/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180315.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 15, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 54 Headlines ABRA INC: State Auto Denies Insurance Coverage for Class Suit ACCOUNT CONTROL: Faces "Hwang" Suit in E.D. New York AEGIS SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Watson" Claims AFL: Winmar May Join Concussion Class Action AHMC HEALTHCARE: Faces "Diaz" Suit over Failure to Pay OT ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Yosipov" Suit in E.D. New York AMERICAN FEDERATION: CNA Warns SCOTUS Ruling Could Starve Unions AMICA GENERAL: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York APPLE INC: Faces Class Action in Canada for Throttling iPhones APPLE INC: MDL Panel to Consider Consolidating Battery Cases ARAMARK UNIFORM: "Moore" OT Pay Suit Remanded to Calif. State Ct. ARIZONA: Fined Over Failure to Meet Prison Healthcare Settlement ARIZONA: Hearings Set on Fines in Prison Health Care Case ARS NATIONAL: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in "Koby" FDCPA Suit AT&T CORP: Sued by Robinson over IPhone SE and Tablet Promos AUSTRALIA: $15K Spin Class Angers Williamtown RAAF Base Residents BALL METAL: Court Grants in Part Bid to Certify "Westfall" Class BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Settles Sherwin Ponzi Scheme Class Action BAUME & MERCIER: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York BEEKEEPER: Class Action Over Neonicotinoids Can Proceed BOSTON, MA: Madden Balks at Installation of Norton Billboards BUFFALO TRACE: Court Narrows Claims in Bourbon Fraud Suit BUILDING BLOCK: Fails to Pay Wages, "David-Colar" Suit Says CANADA: Class Action Mulled to Push for Cannabis Amnesty CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Regan" Suit in E.D. New York CASH BIZ: Ruling Blocks Borrowers to Pursue Class Action CASMOS CAFE: Faces "Dicarlo" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeals Arbitration Ruling in "Dorman" Suit CHERRY CHIROPRACTIC: Curtis & Salas Allege Wrongful Termination CHICAGO EDUCATION BOARD: Minors Sue over Handicapped Child Act COMMONWEALTH BANK: Denies Liability in Shareholder Class Action CONNECT AMERICA: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hobbs" Suit Claims CRESCENT HOTELS: Faces "Levin" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania CSX TRANSPORTATION: Blount Cty. Train Crash Evacuees Settle Suit DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: April 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces "Alexander" Suit in S.D. Texas DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces "Romero" Suit in S.D. New York EMERY FEDERAL: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval EQUIFAX INC: Amy Keller Named Co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel EQUIFAX INC: "Krueger" Suit Reassigned to Another Judge ETEAM INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Villalva" Suit Claims FACEBOOK INC: Settles Class Action Over 2012 IPO for $35-Mil. FACEBOOK INC: Must Face Class Action Over Biometric Facial Data FEDERAL AUTO: Double Charged on Document Fees, "Higgs" Suit Says FIRST ALARM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Stricklin" Suit Says FLOWERS FOODS: Seeks to Quash Document Subpoena in "Neff" Suit FORD MOTOR: May Trial Scheduled in MyFord Touch Class Action FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Sokol" Claims GEORGIA CREDIT: Urges Appeals Court to Affirm Overdraft Decision GLENDALE, CA: Taliaferro Sues over Water Rates and Charges GRO CATTLE: Faces "Castellano" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime HERSHEY COMPANY: Tomasella Alleges Child Labor in Supply Chain HICKORY RIDGE: Faces "Heale" Suit in New York INSTORE GROUP: Cherelli Seeks Minimum Wages under Wage Act IO INC: Faces "Norman" Suit in E.D. Virginia JOE ASIAN SUSHI: Faces "Xia" Suit in E.D. New York KOCH FOODS: Suppressed Competition for Broiler Grow-Out KRATON CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action LIBERTY COUNTY, TX: May Face Class Action Over Audit Errors LIVE NATION: Lawyers for Las Vegas Massacre Victims File Suit LUDLOW HOTEL: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York M.C.I. FOODS: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Garcia" Suit Claims MARS INC: Tomasella Alleges Child Labor in Supply Chains MDL 2804: Mayor Concerned About Law Firm Handling Opioid Case MDL 2817: 5 Cases vs CDK Global Transferred to N.D. Illinois METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Gardner" Suit in S.D.N.Y. MICHAEL HARRISON: Faces "Bleier" Suit in E.D. New York MIMEDX GROUP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action MIMEDX GROUP: Block & Leviton Investigates Securities Claims MONAT GLOBAL: Faces "McWhortor" Suit in S.D. Fla. NEBULA HOLDINGS: Faces "Cohen" Suit in E.D. New York NELSON AIR: Penava Seeks Construction Project Trust Fund NEW ORLEANS, LA: Owes $25.6MMM in Traffic Camera Refunds NEW PRIME: Supreme Court to Consider Trucker Arbitration Case NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in ERISA Case OPTIM LLC: "Yuzhaninov" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: June 4 Securities Settlement Hearing Set PREFERRED PAYMENT: "Caraballo" Suit Underway in New York PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Faces "Dillon" Suit in M.D. Florida RESTORATION HARDWARE: Attorneys Fees Challenge Denied RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Faces Three Securities Class Actions RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Faces Securities Class Action in Florida ROYAL SEAFOOD: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York S & K CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Kwag" Suit Says SCHOOL OF VISUAL ARTS: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York SCV FLEET: Failed to Pay Wages Including Overtime, Sales Says SIMMZYS LLC: Fails to Pay Wages, "Vanegas" Suit Claims SOCIAL EDGE: Women Receive Lower Pay, Solomon Says STEELE WATER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Ramos" Suit Claims SUMMIT COLLECTION: Darwish Sues over Debt Collection SUTTER BAY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Lee Says SWISSPORT SA: Stephens Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under Labor Law TECHNOLOGY REVIEW: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York TOTAL DENTAL IMPLANT: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York TUESDAY MORNING: Violates Disabled Persons Act, Velarde Says ULTA BEAUTY: Faces Two Class Actions for Reselling Used Products UNITED CARD: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Fabricant" Suit Claims UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York US GYPSUM: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, "Wren" Suit Says VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settles Diesel Emissions Class Action Before Trial WEINSTEIN CO: Seeks Dismissal of Sexual Misconduct Lawsuit WEINSTEIN CO: Bankruptcy Filing May Impact Class Action WV AMERICAN: More Than 80,000 Claims Filed in Water Settlement XPO LOGISTICS: Truck Drivers File Class Action in California * Stage One Report for Class Action Bill Published in Scotland ********* ABRA INC: State Auto Denies Insurance Coverage for Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. ABRA, INC. doing business as Abra Auto Body and Glass, and RANDY FIELDS, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00931 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 5, 2018) seeks judgment declaring that Plaintiff has no duty to provide defense to Defendant Abra in a class action suit filed by Mr. Fields. Plaintiff issued a policy insurance to Defendant Abra. The policy provided for Commercial General Liability Insurance effective for the period May 1, 2014 to May 1, 2015. The policy was renewed for the period May 1, 2015 to May 1, 2016. Defendant Mr. Fields is a claimant who filed a class action complaint against Defendant Abra in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, Cause No. 17 CH 12271. Mr. Fields claimed that Defendant Abra violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act's provisions relating to the collection of biometric data when Defendant Abra scanned his fingerprints and that it violated Biometric Information Privacy Act's provisions relating to the disclosure of biometric data when it disclosed his biometric information to a third party vendor, Kronos, Inc. ABRA, Inc., doing business as ABRA Auto Body and Glass, owns and operates auto body repair centers. The Company offers services including headlight buffing and repair, auto painting and repair, painteless dent removal, and car interior repair. ABRA Auto Body & Glass operates repair centers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Marc Chemers, Esq. PRETZEL & STOUFFER, CHARTERED One South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 578-7548 Facsimile: (312) 346-8242 E-mail: rchemers@pretzelstouffer.com ACCOUNT CONTROL: Faces "Hwang" Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Account Control Technology, Inc. The case is styled as Andre Hwang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Account Control Technology, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv- 01419 (E.D. N.Y., March 7, 2018). Account Control Technology, Inc. (ACT) offers debt recovery, debt collection, accounts receivable management and business process outsourcing (BPO) solutions for the education, consumer finance, government and commercial markets.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. AEGIS SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Watson" Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Shameka Watson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aegis Security & Investigations Inc., and Does 1 through 25, Defendants, Case No. BC695411 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 20, 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 the Defendants as a security guard at Los Angeles County, California from December 31, 2015 to the present. Aegis Security & Investigations Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of California. The Company provides security guards to its customers in California and other locations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq. GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 542-2100 Facsimile: (213) 542-2101 AFL: Winmar May Join Concussion Class Action -------------------------------------------- Jon Pierik and Daniel Cherny, writing for The Age, report that AFL great Nicky Winmar is battling health issues and is considering joining a concussion class action of former AFL players. Mr. Winmar, who played 230 games for St Kilda and 21 for the Western Bulldogs, and has been undergoing tests for issues he believes could be related to a series of head knocks during his storied career. His problems include dizziness and memory loss. Mr. Winmar, 52, said on Feb. 26 that he had suffered "six or seven" head knocks while playing, and was concerned by the symptoms. "I just put things down and I don't know where I've put them," Mr. Winmar told The Age. He recalled one particularly dramatic incident during a game while playing for the Saints. "Once in a Brisbane game at Waverley the doctor said I stopped breathing," he said. Of his intentions to join a class action, Mr. Winmar replied: "I have been tested. I am part [of this group]." Mr. Winmar, 52, is one of about 30 past players in the frame to be part of a planned class action against the AFL. Brownlow medallist John Platten, Essendon premiership ruckman John Barnes and renowned aerialist Shaun Smith have all publicly detailed their health battles and intentions to take the league to court over claimed neurological impairment. Mr. Barnes is set to be the lead plaintiff while dual Brownlow medallist Greg Williams has also been linked to the potential case. Mr. Winmar's long-time manager Peter Jess explained that Mr. Winmar was still in the early stages of his testing. "The initial testing said that [Nicky] had some abnormalities, and we're going to test those further," Mr. Jess said. "We've been in constant contact over the last three or four years with multiple signs of impairment such as loss of balance, temporary memory loss. Problems with a whole range of other medical conditions that could well be linked back to his repetitive head knocks when he was playing football. The initial testing shows that there are some abnormalities and we're awaiting further testing to confirm that he'll be part of the class action or not." Veteran player agent Jess, who has long been outspoken on concussion, said a team of researchers were looking through footage of Mr. Winmar's career to identify incidents that may have led to his health issues. Mr. Winmar survived a heart attack in 2012 and has since been an advocate for indigenous health. A member of St Kilda's team of the century, he is probably best remembered for taking a stand against racism from Collingwood supporters at Victoria Park in 1993 by raising his jumper and pointing to his skin in what has become an iconic image. Mr. Winmar last year opened up about his heart attack and the changes he had since made in his life. "At the time I had to change a lot of my dieting, the way you use salts in your food, alcohol, smoking. Those were the sacrifices you have to do as well, which don't come easily," Mr. Winmar said. "You've got to make that choice if you want to fulfil the rest of your life. I'm 52 this year and hopefully [for] another 10 or 15 years I'll still be around." The league has moved to tighten its concussion protocols in recent years, including fining clubs when procedures are not followed. The AFL also has implemented several concussion-related initiatives, including holding an annual concussion audit, investigating the efficacy of headgear in preventing concussion, scanning past and current players through the Florey Institute of technology, and having players participate in a sensor head knock assessment last year. The league also collaborates on research with other codes, and is working with Murdoch Children's Research Institute on a community concussion project. Neither the AFL, AFL Players' Association, Saints nor Bulldogs wished to comment when contacted on Feb. 26. [GN] AHMC HEALTHCARE: Faces "Diaz" Suit over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AHMC HEALTHCARE, INC.; AHMC, INC.; AHMC GARFIELD MEDICAL CENTER L.P.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC694932 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 21, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Ms. Diaz was employed by the Defendants from 2011 to 2016 as an hourly-paid employee. AHMC Healthcare Inc. owns and operates a chain of hospitals and medical centers. The company was founded in 2004 and is based in Alhambra, California. AHMC Healthcare Inc. is a former subsidiary of Tenet Healthcare Corp. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin T. Barnes, Esq. Gregg Lander, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN T. BARNES 5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664 Telephone: (323) 549-9100 Facsimile: (323) 549-0101 E-mail: Barnes@kbarnes.com ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Yosipov" Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial, LP. The case is styled as Manny Yosipov, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alltran Financial, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01423 (E.D. N.Y., March 7, 2018). Alltran Financial, LP operates as an accounts receivable management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C Cohen, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: dan@cml.legal AMERICAN FEDERATION: CNA Warns SCOTUS Ruling Could Starve Unions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chriss w. Street, writing for Breitbart, reports that for a powerful California nurses' union warned that a coming U.S. Supreme Court decision, which could stop unions from requiring non-union employees to pay dues, could starve unions to death. The 86,000-member California Nurses Association (CNA) demonstrated at seven hospitals across the state on Feb. 23 to build support for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule against the plaintiffs in Janus vs. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and preserve a current union rule that requires non-union employees in unionized organizations to pay "fair share" or "agency" fees that approximate the union's dues. Bay Area public radio station KQED reported that CNA spokesperson Margarita Harrington told a group at San Mateo Medical Center in the heart of Silicon Valley, "If suddenly people just stop paying dues, then how will the union be able to sustain itself?" She added, "It's sort of like they're gonna starve the union. And then it eventually impacts us." The fight is reverberating nationwide. Mark Janus is a child support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, whose job is to fight for the rights of very young children in the government run social welfare safety net. He wrote an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune in which he argued, "The union voice is not my voice. The union's fight is not my fight." Janus complained the Illinois union contract forced him to fund a union that is not "working totally for the good of Illinois government." He emphasized that Illinois' union "supported candidates who put Illinois into its current budget and pension crisis. Government unions have pushed for government spending that made the state's fiscal situation worse." Mr. Janus filed a lawsuit to stop automatic paycheck deductions of about $45 per month for a union local branch of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSME) without his permission. The Janus v. AFSME suit soon became a class action that would affect employees in 22 other states that allow unions to take "fees," despite individuals refusing to join a union. The Supreme Court ruled in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education in 1997 that government employees, like Janus, who do not join a union could be compelled to pay "fair share" or "agency fees" to unions to negotiate collective bargaining contracts to covers all public employees. The justices reasoned that such fees would help to reduce labor strife and the prospect that non-union members benefiting as collective bargaining "free-riders." But the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Janus's challenge to the constitutionality of the fee on Feb. 26. Eight of the nine justices on the Court have heard oral argument on the issue twice. The court failed to resolve the issue in early 2016 in Friedrichs v. California Teachers' Association. Most observers expected the plaintiffs to prevail with the 5-4 conservative majority, but then Justice Antonin Scalia died, and the Court deadlocked on a 4 to 4 tie vote. The Court decision, which is expected around June, will be determined by the court's newest Associate Justice, Neil Gorsuch. Confirmed to the Court less than a year ago, Gorsuch, as a federal judge never ruled on a labor case involving union dues. But he has a reputation as a proponent of conservative textualism for interpreting the U.S. Constitution. [GN] AMICA GENERAL: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amica General Agency, LLC. The case is styled as Lawrence Young and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Amica General Agency, LLC and Amica Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02071 (S.D. N.Y., March 7, 2018). Amica Mutual Insurance Company is a Rhode Island-based mutual insurance company that offers auto, home and life insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Law Offices of Bradly G. Marks 280 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10010 Tel: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (212) 254-4202 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com APPLE INC: Faces Class Action in Canada for Throttling iPhones -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit was commenced on February 23 in the Ontario Superior Court alleging that Apple substantially slowed iPhones without warning to or consent from consumers. The claim alleges that Apple's iOS software updates for iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, and 7 Plus were provided to iPhone users under the pretense that the software updates were necessary to deliver enhanced security and performance. In reality, however, the updates allowed Apple to slow down the performance of these updated iPhones. This practice is known as "throttling" because Apple intentionally slows the phone's CPU. Although Apple's slowing of iPhones began at some point in 2016 this practise was only exposed in December 2017 through a study conducted by John Poole at Primate Labs. "By intentionally substantially slowing iPhones, Apple not only interfered with users' personal property, but they did so while keeping consumers totally the dark" said Joel Rochon -- jrochon@rochongenova.com -- partner at Rochon Genova LLP, who represents class members. "Being the dominant smartphone company in Canada and around the world, Apple should not only know better, but must be held accountable --especially where it is alleged they substantially slowed iPhones and then encouraged customers to spend money on upgraded products." Users were never informed of this practice, were never asked to consent to it, and were never given the option of opting out. "Following the download of the update, I noticed that my phone was running far slower than previously -- painfully slow," notes Cherif Saleh, representative plaintiff in the lawsuit. "Apple support advised me to 'go to the Apple Store' to buy a new phone -- this sort of deceitful behaviour from Apple is totally unacceptable." This class action lawsuit includes all owners of iPhone models 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, and 7 Plus, and alleges that Apple's actions violated Consumer Protection Act legislation. None of the allegations have been proven in court, although Apple has admitted to intentionally slowing iPhones through its iOS 10.2.1, 10.3, and 11.2 updates. [GN] APPLE INC: MDL Panel to Consider Consolidating Battery Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Brown, writing for Inverse, reports that Apple's iPhone controversy is showing little signs of slowing down. The company admitted late last year that older devices do function slower, as new software updates throttle processor power to stop older batteries from buckling under strain and shutting down. Although a planned update will give users the option to turn this throttling off, owners are furious and plan to take legal action. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has listed a hearing scheduled for March 29 in Atlanta, Georgia, where it will consider consolidating a number of similar cases into a single complaint. The move could help legal action easier to manage. MacRumors-obtained documents shows Apple faces a staggering 59 putative class actions with 16 district courts, 30 of which are in front of one judge in the Norther District of California. Apple has been working hard to rectify the issue in the public eye. The change was discovered when a Reddit user called TeckFire noted GeekBench performance improved when older batteries were replaced. The company then confirmed that since iOS 10.2.1, the phone has reduced the speed of processors so that it can't place too high a demand on power usage, causing the battery to cut all power. The feature was originally present on the iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, and SE, rolled out further to the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus with version 11.2 in 2017. Apple now plans to give users the choice over whether to limit performance. iOS 11.3, currently in the beta stage, will offer a "Battery Health" screen in the device settings. A brand-new phone will show up as maximum capacity of 100 percent. As time goes on, the phone will lose some of this capacity, but after 500 cycles the phone should remain at 80 percent. The switch below will give users the choice of whether to switch to peak performance, switching on management after the first unexpected shutdown. It's an unusual level of control over device management, but Apple is keen to change perceptions. "We're going to give people the visibility of the health of their battery, so it's very, very transparent," CEO Tim Cook said in a January interview with ABC News. "This hasn't been done before, but we've thought through this whole thing and learned everything we can learn from it." Whether these changes are enough to rectify the damage caused in the public eye remains to be seen. [GN] ARAMARK UNIFORM: "Moore" OT Pay Suit Remanded to Calif. State Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand in the case captioned ALAN MOORE, AMY REED, and DOMINIC GALLAGHER on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, v. ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES, LLC; ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (SANTA ANA), LLC; ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER APPAREL, LLC; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-06288-JST (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Alan Moore, Amy Reed, and Dominic Gallagher bring a putative class action suit asserting several claims under California wage laws and related statutes against Defendants Aramark Uniform Services, LLC, Aramark Uniform Services (Santa Ana), LLC, and Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC. Aramark removed the action to the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1441. Aramark argues that Plaintiffs' claims for failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to pay all wages earned, and failure to authorize and permit rest breaks are completely pre-empted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Plaintiffs moved to remand the action to the Alameda County Superior Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c) on grounds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs contend that pre-emption under section 301 of the LMRA is not proper because their claims arise out of state law and do not require interpretation of any of the terms in the relevant collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). LMRA section 301 provides federal jurisdiction over suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization. To give the policies that animate Section 301 their proper range, its pre-emptive force extends beyond suits alleging contract violations to include questions relating to what the parties to a labor agreement agreed, and what legal consequences were intended to flow from breaches of that agreement. Plaintiffs generally argue that the first cause of action failure to pay for all time worked is not pre-empted because it arises out of state law and it does not require interpretation of the Aramark responds that this cause of action is pre-empted because it alleges breach of a contractual obligation under the applicable CBA and requires interpretation of the applicable language in the CBA. The Claim for Failure to Pay for All Time Worked is Not Pre- empted Aramark Has Not Satisfied the First Prong of Burnside Under the first prong of the Burnside, Burnside, 491 F.3d at 1059, test, the Court first asks whether Plaintiffs' claims involve rights conferred upon an employee by state law or solely by a CBA. Here, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' first cause of action, failure to pay for all time worked, is independently rooted in state law. Plaintiffs assert that Aramark has a continuous and consistent policy of clocking-out Plaintiffs and those similarly situated for a thirty (30) minute meal period, even though Plaintiffs work through their meal periods. Plaintiffs' claim is analogous to time-shaving the practice of doctoring hourly employees' time sheets to reduce their pay. In In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Wage & Hour Litig., 505 F.Supp.2d 609, 616 (N.D. Cal. 2007), the alleged truncation practice in this case is similar to the time-shaving practice in Wal-Mart. Both involve a continuous and systematic deprivation of the employees' time worked for the purpose of reducing the employees' pay. Plaintiffs' first cause of action failure to pay for all time worked is not subject to section 301 preemption under the first prong of the Burnside test. This claim exists independently from the CBA and is a right conferred upon an employee by virtue of state law. Aramark Has Not Satisfied the Second Prong of Burnside Aramark also asserts that the determination of what Plaintiffs are allegedly owed in unpaid wages will necessarily and substantially depend upon an analysis of the numerous different collective bargaining agreements that applied to different groups of putative class members throughout California which include a complicated formula regarding how to calculate hourly rates of pay and certain weekly minimum pay, depending on whether commission are earned based on sales targets. This argument conflates the need to analyze the agreements' provisions with the need simply to apply those provisions. Plaintiffs do not dispute the hourly rate they are entitled to or how it was calculated. The Court noted that there was not even a colorable argument that a claim under section 203 was pre-empted because there was no indication that there was a 'dispute' in the case over the amount of the penalty to which plaintiff would be entitled. Similarly here, there is no indication of a dispute. Any application of the CBA will be mechanical and require the Court only to apply the relevant formulas listed in the CBAs to determine the liability amount. Plaintiffs' claim for failure to pay for all time worked is not substantially dependent on analysis of the CBA and would require, at most, reference to the relevant provisions. Therefore, Plaintiffs' claim for failure to pay for all time worked is not pre-empted by section 301 of the LMRA because it fails both prongs of the Burnside test. The Claim for Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods is Not Pre-empted Plaintiffs assert that Aramark violated California Labor Code section 226.7 by failing to authorize and permit rest periods. Nonnegotiable rights are not subject to section 301 pre-emption, even if employees are covered by a valid CBA. Although Valles concerned the state law provisions governing meal periods, 410 F.3d at 1081, a California appellate court has held that rest breaks are a non-waivable state mandated minimum labor standard. Further, rest breaks, like meal periods, are similarly regulated by Labor Code section 226.7 and address some of the most basic demands of an employee's health and welfare. Thus, this Court holds that the right to rest breaks is non-negotiable and therefore not subject to section 301 pre-emption. Plaintiffs motion to remand is granted. This action is remanded to the Alameda Superior Court for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 5, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yao7fw3s from Leagle.com. Alan Moore, Amy Reed & Dominic Gallagher, Plaintiffs, represented by David Thomas Mara -- dmara@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley Law Firm, APLC, Jamie Kathryn Serb -- jserb@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley Law Firm, William Turley -- bturley@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley & Mara Law Firm & Tony Roberts -- troberts@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley and Mara Law Firm, APLC. Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC & Aramark Uniform Services (Santa Ana) LLC, Defendants, represented by Eric Meckley -- eric.meckley@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Kathryn M. Nazarian -- knazarian@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis and Bockius. ARIZONA: Fined Over Failure to Meet Prison Healthcare Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Beth Schwartzapfel, writing for The Marshall Project, reports that in late December, federal Magistrate Judge David Duncan waved an iPad in front of his Phoenix courtroom, enraged. He had just read a local news article suggesting that the Arizona Department of Corrections and its for-profit medical provider Corizon Health were gaming a system put in place to ensure adequate health care for the state's prisoners. "There is no other way to read it," he said. "It's just a game to beat the judge and his monitoring program." Duncan has been overseeing a court case aimed at improving medical and mental health care in Arizona prisons. Parsons v. Ryan, which began in 2012, accuses the state of providing care so shoddy that it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment: delayed or denied treatment, too few doctors and nurses, referrals and medication refills that fall through the cracks. Corizon has served as Arizona's prison health care provider since 2013. The company is not a defendant in the ongoing legal action, the plaintiffs wrote in a court filing, because the state is ultimately responsible for providing care "regardless of who it hires." However, the company's care lies at the heart of the proceedings. In 2014, Arizona arrived at an agreement with the prisoners that explicitly says that government officials "deny all the allegations." The state also committed to meeting 103 standards governing everything from how quickly prescriptions are filled to how often those with mental illness see a counselor. Part of the agreement was that the state would measure how well it was meeting the standards and report the results back to the court. For the first few years, according to the state's own reports, it did not go well. Among other problems, the state was not providing urgent medication or specialty care quickly enough and prison doctors weren't reviewing discharge orders for sick prisoners returning from the hospital. "You fundamentally have an obligation to provide these services to these inmates," Duncan said at a 2016 hearing. "You failed to do it." At one point the judge called the reports "chilling." Now the local news report seemed to indicate that the situation was even worse than the state described. Under the terms of the Arizona lawsuit, the state must ensure that patients who are referred to specialists see them within 30 days. But the story, by NPR station KJZZ, included an account by a physician who said Corizon asked her to cancel referrals if they weren't completed in that time frame to avoid fines from the court. "After 30 days we get nailed for 1,000 bucks a day until they are seen," read an email from a Corizon employee to the physician. Martha Harbin, a spokesperson for Corizon, told The Marshall Project that Corizon would disprove all of the claims made by KJZZ at an upcoming court hearing. The employee "acted appropriately," Ms. Harbin said. "The email was taken out of context and its meaning distorted by Dr. Watson and KJZZ." Officials at the Arizona Department of Corrections did not respond to several emails with detailed lists of questions. Harbin said the company is failing to meet only a small fraction of the standards under the lawsuit and that those failures result from how difficult it is to hire staff in Arizona. In an email, she detailed the company's extensive efforts to recruit and train staff. "If staffing penalties were merely the cost of doing business, we certainly wouldn't be funding this level of HR activity," she said. Corizon, based in Brentwood, Tenn., is one of the nation's largest for-profit prison healthcare providers, with contracts in 30 local jails and eight state corrections systems, according to Harbin. Allegations of mismanagement and poor patient care have recently caused Corizon to lose some high-profile and lucrative contracts. The company has been the target of thousands of lawsuits -- including other large-scale class action suits ongoing in Idaho and Alabama. Any prison or prison-based provider is inevitably going to be a target for legal action, in part because the courts are often prisoners' only means of redress for grievances large and small. What's striking about the recent cases, however, is their similarities. The suits describe a multi-layered bureaucracy in which even routine medical referrals require approval from middle management; a crisis-level shortage of nurses, doctors, psychiatrists, and other medical staff; and serious but treatable illnesses that went untreated and turned deadly. The Arizona claim described a 59-year-old inmate who died after nurses "repeatedly ignored his desperate pleas for help . . . even after open weeping lesions on [his body] were swarmed by flies." A handwritten "notice of impending death" was filed by an inmate whose cancer went untreated. "Now because of their delay, I may be lucky to be alive for 30 days," he wrote in August. He died in September. Yet many experts say that the quality of a private contractor's care comes down to how closely they're watched. Kansas and Missouri, which both contract with Corizon, have teams monitoring the company's work. Kansas's is based at the local university hospital, according to the Kansas City Star; Missouri's has a nine-person team based at the Department of Corrections, according to a spokesperson there. Kansas's contract includes financial penalties if Corizon fails to meet certain standards; Missouri's does not. "I've seen private providers that have done a very good job. That's because somebody is keeping a watch on them, and their contracts are well run," says Steve J. Martin, a corrections expert who has served as a court-appointed monitor in several lawsuits. In Arizona, the Department of Corrections has 33 employees in its "Health Services Contract Monitoring Bureau" tasked with keeping an eye on Corizon, and the contract includes financial penalties. The company has paid upwards of $3 million in fines for not having enough doctors and nurses on staff, according to the testimony of Charles Pratt, who oversees the Corizon contract for the state. But given that the contract is worth more than $150 million a year, even Judge Duncan was skeptical that these fines change the company's calculus. "Is it possible that they have made the economic decision that they are better off paying the fine than filling these positions?" he asked. "It is," Mr. Pratt replied. In Idaho, where a class action lawsuit similar to the Parsons suit is ongoing, Corizon has been fined $178,000 since 2014 for not having enough staff and other problems, according to state officials. The contract there is worth more than $43 million a year. "The private provider, their attorneys, are superior in their knowledge of contracts," said Martin, who is currently serving as a court-appointed monitor on Rikers Island. "More often than not the agency is at a disadvantage. They're starting 50 yards behind. "Now Arizona faces $1 million or more in fines as Judge Duncan considers holding officials in contempt for their "pervasive and intractable failures" to meet the terms of the settlement. He could issue his ruling at a hearing. Settlements, like contracts, need close, ongoing supervision by a neutral party to function effectively, say Martin and other corrections experts. In Idaho, the judge appointed an independent monitor, known as a special master, to evaluate how well the state was providing health and mental health care. Yet he was duped when the state "attempted to paper over and mislead the special master about the inadequacies of its mental health care system," the judge later found. The Arizona settlement has no special master. "In the settlement negotiations we pressed hard for an independent monitor, but the state was adamant that it would never agree to such a thing," says the ACLU's David Fathi, one of the attorneys representing the prisoners. The agreement allows the state to monitor itself, which was at issue in the December hearing when the judge was so angry. "I had always been a little bit . . . concerned about the fact that the fox was guarding the hen house," Judge Duncan said, noting that he may now appoint an independent auditor. This post has been updated to reflect that Corizon Health is not a named defendant in the Arizona lawsuit, which predates the company's contract with the state. In addition, a previous version of this story incorrectly stated that Corizon faces $1 million or more in fines from a judge. The state faces those fines and has indicated it would pass the fines along to Corizon. [GN] ARIZONA: Hearings Set on Fines in Prison Health Care Case --------------------------------------------------------- Jacques Billeaud, writing for Associated Press, reports that a judge overseeing a class-action lawsuit over the quality of health care in Arizona's prisons would hold hearings to determine whether to fine the state for falling short in improving care for inmates. U.S. Magistrate David Duncan also would examine an allegation that the inmate-care provider skirted a promise Arizona made when it settled the lawsuit by denying care to an inmate to avoid paying a fine. The hearings on Feb. 27 and Feb. 28 were called after the judge repeatedly voiced frustration over what he described as the state's "abject failure" to carry out improvements it promised three years ago when it settled allegations that inmates were receiving shoddy health care. Mr. Duncan has threatened to hold Corrections Director Charles Ryan and another prison official in civil contempt of court and fine the state $1,000 for each instance of noncompliance in December and January. The state has acknowledged more than 1,000 such instances in December, meaning it could be fined as much as $1 million for that month alone. Arizona faced a Feb. 26 deadline for revealing instances of noncompliance in January, though the judge was letting some of that information be filed in February. The areas in which Mr. Duncan is requiring improvements include ensuring newly prescribed medications be provided to inmates within two days and making medical providers tell inmates about the results of pathology reports and other diagnostic studies within five days of receiving such records. Andrew Wilder, a Department of Corrections spokesman, declined to comment on the upcoming hearings. Mr. Ryan said at a Feb. 13 hearing at the Legislature that his agency is making progress in complying with the settlement and that the state doesn't plan to pay any fines that might be imposed. "I've already made it perfectly clear to the vendor (that) you're on the hook for that, not the state of Arizona," Mr. Ryan said. Corizon Health Inc. has served as the health care provider for Arizona's prisons for the past five years. The company isn't a target in the lawsuit. Corene Kendrick, one of the attorneys representing more than 33,000 inmates in the lawsuit, said having the contractor pay would undermine the purpose of the fine, which is to force the state into improving care. Ms. Kendrick said lawyers found an additional 420 instances of noncompliance that the state didn't report to the court. It's up to Mr. Duncan to decide what to do with the fines. Kendrick said the proceeds would not end up in the hands of prisoners or their lawyers. The judge's frustrations with the state grew in December when an email surfaced in which a Corizon employee asked a doctor to cancel infection-disease consultations for an inmate because the company didn't have a provider to send him to. The Sept. 18 email alluded to the judge's threat to impose fines. "After 30 days we get nailed for 1000 bucks a day until they are seen," the Corizon employee wrote. After a news report by National Public Radio member station KJZZ- FM revealed the email, Judge Duncan said the comments looked like an end-run around the court's efforts to ensure the state is making the improvements. A lawyer for the state acknowledged that the email is authentic but said there was a rational explanation for the comments. The 2012 lawsuit alleged that Arizona's 10 state-run prisons didn't meet the basic requirements for providing adequate medical and mental health care. It said some prisoners complained that their cancer went undetected or they were told to pray to be cured after begging for treatment. It also alleged that the failure of the medical staff at one prison to diagnose an inmate's metastasized cancer resulted in his liver enlarging so much that his stomach swelled to the size of a pregnant woman at full term. Another inmate who had a history of prostate cancer had to wait more than two years for a biopsy. The state denied allegations that it was providing inadequate care. The lawsuit was settled in 2014 without the state acknowledging any wrongdoing. This isn't the first time the Corrections Department has faced criticism from the judge. Over the summer, Judge Duncan grilled Mr. Ryan in court over whether he tried to undermine an order that prohibited retaliation against prisoners who participated in the lawsuit. [GN] ARS NATIONAL: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in "Koby" FDCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss the case captioned MICHAEL P. KOBY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARS NATIONAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:09-cv-00780-KSC (S.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs filed this case as a putative class action alleging that defendant attempted to collect plaintiff's alleged debts in a manner that did not comport with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, specifically Sections 1692d(6) and 1692e(11). The Complaint alleges that defendant left voice messages for consumers that failed to disclose the purpose of the call or that the call was from a debt collector. The Federal Arbitration Act states that agreements to arbitrate are valid, irrevocable and enforceable. Section 4 provides that where there is an enforceable arbitration agreement, the court shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The language is mandatory, offering district courts no discretion where a valid arbitration agreement is signed. Whether ARS Can Enforce the Consumer Agreement Under Virginia Law As the assignee of Capital One Bank, defendant asserts it is entitled to enforce the arbitration clause in the Customer Agreements signed by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs assert Virginia contract law specifically provisions of the Virginia Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) precludes ARS from enforcing the arbitration agreement. Defendant's arguments are unavailing. Here, Title 8.9A, Secured Transactions is the applicable section of the Virginia UCC. Section 8.9A-109(a)(3) states in pertinent part, that this title applies to a sale of accounts. Section 8.9A-109(d)(5) clarifies that the title does not apply to an assignment of accounts which is for the purpose of collection only. Thus only if defendant ARS purchased the credit card debt from Capital One Bank can it rightfully seek to enforce the arbitration agreements in plaintiffs' contracts. If Capital One Bank merely assigned the accounts to ARS for collection purposes, then it has no authority to enforce the arbitration agreement. The Court cannot conclude how ARS became the assignee of Capital One Bank on the evidence and documents provided to the Court at this time. It is apparent from similar cases, such as Jallo, Jallo v. Midland Funding, LLC is instructive. 2014 WL 5810203 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2014), that the relationship between a debt collector and the debt holder can be easily ascertained and presented to the Court. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit recently reversed and remanded a District Court's decision to grant a motion to compel arbitration when presented with similarly paltry evidence from a defendant debt collector. Therein, defendants submitted a declaration in support of their motion to compel arbitration in which it represented that defendant became the assignee of certain assets including those at issue in the case. The Beck Declaration is inadmissible to show defendant is the assignee of Capital One Bank, let alone whether it is the right class of assignee to enforce the arbitration agreement. As in Alarcon, the declaration states only that an assignment occurred without the accompanying documentation to support that contention. Therefore ARS's Motion is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 5, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya2ubyyx from Leagle.com. Michael P Koby, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Michael Simmons, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Jonathan W Supler, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew T. Thomasson, Stern Thomasson LLP, pro hac vice, Philip D. Stern, Stern Thomasson LLP, 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor. Springfield, NJ 07081-1315., pro hac vice & Robert E. Schroth, Jr. -- robschrothesq@sbcglobal.net -- Schroth, Schroth & Madigan. Bernadette M. Helmuth, Plaintiff, represented by Donald A. Yarbrough, Donald A. Yarbrough, Esq., pro hac vice, Scott R. Strauss, Donald A. Yarbrough, Attorney at Law, PO Box 11842Fort Lauderdale, FL 33339- 1842, pro hac vice & Steven M. Bronson, THE BRONSON FIRM, APC, 350 Tenth Avenue, 10th Floor. San Diego, CA 92101. Donald Nappi, Plaintiff, represented by Philip D. Stern, Stern Thomasson LLP, 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor. Springfield, NJ 07081-1315, pro hac vice. ARS National Services, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Alan Topor -- jtopor@snllp.com -- Simmonds and Narita LLP, Sean P. Flynn -- sflynn@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP, Susan L. Germaise -- sgermaise@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods, Tomio B. Narita -- tnarita@snllp -- Simmonds & Narita LLP & Holly L.K. Heffner -- hheffner@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP. AT&T CORP: Sued by Robinson over IPhone SE and Tablet Promos ------------------------------------------------------------ LANDON ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AT&T CORP., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00880-ODW-AS (C.D. Cal., Feb. 2, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's practice of falsely advertising: -- the quantity of IPhone SE cellular telephones it has available in stock; and -- that the total price of a tablet was $0.99, upon a 14-day "risk free" purchase of IPhone SE and commitment two-year service contract, when in fact the purchase was not "risk free" and the total price was much higher, including fees and charges. AT&T Corp. provides voice, video, and data communications services to businesses, consumers, and governments worldwide. AT&T Corp. was formerly known as American Telephone & Telegraph Company and changed its name to AT&T Corp. in April 1994. The company was founded in 1877 and is based in Bedminster, New Jersey. AT&T Corp. operates as a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Arvin Ratanavongse, 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 aratanavongsess@toddflaw.com AUSTRALIA: $15K Spin Class Angers Williamtown RAAF Base Residents ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Fellner, writing for Newcastle Herald, reports that the Department of Defence has plunged thousands of dollars into a "media awareness" course, coaching staff on how to field questions over water contamination at its military bases. Tender documents show just under $15,000 was paid for the workshop -- run by a Victorian public relations firm called "Media Manoeuvres" -- at the end of last year. News of the spend has rubbed salt in the wound for residents living in the vicinity of the Williamtown RAAF Base. They have not received a cent in compensation following revelations Defence has polluted their properties with toxic per- and poly- fluoroalkyl (PFAS) chemicals. They are now pursuing a class action to claw back huge falls in property values. Lindsay Clout, of the Fullerton Cove Residents Action Group, was gobsmacked by the tender documents. He said it was not the dollar value of the course, but what it represented, that angered him most. "It is a confronting thing to read, considering the fight that we've had to fight and we're still not there," he said. "I ask myself why the hell do these people need media training to talk about the contamination, if all they need to do is to tell the truth?" He added that many residents had faced the daunting experience of being interviewed on national television and radio, without any professional training. A Defence spokesperson said its personnel were given training to support them in roles that require community or media engagement and public speaking. "The training conducted at the end of last year provided media skills to base support managers and estate facilities managers located within the South East geographic zone of the Estate & Infrastructure Group within Defence," they said. "As there are four sites in the South East Zone under PFAS investigations, the topic of water contamination was relevant to the attendees, and provided them the appropriate training for their role requirements. "Training and development courses for Defence employees do not impact Defence's ability and commitment to provide support to communities affected by PFAS contamination." Media Manoeuvres is directed by the former public relations manager for Crown Casino, Sam Elam. According to the company's website, its media awareness training teaches participants to "learn the danger zones and the repercussions of straying from their boundaries". "A good spokesperson will be able to address the media and stay on-message, whatever the question," the promotional material reads. Member for Paterson Meryl Swanson described the media coaching as "farcical". "All this does is cement less trust . . . we need less spin and more substance," she said. [GN] BALL METAL: Court Grants in Part Bid to Certify "Westfall" Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an Order granting in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned ROBERT WESTFALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORPORATION, a Colorado Corporation, and Does 1-20 inclusive, Defendant, No. 2:16-cv-02632-KJM-GGH (E.D. Cal.). The plaintiffs, hourly workers, move for class certification on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated former and current employees of defendant Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. (BALL) for several labor code violations. Named plaintiffs Robert Westfall, David Anderson and David Ellinger work as hourly-paid employees at BMBC's Fairfield plant, and named plaintiff Lynn Bobby was formerly employed at the plant as an hourly employee in the production department. Westfall works as an Electronic Technician, Anderson worked as an Electronic Technician and now works as a Machinist, Ellinger works as a Maintenance Worker, and Bobby worked as a Machinist/Mechanic. This putative class action arises from one central claim: Plaintiffs allege they were required to monitor pages that sounded over an intercom system at defendant's plant at all times while they were working, including during their meal and rest breaks, a practice they say constitutes a failure to provide breaks under California labor law. Plaintiffs ask the court to certify the following seven claims for class treatment: (1) failure to pay wages and/or overtime, California Labor Code Section 510, 1194 and 1199; (2) failure to provide meal periods and (3) failure to allow rest periods. (4) wage statement penalties (5) waiting time penalties, Plaintiffs seek certification of one class defined as: All former and current hourly employees of BALL who were employed at the Fairfield plaint in the production, engineering and/or support departments between September 7, 2012 and trial. Defendant objects to plaintiffs' evidence offered in support of the motion for certification, as set forth in the Declaration of Plaintiff Robert Westfall and the Declaration of Matthew Eason. Defendant relies on Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 602, 702, 801, 802 and 901 and Section 1401 of the California Evidence Code as its grounds for objection. Certification The Court first analyze whether the putative class meets the four threshold requirements of Rule 23(a) and then determine whether the class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(b). Numerosity A class must be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. In the instant case, there are approximately 140 to 150 members of the proposed class. The court finds that the proposed class satisfies the numerosity requirement, which is presumptively satisfied when there are at least forty members. Typicality The claims or defenses of the representative parties must be typical of the claims or defenses of the class. Plaintiffs argue the typicality prong of Rule 23 is satisfied because the representative plaintiffs work or worked as non-exempt, hourly employees and were required to listen to the public access/paging communication system and monitor for pages even when taking a break in the Suitable Resting Facility. The court finds the claims and defenses of the proposed class representatives Westfall, Anderson, Ellinger and Bobby are typical, and Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied. Adequacy Class representatives must be able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Although BMBC argues the named plaintiffs lack the ability to adequately represent the class, BMBC does not give adequate detail to show that there is any conflict of interest or other reason the named plaintiffs will not or cannot act vigilantly in prosecuting the action on behalf of the putative class. The court finds Rule 23(a)(4) is satisfied. Commonality and Predominance Rule 23(a) also requires questions of law or fact common to the class. Such questions exist where class members suffer the same alleged injury such that simultaneous litigation is productive, BMBC makes several arguments regarding the substantive merits of plaintiffs' claim and cites several cases to support its position. While the court looks to the merits of the plaintiff's underlying claim to determine whether commonality exists for the purposes of Rule 23, it does not, at this stage, judge the validity of plaintiffs'] claims. The court need not now inquire, as BMBC suggests, into whether or not plaintiffs' claims will ultimately prevail. It may of course consider merits challenges at the later summary judgment stage or on a motion to decertify the class at a later point in the case. The court finds common issues predominate here. Superiority Predominance of common questions does not alone justify approval of a class action, for another method of handling the case may be available which has greater practical advantages. Rule 23(b)(3) provides that superiority is determined by considering, for example, (A) the class members' interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing the class action. Regarding the first factor, here, the relatively small size of the putative class and likely relatively small individual claims asserted by plaintiffs do not make individual litigation attractive or sustainable. Additionally, defendant does not dispute this factor in its opposition. Thus, this factor favors certification. The second factor here, the parties have not described, and the court is not aware of any other related litigation. This factor favors certification. The third factor is the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation in this forum. The putative class comprises only those current and former employees at the Fairfield plant, located in this district. There is no basis for a non-California forum. Moreover, the entire class is presumably in this federal judicial district. This factor favors certification. The fourth factor weighs the likely difficulties in managing the class action. This is the only superiority factor BMBC disputes. Plaintiffs propose to conduct trial in two phases: the first to determine liability, and the second to determine damages. This class action is manageable due to plaintiffs proposed trial plan and the relatively small number of plaintiffs. On balance, application of the four factors suggests a class action is the superior means to try the common questions of law and fact that predominate here. Accordingly, plaintiffs have not provided sufficient evidence to allow certification on this issue. As to the first, second, third, sixth and seventh claims, the court finds plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b) to allow class certification. The court therefore grants in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to these claims, and otherwise denies the motion. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 5, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yas6vd9m from Leagle.com. Robert Westfall, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew R. Eason -- matthew@capcitylaw.com -- Eason & Tambornini. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation, a Colorado Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Ahearn -- cahearn@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP & Katherine P. Sandberg -- ksandberg@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP. BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Settles Sherwin Ponzi Scheme Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Courier Mail reports that Bank of Queensland has settled a class action involving victims scammed in the Ponzi scheme run by convicted fraudster Brad Sherwin -- but still denies wrongdoing. The settlement comes in a case involving BoQ and fund manager DDH Graham that started in 2016. [GN] BAUME & MERCIER: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baume & Mercier North America. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Baume & Mercier North America, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02074 (S.D. N.Y., March 7, 2018). Baume & Mercier North America is a manufacturer of affordable Luxury Swiss Watches since 1830.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. BEEKEEPER: Class Action Over Neonicotinoids Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------- Claire Loewen, writing for CBC News, reports that a Quebec class- action lawsuit against two producers of neonicotinoids -- commonly used insecticides that have been linked to a declining population of honeybees -- has been given the go-ahead to proceed to trial after by the Quebec Superior Court. The Feb. 20 ruling comes as global scientific evidence against the use of neonicotinoids mounts: a study published on Feb. 25 in Environmental Science and Pollution Research concluded that the insecticides are, for the most part, useless and ineffective. Neonicotinoids, also known as neonics, are nicotine-based pesticides widely used by farmers to help keep everything from field crops to fruit orchards free of pests such as aphids, spider mites and stink bugs. The lawsuit targets Bayer and Syngeta, two international neonicotinoid producers. Steve Martineau, a Quebec queen bee breeder, launched the suit after seeing more and more of his bees dying or being incapacitated, according to his lawyer Samy Elnemr. He conducted tests on the bees and found traces of neonicotinoids, his lawyer said. "We're suing on behalf of Quebec beekeepers whose bees were non- productive or killed," Mr. Elnemr said. Mr. Elnemr estimates that Mr. Martineau has lost about $20,000 due to the effects of neonicotinoids on his bee population. That's the amount the firm is seeking in damages through this case. Growing evidence against neonicotinoids There is a growing body of evidence linking the pesticides to the declining bee population. The latest to be published -- a review of 200 studies conducted in Europe -- concludes that neonicotinoids have "generally little effect on crop yield," as well as low efficiency, because bugs quickly develop a resistance to the pesticide. Representatives from the David Suzuki Foundation and Equiterre have also long pressed for stricter controls of the pesticide. However, in December, Health Canada limited but did not ban neonicotinoids, concluding they do not present an unacceptable risk to human health. Quebec places restrictions on pesticides On Feb. 19, the provincial government introduced new restrictions on pesticides considered harmful to honeybees, including neonicotinoids. Under the changes, farmers will have to get permission from a certified agronomist before using certain pesticides on crops. According to Mr. Elnemr, the timing of that decision and the authorization of Martineau's lawsuit is coincidental. "We're not seeking an injunction or anything; it's a straightforward damage case," he said. In addition to the Quebec class-action suit, Mr. Elnemr's firm is proceeding with a Canada-wide lawsuit against neonicotinoid manufacturers. Mr. Elnemr said his firm is now in preparation mode, and the case will likely not be before the courts anytime soon. "We are confident that once we get to trial that the science will show that these pesticides are harmful to bees and the losses are caused by the product," he said. [GN] BOSTON, MA: Madden Balks at Installation of Norton Billboards ------------------------------------------------------------- NORA MADDEN, and OTHERS, the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF BOSTON BOARD OF APPEAL, and its Members, CHRISTINE ARAUJO, MARK FORTUNE, PETER CHIN, BRUCE BICKERSTAFF, MARK ERLICH, and ANTHONY PISANI; STEPHANIE POLLACK, in her official capacity as Secretary and CEO of the MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER, in his official capacity as COMMISSIONER of the BOSTON INSPECTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT; 749 EB LLC, and MICHAEL O. NORTON, the Defendants, Case No. 18-645A (Mass. super. Ct., Feb. 26, 2018), seeks injunction prohibiting Norton from erecting any billboard or sign at the Locus pending resolution of this case. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, brings this action to appeal a decision of the Defendant Massachusetts Department of Transportation granting a permit to the Defendant Michael Norton for the erection of a billboard at 749 East Broadway Street, South Boston, Massachusetts (the "Locus"). The basis for this appeal is that the previous variance granted to Norton on August 6, 2013 by the Board of Appeals was abandoned by Defendant Norton and the underlying permit expired. The Plaintiff is also seeking to appeal a decision of the Commissioner of Boston Inspectional Services Department dated October 17, 2017. This decision exceeded the scope of the Commissioner's authority, and direct abutters and other aggrieved persons were given NO notice of this unilateral decision until after the expiration of the appeal period. Plaintiff also seeks equitable relief as the granted variance is now null and void as the permit has expired, and the prior nonconforming use has not been used for four years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Glen Hannington, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GLEN HANNINGTON Ten Post Office Square, 8th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 725 2828 E-mail: glenhaimmgton@aol.com BUFFALO TRACE: Court Narrows Claims in Bourbon Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, issued an Opinion Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned STEPHEN PENROSE, JAMES THOMAS, JOSEPH GUARDINO, and DANIEL POPE on behalf of themselves and all others similarlysituated, Plaintiffs, v. BUFFALO TRACE DISTILLERY, INC., OLD CHARTER DISTILLERY CO., and SAZERAC COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:17CV294 HEA (E.D. Mo.). Plaintiffs brought this putative class action alleging that Defendants misrepresented that Old Charter bourbon has been aged 8 years. Plaintiffs assert claims for violation, inter alia, of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (Count I), Deceptive Acts or Practices, New York Gen. Bus. Law Section 349 (Count II), False Advertising, New York Gen. Bus. Law Section 350. Defendants represent that Old Charter is an 8-year aged bourbon. That is false and misleading, the Plaintiffs allege. Old Charter used to be aged for 8 years, but Defendants stopped that practice in approximately January 2014. The bourbon bearing the Old Charter name is now aged for significantly less than 8 years and is of inferior quality to its former self. But in an attempt to upsell the newer, younger, and inferior product, Defendants' bottle labeling still misleads consumers to believe that the bourbon is aged 8 years. In examining a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court accepts all of Plaintiff's factual allegations as true and construes those allegations in Plaintiff's favour. To survive such a motion, Plaintiff's complaint must include sufficient factual allegations to provide the grounds on which the claim rests. Defendants argue no reasonable consumer would infer that Old Charter is aged for 8 years because of the number 8 alone. The Court cannot conclude as a matter of law and at this stage of the litigation that the packaging is not misleading, particularly in light of Plaintiffs' allegations that previously, Old Charter was aged 8 years. Consumers may just as likely have seen the 8, and based on previous purchase, thought the 8 represented the years of aging. Safe Harbor Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs Complaint is a prohibited attack on the Alcohol Tax and Trade Bureau's (TTB) approval of the Old Charter label statements. Defendants argue that in advertising cases, compliance with federal regulations that govern the alleged deception is a complete defense, citing Am. Home Prods. Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 672 F.Supp. 135, 144 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' Magnuson-Moss claim fails because bourbon's age is a description of the product and in no way promises any level of performance for any period of time, as required under the Magnuson-Moss act. Plaintiffs fail to address this argument, and the Court agrees that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to set forth what written warranty, as defined by the Act, Plaintiffs contend was breached. Count VI will be dismissed. Fraud Defendants contend Plaintiffs have not pled any specific facts but rather rely on generalized allegations that Defendants' intent was to induce Plaintiffs and the Class to purchase the product at issue. The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and concludes that it meets the standards of pleading with particularity as set forth in Rule 9(b) because it adequately alleges (i) the who: Old Charter; (ii) the what: the number 8 on the bottles of Old Charter in several spots; (iii) the when: purchases made beginning in January 2014 through the present; (iv) the where: on the label of Old Charter Bourbon; (v) and the how: by representing that Old Charter was aged 8 years. Thus, Defendants' motion to dismiss on Rule 9(b) grounds will be denied. Unjust Enrichment To establish the elements of an unjust enrichment claim, a plaintiff must show, (1) it conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2) the defendant appreciated the benefit; and (3) the defendant accepted and retained the benefit under circumstances that are inequitable or unjust. The core of Plaintiffs' Complaint is that Defendants' labeling practices mislead their consumers regarding the age of the bourbon, and therefore its quality. Consumers rely on Defendants' labels to be truthful and not misleading when making purchasing decisions, and they have a right to so rely. Plaintiffs claim they would not have purchased Defendants' product had they been aware of the false or misleading nature of Defendants' labels. Through this lens, it appears to this Court that it would be unjust to permit Defendants to retain the monetary benefit derived from Plaintiffs' purchases if, in fact, its labels are false or misleading. Thus, Plaintiff has successfully stated a claim for unjust enrichment. Nationwide class standing Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs have no standing to assert claims under other states' laws. The Court finds persuasive the majority of the authorities that follow the class certification approach, limiting the standing inquiry to the named plaintiff's individual standing, and deferring consideration of whether the plaintiff may represent others until a later stage. Here, the standing doctrine's focus on ensuring that a case or controversy exists has been satisfied with respect to Plaintiffs' individual claims. However, at this stage of the litigation, there is neither evidence nor briefing before the Court concerning Plaintiffs' ability to represent others under the requirements of Rule 23(a). Therefore, whether Plaintiffs may pursue claims on behalf of others is a question that is appropriately deferred. Negligent Misrepresentation The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs' failure to address the challenge to their negligent misrepresentation claim essentially concedes the failure to state a claim of negligent misrepresentation. Count IX will be dismissed. Express Warranty To prevail on breach of express warranty, a plaintiff is required to show that a seller: (1) sold goods to the plaintiff; (2) made a statement of fact about the kind or quality of those goods; (3) the statement was a material factor that induced the plaintiff's purchase; (4) the goods did not conform to that statement of fact; (5) the nonconformity injured the buyer, and; (6) the buyer notified the seller of the nonconformity of the goods in a timely manner. Plaintiff adequately pleaded a claim for breach of express warranty. The labels at issue in this case represent express warranties. The label tells purchasers that the bourbon has been aged for 8 seasons, which could be construed as years because of previous labeling. Plaintiffs allege that the products do not conform to that statement Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege reliance on the label and that they were material in making their purchasing decisions. Implied Warranty of Merchantability Claims that a defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability require that a plaintiff prove that defendant: (1) sold goods to the plaintiff; (2) that were not merchantable at the time of the sale; (3) the plaintiff suffered injury or damages to himself or his property; (4) the defective nature of the goods was the proximate cause of the harm, and; (5) plaintiff gave notice to the defendant. Nothing in Plaintiff's complaint indicates a lack of merchantability. They make only conclusory allegations that the products were not merchantable. The products at issue are food products, and Plaintiffs' allegations give no reason to believe that the products were unfit for their ordinary purpose: consumption as food by humans. Rather, Plaintiffs' Complaint is fundamentally premised on allegations that the products did not meet Plaintiffs' expectations. That is not sufficient to establish a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Count VII will be dismissed. Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Counts VI, VII, and IX are dismissed, without prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 5, 2018 Opinion Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd29ob7l from Leagle.com. Stephen Penrose, James Thomas, Joseph Guardino & Daniel Pope, on behalf of themselves and all others similary situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Yitzchak Kopel -- ykopel@bursor.com -- BURSOR AND FISHER, P.A. Buffalo Trace Distillery, Inc., Old Charter Distillery Co. & Sazerac Company, Inc., Defendants, represented by Michelle Carrie Doolin -- mdoolin@cooley.com -- COOLEY, LLP, William R. Bay -- wbay@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Brandi Lynne Burke, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, 505 N. 7th Street Saint Louis, MO, 63101-1612 & Darcie Allison Tilly -- dtilly@cooley.com -- COOLEY, LLP. BUILDING BLOCK: Fails to Pay Wages, "David-Colar" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- FLORINA DAVID-COLAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUILDING BLOCK RESOLUTIONS, INC.; JENNIFER CHARLES; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. BC694767 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 21, 2018) alleges that the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals with meal and rest periods, and to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants on April 15, 2017 to November 2017, as tutor for autistic children. Building Block Resolutions, Inc. provides Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) services to children diagnosed with Autism. The Company serve Los Angeles, Orange County, and surrounding areas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather Davis, Esq. Amir Nayebdadash, Esq. Kim N. Nguyen, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP 136 Main Street, Suite A El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 290-3095 Facsimile: (866) 264-7880 CANADA: Class Action Mulled to Push for Cannabis Amnesty -------------------------------------------------------- Asheley Rice, writing for Health Thoroughfare, reports that Falconers LLP lawyer Anthony Morgan's phone has been ringing off the hook. The calls coming in are parents of young black men who want to know if the cannabis possession charges hampering their son's lives are going to be expunged come cannabis legalization later this year. While the pressure is mounting, and the Liberal government has spoken about amnesty for past cannabis crimes, any move in this direction will likely be delayed until after legalization occurs. This isn't fast enough for members of black communities all over the country, which has prompted lawyers to consider filing a class-action lawsuit to keep the pressure on. Morgan, among others, is considering the option of litigation if the government is too slow to act on this proposal, saying, "They (the Liberals) are going to have to respond -- and it's probably best that they respond internally and in a proactive way, as opposed to a reactive way where much is spent on litigation to move this forward." Canadian black communities have a history fraught with trouble from cannabis, and amnesty could finally mark a break in the cycle. Morgan displayed his feelings in an analysis published in magazine Policy Options. As Black History Month has begun, the focus on this issue has been brought further into the light. Justin Trudeau has been joined by NDP leader Jagmeet Singh and author Robyn Maynard in expressing the need to tackle the very real issue of anti-black racism. Statistics show that blacks constitute 8.6 percent of all federal inmates, which is at odds with statistics showing that blacks only making up 3.5 percent of the general population. "In 2014, of almost 2,200 inmates with drug charges, 12 percent were black," voiced Robyn Maynard, who authored the book "Policing Black Lives." Statistics also show that the black community is in fact not more prone to using drugs than any other, which makes the number of blacks convicted on drug charges point to a failure of the policing system. Even Justin Trudeau himself openly admitted to cannabis use and has spoken about how his father assisted in helping his brother avoid cannabis charges. Revelations like these add fuel to the argument that treatment has not been fair or just. Assistant professor of sociology from the University of Toronto, Akwasi Owusu-Bempath has called for a federal apology regarding "discriminatory and disparate treatment, "as well as amnesty for past cannabis convictions. The so-called "War on Drugs" of the 1980's and 90's set the stage for the historical link between black communities and drug usage. Anthony Morgan recalls being asked for drugs on a repeated basis because of his skin colour while he was in school, and says his experiences are quite common for young black males. With the introduction of the Cannabis Act in April of last year, the Liberal government has been pressured to come up with a suitable amnesty program to account for the disproportionate effects on minorities. There is currently no timeline for cannabis amnesty to be rolled out, but the government is looking at all legal implications. Bill Blair stated that all discussion so far has centered on crimes of cannabis possession, and not cannabis trafficking. It would be detrimental for the government to act slowly towards amnesty for cannabis, as holding onto any records or convictions would be pointless. However, it is important to determine a framework of what convictions are eligible, how to roll out the pardons and how to help those affected integrate or find work. A potential idea is that those who have had their work affected by cannabis convictions may find employment in the cannabis industry, as cannabis companies are already hiring people with prior experience. It's a new field, and innovation will be key, but with a guided and compassionate approach -- the government has the power to change a lot of lives for the better. [GN] CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Regan" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management Services, LP. The case is styled as Kristin Regan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital Management Services, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01412 (E.D. N.Y., March 7, 2018). Capital Management Services L.P. is a nationally licensed and recognized collections agency, providing the highest level of delinquent receivables resolution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C Cohen, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: dan@cml.legal CASH BIZ: Ruling Blocks Borrowers to Pursue Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- John Council, writing for Law.com, reports that in an 8-0 decision, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a payday lender did not waive civil litigation arbitration agreements it had with customers by seeking criminal charges against them -- landing some of the borrowers in jail. The recent ruling in Henry v. Cash Biz blocked a group of plaintiffs from pursuing a class action suit in Texas state district court against Cash Biz, a now bankrupt payday lender that borrowers allege wrongfully used the criminal justice system to collect unpaid loans by filing false criminal charges. As is normal practice with payday loans, Cash Biz required borrowers to provide a post-dated check in the amount of the loan plus the finance charge. If a borrower defaulted, Cash Biz deposited the post-dated check to satisfy the loan. As part of the process for obtaining a loan, borrowers signed a written agreement containing an arbitration provision in which they agreed to give up their right to go to court over any dispute involving the loan and prevented the arbitrator from hearing class arbitration cases. The plaintiffs in the case obtained loans from Cash Biz and subsequently defaulted on their repayment obligations. Cash Biz attempted to deposit their posted-dated checks but the checks were declined for insufficient funds. Cash Biz later pursued bad check criminal charges against the borrowers. The criminal charges were eventually dismissed against some of the borrowers but several were arrested and detained and were assessed jail time as punishment. The plaintiffs later filed a class action case against Cash Biz in a Texas state court alleging the payday lender wrongfully used the criminal justice system to collect the payday loans in violation of the Texas Finance Code, malicious prosecution and fraud among other things. Cash Biz responded by filing a motion to compel arbitration under the contracts they had with the plaintiff borrowers in order to remove the case from state court. The trial court denied Cash Biz's motion to compel arbitration after concluding the lender had waived its right to arbitration by filing criminal charges against the plaintiffs and participating in criminal trails to collect from them. But San Antonio's Fourth Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, reasoning that because the plaintiffs' actions fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement that Cash Biz's filing a criminal complaint was not an act that substantially invoked the judicial process. And the Texas Supreme Court affirmed that Fourth Court's decision after concluding the record did not reflect that Cash Biz had actually filed criminal charges against borrowers. Rather, the high court noted an affidavit from a Cash Biz representative named David Flanagan who stated that "Cash Biz simply left the information entirely to the discretion of the district attorney" and any action was made "completely on his/her own." "The borrowers simply provided no evidence of any actions by Cash Biz related to the criminal charges other than evidence that Cash Biz was the complainant in them," wrote Justice Phil Johnson. "This evidence alone does not meet the borrowers' burden to prove that Cash Biz substantially invoked the judicial process." Justice Johnson also noted that their opinion conflicts with Vine v. PLS Financial Services, a 2017 per curiam decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that reached the opposite conclusion. In that case the Fifth Circuit ruled that a payday lender had waived its right to an enforce arbitration provision it had with borrowers by submitting bad check affidavits to prosecuting attorneys. "With due respect, and recognizing that it is important for federal and state law to be as consistent as possible in this area where we have concurrent jurisdiction, we agree with the dissenting justice in Vine," Justice Johnson wrote. "We conclude, as he did, that although some lenders may be 'gaming the system' by taking actions like the lenders took there and Cash Biz took here, more is required for waiver of a contractual right to arbitrate." Ed Hubbard, a Houston attorney who represents Cash Biz on appeal, said the Texas high court made the right call. "This was an 8-0 opinion. As controversial as some people may have think this was, it really wasn't when it comes to enforcing arbitration law," Mr. Hubbard said. "What you have to keep in perspective here is the criminal and civil systems are completely different. And these are two completely different matters," Mr. Hubbard said of the bad-check cases and the plaintiffs civil complaint. "There are parallel civil and criminal proceedings that go on all of the time in this country and if the civil dispute is arbitrable -- if it's subject to an arbitration agreement -- it is arbitrable." Daniel Dutko, a Houston attorney who represents the borrowers in the case, did not return a call for comment. It's now up to an arbitrator to decide whether the plaintiffs deserve recourse, Hubbard said. "The arbitrator will decide the plaintiff's claim whether this was an improper method of debt collection -- I would assume that would be the central issue in front of the arbitrator," he said. [GN] CASMOS CAFE: Faces "Dicarlo" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------ David Dicarlo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Casmos Cafe, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00802-RBS (E.D. Pa., Feb. 20, 2018), alleges Defendant's violation of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The case is assigned to Judge R. Barclay Surrick. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP PLLC 30 East 39th Street Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeals Arbitration Ruling in "Dorman" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case, Michael F. Dorman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Charles Schwab Corporation; Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.; Schwab Retirement Plan Services, Inc; Charles Schwab Bank; Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc.; Walter W. Bettinger III; Charles R. Schwab; Joseph R. Martinetto; Martha Tuma; Jay Allen; Dave Callahan and John C. Clark, has filed an appeal from a ruling by the U.S. District Court for Northern California, Oakland (Case No. 4:17-cv-00285-CW) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appellate case is assigned Case No. 18-15281 (Cal. App., Feb. 21, 2018). As reported by the Class Action Reporter, the District Court issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case. Before the Court is Defendant's motion to compel individual arbitration of Plaintiff Michael F. Dorman's claims against Defendants and to stay or dismiss this action while the arbitration is pending. Alternatively, Defendants move to stay the action pending a ruling by the Supreme Court in Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016). Dorman was employed at Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. for six years, until he left the company. Shortly after starting his employment, he completed a Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (Form U-4), which is required for all registered representatives under the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) rules. Dorman electronically signed an Acknowledgment of the Schwab Investor Financial Consultant Compensation Plan (Compensation Plan Acknowledgment). The Compensation Plan describes the compensation structure of a financial consultant (FC) like Dorman. The Acknowledgment contains a section entitled 11.0 Arbitration of Disputes. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides that any agreement within its scope shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. The FAA represents a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreement, notwithstanding any state substantive or procedural policies to the contrary. Defendants contend that the Plan Document, Form U-4, and the Compensation Plan Acknowledgment are valid agreements that require arbitration under the FAA. Defendants provide no authority supporting their contention that a plan document executed after the participant has ceased participation in the plan can bind the participant to arbitration. But there is no indication that the plan's mandatory arbitration clause was enacted after the plaintiff ceased all participation in the plan. The remaining cases cited by Defendants are similarly unavailing because, in each case, the plan document was in effect while the plaintiff participated in the plan. The Plan Document therefore does not bind Dorman. Defendants argue that Form U-4's arbitration provision encompasses Dorman's claims because the provision covers any dispute, claim or controversy between Dorman and Schwab. Defendants read this provision out of context. The arbitration provision does not apply to any dispute between Dorman and Schwab, but only those that are required to be arbitrated under the rules, constitutions, or by-laws of the SROS indicated in Section 4. Section 4 of Form U-4 lists a number of SROs, or self- regulatory organizations such as FINRA, but mentions nothing whatsoever about the Plan. Defendants fail to explain adequately why the language of this provision encompasses Dorman's claims. The Compensation Plan Acknowledgment arbitration and class action provisions are limited to claims arising out of or relating to the financial consultant's employment or the termination of employment. Dorman's claims, which arise not under the Compensation Plan but under the SchwabPlan, are therefore governed by the claims procedures of the SchwabPlan. Because the arbitration provisions cited by Defendants do not encompass Dorman's claims, they do not require him to submit his claims to arbitration. Even if the arbitration provisions cited by Defendants encompassed Dorman's claims, the provisions could not be enforced. Dorman brings his claims pursuant to Sections 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3) on behalf of the plan. He cannot waive rights that belong to the Plan, such as the right to file this action in court. The Court recently resolved this question in a similar case, Cryer v. Franklin Templeton Res., Inc., 2017 WL 4410103 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2017). There, a release and class action waiver signed by the plaintiff could not be enforced against the plaintiff's Section 502(a)(2) claims brought on behalf of the plan. Relying on Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1999), the Court explained that a plan participant cannot settle, without the plan's consent, a Section 502(a)(2) breach of fiduciary duty claim seeking a return to the plan and all participants of all losses incurred and any profits gained from the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. Here, too, enforcement of the arbitration and class action provisions would violate the principles set forth in Bowles v. Reade. Dorman brings Sections 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3) claims seeking to restore losses incurred by the Plan. As a result, he cannot release the right to file a claim in court or the right to file a class action, both of which belong to the Plan. The Court denies Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 18, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yayq995r from Leagle.com. The Charles Schwab Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides wealth management, securities brokerage, banking, asset management, custody, and financial advisory services. The company serves individuals and institutional clients in the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, England, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Australia. The Charles Schwab Corporation was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shanon Jude Carson, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 - and - Todd Collins, Esq. BERGER& MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 - and - Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 7702 E. Doubletree Ranch Road Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Telephone: (480) 607-4368 The Defendants are represented by: Ronald Scott Kravitz, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 429-5272 - and - Myron D. Rumeld, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 11 Times Square New York, NY 10036-8299 Telephone: (212) 969-3000 - and - Howard Shapiro, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE 650 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 310-4085 CHERRY CHIROPRACTIC: Curtis & Salas Allege Wrongful Termination --------------------------------------------------------------- Brittany Curtis and Belinda Salas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cherry Chiropractic Corporation; Joint Ventures, LLC; and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00227493-CU-WT-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 21, 2018) alleges wrongful termination. A Case Management Conference is scheduled for August 23, 2018, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 23 at Gordon D Schaber Courthouse. Cherry Chiropractic is located in Sacramento, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Galen T. Shimoda, Esq. CHICAGO EDUCATION BOARD: Minors Sue over Handicapped Child Act -------------------------------------------------------------- E. V.; G. G.; R. L.; J. B.; S. C.; J. M.; O. L.; M. P.; Victoria G.; Hector P.; Aixia H.; Carlos V.; Asencion G.; Mireya L.; Miriam B.; Christy C.; Rosalba C.; Xi Long L.; Izabela P. for themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Board Of Education Of The City Of Chicago; Janice Jackson, Dr., Chief Executive Officer, in her official capacity; Illinois State Board Of Education; Tony Smith, Dr. State Superintendent of Education, in his official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00621 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 29, 2018) is a class action against the Defendants for violating the Education Handicapped Child Act. The Board of Education of The City of Chicago engages in the governance, organizational, and financial oversight of Chicago Public Schools (CPS) in the United States. The company was founded in 1840 and is based in Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Donna M. Welch, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 E-mail: dwelch@kirkland.com - and - Olga Frances Pribyl, Esq. EQUIP FOR EQUALITY 20 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 895-7321 E-mail: olga@equipforequality.org - and - Alec Jason Solotorovsky, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-7173 E-mail: alec.solotorovsky@kirkland.com - and - Barry Charlton Taylor, Esq. EQUIP FOR EQUALITY 20 North Michigan, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 895-7317 E-mail: barryt@equipforequality.org - and - Jennifer Molly Pinsof, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North Lasalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 E-mail: jennifer.pinsof@kirkland.com - and - Margaret Mcauslan Wakelin, Esq. EQUIP FOR EQUALITY 20 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 895-7338 E-mail: margie@equipforequality.org - and - Margo L. Weinstein, Esq. EQUIP FOR EQUALITY 20 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 341-0022 E-mail: margow@equipforequality.org COMMONWEALTH BANK: Denies Liability in Shareholder Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reports that Commonwealth Bank has denied liability in a shareholder class action alleging it breached continuous disclosure obligations with its handling of AUSTRAC's investigations into its compliance with money- laundering and terrorism-funding laws. Australia's largest bank on Feb. 23 partially admitted to 11 of the 100 additional allegations in the amended statement of claim filed by AUSTRAC in December, but denied misleading shareholders by not revealing the regulator's concerns when it was first alerted to them in 2015. "We consider that we have complied with our continuous disclosure obligations at all times," CBA said in a statement. "There was no price sensitive information about the matters raised in the AUSTRAC proceeding that required disclosure." Law firm Maurice Blackburn filed the class action in the Federal Court in Victoria in October, naming chairman Catherine Livingstone and outgoing chief executive Ian Narev in its statement of claim. Maurice Blackburn said CBA publicly confessed that its board was aware of the breaches in the second half of 2015, but the bank said nothing to the Australian share market until August 2017. Commonwealth Bank shares were 98 cents, or 1.3 per cent, higher at $75.63 at 1448 AEDT, still lower than before AUSTRAC's allegations were made public. CBA on Feb. 23 also denied 89 of the additional 100 allegations AUSTRAC filed in December, but partially admitted to the remainder involving late, missing or incomplete reports about potentially suspicious transactions. The lender in February reported a 1.9 per cent fall in first-half profit after setting aside $375 million for potential penalties in its Federal Court tussle with AUSTRAC. [GN] CONNECT AMERICA: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hobbs" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Hobbs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Connect America.com, LLC, a/k/a Medical Alert, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00768-NIQA (E.D. Pa., Feb. 20, 2018) alleges that Defendant has made unsolicited calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Connect America.com, LLC provides mobile medical alert systems. The Company offers medical alert system kit including alert mobile unit, plug in battery charger, and instruction manual. Connect America.com serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cynthia Z. Levin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC 1150 First Avenue Suite 501 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (888) 595-9111 E-mail: czlevin@comcast.net CRESCENT HOTELS: Faces "Levin" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crescent Hotels & Resorts, LLC. The case is captioned as Joanne Kleiner Levin, as legal guardian of Joy Barbara Levin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Crescent Hotels & Resorts, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00741-RK (E.D. Pa., Feb. 20, 2018). Crescent Hotels & Resorts, LLC, a hotel management company, operates hotels and resorts in the United States and Canada. Crescent Hotels & Resorts, LLC was formerly known as Crescent Hospitality Corporation and changed its name to Crescent Hotels & Resorts, LLC in September 2006. The company was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburg, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9293 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com CSX TRANSPORTATION: Blount Cty. Train Crash Evacuees Settle Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Satterfield, writing for USA TODAY NETWORK, reports that a group of Blount County residents forced to evacuate when a 2015 train derailment sent plumes of toxic gas into the air have settled lawsuits with the railroad company but are now looking to wring damages from a rail car maker. A trial was set to begin on Feb. 26, in U.S. District Court over a July 2015 freight train derailment in Maryville that sent poisonous smoke into the air and more than 100 people to the hospital. A broken axle on a single rail car hauling 24,000 gallons of a toxic chemical derailed the 57-car train, causing a fire that burned for 19 hours, authorities said. About 5,000 people in a 2-mile radius in Blount County were forced to evacuate their homes. At least 87 people had to be treated, with 36 admitted to the hospital, and 10 first- responders also required treatment for the effects of exposure to the noxious smoke. A fish kill was later reported, and area wells tested. The rail car was carrying a chemical, acrylonitrile, used in the manufacture of plastics. The substance is considered carcinogenic, and exposure can burn the skin, inflame the lining of the lungs, throat and nose, and cause headaches, nausea and dizziness. Cyanide is a byproduct of burning acrylonitrile. CSX paid more than $3.5 million in damages to evacuated citizens and business owners whose firms were shut down for economic losses and medical bills and to the governments of Maryville and Blount County for its expenses. Lawsuits, claims But two categories of Blount County citizens -- residents of the evacuation zone and emergency and police workers -- filed lawsuits against the railroad company and Union Tank Car Co. The emergency workers allege actual damages from exposure to the toxic gas. Their cases were not part of the Feb. 26 trial in Chief U.S. District Judge Tom Varlan's courtroom and will be tried later. The trial, instead, would involve three lawsuits filed on behalf of 10 residents of the evacuation zone, none of whom allege direct damage from exposure to the poisonous smoke. There are a half-dozen similar suits still pending. Judge Varlan refused to grant class-action status in the litigation, which would have allowed a single trial on behalf of anyone in the evacuation zone claiming harm. Court records show they've already settled with CSX, which was accused of negligence for, among other things, dragging the rail car carrying the toxic chemicals nearly 10 miles after an axle on the car broke. The dragging caused the rail car to rupture and catch fire, the lawsuits alleged. The terms of the settlement were not made public in court records. Now, the residents are targeting Union Tank Car Company, which manufactured the rail car at issue in 1994. They allege a wheel roller bearing on the rail car "failed due to overheating" and blame the tank car company for that. Union Tank Car, in turn, says it was up to CSX to inspect the condition of the rail car before the train left Ohio en route to Georgia. [GN] DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: April 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP regarding In re DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., C.A. No. 12619-CB (Del. Ch.) IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG, INC. C.A. No. 12619-CB SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: All record holders and beneficial holders of DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. ("DreamWorks") Class A common stock ("DreamWorks Common Stock") whose shares of DreamWorks Common Stock were exchanged for $41.00 per share in cash paid in connection with the acquisition of DreamWorks by Comcast Corporation (the "Settlement Class").1 PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2) and an Order of the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court"), that the above-captioned action (the "Action") has been preliminarily certified as a non-opt out class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement and the full printed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Long-Form Notice"). Copies of the Stipulation and the Long-Form Notice are available for review at www.DreamWorksLitigation.com. YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action, on behalf of themselves and the other members of the Settlement Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $4,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement") on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement. If the Settlement is approved by the Court, it will resolve all claims in the Action. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT. A Postcard Notice is currently being mailed to known members of the Settlement Class, and the Long-Form Notice is available at www.DreamWorksLitigation.com or by contacting the Settlement Administrator at: DreamWorks Stockholders Litigation c/o GCG PO Box 10560 Dublin, OH 43017-7260 1-800-231-1815 Inquiries, other than requests for the Postcard Notice, may be made to following Co-Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class: Michael J. Barry, Esq. Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 1-302-622-7000 Michael C. Wagner, Esq. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 1-610-667-7706 A Settlement Hearing will be held on April 18, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. at the Court of Chancery in the Leonard L. Williams Justice Center (formerly New Castle County Courthouse), 500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, to determine, among other things, (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation of Settlement (and in the Long-Form Notice) should be granted; and (iii) whether Co-Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to the Settlement Class on a pro rata basis. Specifically, each beneficial owner of any shares of DreamWorks Common Stock as of the closing of the August 22, 2016 Merger (except for the Excluded Persons) ("Eligible Beneficial Owner") will receive a pro rata distribution from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the product of (i) the Net Settlement Fund and (ii) a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of Eligible Shares held by such Settlement Class Member, and the denominator of which is a number representing the total number of Eligible Shares held by all Eligible Beneficial Owners (the "Per-Share Recovery"). As explained in further detail in the Long-Form Notice, which is available for review at www.DreamWorksLitigation.com, the Per Share Recovery will be paid to Eligible Beneficial Owners in the same manner in which Eligible Beneficial Owners received the Merger Consideration. Eligible Beneficial Owners do not have to submit a claim form or take any other action in order to receive payment from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement and/or Co-Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, must be filed with the Register in Chancery and delivered to Representative Co-Lead Counsel and Representative Defendant's Counsel such that they are received no later than April 9, 2018, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Long-Form Notice. DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER IN CHANCERY REGARDING THIS NOTICE. BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE Dated: January 17, 2018 1 Any capitalized terms used herein that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise and Release dated January 9, 2018 (the "Stipulation of Settlement"), which is available at www.DreamWorksLitigation.com. [GN] DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces "Alexander" Suit in S.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Ashley Alexander, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, LVNV Funding, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00730 (S.D. Tex., March 7, 2018). Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC is engaged in collecting debt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan David Kandelshein, Esq. The Law Office of Jonathan Kandelshein 18208 Preston Rd, Ste D-9 No. 256 Dallas, TX 75252 Tel: (646) 753-0149 Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces "Romero" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Jasmine Romero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC and Cavalry SPV I, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-02069 (S.D. N.Y., March 7, 2018). Dynamic Recovery Solutions, also called DRS, is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. EMERY FEDERAL: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ Chandra Lye, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that preliminary approval has been given to a class action settlement involving Emery Federal Credit Union. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Cincinnati Division granted the motion on Jan. 25. The settlement follows a lawsuit filed by Frank and Shelly Palombaro; Kevin and Jennifer McAlpin; Gary Ratcliff and David and Melinda Alvarado; and others who took out a mortgage from the credit union between 2009 and 2014. They claimed the financial institution violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and had an unethical relationship with Genuine Title LLC, a title services company. "The court finds that the settlement was reached through an arms- length negotiation after due investigation and discovery by the plaintiffs' counsel and that the settlement provides significant benefits for the Emery class," Judge Susan Dlott wrote. The court document states that notices will go out to the last known address of all those who may be covered by the settlement. "Members of the Emery class shall have the right to opt-out of the Emery class, as provided for in section 9 of the settlement agreement, by sending a written request for exclusion to the settlement administrator no later than the exclusion deadline defined in this order," the order approving the settlement says. Plaintiffs attorneys are from the firms Smith, Gildea and Schmidt; Joseph Greenwald and Laake; Keathing Muething & Klekamp. They will later petition for attorneys fees. Individuals who do not send in a request for exclusion will be automatically included in the settlement. However, there is a clause that allows Emery to back out of the agreement if enough exclusions are reached. "If more than five percent of the members of the Emery Class submit complete and valid requests for exclusion, Emery shall have the option to withdraw from the settlement upon written notice to the court, filed up to thirty days after the exclusion deadline," the court order states. Those party to the agreement have also been given the option to oppose it as it stands. "Emery class members who choose to object to the settlement must file written objections to the settlement with the court and serve copies of any such objections on counsel for settling parties by not later than the objection deadline," the order states. A final hearing is expected on July 10 at 10 a.m. at the courthouse. Judge Dlott wrote that at the Final Fairness Hearing, the court will consider, inter alia, "any timely objections to the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement, the dismissal with prejudice of this action, whether class counsel's petition for attorneys fees and expenses should be granted," and other issues. The court order also states that if the agreement fails to receive final approval it becomes null and void. Kurtzman Carson Consultants has been named the settlement administrator while Frank and Shelly Palombaro, Kevin and Jennifer McAlpin, Gary Ratcliff and David and Melinda Alvarado are class representatives of the Emery class. The Emery Federal Credit Union first opened in 1939 for those employed by Emery Industries. It expanded in 1984 and again in 2016. The financial organization can now be used by anyone in the Hamilton, Butler or Warren counties of Ohio. [GN] EQUIFAX INC: Amy Keller Named Co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel --------------------------------------------------------- Chris Bruce, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that pick any two people at random, and odds are good that one of them is affected by a case now in the hands of attorney Amy E. Keller. Ms. Keller -- akeller@dlcfirm.com -- a 34-year-old partner with DiCello Levitt & Casey in Chicago whom legal colleagues call a "rising superstar," was recently named as co-lead consumer plaintiffs' counsel with two other lawyers in a massive court case stemming from the 2017 data breach at Atlanta-based Equifax Inc. Equifax, in announcing the incident last year, said as many as 143 million U.S. consumers could be impacted, raising privacy and security questions for nearly half of the U.S. The case against Equifax is about more than numbers, according to Keller, who said the information that was accessed, such as Social Security numbers, is the kind that can't be changed. That means it will have lasting impact in ways that other breaches don't or can't have, Ms. Keller told Bloomberg Law. "This is something that has impacted and will impact peoples' daily lives for a very long time," she said. Equifax Discloses Intrusion Equifax, one of the three major U.S. consumer credit reporting agencies, disclosed the incident in September 2017, saying criminals gained access to certain files between mid-May and July of 2017. A flood of class lawsuits that followed are now before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), a special body that allows consolidated treatment of cases in different federal districts that share common questions. On Feb. 13, Keller was named as co-lead counsel for the consumer plaintiffs before the MDL Panel, along with Kenneth S. Canfield -- kcanfield@dsckd.com -- of Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles in Atlanta, and Norman E. Siegel -- siegel@stuevesiegel.com -- of Stueve Siegel Hanson in Kansas City, Mo. In general, their job is to manage pre-trial proceedings on behalf of consumer plaintiffs, while overseeing the work of other plaintiffs' counsel and taking on other duties as needed, such as coordinating settlement discussions. Ms. Keller said one early focus is to ensure that the case has plaintiffs from all 50 states, saying the U.S. Supreme Court has set a high bar for nationwide class actions. Among other next steps, she and other attorneys will be looking at the universe of plaintiffs who have filed claims and trying to figure out who can serve as the best representatives of the class. Ms. Keller is "an exceptional choice" as co-lead counsel, Jason L. Lichtman, a partner in the New York office of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, told Bloomberg Law. "She's smart, tough, and practical with opposing counsel, and she is one of the most talented people I know when it comes to the nuts and bolts of actually managing a case and moving it forward efficiently," said Mr. Lichtman, who also represents consumers in litigation against Equifax. Equifax spokeswoman Francesca De Girolami declined to comment on the MDL proceedings. Breaking Barriers Ms. Keller's firm, DiCello, Levitt & Casey, is a plaintiffs' law firm with offices in Chicago and Cleveland that opened for business in April 2017. Ms. Keller graduated from the John Marshall Law School in Chicago in 2008, and settled into class action work right away. "Being able to help people -- on such a large scale -- really resonated with me," she said. She's critical of mandatory binding arbitration clauses and waivers that limit class actions, as well as efforts to cap damages on jury awards and other relief. The rights of consumers have eroded in recent years and access to the courts is being limited, she said. "The American justice system works best when government and private civil enforcement actions can proceed in tandem, ensuring that wrongdoers are punished, and individuals can seek redress for their injuries," Ms. Keller said. For Ms. Keller, being tapped as co-lead counsel in the Equifax case means she'll be representing more people than ever before. The appointment is important for others as well because the MDL culture has been an "old boys' club" for a long time, according to Keller. That's changing as courts recognize the need to bring differing perspectives to large, complex cases, she said. "The millions of consumers we are representing in this case include women, minorities, and younger consumers, so it only makes sense that the attorneys representing them should have the same diverse experiences to draw from," she said. Writer, Dancer, and Singer Ms. Keller sits on the board of directors of the Public Justice Foundation, which supports what it calls "high-impact" lawsuits to combat social and economic injustice, including suits by Public Justice P.C. F. Paul Bland Jr., executive director of Public Justice P.C., called Keller a force to reckon with among class action lawyers. "She's got a deep and thoughtful understanding of the most difficult issues in consumer class actions," Mr. Bland told Bloomberg Law. That will be important in this case, according to Bland, who said its sheer size may affect efforts to gain relief for those affected. "This case is on such an incredibly large scale I think it will be a challenge to get compensatory relief commensurate with the harm the company's behavior has caused," Mr. Bland told Bloomberg Law. Ms. Keller didn't always aim for class action work. Early on, she planned to practice historical preservation law, in part after seeing the planned or actual renovation of buildings she knew well and the potential loss of elaborate woodwork and craftsmanship. However, she's still engaged on that front as a board member of the Chicago Art Deco Society, which works to preserve and restore Art Deco-style structures in Chicago. She's also active in a different artistic setting. Keller, along with other attorneys in Chicago, has secured Youtube star-status as a writer, dancer, and singer in the Chicago Bar Association Bar Show, an annual music and comedy production that's now in its 95th year. "It might be hard to believe, but many attorneys are very creative people," Ms. Keller told Bloomberg Law. "Being able to perform and put on a show that makes light of current events and makes people laugh is rewarding and a great outlet." [GN] EQUIFAX INC: "Krueger" Suit Reassigned to Another Judge ------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Perez Krueger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant, was reassigned due to self-recusal, from Judge Christina A. Snyder to Judge Otis D. Wright, II, and assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01402-ODW (C.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2018). Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. It operates in the United States, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Uruguay, Peru, Portugal, the Republic of Ireland, Spain, the United Kingdom, Cambodia, Malaysia, India, Russia, and Singapore. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis J Flynn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS J FLYNN JR 6220 West Third Street Suite 115 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: (323) 424-4194 E-mail: francisflynnn@gmail.com ETEAM INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Villalva" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Brittney Villalva, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. eTeam, Inc.; Accenture, Inc.; and Does 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 18CV323570 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 20, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Ms. Villalva was employed by the Defendants to work as a call center employee at Google in San Jose, California. eTeam, Inc. provides business and information solutions to Fortune 1000 clients, government agencies, large integrators, and IT consulting firms in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in South Plainfield, New Jersey with additional offices in the United States, Canada, and India. Accenture, Inc. offers management consulting, systems integration and technology, and outsourcing services. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois with a delivery center in Ilocos Norte, the Philippines. Accenture, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Accenture Holdings plc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. KARASIK LAW FIRM 11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1275 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 312-6800 Facsimile: (310) 943-2582 E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com FACEBOOK INC: Settles Class Action Over 2012 IPO for $35-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Facebook Inc and Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg have reached a $35 million settlement of class-action litigation accusing them of hiding worries about the social media company's growth prior to its May 2012 initial public offering. The preliminary settlement filed on Feb. 26 with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan requires a judge's approval. It amounts to a small fraction of Facebook's current market value, which was more than $532 billion on Feb. 23. Shareholders led by the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association in California accused Facebook of concealing internal concerns about how growth in mobile devices might reduce revenue, even as it quietly warned its banks to cut their forecasts. Unlike in 2012, the Menlo Park, California-based company now generates most of its revenue from mobile devices and has estimated that mobile advertising generated more than 86 percent of its $40.7 billion total revenue in 2017. The settlement resolves claims against Facebook, officials including Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg and director Peter Thiel, and bank underwriters covering a five-day period surrounding the $16 billion IPO, from May 17 to May 21, 2012. Facebook made its market debut on May 18 of that year at $38 per share and saw its share price languish below that level for more than a year before it rebounded. "Resolving this case is in the best interests of the company and our shareholders," Associate General Counsel Sandeep Solanki said in a statement. A lawyer for the shareholders did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The settlement was reached after mediation, and provides an average recovery of about 11 cents per share, or 7 cents per share after possible legal fees and costs, court papers show. Insurers may cover some of the payout. Lawyers for the shareholders called the settlement "fair, reasonable, and adequate," citing the risk of a loss at trial, according to court papers. In the Feb. 26 afternoon trading, Facebook shares were up 93 cents at $184.22 on the Nasdaq. The case is In re: Facebook Inc IPO Securities and Derivative Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 12-md-02389. [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Must Face Class Action Over Biometric Facial Data --------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that rejecting suggestions on how the Founding Fathers might view modern digital privacy rights, a federal judge on Feb. 22 refused to dismiss a class action claiming Facebook harvested users' biometric facial data without consent. In 2016, Facebook attorneys argued in court that the authors of the U.S. Constitution never intended that people be allowed to sue Facebook in federal court for the mere violation of a law, unless the plaintiffs suffered actual harm. U.S. District Judge James Donato rejected that argument on Feb. 26, finding Facebook's allegedly unauthorized collection of biometric facial data caused "intangible harm" by depriving users of control over their private data. The social network sought to dismiss three consolidated class actions brought by Facebook users in Illinois. The lawsuits claim Facebook's analyzing and storing of facial data for its "Photo Tag Suggest" function violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), enacted in 2008. Under BIPA, companies are required to obtain consent before collecting or disclosing biometric data, such as retina scans, fingerprints, voiceprints, hand scans, or facial geometry. "A violation of the BIPA notice and consent procedures infringes the very privacy rights the Illinois legislature sought to protect by enacting BIPA," Judge Donato wrote in his 10-page ruling. "That is quintessentially an intangible harm that constitutes a concrete injury in fact." Judge Donato delayed ruling on Facebook's motion to dismiss for more than a year as he waited for the Ninth Circuit to issue an opinion in the remanded case, Robins v. Spokeo. In Spokeo, the Supreme Court ruled in May 2016 that a Virginia man could not sue an online search engine for posting inaccurate information about him unless he suffered actual harm as a result. On remand, the Ninth Circuit held in August 2017 that Robins could sue Spokeo because misinformation about his age, family and economic status caused "concrete" harm that could affect his ability to get a job, unlike more innocuous misinformation like a wrong zip code. "Our circuit has specifically affirmed findings of concrete injury, and standing to sue, when plaintiffs were deprived of procedures that protected privacy interests without any attendant embarrassment, job loss, stress or other additional injury," Judge Donato wrote in his ruling. Facebook has argued that its user agreement and data policy fully complied with the Illinois privacy law. Judge Donato found that factual dispute must be decided at summary judgment or trial. The judge denied Facebook's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification is scheduled for March 29 in San Francisco. Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment on Feb. 26. The plaintiffs are represented by Paul Geller -- PGeller@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, in Boca Raton, Florida. Facebook is represented by Vincent Connelly -- vconnelly@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown, in Chicago. Cofounded in 2004 by Harvard dropout and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, the Menlo Park-based social network had 1.4 billion active daily users as of December 2017 and was valued at $407.3 billion as of May 2017, according to Facebook and Forbes. [GN] FEDERAL AUTO: Double Charged on Document Fees, "Higgs" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DARIUS E. HIGGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL AUTO BROKERS, INC., d/b/a BM MOTORS CARS; and BORIS FIDELMAN, Defendants, Case No. ESX-L-001272-18 (N.J. Super., Essex Cty., Feb. 21, 2018) alleges that Defendants double charged the amount of the Document Delivery Service due for customers' vehicles when they electronically filed the sales documents and charged a Document Delivery Service fee of $100. The New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission imposes a use charge of $8.30 which cannot be passed on to the consumer or customers of the auto dealership. Federal Auto Brokers, Inc., d/b/a BM Motors Cars operates a used car dealership located at 1453 Lawrence Street, Rahway, NJ 007065. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lessie Hill, Esq. 480 Nye Avenue Irvington, NJ 07111 Telephone: (973) 373-0413 FIRST ALARM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Stricklin" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ALIVIA STRICKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST ALARM SECURITY & PATROL, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18CV323753 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 21, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods in violation of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant on July 26, 2017, to October 24, 2017, as security guard. First Alarm Security & Patrol, Inc. provides professional security and patrol services to commercial and industrial facilities in California. The company was founded in 1966 and is based in Aptos, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 - and - William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531-4214 Facsimile: (831) 634-0333 FLOWERS FOODS: Seeks to Quash Document Subpoena in "Neff" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendants in the case of NICK NEFF, and MATTHEW MCCREA, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC.; LEPAGE BAKERIES PARK STREET, LLC; CK SALES CO., LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-mc-00026-RMC (D.C., Feb. 21, 2018), have filed a motion to quash subpoena to produce documents. The case is assigned to Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the United States. Flowers Foods, Inc. also sells products under franchised and licensed trademarks and trade names, such as Sunbeam, Bunny, and Sara Lee. The company was formerly known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to Flowers Foods, Inc. in 2001. Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ebony Reid Douglas, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1909 K Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 887-0855 E-mail: ebony.reid@ogletreedeakins.com FORD MOTOR: May Trial Scheduled in MyFord Touch Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford MyTouch class-action lawsuit is scheduled for trial in May after multiple lawsuits were consolidated into a case called the "MyFord Touch Consumer Litigation." The MyFord Touch infotainment systems are advertised as the answer for functions such as navigation and GPS, controlling climate control systems and functions related to smartphones and MP3 players. However, customers for years have complained the systems are full of problems and can easily cost $1,000 to repair. Owners say Ford has known about the problematic systems because the automaker sent technical service bulletins to dealerships about owners complaining about the systems going wacky and the screens going black. Documents presented in court allegedly show Ford engineers knew the touchscreen systems had problems before the vehicles were sold to the public. Even worse, the plaintiffs allege Ford executives stopped using the systems in their own cars because they were tired of the problems. Court documents say Ford's statements indicate fixes for the systems haven't worked, and using software updates for safety features such as rear-view cameras and defrosters haven't solved the MyFord Touch problems. Owners report their systems shutting down while driving, then turning back on with a message saying maintenance is being performed. To some this wouldn't be a problem, until you need the system for an important function while driving. For an example of the all-too-often complaints about the systems, check out the chaos this Ford Flex driver endures: "The MyFord touch software is full of bugs. It constantly forgets my preferences and goes back to the defaults. It has trouble retaining my setting for my iPhone, but more than anything, the navigation and mapping functions are completely unreliable. When inputting my destination using voice prompts, the system often cuts me off and starts playing the radio. I have to try several times to get the destination in the nav. Whenever I choose "Home" on the dash, it loads my Home in the nav about 25% of the time. The rest of the time, it just thinks about it and then goes back to the default screen. Occasionally the whole system just wigs out and reboots, putting all my settings back to default. This system is a piece of garbage and needs a team of people addressing it so my $30K rolling computer actually serves the purpose that I brought it for." Additionally, a Ford truck owner gives an idea of the cost if a driver wants their MyFord Touch system repaired. "2013 F150, 48k miles. MyFord Touch, everything I read says should be 5 year unlimited mileage. 911 assist fault, no volume whatsoever. Dealer says digital signal processor is bad, $800+ to fix." Ford has been working to get claims dismissed and succeeded in a case filed by the Center for Defensive Driving in 2013 alleging failures of the MyFord Touch system in a 2013 Ford F-150 Lariat. The organization accused Ford of manufacturing and selling a system that locked up, had trouble with phones and MP3 players and didn't work with voice commands. The plaintiff says the MyFord Touch failed at least 27 times in a five-month period. However, the judge dismissed a claim of violating the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act because the Center for Defensive Driving doesn't have the legal right to bring the claim as a non- consumer. Another lawsuit from 2014 claims the MyFord Touch systems cost about $1,800 and deliver nothing like Ford promised in marketing materials. The plaintiff alleges people would have never paid extra for the infotainment systems if they would have known the screens constantly go black. In the consolidated action, the judge allowed breach of warranty claims to move forward as well as claims concerning fraud and unfair competition violations. Additional claims that will continue entail state-based claims for negligence and violations of consumer protection acts. Ford did convince the judge to dismiss claims of California consumers for violations of the Song-Beverly Act, in addition to tossing out liability claims filed by Colorado customers. The lawsuit is being argued in front of Judge Edward M. Chen in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California - - In re: MyFord Touch Consumer Litigation. The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, Baron & Budd PC, and DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC. [GN] FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Sokol" Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- John Sokol, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fortegra Financial Corporation, and Ensurety Ventures, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00262-MMH- PDB (M.D. Fla., Feb. 20, 2018) seeks to stop Defendants' unauthorized automated telephone calls without prior written consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Fortegra Financial Corporation operates as a specialized insurance and insurance services company in the United States. The company was formerly known as Life of the South Corporation and changed its name to Fortegra Financial Corporation in 2008. Fortegra Financial Corporation was incorporated in 1981 and is based in Jacksonville, Florida. Fortegra Financial Corporation is a subsidiary of Tiptree Financial Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Boyle, Esq. BOYLE & GALNOR, P.A. 50 N. Laura Street, Suite 2500 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 516-5507 E-mail: james@boyleandgalnor.com - and - Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com - and - Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com - and - Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq. MEYER WILSON CO., LPA 1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 224-6000 Facsimile: (614) 224-6066 E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com mboyle@meyerwilson.com GEORGIA CREDIT: Urges Appeals Court to Affirm Overdraft Decision ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tina Orem, writing for Credit Union Times, reports that the Georgia Credit Union League, CUNA and NAFCU pleaded with a federal appeals court on Feb. 22 to stand by a decision to dismiss a class-action suit brought against a credit union over its overdraft practices. On February 22, according to court documents, the trade groups filed an amici curiae ("friends of the court") brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th circuit, stating that a lower court was right to dismiss the suit against Marietta, Georgia-based LGE Community Credit Union and urging the appellate court to let that decision stand. Amicus briefs, as they are often called, are typically filed by entities that aren't parties in a case but have an interest in its outcome. They frequently offer additional information or arguments to the court for consideration. The plaintiff in the case originally filed a class-action suit in District Court back in late 2015, alleging, among other things, that the credit union breached its account agreements by using the available balance method instead of the ledger balance method when determining when to impose overdraft fees. Then in November 2017, a District Court judge dismissed the case against LGE Community, which has $1.2 billion in assets and about 107,000 members. The plaintiff later appealed, however, which brought the case back to court and has prompted involvement from the Georgia Credit Union League, CUNA and NAFCU. Among other things, the trade groups emphasized in their amicus brief that LGE Community's disclosures as well as Regulation E's overdraft opt-in rules and model consent form protected the credit union. "The LGE account agreement (like most credit-union member agreements) makes clear that overdrafts are determined on the basis of 'available' funds," it argued. "The district court also properly dismissed plaintiff's claim that LGE violated the [Electronic Fund Transfer Act] EFTA by using the Model Form to opt its members in to an overdraft service that assesses fees based on the available balance." The groups also said the court should not punish financial institutions for using a form that the federal government enacted for their protection. "Even if the language of the Model Form were unclear (and it is not), liability cannot and should not be imposed against credit unions and other financial institutions that relied on the form in good faith," it said. The groups also argued that LGE Community's use of the available balance method for determining when to impose overdraft fees was correct. "Like the [Federal Reserve] Board, the CFPB has also expressly acknowledged that available balance is a common and acceptable method for assessing overdrafts. That, coupled with the fact that the CFPB did not change the 'enough money' language when issuing its new 'prototype' Model A-9 Forms, demonstrates the federal agency's understanding that 'enough money' covers fees based on the available balance," they said. At least 40 credit unions and banks have been hit with similar class-action suits regarding their overdraft practices, the brief said. "Our brief identifies crucial regulatory history as well as a critical due process argument," CUNA Senior Director of Advocacy and Counsel Leah Dempsey said. "CUNA's assistance is particularly warranted in light of the fact that this is the first federal appellate court to consider the issues presented. And, many credit unions are facing 'gotcha' litigation on this issue based on highly technical alleged violations." [GN] GLENDALE, CA: Taliaferro Sues over Water Rates and Charges ---------------------------------------------------------- William A. Taliaferro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. City of Glendale, and Does 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 695324 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 20, 2018) seeks refund of water rates and charges that Plaintiff had paid to Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's water fees and charges did not comply with Proposition 218. The City of Glendale is a charter city located in Los Angeles County. The City utilizes a Council-Manager form of government, with five councilmembers. The City is an agency subject to Proposition 218 requirements. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric. J. Benink, Esq. KRAUSE KALFAYAN BENINK & SLAVENS, LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 530 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 232-0331 Facsimile: (619) 232-4019 GRO CATTLE: Faces "Castellano" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rafael Castellano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gro Cattle Corporation; Gaspar Olazabal; and Damaris Olazabal, Defendants, Case No. 68291015 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., Feb. 21, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, maximum liquidated damages and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff employed the Defendant as a heavy equipment operator from 2014 to January 2018. Gro Cattle is a Florida corporation, doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher F. Zacarias, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER F. ZACARIAS, P.A. 5757 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 230 Miami, FL 33126 Telephone: (305) 403-2000 Facsimile: (305) 459-3964 E-mail: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com HERSHEY COMPANY: Tomasella Alleges Child Labor in Supply Chain -------------------------------------------------------------- Danell Tomasella, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, and HERSHEY CHOCOLATE & CONFECTIONERY CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10360 (D. Mass., Feb. 26, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from continuing unfair and deceptive marketing and sale of their Chocolate Products. According to the complaint, America's largest and most profitable food companies should not tolerate child labor, much less child slave labor, anywhere in their supply chains. These companies should not turn a blind eye to known human rights abuses or shirk from investigating and preventing potential human rights abuses by their suppliers, especially when the companies consistently and affirmatively represent that they act in a socially and ethically responsible manner. When these food companies fail to uphold their responsibility for ensuring the absence of child and slave labor in their supply chains, their misconduct has the profound consequence of supporting and encouraging such labor. And when these food companies fail to disclose the use of child and slave labor in their supply chains to consumers at the point of sale, they are deceived into buying products they would not have otherwise and thereby unwittingly supporting child and slave labor themselves through their product purchases. Such food companies should be required to make restitution to the consumers they have deceived and to ensure the absence of child and slave labor in their supply chains in the future. Chocolate is perhaps the most beloved confectionary ingredient in the world. Most major companies that purchase chocolate obtain it from sources in West Africa, including Ivory Coast and Ghana. Hershey Company, known until April 2005 as the Hershey Foods Corporation and commonly called Hershey's, is an American company and one of the largest chocolate manufacturers in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hannah W. Brennan, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142 Telephone: (617) 482 3700 E-mail: hannahb@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623 7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. 301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330 7150 E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com HICKORY RIDGE: Faces "Heale" Suit in New York --------------------------------------------- A case was filed captioned as Ronda Heale, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hickory Ridge Golf & Country Club, Inc.; Kevin Diehl; Viginia Diehl; Keith Diehl; Kurt Diehl and any other related entities, Defendants, Case No. 3000673/2017 (N.Y. Sup., Feb. 20, 2018). The case is assigned to Honorable William K. Taylor. Hickory Ridge Golf & Country Club, Inc. is a corporation with address at Holley, New York. The company is engaged in the business of banquets, weddings, corporate meetings, golf course. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: KAVINOKY COOK LLP 726 Exchange Street Suite 800 Buffalo, NY 14210 Telephone: (716) 845-6000 INSTORE GROUP: Cherelli Seeks Minimum Wages under Wage Act ---------------------------------------------------------- KAREN CHERELLI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE INSTORE GROUP, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 18-0556 (Mass. Super. Ct., Feb. 26, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages as required by Massachusetts Wage Act for all hours worked, had Defendant properly classified them as employees. The Defendant identified "retail services" as the "description of nature of business" in the annual filing that it made with the North Carolina Secretary of State's Office in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. According to Defendant's website, Defendant offers various retail services in its usual course of business to retailers and manufacturers that include, without limitation, "full-service retail merchandising, assisted selling, and event marketing." Defendant hired Ms. Cherelli in 2016 as a merchandiser. At all relevant times, the retail services that merchandisers provide to Defendant's Clients are the same services that Defendant is in the business of providing to Clients and, thus, they are an integral part of Defendant's business. Defendant does not compensate merchandisers for the time that it takes to transport materials to or from retail services contracts. For all retail services contracts, Defendant pays merchandisers based on the amount of time that Defendant estimates each contract will take to complete. Defendant does not pay merchandisers additional compensation if it takes a merchandiser longer to complete a retail services contract than the amount of time that Defendant estimated. Defendant's merchandisers are subject to a dress code when performing retail services for Defendant's clients. Defendant's merchandisers are subject to standards of conduct when performing retail services for Defendant's clients. Defendant instructs its merchandisers to wear an in-Store name badge when performing retail services for Defendant's clients. Defendant identifies particular "specifications and requirements" that its merchandisers need to meet and/or complete to successfully perform each retail services contract. Defendant provides its merchandisers with directions, floor plans, diagrams, and/or schematics that they are required to follow and/or complete for each retail services assignment that the Defendant directs them to fulfill. For example, Defendant provides merchandisers with an "ISO Store Worksheet" for each retail services job. An "ISO Store Worksheet" is like a work order. The InStore Group, headquartered in Charlotte, NC is one of America's leading nationwide full-service retail merchandising organizations. We provide our InStore merchandising services to leading consumer packaged companies and retailers in every major channel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brook S. Lane, Esq. Hillary Schwab, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607 3261 Facsimile: (617) 488 2261 E-mail: brook@fairworklaw.com hillary@fairworklaw.com IO INC: Faces "Norman" Suit in E.D. Virginia -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against IO, Inc. The case is styled as Josiah Norman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IO, INC. Trading as Receivables Systems, inc. Trading as Receivables Management Systems, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00156-REP (E.D. Va., March 7, 2018). IO, INC has been in business for over 20 years and have imported many collectible firearms, parts, ammunition and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Ray Breeden, Esq. Thomas R. Breeden PC 10326 Lomond Drive Manassas, VA 20109 Tel: (703) 361-9277 Fax: (703) 257-2259 Email: trb@tbreedenlaw.com JOE ASIAN SUSHI: Faces "Xia" Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joe Asian Sushi Inc. d/b/a Joe Asian & Sushi. The case is styled as Chun Feng Xia, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Joe Asian Sushi Inc. d/b/a Joe Asian & Sushi, Ke Wei Chen, "Jane" (First Name Unknown) Chen and "John" (First Name Unknown) Chen, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01409 (E.D. N.Y., March 6, 2018). Joe Asian & Sushi offers delicious dining, takeout and delivery to Queens, NY.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. KOCH FOODS: Suppressed Competition for Broiler Grow-Out ------------------------------------------------------- Haff Poultry, Inc; Nancy Butler; Johnny Upchurch; Jonathan Walters; Myles B. Weaver and Melissa Weaver, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Koch Foods, Inc.; Koch Meat Co., Inc.; Sanderson Farms, Inc.; (Food Division); Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Processing Division); and Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Production Division), Defendants, Case No.7:18-cv-0031-D (E.D. Cal., Feb. 21, 2018) is an action over the Defendants' anticompetitive, collusive, predatory, unfair, and bad faith conduct in the domestic market for Broiler growing services. The complaint alleged that Defendants illegally agreed to share detailed data on Grower compensation with one another, with the purpose and effect of artificially depressing Grower compensation below competitive levels. By disclosing their highly sensitive and confidential compensation rates to each other, they suppressed competition for Broiler Grow-Out. Koch Foods, Inc. develops, manufactures, and distributes fresh and frozen poultry products for food service and retail operators worldwide. The company offers its products through retail distributors and retail stores, as well as exports its products internationally. Koch Foods, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is based in Park Ridge, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq. Samantha S. Derksen, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com mcoolidge@hausfeld.com sderksen@hausfeld.com - and - Gary I. Smith,Jr., Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 325 Chestnut St., Suite 325 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 985-3270 Facsimile: (215) 985-3271 Email: gsmith@hausfeld.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Patrick F. Madden, Esq. Christina Black, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE,P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: ecramer@bm.net Email: pmadden@bm.net Email: cblack@bm.net - and - Daniel J. Walker, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 559-9745 Email: dwalker@bm.net - and - Vincent J. Esades, Esq. HEINS MILLS & OLSON, PLC 310 Clifton Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 Telephone: (612) 338-4605 Facsimile: (612) 338-4692 Email: vesades@heinsmills.com - and - Warren T. Burns, Esq. BURNS C HAREST LLP 500 North Akard, Suite 2810 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (469) 904-4551 Email: wburns@burnscharest.com - and - Gregory Davis, Esq. DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC 7031 Halcyon Park Drive Montgomery, AL 36117 Telephone: (334) 832-9080 Facsimile: (334) 409-7001 Email: gldavis@knology.net - and - Charles D. Gabriel, Esq. CHALMERS, BURCH & ADAMS, LLC North Fulton Satellite Office 5755 North Point Parkway, Suite 251 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Telephone: (678) 735.5903 Facsimile: (678) 735.5905 Email: cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com - and - Harlan Hentges, Esq. HENTGES & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 102 Thatcher Street Edmond, OK 73034 Telephone: (405) 340-6554 Facsimile: (405) 340-6562 - and - John C. Whitfield, Esq. Caroline Taylor, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 19 North Main Street Madisonville, KY 42431 Telephone: (270) 821-0656 E-mail: john@wbmllp.com caroline@wbmllp.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Jennifer S. Goldstein, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 305 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com jgoldstein@wbmllp.com - and - J. Dudley Butler, Esq. BUTLER FARM & RANGE LAW GROUP, PLLC 499-A Breakwater Dr. Benton, MS 39039 Telephone: (662) 673-0091 Facsimile: (662) 673-0091 E-mail: jdb@farmandranchlaw.com - and - Daniel M. Cohen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202)789-3960 Facsimile: (202)789-1813 E-mail: Danielc@cuneolaw.com - and - David S. Muraskin, Esq. PUBLIC JUSTICE, PC 1620 L St. NW, Suite 630 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 861-5245 Facsimile: (202) 232-7203 E-mail: dmuraskin@publicjustice.net - and - M. David Riggs, Esq. Donald M Bingham, Esq. RIGGS ABNEY NEAL TURPEN ORBISON & LEWIS 502 W. Sixth St. Tulsa, OK 74119 Telephone: (918) 699-8914 Facsimile: (918) 587-9708 E-mail: driggs@riggsabney.com don_bingham@riggsabney.com - and - Hollis Salzman, Esq. Kellie Lerner, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 99 Park Avenue, Suite 3600 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com - and - Aaron Sheanin, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 2440 W. El Camino Real Suite 100 Mountain View, CA 94040 Telephone: (650) 784-4040 Facsimile: (650) 784-4041 E-mail: ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com - and - M.Stephen Dampier, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF M.STEPHEN DAMPIER,P.C. 55 N. Section St. P.O. Box 161 Fairhope, AL 36532 Telephone: (251) 929-0900 Facsimile: (251) 929-0800 E-mail: dampier.steve@gmail.com KRATON CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 26 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Kraton Corporation (NYSE:KRA) from October 25, 2017 through February 21, 2018, both dates inclusive ("Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Kraton investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Kraton class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1299.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or dsadeh@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Kraton was transitioning customers to Brazilian- produced Cariflex even though certain customers had already rejected that product; (2) Kraton's Brazilian-produced Cariflex was available to customers when in fact certain customers had already rejected that product; (3) Kraton lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about Kraton's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 27, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1299.htmlto join the class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim or Daniel Sadeh of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or dsadeh@rosenlegal.com. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm. Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has been ranked #2 in the nation by Institutional Shareholder Services for the number of securities class action settlements annually obtained for investors. [GN] LIBERTY COUNTY, TX: May Face Class Action Over Audit Errors ----------------------------------------------------------- David Taylor, writing for MySanAntonio, reports that County Clerk Paulette Williams issued a sort of mea culpa recently after gross negligence was discovered in her office in the most recent audit, but it may not be enough to keep the county out of what could result in a class action lawsuit. "There were mistakes made and I take the blame for it," Ms. Williams told the Dayton News/Cleveland Advocate in an interview. "I knew there was a problem and I tried to fix it," she said. A litany of errors was outlined by Assistant County Auditor Angela Maselli in the audit required by Local Government Code Sec. 115.0035. The internal audit covered the period between Feb. 1, 2017 to Aug. 31, 2017. In the audit, Ms. Williams felt like she was mischaracterized. She took particular issue with the definitions of gross incompetence and removal from office being included in the public arena with the audit. "I didn't act in bad faith. To me an audit from an auditor should be about numbers, not a personal attack," Ms. Williams complained. She also said that she wasn't motivated by threats, penalties, and consequences. In her executive summary, Ms. Maselli laid out numerous errors and found that criminal court costs have not been updated since January 2010. "The county clerk has not updated court costs in NetData since she took office in January 2011," the audit reads. It also alleges criminal court costs provided by the Liberty County Clerk's office to the County Attorney's office were inaccurate and didn't align with the most current cost chart. In some cases, the clerk's office was either overcharging or undercharging. Defendants charged with misdemeanor criminal offenses were either charged unallowable fees, undercharged amounts of certain fees or overcharged amounts depending on the offense type. Civil court costs were not properly allocated between fees retained by the county and fees submitted to the state comptroller. The County was retaining more of the fees than allowed and the state comptroller was receiving less than the required amounts. Ms. Maselli also said the probate docket could not be produced using NetData software due to incomplete data entry beginning in May 2015 to present and OCA codes for probate case types were not reporting accurately due to incorrect codes assigned during data entry. In one case, cash donated back to the county by jurors to send to various charities for a total amount of $783 was located in an unlocked file cabinet drawer unsecured and had been accumulating since Aug. 24, 2015. That action alone violated multiple rules: the cash was left in an unsecured location for over a year; it was not deposited timely with the Treasurer's office (a minimum of five days); and a lack of training on what to do with the donations from the county treasurer. The definitions were included to warn the clerk of the consequences of inaction. The audit said Ms. Williams had failed to correct the court costs during three separate internal audits spanning from 2014 to present. The state sets the fees and it is up to the county clerk's office to prepare the bill of cost. They take the fees and add them together and assess them. Ms. Williams did admit she was notified by the state of the fee changes, but "more or less, I'm supposed to be watching out for it," she said. "The Office of Court Administration put the charts online. I guess I was dumb or ignorant," she said. "I just didn't know. It had never been an issue before. I didn't know they were wrong." Ms. Williams referred to a 2014 court ruling that stated the county clerk's office was to prepare the court costs. "I don't know how long it was going on before I got here, but the county attorney's office did that. They would prepare the cost sheet with the numbers already put in it and they would give it to us and we would enter it into the system," Ms. Williams said, describing the process, but the numbers were wrong. After the court ruling, Ms. Williams confessed she didn't have a clue. "I told them I was sorry, I missed it. I'm ready to take the consequences," she said. Ms. Williams said shortly after the ruling, she had a meeting with the county attorney at the time and tried to hammer out a solution. The county clerk said they left the office, each with things to do, but nothing ever changed. "They kept putting the numbers on the court cost sheets and we kept putting them in," she said. An email from the county attorney during that time said they needed to get things fixed, but Ms. Williams said nothing changed. "I felt like I was in a rock and a hard place," she said. "I wasn't strong enough I guess to go into his office and tell him to stop putting another number on the sheets until we get this fixed." Ms. Williams entered office in 2011 and it wasn't until 2014 that she realized that there was an issue. "It wasn't a large amount of money, and after an audit by the Texas Comptroller's Office, they weren't overly concerned because we overpaid them," she said. Ms. Williams said the changes have been made and she's working well with County Attorney Matthew Poston. "It took Matthew to say 'Stop!' to his clerks and not to put another number on the sheets," she said. With Poston cooperating and Maselli spear-heading and getting all the numbers together, the issue has finally been rectified. Another issue was the software, NetData. Ms. Williams said she was never trained in how to change the codes. "It took Angela [Maselli] telling NetData to delete all of the codes and us starting over again," she said. The clerk said there was as many as 60 pages of codes, most of which she said they never used. After Ms. Maselli worked with NetData, that was cut down to only six pages. "No one had ever deleted any of the codes, our office just kept adding the new ones until it was just mind-boggling," she said. The county clerk said they do so many things in that office that it's hard to make sure they're covering all of their bases all the time. Ms. Williams flatly denied any fraud had taken place in the office and no criminal act done. "There was no intent to overcharge anyone," she said. "I have nothing to hide. It looks like by the audit that we weren't trying to get anything changed, but I tried. We didn't get the result we wanted and that's why I'm glad Angela did what she did for us." "I have to congratulate Angela because she was just determined enough, relentless enough in what she did, and she researched and worked up a plan. I do appreciate it. She did a fantastic job," Ms. Williams said. The clerk said she only disagreed with the tone of the audit. [GN] LIVE NATION: Lawyers for Las Vegas Massacre Victims File Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers representing victims of the massacre at the Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas filed suit on Feb. 23 to force the concert promoter, LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, to refund all 22,000 tickets sold to attendees. "It's hard to believe that it's almost March 2018 and only a portion of those who purchased tickets to the October concert, which ended in massacre, have had their money refunded," said attorney Mark Robinson of Robinson Calcagnie, Inc. Robinson filed suit in Orange County, CA. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, a multi-billion dollar, global entertainment company forged through the $2.5 BILLION merger of Ticketmaster and Live Nation, is headquartered in Beverly Hills. "Orange County is home to a significant number of people who purchased tickets to the concert," said attorney Robinson. "We didn't think it was fair that some who privately asked for refunds got them, when really everybody who bought a ticket deserves a full refund." The suit alleges, among other things, that LIVE NATION offered its condolences to concert goers but neglected to return all ticket costs to those who purchased tickets. Plaintiffs Kevin and Laura Thompson say they paid more than 500 dollars for their two general admission tickets to the festival. "As we were interviewing several hundred of our clients, we realized some had received refunds and some had not. It didn't matter if they were family members of deceased, gunshot victims or traumatized because of the shooting and their escape. The only factor was that those that heard about a refund through Facebook or friends and demanded a refund, got it. So we decided to make one demand on behalf of everyone." Said Craig Eiland an attorney from Austin, Texas who along with James Lee of LeeMurphy in Houston, Texas joined forces with Robinson Calcagnie to bring the suit. Mark Robinson, Attorney for the Thompsons and others, is urging anyone who may be entitled to a refund to contact him at (949) 500-5045. [GN] LUDLOW HOTEL: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ludlow Hotel Operating LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ludlow Hotel Operating LLC doing business as: Ludlow Hotel, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02073 (S.D. N.Y., March 7, 2018). Ludlow Hotel Operating LLC operates in the hotel industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com M.C.I. FOODS: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Garcia" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- MARIA C. GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M.C.I. FOODS, INC.; EMPLOYMENT RESOURCE GROUP, LLC; BARONHR, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC694777 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 21, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Ms. Garcia was employed by the Defendants to prepare, scan, pack, and unload shipments. M. C. I. Foods, Inc. manufactures and markets frozen Mexican foods and sandwiches for food service, school food service, restaurant/hotel/institutional, correctional, and convenience stores in the United States and internationally. The company markets its products through brokers. M. C. I. Foods, Inc. was formerly known as Margaret's Commissary. The company was founded in 1957 and is based in Compton, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 975-1493 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 - and - Michael Nourmand, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 553-3600 Facsimile: (310) 553-3603 MARS INC: Tomasella Alleges Child Labor in Supply Chains -------------------------------------------------------- Danell Tomasella, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and MARS CHOCOLATE NORTH AMERICA LLC, a Delaware company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10359-ADB (D. Mass., Feb. 26, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from continuing unfair and deceptive marketing and sale of their Chocolate Products. According to the complaint, America's largest and most profitable food companies should not tolerate child labor, much less child slave labor, anywhere in their supply chains. These companies should not turn a blind eye to known human rights abuses or shirk from investigating and preventing potential human rights abuses by their suppliers, especially when the companies consistently and affirmatively represent that they act in a socially and ethically responsible manner. When these food companies fail to uphold their responsibility for ensuring the absence of child and slave labor in their supply chains, their misconduct has the profound consequence of supporting and encouraging such labor. And when these food companies fail to disclose the use of child and slave labor in their supply chains to consumers at the point of sale, they are deceived into buying products they would not have otherwise and thereby unwittingly supporting child and slave labor themselves through their product purchases. Such food companies should be required to make restitution to the consumers they have deceived and to ensure the absence of child and slave labor in their supply chains in the future. Chocolate is perhaps the most beloved confectionary ingredient in the world. Most major companies that purchase chocolate obtain it from sources in West Africa, including Ivory Coast and Ghana. Mars Chocolate North America, LLC produces and markets chocolates. It provides chocolates under M&M'S, Snickers, Twix, 3 Musketeers, and Milky Way brand names. The company is based in Hackettstown, New Jersey. Mars Chocolate North America, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Mars, Incorporated.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hannah W. Brennan, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142 Telephone: (617) 482 3700 E-mail: hannahb@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623 7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330 7150 E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com MDL 2804: Mayor Concerned About Law Firm Handling Opioid Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Monica Vendituoli, writing for The Fayetteville Observer, reports that Fayetteville Mayor Mitch Colvin raised concerns with how City Attorney Karen McDonald has handled awarding a legal contract for taking civil action against those legally responsible for the wrongful distribution of prescription opiates. "I was completely opposed to the process of unilaterally awarding a legal services . . . law firm without going through the normal procurement process," Mr. Colvin wrote in a email to Ms. McDonald on Feb. 15. All of the City Council members as well as City Manager Doug Hewett were included on the email. On Feb. 12, the City Council adopted a resolution supporting civil action against those legally responsible for the wrongful distribution of prescription opiates. Ms. McDonald said in a memo that opioid abuse is burdening city resources. She noted that Fayetteville police officers used naloxone, an opioid overdose antidote, 132 times on 118 people in 2017. At the dinner meeting before the vote, McDonald said that lawyers Terry Hutchens and Billy Richardson recently contacted the city about initiating litigation against the manufacturers and wholesale distributors of opioids in the Fayetteville area. "The local attorneys have joined with a consortium of attorneys across the country to pursue civil remedies against these parties to potentially recover the costs associated with addressing opioid abuse," Ms. McDonald said in a memo addressed to City Council. In the email, Mr. Colvin affirmed his support for the lawsuit in general. "The taxpayers have paid millions of dollars combating this problem in our community . . . " Mr. Colvin wrote. "Therefore, I was overly excited to hear about the class action litigation opportunity for the city to recoup some of those expenditures." But both in the email and at the meeting, Mr. Colvin raised concerns during the meeting about how McDonald had not reached out to other local and minority firms before awarding Hutchens and Richardson the contract. "The method used was a No Bid contract for what is expected to be a multi-million dollar litigation case. This is unacceptable," Colvin wrote. "In 2015, the council adopted a policy to strive to be more inclusive to local and minority companies on every opportunity. He ended the email by saying he will place the item back on a future City Council's meeting agenda for reconsideration. Ms. McDonald noted in her response that the city was only approached by Richardson and Hutchens. McDonald added that Hutchens' law firm meets the requirement for local firm. State law does not require the issuance of a request for quotation or request for proposal, or bid, for litigation services, according to McDonald. But she said the city has taken efforts to reach out to minority and local law firms. "In 2015, consistent with council's interest, our office issued an RFQ [request for quotation] to identify local and minority firms interested in doing work for the city," Mr. McDonald said. She ended the email by saying that she has reached out to Hutchens' regarding the council's interest in the inclusion of a minority firm. [GN] MDL 2817: 5 Cases vs CDK Global Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ In the multi-district litigation proceeding, In Re: Dealer Management Systems Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2817, Judge Amy J. St. Eve ruled that these cases are transferred to the MDL: 1. Northtown Automotive Companies, Inc. v. CDK Global, LLC and The Reynolds and Reynolds Company, Case No. 18-CV-833 (N.D. Ill.) (filed February 1, 2018 and assigned to Judge Coleman); 2. 2 Cox Motors N.C. Inc. d/b/a Cox Toyota v. CDK Global, LLC, Case No. 18-CV-845 (N.D. Ill.) (filed February 1, 2018 and assigned to Judge Blakey); 3. Bob Baker Volkswagen v. CDK Global, LLC and The Reynolds and Reynolds Company, Case No. 18-CV-909 (N.D. Ill.) (filed February 2, 2018 and assigned to Judge Coleman); 4. F.G. Downing Development, Inc. v. CDK Global, LLC and The Reynolds and Reynolds Company, Case No.18-CV-987 (N.D. Ill.) (filed February 7, 2018 and assigned to Judge Gettleman); and 5. Baystate Ford Inc. v. CDK Global, LLC and The Reynolds and Reynolds Company, Case No. 18-CV-996 (N.D. Ill.) (filed February 7, 2018 and assigned to Judge Aspen). CDK Global, Inc. provides integrated information technology and digital marketing solutions to the automotive retail and other industries worldwide. It provides solutions to dealers serving approximately 28,000 retail locations and automotive manufacturers. CDK Global, Inc. is headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amar Shrinivas Naik, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4106 Tel: (415) 434-9100 E-mail: anaik@sheppardmullin.com - and - Aundrea Kristine Gulley, Esq. GIBBS & BRUNS, L.L.P. 1100 Louisiana St., Suite 5300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 650-8805 E-mail: agulley@gibbsbruns.com - and - Brandon M. Lewis, Esq. PERKINS COIE 1 East Main Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 663-7460 E-mail: BLewis@perkinscoie.com - and - Brian T. Ross, Esq. GIBBS & BRUNS, L.L.P. 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 5300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 751-5286 E-mail: bross@gibbsbruns.com - and - Brice A. Wilkinson, Esq. GIBBS & BRUNS, L.L.P. 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 5300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 751-5218 E-mail: bwilkinson@gibbsbruns.com - and - 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 - and - James Landon Mcginnis, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 E-mail: jmcginnis@sheppardmullin.com - and - Jesse Jonas Bair, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1 East Main Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 393-2524 E-mail: jbair@perkinscoie.com - and - John S. Skilton, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP One East Main Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 663-7460 E-mail: jskilton@perkinscoie.com - and - Justin David Patrick, Esq. GIBBS & BRUNS, LLP 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 5300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 650-8805 x1205 E-mail: jpatrick@gibbsbruns.com - and - Kathleen A. Stetsko, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 131 S. Dearborn St., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 324-8400 E-mail: kstetsko@perkinscoie.com - and - Kathy D. Patrick, Esq. GIBBS & BRUNS, LLP 1100 Louisiana Suite 5300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 751-5253 E-mail: kpatrick@gibbsbruns.com - and - Leo Caseria, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street, Forty-third Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 E-mail: lcaseria@sheppardmullin.com - and - Michael P. A. Cohen, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 747-1900 E-mail: mcohen@sheppardmullin.com - and - Michelle M. Umberger, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP One East Main Street #201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 663-7460 E-mail: mumberger@perkinscoie.com - and - Ross M. MacDonald, Esq. GIBBS & BRUNS, LLP 1100 Louisiana Stree, Suite 5300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 751-5231 E-mail: rmacdonald@gibbsbruns.com - and - Tyler Baker, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112 Telephone: (212) 634-3048 E-mail: tbaker@sheppardmullin.com - and - Aaron Martin Panner, Esq. KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7900 E-mail: apanner@kellogghansen.com - and - Allison W Reimann, Esq. GODFREY & KAHN One East Main Street, Ste. 500 Madison, WI 53701 Telephone: (608) 284-2277 E-mail: areimann@gklaw.com - and - Daniel V. Dorris, Esq. KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7900 E-mail: ddorris@kellogghansen.com - and - David L. Schwarz, Esq. KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7952 E-mail: dschwarz@kellogghansen.com - and - Derek Tam Ho, Esq. KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C. 1615 M St. N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7931 E-mail: dho@kellogghansen.com - and - Jennifer L. Gregor, Esq. GODFREY & KAHN SC One East Main Street, Suite 500 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 275-3911 E-mail: jgregor@gklaw.com - and - Joanna Tianyang Zhang, Esq. KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7952 E-mail: jzhang@kellogghansen.com - and - Joshua Hafenbrack, Esq. KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street Nw, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7952 E-mail: jhafenbrack@kellogghansen.com - and - Kendall W Harrison, Esq. GODFREY & KAHN, S.C. One East Main St. #500 P.o. Box 2719 Madison, WI 53701 Telephone: (608) 284-2627 E-mail: kharrison@gklaw.com - and - Kevin J. Miller, Esq. KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7900 E-mail: kmiller@kellogghansen.com - and - Mark W. Hancock, Esq. GODFREY & KAHN, S.C. 1 E. Main Street, Suite 500 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 257-3911 E-mail: mhancock@gklaw.com - and - Michael N. Nemelka, Esq. KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7932 E-mail: mnemelka@kellogghansen.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNESSO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 - and - Gary L. Specks, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 423 Sumac Road Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone: (847) 831-1585 E-mail: gspecks@kaplanfox.com - and - Victoria Romanenko, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: vicky@cuneolaw.com - and - Daniel Jeffrey Friedman, Esq. GABRIELSALOMONS LLP 16311 Ventura Boulevard Suite 970 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 906-3700 E-mail: daniel@gabrielsalomons.com - and - Gary K Salomons, Esq. GABRIEL SALOMONS LLP 16311 Ventura Boulevard Suite 970 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 906-3700 E-mail: gary@gabrielsalomons.com - and - Joshua D. Branson, Esq. KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7900 E-mail: jbranson@kellogghansen.com - and - Joshua Hafenbrack, Esq. Britt Marie Miller, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-0600 E-mail: courtnotification@mayerbrown.com - and - John Nadolenco, Esq. MAYER BROWN 350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503 Telephone: (213) 229-9500 E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com - and - Mark W. Ryan, Esq. MAYER BROWN 1999 K Street N.W. Washington, DC 20006-1101 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 E-mail: mryan@mayerbrown.com - and - 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 - and - Shawn M Raiter, Esq. LARSON & KING, LLP 30 East 7th Street, Suite 2800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone:(651) 312-6500 - and - Archibald Irwin Grubb , II, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. Post Office Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (800) 898-2034 E-mail: archie.grubb@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 - and - Wilson Daniel Miles , III, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROWN METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC PO Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com - and - David Malcolm McMullan, Jr, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, PA P. O. Box 927 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 E-mail: dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com - and - John W. Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, PA P. O. Box 927 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com CDK is represented by: Jeffrey Allan Simmons, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 150 East Gilman Street P.O. Box 1497 Madison, WI 53701-1497 Telephone: (608) 257-5035 E-mail: jsimmons@foley.com - and - Joseph S Harper, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 150 East Gilman St. P.O. Box 1497 Madison, WI 53701 Telephone: (608) 258-4310 E-mail: JHarper@foley.com - and - William N. Reed, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 100 Vision Drive, Suite 400 P. O. Box 14167 (39236-4167) Jackson, MS 39211 Telephone: (601) 351-2400 E-mail: wreed@bakerdonelson.com METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Gardner" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The case is captioned as Charles Gardner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority; Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority; and The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc; Conduent, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01548-UA (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2018). On March 1, 2018, the Court issued a Statement that the action is related to Case No. 18-01433. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Inc. provides subway, bus, and commuter railroad transportation services to customers with disabilities in the United States. Its subway and commuter rail stations provide accessibility for customers with visual, hearing, and mobility disabilities. The company also operates bridges and tunnels. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Ralph Santoli, Esq. 340 Devon Court Ridgewood, NJ 07450 Telephone: (201) 926-9200 E-mail: josephsantoli@aol.com - and - Stephen John Fearon, Jr.,Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON LLP 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 575-2092 Facsimile: (212) 575-2184 E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com MICHAEL HARRISON: Faces "Bleier" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michael Harrison Attorney at Law. The case is styled as Sarah Bleier, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Michael Harrison Attorney at Law, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01392 (E.D. N.Y., March 6, 2018). Michael Harrison Attorney at Law is engaged in collecting bad debts for healthcare providers and businesses in the Northeast.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C Cohen, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: dan@cml.legal MIMEDX GROUP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Feb. 26 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, on behalf of persons and entities that acquired MiMedx Group Inc. ("MiMedx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MDXG) securities between March 7, 2013, and February 19, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Investors are hereby notified that they have April 24, 2018 to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. Investors suffering losses on their MiMedx investments are encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their legal rights at 310-201-9150 or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit the MiMedx case page on our website at www.glancylaw.com/case/mimedx-group-inc-0. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) MiMedx was engaged in a "channel-stuffing" scheme designed to inappropriately recognize revenue that had not yet been realized; (2) that the Company failed to employ proper compliance measures to ensure appropriate accounting practices; (3) that, as a result, the Company's internal controls over financial reporting were materially weak; (4) that, as a result, the Company's financial statements were inaccurate and misleading; and, (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about MiMedx's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased MiMedx securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 24, 2018 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll- Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. [GN] MIMEDX GROUP: Block & Leviton Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing investors nationwide, is investigating whether MiMedx Group, Inc. ("MiMedx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MDXG) and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws following claims that the Company is engaged in a fraudulent accounting scheme and is under investigation by the SEC. On February 20, 2018, pre-market, MiMedx announced that the Company's audit committee "has engaged independent legal and accounting advisors to conduct an internal investigation into current and prior-period matters relating to allegations regarding certain sales and distribution practices at the Company. Company executives are also reviewing, among other items, the accounting treatment of certain distributor contracts." On this news, the Company's stock is down more than 23% pre- market, causing tens of millions of dollars in losses to investors. If you purchased or otherwise acquired MiMedx securities and have questions about your legal rights or possess information relevant to this investigation, you are encouraged to contact attorney Bradley Vettraino at (617) 398-5600, by email at bradley@blockesq.com, or by visiting www.blockesq.com/mdxg. Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with information relevant to this investigation is assured. Block & Leviton LLP -- http://www.blockesq.com-- is a Boston-based law firm representing investors nationwide. The firm's lawyers have collectively been prosecuting securities cases on behalf of individual and institutional investors for over 50 years, and have recovered billions of dollars on their behalf. Block & Leviton's investigations into corporate wrongdoing were recently covered by the New York Times. [GN] MONAT GLOBAL: Faces "McWhortor" Suit in S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monat Global Corp. The case is styled as Andrew McWhortor and Deborah McWhortor, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Monat Global Corp., a Florida Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-20870-JLK (S.D. Fla., March 7, 2018). MONAT Global Corp. is a designer, manufacturer, and distributor of hair care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara Cabrera Lewis, Esq. Harke Clasby , Bushman LLP 9699 NE 2nd Avenue Miami Shores, FL 33138 Tel: (305) 536-8220 Fax: (305) 536-8229 - and - Lance August Harke, Esq. Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP 9699 NE Second Avenue Miami Shores, FL 33138 Tel: (305) 536-8222 Fax: (305) 536-8229 Email: lharke@harkeclasby.com NEBULA HOLDINGS: Faces "Cohen" Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nebula Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Chaim Cohen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nebula Holdings, LLC dba Nebula Financial and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01408 (E.D. N.Y., March 6, 2018). Nebula Financial Services is a financial consulting firm.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. NELSON AIR: Penava Seeks Construction Project Trust Fund -------------------------------------------------------- PENAVA MECHANICAL CORP. on behalf of itself and on behalf of all others entitled to share in the Funds received by NELSON AIR DEVICE CORPORATION, as Trustee, in connection with the improvement of real property known as 726 Broadway, New York, New York, Block: 545, Lot: 15, the Plaintiffs, v. NELSON AIR DEVICE CORPORATION, MICHAEL HANSMAN, ROBERT A. BRIGANTI NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and "JOHN DOE No. 1" Through "JOHN DOE No. 100," said names being fictitious, true names being those unknown individuals and/or entities liable for the diversion of trust funds pursuant to Article 3-A of the Lien Law of the State of New York, in connection with the construction project at 726 Broadway, New York, New York, Block: 545, Lot: 15, the Defendants, Case No. 650895/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 26, 2018), seeks to recover trust funds as defined by Article 3-A of N.Y. Lien Law, in connection with the construction project, and to recover pursuant to N.Y. Lien Law section 77 on behalf of itself individually, and on behalf of any of the Trust Fund Beneficiaries, who have claims against Nelson Air by reason of services rendered and materials or equipment incorporated into the Project, and seeks the determination and allocation of the respective interests of Penava and the Trust Fund Beneficiaries. According to the complaint, Penava's claims arise from Nelson's breach of its Agreement with Penava; and its failure and refusal to pay for certain piping and related work that Penava provided to Nelson, as well as other construction materials, equipment and labor supplied by the other trust fund beneficiaries, for use at the Project, and the unlawful diversion of said trust fund monies for non-trust purposes. Nelson Air operates as a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning contractor. The company was founded in 1998 and is based in Maspeth, New York.[BN] Attorneys for Penava Mechanical Corp.: Constantine T. Tzifas, Esq. ARTHUR J. SEMETIS, P.C. 286 Madison Avenue - Suite 1801 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 557 5055 NEW ORLEANS, LA: Owes $25.6MMM in Traffic Camera Refunds -------------------------------------------------------- The New Orleans Advocate reports that New Orleans owes $25.6 million in refunds to hundreds of thousands of motorists ticketed by the city's traffic camera program in the first three years of its existence, a judge has ruled. Robert Burns, a former Jefferson Parish judge serving as the ad hoc judge over the lawsuit, finalized the total amount owed in a ruling. Refunds of $110 each are owed to motorists who were ticketed by the red-light cameras while they overseen by the city's Public Works Department from January 2008 until the beginning of November 2010, when the program was placed under the oversight of the New Orleans Police Department. Burns ruled in November that the tickets issued while the program was run by Public Works violated the City Charter, and those cited deserved a full refund, but he did not finalize the amount the city owed at that time. In addition to the refunds, Burns ruled the city owes interest on the payments. That amounts to about $8 million so far, and the meter is still running, said Joseph McMahon, the lawyer who brought the class-action suit against the city. However, those potentially eligible for payments could have a while to wait. The city has a large backlog of unpaid legal judgments dating back many years. In addition, an appeal is likely, according to Mayor Mitch Landrieu's office. "The city is weighing its options and will likely appeal this ruling," Landrieu spokeswoman Aaren Gordon said in an email. That would push the matter into the term of Mayor-elect LaToya Cantrell, who has said she intends to get rid of the traffic cameras and who might decide to drop the appeal. Of course, she still would have to find the millions needed to pay the judgment. [GN] NEW PRIME: Supreme Court to Consider Trucker Arbitration Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Mccue, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that the Supreme Court on Feb. 26 said it will consider the case of an independent, interstate trucker who is challenging his being compelled to arbitrate a dispute with his employer under an exemption to the Federal Arbitration Act. In a petition for a writ of certiorari filed in September, the employer in the case, interstate-trucking company New Prime Inc., says it uses both in-house drivers and independent contractors to handle its pickups and deliveries, and that the opposing party in the case, Dominic Oliveira, was initially employed as an in-house driver, but later decided to become a contractor. He and New Prime signed two separate independent-contractor agreements which stipulated that any and all employment disputes would be resolved through arbitration. However, Mr. Oliveira later filed a putative class action against New Prime, alleging claims for unpaid wages, misclassification as an independent contractor, and breach of contract. New Prime moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, but Oliveira objected. The driver did not dispute the validity of the arbitration provisions in his contracts, but maintained his lawsuit should be permitted because the agreements are exempt from enforcement under Section 1 of the FAA. Section 1 provides that the Act does not apply "to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." A federal judge denied New Prime's motion to compel arbitration, holding the question of whether the Section 1 exemption applies in this case is a threshold issue for the court and that it could not rightly be delegated to an arbitrator. The judge noted that Section 1's reference to "contracts of employment" refers to employer-employee arrangements only, not independent-contractor agreements. The issue the court wrestled with was whether the contract terms clearly established an employer-employee or independent contractor relationship. In the end, the judge ordered discovery on that question before determining whether the Section 1 exemption applies. New Prime appealed the order denying the motion to compel arbitration, but the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the applicability of the Section 1 exemption had to be resolved -- even in the presence of an indisputably valid arbitration clause in the contracts. Presented with the same question in a separate case, the Eighth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, holding that "'application of the FAA's transportation worker exemption is a threshold question of arbitrability.'" As is their custom, the justices did not explain their rationale for taking up the case. [GN] NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in ERISA Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Lidgett, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal judge has refused to give New York University a quick win on the remaining claims in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action that claims the school breached a fiduciary duty to employees in its retirement plans. U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest on Feb. 22 denied a summary judgment bid from NYU on the remaining claims in a suit over how 403(b) retirement plans have been managed. The case is Sacerdote et al v. New York University, Case No. 1:16-cv-06284. The case is assigned to Judge Katherine B. Forrest. The case was filed August 9, 2016. [GN] OPTIM LLC: "Yuzhaninov" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------- ANDREY YUZHANINOV, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff(s), v. OPTIM LLC d/b/a FAMILY FRESH CAFE and DMITRII SHCHELKANOV, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-20739-CMA (S.D. Fla., Feb. 26, 2018), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, while employed by the Corporate Defendant, Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less than one and one half times the regular rate at which he was employed. The Plaintiff was employed as a server, performing the same or similar duties as that of those other similarly situated servers whom Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. Ilona D. Anderson, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503 5131 Facsimile: (888) 270 5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com iLona@saenzanderson.com PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: June 4 Securities Settlement Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- If You Previously Purchased or Otherwise Acquired Certain Petrobras Securities, You Could Get a Cash Payment from a Class Action Settlement The following statement is being issued by Pomerantz LLP regarding In re Petrobras Securities Litigation. Important Legal Notice from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Two proposed settlements have been reached in a securities class action lawsuit brought by investors against Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. ("Petrobras") and certain of its affiliates, underwriters, external auditors, and current and former directors and officers. The Settlements include certain securities issued by Petrobras. Petrobras, the Underwriter Defendants, and PricewaterhouseCoopers Auditores Independentes ("PwC Brazil") deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing, and the District Court has not decided who is right. If you requested exclusion in response to the previously mailed notice of pendency of class action dated May 9, 2016, you are included in this Settlement, and you must request exclusion again if you do not want to be included in the Settlement Class. Am I included in the proposed Settlements? You are encouraged to visit the website www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com to see if you are included in the Settlement Class. The Settlement Class includes all Persons who: (a) during the time Period between January 22, 2010 and July 28, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), purchased or otherwise acquired Petrobras Securities, including debt securities issued by PifCo and/or PGF, on the New York Stock Exchange or pursuant to other Covered Transactions; and/or (b) purchased or otherwise acquired debt securities issued by Petrobras, PifCo, and/or PGF, in Covered Transactions, directly in, pursuant and/or traceable to a May 13, 2013 public offering registered in the United States and/or a March 10, 2014 public offering registered in the United States before Petrobras made generally available to its security holders an earnings statement covering a period of at least twelve months beginning after the effective date of the offerings (August 11, 2014 in the case of the May 13, 2013 public offering and May 15, 2015 in the case of the March 10, 2014 public offering). For purposes of the Settlements, "Covered Transaction" means any transaction that satisfies any of the following criteria: (i) any transaction in a Petrobras Security listed for trading on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE"); (ii) any transaction in a Petrobras Security that cleared or settled through the Depository Trust Company's book-entry system; or (iii) any transaction in a Petrobras Security to which the United States securities laws apply, including as applicable pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010). The full definition of the Settlement Class, as well as full lists of Petrobras Securities eligible to satisfy criteria (i), (ii), and (iii) are available at: www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com. What do the Settlements provide? Petrobras, the Underwriter Defendants, and PwC Brazil have agreed to Settlements with a combined value of US$3 billion (US$3,000,000,000.00). The proposed settlement could provide for a cash payment depending upon: which securities you purchased or acquired; the number of eligible securities that you purchased or acquired; and when you purchased or acquired the eligible securities. How can I get a Payment? You must submit a Proof of Claim to receive payment postmarked or submitted by June 9, 2018. Visit the website and file a Proof of Claim online, or download one and file by mail. What are my other options? If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself by submitting a written Request for Exclusion Form so that it is received no later than April 27, 2018. If you do not exclude yourself, you will release any claims you may have against Petrobras, the Underwriter Defendants, and PwC Brazil and certain other Released Parties. You may object to the Settlement by submitting a written objection so that it is received no later than May 11, 2018. You cannot both exclude yourself from, and object to, the Settlement. The longer Notice available on the website listed below explains how to exclude yourself or object. The court will hold a Settlement Hearing on June 4, 2018 to consider whether to finally approve the Settlement and a request for attorneys' fees of up to 9.5% of the total Settlement Amount, which is $285,000,000.00, and a compensatory award of up to $400,000 for the Class Representatives. You may appear at the Settlement Hearing, either by yourself or through an attorney hired by you, but you do not have to. For more information, including the relief, eligibility, and release of claims, call the number or visit the website below. Contact: 1-855-907-3218 www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq., 212-661-1100 PREFERRED PAYMENT: "Caraballo" Suit Underway in New York -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as SHAMIKA CARABALLO, Plaintiff v. PREFERRED PAYMENT SYSTEMS CORP. AND PARKING SYSTEMS GROUP INC., Defendants, Case No. 712029/2017 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., Aug. 30, 2017), remains pending. A preliminary case conference was held Feb. 15. A Motion to Compel/Stay Arbitration was filed by Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC, on Jan. 31. As of February 10, 1998, Preferred Payment Systems was acquired by Concentra, Inc. Preferred Payment Systems, Inc. provides specialized cost containment and outsourcing services for healthcare payors. Through its comprehensive portfolio of products, the company reduces costs ordinarily payable on medical bills submitted by healthcare providers and the administrative expense associated with reviewing and analyzing medical bills. These services include professional fee negotiation, line-item analysis, and other specialized audit and bill review processes, as well as access to a nationwide PPO network. PPS serves as a one-stop outsourcing solution for cost containment with respect to medical bills that are outside a healthcare payor's contracted network of providers. The Plaintiff sues the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Ms. Caraballo was employed by the Defendants on April 30, 2016 until August 26, 2017. Her duties include opening and closing doors, operating and moving motor vehicles, and walking and making rounds in the Defendants' working premises.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC. 215-28 Hillside Ave. Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: (718) 355-9668 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com The Defendants are represented by Milman, Labuda Law Group. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Faces "Dillon" Suit in M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Prudential Insurance Company of America. The case is styled as Frank Dillon, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-00542-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla., March 7, 2018). The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Inc. offers life insurance, annuities, group disability, and care insurance solutions in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miguel Bouzas, Esq. Florin Gray Bouzas Owens, LLC 16524 Pointe Village DrSte 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Tel: (727) 254-5255 Fax: (727) 483-7942 Email: Miguel@fgbolaw.com - and - Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. Florin Gray Bouzas Owens, LLC 16524 Pointe Village DrSte 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Tel: (727) 254-5255 Fax: (727) 483-7942 Email: wolfgang@fgbolaw.com RESTORATION HARDWARE: Attorneys Fees Challenge Denied ----------------------------------------------------- Tomas Kassahun, writing for Northern California Record, reports that the California Supreme Court has ruled against Francesca Muller, a shopper who challenged part of a $36 million award in a class action lawsuit against Restoration Hardware Inc. Ms. Muller had filed a notice of appeal to challenge the attorney fees as part of the $36 million award. She believed the lower court made a mistake by not sending a notice to all class members about the hearing on the attorneys' fee award. The court said it denied Ms. Muller's appeal because she didn't intervene in the class lawsuit at the trial stage. The court based its decision on the 1942 ruling of Eggert v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co, saying that unnamed class members can't appeal a class judgment, settlement or attorney fees unless they file a motion to intervene with the case. Ms. Muller argued that the 1942 ruling is outdated and many California courts of appeal have stopped following it. Cases such as the1975 decision in Trotsky v. Los Angeles have allowed unnamed class member to file an appeal, Muller said. The court, however, didn't find any persuasive reason for making an exception against the ruling of Eggert v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co. The Restoration Hardware litigation began in 2008. Plaintiff Michael Hernandez filed a class action against Restoration, alleging it violated the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act by recording ZIP codes from customers who used a credit card to make purchases at its California retail stores. The trial court decided on a $36 million judgment against Restoration Hardware, then approved an award of $9.1 million for attorney fees. [GN] RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Faces Three Securities Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------- Wolfie Zhao, writing for Coindesk, reports that amid Riot Blockchain's claims to have moved into bitcoin mining and acquiring blockchain startups, investors are accusing the firm of violating U.S. securities law by issuing misleading and false information. According to court filings, investors in the firm have submitted three class action complaints against Riot Blockchain (on Feb. 17 and 22) in three U.S. states, accusing the firm of share-price manipulation through a dubious cryptocurrency pivot. As reported previously by CoinDesk, Riot Blockchain is one of the several public companies that have seen major stock price rallies after announcing a blockchain-based re-branding. In October last year, the firm changed its name from Bioptix to Riot Blockchain. Subsequently the company said its business has shifted from biotechnology to blockchain, including bitcoin mining. Following the initial announcement, the firm's stock price on NASDAQ soared from around $8 to as high as $38 in December 2017. Yet, shares are now down by roughly 70 percent from those levels, and trading at just over $10. As a result, investors are filing complaints to courts in Florida, Colorado and New Jersey seeking remedy for the investment loss, arguing Riot Blockchain sent out false information to disguise its absence of genuine blockchain expertise. One of the filings states: "Riot lacked a meaningful business plan with respect to the cryptocurrency business and had only minimal investments in cryptocurrency products; the Company changed its name to Riot Blockchain, Inc. as part of a scheme to capitalize on public interest in cryptocurrency products, thereby driving up the Company's stock price and enriching inside shareholders." Riot Blockchain did not respond to a request for comment on the lawsuits. The cases come as the latest that slap on public companies that have seen major price corrections after first recording significant share price surges due to a blockchain pivot. Previously, Xunlei, a China-based cloud technology company listed on New York Stock Exchange, was also hit by similar allegations that accused the firm of distributing false and misleading information regarding its blockchain-related business. [GN] RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Faces Securities Class Action in Florida --------------------------------------------------------- Avi Mizrahi, writing for Bitcoin.com, reports that Riot Blockchain, Inc. (NASDAQ:RIOT) has been hit with a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida. The complaint charges the company, its officers and one of its major shareholders with violations of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Before October 2017, Riot was a biotechnology company known as Bioptix, Inc. that specialized in the development of veterinary diagnostic tools. On October 4, Bioptix announced it was changing its name to Riot Blockchain and shifting its business focus to investing in blockchain technologies. It is accused that as a result of defendants' false statements and omissions, the prices of Riot's securities were artificially inflated. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose adverse material information regarding Riot's business and operations. Specifically, the complaint alleges defendants failed to disclose that it had changed its name to Riot Blockchain in order to generate investor enthusiasm and tie the company to the recent rise in the price of cryptocurrencies, despite its lack of a significant blockchain business in order to further an insider scheme that would allow Riot's controlling shareholder Barry Honig and his associates to sell their Riot securities at artificially inflated prices. In addition, according to the complaint, Honig and other investors were effectively controlling Riot and its operations and exerting undisclosed influence over the company and its CEO. Long Blockchain to be Kicked Out of Nasdaq? Nasdaq-Listed "Blockchain" Companies Hit With New Legal TroublesLong Blockchain Corp. (NASDAQ:LBCC) has received a notice from Nasdaq stating that it had determined to delist the company's securities. SEC documents also show that Nasdaq was revoking its prior notification to Long Blockchain. Prior to June 2017 the company was called Long Island Iced Tea, and gained notoriety when its stock price increased by 432% in a single day after rebranding. The company has the right to appeal Nasdaq's determination but even if its appeal is approved, Long Blockchain will still need to regain compliance by April 9, 2018. In order to do this, the market value of the company's listed securities must remain at $35 million or more for a minimum of ten consecutive business days. If Long Blockchain does not regain compliance by such date, the company's securities would again be subject to potential delisting. [GN] ROYAL SEAFOOD: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Royal Seafood Baza Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Royal Seafood Baza Inc., doing business as: Netcost Market, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02044-JGK (S.D. N.Y., March 6, 2018). Royal Seafood Baza, Inc. is a wholesaler of fresh or frozen fish, shelf stable fish, seafood, shellfish, aquatic invertebrates, aquatic plants and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal S & K CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Kwag" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chul Ho Kwag, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. S & K Corporation; Kyungja Jeong; Seyoung Jeong, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00395-RBW (D.D.C., Feb. 21, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, and unlawful deductions, pursuant to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from May 2014 to January 2018. S & K Corporation is a corporation registered with the District of Columbia. The Company was engaged in the business of wine, beer and deli food. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: (Michael) Hyunkweon Ryu, Esq. RYU & RYU, PLC 301 Maple Ave West, Suite 620 Vienna VA 22180 SCHOOL OF VISUAL ARTS: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against School of Visual Arts, LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. School of Visual Arts, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02045 (S.D. N.Y., March 6, 2018). School of Visual Arts (SVA) is a for-profit art and design college located in Manhattan, New York, founded in 1947.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal SCV FLEET: Failed to Pay Wages Including Overtime, Sales Says ------------------------------------------------------------- TOLENTINO SALES, as an individual, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. SCV FLEET MANAGEMENT, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; JAMES RYAN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC695510 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid Pay Wages including overtime under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, Defendants have consistently maintained and enforced against Plaintiff Class the following unlawful practices and policies: (a) willfully refusing to pay Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class for all hours worked, including both regular and overtime; (b) willfully refusing to permit Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class from taking meal and/or rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (c) willfully refusing to compensate Plaintiff and certain members of the Plaintiff Class wages due and owing at the time Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class' employment with Defendants ended; and (d) willfully refusing to furnish to Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class accurate itemized wage statements upon payment of wages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. Morgan Glynn, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590 5550 Facsimile: (562) 590 8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net mglynn@mahoney-law.net SIMMZYS LLC: Fails to Pay Wages, "Vanegas" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------ MARIA ESTER VANEGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIMMZYS, LLC; ARTHUR J LLC; MBPO, LLC; MWH, LLC; TRB, LLC; SCL200, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC694817 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 21, 2018) alleges that the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals with meal and rest periods, and to pay them minimum wages, overtime wages, and pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, at the correct rate. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants and was assigned in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Simmzys, LLC is a California limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Matthew W. Gordon, Esq. Braunson C. Virjee, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 SOCIAL EDGE: Women Receive Lower Pay, Solomon Says -------------------------------------------------- Rachael Solomon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Social Edge Network, Inc.; Jay Kuo; and Lorenzo Thione, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01571- ER (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for discriminatory, retaliatory, and unlawful conduct against the Plaintiff. The complaint alleged that Defendants is guilty of gender discrimination by: (a) paying female employees less than their male counterparts; (b) denying female employees promotions and advancement opportunities in favor of male employees; (c) creating a hostile work environment for female employees; and (d) retaliating against female employees for complaining about gender discrimination. Ms. Solomon was employed by the Defendants from year 2013 to September 2017. The Social Edge Network, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, with place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Weisenberg, Esq. THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C. 401 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 571-2000 Facsimile: (212) 571-0505 E-mail: benjamin@ottingerlaw.com STEELE WATER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Ramos" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ DARIO RAMOS, and WILSON RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STEELE WATER CABLE, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, BC694818 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 21, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid wages, continuing wages, damages and attorney's fees and costs against the Defendants. Plaintiffs are former technicians of the Defendants, performing cable installation duties within the State of California. Steele Water Cable, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California. The Company is engaged in the business of installing video, voice, and data cables for telecommunications and cable systems throughout California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. David Garrett, Esq. HARRIS AND RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 962-3777 Facsimile: (323) 962-3004 E-mail: HarrisA@harrisandruble.com dgarrett@harrisandruble.com - and - Daniel Forouzan, Esq. FOROUZAN LAW 2029 Century Park East, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (888) 551-0163 Facsimile: (888) 710-0039 SUMMIT COLLECTION: Darwish Sues over Debt Collection ---------------------------------------------------- Ashraf Darwish, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Summit Collection Services, Inc., and Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02488-CCC-JBC (D.N.J., Feb. 21, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Summit Global Services, LLC provides litigation support services and document management solutions to lawyers and law firms. The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Glen Allen, Virginia. [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 SUTTER BAY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Lee Says ----------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE LEE, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated and/or aggrieved employees of DEFENDANTS in the State of California, the Plaintiffs, v. SUTTER BAY MEDICAL FOUNDATION, and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG18894306 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 26, 2018), seeks to recover minimum and regular wages and overtime wages under California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a former, non-exempt employee of Defendant who was employed as a clinical coordinator and worked at Defendant's Walk-In-Clinics in Dublin, Petaluma, Walnut Creek, and San Francisco, California from March 2017 until her termination on September 14, 5 2017. Throughout her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was compensated at an hourly rate of pay of approximately $30.00 per hour during weekday shifts, as well as earned differential pay for night and weekend shifts. Defendant denied Plaintiff and, on information and belief, other similarly situated and/or aggrieved employees certain rights afforded to them under the California Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order. Specifically, Defendant did not properly compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated and/or aggrieved employees for all hours worked, failed to provide compliant meal and rest periods, did not provide accurate itemized wage statements, failed to indemnify them for all necessary business expenses, and did not pay all wages due and owing by the times set forth by law. Sutter East Bay Medical Foundation is a not-for-profit health care organization providing outpatient medical services in the East Bay.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff Michelle Lee and aggrieved employees: Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq. Nicole R. Roysdon, Esq. Geoff D. La Val, Esq. GRAHAMHOLLIS APC 3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: 619.692.0800 Facsimile: 619.692.0822 E-mail: ghollis@grahamhollis.com nroysdon@grahamhollis.com glaval@grahamhollis.com SWISSPORT SA: Stephens Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under Labor Law ----------------------------------------------------------------- NELSON STEPHENS and ROY TAYLOR individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by SWISSPORT SA, LLC, SERVISAIR LLC, and any related or affiliated entities, the Plaintiffs, v. SWISSPORT SA, LLC, SERVISAIR LLC, and any related or affiliated entities, the Defendants, Case No. 151704/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and damages pursuant to New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, beginning in approximately February 2012, and continuing through the present, Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiffs earned minimum wages for work they performed on behalf of Defendants. From at least February 2012, Defendants' policy and practice was to compensate Plaintiffs at subminimum wages by claiming a greater tip allowance than that which is authorized Defendants' failure to compensate Plaintiffs at the applicable minimum wage rate for tipped employees in miscellaneous industries as enumerated in 12 NYCRR section 142-2.5(b) violates the minimum wage provisions of the NYLL.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com TECHNOLOGY REVIEW: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Technology Review, Inc. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Technology Review, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02012 (S.D. N.Y., March 6, 2018). Technology Review, Inc. was founded in 2001. The company's line of business includes the publishing and printing of periodicals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group, PLLC 30 East 39th Street 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com TOTAL DENTAL IMPLANT: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Total Dental Implant Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Total Dental Implant Solutions LLC, doing business as: Contemporary Dental, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02015 (S.D. N.Y., March 6, 2018). Total Dental Implant Solutions LLC (trade name Tag Dental Implant Solutions) is in the Dental Equipment and Supplies business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal TUESDAY MORNING: Violates Disabled Persons Act, Velarde Says ------------------------------------------------------------ HECTOR VELARDE on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TUESDAY MORNING, INC., the Defendant, Case No. BC 695585 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 26, 2018), seeks to statutory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of himself, and injunctive relief on behalf of the putative Class who has patronized or would like to patronize stores of Defendant, in violation of the anti-discrimination state statutes of California, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Code, and the California Disabled Persons Act. According to the complaint, on December 21, 2017, the Plaintiff patronized the Tuesday Morning store located at 23855 Hawthorne Blvd., Torrance, CA to purchase various items and suffered discrimination as a result of being denied full and equal access. Specifically, this store denied Plaintiff equal access because it did not provide an accessible parking lot and/or restroom area. First, Plaintiff was deterred from parking in a handicap accessible parking space because the parking lot did not provide handicap accessible parking signage with language below the symbol of accessibility stating "minimum fine $250.00" and/or warning language regarding the penalty for unauthorized use of designated disabled parking spaces in order to deter the use of handicap spaces by non-handicapped persons. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to park in a handicap accessible parking space. Once inside the store, Plaintiff was denied equal access to the store's restroom. Initially, Plaintiff was unable to access the restroom without assistance because the restroom door was so heavy, the force required by him to open the restroom door made it impossible for him to wheel himself inside, unassisted. Once inside the restroom, Plaintiff was deterred from using the restroom stall because the center of the toilet is situated in such a way that there is inadequate space for a wheelchair-bound person to enter the stall, turn, close the stall door and make transfer to the toilet. Finally, prior to exiting the restroom, Plaintiff was deterred from washing his hands because the soap dispenser and restroom mirror were both mounted excessively high and out of reach to a wheelchair-bound person, and because the pipes under the lavatory are not covered and Plaintiff feared burning his legs. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to use the restroom. Tuesday Morning Corporation is an American discount, off-price retailer specializing in domestic and international, designer and name-brand closeout merchandise. The company has stores across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534 2590 Facsimile: (310) 247 0160 ULTA BEAUTY: Faces Two Class Actions for Reselling Used Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- WSAW reports that popular personal products chain Ulta Beauty is accused of reselling used products. The rapidly-growing company with more than 1,000 stores in 48 states is facing two class-action lawsuits that claim employees repackaged products that were damaged or returned and then put them back on shelves. Plaintiff Kimberly Brown says the beauty retailer used to be her one-stop shop for personal care products until she saw a Twitter post from a former Ulta associate who said managers at Brown's favorite Ulta location were allegedly reselling used products as new, reports CBS News' Anna Werner. "We were told by managers to repackage/reseal the item and put it back on the shelf" the social media post reads. "They would resell EVERYTHING. (makeup, hair care, skincare, fragrance, hair tools, etc.)," the associate wrote in another post. The former employee included photos of products. In one example, she alleges that Ulta employees would clean a used foundation stick with a Q-Tip and resell it. Other people joined in, posting their experiences from around the country. "I felt duped," Ms. Brown said. "For somebody to come forward like that is a pretty big deal, it sends a big red flag in my book." Ms. Brown joined a class-action lawsuit that claims, "Ulta has continued to deceive consumers for years, repackaging, restocking and reselling used beauty products including cosmetics at full price as if they were new." In a video posted on Ulta's website, a company executive denied the practice. "Ulta Beauty's policy does not permit the resale of used, damaged, or expired products. Period. We take protecting the integrity of the products we sell very seriously," she said. But former Ulta Beauty store operations manager Brittany Ludwig says at one store she saw them "cleaning" lip products and eye shadows. At another, she said, shampoos, lotions, and other items in bottles were put back on the shelf. She says some of that she did herself because higher-level managers pressured the stores to keep the dollar amount for damaged or returned goods down. "We had other managers come in from other stores and they were saying 'OK, yeah, you need to clean all these returns, you need to clean this, this is how you're going to get your numbers down,' and it was all a numbers game," she said. "I don't feel so great about doing it now, but at that time that's what I was told to do my job." Ulta told CBS News it is "confident that our stores uphold our policies and practices." WSAW did speak to other Ulta associates who say they did not see this happen in their store, and one said she was told nothing that had been used should be put back on the shelves. But Ms. Brown says she filed the lawsuit because she thinks it's a huge consumer protection issue and says consumers shouldn't have to worry they are being duped when making purchases. [GN] UNITED CARD: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Fabricant" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED CARD SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01429-PA-FFM (C.D. Cal., Feb. 21, 2018) alleges that Defendant has made unsolicited calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. United Card Solutions LLC is an Oregon limited liability company. The Company does business in California and throughout the United States, including the making of telemarketing calls. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon B. Fougner, Esq. 600 California Street, 11th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (434) 623-2843 Facsimile: (206) 338-0783 E-mail: Jon@FougnerLaw.com UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal American Corp. The case is styled as Lawrence Young and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Universal American Corp., Wellcare Health Plans Inc and WellCare of New York, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02067 (S.D. N.Y., March 7, 2018). Universal American Corp., together with its subsidiaries, provides health benefits to people covered by Medicare in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Law Offices of Bradly G. Marks 280 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10010 Tel: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (212) 254-4202 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com US GYPSUM: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, "Wren" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- LEXINGTON WREN; and MICHAEL JOHNSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00029-DC (W.D. Tex., Feb. 21, 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 Standards Act. Mr. Johnson worked for the Defendant from December 1998 to the present. Mr. Wren worked for the Defendant from April 2001 to the present. United States Gypsum Company, Inc. manufactures and markets gypsum-based products. The company was incorporated in 1901 and is based in Chicago, Illinois. It operates as a subsidiary of USG Corporation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek B. Raziel, Esq. Travis Gasper, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 phone Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 fax E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com gasper@l-b-law.com - and - Jack Siegel, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP, PLLC 2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 706-0834 Facsimile: (469) 339-0204 E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settles Diesel Emissions Class Action Before Trial ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew J. Hawkins, writing for The Verge, reports that Volkswagen settled a major diesel emissions class action lawsuit brought by hundreds of vehicle owners right before the case was set to go to trial. The German auto giant's US division settled the lawsuit brought by a North Carolina man and over 300 other owners of diesel cars who allege fraud and unfair trade practices. The trial could have featured testimony from current and former VW executives and would likely have caused a spate of bad press for the automaker regarding the Dieselgate scandal. Since it first broke in 2015, the controversy has led to the resignation of VW's CEO, seen a handful of executives sentenced to jail, and resulted in billions of dollars in fines and settlements. VW is being sued by some consumers after it admitted to using software to cheat on diesel emissions tests, sparking the biggest scandal to hit the auto industry in decades. David Doar, the North Carolina man along with more than 300 other US VW diesel owners, rejected settlement offers from a 2016 class action that would have reimbursed them for the value of their vehicles. Nearly all US owners of affected VW vehicles agreed to take part in a $25 billion settlement in 2016, which included buyback offers and additional compensation for about 500,000 owners. But according to Reuters, some 2,000 owners have opted out, and most are pursuing separate claims seeking additional compensation. VW was featured in a Netflix documentary series about corruption, which disclosed that the company had jointly sponsored tests exposing monkeys to toxic diesel fumes in 2014. The company argued that publicity from the documentary could prejudice its chances of receiving a fair trial. VW had sought to delay the trial after Mr. Doar's lawyer was interviewed for the documentary, but a judge rejected the request. [GN] WEINSTEIN CO: Seeks Dismissal of Sexual Misconduct Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Ron Matthews, writing for 10ThousandCouple, reports that Harvey Weinstein has asked a judge to toss out a federal sexual misconduct lawsuit filed against him and he's invoking the words of Jennifer Lawrence, Meryl Streep and other A-list actresses in his defense. "Even though Mr. Weinstein has worked with hundreds of actresses and actors who had only professional and mutually respectful experiences with him", the statement added, "Mr. Weinstein has directed in the future that no specific names be used by his counsel, even where those actors have made previous public statements about him". Six women are suing Weinstein and what they call the "Weinstein Sexual Enterprise", which they say includes his brother Bob and their co-founded studio The Weinstein Company, claiming they conspired to hide Weinstein's widespread alleged sexual harassment. Lawrence hit back at the disgrace mogul, calling him a "predator" after Weinstein's lawyers used favourable quotes about him from the Hollywood stars. Lawrence also issued her own statement, criticizing Weinstein for continuing to do what he has always done -- to take things out of context and use them for his own gain. "Paltrow was not so offended that she refused to work with Weinstein again, nor did her career suffer as a result of her rebuffing his alleged advances", the court papers said. "Harvey Weinstein's attorneys use of my (true) statement - that he was not sexually transgressive or physically abusive in our business relationship -- as evidence that he was not abusive with many other women is pathetic and exploitive". Saying that the proposed class of affected women was "fatally overbroad", lawyers for Weinstein said that the suit would include all women Weinstein ever met, whether they even claimed to be harmed. She added that while she personally did not experience any abuse from Weinstein, she stands behind all the women who are now seeking justice after all the awful abuse they had experienced with the disgraced media executive. They also said that Weinstein acknowledges Streep and Lawrence's "valuable input" in the ongoing conversation and apologizes to them for mentioning their names. Lawyers Phyllis Kupferstein and Mary E Flynn wrote that this would include actresses such as Streep and Lawrence who have not made allegations of sexual misconduct. Weinstein's lawyers are trying to attack the lawsuit by claiming it's overly broad, which makes it impossible to identify the real victims. Attorney Elizabeth Fegan, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of six actresses, said her team looks forward to showing that "Weinstein and his enablers should be held responsible for decades of assaults and coverups". [GN] WEINSTEIN CO: Bankruptcy Filing May Impact Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- David Meyer, writing for Fortune, reports that the impending bankruptcy filing of The Weinstein Company will likely add a major twist to the on-going lawsuits against the company, many of which relate to the alleged sexual misconduct of Harvey Weinstein. The firm, which produced films such as The King's Speech and Tulip Fever, revealed that it would file for bankruptcy. If it follows through, it will probably have to be removed as a co- defendant in the suits where it is named. The Weinstein Company fired Weinstein, who co-founded it, after the allegations against the movie mogul emerged in October last year. However, several of the suits resulting from Weinstein's alleged conduct have since targeted the company, as well as him. A class action filed in December by actresses such as Louisette Geiss and Katherine Kendall claims that the production company and others enabled Weinstein's predatory behavior. The company filed a motion to dismiss the suit, arguing that Weinstein alone was responsible. Weinstein's former personal assistant, Sandeep Rehal, also named The Weinstein Company as a co-defendant when she sued last December, alleging that she had been forced to facilitate his sexual behavior and had herself been a victim of his harassment. British actress Kadian Noble, who claims that Weinstein assaulted her in Cannes, France, also sued the company along with Weinstein, back in November. And then there's the lawsuit from husband-and-wife production team Scott Lambert and Alexandra Milchan, who sued The Weinstein Company over the collapse of a planned Amazon series, which was supposed to be produced by the firm but was scrapped after the scandal broke--the pair said the company must have known the scandal was coming. And just a few days ago, the Swiss chocolatier Lindt and Sprungli sued The Weinstein Company for $133,333, over the cancellation of a Weinstein Golden Globes party for which it had already shelled out sponsorship money. All these plaintiffs now face a problem, in part, brought about by yet another lawsuit. The Weinstein Company is out of cash, and it had been hoping to sell itself for $500 million in order to stay afloat. But then, earlier in February, New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman launched a civil rights lawsuit against the firm (and Weinstein himself) for violating gender discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual abuse and coercion laws. The suit explicitly said that any sale must see Weinstein's victims compensated. And it seems that the sale -- to an investor group led by former Small Business Administration head Maria Contreras-Sweet -- has now fallen through. In a letter to Contreras-Sweet on Feb. 25, The Weinstein Company said that the investors asked the company to work with them as partners "toward the common goal of saving the Company, preserving jobs and establishing a victims' fund." The firm said this would have required urgent interim funding to stop it from going under, but this had not appeared. "Instead, you increased the liabilities left behind for the Company, charting a financial path that will fail," The Weinstein Company said, alleging other failures on the investors' part. "While we deeply regret that your actions have led to this unfortunate outcome for our employees, our creditors and any victims, we will now pursue the Board's only viable option to maximize the Company's remaining value: an orderly bankruptcy process." In general, bankruptcies effectively end lawsuits against the company going bust -- the New York attorney general's suit would be an exception here, as it is a law enforcement suit. As soon as a company files for bankruptcy, the suits seeking damages are suspended. The only way plaintiffs can continue the suit is to demonstrate that the bankruptcy was filed for in bad faith, for example by proving that the firm had no other liabilities. With The Weinstein Company reportedly in debt to the tune of $520 million (as calculated back in November), that probably means those suing the production firm will get no money from it. That said, many of the suits named The Weinstein Company as a co-defendant. With the other co-defendants including Harvey Weinstein himself and, in the class action, his brother Bob Weinstein and their former production company Miramax, the plaintiffs may potentially still see a payout. This article was updated to clarify that the New York AG's suit would go ahead, bankruptcy notwithstanding. [GN] WV AMERICAN: More Than 80,000 Claims Filed in Water Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Hodousek, writing for MetroNews, reports that claims filed in connection with the 2014 water crisis settlement will continue to come in over the next few days following the deadline. Charleston attorney Anthony Majestro told MetroNews they received more than 80,000 claims for the $151 million settlement between West Virginia American Water Company and Eastman Chemical following the 2014 Freedom Industries chemical spill on the Elk River. The total class size is around 120,000 representing the homes and businesses that lost usable tap water in the spill's aftermath. The deadline to file claims was February 21. Claims had to be posted-marked by that day. "Some more will continue to trickle in. We expect to get a few more hundred in over the next few days," Mr. Majestro said. In just the last few hours before the filing period ended, more than 1,000 claims came in. "The response to it, we believe, shows that the settlement was something that people thought was worth while," Mr. Majestro said. Class action settlements typically have a 20 percent participation rate, Mr. Majestro said. This settlement had about a 50-60 percent rate. People can expect to see reimbursement checks in the mail within the next 2-3 months. The claims administrator will be going through and verifying each claim. Mr. Majestro said they're still waiting on the court to enter the final order. That will allows them the authorization to release the money from the settlement. "Hopefully in the next several months the settlement administrator can start writing checks," he said. [GN] XPO LOGISTICS: Truck Drivers File Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Mark Schremmer, writing for Land Line, reports that a class- action lawsuit claims that XPO Logistics used a deliberate scheme to misclassify their truck drivers as independent contractors, thus denying them the protections available to employees under California law. The lawsuit was filed by attorneys Julie Gutman Dickinson and C. Joe Sayas Jr. on Feb. 26 in the Superior Court of California. "This class action seeks to enjoin the defendants' unlawful conduct, to obtain restitution of unpaid wages and unlawful deductions made from truck drivers' pay, and to prosecute a private enforcement action to collect civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act," the lawsuit said. The class action claims Jacksonville, Fla.-based XPO Cartage Inc., doing business as XPO Logistics, failed to pay minimum wage, wages for missed meal periods, wages for missed rest periods, and reimbursements for business expenses. The lawsuit also cited XPO's failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties, unfair competition and recovery of penalties under the Private Attorney General Act as causes for the action. Plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages and all compensation due, as well as declaratory relief, liquidated damages and permanent injunctions preventing XPO from continuing their current business practices. The topic of working conditions for port truck drivers has been in the news since USA Today published an investigative report that looked at unfair labor practices in the Port of Los Angeles. According to the lawsuit, there are several reasons XPO truck drivers are misclassified as independent contractors. "The days and hours worked by drivers are controlled by the XPO defendants," the lawsuit said. "To obtain work each day, drivers are required to check in with the XPO defendants' dispatchers at the start of the drivers' work shift, at which time the driver is provided an initial load assignment. Throughout the course of the workday, the driver must continually contact the XPO defendants to receive further instructions on further assignments and is expected to continue working until all cargo loads have been pulled and may be reprimanded and/or denied further assignments if he or she stops working early." The lawsuit also alleges that XPO uses tablet computers issued to drivers to monitor in real time the location, movement and status of drivers pulling loads for the company. Angel Omar Alvarez, Alberto Rivera, and Fernando Ramirez are named as plaintiffs in the case. Ms. Dickinson said there are more than 160 plaintiffs in the class action. However, she expects more to be added. [GN] * Stage One Report for Class Action Bill Published in Scotland -------------------------------------------------------------- The Scotsman reports that the Civil Litigation (Expenses and Group Proceedings) (Scotland) Bill comes almost 40 years after lawmakers first considered multi-party litigation procedure. Implementing recommendations of Lord Gill's 2009 Scottish Civil Courts Review, it is driven by a policy to improve access to justice. The stage one report has been published and there remain hoops for it to jump through, but personal injury lawyers and consumer groups support the bill becoming law. If it does, how will it impact litigation in Scotland? Scotland currently has no formal procedure to deal with multiple claims as a group, with parties usually agreeing the solution of running one or two "test cases" to trial (proof), while the rest are paused (sisted). The pursuers still need to raise each case individually at considerable expense and a test case decision is not always binding on the rest. Depending upon the litigation, it may not be easy to reach consensus. In larger or more complex group claims, the Court of Session has taken a more creative, ad hoc approach. For example, in the pelvic mesh and Vioxx litigations, both highly complex, the court set out bespoke procedures through a series of Practice Directions. However, the power of the court to proceed in that way has been questioned. Evidence has shown that group procedure is widely welcomed in Scotland. Costs for pursuers would reduce, businesses would be deterred from harmful behaviour by the threat of mass litigation, and precious court time would be saved. Does the bill match these ambitious aims? If it became law, group procedure in Scotland would look like this: -- Available only in the Court of Session. -- Minimum of two claims per group, but no maximum. -- "Opt-in" -- relevant claims are not automatically included in the group. -- One representative party's case, not necessarily a member, is heard on behalf of the group. -- A decision in the representative party's case is binding on the group. -- The court must give permission to apply the procedure, which will only be granted if all of the claims "raise issues (whether of fact or law) which are the same as, or similar or related to, each other." Immediate questions arise. Why withhold this from sheriff courts? The All Scotland Personal Injury Court would be a more cost- effective forum to litigate many low-value claims. Sheriff courts might also be suited to considering low value human rights cases. Claimants using the Court of Session will pass higher costs on to defenders in any award of expenses if successful. What about "opt-out" procedure, in which cases meeting defined criteria are automatically conscripted and must actively choose to leave the group? Imposing the step of opting-in risks outlier claims running alongside the group at additional expense. How would a decision in those claims affect the group? How does a prospective claimant sign up to the group? Will they require to raise individual proceedings, or simply add their name to a list? What checks will be made to ensure that claims are genuine? The courts will need to provide guidance on the proposal that "similar" or "related" claims could form a group. How does one define "similar" or "related"? Must all claims have the same defender, same legal basis, or rest on the same facts? In the US, a distinction is drawn between mass tort and class actions. In mass tort, every claimant is a member of a group but treated as an individual. In class actions, a representative who stands in for the rest of the class. All members of the class are treated as one claimant, not separately. A number of criteria have to be met for an action to proceed as a class action. There has been no attempt to draw such a distinction under the Scottish proposals. It is not yet clear whether the one-size-fits-all procedure envisaged by the bill will be sufficiently flexible to deal with the various types of group litigation that could arise. The devil may ultimately be in the detail, as specific court rules will be developed by the Scottish Civil Justice Council. For now, the bill passes to stage two for amendment . . . watch this space. Duncan Batchelor is a partner with Clyde & Co. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, 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 * * *