONES: Plaintiffs Win More Time to Respond to Dismissal Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled NYKA O'CONNOR, v. JULIE JONES, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01387-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Timothy Corrigan entered an order: 1. grating Plaintiff's requests for an extension of time to respond to Defendant Jones' motion to dismiss and to file a motion for discovery, and accepting Plaintiff's response and motion as timely filed; 2. granting Defendants Shah and Contarini's requests for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's motions and accepting their responses as timely filed; 3. striking Plaintiff's filings; 4. denying Plaintiff's Motion to Clarify, in which he seeks to clarify his motion, as moot because that motion has been stricken; 5. denying as moot Plaintiff's Motion to Waive Security and Notice of Prospective Injunction and Declaratory Judgment Motions in the Eleventh Circuit, to which Defendants Contarini and Shah responded in opposition; 6. denying Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Class Action and Appoint Counsel, that is opposed by Defendants Shah and Contarini; 7. denying Plaintiff's Motion to provide Copy of Current Menus, in which Plaintiff requests he and this Court be provided with a copy of all menus and that the menus be posted in all segregated units of the Florida Department of Corrections and given to all inmate; 8. denying Plaintiff's "Affidavit, Supplement to Pending Pleadings, Motion to Save Videos & Audios and Notice, with Need for Class Action Status, with Counsel Appointment, and Notice of Hunger Strike & Declaratory Judgment Requested"; 9. denying Plaintiff's "Affidavit, Notice & Request to Save Videos-Audios"; and 10. granting Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite and Rule to the extent that the Court has entered this Order ruling on certain pending motions. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9WAuSNcy KENNETH REES: India Banks Bid for Class Certification Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled INDIA BANKS, the Plaintiff, v. KENNETH REES, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02201-SDM-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone entered an order on February 21, 2018: 1. granting Parties' Joint Motion for Order Continuing Discovery Deadlines and Deadlines for Responses to Pending Motions; 2. cancelling preliminary conference currently scheduled for March 8, 2018, counsel shall contact the undersigned's chambers at 813-301-5782, to reschedule when appropriate; and 3. denying Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification without prejudice. The amended case deadlines are as follows: a. March 2, 2018 - deadline for Plaintiff's Amended Complaint; b. March 16, 2018 - deadline for Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and to Compel Arbitration; c. March 30, 2018 - deadline for Plaintiff's responses to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and to Compel Arbitration; d. April 13, 2018 - deadline for the parties' responses to all currently outstanding written discovery requests; e. May 4, 2018 - deadline for class certification discovery; and f. May 18, 2018 - deadline for Plaintiff's class certification motion. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZXkafncO LESCONCIERGES INC: Pivirotto Seeks Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------- VINCENT PIVIROTTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LESCONCIERGES, INC., SERVICE CONCIERGE SAS (DBA JOHN PAUL), TRINET GROUP INC., AND DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-564456 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 20, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff accepted a full-time position in sales and service in January 2016. The Plaintiff's first several weeks at work consisted of one-on-one training with company materials during the day, and 2-4 hours of additional study each day in the evenings. The evening study was required in order to pass testing required for work each week. During these weeks Plaintiff was advised that: 1) the long training hours (average 65 hour weeks) were outside what would become an expected 40 hour work week, and 2) all training hours were to be paid. Plaintiff was further advised that training period would be extended for 6-8 weeks, as the company was having to introduce voluminous compliance material that all employees would have to be trained or retrained on. Ultimately however, Plaintiff was not paid for the required after-work hours as promised. LesConcierges, Inc. provides concierge services and solutions for various organizations worldwide. Its services include recommending and booking restaurant reservations; booking event tickets; organizing a rejuvenating getaway or family vacations; researching from wireless plans to a vintage wine; and creating reminders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec Segarich, Esq. Jason S. Lohr, Esq. LOHR RIPAMONTI & SEGARICH LLP 140 Geary Street, 4th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: ( 415) 683-7266 E-mail: alec.segarich@rllp.com jason.lohr@lrllp.com LOUISIANA: Commission Frederick Faces "Murphy" Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thomas Frederick. The case is captioned as Sheila Ann Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Thomas Frederick, Commissioner; Kristian Earles, Chief Judge of 15th JDC; Mark Garber, Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-00159-UDJ-CBW (W.D. La., Feb. 7, 2018). The case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Carol B Whitehurst. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles L Gerstein, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 910 17th St NW Ste 500 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 670-4809 E-mail: charlie@civilrightscorps.org - and - Eric A Foley, Esq. RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER 4400 S Carrollton Ave New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 620-2259 Facsimile: (504) 208-3133 E-mail: eric.foley@macarthurjustice.org - and - Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann, Esq. RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER 4400 S Carrollton Ave New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 620-2259 Facsimile: (504) 208-3133 E-mail: katie.schwartzmann@macarthurjustice.org - and - William P Quigley, Esq. LOYOLA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 7214 St Charles Ave New Orleans, LA 70118 Telephone: (504) 710-3074 Facsimile: (504) 861-5440 E-mail: quigley77@gmail.com M.L. ZAGER: Accused of Wrongful Conduct over Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew Robson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M.L. Zager, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00905-LDW-ARL (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Leonard D. Wexler and referred to Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay. M.L. Zager, P.C. -- http://www.mzager.com/-- is a full-service, debt collection law firm with 38 years of experience. The firm combine professional, efficient and traditional debt collection techniques with the additional impact and effect of a law firm. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq. 775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255 Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (631) 629-7709 E-mail: mpash@verizon.net MAGNOLIA HI-FI: "Bonomi" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Leonardo Bonomi and other similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Magnolia Hi-Fi, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Case No. 17-022803-CA, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on Feb. 22, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-20691-JLK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Senior Judge James Lawrence King. Magnolia Hi-Fi, LLC sells audio, TV and video, furniture, home integration, and accessories. The company offers AV receivers, AV separates, speakers, soundbars, CD players and turntables, wireless and streaming audio products, and shelf systems and iPod docks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brody Max Shulman, Esq. Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Courthouse Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com jremer@rgpattorneys.com Attorneys for Defendant: Jennifer Monrose Moore, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3600 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 289 1247 Facsimile: (813) 289 6530 E-mail: jennifer.moore@ogletreedeakins.com MANNA PRO: Rabbit Food Products Contain Corn, Hale Complains ------------------------------------------------------------ ASHLEY HALE individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANNA PRO PRODUCTS, LLC; DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv- 00209-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal., Jan. 30, 2018) alleges that the Defendant's Select Series rabbit food was clearly marked with a label stating "Contains No Corn: Helps Reduce The Risk of Digestive Disorders." The ingredients label similarly omitted any reference to corn as an ingredient in the bag that Plaintiff had purchased. In fact, a lot of corn was mixed in with the rabbit pellets despite the clear labeling. Plaintiff picked out at least a half of cup of corn, by hand, from her purchase of the bag of rabbit food. Manna Pro Products, LLC manufactures and markets animal feeds for animal health and nutrition. It offers products for equines, rabbits, goats, poultry, companion animals, cattle, and young animals. The company also provides dog and cat supplements; and products for leather care and fly control. It sells its products through dealers and online retailers in the United States. Manna Pro Products, LLC was founded in 1985 and is based in Chesterfield, Missouri. [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. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com MATSU CORP: "Zhen Zhu" Suit Alleges FLSA and CMWA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Gui Zhen Zhu, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Matsu Corp dba Matsu, Matsu Grill Co. LLC dba Matsuri, Kimming Marty Cheng, and Ziqiao Cao aka Michael Cao, Case No. 3:18-cv- 00203 (D. Conn., February 2, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. From November 2012 to February 29, 2016, Plaintiff Gui Zhen Zhu worked as a packer for Matsu Corp dba Matsu, located at 33 Jesup Road, Westport, CT 60880 as a packer. The Corporate Defendants that do business as Matsu Corp dba Matsu and Matsu Grill Co. LLC dba Matsuri are joint employers of Plaintiff and constitute an enterprise insofar as the two establishments share employees, including deliverymen who are required to deliver for both restaurants, regardless of which store the customers ordered from, while paying these employees from their respective Corporate Defendant employers, and same ownership and management by Owner/Operator Defendants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Phelan, Esq. MITCHELL & SHEAHAN, P.C. 80 Ferry Blvd., Suite 216 Stratford, CT 06615 Tel: (203) 873-0240 E-mail: gphelan@mitchellandsheahan.com MONSANTO COMPANY: "Hoskins" Suit Moved to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The class action of RICKY HOSKINS and CHARLENE HOSKINS, individually and on behalf of their minor child, T.H., Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-02945 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 10, 2018), was moved to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and assigned Case No. 3:18-cv- 00665-VC (N.D. Cal., Jan. 30, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Hoskins" suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2741). The Hoskins seek compensatory damages as a result of Plaintiffs' use of, and exposure to, Roundup products which caused or was a substantial contributing factor in causing Plaintiffs to suffer from cancer. Plaintiffs used Roundup beginning in 2006 and continued to use it until 2016. For years, Plaintiffs sprayed Roundup on a regular basis. Plaintiffs followed all safety and precautionary warnings during the course of use. Plaintiff was subsequently diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. The development of Plaintiffs' Non- Hodgkin Lymphoma was proximately and actually caused by exposure to Defendant Roundup products. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. It operates in two segments, Seeds and Genomics, and Agricultural Productivity. The company markets its products through distributors, independent retailers and dealers, agricultural cooperatives, plant raisers, and agents, as well as directly to farmers. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 MONTERREY SECURITY: Lee Seeks Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------ KIM LEE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MONTERREY SECURITY CONSULTANTS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.2018CH2246 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County, Feb. 21, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, interest, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Wage Ordinance. The Plaintiff Kim Lee, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, complains against Defendants Monterrey Security Consultants, Inc., alleging claims under the City, of Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance. The Defendant is a security guard company that operates in the City of Chicago and other cities. This complaint arises out of Defendant's policy and practice of charging its low-wage workers $262 for the cost of a uniform through payroll deductions, resulting in workers being paid below the City of Chicago minimum wage.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Piers, Esq. Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq. HUGHES, SOCOL, PIERS, RESNICK & DYM, LTD. 70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 580 0100 E-mail: mpiers@hsplegal.com cwilmes@hsplegal.com MURATA MANUFACTURING: Cambridge Alleges Price-Fixing of Inductors ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cambridge Capital Corporation, Plaintiff v. Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; Murata Electronics North America, Inc.; Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation Of North America; Panasonic Industrial Devices Corporation Of America; Sumida Corporation; Sumida Electric Co., Ltd.; Sumida America Components, Inc.; Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd.; Taiyo Yuden (U.S.A.) Inc.; Tdk Corporation; Tdk- Epc Corporation; Tdk Corporation Of America, and Tdk U.S.A. Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00686-EJD, (N.D. Cal., Jan. 31, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for damages injunctive relief under the antitrust laws of the U.S. Plaintiff alleges price-fixing of inductors sold in the U.S. Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. designs, manufactures, and sells electronic components in Japan and internationally. It offers capacitors, inductors, noise suppression products/EMI suppression filters/ESD protection devices, resistors, thermistors, sensors, timing devices, quartz devices, sound components, power devices, small energy devices, micro mechatronics, RFID/NFC devices, matching devices, baluns, couplers, filters, phase shifters, RF switches, front-end modules, SAW components, connectors, antennas, isolators, RF modules, ultra-low-power short-range RFIC products, substrates, and ionizer modules. The company provides its products for use in health care equipment, mobile communications, industrial equipment, business machines, personal computers, and AV equipment, as well as smart home, automotive, network, data center, lighting, and security and safety applications. Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. was founded in 1944 and is headquartered in Nagaokakyo, Japan. Murata Electronics North America, Inc. researches, designs, manufactures, and sells ceramic based passive electronic components and devices. It offers capacitors, noise suppression products/EMI suppression filters, inductors (coils), resistors, RF components, saw based components, low-power RF ICS, RF modules/wireless connectivity platforms, timing devices, sensors, thermistors, power devices and supplies, sound components, micromechatronics, ceramic applied products, RFID/NFC devices, matching devices, couplers, crystal and ceramic filters, connectors, isolators, switches, front-end modules, substrates, and ionizers/active oxygen modules (ozonizers); and filters for communication equipment and audio visual equipment. The company offers products for mobile device/network/wireless communication, automotive, transportation, consumer goods, energy, healthcare equipment, data management, lighting, automation, security and safety, and industrial applications. It sells products through authorized distributors and sales representatives in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Southeast Asia, and South Asia. The company was founded in 1965 and is based in Smyrna, Georgia. Murata Electronics North America, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Panasonic Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, develops, produces, sells, and services electrical and electronic products under the Panasonic brand name worldwide. It operates through Appliances, Eco Solutions, Connected Solutions, Automotive & Industrial Systems, and Other segments. The Appliances segment offers air conditioners, TVs, refrigerators, washing machines, personal care products, microwave ovens, digital cameras, home audio equipment, video equipment, fixed-phones, vacuum cleaners, rice cookers, show cases, compressors, fuel cells, etc. The Eco Solutions segment provides lighting fixtures, lamps, wiring devices, solar photovoltaic systems, water related products, interior and exterior furnishing materials, ventilation and air conditioning equipment, air purifiers, bicycles, nursing care related products, etc. The Connected Solutions segment offers in- flight entertainment systems and connectivity, electronic components mounting machines, welding equipment, PCs and tablets, projectors, broadcast and professional AV systems, surveillance cameras, etc. The Automotive & Industrial Systems segment provides automotive use infotainment systems, electrical components, automotive mirrors, lithium ion and automotive batteries, dry batteries, automation controls, electric motors, electronic components, electronic materials, semiconductors, LCD panels, etc. The Others segment provides detached housing construction, apartment housing leasing services, etc.; undertakes remodeling contract works; sells land, properties, and condominiums; offers real estate brokerage, leasing, and management services; and manufactures and sells system materials for industrial housing. The company offers its products to business and industrial customers, and consumers. The company was formerly known as Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. and changed its name to Panasonic Corporation in 2008. Panasonic Corporation was founded in 1918 and is headquartered in Kadoma, Japan. Panasonic Corporation of North America, Inc. develops, manufactures, markets, sells, and services digital and other electronics products for consumer, business, and industrial use in North America. It offers consumer products, such as televisions, headphones, home theaters, sound bars, stereos, portable speakers, streaming video products, Blu-ray/DVD players, accessories, cameras/camcorders, and home monitoring/home office products; shavers, trimmers, body grooming products, replacement blades, and accessories for men; hair care, hair removal, and skin care products, as well as replacement blades/accessories for women; and health and wellness products. It also offers audio/video technology, automotive, commercial/industrial, healthcare and life science, office technology, professional video, and video surveillance solutions; heating/ventilation/air- conditioning (HVAC) and solar products; and computers/tablets. In addition, it offers capacitors, electromechanical products, wireless connectivity products, industrial automation products, batteries, resistors/inductors, relays/connectors, HVAC/R and appliance devices, storage media, sensors, semiconductors, and circuit/thermal protection products for industrial customers; provides P.180, an end-to-end connectivity service platform; and develops a drowsiness-control technology for detecting and predicting a person's level of drowsiness prior to driving. Further, it offers its products online. The company has strategic partnerships with Younicos and Enphase Energy Inc.; and a strategic collaboration with Ericsson to deliver sustainable energy solutions for mobile operators, tower companies, and others. The company was formerly known as Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, Inc. and changed its name to Panasonic Corporation of North America, Inc. in 2005. The company was founded in 1959 and is based in Newark, New Jersey. Panasonic Corporation of North America, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation. Panasonic Industrial Devices Sales Company of America manufactures, markets, and sells electronic components for industrial applications. The company offers products, such as capacitors, circuit protection, magnetics, resistors, electromechanical switches, wireless communication modules, relays and i/o modules, interconnect connectors, frequency controls, magnetic inductors, transformers, discrete semiconductor, diode, opto discrete, power discrete, transistors, semiconductor IC, linear, memory, opto, power, power management, sensor, and std logic products. It also provides filters and resonators, high frequency components, RF modules, audio components, power supplies, printed wiring boards and devices, and thermal protection products for original equipment manufacturers of high-tech electronic products. The company was formerly known as Panasonic Industrial Company and changed its name to Panasonic Industrial Devices Sales Company of America on January 1, 2012. The company is based in Secaucus, New Jersey. Panasonic Industrial Devices Sales Company of America operates as a subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation of North America. Sumida Corporation designs, manufactures, and electronic components and modules for consumer electronics, automotive, and industrial markets in Japan, rest of Asia, Europe, and North and South America. It offers power and IF inductors, including surface mount, through hole, and LPF coils for digital amplifiers, as well as RF chip inductors; and power transformers, such as surface mount, through hole, and PoE transformers, as well as switching mode power supplies, reactors, and wireless power transfer coils. The company also provides signal magnetics comprising RF/communication, radio frequency identification tags, antenna, and other products; EMC coils consisting of AC powerline, DC powerline, normal mode chokes, and common mode chokes; sensors and actuators, including rotor position sensors, ABS coils, solenoid coils, and piezo motors; and power modules, such as point of load power conversion modules for communications and industrial applications, DSP and FPGA power systems, and other high density distributed power systems. In addition, it offers automotive modules comprising xenon ignitors, choke modules for inverters, module components, component carriers, power conversion modules, and components and modules; ceramic based passive components, electronic manufacturing services, and flexible flat cables; and components for medical equipment, such as network isolation and isolation transformers. The company was formerly known as Sumida Electric Co., Ltd and changed its name to Sumida Corporation in June 2000. Sumida Corporation was founded in 1956 and is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. Sumida America Components Inc. manufactures electronic equipment. The Company offers manufacturing of electronic components such as antennas, switches, and waveguides. Sumida serves customers worldwide. Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd. develops, manufactures, and sells electronic components worldwide. It offers multilayer ceramic capacitors for use in smartphones, automobiles, and other devices; ferrite and applied products, such as wire-wound chip inductors, multilayer chip inductors, ferrite bead inductors, and common-mode choke coils for use in electronic equipment; integrated modules and devices comprising FBAR/SAW devices for mobile communications, power supply modules, high-frequency modules, and embedded-parts multilayer wiring substrates; and other electronic components, such as lithium ion and polyacene capacitors for use as backup power equipment for smart meters and other similar products, as well as peak current assistance for LED flashes. The company also provides noise suppression parts, such as bead inductors, multilayer EMI suppression filters, and ring varistors; chip antennas; energy devices; aluminum electrolytic capacitors; balun transformers; and wireless modules. Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd. was founded in 1950 and is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd A. Seaver, Esq. Joseph A. Tabacco, Jr., Esq. Sarah Khoransanee Mcgrath BERMAN TABACCO 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382 E-mail: jtabacco@bermantabacco.com tseaver@bermatabacco.com jmoy@bermantabcco.com smcgrath@bermantabacco.com - and - Marc Greenspon, Esq. One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 542- 8300 Facsimile: (617) 542-1194 E-mail: mgreenspon@bermantabacco.com - and - Vincent Briganti, Esq. Barbara Hart, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG P.C. White Plains Plaza 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com bhart@lowey.com NATIONAL GAS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Moore" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE MOORE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL GAS & ELECTRIC, LLC; and JOHN DOE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00666 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 30, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. National Gas & Electric, LLC supplies electricity and natural gas for homes and businesses in Illinois, Ohio, Maryland, and New York. The company is based in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian K. Murphy, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 488-0400 Facsimile: (614) 488-0401 E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com - and - Lauren E. Snyder, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP 1350 N. Wells Street, Apt. A214 Chicago, IL 60610 Telephone: (419) 344-1146 E-mail: lauren.elizabeth.snyder@gmail.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C. 99 High St., Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@broderick-law.com ted@broderick-law.com - and - Matthew P. McCue, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE 1 South Avenue, Suite 3 Natick, MA 01760 Telephone: (508) 655-1415 E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net NORDIC NATURALS: Elikman Sues over Mislabeling of Probiotics ------------------------------------------------------------ LYUBOV ELIKMAN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. NORDIC NATURALS, INC., and NORDIC NATURALS MFG., INC., California corporations, the Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-02319 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County, Feb. 21, 2018), seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief against NORDIC for false and deceptive representations of the amount of probiotics (the key ingredient of the product), mislabeling and consumer fraud. The Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendants to redress NORDIC's sale of the product that was falsely advertised as having 15 billion colony forming units (CFU) of probiotics per serving/capsule where in fact the actual amount of probiotics contained in each serving/capsule of "NORDIC FLORA PROBIOTIC WOMEN" product was FIVE HUNDRED EIGHT ONE THOUSAND (581,000) TIMES less than represented by NORDIC on the packaging of its product. Nordic Naturals, Inc. produces and supplies fish oils for children, and dogs and cats. It offers omega products, vitamins, and gummies for children. The company offers its products in various flavors, concentrations, and delivery forms for heart, brain and mood, eyes, back and joints, and immune response.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yevgeniy "Eugene" I. Turin, Sr. EUGENE TURIN LAW 102 N. Milwaukee, S 312 Deerfield, IL 60015 Telephone: 847.656.3323 E-mail: attomey@eugeneturinlaw.com NORTH SHORE AGENCY: Veytsman Sues over Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------ VICTORIA VEYTSMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH SHORE AGENCY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. Case No. 2:18-cv-01782-JLL-SCM (D.N.J., Feb. 7, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Chief Judge Jose L. Linares, and referred to Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion. North Shore Agency, LLC provides receivables management solutions in the United States and Canada. The company offers a range of outsourced billing and collection services, including first party billing; first party and third party collection letters; mailing services and postal expertise; contingency collection programs; e-commerce solutions, including electronic bill presentment and payment, e-payment processing, e-dunning, e-statements, e- collection, e-order confirmations, and e-product announcements; client support programs; and compliance with statutory requirements. The company was founded in 1971 and is based in Melville, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Salim Katach, Esq. VARACALLI & HAMRA, LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 1818 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 590-0571 E-mail: skatach@svhllp.com OCWEN LOAN: Seeks to Deny Certification of "Stromberg" Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled BONNIE LYNNE STROMBERG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, MORGAN STANLEY PRIVATE BANK, N.A., RBS CITIZENS, N.A., and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-04719-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to deny class certification of: "all persons with loans secured by a deed of trust on real property located in the state of California whose loan obligations were satisfied within one year and thirty days prior to the filing of this action, where (1) Ocwen was the servicer of the loan as of the date on which the obligations under Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 2941(b) arose; (2) MSPB, Citizens, Ocwen or one of Defendant Does 1 - 50 was the beneficiary or assignee of the deed of trust as of the date on which the obligations under Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 2941(b) arose; and (3) neither the beneficiary, the assignee of the beneficiary, nor Ocwen, the agent of the beneficiary and/or the assignee, executed and delivered to the trustee, within thirty calendar (30) days after the loan obligation was satisfied, the original note, deed of trust and request for a full reconveyance and such other documents as may be have been necessary to reconvey, or cause to be reconveyed, the deed of trust". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kw3X9A7s Attorneys for Defendants John B. Sullivan, Esq. Mark D. Lonergan, Esq. Michael J. Steiner, Esq. Joseph W. Guzzetta, Esq. SEVERSON & WERSON A Professional Corporation One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 398-3344 Facsimile: (415) 956-0439 E-mail: mjs@severson.com jwg@severson.com jdi@severson.com PALMER & REIFLER: "Cook" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled THOMAS COOK and EMANUEL BERMUDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PALMER, REIFLER & ASSOCIATES, and WAL-MART STORES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00673-BJD-JRK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify the three classes: Wrong-Number Class: "(1) all persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) PRA placed or caused to be placed a non- emergency telephone call (4) on behalf of Wal-Mart (5) using an artificial or prerecorded voice (6) within 4 years of the complaint (7) where PRA called the wrong number, such as where PRA listed that number on its Wrong Number List"; Call after Wrong-Number Notation Class: "(1) all persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) PRA placed or caused to be placed a non- emergency telephone call (4) on behalf of Wal-Mart (5) using an artificial or prerecorded voice (6) within 4 years of the complaint (7) where PRA called the wrong number after it was already informed it had the wrong number, such as where the number was previously added to PRA's Wrong-Number List"; DNC Class: "(1) all persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) PRA placed or caused to be placed a non- emergency telephone call (4) on behalf of Wal-Mart (5) using an artificial or prerecorded voice (6) within 4 years of the complaint (7) where PRA called after receiving a do not call request, such as where the number was previously added to PRA's Do Not Call List." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BZlRVLtk The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith J. Keogh, Esq. Amy L. Wells, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726 1092 Facsimile: (312) 726 1093 E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com Awells@KeoghLaw.com - and - William Peerce Howard, Esq. Amanda J. Allen, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM 210-A South MacDill Ave. Tampa, FL 33609 Telephone: (813) 500 1500 E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com PEAK PROPERTIES: Antjuanyaakins Sues over Rental Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------- ANTJUANYAAKINS, Individually And As Representative of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, the Plaintiff, v. PEAK PROPERTIES LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-02341 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., Feb. 22, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendant violations of the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance. The Plaintiff was a tenant at 1336.5 W. Estes, Unit 1 W, Chicago, Illinois 60626. The Estes Building has about 43 residential apartment units. The Defendant served as lessor, authorized management, and landlord of Plaintiff's dwelling unit and the Estes Building. Peak Properties LLC also leases and serves as management of hundreds of other dwelling units in Chicago, Illinois. The Defendant was hired and paid by the Owner to manage Plaintiff's unit and the Estes building. As part of its management responsibilities, The Defendant prepares and offers rental agreements and renewals to prospective tenants and tenants in Chicago. Additionally, Peak Properties prepares and offers written notices, such as lease termination notices, to its tenants. On July 7, 2017, Defendant offered Plaintiff a 30 page rental agreement for her dwelling unit. On February 5, 2018, Defendant or its authorized Agent served Plaintiff with a "Ten- Day Notice Of Termination Of Tenancy alleging breach of the lease. The "Ten-Day Notice" did not notify Plaintiff that "the rental agreement will terminate upon a date not less than ten days after receipt of the notice, unless the breach is remedied by the tenant within that period of time." As management and business practice, Defendant does not provide Chicago tenants any opportunity to remedy alleged breaches of their lease agreement within 10 days after receipt of a written notice as mandated by RLTO Section 5-l 2-l 30(b). Defendant has offered the same or similar lease with Provision 27 and 10 Day Notice to all of its Chicago tenants, within the last five years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: AARON KROLIK LAW OFFICE, P.A. 225 W. Washington St. Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 924 0278 Facsimile: (312) 650 8241 - and - MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD. 225 W. Washington St. Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 775 1015 Facsimile: (312) 256 2055 PEOPLE'S UNITED: Faces "Delacruz" Suit over Payment of Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against People's United Financial, Inc. The case is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. People's United Financial, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01157-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Gregory H. Woods and referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck. An Initial Conference is set for April 6, 2018 at 3:00 PM, in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods. People's United Financial, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for People's United Bank, National Association that provides commercial banking, retail banking, and wealth management services to individual, corporate, and municipal customers. It operates through a network of 387 branches and 593 ATMs in Connecticut, southeastern New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire. People's United Financial, Inc. was founded in 1842 and is headquartered in Bridgeport, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (917) 796-7437 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Smith Balks at Penn Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE SMITH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ANTHONY M. SANFILIPPO, CARLOS RUISANCHEZ, CHARLES L. ATWOOD, STEPHEN COMER, RON HUBERMAN, JAMES L. MARTINEAU, JAYNIE MILLER STUDENMUND, and DESIREE ROGERS, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv- 00314 (D. Nev., Feb. 21, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on a proposed merger and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Merger unless, and until, material information is disclosed to Pinnacle shareholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed Merger or, in the event the Proposed Merger is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act. This action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public holders of the common stock of Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed merger between Pinnacle and Penn National Gaming, Inc. According to the complaint, on December 17, 2017, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which each outstanding share of Pinnacle common stock not owned by Pinnacle or its subsidiaries will be converted into the right to receive 0.42 shares of Penn common stock and $20.00 in cash. On February 8, 2018, to convince Pinnacle shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The materially incomplete and misleading S-4 independently violates both Regulation G, each of which constitutes a violation of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the S-4, Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Merger, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and rendering certain statements in the S-4 materially incomplete and misleading. In particular, the S-4 contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the financial projections for the Company and Penn that were prepared by the Company in recommending that its shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Merger. The financial projections were also utilized by Pinnacle's financial advisor, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, in conducting the financial analyses in support of its fairness opinion. It is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the S-4 is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision regarding the Proposed Merger. Pinnacle Entertainment is an American gambling and hospitality company. It operates 16 casino properties, located in Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and a horse track in Texas.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff George Smith: Martin A. Muckleroy, Esq. MUCKLEROY LUNT, LLC Nevada Bar No. 9634 6077 S. Fort Apache Rd., Ste. 140 Las Vegas, NV 89148 Telephone: (702) 907 0097 E-mail: martin@muckleroylunt.com PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: "Safranski" Accord Has Final Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled KATHY L. SAFRANSKI, the Plaintiff(s), v. PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant(s), Case No. 1:17-cv-00129-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William C. Griesbach entered an order granting unopposed motion to certify class and granting final approval of the settlement agreement. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=v68FRJyk PURDUE PHARMA: Minute Men Sues over Sale of Prescription Opioids ---------------------------------------------------------------- MINUTE MEN, INC. and MINUTE MEN SELECT, INC., On behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P. et al., the Defendants, Case No. CV 18 893314 (Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Feb. 21, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory damages in an amount sufficient to fairly and completely compensate Plaintiffs for all damages. The Defendants manufacture, market, distribute, and sell prescription opioids, including brand-name drugs like OxyContin and Percocet, and generics like oxycodone and hydrodone, which are powerful narcotic painkillers. Historically, because opioids are highly addictive and debilitating for long term use, they were used only to treat short-term, acute pain or for palliative care. However, by the late 1990s, and continuing today, the Defendants began a marketing campaign designed to persuade doctors and patients that opioids can and should be employed for long-term pain treatment. In this Complaint, "long-term" means opioid use greater than 90 continuous days for non-cancer pain. In connection with this scheme, the Defendants spent, and continue to spend, millions of dollars on promotional activities and materials that falsely deny or trivialize the risks of opioids, while overstating the benefits of using them for chronic pain. As to the risks of long-term opioid use, Defendants falsely and misleadingly: (1) downplayed the serious risk of addiction; (2) promoted the concept of "pseudoaddiction" and advocated that the signs of addiction should be treated with more opioids; (3) exaggerated the effectiveness of screening tools in preventing addiction; (4) claimed that opioid dependence and withdrawal are easily managed; (5) denied the risks of higher opioid dosages; and (6) exaggerated the effectiveness of "abuse-deterrent" opioid formulations in preventing abuse and addiction. Conversely, Defendants also falsely touted the benefits of long-term opioid use, including the supposed ability of opioids to improve function and quality of life. Defendants used these messages to reverse the popular and medical understanding of opioids. They disseminated them directly, through their sales representatives, and in speaker groups led by physicians who Defendants recruited for their support of these marketing messages. Defendants also worked through third parties they controlled by: (a) funding, assisting, encouraging, and directing doctors, known as "key opinion leaders"; and (b) funding, assisting, directing, and encouraging seemingly neutral and credible professional societies and patient advocacy groups. Defendants then worked together with this KOLs and Front Groups to taint the information sources that doctors and patients relied on for ostensible "neutral" guidance, such as treatment guidelines, Continuing Medical Education ("CME") programs, medical conferences and seminars, and scientific articles. Working individually and collectively, and through these Front Groups and KOLs, Defendants persuaded doctors and patients that opioids were not highly addictive and unsafe in most circumstances for long-term use, but rather that compassionate treatment of pain required opioids. Defendants knew their misrepresentations of the risks and benefits of opioids were not supported by or were directly contrary to the scientific evidence. The falsity of Defendants' misrepresentations have been confirmed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, included by the CDC in its Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain, issued in 2016 and approved by the FDA. Opioid manufacturers, including Defendants, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Purdue Pharma L.P., have entered into settlement agreements with public entities prohibiting them from making many of the misrepresentations identified in this Complaint. The Defendants' efforts to promote opioid use were very successful. Opioids are more and more the prescribed class of drugs; they generated $11 billion in revenue for drug companies in 2014. Plaintiff offers a plan, the Minute Men Select, which is a self- insured Professional Employer Organization. Minute Men Select is a workers' compensation program that is underwritten by Plaintiff. Claims are paid through a self-insured fund and administered by Plaintiff's staff of Case Nurses, Claims Managers and other workers' compensation professionals. This action is brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all other Ohio self-insured funds that are third party payors of medical costs and are therefore similarly situated.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank Gallucci III, Esq. PLEVIN, & GALLUCCI COMPANY, L.P.A. 55 Public Square, Suite 2222 Cleveland, OH 44113 E-mail: FGallucci@pglawyer.com - and - Paul J. Napoli, Esq. Joseph L. Ciaccio, Esq. Salvatore C. Badala, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC 400 Broadhollow Road - Suite 350 E-mail: Melville, NY 11747 - and - James A. Marniella, Esq. DEMER & MARNIELLA, LLC 2 Berea Commons, Suite 200 Berea, OH 44017 E-mail: JAMarniella@demerlaw.com QDI 1: Faces "Lopez" Class Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Wanda Lopez, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v. QDI 1 LLC d/b/a Ramada Inn, Case No. 6:18-cv-00214-JA-DCI (M.D. Fla., February 12, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 40 hours per week. QDI 1 LLC owns and operates the Ramada Inn Near Convention Center in Orange County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle J. Lee, Esq. LEE LAW, PLLC P.O. Box 4476 Brandon, FL 33509-4476 Telephone: (813) 343-2813 E-mail: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com SPIRIT AIRLINES: "Giavasis" Suit Alleges UCL Violations ------------------------------------------------------- Nikki Giavasis, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Spirit Airlines, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. 2:18-cv-00864 (C.D. Calif., February 2, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's violations of the law include, but not limited to, the false advertising, marketing, representations, and sale of the invalid Class Products to consumers in California. Plaintiff Nikki Giavasis is a citizen and resident of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Defendant Spirit Airlines, Inc. is an airline that is engaged in the sale, marketing, supplying, and distribution of air transportation at lower costs than its competitors when it in fact it does not offer the lowest cost among its competitors, says the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Weisberg Sues over TRINTELLIX Program ------------------------------------------------------------ Alan Weisberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited; Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc.; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.; H. Lundbeck a/s; Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Lundbeck Pharmaceutical Services, LLC; Lunbeck; Lundbeck US., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00784-PA-JC (C.D. Cal., Jan. 31, 2018) seeks money damages and injunctive relief against the Defendants for breach of contract and violations of State consumer protection laws. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited engages in the research and development, manufacture, marketing, and sale of pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in three segments: Prescription Drug, Consumer Healthcare, and Other. It offers prescription, OTC, and quasi-drugs; and reagents in various therapeutic areas, including oncology, gastroenterology, central nervous system, vaccines, and others. The company is also involved in clinical diagnostics, chemical products, and other businesses. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited has a research collaboration with Shattuck Labs, Inc. to explore and develop checkpoint fusion proteins that have the potential to become immunotherapies; and a collaboration alliance with Stanford University. It also has collaboration agreements with Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. to jointly fund and co-develop various novel biologic therapies in unmet disease areas; AstraZeneca PLC to develop and commercialize MEDI1341, an alpha synuclein antibody for the treatment of Parkinson's disease; Noile-Immune Biotech Inc. for the research and development of cancer immunotherapy; HitGen Ltd for the DNA-encoded library based drug discovery research; Montreal Neurological Institute to discover and develop treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; Denali Therapeutics to develop and commercialize therapeutic product candidates for neurodegenerative diseases; and Fujifilm to develop regenerative medicine product for heart patients. The company was founded in 1781 and is headquartered in Osaka, Japan. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. manufactures pharmaceutical products. The Company offers products focused on treating serious diseases and disorders, including bone and joint disorders, cardiovascular disease, gastroenterology, gynecological disorders and infectious disease. H. Lundbeck a/s engages in the research, development, production, and sale of pharmaceuticals for the treatment of psychiatric and neurological disorders in Denmark and internationally. Its products include Abilify Maintena, Brintellix/Trintellix, Cipralex/Lexapro, Northera, Onfi, Rexulti, Sabril, and Xenazine. The company offers pharmaceutical products for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, depression, Parkinson's disease, Schizophrenia, alcohol dependence, anxiety, Bipolar I disorder, Epilepsy, Huntington's disease, and symptomatic neurogenic orthostatic hypotension. H. Lundbeck A/S sells its products to distributors of pharmaceuticals, pharmacies, and hospitals. The company was founded in 1915 and is headquartered in Valby, Denmark. Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals, LLC develops and markets psychiatry and neurology products. The company provides Cipralex for the acute treatment of depressive episodes, as well as generalized, social, panic, and obsessive compulsive anxiety disorders; Ebixa for the treatment of moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease; and Azilect for the treatment of Parkinson's disease as a monotherapy and as an adjunct therapy in patients with end-of-dose fluctuations. It also offers Serdolect for reducing the symptoms of schizophrenia by inhibiting the actions of neurotransmitters, dopamine, and serotonin in various areas of the brain; and Circadin, which provides natural sleep for patients with insomnia, offering a treatment for their sleep difficulties. The company was founded in 1993 and is based in Middlesbrough, United Kingdom. Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals Ltd. operates as a subsidiary of Lundbeck Ltd. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard A. Kapp, Esq. Law Offices of Howard A. Kapp 3731 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 514 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 927-8000 Facsimile: (213) 927-8001 E-mail: howard@kapplaw.com TGI FRIDAYS: "Williams" Class Certification Bid Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled GABRIELLE WILLIAMS and TONYA O'DONOVAN, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiffs, v. TGI FRIDAYS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04286 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon . Judge Matthew F. Kennelly entered granting TGIF's motion for partial summary judgment. The plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action and TGIF's motion to exclude Madansky's expert testimony are both terminated as moot. The Court must still resolve O'Donovan's pending IWPCA claim arising from TGIF's alleged failure to promptly pay her the vacation compensation she was owed. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=i3lT6Qco TOLEDO COUNTRY CLUB: "McCullen" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Conner McCullen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Toledo Country Club, Case No. 3:18-cv-00276 (N.D. Ohio, February 2, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Plaintiff Conner McCullen was employed by Defendant from approximately June 2017 until approximately December 2017 as a server. Defendant the Toledo Country Club is a for-profit corporation incorporated in the State of Ohio and has its principal place of business located in Lucas County, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Tel: (614) 704-0546 Fax: (614) 573-9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Tel: (614) 949-1181 Fax: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Overstated User Community, Vanderheiden Says --------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL VANDERHEIDEN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC., ROBERT J. PERA, KEVIN RADIGAN, CRAIG L. FOSTER and MARK SPRAGG, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01620 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages in favor of Plaintiff and the other class members against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of Defendants' false and/or misleading statements and/or failure to disclose that (i) the number of the Company's purported user community was drastically overstated; (ii) that it had exaggerated its publicly reported accounts receivable; and (iii) that as a result of the foregoing, Ubiquiti's publicly disseminated financial statements were materially false and misleading. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Defendant Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. common stock between May 9, 2013 and February 20, 2018, inclusive. This action is brought on behalf of the Class for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Ubiquiti develops technology platforms for high-capacity distributed Internet access, unified information technology, and next-generation consumer electronics for home and personal use. The Company does not employ a traditional sales force. Instead, it purports to "drive brand awareness largely through the company's user community where customers can interface directly with R&D, marketing, and support." The Company calls this user community the "Ubiquiti Community." Information previously disclosed to the market revealed that the size of the "Ubiquiti Community" was grossly exaggerated, and that the Company has engaged in fraudulent accounting practices and financial reporting. On the news of the SEC subpoenas, Ubiquiti's share price fell more than 25 percent, from $74.04 at the close of the prior trading day, to close at $55.28 on February 20, 2018. Prior to disclosure of the SEC's broad-ranging subpoenas, there was a partial corrective disclosure on September 18, 2017. On that day Citron Research issued a report entitled "Cintron Exposes Ubiquiti Networks," (the "Citron Report") in which Citron detailed a series of "alarming red flags," indicating that the Company had been deceiving investors and was engaged in "corporate fraud," including, among other things, that the Company had misrepresented the size of its purported "Ubiquiti Community", as well as its levels of accounts receivable, among other things. 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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Greg. Blankinship, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP DREI-PERSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298 3280 Facsimile: (914) 908 6708 E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com - and - Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Thomas W. Kirchofer, Esq. Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq. 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398 5600 Facsimile: (617) 507 3020E E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com Tom@blockesq.com Bradley@blockesq.com VAL VERDE: "Sehr" Suit Seeks to Certify Nurses Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DONALD SEHR, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. VAL VERDE HOSPITAL CORPORATION d/b/a VAL VERDE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00065-AM-VRG (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify a class and authorize counsel for Plaintiff to send Notice and Consent forms, to the following group of individuals: "Defendant's current and former nurses who were subject to an automatic meal break deduction and worked at VVRMC at any time since November 15, 2014." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4EdG9APJ The Plaintiff is represented by: Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq. Daniel A. Verrett, Esq. MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 700 West Summit Drive Wimberley, TX 78676 Telephone: (512) 782 0567 Facsimile: (512) 782 0605 E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com daniel@morelandlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Mr. Scott Brutocao, Esq. Mr. Andrew J. Broadaway, Esq. CORNELL SMITH MIERL & BRUTOCAO, LLP 1607 West Avenue Austin, TX 78701 WE DRIVE U: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, "Davis" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEDRIVEU, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-322578 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Jan. 30, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee from September 18, 2017 through October 13, 2017. Plaintiff performed services as a driver for Defendants' customer, Nvidia. We Drive U Inc was founded in 1988. The company's line of business includes providing employment services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Lidman, Esq. Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq. LIDMAN LAW, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 322-4772 Facsimile: (424) 322-4775 E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com enguyen@lidmanlaw.com - and - Paul K. Haines, Esq. Tuvia Korobkin, Esq. Stacey M. Shim, 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 tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com sshim@haineslawgroup.com WELLS FARGO: Nakamura Seeks to Certify Class of Service Members --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JIN NAKAMURA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION d/b/a Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No 5:17-cv-04029-DDC-GEB. (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an Order: 1. certifying a class of: "all service members who, before the service member entered military service, paid a deposit or installment on a loan originated, acquired and/or serviced by Defendant, and whose motor vehicle subject to the loan was repossessed by Defendant while the service member was in military service without a court order authorizing the repossession between January 1, 2000 and the date this Class is certified by the Court"; 2. designating Jin Nakamura as class representative; and 3. appointing Rex A. Sharp, P.A., Bell Law, LLC, and Waddell Law Firm LLC as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=axtXVhoj Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Class Counsel: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Ryan C. Hudson, Esq. Scott Goodger, Esq REX A SHARP, P.A. 5301 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901 0505 Facsimile: (913) 901 0419 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com rhudson@midwest-law.com - and - Bryce B. Bell, Esq. Mark W. Schmitz, Esq. BELL LAW, LLC 2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 886 8206 Facsimile: (816) 817 8500 E-mail: Bryce@BellLawKC.com MS@BellLawKC.com - and - A. Scott Waddell, Esq. WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC 2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 914 5365 Facsimile: (816) 817 8500 E-mail: scott@aswlawfirm.com XEROX CORP: Carpenters Pension Fund Balks at Fuji Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- CARPENTERS PENSION FUND OF ILLINOIS on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. XEROX CORPORATION, JEFFREY JACOBSON, GREGORY Q. BROWN, JOSEPH J. ECHEVARRIA, WILLIAM CURT HUNTER, ROBERT J. KEEGAN, CHERYL GORDON KRONGARD, CHARLES O. PRINCE, ANN N. REESE, STEPHEN H. RUSCKOWSKI, SARA MARTINEZ TUCKER and FUJIFILM HOLDINGS CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 650841/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 21, 2018), seeks to enjoin Xerox Corporation's contractual agreement under the Subscription Agreement to not amend or terminate the joint venture (or its corresponding agreements) with Fuji, so that the Company has maximum flexibility to negotiate a transaction with any interested party in advance of the stockholder vote. The case is stockholder class action challenging various breaches of fiduciary duties by Jacobson and the other members of Xerox's Board in connection with an unfair change-of-control transaction. In the Transaction, Jacobson and his fellow directors have agreed to sell control of Xerox to Fuji for inadequate consideration, following a rushed and deficient exploration of the Company's strategic alternatives. Indeed, facing possible ouster in a very public and potentially embarrassing proxy contest instituted by two of the Company's three largest shareholders, Jacobson and other members of the Board quickly searched for an all- encompassing solution to various problems they were facing. In the end, they agreed to the Transaction, which will, among other things: (i) significantly dilute all stockholders' interests; (ii) entrench Jacobson and at least five other current Xerox directors in their current positions; and (iii) vest future control of the Company and the composition of Xerox's Board in the hands of a long-term ally, Fuji. The foregoing will thus ensure that stockholders who were calling for a change in Xerox's leadership and for the Company to free itself from its entanglements with Fuji will never achieve that goal. According to the complaint, Xerox's public stockholders face a choice between two evils at the upcoming stockholder vote on the Transaction. The market now knows that Xerox has limited ability to sell itself to anyone other than Fuji. If stockholders vote down the Transaction, the price of their shares will likely reflect a discount to the Company's stock price prior to the announcement of the Transaction. In fact, Xerox shares have already significantly declined since the Transaction announcement, notwithstanding market expectations for a $9.80 per share special cash dividend. Alternatively, stockholders can approve the Transaction and, thus, effectively terminate the change-of-control provisions of the joint venture agreements with Fuji but they also must cede voting control of the Company to Fuji, along with a 50.1% economic interest in the post- Transaction entity. In all events, the Board's various breaches of their fiduciary duties have put Plaintiff and Xerox's other public stockholders in an untenable position, warranting injunctive and other relief.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Rudy, Esq. Eric L. Zagar, Esq. J. Daniel Albert, Esq. Justin Reliford, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667 7706 Facsimile: (610) 667 7056 - and - Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq. James J. Sabellav GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722 8500 Facsimile: (646) 722 8501 - and - Michael Barry, Esq. 123 Justison Street, 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622 7000 Facsimile: (302) 622 7100 ********* 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 * * *