/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180403.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, April 3, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 67 Headlines A&J II FLORAL: "Franco" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA ABALUX INC: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Collar" Class Suit ADEX CORPORATION: "Bryant" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ADT CORPORATION: "Abellard" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations AKORN INC: Gainey McKenna & Egleston Files Class Action AKORN INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action AKORN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action ALBERTSON'S LLC: "Dorfman" Suit Alleges TCPA Breach ALL ABOUT CARE: "Broyles" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid OT Wages ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: "Choi" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations AMERICAN CORADIUS: "Stewart" Suit Seeks Damages under FDCPA AMERICAN MEDICAL: Accused by "Friedman" Suit of Violating FDCPA ATLAS FINANCIAL: RM LAW Discloses Securities Class Action AUTOZONE INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Doland" Class Suit AVEO PHARMA: $15MM Class Settlement in Securities Suit BANK OF AMERICA: "Chen" Suit Asserts Fraud, Seeks Damages BANK OF CHINA: "Duncan" Suit Alleges ADA Violation BARCLAYS PLC: Four Sup. Ct. Petitions for Writ Filed in "Strougo" BENEFIT COSMETICS: "Crosson" Suit Alleges ADA Violation BLUESTONE COAL: Judge Allows Class Action Suit in WARN Case BOONNAK TONE: Accused by "Lopez" Suit of Not Paying Proper Wages CAR SPA COLLECTION: "Bedoya" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation CAVALRY SPV: "Pituk" Disputes Attorney Fees in Collection Suit CINCINNATI BELL: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums COINBASE INC: "Berk" Suit Alleges UCL Violation COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE: "Blair" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations CORA REALTY: "Barrios" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages COUNTY OF ERIE, NY: Bid to Amend Complaint in "Pritchard" Denied COVELLI ENTERPRISES: "Romano" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums CRANE CO: Attorneys Argue Over Standard for Expert Testimony CREDITGUARD OF AMERICA: "Bank" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation D & D THAI: "Librado" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations DAL GLOBAL: Elston, et al. Seeks OT Pay for Off-the-Clock Work DC INTERNATIONAL: "Aaron" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages DCG PARTNERS LLC: Kline Sues Over Auto-dialed Telemarketing Call DELI INC: "Jimenez" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations DIRECTV LLC: "Amadeus Adler" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations DIVINE OPPORTUNITIES: Fails to Pay OT to Caregivers, Osemeke Says ENCORE CAPITAL: "Elston" Suit Seeks Damages under FDCPA FAF INC: "Blodgett" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations FANNIE MAY: Judges Not Eating Up Class-Action Food Lawsuits FIRST BANCORP: Sued by Hansen for Back Overtime Pay Under FLSA FIRST FINANCIAL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Do" Class Suit FIVE STAR QUALITY: Wins Bid to File Writ in "Lefevre" on April 20 FLOWERS FOODS: "Wiatrek" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Damages GACO WESTERN: Faces "Feamster" Suit Over Failure of Spray Foam GOLD'S GYM: "Frank" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation GULF COAST PAVERS: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Insurers Won't Cover Sexual Assault Suits HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: DeJesus Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Site HENRY SCHEIN: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action HENRY SCHEIN: RM LAW Files Securities Class Action HOLMAN DISTRIBUTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Faulk Says HUDSON SEAFOOD: "Carlock" Suit Seeks Damages under FLSA HYUNDAI MOTORS: Lawyers Ask 9th Cir. for En Banc Review IBA PROTON: "Murray" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA INTEL CORPORATION: Aneca Federal Suit Alleges UCL Violations JTH TAX: Accused by Broward Psychology Suit of Violating TCPA KEY TECHNOLOGY: Franchi Files Securities Suit in E.D. Wash. KINDRED HEALTHCARE: "Brumfield" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT LIFE TIME FITNESS: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Lusk" Suit LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Napoles Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy LOS ANGELES, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Ray" FLSA Suit LUMILEDS LLC: "Chaudhri" Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud MCCARTHY BURGESS: "Jacobs" Disputes Collection Letter MDL 2599: Road Tested Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla. MDL 2613: Court Orders Revision of Class Definition MIDLAND FUNDING: Sued for Collecting Time Barred Debt v. Miller MIMEDX GROUP: April 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline MIMEDX GROUP: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action N.A.R. INC: "Brooks" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Michelo" Class Suit in New York NATIONAL CREDITORS: Accused by "Reizes" Suit of Violating FDCPA NEW YORK, NY: Mitchell Appeals Judgment and Opinion to 2nd Cir. NEW YORK, USA: West Appeals W.D.N.Y. Judgment to Second Circuit NEW YORK & COMPANY: "Becker" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation NEXTEP FUNDING: Fails to Give TILA & CLA Disclosures, Danger Says NQ MOBILE: "Chen" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations OTB ACQUISITION: "Esry" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages OUTFIELD BREW: "Beal" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation PALM BEACH: "Jackson" Sues Over Illegal Auto-dialed Calls PAY-O-MATIC CHECK: "Buchanan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Andrews" PLAZA HOTEL: Sued by Hanson Over Illegal Fees for Internet Access POLLACK & ROSEN: Demand Letter Violates FDCPA, "Doane" Suit Says PROGRESSIVE SELECT: UR Health Appeals Ruling to Eleventh Circuit RACHAEL RAY: "Burbon" Suit Alleges ADA Violation RED LOBSTER: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Gardner" Claims RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: "Roys" Suit Hits Share Price Drop RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: "Greenawalt" Sues Over Share Price Drop SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Removes "Albert-Brown" Suit to D.N.H. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Removes "Dowling" Class Suit to D.N.H. SHANGHAI ORIGINAL: Denied Staff OT Pay, Paytubs, Says "Lin" Suit SHIMA LIMOUSINE: "Beavers" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT SIGNICAST LLC: "Friedemann" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime SILVERSTAR DELIVERY: "Smith" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations SMITH AUTO: Ferguson Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages SQUAW VALLEY: Court Extends Time to Respond to "Pinto" Suit SWIFT TECHNICAL: "Binning" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages SYSTEMS & SERVICES: "Chavez" Suit Seeks Damages under FDCPA TITLEMAX INC: "Sistrunk" Settlement Has Final Approval TOUCH OF CUBAN: "Castaneda" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations TOWERS WATSON: "Fort Myers" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty UNITED FOOD: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Ohlendorf" UNITED PARCEL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Holl" Class Suit UNITED SERVICES: Vaughn Appeals Ruling to Kansas Supreme Court UNITED STATES: Appeals Amended Order in "Vidal" Suit to 2nd Cir. UNITED STATES: Class Action Over DACA Program Pending UNITED STATES: ACLU Sues Against ICE Over Asylum-Seeking Families VENICE HMA: "Briggs" Suit Seeks Damages under FLSA VENKY'S FOOD: Accused by "Sanchez" of Not Paying Minimum Wages VITA-MIX CORP: Pittman Appeals Decision in "Gooding" to 9th Cir. WAGEWORKS INC: Barrack, Rodos Files Securities Class Action WELLS FARGO: April 16 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline WESTERN DENTAL: Mack Files Suit Over TCPA Violation WHITEROC DRYWALL: "Herrera" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid OT Wages WILLIAMSBURG GARDEN: "Ernandez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation WINN MANAGEMENT: Court OKs $250K Class Settlement in "Goodwin" YEREIM OF SPRING VALLEY: "Lorenzana" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages * Alston & Bird Attorneys Discuss Recent Class Action Rulings * DOJ Probe May Spark Generic Drug Price Fixing Class Actions * Gig Economy Renews Debate Whether Contractors Are Misclassified * Polsinelli Attorneys Say Token Issuers May Face Class Actions ********* A&J II FLORAL: "Franco" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL FRANCO and MELISSA ESCALANTE on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. ADRIAN BENITEZ, JOSE RAMIREZ, A&J II FLORAL CORPORATION d/b/a METRO FLORAL DECORATORS, METRO FLORAL WHOLESALE CORP. d/b/a METRO FLORAL DECORATORS, ABC CORP. d/b/a METRO FLORAL DECORATORS, Case No. 2:18-cv-01343 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiffs are entitled to, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, unpaid wages for overtime work performed, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, interest, and all costs and disbursements associated with the action. A&J II Floral Corporation, doing business as Metro Floral Decorators, is a New York Corporation whose principal place of business is located in Great Neck, New York. Metro Floral Wholesale Corp., doing business as Metro Floral Decorators, is a New York Corporation whose principal place of business is located Great Neck. ABC Corp., doing business as Metro Floral Decorators, is a New York Corporation whose principal place of business is located Great Neck. The Individual Defendants are officers, owners, shareholders, agents, managers or employees of the Defendant Corporations. Metro Floral Decorators is a florist that specializes in modern, artistic floral designs for weddings, engagements, bar/bat mitzvahs, parties and special occasions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marcus Monteiro, Esq. MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP 91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108 Hempstead, NY 11550 Telephone: (516) 280-4600 Facsimile: (516) 280-4530 E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com ABALUX INC: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Collar" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jesus Lazaro Collar filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Jesus Collar v. Abalux, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-20872-JAL, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged failure to pay overtime wages in excess of 40 hours worked weekly in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Abalux Inc. is a printing press enterprise. The appellate case is captioned as Jesus Collar v. Abalux, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10676, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- The appellant's brief is due on or before April 2, 2018; -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of the appellant's brief; and -- Awaiting Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due March 20, 2018, as to Appellees Abalux, Inc. and Juan D. Cabral.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JESUS LAZARO COLLAR, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. Stephen Michael Fox, Jr., Esq. Rivkah F. Jaff, Esq. Karl David Kelly, Esq. Alejandro Guillermo Martinez-Maldonado, Esq. Natalie Ann Staroschak, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st St., Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com stephen.fox.esq@gmail.com Rivkah.Jaff@gmail.com david.kelly38@rocketmail.com martinez.zidelllaw@gmail.com nstar.zidellpa@gmail.com Defendants-Appellees ABALUX, INC., and JUAN D. CABRAL are represented by: Leslie W. Langbein, Esq. LANGBEIN & LANGBEIN, PA 8181 Nw 154th St., Suite 105 Miami Lakes, FL 33016-5861 Telephone: (305) 556-3663 E-mail: langbeinpa@bellsouth.net ADEX CORPORATION: "Bryant" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ Thomas Bryant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Adex Corporation, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-01282 (S.D. N.Y., February 13, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires non exempt employees to be compensated for all hours in excess of forty in a workweek at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay. Plaintiff Thomas Bryant is an individual residing in Volusia County, Florida. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Field Technician from approximately November 2015 to February 2017. Defendant Adex provides telecommunication equipment installation and integration to cellular telephone companies throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste 200 Houston, TX 77006 Tel: (713) 523-0001 Fax: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com ADT CORPORATION: "Abellard" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------------- David Abellard, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The ADT Corporation, Case No. 18-cv-60293 (S.D. Fla., February 9, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff David Abellard, Jr. is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this action, was a resident of Broward County, Florida. Defendant The ADT Corporation provides residential and small businesses electronic security, fire protection, and other alarm monitoring services in 35 countries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Tel: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: efilings@shamisgentile.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com AKORN INC: Gainey McKenna & Egleston Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Akorn, Inc. ("Akorn" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:AKRX) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Akorn securities on the open market from March 1, 2017 and February 26, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that on February 26, 2018, Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA -- which had been expected to close on an acquisition of Akorn in the coming weeks -- announced that it is "conducting an independent investigation, using external experts, into alleged breaches of FDA data integrity requirements relating to product development at Akorn, Inc." This news caused the Company's stock to dropped nearly 40%. The Complaint also alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) the Company's failure to comply with FDA data integrity requirements would jeopardize Fresenius's acquisition of the Company; (2) the Company lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the May 7, 2018 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme- law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN] AKORN INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Akorn, Inc., and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the District of Illinois, Eastern Division, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Akorn's securities between March 1, 2017 through February 26, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Akorn securities between March 1, 2017, and February 26, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have until May 7, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Akorn, Inc. is a niche pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, and markets generic and branded prescription pharmaceuticals. The Company manufactures sterile and non-sterile dosage forms, including ophthalmics, injectables, oral liquids, topicals, inhalants, and nasal sprays. Akorn markets its products to pharmacies, physicians, hospitals, and government agencies. In April 2017, Fresenius Kabi, a division of Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA (collectively, "Fresenius"), and Akorn announced that Fresenius had agreed to acquire Akorn for approximately $4.3 billion. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Akorn's failure to comply with FDA data integrity requirements would jeopardize Fresenius' acquisition of Akorn; (ii) the Company lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Akorn shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and class members suffered significant losses and damages. On February 26, 2018, post-market, Fresenius announced that it is conducting an independent investigation, using external experts, into alleged breaches of U.S. Food and Drug Administration data integrity requirements relating to product development at Akorn. Fresenisus stated that "[t]he consummation of the transaction may be affected if the closing conditions under the merger agreement are not met." On this news, the Company's shares fell $11.63 per share or over 38% to close at $18.65 per share on February 27, 2018, damaging investors. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Tel.No.: 888-476-6529 Ext. 9980 Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] AKORN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing investors nationwide, announces that a class action has been filed against Akorn, Inc. ("Akorn" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AKRX) and certain of its officers for violations of the federal securities laws. If you purchased Akorn shares between March 1, 2017 and February 26, 2018 (the "Class Period") and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 7, 2018. As a member of the class, you may seek to file a motion to serve as a lead plaintiff or take no action and remain an absent class member. If you wish to become involved in the litigation or have questions about your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Bradley Vettraino at (617) 398-5600, by email at rel="nofollow">bradley@blockesq.com, or by visiting www.blockesq.com/akorn. On February 26, 2018, after the close of trading, Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA -- which had been expected to close on an acquisition of Akorn in the coming weeks -- announced that it is "is conducting an independent investigation, using external experts, into alleged breaches of FDA data integrity requirements relating to product development at Akorn, Inc." This news caused Akorn's stock to plunge nearly 40%, causing tens of millions of dollars in losses to investors. On this news, the Company's stock fell more than 39% to close at $8.75 on February 20, 2018, causing tens of millions of dollars in losses to investors. The complaint, filed in U.S. Federal court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Joshi Living Trust v. Akorn, Inc., et al. No. 1:18-cv-01713, alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) Akorn's failure to comply with FDA data integrity requirements would jeopardize Fresenius's acquisition of Akorn; (2) Akorn lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result, Akorn's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with information relevant to this investigation is assured. Block & Leviton LLP 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. This notice may constitute attorney advertising. Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq. Block & Leviton LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Tel.No.: (617) 398-5600 Email: bradley@blockesq.com [GN] ALBERTSON'S LLC: "Dorfman" Suit Alleges TCPA Breach --------------------------------------------------- Robert Dorfman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Albertson's, LLC dba Sav-on Pharmacy, Case No. 1:18- cv-00094 (D. Idaho, February 27, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff Robert Dorfman resides in San Diego County, California, and is a citizen of California. Defendant Albertson's, LLC operates retail grocery stores named Albertsons, and pharmacies inside Albertsons named "Sav-on Pharmacy." Defendant distributes, markets, and sells pharmaceutical and retail consumer products throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel McCarthy, Esq. MCCARTHY LAW, PLLC 802 W. Bannock St., Ste 201 Tel: (208) 343-8888 Fax: (208) 342-4200 E-mail: gabe@gabrielmccarthy.com ALL ABOUT CARE: "Broyles" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Kenyana Broyles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Auston J. Cartwright and All About Care Services, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00135 (M.D. Tenn., February 9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Kenyana Broyles is an adult resident of the State of Tennessee. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as home manager. The Defendants own and operate a non-medical in home care service. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nina Parsley, Esq. MICHAEL D. PONCE & ASSOCIATES 1000 Jackson Road, Suite 225 Goodlettsville, TN 37072 Tel: (615) 851-1776 E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: "Choi" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------- Soojeong Choi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alltran Financial, LP, Case No. 1:18-cv-01251 (E.D. N.Y., February 27, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff Soojeong Choi is an individual who is a citizen of the State of New York residing in Queens County, New York. Defendant Alltran Financial, LP, is a Texas Limited Partnership with a principal place of business in Harris County, Texas. Defendant is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com AMERICAN CORADIUS: "Stewart" Suit Seeks Damages under FDCPA ----------------------------------------------------------- Amy L. Stewart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Coradius International, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 6:18-cv-00042 (W.D. Tex., February 12, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Texas, County of Somervell, residing at 1960 Texas Drive, Glen Rose, TX 76043. The Defendant is a debt collector with an office at 2420 Sweet Home Rd. Suite 150, Amherst, NY 14228. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. RC LAW GROUP, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@rclawgroup.com AMERICAN MEDICAL: Accused by "Friedman" Suit of Violating FDCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA FRIEDMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., A/K/A AMCA, Case No. 3:18-cv-02951-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., February 28, 2018), is brought to seek redress for the Defendant's alleged illegal practices, in connection with the collection of a debt allegedly owed by the Plaintiff in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Defendant is a collection agency with its corporate headquarters located in Elmsford, New York. The Defendant is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Salim Katach, Esq. VARACALLI & HAMRA, LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 1818 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 590-0571 Facsimile: (646) 619-4012 E-mail: Skatach@vhllp.com ATLAS FINANCIAL: RM LAW Discloses Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- RM LAW, P.C., disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Atlas Financial Holdings, Inc. securities between March 13, 2017, and March 2, 2018, inclusive. Atlas shareholders may, no later than May 4, 2018, move the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you purchased shares of Atlas and would like to learn more about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299. Atlas Financial Holdings Inc. is a specialty commercial transportation insurer of taxi cabs, limousines, paratransit and other transport businesses around the United States. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company failed to employ internal controls to ensure appropriate accounting practices, including, but not limited to, the calculation of certain loss reserves; (ii) the Company's internal controls over financial reporting were materially weak; (iii) the Company's financial statements were inaccurate and misleading, including by understating certain loss reserves; and (iv) that as a result of the foregoing, Atlas' business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On March 1, 2018, post-market, the Company issued a press release entitled "Atlas Financial Holdings Announces Preliminary 2017 Fourth Quarter and Year End Financial Results," announcing a large increase in its reserves. On this news, the Company's share price fell $7.70, or 40.96%, to close at $11.10 per share on March 2, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than May 4, 2018, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C. (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by email at rm@maniskas.com For more information about class action cases in general or to learn more about RM LAW, P.C. RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm. RM LAW, P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel.No.: 484-324-6800, 844-291-9299 Email: rm@maniskas.com [GN] AUTOZONE INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Doland" Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Marsha Doland filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Marsha Doland v. Autozone Inc., et al., Case No. 8:09-cv-01138-AG-MLG, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. The nature of suit is stated as other contract actions. The appellate case is captioned as Marsha Doland v. Autozone Inc., et al., Case No. 18-55273, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript was to be ordered by March 28, 2018; -- Transcript is due on April 27, 2018; -- Appellant Marsha Doland's opening brief is due on June 6, 2018; -- Appellees Autozone Inc. and Does' answering brief is due on July 6, 2018; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MARSHA DOLAND, successor in interest to William Doland; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, is represented by: Richard Edward Quintilone, II, Esq. QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES 22974 El Toro Road Lake Forest, CA 92630 Telephone: (949) 458-9675 Facsimile: (949) 458-9679 E-mail: req@quintlaw.com Defendant-Appellee AUTOZONE INC is represented by: Michael E. Brewer, Esq. Gregory G. Iskander, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1255 Treat Boulevard Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: (925) 932-2468 Facsimile: (925) 946-9809 E-mail: mbrewer@littler.com giskander@littler.com AVEO PHARMA: $15MM Class Settlement in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities ) Litigation ) ) No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC ) ) This document relates to: All Actions ) CLASS ACTION ) ) Hon. Denise J. Casper ) NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION. TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SHARES OF AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. ("AVEO") BETWEEN MAY 16, 2012 AND MAY 1, 2013, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE ("THE CLASS PERIOD"). Excluded from the Class are (1) Defendants and their immediate families, (2) any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest, (3) current and former officers, directors and employees of AVEO, and (4) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any excluded party. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts (the "Court") of a proposed Settlement in In re AVEO Securities Litigation, No. 1:13-cv-11157 (the "Action"). If approved by the Court, the Settlement will provide for $15 million cash and 2 million warrants to be issued after final approval of this Settlement, with a one-year term and a $3.00 strike price. Plaintiffs estimate there were approximately 24.03 million shares of AVEO common stock traded during the Class Period that may have been damaged. If all of those shares were damaged, the estimated average recovery will have an economic value of approximately $0.7501 per share, before deduction of Court approved fees and expenses and costs of notice and claims administration, based on Plaintiffs' estimated value of the warrant component of the Settlement at $1.5213 per warrant (as of January 31, 2018). The actual amount disbursed to members of the Class who participate in the Settlement may be more or less than this figure. A hearing will be held before Honorable Denise J. Casper on May 30, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., in Courtroom 11 of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Suite 2300, Boston, Massachusetts 02210, to determine: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the Class's claims against the Defendants for $15,000,000.00 cash and 2 million Settlement Warrants should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the Court should permanently enjoin the assertion of any claims that arise from or relate to the subject matter of the Action; (4) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement filed with the Court; (5) whether the application by Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; and (6) whether the Class Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of costs and expenses should be granted. If you purchased AVEO common stock during the Class Period, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this Action. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to the Settlement Administrator at AVEO Securities Litigation, Settlement Administrator, PO Box 5110, Portland, OR 97208-5110, or by phone at (855) 367-5403, or by email at info@AVEOSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by visiting www.AVEOSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, in order to share from the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must timely submit a Proof of Claim to the Settlement Administrator's address provided above and postmarked on or before May 29, 2018. If you are a member of the Class and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim, you will not share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will be bound by any judgment or orders entered by the Court. If you want to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion to the Settlement Administrator at the address above postmarked on or before May 16, 2018, in the manner and form detailed in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgment or orders entered by the Court in the Action, and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. If you have any objection to the proposed Settlement, the adequacy of representation provided by Class Plaintiffs and/or Class Counsel, the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund, the Final Order and Judgment contemplated by the Stipulation, the application for attorneys' fees not to exceed 30% of the Settlement Amount, and reimbursement of expenses not to exceed $400,000, and/or the application of a Compensatory Award, not to exceed $5,000 each, for the time and expenses incurred by Class Plaintiffs, or if you otherwise wish to be heard with respect to any of the foregoing, you may appear in person or by attorney at the Final Approval Hearing. Notice of objection or appearance must be filed in the manner detailed in the Notice with the Clerk of the Court and delivered to Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel, such that it is received by each party no later than May 16, 2018, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. All members of the Class who do not request exclusion therefrom, in the manner provided in the Notice, will be represented by Class Counsel in connection with the Settlement, but may, if they so desire, also enter an appearance through counsel of their own choice at their own expense. INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL. Any questions should be directed to: Settlement Administrator AVEO Securities Litigation c/o Epiq Settlement Administrator PO Box 5110 Portland, OR 97208-5110 (855) 367-5403 info@AVEOSecuritiesLitigation.com www.AVEOSecuritiesLitigation.com Joshua B. Silverman, Esq. Class Counsel Pomerantz LLP 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel.No.: (312) 377-1181 Email: jbsilverman@pomlaw.com Dated: February 28, 2018 By Order of the Court United States District Court District of Massachusetts [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: "Chen" Suit Asserts Fraud, Seeks Damages --------------------------------------------------------- Zuolin Chen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bank of America Corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-00074 (W.D. N.C., February 12, 2018), seeks to recover damages and/or refunds from the Defendant for fraudulent inducement, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of consumer protection laws, unjust enrichment, and conversion. Plaintiff Zuolin Chen is a citizen of Texas and resides in Katy, Texas. Defendant Bank of America Corporation is a banking institution with a principal place of business at Bank of America Corporate Center, 100 N. Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28255. Upon information and belief, Bank of America, N.A., is an affiliate and subsidiary of Defendant Bank of America Corporation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Patrick M. Wallace, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Tel: (919) 600-5000 Fax: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com pat@wbmllp.com BANK OF CHINA: "Duncan" Suit Alleges ADA Violation -------------------------------------------------- Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bank of China, Case No. 1:18-cv-00963 (E.D. N.Y., February 13, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Plaintiff Eugene Duncan, at all relevant times, is a resident of Queens, New York. Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and a member of member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA. The defendant Bank of China is and was at all relevant times a New York FDIC Insured Banking Corporation doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. JOSEPH H. MIZRAHI LAW P.C. 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12 Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (718) 425-8954 E-mail: Joseph@Jmizrahilaw.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com BARCLAYS PLC: Four Sup. Ct. Petitions for Writ Filed in "Strougo" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Four petitions for a writ of certiorari were separately filed on February 26, 2018, in the lawsuit entitled Barclays PLC, et al., Petitioners v. Joseph Waggoner, et al., Case No. 17-1209, in the Supreme Court of United States. Responses to the Petitions were due on March 30, 2018. The lower court case is styled JOSEPH WAGGONER, MOHIT SAHNI, BARBARA STROUGO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. BARCLAYS PLC, ROBERT DIAMOND, ANTONY JENKINS, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., WILLIAM WHITE, Defendants-Appellants, CHRIS LUCAS, TUSHAR MORZARIA, Defendants, Case No. 16-1912-cv, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Second Circuit issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's Order granting Class Certification in the case titled Joseph Waggoner, et al. v. Barclays PLC, et al., Case No. 14-cv-5797 (S.D.N.Y.). Barclays PLC, its American subsidiary Barclays Capital Inc., and three senior officers of those companies appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granting a motion for class certification filed by the Plaintiffs-Appellees, three individuals who purchased Barclays' American Depository Shares (Barclays' ADS) during the class period. The Plaintiffs brought this suit alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners Barclays PLC, et al., are represented by: Jeffrey Thomas Scott, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-3082 E-mail: scottj@sullcrom.com BENEFIT COSMETICS: "Crosson" Suit Alleges ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Aretha Crosson, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Benefit Cosmetics, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv- 01287 (E.D. N.Y., February 28, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Benefit for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Plaintiff Aretha Crosson is a resident of Kings County, State of New York. Plaintiff is legally blind and a member of a protected class under the ADA. Defendant Benefit Cosmetics, LLC owns and operates Benefit Stores, which is a place of public accommodation. Benefit Stores are located in New York State. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 44 Court St., Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com BLUESTONE COAL: Judge Allows Class Action Suit in WARN Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Farris, writing for The Register-Herald, reports that a federal judge has certified a class action lawsuit in the third of four cases filed by a Beckley attorney against Bluestone Coal Corporation. The suit, certified by U.S. District Court Judge Irene Berger, and filed by Sam Petsonk of Mountain State Justice, alleges that miners at Burke Mountain Strip Mine in Wyoming County were laid off from full-time employment without a 60-day notice required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) by Bluestone Coal Corporation, Bluestone Industries Inc. or Mechel Bluestone from Dec. 27, 2011, through March 26, 2012. Berger set a trial date for April 30. The suit alleges that miners from the three companies were verbally laid off without prior notice from their jobs at Burke Mountain Strip Mine. Designed to protect workers' rights, the WARN Act requires employers to give workers two months' notice prior to a layoff. If the employer fails to do so, the WARN Act provides a legal pathway for workers to recoup damages. "The WARN Act is intended to give workers fair notice before their lives are disrupted by the loss of a job," Petsonk said. "Essentially, you're entitled under the WARN Act to have two months of advance notice. "If the company fails to give you advance notice, you're entitled to sue to recover two months of wages so you can have the same sort of economic situation you would've had." Petsonk added, "We believe there are about 105 people who are covered by the class action, as it was defined. That number may change as we learn more about the site and the layoffs." Fifty miners allege to have been laid off in violation of the WARN Act from the Burke Mountain Strip Mine near the southern border of Wyoming County around December 2011. To bring a suit under the WARN Act, at least 50 people and 33 percent of the workers must be laid off. Petsonk said his firm is currently locating additional miners who worked at Burke Mountain Strip Mine at Keystone between those dates. "The certification of a class action does not mean that the plaintiffs have won," he explained. "But it does mean that the defendants will have to pay the penalties to the entire class if we do prevail at the trial." The town of Keystone is eligible to seek $30,000 in damages, under the WARN Act, said Petsonk. The legal penalty in the Burke Mountain case is equal to two months of wages for each laid-off worker and the payment to the local unit of government. "We will be working with the Bluestone companies to secure the last known addresses and telephone numbers for all eligible miners," said Petsonk. "However, because the layoffs occurred so long ago, miners who were laid off during that period at Burke Mountain may call our office in Beckley to ensure that we have current information for including them in the class action." Union and non-union miners were impacted by the layoff, said Petsonk. Petsonk is accepting contact information from miners who were laid off anywhere on Burke Mountain, including Jobs 32, 34, 39 and the preparation plants known as Keystone and K2. Miners who were laid off at Burke Mountain in October 2012 (including at Pay Car Mining) may also contact him. Mountain State Justice has secured tentative settlements in two previous cases against the Bluestone companies involving the Double Bonus Mine No. 65 and the Coal Mountain Surface Mine. Berger must approve those settlements. Petsonk has filed a fourth WARN Act case against the Bluestone companies, as of March 9. Mechel Bluestone is owned by Gov. Jim Justice. Justice sold Mechel Bluestone in 2009 to Russia's OAO Mechel for a combination of cash and Mechel stock valued at $568 million. He purchased the mines back for $5 million in February 2015, reopening some mine locations and creating around 150 jobs. [GN] BOONNAK TONE: Accused by "Lopez" Suit of Not Paying Proper Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- BERNABE ABELINO ESCALANTE LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BOONNAK TONE, INC. (D/B/A DER KRUNG) and ORATHIP BOONNAK (A.K.A. ORATHIP RANRONSONGKRAM), Case No. 1:18-cv-01739 (S.D.N.Y., February 26, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Boonnak Tone, Inc., doing business as Der Krung, is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York. Orathip Boonnak, also known as Orathip Ranronsongkram, is an owner, officer and/or agent of the Defendant Corporation. The Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai restaurant, located at 860 9th Avenue, in New York City, under the name "Der Krung."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com CAR SPA COLLECTION: "Bedoya" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Heber Bedoya, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Car Spa Collection, LLC, Anthony Hajjar, and Nadia Zahr, Case No. 1:18-cv-20755 (S.D. Fla., February 27, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Heber Bedoya worked for Defendants as a non-exempt auto detailer from January 1, 2008 through August 16, 2017. Defendants own and operate a car spa in Coral Gables, Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P. A. 600 Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Fax: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com CAVALRY SPV: "Pituk" Disputes Attorney Fees in Collection Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Saifon Pituk, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00065, (E.D. Wash., February 22, 2018), seek damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Cavalry is a debt collection agency who attempted to collect a debt from Pituk by serving him with an unfiled Spokane County Superior Court summons and complaint. However, Defendant's complaint contained a request for attorney's fees which Pituk contested to be in violation of Revised Code of Washington 4.84.080. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk D. Miller, Esq. KIRK D. MILLER, P.S. 421 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 660 Spokane, WA 99201 Tel: (509)413-1494 Fax: (509)413-1724 Email: kmiller@millerlawspokane.com CINCINNATI BELL: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Johnson, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Cincinnati Bell, Inc. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00138, (S.D. Ohio, February 23, 2018), seeks overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Defendants are in the business of providing integrated communications solutions, including local and long distance voice, data, high-speed Internet and video entertainment services to residential and business customers throughout Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana. Johnson was employed by Defendants as an Outbound Sales Representative out of their Consumer Sales Department from approximately December 2015 to approximately May 2016. He regularly worked in excess of 40-45 hours per workweek selling Bell's products, namely home phone, long distance, internet, wireless and video products through outbound dialing and earn commission from sales. He claims that commission payments should have been included in their regular rates of pay before any and all overtime multipliers were applied. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Molly K. Tefend, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Fax: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com mtefend@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Ryan K. Hymore, Esq. MANGANO LAW OFFICES CO., L.P.A. 3805 Edwards Road, Suite 550 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Tel: (513) 255-5888 Fax: (216) 397-5845 Email: rkhymore@bmanganolaw.com COINBASE INC: "Berk" Suit Alleges UCL Violation ----------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Berk, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Coinbase, Inc. dba Global Digital Asset Exchange, Brian Armstrong and David Farmer, Case No. 4:18-cv-01364 (N.D. Calif., March 1, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and negligence. This is a class action on behalf of all Coinbase customers who placed purchase, sale or trade orders with Coinbase or the GDAX in connection with Coinbase's launch of BCH during the period of December 19, 2017 through and including December 21, 2017 and who suffered monetary loss as a result of Defendants' wrongdoing. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, any entity owned or controlled by them, and any officer, director, employee or agent of any of the Defendants, and any heirs, assigns, or family members of any individual defendant. Plaintiff Jeffrey Berk is a citizen of Arizona. On December 19, 2017, at 5 p.m. PST, Plaintiff attempted to purchase BCH within five minutes of Coinbase announcing that it was going to support BCH. Plaintiff's orders were not executed until 1:06 p.m. December 20, at which time, Plaintiff learned that his order was executed and that he had purchased BCH at the inflated price of $4,200.98 per BCH. Plaintiff's order was executed at prices 100% greater than the price at the time that he submitted his buy order. Bitcoin is a digital currency that was created as a response to the 2008 financial crisis and is the first decentralized digital currency that works without a bank or central authority, but rather on a peer to peer basis. Defendant Coinbase maintains its principal place of business in San Francisco, California and is incorporated in Delaware. It is one of the most powerful digital currency exchanges in the world, buying and selling Bitcoin, BCH, Litecoin, and Ethereum. The Individual Defendants are directors of the company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Green, Esq. James Robert Noblin, Esq. GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C. 2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101 Larkspur, CA 94939 Tel: (415) 477-6700 Fax: (415) 477-6710 E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com - and - Lynda Grant, Esq. THEGRANTLAWFIRM, PLLC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Tel: (212) 292-4441 Fax: (212) 292-4442 E-mail: lgrant@grantfirm.com COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE: "Blair" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Erik Blair, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v. Comprehensive Healthcare Management Services, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00254 (W.D. Pa., February 28, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff Erik Blair is a resident of 34 Observatory Street, Manor, PA 15665. Plaintiff Blair worked for Defendant Comprehensive Healthcare Management Services at its Cheswick Rehabilitation and Wellness Center as a Registered Nurse from in or about September 2017 through January 23, 2018. Defendant Comprehensive Healthcare Management Services, LLC, is a company operating long-term-care facilities and providing rehabilitation and nursing care throughout Pennsylvania and the United States. Defendant maintains its headquarters at 147 Reist Street, Williamsville, NY 14221. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. First & Market Building Suite 650, 100 First Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Tel: (412) 227-0763 Fax: (412) 774-1994 E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com CORA REALTY: "Barrios" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Hernando Barrios, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Cora Realty Co., LLC, Chestnut Holdings of New York, Inc., Manuel Philips, Jonathan Wiener, and Ben Rieder, Case No. 1:18-cv-01331 (S.D. N.Y., February 14, 2018), seeks to recover all unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime premium, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. On or about February 14, 2017 Plaintiff, Hernando Barrios, was hired by Defendant Manuel Philips to work as a superintendent at Defendants' residential property located at 3165 Decatur Avenue, Bronx, NY 10467. Plaintiff worked for Defendants until on or about September 1, 2017. Defendants operate a property management business that owns and operates in excess of one hundred residential rental properties located in New York City. Defendants' properties are operated collectively as a single integrated enterprise commonly owned and controlled by Defendants. Defendants share a single corporate leadership, including CEO Jonathan Wiener and senior corporate officer Ben Rieder. The Individual Defendants are each principals and senior executive officers of the Corporate Defendants named herein and are each employers as to Plaintiff. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 COUNTY OF ERIE, NY: Bid to Amend Complaint in "Pritchard" Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of New York issued a Decision and Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint in the cases captioned ADAM PRITCHARD and EDWARD ROBINSON, Plaintiffs, v. THE COUNTY OF ERIE; PATRICK M. GALLIVAN, both individually and in his official capacity as the Sheriff of the County of Erie; TIMOTHY HOWARD, both individually and as the Undersheriff of the County of Erie; DONALD J. LIVINGSTON, both individually and as Acting Superintendent of the Erie County Correctional Facility; ROBERT HUGGINS, both individually and as Deputy Superintendent of the Erie County Correctional Facility; and H. McCARTHY GIBSON, both individually and as Superintendent of the Erie County Holding Center, Defendants, DEDRICK WILLIAMS, MARQUESSA PAGE, and CAMILE SMITH, individually and on behalf of a certified class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE COUNTY OF NIAGARA; THOMAS BEILEIN, both individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of the County of Niagara; SAMUEL MUSCARELLA, both individually and as Undersheriff of the County of Niagara; and JOHN SAXTON, both individually and as Major in the Niagara County Sherriff's Office, Defendants, Nos. 04-CV-534- A, 06-CV-291-A (W.D.N.Y.). The Plaintiffs in both cases allege that Erie County and Niagara County, together with the individual Defendants high-ranking officials in each County's Sheriff's Office maintain policies requiring that all new detainees at the ECHC, the ECCF, and the NCJ be strip searched, regardless of the crime with which the detainee has been charged, and regardless of whether reasonable suspicion exists to believe the detainee has contraband on his or her person. The Plaintiffs' claims in both cases are significantly impacted by the Supreme Court's decision in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318 (2012), which was decided during the pendency of these cases. The Erie Plaintiffs first move to amend their complaint to add (1) a Fourth Amendment claim based on an alleged group strip search policy; and (2) a claim under the New York State Constitution. The Erie Defendants oppose this motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that, as applicable here, a party may amend its pleading only with the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires. It is well settled that this is a permissive standard, intended to promote the strong preference for resolving disputes on the merits. The Erie Defendants argue that leave to amend should be denied because (1) the proposed new claims would be futile; (2) the Erie Plaintiffs waited too long to seek leave to amend; and (3) the Erie Defendants would suffer substantial prejudice if leave to amend were granted. The Court denies the Erie Plaintiffs' motion to amend because the Plaintiffs waited too long to file the motion, and because the Erie Defendants would be unduly prejudiced by the proposed eve- of-judgment amendment. A court plainly has discretion to deny leave to amend where the motion is made after an inordinate delay, no satisfactory explanation is offered for the delay, and the amendment would prejudice the defendant. This case was filed in 2004. The Erie Defendants represent and the Erie Plaintiffs do not dispute that all of the thirty-three depositions in this case were completed by December 2006. The Erie Defendants assert quite reasonably that group-search claims were never a focus of discovery, and that, at this late stage, all but one of the named individual defendants are either retired or have moved on to other endeavors. Moreover, there is obvious prejudice in asking witnesses to recall events that occurred, at the most recent, nearly fourteen years ago. According to the Court, the Erie Plaintiffs attempt to downplay this prejudice, pointing to evidence from discovery suggesting that at least some detainees were subjected to group strip searches. But even if this is true, it does not mitigate the prejudice to the Erie Defendants. The Fourth Amendment question in this case requires a balancing of the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails. The Fourth Amendment question is, therefore, very fact dependent, and no matter the theory of liability, it cannot be answered solely on the basis of testimony from the individual Plaintiffs or other class members. To take one example, the Erie Defendants may have focused their discovery on different issues if they anticipated having to argue that group strip searches and individual strip searches were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Given the Erie Plaintiffs' delay in seeking to add group-search and state-law claims, the Erie Defendants have shown sufficient prejudice such that the Plaintiffs' motion to amend should be denied. Thus, the Erie Plaintiffs' motion to amend is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018 Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaxyqtg5 from Leagle.com. Adam Pritchard, Edward Robinson & Julenne Tucker, both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Bruce E. Menken, Beranbaum Menken Ben-Asher & Bierman LLP, 3 New York Plaza. New York, NY 10004 and. 32nd Floor. 80 Pine Street. New York, New York 10005, David G. Jay -- davidgjay@verizon.net -- Elmer R. Keach, III -- bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com -- Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, PC & Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Migliaccio & Rathod, 412 H St. NE, Suite 302. Washington, DC 20002. The County of Erie, Patrick M. Gallivan, both individually and in his official capcity as Sheriff of the County of Erie, Timothy. Howard, both individually and as Undersheriff of the County of Erie, Donald J. Livingston, both individually and as Acting Suprintendent of the Erie County Correctional Facility & Robert Huggins, both individually and as Deputy Superintendent of the Erie County Correctional Facility, Defendants, represented by Frank T. Gaglione, Frank T. Gaglione, P.C., Michelle M. Parker, Erie County Department of Law, James Paul Domagalski -- jdomagalski@barclaydamon.com -- Barclay Damon, LLP, Nicholas John DiCesare -- ndicesare@barclaydamon.com -Barclay Damon, LLP & Thomas F. Kirkpatrick, Jr., Erie County Department of Law. H. McCarthy Gibson, both individually and as Superintendent of the Erie County Holding Center, Defendant, represented by Thomas C. D'Agostino, 17 Court Street Suite 600. Buffalo NY, 14202, Jonathan Schapp -- jschapp@goldbergsegalla.com -- Goldberg Segalla LLP & Nicholas John DiCesare -- ndicesare@barclaydamon.com -- Barclay Damon, LLP. COVELLI ENTERPRISES: "Romano" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chelsea Romano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Covelli Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00434, (N.D. Ohio, February 22, 2018), seeks overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Covelli is a franchisee of Panera Bread and owns and operates more than 260 Panera Bread bakery-cafes in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Florida, and Ontario, Canada where Romano worked as an Assistant Manager from approximately September 2014 to August 2016 in their Johnstown, PA location. Romano regularly worked more than 40 hours per week without proper overtime premiums for hours she worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Drew Legando, Esq. Jack Landskroner, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: (216) 522-9000 Fax: (216) 522-9007 Email: drew@lgmlegal.com jack@lgmlegal.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Camar Jones, Esq. Logan A. Pardell, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Michael J. Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Justin M. Swartz, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 245-1000 Fax: (212) 977-4005 Email: jms@outtengolden.com - and - Sally Abrahamson, Esq. Lucy Bansal, Esq. 601 Massachusetts Ave NW, Suite 200W Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 847-4400 Email: sabrahamson@outtengolden.com lbansal@outtengolden.com CRANE CO: Attorneys Argue Over Standard for Expert Testimony ------------------------------------------------------------ Amanda Bronstad presents Critical Mass, Law.com's new briefing on class actions and mass torts. All eyes are on Florida, where the state's highest court is reviewing evidence standards, weighing whether it should shift from Frye to Daubert in evaluating expert testimony. The U.S. Justice Department asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a petition to review cy pres -- no matter how "regrettable" the payments may be. And AG Jeff Sessions' announcement that the feds would take legal action against opioid companies came after a months-long court fight involving the DOJ's position on Drug Enforcement Agency records. Will Florida Forsake Frye? Evidentiary standards aren't the most fascinating topics. But they often make or break a case. That's why all eyes are on Florida, where the state's Supreme Court is reviewing whether to change the evidentiary rules to move on from the Frye to the Daubert standard when looking at the admission of expert testimony. The case was set to go before the Florida Supreme Court on March 6. A little background: In 2013, the Florida legislature enacted the Daubertstandard, but the Supreme Court declined to adopt it until the right case come along. Enter DeLisle v. Crane, where an appeals court reversed an $8 million mesothelioma verdict after finding the judge should have excluded expert testimony under Daubert. Plaintiffs' attorney Jim Ferraro of the Ferraro Law Firm is expected to argue against Richard Doran -- rdoran@ausley.com -- of Ausley McMullen who is representing defendant Crane Co., and Elliot Scherker -- scherkere@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig who is appearing for R.J. Reynolds. So what's at stake? "Plaintiffs lawyers argue that they would have a harder time getting expert testimony accepted under Daubert, which might mean they take fewer clients or at the very least, lose more cases," Celia told me. "Defense attorneys argue Daubert levels the playing field for corporations so they aren't facing giant verdicts that stem from what they argue is junk science. Defense lawyers also say Florida keeping Frye means plaintiffs can venue- shop, since so much of the rest of the country uses Daubert, and that affects defendants adversely, too." DOJ on Cy Pres: 'Regrettable,' Not Reviewable The Justice Department asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a petition to review cy pres funds, despite previously calling the controversial payments "regrettable." Law.com's Marcia Coyle wrote in this story about the DOJ's brief opposing a petition to review a settlement between the U.S. government and Native American farmers and ranchers that included $380 million to third party nonprofits. Why is the DOJ opposing this? Because U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a new policy in June that generally prohibits government attorneys from engaging in settlements that involve cy pres payments. In the brief opposing review, SG Noel Francisco said the Justice Department's new policy "will prevent the recurrence of circumstances like those that led to the modified cy pres provision here, in turn eliminating any need for this court's guidance . . . " But wait: The DOJ's Rachel Brand also indicated that the feds would be reviewing more class action settlements. That begs the question: Does that mean cy pres won't be under the DOJ's microscope? Not exactly, said Joseph Sellers of Cohen Milstein, class counsel in the case before the Supreme Court. He told me there's "an important distinction." "Certainly, there are rules, there are statutes, in fact governing what may constitute permissible use of government funds," he said. But that doesn't prevent the government from intervening in a cy pres case. "There are no statutory constraints on the terms that private parties may enter into." DOJ Fought Before Deal on DEA's Opioid Data Timing is everything. In the months leading up to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions' announcement of a Justice Department task force to prepare for potential involvement in opioid litigation, DOJ lawyers were trying to prevent a DEA drug distribution database from being disclosed. Backstory: In October, when Trump formally declared the opioid crisis a public health emergency, government lawyers opposed a subpoena for the database. But before that got any further, the MDL panel sent all the opioid cases to U.S. District Judge Dan Polster, who ordered both sides to come up with an agreement on the data. Now what happens? After much back-and-forth, the DOJ said on March 5 it had reached a deal. But it had one hitch: The data had to remain confidential. Who Got the Work? Southern California Edison has turned to John Hueston -- jhueston@hueston.com -- of Hueston Hennigan to respond to what are now 20 lawsuits filed on behalf of dozens of individuals who died, were injured or had property damages from a massive wildfire and mudslides that ravaged Southern California in December and January. In February, plaintiffs lawyers at Lieff Cabraser and Capello Noel moved to create a Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding (JCCP) of the litigation. Mr. Hueston, the former federal prosecutor in the Enron trial, represented IMDb in its summary judgment win last month. Here's more you need to know: Taking Aim at Uber: Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro has sued Uber for violating the state's Breach of Personal Information Notification Act when it failed to disclose its 2016 data breach -- a $13.5 million mistake, Mr. Shapiro's office said. In a statement, Uber's chief legal officer, Tony West, said he was surprised. Then added this not-so-conciliatory tidbit: "While we do not in any way minimize what occurred, it's crucial to note that the information compromised did not include any sensitive consumer information such as credit card numbers or Social Security numbers, which present a higher risk of harm than driver's license numbers." No Contingency: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a case challenging New Hampshire's hiring of outside counsel in it opioid case. According to Law.com's story, opioid manufacturer Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (repped by Arnold & Porter's Lisa Blatt) had challenged the state's retention of Cohen Milstein on a contingency fee basis. One side note: The firm's lead attorney, Linda Singer, left last year for Motley Rice, which is now handling New Hampshire's case. Money Malaise: Cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase was hit with a class action that could be the first in federal court to allege insider trading claims over its announcement that it would handle Bitcoin Cash transactions. But that's not Coinbase's only legal problem. Another class action, brought under California's Unclaimed Property Law, alleges that Coinbase kept unclaimed crystocurrency. The complaint (acknowledges that Coinbase sent class members an email, and even included a link to create an account to redeem it. "But until 2017, most people never heard of a 'bitcoin' or cryptocurrency, so most of these emails were disregarded," the complaint says. [GN] CREDITGUARD OF AMERICA: "Bank" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Todd C. Bank, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CreditGuard of America, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18- cv-01311 (E.D. N.Y., March 1, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff Todd C. Bank is a resident of the Eastern District of New York. Defendant, CreditGuard of America, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Florida, and has a principal place of business at 791 Park of Commerce Boulevard, Suite 500, Boca Raton, Florida 33487. CGA claimed that it is a non-profit credit-counseling and debt-management company. Defendant Freedom Debt Relief, LLC is a limited-liability company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and has a principal place of business at 1875South Grant Street, Suite 400, San Mateo, California 94402. Defendant Freedom Financial Network, LLC is a limited-liability company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and has a principal place of business at 1875South Grant Street, Suite 400, San Mateo, California 94402. Defendant Freedom Financial Network Funding, LLC is a limited- liability company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and has a principal place of business at1875 South Grant Street, Suite 400, San Mateo, California 94402. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd C. Bank, Esq. TODD C. BANK ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C. 119-40 Union Turnpike, Fourth Floor Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Tel: (718) 520-7125 D & D THAI: "Librado" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations -------------------------------------------------- Honorio Candia Librado, Joel Garcia Valente, and Jose Luis Basurto Milan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. D & D Thai Restaurant Corp. dba Land Thai Kitchen and Davi Noi Bank, Case No. 1:18-cv-01214 (S.D. N.Y., February 12, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers, a busboy, a food preparer and a cook at the restaurant located at 450 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, New York 10024. Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai restaurant, located at New York under the name "Land Thai Kitchen". [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 DAL GLOBAL: Elston, et al. Seeks OT Pay for Off-the-Clock Work -------------------------------------------------------------- William Elston, Malaysia Burgess and Nancy Chavez, individually, and on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs, v. DAL Global Services, LLC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00035 (E.D. Tenn., February 23, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief and/or any such other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. DAL Global Services, LLC, owns, operates and provides ramp and passenger handling services and other aviation-related services, to Delta Airlines as well as to other airlines at some 80 airports throughout the United States. Elston worked as a ramp agent while Burgess and Chavez were employed as passenger services agents. They claim that they were not compensated for off-the-clock worked rendered. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com pjackson@jsyc.com DC INTERNATIONAL: "Aaron" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ William Aaron, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DC International, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00044 (S.D. Tex., February 14, 2018), seeks to recover all unpaid wages and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff William Aaron worked for Defendant as a dispatcher from October of 2012 to January of 2016. Plaintiff worked for Defendant on oil rigs in the continental shelf of the US in the Gulf of Mexico. Defendant provides logistics and rig inspection services for the oil and gas industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste 200 Houston, TX 77006 Tel: (713) 523-0001 Fax: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com DCG PARTNERS LLC: Kline Sues Over Auto-dialed Telemarketing Call ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert D. Kline, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DCG Partners LLC (d/b/a Debtrid.com and Consumer Law Relief, LLC), Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-80228 (S.D. Fla., February 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages arising from DCG Partners' harassing consumers with automated and prerecorded telemarketing calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Debtrid markets a credit counseling service to consumers through telemarketing calls and via its website. On or about November 7, 2017, Plaintiff received an unsolicited call to his cellular telephone number with several seconds of dead air before being connected with a live agent, apparently the call was made via an auto-dialer. Kline provided no consent to receive this call. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER, LLC 425 North Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954) 524-2822 Email: seth@epllc.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP One Haverford Centre 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Phone: (610) 642-8500 Fax: (610) 649-3633 Email: bfj@chimicles.com awf@chimicles.com DELI INC: "Jimenez" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations --------------------------------------------------------- Iginio Arellanes Jimenez and Santiago Mendez Barrera, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Deli Inc. dba PJ Berstein Deli, Restaurant Services NYC LLC. dba PJ Berstein Deli, PJ's Delikatesan LLC (dba PJ Berstein Deli), Alex Slobodski, Leonid Vaynberg, and Steven Slobodski, Case No. 1:18- cv-01868 (S.D. N.Y., March 1, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Arellanes was employed as a delivery worker, and Plaintiff Mendez was employed as a line cook at the deli located at 1215 3rd Ave., New York, New York 10021. Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located at 1215 3rd Ave., New York, New York 10021 under the name "PJ Berstein Deli." [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 DIRECTV LLC: "Amadeus Adler" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations --------------------------------------------------------- Jon Wulf Amadeus Adler aka Juan Ramirez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. DirecTV, LLC et al., Case No. 2:18- cv-01665 (C.D. Calif., February 28, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This is a class action brought under the federal Fair Credit and Reporting Act, the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law against the Defendants for routinely and systematically pulling hard credit reports on consumers without a permissible purpose and under false pretenses. Plaintiff Jon Wulf Amadeus Adler is a resident of Los Angeles County, California and is a consumer. Defendants operate the largest direct-to-home digital-TV service in the U.S. providing cable and other pay television services to consumers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric B. Kingsley Esq. Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq. Arthur N. Four, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Tel: (818) 990-8300 Fax: (818) 990-2903 E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com arthur@kingsleykingsley.com DIVINE OPPORTUNITIES: Fails to Pay OT to Caregivers, Osemeke Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marie Osemeke, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Divine Opportunities, LLC, and Tiffany Plot, Case No. 4:18-cv-00169-A (N.D. Tex., February 27, 2018), alleges that the Defendants violate the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying hourly paid caregivers overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Divine Opportunities, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company. Tiffany Plot is the owner of DO. The Company operates a Home Instead Senior Care franchise and is a home care agency or other third-party employer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100 Southlake, TX 76092-4322 Telephone: (817) 416-5060 Facsimile: (817) 416-5062 E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com ENCORE CAPITAL: "Elston" Suit Seeks Damages under FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Elston, and all others similarly situated v. Encore Capital Group, Inc.; Midland Funding, LLC; Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00071 (E.D. Wash., February 27, 2018), seeks damages pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff Rachel Elston is a natural person and a resident of the State of Washington. Defendants Encore Capital, Midland Funding and MCMI share the same headquarters address of 3111 Camino Del Rio N. San Diego, CA 92108. Defendants are debt collectors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Cameron, Esq. CAMERON SUTHERLAND, PLLC 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 660 Spokane, WA 99201 Tel: (509) 315-4507 Fax: (509) 315-4585 FAF INC: "Blodgett" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------ Fredrick Blodgett, dba Big FS LLC, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FAF, Inc., dba Forward Air Transportation Services, Inc., and Does 1-25, Case No. 2:18-cv- 00015 (E.D. Tenn., February 12, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Forward Air has engaged in a pattern and practice of taking advantage of its truck drivers by misclassifying them as independent contractors. In doing so, Forward Air improperly shifts the costs of doing business to its truck drivers, while completely controlling the means and manner by which the truck drivers perform their job duties. Plaintiff Fredrick Blodgett worked for Defendant as an "owner- operator" and/or "lease-purchaser" from approximately July 2015 to October 2017 and was classified by Defendant as an independent contractor. Defendant FAF, Inc. dba Forward Air Transportation Services, Inc., is a truckload carrier formed in the State of Tennessee with its principal place of business at 1915 Snapps Ferry Rd., Building N, Greeneville, Tennessee 37745. Defendant Forward Air primarily serves the air cargo industry by receiving air cargo and transporting it to the terminal closest to the destination. Defendant Forward Air operates throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. Mark E. Silvey, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Tel: (865) 247-0080 Fax: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com mark@gregcolemanlaw.com FANNIE MAY: Judges Not Eating Up Class-Action Food Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------- Baylen Linnekin, writing for Reason, reports that a federal court in Chicago dismissed a class-action lawsuit against local candy maker Fannie May. The suit alleged Fannie May had sold boxes of candies that just weren't full enough, and that the candy maker had underfilled the larger boxes "to trick potential consumers into believing they were receiving more candy than they really were." The plaintiffs, Judge Sara Ellis of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois wrote in her decision dismissing the case, "were saddened to discover upon opening their boxes of Mint Meltaways and Pixies that the boxes were not brimming with delectable goodies. Rather, the boxes were filled merely two- thirds of the way to their brims, leaving [the plaintiffs] twenty-four-cubic-inches or more short of satisfaction." Anyone who's ever opened a bag of chips to find far more oddly chip-scented air than actual chips has experienced the shortness of satisfaction of which Judge Ellis writes. The phenomenon even has a name: "slack fill." "Slack-fill is the difference between the actual capacity of a container and the volume of product contained therein," FDA rules state. According to those same rules, slack fill constitutes misbranding -- fraudulent labeling -- when consumers can't see all of a container's contents and the slack fill exists for no permissible functional reason -- such as protecting a container's contents or, in the case of a food such as chips, if the product settles after production. Even if the two plaintiffs in the Fannie May case were somehow misled by the company's slack fill, why in heaven's name would this constitute a class-action lawsuit -- a suit brought by a members of a class of consumers on behalf of all those consumers -- rather than just a lawsuit filed on behalf of one or more of named plaintiffs? Lawyers -- greedy lawyers -- is the easy answer. A lawyer who brings suit on behalf of one client who bought an $10 box of candy can likely expect to earn very little from the litigation's outcome. But turn that client into the face of a class of, say, a million consumers who each may have bought an $10 box of candy, and suddenly the stakes (and the lawyer's potential payoff) rise dramatically. That may be all there is to this and other recent slack-fill suits. But slack-fill lawsuits like these are just the tip of the iceberg in a sea of class-action litigation. They're also an example of this fact: Class-action lawsuits against food companies are booming. A recent Institute for Legal Reform report, which takes a dim view of class-action food litigation, indicates class-action lawsuits targeting food marketing have grown exponentially -- from a mere twenty in 2008 to more than 400 active cases in 2016. Two other recent Illinois class-action food lawsuits illustrate this fact. One, which I wrote about last fall, pertains to whether or not packages of Starburst, made by Chicago's Wrigley, misstate the number of calories in one of the candies. The other (and more notorious) case concerns whether sandwich maker Subway's footlong subs are really one foot long. The issue first arose in 2013, when an Australian teen snapped a photo of his Subway sandwich next to a ruler, showing the sub came in closer to eleven inches. Soon, an aggrieved Subway customer sued the company, alleging the "footlong" claims had defrauded them. The class-action lawsuit against Subway seemed doomed from the start. As I wrote in 2013, "dictionaries define the word 'footlong' not as 'exactly 12.00 inches' but, rather, as 'approximately one foot in length.'" In my estimation, a reasonable consumer would agree that eleven inches or thirteen inches is approximately one foot. Case closed, right? But Subway had already issued what may be the dumbest press release in history. "Our commitment remains steadfast to ensure that every SUBWAY Footlong sandwich is 12 inches at each location worldwide," it reads in part. So much seeking shelter in the definition of "footlong." Subway ultimately settled the case, though a judge threw out the settlement last year, labeling it "'utterly worthless' to the average Subway customer" and "'no better than a racket' because only the lawyers benefit." Judges have indeed been skeptical of most class-action food lawsuits. "Federal judges in Chicago recently have been taking a skeptical view of class-action lawsuits over allegedly misleading food claims," noted a Chicago Tribune article on the Starburst lawsuit. Amid the backdrop of lawsuits, I'll sit on a panel on class- action food litigation at a Loyola Law School conference in Chicago. The symposium, Class Action Effectiveness as a Consumer Protection Tool, is sponsored by the Loyola Consumer Law Review. My panel -- where I'll join Loyola Prof. Jim Morsch, who teaches a course there on class actions -- focuses on class-action litigation against food producers and sellers. As someone who believes there are far too many frivolous lawsuits filed against food companies, I welcome judges' skepticism. That said, not all class-action lawsuits against food companies are frivolous. Some indeed have merit. But which ones? And how should courts decide? That's something I plan to unpack in my remarks, and flesh out in more detail in my Loyola Consumer Law Review article in the fall. [GN] FIRST BANCORP: Sued by Hansen for Back Overtime Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- TERESA HANSEN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. FIRST BANCORP OF DURANGO, INC. dba THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF DURANGO, and WAYNE CARSBURG, Case No. 1:18-cv-00526 (D. Colo., March 2, 2018), is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for: (a) back overtime pay; (b) liquidated damages; (c) injunctive and affirmative relief requiring that the Defendant designate "opt-in" Plaintiffs (who are still currently employed by Defendant) as "non-exempt" for purposes of federal wage and hour laws; (d) punitive damages and compensatory damages; and (e) attorney fees. Headquartered in Inverness, Illinois, First Bancorp of Durango, Inc., doing business as First National Bank of Durango, is a banking institution that falls under the national bank charter class with the FDIC and is regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of Currency. FNBD is a financial institution that, among other things, sells financial products to customers including mortgage loan products. FNDB operates a Mortgage Lending Office through its mortgage division at its principal place of business in Durango. Wayne Carsburg is FNBD's Executive Vice President and Chief Loan Officer, and served as the Plaintiff's supervisor at all relevant times.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eleni K. Albrechta, Esq. David T. Albrechta, Esq. ALBRECHTA & ALBRECHTA, LLC 530 Main Avenue, Suite D03 Durango, CO 81301 Telephone: (970) 422-3288 E-mail: david@albrechtalaw.com eleni@albrechtalaw.com - and - Tod J. Thompson, Esq. TOD J. THOMPSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW 810 Sycamore Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 322-4348 E-mail: tod@thompsonlaw.com - and - Joseph F. Albrechta, Esq. John A. Coble, Esq. ALBRECHTA & COBLE, LTD. 2228 Hayes Avenue, Suite A Fremont, OH 43420 Telephone: (419) 332-9999 E-mail: jalbrechta@lawyer-ac.com jcoble@lawyer-ac.com FIRST FINANCIAL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Do" Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Kevin Do, Lue Lee, Tata Insixiengmay-Tran and Polly Luangaphay filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled as Kevin Do, et al. v. First Financial Security, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-07608-SVW-AJW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Stephen V. Wilson entered an order in the lawsuit: 1. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice; and 2. granting Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction without prejudice. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts regarding the amount of their individual breach of contract damages, let alone facts demonstrating that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. In fact, the TAC asserts only that they have each been harmed in an amount calculable by First Financial." Based on First Financial's records, the total amounts attributable to the individual Plaintiffs for the period May 10, 2014 to September 1, 2017 are far less than $75,000: Plaintiff Kevin Do - $17,707; Plaintiff Tata Insixiengmay - Tran - $21,653; and Plaintiff Polly Luangaphay - $59,701. The Plaintiffs also cannot aggregate their claims to allege a controversy exceeding $75,000. The appellate case is captioned as Kevin Do, et al. v. First Financial Security, Inc., Case No. 18-55251, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript was to be ordered by March 26, 2018; -- Transcript is due on April 24, 2018; -- Appellants Kevin Do, Tata Insixiengmay-Tran, Lue Lee and Polly Luangaphay's opening brief is due on June 4, 2018; -- Appellee First Financial Security, Inc.'s answering brief is due on July 3, 2018; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants KEVIN DO, LUE LEE, TATA INSIXIENGMAY-TRAN and POLLY LUANGAPHAY, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated, are represented by: Jon Evan Drucker, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JON E. DRUCKER 8306 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 638 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (323) 931-6363 Facsimile: (310) 861-5480 E-mail: jdrucker@lawyers.com Defendant-Appellee FIRST FINANCIAL SECURITY, INC., is represented by: Clifford Scott Davidson, Esq. Kristen Grace Hilton, Esq. SUSSMAN SHANK LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 227-1111 Facsimile: (503) 248-0130 E-mail: cdavidson@sussmanshank.com khilton@sussmanshank.com FIVE STAR QUALITY: Wins Bid to File Writ in "Lefevre" on April 20 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Anthony Kennedy extended the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari until April 20, 2018, in the lawsuit captioned Five Star Quality Care, Inc., Applicant v. Lourdes Lefevre, Case No. 17A906, in the Supreme Court of the United States. Five Star Quality Care, Inc., appeals to the Supreme Court the affirmation of the arbitration order in the lawsuit styled LOURDES LEFEVRE, as an individual and on behalf of all employees similarly situated v. FIVE STAR QUALITY CARE, INC., a Maryland Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-01305-VAP (SPx), in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Five Star appeals the District Court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration of Lourdes Lefevre's representative claims under California's Private Attorney General Act. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that the order. The appellate case is titled LOURDES LEFEVRE, as an individual and on behalf of all employees similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. FIVE STAR QUALITY CARE, INC., a Maryland Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 16- 55059, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner Five Star Quality Care, Inc., is represented by: Clifford M. Sloan, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 1440 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 371-7040 Facsimile: (202) 661-8340 E-mail: cliff.sloan@skadden.com FLOWERS FOODS: "Wiatrek" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Damages ------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Wiatrek, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Flowers Baking Co. of New Orleans, LLC and Flowers Baking Co. of Baton Rouge, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00118 (S.D. Miss., February 23, 2018), seeks unpaid wages at overtime rates, penalties, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further legal and equitable relief under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants distribute bakery and snack food products to retail customers using a centralized network of communication, distribution and warehousing facilities. Plaintiffs work as distributors for the Defendants, delivering products to customers, distributors, stocking the products on store shelves and assembling promotional displays. They were allegedly misclassified as independent contractors thus denied the rights, obligations, privileges and benefits owed to them as employees. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George B. Ready, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE B. READY 175 East Commerce St. P.O. Box 127 Hernando, MS 38632 Tel: (662) 429-7088 Email: GBReady@georgegreadyatty.com - and - Stephen Shields, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 Email: sshields@@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com - and - Michael L. Weinman, Esq. WEINMAN THOMAS LAW FIRM 112 S. Liberty Street, Suite 321 P.O. Box 266 Jackson, TN 38302 Tel: (731) 423-5565 Email: mike@weinmanthomas.com GACO WESTERN: Faces "Feamster" Suit Over Failure of Spray Foam -------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT FEAMSTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GACO WESTERN, LLC, d/b/a GACO WESTERN, a Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 - 100, Case No. 4:18-cv-01327 (N.D. Cal., February 28, 2018), arises from an alleged complete failure of Gaco Western's spray foam. In November 2015, Plaintiff Scott Feamster purchased Gaco Western's spray foam (commonly known as "SPF") and had it installed in his Atherton, California home, located in the county of San Mateo. On April 21, 2016, the foam installer confirmed that the Gaco Western foam had continued to shrink and had not bonded. On May 12 or 13, 2016, representatives from Gaco Western indicated that the cause of the failed foam was a defect in the product -- a formulation error that was present in an entire batch of foam. Gaco Western LLC, doing business as Gaco Western, is a limited liability company with administrative offices located in Seattle, Washington, and with research and development offices, and manufacturing, located in Waukesha, Wisconsin. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff at this time. Gaco Western, an international manufacturer of residential and commercial waterproofing and insulating products, describes itself as a "recognized leader in innovative silicon roofing systems," and "insulation solutions for a variety of commercial, industrial, and residential applications [] Gaco Western closed cell spray foam insulation makes complete sense from the moment it bonds to a home."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sheri L. Kelly, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SHERI L. KELLY 31 E. Julian St. San Jose, CA 95112 Telephone: (408) 287-7712 Facsimile: (408) 583-4249 E-mail: slk@sherikellylaw.com GOLD'S GYM: "Frank" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------- Rachel Frank and Danielle Cowette, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Gold's Gym of Aikens, South Carolina et al., Case No. 0:18-cv-00447 (D. Minn., February 15, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In an attempt to solicit business, Gold's Gyms routinely contacts potential gym members through text messages with automatic telephone dialing equipment. However, Gold's Gyms regularly sends these text messages to cellular telephone numbers, without consent, in violation of the TCPA. Plaintiff Rachel Frank is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a resident of Saint Paul, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota. Plaintiff Danielle Cowette is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a resident of Minnetonka, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. Defendants Gold's Gym International, Inc. is an American chain of international co-ed fitness centers originally started by Joe Gold in Venice Beach, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Tel: (651) 770-9707 E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com GULF COAST PAVERS: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- GUSTAVO GONZALEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Individuals v. GULF COAST PAVERS, INC., Case No. 4:18- cv-00653 (S.D. Tex., March 1, 2018), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees owed to the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees. Gulf Coast Pavers, Inc., is a Texas corporation and an "employer" as defined by the FLSA. Founded in 2003, Gulf Coast Pavers specializes in the design and installation of interlocking pavers, permeable paver systems, roof deck paver systems, retaining walls and synthetic turf.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com - and - Vijay Pattisapu, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: vijay@buenkerlaw.com HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Insurers Won't Cover Sexual Assault Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Federal Insurance Company, Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company, Vigilant Insurance Company, Pacific Indemnity Company, and Great Northern Insurance Company v. Harvey Weinstein, Case No. 650952/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., February 28, 2018), seeks a declaratory judgment that certain insurance policies it issued to Harvey Weinstein do not provide coverage for defense or indemnity for these 11 sexual assault and sexual harassment lawsuits filed against him: 1. People of the State of New York v. The Weinstein Company LLC, The Weinstein Company Holdings LLC, Harvey Weinstein and Robert Weinstein, Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County; 2. Louisette Geiss, et al. (Class Action) v. Harvey Weinstein, The Weinstein Company Holdings, LLC, et al., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case. No. 17 CV 0954; 3. Kadian Noble v. Harvey Weinstein, The Weinstein Company, LLC, et al., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 17 CV 9260; 4. Sandeep Rehal v. Harvey Weinstein, The Weinstein Company LLC, et al, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 18 CV 674; 5. Alexandra Canosa v. The Weinstein Company Holdings, LLC, Harvey Weinstein, et al., Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Index No. 161254/2017; 6. ABC v. Harvey Weinstein, and The Weinstein Company, LLC, et al., High Court of Justice (England), Case No. HQ17-P-04249; 7. Gregory Ackers v. Harvey Weinstein and The Weinstein Company LLC, Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC681850; 8. Jane Doe v. Harvey Weinstein, et al., Ontario (Canada), Case No. CV 17-585459; 9. Jane Doe I v. Harvey Weinstein, The Weinstein Company Holdings, LLC, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles, Case No BC683411; 10. Jane Doe II (Class Action) v. Harvey Weinstein, The Weinstein Company Holdings, LLC, et al. United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 17 CV 08323; and 11. Huett v. The Weinstein Company, LLC, Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC680869. The Plaintiffs contend that the allegations of the Underlying Lawsuits are that Mr. Weinstein and multiple "complicit" individuals and companies conspired to lure women into vulnerable situations, under the guise of career advancement, so that he could rape, sexually assault or harass them, and then later silence any accusations of wrongdoing. Harvey Weinstein, a resident of New York, is the co-founder, and was the co-Chairman and co-CEO of The Weinstein Company Inc. from its inception in or about 2005 until his termination in October 2017. TWC operates as a multimedia production and distribution company. TWC offers film and television production services and operates as a subsidiary of The Weinstein Company Holdings LLC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul R. Koepff, Esq. Harris R. Wiener, Esq. CLYDE & CO US LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 710-3900 Facsimile: (212) 326-2000 E-mail: paul.koepff@clydeco.us harris.wiener@clydeco.us - and - Edward P. Gibbons, Esq. Joyce F. Noyes, Esq. WALKER WILCOX MATOUSEK LLP One North Franklin Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 244-6700 E-mail: egibbons@wwmlawyers.com jnoyes@wwmlawyers.com HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: DeJesus Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Site --------------------------------------------------------------- ANA JESSICA DEJESUS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:18- cv-01850 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2018), accuses the Defendant of failing to design, construct, and own or operate a Web site that is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, deaf and hard of hearing people. Hearst is an American for-profit corporation organized under the laws of and registered in the state of New York to do business. The New York City-based Company runs the Web site https://www.cosmopolitan.com/, which provides beauty guides, love advice, fashion information, and videos.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com HENRY SCHEIN: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Henry Schein, Inc. (NASDAQ: HSIC) securities between March 7, 2013 and February 12, 2018 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until May 7, 2018 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On February 12, 2018, it was reported that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission had filed a complaint against the three largest U.S. dental supply companies, saying they had broken antitrust law. According to the complaint, Benco Dental Supply, Henry Schein Inc., and Patterson Companies conspired to refuse to serve or give discounts to dental buying groups. Following these disclosures, the stock price of Henry Schein fell $4.79, or over 6.6% to close at $67.39 per share on February 13, 2018. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Henry Schein was engaging in unethical, anti-competitive behavior through agreements with Benco Dental Supply Company and Patterson Companies, Inc., in violation of United States antitrust laws; (2) Henry Schein engaged in such behavior, in part, to help maintain profitability in a consolidating health care industry; (3) these violations of U.S. antitrust laws would result in heightened scrutiny by the federal government and a lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"); (4) Henry Schein failed to maintain adequate internal controls; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about Henry Schein's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Henry Schein securities and suffered a loss, continue to hold shares purchased prior to the Class Period, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at (212) 355- 4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For additional information concerning the Henry Schein, Inc. lawsuit, please go to http://www.bespc.com/henryschein.For additional information about Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., please go to www.bespc.com. Contacts Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Email: walker@bespc.com fortunato@bespc.com [GN] HENRY SCHEIN: RM LAW Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------- RM LAW, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Henry Schein, Inc. ("Henry Schein") (NASDAQ: HSIC) publicly traded securities between March 7, 2013 and February 12, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Henry Schein shareholders may, no later than May 7, 2018, move the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you purchased shares of Henry Schein and would like to learn more about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299. The complaint alleges that Henry Schein and certain of its senior executive officers made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Henry Schein was engaging in unethical, anti-competitive behavior through agreements with Benco Dental Supply Company and Patterson Companies, Inc., in violation of U.S. antitrust laws; (2) Henry Schein engaged in such behavior, in part, to help maintain profitability in a consolidating health care industry; (3) these violations of U.S. antitrust laws would result in heightened scrutiny by the federal government and a lawsuit filed by the FTC; (4) Henry Schein failed to maintain adequate internal controls; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' statements about Henry Schein's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On February 12, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") issued a press release entitled "FTC Sues Dental Products Distributors for Alleged Conspiracy Not to Provide Discounts to a Customer Segment." Therein, the FTC disclosed that it had filed a complaint against Henry Schein, and certain other dental supply companies, alleging "that they violated U.S. antitrust laws by conspiring to refuse to provide discounts to or otherwise serve buying groups representing dental practitioners." Following this news, shares of Henry Schein's common stock fell $4.79 per share, or over 6.6%, to close on February 13, 2018 at $67.39, on heavy trading volume. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than May 7, 2018, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C. (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by email at rm@maniskas.com For more information about class action cases in general or to learn more about RM LAW, P.C. please visit our website. RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm. RM LAW, P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide. CONTACT: Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Tel: 484-324-6800 844-291-9299 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com [GN] HOLMAN DISTRIBUTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Faulk Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHAUN FAULK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. HOLMAN DISTRIBUTION CENTER OF WASHINGTON, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-00161-BRW (E.D. Ark., March 1, 2018), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act over the Defendant's alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff and other warehouse employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Holman Distribution is a for-profit, foreign corporation, providing Third Party Logistics (3PL) and Supply Chain Management services with base operations in the Seattle area of the Pacific Northwest, with public warehouse facilities in Seattle, and contract warehousing and manufacturing logistics operations across the United States. The Defendant's principal address is 22430 75th Avenue South, in Kent, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allison Koile, Esq. Chris Burks, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: allison@sanfordlawfirm.com chris@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com HUDSON SEAFOOD: "Carlock" Suit Seeks Damages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------- Lydia Carlock and Nicolas Fabrizio, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Hudson Seafood Corporation dba Hudson's Seafood House on the Docks and John Does 1-10, Case No. 9:18-cv-00590 (D. S.C., March 1, 2018), seeks actual damages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and for other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Plaintiff Lydia Carlock was employed by Hudson's from August of 2016 through March of 2017 as a server. Plaintiff Nicolas Fabrizio was employed by Hudson's from August of 2013 through July of 2017 in various positions including bartender and server. Hudson's is a South Carolina corporation maintaining offices and agents in the county of Beaufort, state of South Carolina. Hudson's is an employer of individuals and operates a restaurant in Beaufort County doing business as Hudson's Seafood House on the Docks. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce E. Miller, Esq. Elisabeth A. Germain, Esq. BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A. 147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603 Charleston, SC 29412 Tel: (843) 579-7373 Fax: (843) 614-6417 E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com bgermain@brucemillerlaw.com HYUNDAI MOTORS: Lawyers Ask 9th Cir. for En Banc Review ------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Recorder, reports that lawyers on both sides of a high-profile case against Hyundai, citing a circuit split, have asked an en banc appeals panel to upend a ruling that they say threatens the future of nationwide class action settlements. In dual petitions for rehearing filed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, plaintiffs attorneys and lawyers for defendants Hyundai Motor America and Kia Motors America Inc. both argued that an en banc panel should review a Jan. 23 decision that conflicts with the Third Circuit, and its own precedent. The 2-1 decision, which decertified the nationwide class in their settlement, also is contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1997 decision in Amchem Products v. Windsor, they wrote. "Class action litigation resembling this case is commonplace throughout the nation, and the panel majority decision will have broad, negative effects on the way class action litigation is conducted -- to the extent that it does not render nationwide class treatment unfeasible altogether," wrote Hyundai attorney Shon Morgan, Esq. -- shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com -- and James Azadian, Esq. -- JAzadian@enterprisecounsel.com -- who represents Kia. "Whatever one thinks of the class action device, the voluntary, fair and efficient resolution of such actions through nationwide settlements benefits all stakeholders: class members, defendants, as well as state and federal judicial systems. The panel majority's decision severely jeopardizes these salutary outcomes." The ruling in In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation involved a settlement of Hyundai consumers who had sued over misstatements about fuel standards. In a dissent, Ninth Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen said the majority's opinion "deals a major blow" to nationwide class actions. But the majority found the district judge had failed to conduct an analysis over whether consumer laws in several states were so different from one another as to defeat the common claims of class members. Federal Rule 23 of Civil Procedure allows class actions to be maintained if a judge "finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members." But being forced to analyze variances in state laws as part of a so-called predominance analysis is not simple or appropriate for class action settlements, wrote plaintiffs attorney Steve Berman, Esq. -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro. "Requiring the parties to engage in detailed choice-of-law and/or multi-state consumer-law analysis as a prerequisite to certification of a nationwide settlement class increases both the burden on the district courts and the expense and uncertainty of nationwide settlements -- and makes such settlements less likely," he wrote. On March 9, the Ninth Circuit ordered lawyers for objectors, who challenged the settlement on appeal, to file a response within 21 days. Objector attorneys James Feinman, Esq. of Lynchburg, Virginia, and George Cochran, Esq. of Streetsboro, Ohio, who argued in the case, did not respond to requests for comment. The ruling already has been cited in class action settlements involving Remington rifles and data breaches at Target and Anthem. "The panel majority decision already portends profound impact on class litigation nationwide, threatening to undermine carefully crafted settlement agreements," defense lawyers wrote. Morgan, chairman of the national class action practice group at Los Angeles-based Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, and Azadian, West Coast leader of Dykema Gossett's appellate practice, both declined to comment. Both sides cited the numerous barriers that the ruling would create in attempting to settle nationwide class actions. Berman said it was "wasteful make-work for litigants" and would "generate extra paperwork." It also could force plaintiffs lawyers to join "additional class representatives for whom service payments would be sought." Lawyers for Hyundai and Kia said the ruling "imposes a new and unworkable requirement on district courts" that will "significantly distort class-action litigation and settlements going forward." Both sides focused on the Ninth Circuit's own opinion in Hanlon v. Chrysler, which came out in 1998. That panel found that the "idiosyncratic differences between state consumer protection laws are not sufficiently substantive to predominate over the shared claims." Berman called Hyundai "a significant departure from precedent" given that lawyers have relied on Hanlon for more than 20 years. Neither petition focused much on the Ninth Circuit's 2012 decision in Mazza v. American Honda Motor, on which the Hyundai majority had relied. In that case, the Ninth Circuit de-certified a nationwide class under California law after finding that each of the 44 states involved had a "strong interest in applying its own consumer protection laws." But that ruling involved a certification motion, not approval of a settlement. Such an analysis is common in class certification arguments but, according to some lawyers, much less so at the settlement stage, when everyone wants to resolve the litigation. The Hyundai panel also cited the Supreme Court's finding in Amchem that both sides of a class action settlement must make sure to give "undiluted, even heightened, attention" to Rule 23's requirements in order to protect the rights of absent class members. Both petitions insisted that Hyundai misinterpreted the Supreme Court decision. And both said Hyundai conflicted with the Third Circuit's en banc decision in Sullivan v. DB Investments in 2011. Defense lawyers also cited the Seventh Circuit's 2001 ruling in In re Mexico Money Transfer Litigation. Those circuits "treat differences in state law as generally immaterial in the context of a settlement class and thus insufficient to defeat predominance," defense lawyers wrote. The burden to analyze conflicts among state laws, they wrote, is on objectors, who can raise those issues before the approval of a settlement -- not on plaintiffs and defendants, or even judges, as the Hyundai decision appeared to suggest. "That has never been the law in this circuit (or in any other)," defense lawyers wrote. [GN] IBA PROTON: "Murray" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ DENNIS MURRAY, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. IBA PROTON THERAPY, INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-10681-JCO- MKM (E.D. Mich., February 27, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation and other relief relating to alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. IBA Proton Therapy, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal U.S. place of business located in Reston, Virginia. The Company is a global company with its international headquarters in Belgium that operates in three areas relating to healthcare with a focus on oncology: proton therapy, dosimetry, partical accelerators. The Company operates throughout the world and is a leader in developing proton therapy: a cutting-edge cancer treatment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles R. Ash IV, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: crash@sommerspc.com - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com INTEL CORPORATION: Aneca Federal Suit Alleges UCL Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Aneca Federal Credit Union, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Intel Corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv- 00258 (D. Ore., February 9, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Unfair Competition Law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Plaintiff Aneca Federal Credit Union is a federally chartered credit union located in Shreveport, Louisiana. In 2015, Plaintiff purchased 15 Dell Optiplex computers, each of which was equipped with an Intel Core i5 CPU, which is affected by a defect. Defendant Intel Corporation is an American semiconductor company with headquarters at 2200 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara, California. At all relevant times, Intel was engaged in designing, manufacturing, distributing, and selling electronic computer components, including the defectively designed CPUs at issue. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer S. Wagner, Esq. Gary M. Berne, Esq. Steve D. Larson, Esq. Jennifer S. Wagner, Esq. STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Tel: (503) 227-1600 E-mail: gberne@stollberne.com slarson@stollberne.com jwagner@stollberne.com JTH TAX: Accused by Broward Psychology Suit of Violating TCPA ------------------------------------------------------------- BROWARD PSYCHOLOGY P.A., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JTH TAX, INC. d/b/a LIBERTY TAX SERVICE, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 0:18-cv-60412-DPG (S.D. Fla., February 26, 2018), arises from Liberty Tax's knowing and willful transmission of fax advertisements without recipients' consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Broward Psychology P.A. is a Florida professional association with its principal place of business in Hollywood, Florida. JTH Tax, Inc., doing business as Liberty Tax Service, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Liberty Tax is a company that provides tax preparation services nationwide, including through its network of franchisees. Liberty Tax directs, markets, and provides its tax preparation services throughout the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26TH Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com KEY TECHNOLOGY: Franchi Files Securities Suit in E.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------------------- Adam Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Key Technology, Inc., Richard Lawrence, Robert M. Averick, John J. Ehren, John E. Pelo, Michael L. Shannon, Charles H. Stonecipher, Donald A. Washburn, Paul J. Wolf, Duravant LLC, and Cascade Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-05027 (E.D. Wash., February 15, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on January 25, 2018, pursuant to which Key Technology, Inc. will be acquired by Duravant LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Cascade Merger Sub, Inc. The Plaintiff alleges that the Solicitation Statement filed by Defendants on February 8, 2018, omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading. Plaintiff Adam Franchi owns Key Technology common stock. Defendant Key Technology develops and manufactures automated digital sorting systems and integrates them with its advanced material handling technologies to provide complete solutions for processors of food and other processed products. The Individual Defendants are officers of Key Technology. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger Townsend, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND, PLLC 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 652-8660 Fax: (206) 652-8290 E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com KINDRED HEALTHCARE: "Brumfield" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Brumfield, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc. and Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc. dba Kindred at Home, Case No. 2:18-cv-00591 (D. S.C., March 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Amanda Brumfield worked for Kindred as a home health Licensed Practical Nurse from approximately August 2017 to November 2017 out of its Tyler, Texas office. Prior to August 2017, Plaintiff worked as a hospice LPN for Kindred beginning in May 2014 out of its Athens, Texas office. Defendant Kindred Healthcare, Inc. is a healthcare services company that through its subsidiaries operates a home health, hospice and community care business, TC hospitals, IRFs, and a contract rehabilitation services business across the United States. Defendant Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Kindred Healthcare, Inc. Defendant Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc. also has its principal place of business is located at 680 South Fourth Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William N. Nettles, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BILL NETTLES 2008 Lincoln Street Columbia, SC 29201 Tel: (803) 814-2826 Fax: (888) 745-1381 E-mail: bill@billnettleslaw.com LIFE TIME FITNESS: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Lusk" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Matthew Lusk and St. Clair Employees' Retirement System filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Matthew Lusk, et al. v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-01911-JRT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Lusk, a shareholder of Defendant Life Time Fitness, Inc., filed a case on April 10, 2015, against Life Time and its Board of Directors, challenging the proposed sale of Life Time to a consortium of investors led by Leonard Green & Partners, L.P. He alleged that the sale price of $72.10 per share was unfair and that the proxy materials regarding the shareholder vote approving the sale were materially misleading, in violation of federal securities laws. The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Lusk; St. Clair Employees' Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Life Time Fitness, Inc.; Bahram Akradi; Giles H. Bateman; Jack W. Eugster; Guy C. Jackson; John K. Lloyd; Martha A. Morfitt; John B. Richards; Joseph S. Vassalluzzo; Leonard Green & Partners, L.P.; TPG Capital, L.P.; LKN Partners, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-1444, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN] The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by: Jeffrey Craig Block, Esq. Jason M. Leviton, Esq. Jacob A. Walker, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com jason@blockesq.com jake@blockesq.com - and - Garrett D. Blanchfield Jr., Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD W-1050 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com b.penney@rwblawfirm.com - and - James M. Ficaro, Esq. THE WEISER LAW FIRM, INC. 22 Cassatt Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 225-0206 E-mail: jmf@weiserlawfirm.com - and - David T. Wissbroecker, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-0000 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com - and - Stuart Andrew Davidson, Esq. Christopher C. Gold, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432-4809 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com cgold@rgrdlaw.com - and - Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. Kai Heinrich Richter, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 S. Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000 Telephone: (612) 256-3233 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: cengstrom@nka.com krichter@nka.com Defendants-Appellees Leonard Green & Partners, L.P., and TPG Capital, L.P., are represented by: Carrie Baker Anderson, Esq. Ellie J. Barragry, Esq. Bret A. Puls, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP Campbell Mithun Tower, Suite 2000 222 South Ninth St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 607-7000 Facsimile: (612) 607-7100 E-mail: cbanderson@foxrothschild.com ebarragry@foxrothschild.com bpuls@foxrothschild.com - and - Martin J. Crisp, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 212-596-90 Telephone: (212) 596-9193 E-mail: Martin.Crisp@ropesgray.com - and - Christopher G. Green, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP Prudential Tower 800 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02199-3600 Telephone: (617) 951-7878 E-mail: Christopher.Green@ropesgray.com Defendant-Appellee Leonard Green & Partners, L.P., is represented by: Michele D. Johnson, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Telephone: (7140 540-1235 E-mail: michele.johnson@lw.com Defendant-Appellee Bahram Akradi is represented by: Caitlin L.D. Hull, Esq. James K. Nichols, Esq. Lincoln S. Loehrke, Esq. Thomas Paul Swigert, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 50 S. Sixth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498 Telephone: (612) 492-6773 Facsimile: (612) 677-3299 E-mail: hull.caitlin@dorsey.com nichols.james@dorsey.com loehrke.lincoln@dorsey.com swigert.tom@dorsey.com Defendants-Appellees Life Time Fitness, Inc., Giles H. Bateman, Jack W. Eugster, Guy C. Jackson, John K. Lloyd, Martha A. Morfitt, John B. Richards and Joseph S. Vassalluzzo are represented by: Matthew Brian Kilby, Esq. Justin P. Krypel, Esq. Lauren W. Linderman, Esq. Wendy J. Wildung, Esq. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 S. Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 Telephone: (612) 766-7550 Facsimile: (612) 766-1600 E-mail: matthew.kilby@FaegreBD.com justin.krypel@faegrebd.com lauren.linderman@FaegreBD.com wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com - and - Cicely Rosemary Miltich, Esq. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4400 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 212-6500 Facsimile: (312) 212-6501 E-mail: cicely.miltich@faegrebd.com Defendant-Appellee LKN Partners is represented by: Matthew Solum, Esq. Ross L. Weiner, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-4688 Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 E-mail: matthew.solum@kirkland.com ross.weiner@kirkland.com - and - Frank A. Taylor, Esq. BRIGGS AND MORGAN, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 2200 IDS Center 80 S. Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000 Telephone: (612) 977-8445 Facsimile: (612) 977-8650 E-mail: ftaylor@briggs.com LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Napoles Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL NAPOLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:18-cv-01578 (C.D. Cal., February 27, 2018), accuses the Defendants of negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy and causing him to incur unnecessary and unwanted expenses. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC is a marketer and seller of loans and related products. The Company focuses on originating, financing, and selling of mortgage loans secured by residential real estate. The Company is based in Foothill Ranch, California, and operates as a subsidiary of Loandepot Holdings, LLC. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. Yoel S. Hanohov, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com yoel.hanohov@toddflaw.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Ray" FLSA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Trina Ray and Sasha Walker filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Trina Ray, et al. v. Los Angeles County Department, Case No. 2:17-cv-04239-PA-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The appellate case is captioned as Trina Ray, et al. v. Los Angeles County Department, Case No. 18-55276, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs have also filed a Ninth Circuit appeal. That appellate case is styled as Trina Ray, et al. v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Case No. 17-80250. The County of Los Angeles had also previously filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate case is captioned as Trina Ray v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. 17- 56581. The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of those employed by the Defendants as homecare workers, home care providers, or in other similar job titles, through the In-Home Supportive Services program and in the County of Los Angeles. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants Trina Ray and Sasha Walker's opening brief is due on May 2, 2018; -- Appellee Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services' answering brief is due on June 4, 2018; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants TRINA RAY and SASHA WALKER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com - and - Paige Fishman, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: pfishman@nka.com - and - Matthew C. Helland, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 277-7235 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 E-mail: helland@nka.com Plaintiff-Appellant TRINA RAY is represented by: Daniel S. Brome, Esq. Nichols Kaster, LLP 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 277-7235 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 E-mail: dbrome@nka.com Defendant-Appellee LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Erroneously Sued as County of Los Angeles, is represented by: Jennifer Mira Hashmall, Esq. MILLER BARONDESS, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Personal: 310-552-4400 Telephone: (310) 552-4400 Facsimile: (310) 552-8400 E-mail: mhashmall@millerbarondess.com - and - Jeffery White, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 687-5191 LUMILEDS LLC: "Chaudhri" Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud ---------------------------------------------------- Imran Chaudhri, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Lumileds, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-02167 (D.N.J., February 15, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of State Consumer Protection Statutes and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Plaintiff Imran Chaudhri resides at 32 Revere Rd., Piscataway, N.J. 08854. Plaintiff purchased a twin package of Philips X-tremeVision 9003 headlamps from authorized retailer, Pep Boys. Defendant Lumileds is a lighting company globally developing, manufacturing, and distributing LEDs, light bulbs, and related products for automotive lighting, general lighting, and specialty lighting. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Paciorkowski, Esq. EICHEN CRUTCHLOW ZASLOW, LLP 40 Ethel Road Edison, NJ 08817 Tel: (732) 777-0100 E-mail: tom@paciorkowski.net MCCARTHY BURGESS: "Jacobs" Disputes Collection Letter ----------------------------------------------------- Christopher Jacobs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00021 (D. Del., February 23, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc. is a debt collection agency with address at 26000 Cannon Road, Cleveland, Ohio 44146. It attempted to collect an obligation allegedly incurred by Jacobs to Verizon via a collection letter that offered a settlement amount that was not a reduced offer of settlement, but merely payment in full and contained an expiring offer, whereby Jacobs only has fourteen days to accept, a tactic to coerce a rushed payment from Defendant. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Antranig Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES 1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 326-9179 Email: ag@garibianlaw.com MDL 2599: Road Tested Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Road Tested Parts, Inc., d/b/a Weaverparts.Com, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda R&D Co., Ltd, Honda of America Mfg., Inc., Bayerische Motoren Werke Ag, Bmw of North America, LLC, BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, Ford Motor Company, Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Mazda Motor Corporation, Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Mitsubishi Motors Corp., Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Nissan North America, Inc., Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd., Subaru of America, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00021 (M.D. Ga., February 22, 2018), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-20879. The case was consolidated in MDL Case Number 1:15-md-02599-FAM. Suits were consolidated in IN RE: TAKATA AIRBAG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2599, Master File No. 15-2599-MD- MORENO, No. 14-24009-CV-MORENO (S.D. Fla.) on the allegations of economic loss and personal injury related to airbags manufactured by defendants Takata Corporation and TK Holdings and equipped in vehicles manufactured by defendants Honda, BMW, Ford, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru, and Toyota. Road Tested Parts, Inc. seeks compensatory, exemplary, and punitive remedies and damages and statutory penalties, including interest, reimbursement of the reasonable expenses occasioned by the sale, for damages and for reasonable attorney fees resulting from fraudulent concealment, breach of implied and express warranty, unjust enrichment and negligence and in violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Magnuson- Moss Warranty Act and Michigan Consumer Protection Act. Road Tested Parts is an automotive parts recycler located at 774 Highway 320, Carnesville, GA 30521. Road Tested purchased vehicles containing Takata airbags for purposes of resale. Under ordinary conditions, including daily temperature swings and contact with moisture in the air, Takata's ammonium nitrate propellant transforms and destabilizes, causing irregular and dangerous behavior ranging from inertness to violent combustion in their airbags. Takata Corporation is a foreign for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. Takata is a specialized supplier of automotive safety systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes and sold airbags to the named Defendants. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Cale Conley, Esq. CONLEY GRIGGS PARTIN LLP 4200 Northside Parkway NW Building One, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30327 Phone: (404) 467-1155 Fax: (404) 467-1166 Email: cale@conleygriggs.com - and - R. Bryant McCulley, Esq. Stuart H. McCluer, Esq. Frank B. Ulmer, Esq. MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC 1022 Carolina Boulevard, Suite 300 P.O. Box 505 Charleston, SC 29451 Phone: (205) 238-6757 Fax: (904) 239-5388 Email: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com fulmer@mcculleymccluer.com - and - Christopher J. Stucky, Esq. Benjamin C. Fields, Esq. STUCKY & FIELDS LLC 214 W. 18th St., Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 659-9970 Facsimile: (816) 659-9969 Email: chris@stuckyfields.com ben@stuckyfields.com - and - Richard B. Drubel, Esq. Jonathan R. Voegele, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 26 South Main Street Hanover, NH 03755 Tel: (603) 643-9090 Fax: (603) 643-9010 Email: rdrubel@bsfllp.com jvoegele@bsfllp.com MDL 2613: Court Orders Revision of Class Definition --------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Greenville Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned IN RE: TD BANK, N.A. DEBIT CARD OVERDRAFT FEE LITIGATION, MDL No. 2613, Civil Action No. 6:15-MN-2613-BHH (D.S.C.). Defendant TD Bank, N.A., is a combination of several U.S. banks acquired by its Canada-based parent, Toronto-Dominion Bank, since 2004. The Bank maintains more than 1200 branches across the United States and has more than 8.5 million customers. Plaintiffs maintain two overarching theories of liability. First, they allege the Bank has engaged in a regular practice of extracting overdraft fees from customers even when their accounts were not actually overdrawn (available balance theory), to the tune of millions of dollars in improper fees. Second, Plaintiffs allege that TD has systematically violated federal law by failing to comply with mandatory opt-in requirements imposed by Regulation E (Reg E theory) prior to assessing overdraft fees on one-time debit card and automated teller machine (ATM) transactions. Applicability of the Reg E Theory In November 2009, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) amended Regulation E (Reg E), which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), in order to limit the ability of a financial institution to assess an overdraft fee for paying ATM and one-time debit card transactions that overdraw a consumer's account, unless the consumer affirmatively consents, or opts in, to the institution's payment of overdrafts for these transactions. In the motion for class certification, Plaintiffs raise generalized theories of unfairness regarding the Bank's implementation of the amendments to Reg E. Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that the Bank, in an effort to stem projected losses to overdraft revenue, engaged in strategies to maximize customer opt-in to TDDCA, particularly targeting vulnerable customers who may be least able to afford fee-based overdraft products. Plaintiffs allege that TD's enterprise-wide opt-in process failed to comply with Reg E in five specific ways. First, they assert that the Bank's Reg E Form inaccurately described an overdraft as occurring when you do not have enough money available in your account to cover a transaction. Second, Plaintiffs allege that, for customers who opted into TDDCA by telephone or online, TD either failed to provide the Reg E Form, or failed to ensure that it was provided to customers segregated from all other information prior to obtaining their affirmative opt-in. Third, Plaintiffs allege that TD failed to obtain affirmative consent during the opt-in process. Fourth, Plaintiffs allege that customers enrolled online from December 2011 through July 2015 did not receive the requisite confirmation letter or copy of their signed Reg E Form, including a statement informing the customer of the right to revoke consent, following the opt-in procedures. Fifth, Plaintiffs allege that TD's enrollment confirmation forms were universally deficient because they do not include notice that the customer has a right to revoke his/her consent to DCA enrollment. Legal Standard Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure identifies the prerequisites for a class action as follows: (a) Prerequisites to a Class Action. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The Bank does not contest Rule 23(a)(1) numerosity or Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy,10 so the remaining areas of dispute deal with Rule 23(a)(2) commonality, Rule 23(a)(3) typicality, and Plaintiffs' burden to demonstrate the predominance of common issues and the superiority of class treatment under Rule 23(b)(3). Class Certification is Appropriate for Claims Pertaining to the Available Balance Theory Defendant argues, first, that Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden to establish Rule 23(a)(2) commonality under the heightened standard of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes. Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571, 652 (9th Cir. 2010). In Wal-Mart, the United States Supreme Court concluded that a class of female employees alleging Title VII discrimination in the form of pay and promotion disparities had been improperly certified because Rule 23(a)(2) commonality could not be satisfied. In stark contrast to the nuanced, individualized, fact-intensive employment decisions challenged in Wal-Mart, Plaintiffs in this case complain about the universal application of computer accounting software to systematically and algorithmically assess overdraft fees before customer accounts were overdrawn. In light of these differences, the Rule 23(a)(2) commonality holding in Wal-Mart has little relevance to this case, other than as a helpful reminder to the Court to look beyond the pleadings in determining whether Plaintiffs have met their burden. In order to reach a finding that commonality has been satisfied, the Court must be convinced that there is at least one common question that is "of such a nature that its determination 'will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.' In order to reach a finding that commonality has been satisfied, the Court must be convinced that there is at least one common question that is of such a nature that its determination 'will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs regarding the common nature of the questions of law and fact invoked by the available balance theory, and hereby finds that Rule 23(a)(2) commonality is satisfied. Defendant next argues that Rule 23(a)(3) typicality has not been satisfied. Typicality requires that the claims of the named class representatives be typical of those of the class; a class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members. The Court finds that the Bank's liability under the available balance theory, in each cause of action through which it is alleged, depends on legal and factual issues that are the same for all Plaintiffs and class members, and that Rule 23(b)(3) predominance is therefore satisfied. This conclusion arises from the fact that TD's checking account policies and practices were governed by form contracts with terms applicable to Plaintiffs and class members alike, and from the context of computer controlled processing systems that treated all checking account customers and transactions in like fashion. Similar to the commonality analysis, the common issue that predominates over all individual issues pertaining to the available balance claims is whether it was permissible under the Bank's materially uniform contract with its customers, and associated common law and statutory duties, for the Bank to impose overdraft fees before the money associated with pending debits, which brought the available balance below zero, had actually left the accounts. This overarching question will, no doubt, be briefed in multitudinous ways and from myriad perspectives at the summary judgment phase. But just as assuredly, the resolution of this question, whether from the standpoint of state unfair trade practice statutes or from technical construction of the relevant contract provisions, will permit resolution of Plaintiffs' and class members' available balance claims in the aggregate. For the same reasons, the Court also finds that Rule 23(a)(3) typicality has been satisfied for these claims. Predominance with Respect to the Breach of Contract (Count I) and Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith (Count II) Claims Defendant argues that Plaintiffs do not actually bring a straightforward breach of contract claim (Count I) under the available balance theory because the plain text of the PDAA entitled the Bank to use customers' available balances when assessing overdraft fees: "If your negative available balance exceeds $5 at the end of the day, we will charge you for each transaction that overdraws your account." According to Defendant, Plaintiffs can, at best, only claim that the relevant contractual language is ambiguous and therefore proper interpretation of the contract to resolve the implied covenant of good faith claim (Count II) will require consideration of extrinsic evidence. Turning to Defendant's assertion that the necessity of extrinsic evidence to interpret an ambiguous term(s) and to resolve an implied covenant claim precludes satisfaction of Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement, the Court finds that the relevant extrinsic evidence will not thwart predominance of common issues in this litigation. First, the Court disagrees with Defendant's general assertion that resolution of the implied covenant claim will require examination of each class members' subjective expectations. To the contrary, a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing may be shown by class-wide evidence of a defendant's subjective bad faith or objectively unreasonable conduct. Second, while it is true that the states at issue permit consideration of extrinsic evidence to resolve ambiguities in form contracts, the extrinsic evidence that will assist the fact finder in resolving the instant breach of contract claim consists of uniform documents, disclosures, and practices. If the Court were to find that this case could not be certified as a class action based on breach of contract and implied covenant theories due to Defendant's assertions regarding the predominance of individual issues, the logical consequence would be that no contract-based claims could be certifiable, because any prospective defendant could defeat certification simply by raising the specter of putative class members' idiosyncratic understanding of the term(s) at issue, irrespective of the form nature of the contract and the absence of negotiation regarding terms. Such a result would be an entirely nonsensical interpretation of class actions as a vehicle for the resolution of mass disputes, particularly disputes where the harm suffered by any one class member may be too small to incentivize a lawsuit for vindication of that class member's rights. Given the Bank's repeated affirmation that uniform disclosures were provided to its entire customer base, individualized proof is peripheral, if necessary at all, and the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied with respect to the breach of contract and implied covenant claims. Predominance with Respect to the Conversion (Count IV) Claim Conversion is defined as the unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods or personal chattels belonging to another to the exclusion of the owner's rights. Plaintiffs' may seek to express their conversion theory through proof that, by deeming accounts overdrawn before pending debits settled, the Bank pre-emptively and improperly exercised dominion and control over the currency related to those pending debits, thereby interfering with Plaintiffs' ongoing ownership interest. In either case, given the uniform, automated processes at issue, it is clear that the questions relevant to whether the Bank's taking or detention of funds was wrongful can be answered on a class-wide basis. The resolution of these questions with respect to one account holder will resolve the conversion claims of all class members, irrespective of any individual knowledge, intent, or understanding on the part of those class members. Accordingly, the Court finds that common questions predominate with regard to the conversion claim. Predominance with Respect to the Unjust Enrichment (Count V) Claim Defendant argues that common questions will not predominate in resolving Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim because class members' understandings of the Bank's overdraft practices vary, and thus the element of inequity will turn on determination of individualized issues. In this case, even assuming that Plaintiffs and class members were adequately informed and understood that overdraft fees would be assessed based on available balance accounting, resolution of the unjust enrichment claim will turn on the substantive equity or inequity of the practice a priori. Specifically, a customer's mere awareness of and understanding of the results of the practice may not be enough to defeat his or her unjust enrichment claim where certain mechanics of the practice were either deliberately obscured or simply not disclosed for example, the Bank's use of OD Points to unilaterally decide, without explanation or notice to the customer, the degree to which an account would be authorized into overdraft. More generally, a finding of inequity could result from a legal determination that the Bank was not entitled to exercise an ownership interest over the funds pertinent to pending debits before they settled, a question closely related to the conversion theory as well. Because the questions relevant to resolution of the unjust enrichment claim relate to uniform corporate policies and practices, the Court joins other courts that have found the predominance requirement satisfied for unjust enrichment classes in similar context. Predominance with Respect to State Unfair Trade Practices (Count VI) Claims The matter of class certification with respect to the state statutes that require proof of reliance-- North Carolina and Maryland presents a close question. While it is true that reliance as an element of proof typically forecloses class treatment because of the individualized questions it raises, courts have presumed class-wide reliance and certified Rule 23(b)(3) classes under the statutes at issue where the alleged misrepresentation or omission (1) is material or likely to deceive a reasonable consumer and (2) was uniformly made to the putative class. The Court finds that sufficient evidence of the uniformity and materiality of the putative misrepresentations and omissions has been presented to presume class-wide reliance under the North Carolina and Maryland statutes and satisfy the predominance requirement in this case. First, the vast majority of class members have a de minimus interest in individually controlling the prosecution of their available balance claims because the monetary value of their damages would be dramatically outweighed by the cost of litigating an individual case. Here, as in many consumer protection lawsuits, the low amount of damages available means no big damages award on the horizon, thus making an individual action unattractive from a plaintiff's perspective. Second, numerous putative class action lawsuits based on the same facts and containing substantively identical claims have already been filed against the Bank. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has seen fit to consolidate the handling of those common claims in this Court, which favors a consolidated disposition generally. Third, the difficulties that would necessarily be presented by thousands upon thousands of individual actions far outweigh any difficulties the Court may encounter in managing a class action in this case. Accordingly, the Court finds that a class action is the superior means for litigating the available balance claims. Class Certification is Appropriate for Claims Pertaining to Carolina First Bank and Mercantile Bank's Pre-Merger Conduct Defendant's arguments on this issue are unavailing. The Court finds that common questions predominate with respect to the posting order claims, and that a class action is the superior method for adjudicating those claims. As with the available balance claims, CF Plaintiffs and class members' expectations are immaterial in the context of the uniform contracts and conduct at issue. In this instance, the reasonable expectations of the class can be measured by an objective standard and determined with common evidence. This is especially true where, as here, Carolina First used standardized contracts of adhesion. Accordingly, the Court finds that all of the requirements for certification of the posting order claims have been satisfied. Class Certification is Inappropriate for Actual Damages Claims Under the Reg E Theory The Federal Reserve Board promulgated Reg E's overdraft provisions pursuant to its authority under EFTA. EFTA's civil remedies provision creates a private right of action for consumers affected by violations of the statute and its implementing regulations. That provision states, in pertinent part: "(a) Individual or class action for damages; amount of award; Except as otherwise provided by this section and section 1693h of this title, any person who fails to comply with any provision of this subchapter with respect to any consumer, except for an error resolved in accordance with section 1693f of this title, is liable to such consumer in an amount equal to the sum of-- (1) any actual damage sustained by such consumer as a result of such failure; (2)(A) in the case of an individual action, an amount not less than $100 nor greater than $1,000; or (B) in the case of a class action, such amount as the court may allow, except that (i) as to each member of the class no minimum recovery shall be applicable, and (ii) the total recovery under this subparagraph in any class action or series of class actions arising out of the same failure to comply by the same person shall not be more than the lesser of $500,000 or 1 per centum of the net worth of the defendant; and (3) in the case of any successful action to enforce the foregoing liability, the costs of the action, together with a reasonable attorney's fee as determined by the court." The Bank argues that Plaintiffs' claim for actual damages under the Reg E theory would require proof of detrimental reliance, therefore making the claim impossible to adjudicate on a class- wide basis because of the intricate factual questions regarding what each class member knew about TD's overdraft program, when they knew it, whether any lack of knowledge or understanding was a result of failure(s) by the Bank, whether the consumer would have made a different DCA election(s) if his or her knowledge had been complete, and so forth. In other words, the Bank maintains that an actual damages claim under Section 1693m(a)(1) implicates individualized proof, necessarily precluding certification under Rule 23(b)(3) because individual questions will improperly predominate over common questions. The Court agrees with Defendant and declines to certify a putative class seeking actual damages under the Reg E theory. The Court finds that proof sufficient to substantiate actual damages under Section 1693m(a)(1) would necessitate the adjudication of highly individualized issues, and that such issues would vastly outweigh the common questions applicable to actual damages claims. Class Certification is Appropriate for Statutory Damages Under the Reg E Theory In contrast to the actual damages claims, Plaintiffs' statutory damages claims under the Reg E theory are ideally suited for class certification. As the Bank concedes in its opposition memorandum, To recover statutory damages, a plaintiff need only prove a technical violation of the substantive provisions of the statute or its implementing regulations, and need not prove that he or she suffered any resulting harm. The Bank further states, The case law under EFTA is clear: consumers may recover statutory damages without proof that the violation caused them harm, but they must prove injury and causation to recover actual damages. Given these concessions, and the lack of any argument by TD that the statutory damages claims do not satisfy Rule 23, the Court finds that the requirements of commonality, typicality, and predominance are satisfied for this portion of the Reg E theory. The Court denies certification of a class seeking actual damages under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. The Court preliminarily grants Plaintiffs' motion with respect to a class seeking statutory damages under the EFTA but directs Plaintiffs to submit for the Court's consideration, within fourteen (14) days, a revised class definition of the EFTA Class that conforms with Rule 23 and applicable case law, particularly that law which prevents certification of a fail-safe class. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9y5xqlp from Leagle.com. James King, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Edward Adam Webb -- adam@webllc.com -- Webb Klase and Lemond, Mark Charles Tanenbaum rjenner@myadvocates.com, Mark C Tanenbaum PA & William E. Hopkins, Jr., Hopkins Law Firm, 12019 Ocean Highway Pawleys Island, SC 29585 Jan Kasmir, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Shawn Balensiefen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, JoAnne McLain, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Michael McLain, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Keith Irwin, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Edward Adam Webb, Webb Klase and Lemond & William E. Hopkins, Jr., Hopkins Law Firm. TD Bank NA, formerly known as, Defendant, represented by Donald R. Frederico, dfrederico@pierceatwood.com Pierce Atwood, pro hac vice, Joshua D. Dunlap jdunlap@pierceatwood.com, Pierce Atwood LLP, pro hac vice, Lucus A. Ritchiem -- lritchie@ pierceatwood.com -- Pierce Atwood, pro hac vice, Thomas William McGee, III -- billy.mcgee@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough & Kate R. Isley -- kisley@pierceatwood.com -- Pierce Atwood, pro hac vice. MIDLAND FUNDING: Sued for Collecting Time Barred Debt v. Miller --------------------------------------------------------------- MARYLOU MILLER, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, and MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-00218 (W.D. Mich., March 2, 2018), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in attempting to collect a time barred debt without informing the debtor that they cannot be sued on the debt because of the age of the debt. Midland Funding, LLC, is engaged in the business of taking title to charged-off consumer debts, including credit card, auto deficiency and telecom receivables purchased from national financial institutions, major retail credit corporations, telecom companies and resellers of such portfolios. Midland owns portfolios of consumer receivables, which it attempts to collect. Encore Capital Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries Midland Credit Management, Inc. and Midland Funding LLC, file hundreds of thousands of lawsuits a year in state courts using, in part, robo-signed affidavits of persons with no real knowledge, and sue on time barred debts in such volume that the attorney generals of several states have taken action against them, the Plaintiff contends.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis C. Warner, Esq. WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC 350 S. Northwest HWY., Suite 300 Park Ridge, IL 60068 Telephone: (847) 701-5290 E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal - and - B. Thomas Golden, Esq. GOLDEN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 2186 West Main Street, P.O. Box 9 Lowell, MI 49331 Telephone: (616) 897-2900 E-mail: btg@bthomasgolden.com MIMEDX GROUP: April 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline ---------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors that they have until April 25, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications in securities class action lawsuits against MiMedx Group Inc. (Nasdaq:MDXG), if they purchased the Company's securities between the expanded period of March 7, 2013 and February 21, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). These actions are pending in the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Georgia and Southern District of New York. Get Help MiMedx investors should visit us at https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-mimedx-group-inc- securities-litigation-2 or call to speak to our claim center toll-free at (844) 367-9658. About the Lawsuit MiMedx and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On February 20, 2018, MiMedx revealed it postponed its 2017 earnings report and "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." Then, on February 22, 2018, media reports revealed that MiMedx had "financial ties to more than 20 doctors" that it had not disclosed to the government, which MiMedx claimed was not required. On this news, the price of MiMedx's shares plummeted. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. ClaimsFiler's team of experts monitor the securities class action landscape and cull information from a variety of sources to ensure comprehensive coverage across a broad range of financial instruments. MIMEDX GROUP: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of MiMedx Group Inc. (NASDAQ:MDXG) who purchased shares between March 7, 2013 and February 19, 2018. The action, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws. In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) MiMedx was engaged in a "channel-stuffing" scheme designed to inappropriately recognize revenue that had not yet been realized; (ii) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (iii) that as a result of the foregoing, MiMedx's publicly disseminated financial statements were materially false and misleading. On February 20, 2018, MiMedx announced that it would postpone the release of its financial results and Form 10-K filing for the year ended December 31, 2017. MiMedx stated it had engaged "independent legal and accounting advisors to conduct an internal investigation into current and prior-period matters relating to the allegations regarding certain sales and distribution practices at the Company." Following this news, shares of MiMedx fell from a close of $14.47 per share on February 16, 2018 to a close of $8.75 on February 20, 2018. Shareholders have until April 25, 2018 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to be an absent class member. If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-c/mimedx-group-inc. Joseph Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. [GN] N.A.R. INC: "Brooks" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------- Tonya Brooks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. N.A.R., Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:18-cv- 00362 (N.D. Ohio, February 14, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff Tonya Brooks is a resident of the State of Ohio, County of Lucas, residing at 5814 Firethorne Drive, Toledo, OH 43615. Defendant N.A.R., Inc. is a debt collector with an address at 1600 West 2200 South, Suite 410, Salt Lake City, UT 84119. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amichai E. Zukowsky, Esq. ZUKOWSKY LAW, LLC 23811 Chagrin Blvd, Ste 160 Beachwood, OH 44122 Tel: (216) 800-5529 E-mail: Ami@zukowskylaw.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Michelo" Class Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- Mutinta Michelo, Katherine Seaman, and Mary Re Seaman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2; National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-3; Transworld Systems Inc.; EGS Financial Care Inc., fka NCO Financial Systems Inc.; Forster & Garbus LLP, Case No. 1:18-cv-01781-PGG (S.D.N.Y., February 27, 2018), was initiated against the Defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2 and National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-3's line of business includes the management of funds, trusts, and foundations organized for purposes other than religious, educational, charitable, or nonprofit research. Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500 companies, and small businesses in the United States and internationally. EGS Financial Care Inc., formerly known as NCO Financial Systems Inc., operates as a customer service organization that delivers outsourced solutions for finance, healthcare, retail, technology, telecommunication, transportation and logistics, travel and hospitality, and utility industries in the United States and internationally. Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company specializes in collecting debts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory A. Frank, Esq. FRANK LLP 370 Lexington Ave., Suite 1706 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 682-1853 Facsimile: (212) 682-1892 E-mail: gfrank@frankllp.com NATIONAL CREDITORS: Accused by "Reizes" Suit of Violating FDCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- MENDEL REIZES on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. NATIONAL CREDITORS COLLECTION, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01258 (E.D.N.Y., February 27, 2018), seeks redress for the alleged illegal practices of the Defendant concerning the collection of debts, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Headquartered in Lake Forest, California, the Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Telephone: (516) 668-6945 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com NEW YORK, NY: Mitchell Appeals Judgment and Opinion to 2nd Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Harvey Mitchell and Melinda Mitchell filed an appeal from a District Court judgment dated February 1, 2018, and a District Court memorandum opinion dated January 31, 2018, entered in their lawsuit titled Mitchell, et al. v. City of New York, et al., Case No. 12-cv-2674, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The lawsuit arose from alleged civil rights violations. The appellate case is captioned as Mitchell, et al. v. City of New York, et al., Case No. 18-588, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Melinda Mitchell, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, and Harvey Mitchell, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jeffrey A. Rothman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY A. ROTHMAN 315 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 227-2980 Defendants-Appellees City of New York, a municipal entity; NYC Police Officer James Schuessler, Shield No. 28718; Police Officer Joseph Brinadze; NYPD Captain Joseph Gulotta; NYPD Sergeant Danielle Roventini; NYPD Lieutenant Kathleen Caesar; Richard Roes 1-50, New York City Police Supervisors and Commanders; and John Does 1-50, New York City Police Officers, individually, and in their official capacities, jointly and severally, are represented by: Zachary W. Carter, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (2120 356-1000 Facsimile: (212) 356-1148 E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov NEW YORK, USA: West Appeals W.D.N.Y. Judgment to Second Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff James M. West filed an appeal from a District Court judgment entered on January 24, 2018, in the lawsuit entitled West, et al. v. DOCCS, et al., Case No. 05-cv-447, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (Buffalo). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of prisoners' civil rights. The appellate case is captioned as West, et al. v. DOCCS, et al., 18-578, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellant James M. West, currently incarcerated at the Five Points Correctional Facility, in Romulus, New York, appears pro se. The Defendants-Appellees are Glenn S. Goord, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services; Stephan Bernardi, Deputy Commissioner, of Policy & Compliance, of the New York State Department of Correctional Services; Thomas Poole, Supt. of Five Points Corr. Fac., of N.Y. State Department of Correctional Services; Thomas Eagen, Director of Grievance Program, of N.Y. State Department of Correctional Services;Jane Doe, (Denis/Dennis), Regional Grievance Supervisor, of the N.Y. State Department of Correctional Services; Janice Henrich, Inmate Grievance Supervisor, Five Points, N.Y. State Department of Correctional Services; Lisa Lauber, Correctional Officer, of N.Y. State Department of Correctional Services; David Napoli, Deputy Supt. of Security, Five Points, N.Y. State Department of Correctional Services; Donald Selsky, Director of Tier III Disciplinary Hearings and Special Housing, of N.Y. State Department of Correctional Services, in their individual and personal capacities; John Doe, 1-9 IGRC Sgt./Staff Representatives of Five Points, of the New York State Department of Correctional Services; Sgt. Case, N.Y. State Department of Correctional Services; Sgt. Pabon, N.Y. State Department of Correctional Services; Sgt. O'Keefe, N.Y. State Department of Correctional Services; C.O.L. Lauber, of NYS Department of Correctional Services; Department of Corrections and Community Supervision; and Lucien Leclaire, Deputy Commissioner of Correctional Facilities, of N.Y. State Department of Correctional Services.[BN] The Defendants-Appellees are represented by: Barbara D. Underwood, Esq. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 Telephone: (212) 416-8921 E-mail: barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov NEW YORK & COMPANY: "Becker" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Lori Becker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New York & Company, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-60338 (S.D. Fla., February 13, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the transmission of text messages to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and members of the class for the purpose of promoting Defendant's goods and services. Plaintiff Lori Becker was a resident of Broward County, Florida. Defendant is a New York corporation with its principal place of business located at 330 West 34th Street, New York, New York 10001. Defendant directs, markets, and provides business activities throughout the State of Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Ste 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com NEXTEP FUNDING: Fails to Give TILA & CLA Disclosures, Danger Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LuANN DANGER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. NEXTEP FUNDING, LLC and MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 0:18-cv-00567 (D. Minn., February 28, 2018), accuses the Defendants of failing to provide adequate disclosures under the Truth in Lending Act and the Consumer Leasing Act with regard to consumer credit sales disguised as leases for personal property. Nextep is a for-profit limited liability company with its principal office in Loudoun County, Virginia. Nextep "offers a retailer to customer closed end consumer lease platform designed to increase retailer sales by offering customers the ability to finance goods and services on the spot, in the store and without delay." Monterey is a for-profit limited liability company with corporate headquarters in San Diego County, California. Monterey offers a host of services related to loan servicing, debt recovery, and consumer finance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Vavreck, Esq. GONKO & VAVRECK, PLLC Designer's Guild Building 401 North Third Street, Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 659-9500 Facsimile: (612) 659-9220 E-mail: mvavreck@cgmvlaw.com - and - Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com NQ MOBILE: "Chen" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Shiqiang Chen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. NQ Mobile Inc., Vincent Wenyong Shi, Roland Wu, and Zemin Xu, Case No. 4:18-cv-00096 (E.D. Tex., February 10, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal securities laws, and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased publicly traded NQ Mobile securities from March 30, 2017 through February 6, 2018, both dates inclusive. Plaintiff Shiqiang Chen acquired NQ Mobile securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of corrective disclosures. Defendant NQ Mobile provides internet services in the People's Republic of China ("PRC") and internationally. The Company is incorporated in the Cayman Islands with its principle executive offices located in Beijing, PRC. NQ Mobile securities trade on New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "NQ." The Individual Defendants directly participated in the management of the Company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dean Gresham, Esq. Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq. STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Rd., Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Tel: (972) 387-4040 Fax: (972) 387-4041 E-mail: dean@stecklerlaw.com bruce@stecklerlaw.com krogers@stecklerlaw.com OTB ACQUISITION: "Esry" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline Esry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OTB Acquisition LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00155 (E.D. Ark., February 23, 2018), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and costs, including reasonable attorney's fee as a result of failure to pay minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Defendant owns and/or operates "On the Border" restaurant in Pulaski County, located at 11721 Chenal Parkway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72211. Esry, server, claims to have been paid below the mandated minimum wage rate considering that she was required to perform non-tipped work. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Allison Koile, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: allison@sanfordlawfirm.com OUTFIELD BREW: "Beal" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------- Colby L. Beal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Outfield Brew House, LLC dba Budweiser Brew House, Case No. 2:18-cv-04028 (W.D. Mo., February 13, 2018), seeks redress for Defendant's practice of sending text messages to Plaintiff's and other individuals' cellular telephone numbers in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff Colby Beal has been a resident of Boone County, Missouri. Defendant Brew House is a sports bar with principal place of business at 601 Clark Street, Suite C, St. Louis, Missouri 63102. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Kenney, Esq. BILL KENNEY LAW FIRM, LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 1800 Kansas City, MO 64105 Tel: (816) 842-2455 Fax: (816) 474-8899 E-mail: bkenney@billkenneylaw.com - and - Ari N. Rodopoulos, Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 1800 Kansas City, MO 64105-5171 Tel: (816) 256-3582 Fax: (816) 337-4243 E-mail: ari@woodlaw.com PALM BEACH: "Jackson" Sues Over Illegal Auto-dialed Calls --------------------------------------------------------- Monique Jackson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Palm Beach Credit Adjustors, Inc. (d/b/a Focus Financial Services), Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-80214, (S.D. Fla., February 22, 2018), seeks money damages and injunctive relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant is a debt collector and collects debts for health care providers. Palm Beach does business as Focus Financial Services and may do business under other names as well. Jackson received a telephone call to her cellular phone number seeking to recover a debt from a different person using an automatic dialer with a pre-recorded voice. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: William Peerce Howard, Esq. Geoffrey E. Parmer, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC 210-A South MacDill Avenue Tampa, FL 33609 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 Facsimile: (813) 435-2369 Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com Geoff@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com PAY-O-MATIC CHECK: "Buchanan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- David Buchanan, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Pay-O-Matic Check Cashing Corp., and the Pay-O-Matic Corp., Case No. 2:18-cv-00885 (E.D. N.Y., February 9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. In 1997, Plaintiff David Buchanan was hired by C.L.B. Check Cashing, which was integrated into Defendants' Pay-O-Matic check cashing business in 2008. From 2011 until the termination of his employment on or about September 26, 2016, Plaintiff worked for Defendants at the Pay-O-Matic store located at 1294 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11216. The Defendants own and operate a check cashing enterprise comprised of approximately 150 stores operating under the common trade name "Pay-O-Matic" located throughout the New York City metropolitan area. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Andrews" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P., and PLAINS PIPELINE, L.P., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Keith Andrews, et al. v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04113-PSG-JEM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The appellate case is captioned as Keith Andrews, et al. v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., et al., Case No. 18-80026, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 16, 2018, the District Court entered an order on Feb. 9, 2018: 1. denying Plaintiffs' motion to certify a Real Property Subclass of: "(1) residential beachfront properties on a beach, (2) residential properties with a private easement to a beach, and (3) residential properties that are within one-half mile of a beach (collectively 'Included Properties') where oil from the Line 901 spill washed up, and where the oiling was categorized as Heavy, Moderate or Light"; 2. granting certification to proposed Oil Industry Subclass of: "[i]ndividuals and entities who were employed, or contracted, to work on or to provide supplies, personnel, or services for the operations of the off-shore oil drilling platforms, Hidalgo, Harvest, Hermosa, Heritage, Harmony, Hondo, and/or Holly, off the Santa Barbara County coast, or the on-shore processing facilities at Las Flores/POPCO, Gaviota, and/or Venoco/Ellwood, as of May 19, 2015"; 3. appointing counsel at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; Keller Rohrback L.L.P.; Cappello & Noel LLP; and Audet & Partners, LLP as lead counsel for the Oil Industry Subclass. 4. appointing moving Plaintiffs as Subclass representatives; and 5. denying Defendants' motion to strike the declaration of Peter Rupert and finds Defendants' motion to strike the declarations of Randall Bell and Igor Mezic rendered moot.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents KEITH ANDREWS; ALEXANDRA B. GEREMIA, as Trustee for the Alexandra Geremia Family Trust dated 8/5/1998; TIFFANI ANDREWS; SARAH RATHBONE; RICHARD LILYGREN; BACIU FAMILY, LLC, a California limited liability company; JACQUES HABRA; HWA HONG MUH; MIKE GANDALL; EAGLE FLEET LLC, a California limited liability company; ROBERT BOYDSTON; SOUTHERN CAL SEAFOOD, INC., a California corporation; PACIFIC RIM FISHERIES, INC., a California corporation; OCEAN ANGEL IV, LLC, a California limited liability company; ZACHARY FRAZIER; COMMUNITY SEAFOOD LLC, a California limited liability company; JIM GUELKER; CAPTAIN JACK'S SANTA BARBARA TOURS, LLC, A California limited liability company; MORGAN CASTAGNOLA; WEI INTERNATIONAL TRADING INC., a California corporation; ISURF, LLC, a California limited liability company; TRACTIDE MARINE CORP., a California corporation; SANTA BARBARA UNI, INC., a California corporation; STEPHEN WILSON, an individual, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; MARY KIRKHART and MARK KIRKHART are represented by: William M. Audet, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com - and - Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. Wilson M. Dunlavey, Esq. Robert L. Lieff, Esq. Sarah Robin London, Esq. Robert J. Nelson, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 275 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com wdunlavey@lchb.com rlieff@lieff.com slondon@lchb.com rnelson@lchb.com - and - A. Barry Cappello, Esq. David Cousineau, Esq. Leila Noel, Esq. CAPPELLO & NOEL LLP 831 State St. Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 564-2444 Facsimile: (805) 965-5950 E-mail: abc@cappellonoel.com dcousineau@cappellonoel.com lnoel@cappellonoel.com - and - Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Juli E. Farris, Esq. Daniel Parke Mensher, Esq. Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com jfarris@kellerrohrback.com dmensher@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com - and - Matthew J. Preusch, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 1129 State Street, Suite 8 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com Defendants-Petitioner PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; and PLAINS PIPELINE, L.P., a Texas limited partnership, are represented by: Brad D. Brian, Esq. Thomas Paul Clancy, Esq. Melinda Eades LeMoine, Esq. Daniel Benjamin Levin, Esq. Jordan X. Navarrette, Esq. Henry Weissmann, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 683-9280 E-mail: brad.brian@mto.com Thomas.Clancy@mto.com melinda.lemoine@mto.com daniel.levin@mto.com Jordan.Navarrette@mto.com Henry.Weissmann@mto.com PLAZA HOTEL: Sued by Hanson Over Illegal Fees for Internet Access ----------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE HANSON an individual; on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PLAZA HOTEL & CASINO, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company d/b/a Plaza Hotel and Casino; PLAYLV GAMING OPERATIONS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00378-APG-NJK (D. Nev., March 1, 2018), seeks damages and restitution for the total amount of taxes the Defendants unlawfully charged and collected on the portion of the Resort Fees that constitutes charges for Internet access. Ms. Hanson alleges that the Defendants charge overnight guests a mandatory, per-night Resort Fee, which includes wired and wireless Internet access, an in-room coffee and tea maker, and all local phone calls. She contends that despite the Internet Tax Freedom Act's prohibition on the taxation of Internet access, the Defendants improperly and illegally charged their overnight guests the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax on the entire Resort Fee, including the portion of the Resort Fee that constitutes charges for Internet access. Plaza Hotel is a Nevada limited liability company doing business as Plaza Hotel & Casino located at 1 Main Street, in Las Vegas, Nevada. PlayLV is a Nevada limited liability company doing business in Clark County, Nevada, as the sole manager/member of Plaza Hotel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don Springmeyer, Esq. Jordan J. Butler, Esq. WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP 3556 E. Russell Road, 2nd Floor Las Vegas, NV 89120-2234 Telephone: (702) 341-5200 Facsimile: (702) 341-5300 E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com jbutler@wrslawyers.com - and - Stuart McCluer, Esq. MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC 1022 Carolina Blvd., Suite 300 Charleston, SC 29451 Telephone: (855) 467-0451 Facsimile: (662) 368-1506 E-mail: smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com - and - Patrick Madden, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: pmadden@bm.net POLLACK & ROSEN: Demand Letter Violates FDCPA, "Doane" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JEAN G. DOANE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. POLLACK & ROSEN, P.A., a Florida Corporation, and JOSEPH F. ROSEN, individually, Case No. 2:18-cv-14069-RLR (S.D. Fla., February 26, 2018), alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On January 19, 2018, the Defendants mailed, or caused to be mailed, a written communication to the Plaintiff seeking payment of an alleged debt, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' Demand Letter is represented to be from Defendant Rosen, which misleadingly leaves the Plaintiff and Class to believe that Defendant Rosen has meaningful involvement in the collection of the debt. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' Demand Letter would be deceptive to the least sophisticated consumer with regard to his/her legal rights. Pollack & Rosen, P.A., is a Florida Corporation and law firm engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts, which operates from offices located in Coral Gables, Florida. Joseph F. Rosen, Esq., is an attorney and is engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts. Defendant Rosen is a managing partner of the Firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leo W. Desmond, Esq. DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C. 5070 Highway A1A, Suite D Vero Beach, FL 32963 Telephone: (772) 231-9600 Facsimile: (772) 231-0300 E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com PROGRESSIVE SELECT: UR Health Appeals Ruling to Eleventh Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff UR Health Chiropractic Corp. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled UR Health Chiropractic Corp. v. Progressive Select Insurance Company, Case No. 0:17-cv-62086- FAM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 5, 2018, the District Court issued an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case. Oxana Kouzmenko assigned personal injury protection benefits from her Progressive automobile insurance policy to UR Health. In turn, UR Health provided chiropractic services to help Kouzmenko recover from personal injuries she sustained during an accident. Progressive subsequently reimbursed UR Health for certain medical services covered by the policy. UR Health contends that Progressive still violated the law by arbitrarily applying the Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction Rule to some healthcare providers but not to others. It alleges that Progressive did not apply the Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction Rule to reduce reimbursement amounts owed to diagnostic/imaging providers. UR Health argues that by applying the Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction Rule to providers like the Plaintiff' and arbitrarily choosing not to apply it to diagnostic/imaging providers, Progressive engaged in unlawful discriminatory conduct. Progressive maintains that it has no obligation to employ the Payment Reduction Rule uniformly for all providers, or to notify insureds when it applies the Payment Reduction Rule non- uniformly. It notes that UR Health offers no support for its all-or-nothing rule or its notice requirement. The appellate case is captioned as UR Health Chiropractic Corp. v. Progressive Select Insurance Company, Case No. 18-10681, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- The appellant's brief is due on or before April 2, 2018; -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of the appellant's brief; -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due March 20, 2018, as to Appellee Progressive Select Insurance Company.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant UR HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC CORP., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, other Oxana Kouzmenko, is represented by: Valorie S. Chavin, Esq. James E. Mitchell, Esq. CHAVIN MITCHELL SHMUELY, PA 12955 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 201 North Miami, FL 33181 Telephone: (866) 345-2033 Facsimile: (305) 981-1054 E-mail: vchavin@cmslawgroup.com jmitchell@cmslawgroup.com - and - Andres H. Lopez, Esq. THE ANDRES LOPEZ LAW FIRM 101 Ne Third Ave., Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 237-8138 Facsimile: (877) 395-7558 E-mail: andres@alopezlawfirm.com Defendant-Appellee PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq. Ari H. Gerstin, Esq. Ross E. Linzer, Esq. AKERMAN, LLP 3 Brickell City Center 98 SE 7th Street, Suite 1100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 982-5600 E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com ari.gerstin@akerman.com ross.linzer@akerman.com RACHAEL RAY: "Burbon" Suit Alleges ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------ Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Rachael Ray Digital LLC and CBS Interactive, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-01265 (S.D. N.Y., February 13, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff brought this action because the Defendants' websites, www.rachaelray.com and www.rachaelrayshow.com, are not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, and they violate the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant' websites will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff Luc Burbon, at all relevant times, is a resident of Queens, New York. Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired, handicapped person and a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA. The Defendants offer the commercial websites, www.rachaelray.com and www.rachaelrayshow.com and those affiliated or directly linked, to the public. The websites offer features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services which the Defendants offer in connection with their physical location. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi A. Naveh, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF AVI A. NAVEH, ESQ. 175 Varick Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Tel: (646) 881-4471 Fax: (661) 430-4471 E-mail: avi@navehlaw.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com RED LOBSTER: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Gardner" Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- SHERI GARDNER, Individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RED LOBSTER RESTAURANT, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00306 (E.D. Wisc., February 28, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, without receiving overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Red Lobster Restaurants, LLC, is a foreign limited liability company registered and authorized to transact business in Wisconsin. The Company operates seafood restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Summer Murshid, Esq. Timothy Maynard, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 222 East Erie, Suite 210 P.O. Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 Facsimile: (414) 271-8442 E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com tmaynard@hq-law.com smurshid@hq-law.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Michael H. Reed, Esq. Alexis H. Castillo, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Facsimile: (914) 934-9220 E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com fran@klafterolsen.com michael.reed@klafterolsen.com alexis.castillo@klafterolsen.com RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: "Roys" Suit Hits Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------------- Richard Roys, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Riot Blockchain, Inc., John O'Rourke, Jeffrey G. McGonegal and Barry Honig, Defendants, Case No. 18-CV- 80225 (S.D. Fla., February 22, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Riot Blockchain, Inc. operates as a digital currency company focusing on buying cryptocurrency and blockchain businesses, as well as supporting blockchain technology companies with a particular focus on the Bitcoin and Ethereum blockchains. Riot common stock trades on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol "RIOT." Defendants failed to disclose that Riot lacked a meaningful business plan with respect to the cryptocurrency business and had only minimal investments in cryptocurrency products, that 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 its stock price and enriching inside shareholders, and that Riot never intended to hold its Annual General Meetings scheduled for December 28, 2017 and February 1, 2018. On this news, Riot's share price fell $5.74, or over 33.37%, to close at $11.46 on February 16, 2018, damaging investors. Roys acquired Riot securities at artificially inflated prices and lost substantially upon the revelation of alleged corrective disclosures. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Reise, Esq. Robert J. Robbins, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Fax: (561) 750-3364 Email: jreise@rgrdlaw.com rrobbins@rgrdlaw.com RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: "Greenawalt" Sues Over Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Greenawalt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Riot Blockchain, Inc. (f/k/a Bioptix, Inc.), John O'Rourke and Jeffrey G. McGonegal, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00440 (D. Colo., February 22, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Riot Blockchain, Inc. operates as a digital currency company focusing on buying cryptocurrency and blockchain businesses, as well as supporting blockchain technology companies. Defendants failed to disclose that Riot lacked a meaningful business plan with respect to the cryptocurrency business and had only minimal investments in cryptocurrency products; that 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 its stock price and enriching inside shareholders; and that Riot never intended to hold its Annual General Meetings scheduled for December 28, 2017 and February 1, 2018. On this news, Riot's share price fell $5.74, or over 33.37%, to close at $11.46 on February 16, 2018, damaging investors. Greenawalt acquired Riot securities at artificially inflated prices and lost substantially upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Removes "Albert-Brown" Suit to D.N.H. --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation removes on February 26, 2018, the lawsuit captioned LYNDA ALBERT-BROWN, DIANNE HUNTER, HEATHER IRVING, BRIAN MCCROSSIN, GERARD MINER, TANYA O'MARA, Individually and as Natural Parent and Personal Representative for A.O.(1), A.O.(2), L.O., and V.O., PHYLLIS PROVENCHER, RICHARD PROVENCHER, APRIL PROVENCHER, SARAH RICARD, THOMAS RUSSELL, KYLE RUSSELL, KAREN RUSSEL, Individually and as Natural Parent and Personal Representative for K.R.(1), and K.R.(2), ALAN SANDLER, WALTER SCOTT, PRISCILLA SEPESSY, GEORGE SIMARD, DORIS SIMARD, MELISSA SIMARD, DEBBIE SIMON, DESIRE UPTON, and CHARLES WILLIAMS v. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORP., Individually and as a Successor In Interest to Chemfab, CHRIS GILMAN, GWENAEL BUSNEL, and JOHN DOE 1-5, Case No. 216-2018-CV- 000120, from the New Hampshire Superior Court, Hillsborough, Southern District, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00181 to the proceeding. The action and its accompanying sister action, Dowling v. Saint- Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., are two putative class actions that were originally filed in the District Court and then refiled in state court on February 12, 2018, following voluntary dismissal of their claims without prejudice in federal court. The Plaintiffs are 28 New Hampshire residents, who allege, on behalf of putative classes, that the Defendants' actions have "unnecessarily exposed the Plaintiffs and class members to unsafe water" that was allegedly contaminated by a facility in Merrimack, New Hampshire. The Plaintiffs seek various relief on behalf of themselves "and the putative classes," including compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, a remediation protocol, a medical monitoring program, interest, attorneys' fees, and disgorgement. They assert their claims against Saint- Gobain (the owner of the Merrimack facility), Gwenael Busnel and Chris Gilman (the "Individual Defendants," alleged former and current plant managers of the Merrimack facility), and five John Doe Defendants.[BN] Defendant Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation is represented by: Bruce W. Felmly, Esq. Nicholas F. Casolaro, Esq. MCLANE MIDDLETON, P.A. 900 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03101 Telephone: (603) 628-1448 Facsimile: (603) 625-5650 E-mail: bruce.felmly@mclane.com nicholas.casolaro@mclane.com - and - Sheila Birnbaum, Esq. Mark S. Cheffo, Esq. Douglas E. Fleming, Esq. Patrick Curran, Esq. Lincoln Davis Wilson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com douglasfleming@quinnemanuel.com patrickcurran@quinnemanuel.com lincolnwilson@quinnemanuel.com SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Removes "Dowling" Class Suit to D.N.H. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation removes on February 26, 2018, the lawsuit entitled JEAN DOWLING, JAMES BOLLENGIER, BRIAN MENDEZ, AMY MENDEZ, Individually and as Natural Parent and Personal Representative for M.M., BEVERLY VOLNER, JAMES VOLNER, THE ESTATE OF JUDITH VOLNER, James Volner, Administrator, DAWNA WORCESTER, CRAIG WORCESTER, RICHARD SLIDE, ERIN SLIDE, Individually and as Natural Parent and Personal Representative for C.S. and M.S., JONATHAN KILEY, JENNIFER KILEY, Individually and as Natural Parent and Personal Representative for A.K., K.K., E.K.1 and E.K.2, SHAUNA MORTEN, RAYMOND FORREST, BARBARA FORREST, JOHN MOONEY, LINDA MORRISON, JEFFREY RICHELSON, BRENDA MORSE, JEAN MURPHY, THE ESTATE OF MICHELLE PATCH, Stephen Patch, Administrator, STEPHEN PATCH, Individually and as Natural Parent and Personal Representative for C.P., L.P., and M.P., JENNIE PAULETTE, VIRGINIA SLIDE, and CATHRYN WARRINGTON v. SAINT- GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORP., individually and as successor in interest to CHEMFAB; MERRIMACK VILLAGE DISTRICT WATER WORKS; CHRIS GILMAN; GWENAEL BUSNEL; and DOES 1-5, Case No. 226-2018-CV- 00071, from the New Hampshire Superior Court, Hillsborough, Southern District, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00180 to the proceeding. The action and its accompanying sister action, Albert-Brown v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., are two putative class actions that were originally filed in the District Court and then refiled in state court on February 12, 2018, following voluntary dismissal of their claims without prejudice in federal court. The Plaintiffs are 28 New Hampshire residents, who allege, on behalf of putative classes, that the Defendants' actions have "unnecessarily exposed the Plaintiffs and class members to unsafe water" that was allegedly contaminated by a facility in Merrimack, New Hampshire. The Plaintiffs seek various relief on behalf of themselves "and the putative classes," including compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, a remediation protocol, a medical monitoring program, interest, attorneys' fees, and disgorgement. They assert their claims against Saint- Gobain (the owner of the Merrimack facility), Gwenael Busnel and Chris Gilman (the "Individual Defendants," alleged former and current plant managers of the Merrimack facility), and five John Doe Defendants.[BN] Defendant Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation is represented by: Bruce W. Felmly, Esq. Nicholas F. Casolaro, Esq. MCLANE MIDDLETON, P.A. 900 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03101 Telephone: (603) 628-1448 Facsimile: (603) 625-5650 E-mail: bruce.felmly@mclane.com nicholas.casolaro@mclane.com - and - Sheila Birnbaum, Esq. Mark S. Cheffo, Esq. Douglas E. Fleming, Esq. Patrick Curran, Esq. Lincoln Davis Wilson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com douglasfleming@quinnemanuel.com patrickcurran@quinnemanuel.com lincolnwilson@quinnemanuel.com SHANGHAI ORIGINAL: Denied Staff OT Pay, Paytubs, Says "Lin" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jian Ying Lin, Hui Qiu Chen and Xin He, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Shanghai Original, Inc., East Brother Corp., Shanghai City Corp., Shanghai Duplicate Corp., Kiu Sang Si, Yiu Fai Fong, Tun Yee Lam, Gui Bing Shi, Solomon C. Liou, Mimi Si, William Ko, Lillian Liou, Cheng Kueng Liu, Yun Cai and John Zhang, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv- 01715 (S.D. N.Y., February 25, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid "spread-of-hours" premium, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Defendants operate as Joe's Shanghai, a chain of Chinese restaurants in New York where Plaintiffs were employed as kitchen workers. They all claim to be denied overtime pay and wage statements. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Tel: (718) 762-1324 Fax: (718) 762-1342 Email: johntroy@pllc.com SHIMA LIMOUSINE: "Beavers" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ---------------------------------------------------------- Robert Beavers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Shima Limousine Services, Inc. and Michelle Carothers, Case No. 1:18-cv-00352 (N.D. Ohio, February 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Beavers was employed by Defendants from approximately February 1, 2016 through approximately November 30, 2017 as a driver. At all material times during his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff Beavers was non-exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements. Defendants own and operate Shim Limousine Services, Inc., an enterprise located in Lake County, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Tel: (216) 395-4226 Fax: (602) 956-1409 E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON 6000 Freedom Square Drive Freedom Square II - Suite 165 Independence, OH 44131 Tel: (216) 525-8890 Fax: (216) 642-5814 E-mail: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com SIGNICAST LLC: "Friedemann" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------- Matthew Friedemann on behalf of himself and all others similar situated Plaintiff, v. Signicast LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv- 00278 (E.D. Wisc., February 22, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief and/or any such other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. Signicast LLC, is a component manufacturer utilizing the investment casting process. Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt, hourly-paid manufacturing employee in the positions of Master Technician, Finishing Technician and Melt Technician from April 4, 2011 until on or about December 7, 2017. Friedemann claims to have worked in excess of twelve hours without overtime pay. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com SILVERSTAR DELIVERY: "Smith" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations --------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Smith, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Silverstar Delivery Ltd. and Amazon.com, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-10501 (E.D. Mich., February 12, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was a non-exempt driver employed by Defendants delivering items purchased from Amazon.com to the customers who purchased those items. Plaintiff was hired in or around November 2016 and his employment ended in or around June 2017. Silverstar is an Illinois Corporation that operates a carrier and logistics business and, among other activities, provides trucks and/or drivers to deliver goods for its client companies' customers in Michigan, including customers of Amazon in Michigan. Amazon is a Delaware Limited Liability Company that is an electronic commerce and cloud computing company and one of the largest internet retailers in the world. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy E. Keller, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY Ten North Dearborn Street, 11th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 214-7900 Fax: (312) 253-1443 E-mail: akeller@dlcfirm.com SMITH AUTO: Ferguson Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- CAROL FERGUSON and LYNDA FREEMAN, on behalf of themselves and, in addition, on behalf of others similarly situated v. MARIA SMITH, an individual; ALL STAR AUTO GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; the SMITH AUTO GROUP, an unregistered conglomeration of entities owned by Maria Smith; GLADSTONE AUTO, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company; and CARROS, INC., an Oregon corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-00372-SB (D. Ore., March 1, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, and prejudgment interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Maria Smith owns and operates various automobile dealership companies, both directly and through various shell companies and corporations and registered and unregistered business names. These include All Star Auto Group, Inc., Smith Auto Group, Gladstone Auto, LLC, and Carros, Inc. The Oregon constituents of Smith Auto (including Ms. Smith and Gladstone Auto, LLC and Carros, Inc.) were and are joint employers of the Plaintiffs and the class members.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jon M. Egan, Esq. JON M. EGAN, PC 547 Fifth Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009 Telephone: (503) 697-3427 Facsimile: (866) 311-5629 E-mail: Jegan@eganlegalteam.com SQUAW VALLEY: Court Extends Time to Respond to "Pinto" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an Order Extending Time to Respond to First Amended Complaint and Order in the case captioned JOAO GABRIEL PINTO, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SQUAW VALLEY RESORT, LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02281-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff filed this action against defendant Squaw Valley and defendant KSL Resorts on September 26, 2017 alleging eight causes of action as class-wide claims, inter alia: (1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (2) Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under Labor Code Section 510. Squaw Valley's current deadline to respond to the FAC is February 22, 2018. Squaw Valley contends that Plaintiff entered into an arbitration agreement that precludes him from pursuing claims in this forum. The Parties stipulate and ask that Squaw Valley's deadline to respond to the FAC be extended by forty-five (45) days, from February 22, 2018, until April 9, 2018. The Court, having reviewed the Stipulation of the Parties and good cause having been shown, orders that the deadline for defendant Squaw Valley Resort, LLC file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is hereby extended by forty- five (45) days, from February 22, 2018, until April 9, 2018. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydh73m4l from Leagle.com. Joao Gabriel Pinto, Plaintiff, represented by Alvin B. Lindsay -- alvin@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian & Associates, Inc. & David Harmik Yeremian -- david@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian & Associates, Inc. Squaw Valley Resort, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alexander M. Chemers -- alexander.chemers@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Lori A. Bowman -- lori.bowman@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC & Kelsey A. Webber -- kelsey.webber@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, PC. SWIFT TECHNICAL: "Binning" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Binning, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Swift Technical Services, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00043 (S.D. Ohio, February 14, 2018), seeks to recover all unpaid wages and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Justin Binning worked for Defendant from February 2015 to November 2017. Defendant is a staffing company that provides workers to energy and infrastructure companies throughout the U.S. Defendant provides its services in multiple states including Texas, California, North Dakota, and Wyoming. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste 200 Houston, TX 77006 Tel: (713) 523-0001 Fax: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com SYSTEMS & SERVICES: "Chavez" Suit Seeks Damages under FDCPA ----------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Systems & Services Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:18- cv-00446 (S.D. Calif., February 28, 2018), seeks damages pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff Adrian Chavez is a resident of the County of San Diego, within the State of California. Defendant Systems & Services conducted business in the State of California and in the County of San Diego. Defendant is a debt- collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. Veronica Cruz, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com veronica@kazlg.com TITLEMAX INC: "Sistrunk" Settlement Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, issued a Judgment granting Joint Motion for Final Approval and Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees and Cost and Class Representative Award in the case captioned DEXTER SISTRUNK, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. TITLEMAX, INC., et al., Defendants, United States District Court, No. 5:14-CV-628-RP (W.D. Tex.). The parties seek final approval of a Settlement Agreement that sets forth the terms and conditions of a proposed settlement and dismissal of this action with prejudice, with the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement. Having read the motions and supporting evidence and considered the parties' arguments and relevant legal authority, the Court finds as follows, inter alia: Plaintiff's requested award of $1,557,675.00 in attorney's fees, which is to be paid separately from compensation to the Settlement Class, is reasonable. In considering the reasonability of the requested fee award, the Court considers both (a) how the fee award compares to the total recovery obtained in favor of the class (the "percentage method") and (b) the reasonableness of the award under the twelve factors set out in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Exp., Inc., 488 F.2d 714(5th Cir. 1974). The percentage method counsels in favor of approving the requested fee award. Class Counsel obtained a settlement of $1,500 per Class Member, which carries a total potential value of $7,417,500 for the 4,945 Class Members who could make claims. Plaintiff's requested fee award is 21 percent of the Settlement's maximum cash value to the class as a whole. 21 percent is well within the range approved by the Fifth Circuit. This Court has previously approved fee awards consistent with the Fifth Circuit's benchmark of 30 percent in common-fund cases where, unlike here, the fee award reduces class members' total recovery. The Court therefore orders that the Settlement is finally approved as being fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members. The Parties are directed to implement the Settlement in accordance with its terms. The parties and Class Members are bound by the terms and conditions of the Settlement and this order. The parties and their counsel are directed to implement and consummate the Settlement according to its terms and conditions. The Court awards Class Counsel attorney's fees in the amount of $1,557,675.00. Defendants shall pay that amount to Class Counsel within 30 days of this order. The Court awards Class Counsel expenses in the amount of $14,392.50. Defendants will pay that amount to Class Counsel within 30 days of this order. The Court awards Plaintiff Dexter Sistrunk a service award in the total amount of $15,000.00. Of that sum, Defendants shall pay Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) and Class Counsel shall pay Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) within 30 days of this order. Except as otherwise set forth in this order, the Parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018 Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7fcbtnm from Leagle.com. Dexter Sistrunk, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie J. Strieber, III- lstrieber@lawdcm.com -- Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza, Inc., Michael E. Pierce -- michael@pcsblaw.com -- Pierce Skrabanek Bruera, PLLC, Ricardo G. Cedillo -- rcedillo@lawdcm.com -- Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza & Cory S. Fein -- cory@coryfeinlaw.com -- Cory S. Fein, PC. TitleMax, Inc. & TMX Finance Holdings, Inc., Defendants, represented by L. Bradley Hancock -- Brad.Hancock@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP & Marcy Hogan Greer -- mgreer@adjtlaw.com -- Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend. TitleMax Holdings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher David Johnsen -- chris.johnsen@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, LLP, Gerald Thomas Drought -- gdrought@mdtlaw.com -- Martin & Drought, P.C., L. Bradley Hancock -- Brad.Hancock@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP, Marcy Hogan Greer Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend & Mathis B. Bishop -- mbishop@mdtlaw.com -- Martin & Drought, P.C. TMX Finance, LLC, formerly known as, Defendant, represented by Gerald Thomas Drought, Martin & Drought, P.C., L. Bradley Hancock, Holland & Knight LLP, Marcy Hogan Greer, Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend & Mathis B. Bishop, Martin & Drought, P.C. TitleMax of Texas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher David Johnsen, Holland & Knight, LLP, Gerald Thomas Drought, Martin & Drought, P.C., L. Bradley Hancock, Holland & Knight LLP, Marcy Hogan Greer, Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend, Martin G. Durkin, Holland & Knight & Mathis B. Bishop, Martin & Drought, P.C. TOUCH OF CUBAN: "Castaneda" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Ana Castaneda, and other similarly situated individuals v. A Touch of Cuban Corp. dba A Touch of Cuba, Yoandra Piedra Vilar and Michael Barata, Case No. 18-cv-60353 (S.D. Fla., February 15, 2018), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Ana Castaneda was employed by the Corporate Defendant as a server/cook/cashier/cleaner from November 2013 until January 2018. Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Tel: (305) 503-5131 Fax: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com TOWERS WATSON: "Fort Myers" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty ----------------------------------------------------------------- City of Fort Myers General Employees' Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated former stockholders v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., Case No. 61735099 (Del. Chancery Ct., February 27, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty. This action arises from the merger of Willis and Towers whereby Towers stockholders received Merger consideration that had a value that was at a material discount to the value of their Towers shares. In the Merger, Towers stockholders received 49% ownership of the combined Willis Towers despite Towers having nearly a $1 billion market capitalization larger than Willis, and a business that consistently beat street expectations compared to Willis' business, which was struggling to implement a turn-around plan. Plaintiff Fort Myers GEPF was a shareholder of Towers and owned Towers common stock at all material times alleged in this Complaint. Defendant Towers was a global professional services firm focused on helping organizations improve performance through risk management, human resources and actuarial and investment consulting. Towers was located in Virginia and incorporated under the laws of Delaware. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Towers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Barry, Esq. Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 622-7000 - and - Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Tel: (610) 667-7706 Fax: (267) 948-2512 UNITED FOOD: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Ohlendorf" ------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's dismissal of the Complaint in the case captioned ROBBIE OHLENDORF; SANDRA ADAMS, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 876, Defendant- Appellee, No. 17-1864 (6th Cir.). The district court dismissed the complaint as a matter of law, prompting this appeal. The Labor Management Relations Act makes it a crime for an employer to deduct union dues from an employee's paycheck and for the union to accept the dues, except if the employee consents by signing an authorization form, often called a dues checkoff. Robbie Ohlendorf and Sandra Adams signed dues checkoff authorizations with their employer in 2013. When they tried to revoke them three years later, they did not follow the protocol for revoking their consent, and the union insisted that they do so. Ohlendorf and Adams sued the union in response. Their putative class action lawsuit seeks damages and injunctive relief on the ground that the union violated the Act and its duty of fair representation. To prove such a claim, the employees must show that the union's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. The employees claim that the union's enforcement of the window-period and certified-mail requirements satisfies that standard. The problem with the employees' claim is that they agreed to the window-period and certified-mail requirements when they signed the authorization form. Even if the requirements may seem burdensome, no one forced the employees to sign the checkoff authorizations. Having agreed to the two requirements, they are not in a position to say that the union acted arbitrarily in enforcing them. The union's decision to enforce the requirements does not qualify as bad faith. To demonstrate bad faith, a plaintiff must show that the union acted with an improper intent, purpose, or motive encompassing fraud, dishonesty, and other intentionally misleading conduct. The employees have not met that standard. They do not allege that the union's decision to enforce the requirements was misleading or a product of fraud or dishonesty. The authorization form signed by each of them spelled out the requirements they would need to follow to revoke their assignments. In holding the employees and itself to this contract, the union did not act in bad faith. The Court affirms the district court's judgment. A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's February 22, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y88c66zt from Leagle.com. ARGUED: Amanda K. Freeman, NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC., 8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600 Springfield, Virginia 22160, for Appellants. J. Douglas Korney -- dkorney@dkorneylaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF J. DOUGLAS KORNEY, Farmington Hills, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Amanda K. Freeman, William L. Messenger, Glenn M. Taubman, NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC., Springfield, Virginia, for Appellants. J. Douglas Korney, LAW OFFICES OF J. DOUGLAS KORNEY, Farmington Hills, Michigan, for Appellee. UNITED PARCEL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Holl" Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Randall Holl filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled RANDALL HOLL v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-05856-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland. The appellate case is captioned as Randall Holl v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND, Case No. 18-70568, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner RANDALL HOLL, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and as a representative of the class, is represented by: Adam W. Hansen, Esq. APOLLO LAW LLC 400 South 4th Street, Suite 401M-250 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: (612) 927-2969 E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com - and - Matthew C. Helland, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 277-7235 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 E-mail: helland@nka.com - and - Kai Heinrich Richter, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 215-6870 E-mail: krichter@nka.com Defendant-Real Party in Interest UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., is represented by: Stacey M. Sprenkel, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-6040 E-mail: SSprenkel@mofo.com - and - Gregory Bryant Koltun, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 892-5551 Facsimile: (213) 892-5454 E-mail: gkoltun@mofo.com UNITED SERVICES: Vaughn Appeals Ruling to Kansas Supreme Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Meredith Vaughn filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled MEREDITH VAUGHN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Case No. 15CV38G, in the Kansas District Court, Crawford. The lawsuit arises from contract-related issues. The appellate case is captioned as MEREDITH VAUGHN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Case No. 118974, in the Kansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.[BN] UNITED STATES: Appeals Amended Order in "Vidal" Suit to 2nd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Jefferson B. Sessions III and Donald J. Trump filed an appeal from the District Court's amended order entered on February 13, 2018, in the lawsuit styled Vidal, et al. v. Nielsen, et al., Case No. 16-cv-4756, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, several appeals have already been filed by the parties of the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs challenge the rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, as well as other actions that the Defendants are alleged to have taken in connection with the rescission of that program. The Plaintiffs challenge the rescission on substantive and procedural grounds under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Plaintiffs also alleged that the rescission violated equal protection and that the implementation of the rescission violated due process. The appellate case is captioned as Vidal, et al. v. Nielsen, et al., Case No. 18-485, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal; Make the Road New York, on behalf of itself, its members, its clients, and all similarly situated individuals; Antonio Alarcon; Eliana Fernandez; Carlos Vargas; Mariano Mondragon; and Carolina Fung Feng, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, are represented by: Karen Cassandra Tumlin, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 3450 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 639-3900 Facsimile: (213) 639-3911 E-mail: tumlin@nilc.org Defendants-Appellants Donald J. Trump, President of the United States; Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security; and Jefferson B. Sessions III, United States Attorney General, are represented by: Mark B. Stern, Esq. Abby Christine Wright, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-5089 E-mail: Mark.Stern@usdoj.gov Abby.Wright@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES: Class Action Over DACA Program Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Sophie Smith, writing for Willamette University Collegian, reports that in January, a California court ruled that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) must stay in place, a decision that outraged the firmly anti-immigration White House. Donald Trump's administration believes the program is unconstitutional, claiming that its offer of work permits and other government benefits is illegal. In an attempt to fight the rule, the White House brought an appeal to the Supreme Court. This was an unusual choice because, in accordance with the federal court system, appeals are normally brought to a federal circuit court before reaching the Supreme Court. The White House bypassed the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Western US, a court with the reputation for making liberal-leaning decisions. The administration believed the currently Republican controlled Supreme Court would be more likely to rule in its favor. Instead, the Supreme Court deferred to rule on the appeal, deciding to keep DACA in place until a decision could be made. Now the appeal will return to lower courts. Experts believe a decision will not come for several months, considering how slowly the federal court process moves. This is a win for U.S. DREAMers, since DACA was set to expire this Monday, March 5 -- deferring the appeal will extend DACA, protecting DREAMers for now. However, welcome this advancement may be, we should not be too quick to praise the Supreme Court. Days later the court overturned a recent ruling from the ninth Circuit which decided detained immigrants must be granted bond hearings. Immigrants -- whether undocumented or legal residents of the US -- can be kept in detainment centers for an indefinite amount of time before being given hearings. Currently there are no provisions in place that require hearings to be held. The case the Supreme Court heard, Jennings v. Rodriguez, was brought by the ACLU on behalf of Alejandro Rodriguez, a permanent resident of the U.S. who arrived from Mexico as an infant. Rodriguez was held in a detainment center in the early 2000's for infractions involving joyriding and illegal of possession substances, but he was never convicted for his alleged crimes. He spent three years in detainment before being granted a hearing. Unfortunately, cases like Rodriguez's are anything but unique. Yet regardless of how many lives these statues have harmed or put on pause, the Supreme Court still returned the case to lower courts. The Supreme Court poses two questions to these courts. Firstly, is it constitutional for detainees to be held indefinitely without trials, and secondly, can this case be brought as a class-action one, even though each immigrant's circumstances are unique? If the goal of our country's leaders is to protect the liberty of its residents, neither question should require months to be answered. The statues completely disregard habeas corpus and the Due Process clause. Many detainees, like Alejandro Rodriguez, are legal U.S. residents. As for the second question, of course this case can and should continue to be class-action, or a case involving several individuals that operate as a single defendant. It was the U.S. government itself that lumped the detained immigrants in one group, regardless of criminal record or legal status, and trying to hear cases individually would create an insurmountable backlog in the court system. Furthermore, many people being detained, particularly undocumented immigrants, do not have access to individual lawyers. Allowing this to be a class-action case should be a no-brainer. To me, it seems the Supreme Court's 5-3 decision is yet another powerplay by conservatives in leadership positions (Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case). We have seen time and time again that the American government is systematically discriminatory: consider the so-called 'Muslim ban,' mandatory minimum sentencing, the continued wage gaps between genders and races or anti-Black Lives Matter rhetoric. It could even be argued that Congress' lack of action when it comes to gun control is further proof of this systematic discrimination -- the Pew Research Center finds that most gun owners are white men. This ruling from the Supreme Court inarguably favors Republicans, who gain massively from large-scale immigration detainment. According to AJ+, an Al Jazeera online news channel, 62 percent of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) over 200 detainment centers in 2014 were run by private companies. Like the U.S.'s corrupt prison system, detention centers are wrapped up in the complicated and growing web among the wealthiest of Americans: private corporations and politicians. It makes sense, then, that five Supreme Court justices would rule along their financially-driven party lines. The Supreme Court is meant to be above this conscious discrimination, with its meticulous design to be an impartial body that keeps checks on the other two branches of government. But in today's dangerously bipartisan country, all that has been thrown out the window. The court's ruling is yet another example of the institutionalized discrimination in this country, and a blatant disregard for human rights that should outrage all of us. [GN] UNITED STATES: ACLU Sues Against ICE Over Asylum-Seeking Families ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Carter, writing for The Hill, reports that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced March 9 it has filed a national class-action lawsuit against multiple federal government agencies over the practice of separating asylum-seeking families. The suit, filed on behalf of two plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, accuses the federal government of a "nationwide unlawful practice of separating parents and children absent any showing that the parent presents a danger to the child." Multiple government agencies are named as defendants in the complaint, including Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection, and the Office of Refugee Resettlement, as well as top officials at the agencies. The lawsuit expands on a previous lawsuit filed by the ACLU in an effort to reunite a Congolese mother and her 7-year-old daughter who were detained 2,000 miles apart. The woman was released from a detention center in San Diego, according to The Associated Press, but her daughter remains detained in Chicago. The lawsuit also mentions a Brazilian woman it calls Ms. C., who fled to the U.S. with her 14-year-old son in August 2017. The suit claims the two were seeking asylum, but the woman was detained for entering the U.S. illegally and spent nearly a month in prison, and her son was sent to a holding facility in Chicago. The two have been separated since last year, according to the suit. "Ms. C. is desperate to be reunited with her son, who has been having a difficult time emotionally since being separated from his mother," the complaint reads. "Ms. C. worries about him constantly and does not know when she will be able to see him." The lawsuit seeks a judge's declaration that the separation of families is against the law. "Whether or not the Trump administration wants to call this a 'policy,' it certainly is engaged in a widespread practice of tearing children away from their parents," Lee Gelernt, the deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement. "A national class-action lawsuit is appropriate because this is a national practice." DHS has no set policy to separate asylum-seeking parents from their children, according to the AP. In a statement on the original lawsuit filed on behalf of the Congolese woman and her daughter, DHS press secretary Tyler Houlton said the complaint should be treated with "skepticism." "We ask that members of the public and media view advocacy group claims that we are separating women and children for reasons other than to protect the child with the level of skepticism they deserve," Houlton reportedly said at the time. [GN] VENICE HMA: "Briggs" Suit Seeks Damages under FLSA -------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Briggs and Joan Mikluscak, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Venice HMA, LLC, dba Venice Regional Bayfront Health, Case No. 8:18-cv-00478 (M.D. Fla., February 28, 2018), seeks damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay overtime wages under the Florida Private Whistleblower's Act. Plaintiffs Rebecca Briggs and Joan Mikluscak are residents of Sarasota County, Florida. Defendant Venice HMA operates a hospital in Venice, in Sarasota County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donna V. Smith, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Tel: (813) 386-0995 Fax: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com VENKY'S FOOD: Accused by "Sanchez" of Not Paying Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- JUVENTINO GALEANA SANCHEZ and VICTOR GALEANA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. VENKY'S FOOD CORP. (D/B/A OM REAL INDIAN FOOD RESTAURANT) and RITA SABHARWAL, Case No. 1:18-cv-01916 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as delivery workers without appropriate minimum wage compensation for the hours that they worked. Venky's Food Corp. is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York and maintains its principal place of business in New York City. Rita Sabharwal is an owner, officer or agent of the Defendant Corporation. The Defendants own, operate, or control an Indian Restaurant located at 1593 2nd Avenue, in New York City, under the name "Om Real Indian Food Restaurant."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com VITA-MIX CORP: Pittman Appeals Decision in "Gooding" to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Objector Randall Pittman filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled RAINOLDO GOODING and NADEEN GOODING, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. VITA-MIX CORPORATION and KELLY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-03898-ODW- JEM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is a wage-and-hour class action suit against Defendants Vita-Mix Corporation and Kelly Services, Inc. The Plaintiffs, as proposed class members, work for or worked in the past for Vita-Mix, and they allege that Vita-Mix misclassified their employee designations and failed to pay them overtime wages and other benefits, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Randall Pittman, et al. v. Vita-Mix Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-55269, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript was to be ordered by March 26, 2018; -- Transcript is due on April 25, 2018; -- Appellant Randall Pittman's opening brief is due on June 4, 2018; -- Appellees Nadeen Gooding, Rainoldo Gooding, Kelly Services, Inc. and Vita-Mix Corporation's answering brief is due on July 5, 2018; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. Objector-Appellant Randall Pittman of Sherman Oaks, California, appears pro se.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees RAINOLDO GOODING and NADEEN GOODING, as individuals, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Paul Keith Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com - and - Christine Ann Hopkins, Esq. TREMAIN ARTAZA PLLC 4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (469) 573-0297 E-mail: christine@tremainartaza.com Defendant-Appellee VITA-MIX CORPORATION, DBA Vitamix, is represented by: David Fuad, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 777 S. Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612-2369 E-mail: dfuad@orrick.com Defendant-Appellee KELLY SERVICES, INC., is represented by: Chantelle Cappa Egan, Esq. Laura Jean Maechtlen, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 732-1106 E-mail: cegan@seyfarth.com lmaechtlen@seyfarth.com - and - David D. Jacobson, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 E-mail: djacobson@seyfarth.com - and - Gerald Leonard Maatman, Jr., Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 460-5965 E-mail: gmaatman@seyfarth.com WAGEWORKS INC: Barrack, Rodos Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Barrack, Rodos & Bacine has commenced a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of WageWorks, Inc. (NYSE:WAGE) ("WageWorks" or "WAGE") from May 6, 2016 through March 1, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint is styled Government Employees' Retirement System of the Virgin Islands v. WageWorks, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-01523, and was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A copy of the complaint will be available at: www.barrack.com/newsroom/recent-news On March 1, 2018, WageWorks announced that it would delay filing its annual report on Form 10-K. On the news, shares of WAGE closed at $42.70 per share, down $9.75 per share, or 18.6%, on more than 10-times the stock's average daily trading volume. The next day, on March 2, 2018, the company said that the delay in reporting its financials was due to a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, and that its audit committee was conducting an investigation into the company's revenue recognition practices during fiscal 2016. The investigation is also looking at whether there was an open flow of information and appropriate "tone at the top" for an effective control environment at the company. WageWorks said that the investigation is ongoing and may result in the identification of other accounting issues, further material weaknesses, and/or require the restatement of the company's financial statements for previously reported periods. If you suffered a loss arising from your investment in WageWorks common stock during the Class Period, you have until May 8, 2018, to file a motion with the Court seeking appointment as lead plaintiff. To discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and for additional information about your interest in this class action, please contact either Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq., by email at JBarrack@barrack.com or by telephone at (215) 963-0600 or Samuel M. Ward, Esq. by email at SWard@barrack.com, or by telephone at (619) 230-0800. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine is a highly experienced securities litigation firm with offices in Philadelphia, PA, New York City, NY, and San Diego, CA. During its 40 years serving institutional investors and public pension fiduciaries, BR&B has recovered over ten billion dollars on behalf of victims of corporate fraud. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] WELLS FARGO: April 16 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo" or the "Company") (NYSE:WFC) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Wells Fargo securities between January 13, 2017 and July 27, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/wfc This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Wells Fargo had charged more than 800,000 customers for unneeded auto insurance, the expense of which pushed approximately 274,000 Wells Fargo customers into delinquency and resulted in almost 25,000 vehicle repossessions; (2) the foregoing conduct, when it came to light, would foreseeably subject Wells Fargo to heightened regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement actions; and (3) as a result, Wells Fargo's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 8, 2016, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau published a Consent Order with a Stipulation to its entry signed by Mary Mack, Executive Vice President of Wells Fargo Bank, detailing fraudulent practices at the Company, which were centered on a corporate culture intent on growing its cross- selling opportunities and unlawfully and without its customers' consent opening millions of unauthorized deposit and credit card accounts, and imposing a fine of more than $185 million. On July 27, 2017, post-market, The New York Times published an article entitled "Wells Fargo Forced Unwanted Auto Insurance on Borrowers." Citing an internal report prepared for Wells Fargo's executives, the article reported that "[m]ore than 800,000 people who took out car loans from Wells Fargo were charged for auto insurance they did not need," that "[t]he expense of the unneeded insurance . . . pushed roughly 274,000 Wells Fargo customers into delinquency and resulted in almost 25,000 wrongful vehicle repossessions," and "that the bank owed $73 million to wronged customers." Following publication of this article, Wells Fargo stock dropped $1.41 per share, or 2.58%, to close at $53.30 on July 28, 2017. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/wfcor you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz, Esq., of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Wells Fargo you have until April 16, 2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Contact: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Yael Hurwitz, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Tel.No.: 212-697-6484 Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN] WESTERN DENTAL: Mack Files Suit Over TCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------- NETIA MACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WESTERN DENTAL SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-00468-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal., March 2, 2018), accuses the Defendants of illegal actions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone. Western Dental Services, Inc., is a retail company engaged in collection activity in connection with debts allegedly owed to it. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com WHITEROC DRYWALL: "Herrera" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arnoldo Herrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Whiteroc Drywall, LLC and GD&D Drywall, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00558, (S.D. Tex., February 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Defendants are involved in the construction business, performing, among other services, carpentry and drywall work for commercial construction projects. Herrera worked as an hourly construction worker from 2013 until approximately July of 2016 for Whiteroc only, and then until January 10, 2018 for both Defendants. During his tenure with the Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week but was not paid an overtime premium for hours worked over 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Tel: (713) 868-3388 Fax: (713) 683-9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com vijay@buenkerlaw.com WILLIAMSBURG GARDEN: "Ernandez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Tomas Escorza Ernandez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Williamsburg Garden Company, Inc. and Jeff Hewitt, Case No. 1:18-cv-01009 (E.D. N.Y., February 15, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Ernandez worked as a construction worker for the Defendant from on or about 2003 through December 26, 2017. Defendant Hewitt owns and maintains control, oversight, and the direction of Williamsburg Garden, a sidewalk construction company located at 259 Wythe Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11249. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 323-6980 E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com WINN MANAGEMENT: Court OKs $250K Class Settlement in "Goodwin" -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement in the case captioned ADAM GOODWIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WINN MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, Defendant, No. 1:15-cv- 00606-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal.). The court finds final certification of the following class is appropriate: All non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant in California and both (i) received non-discretionary compensation and (ii) worked over 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a week in at least one pay period between April 16, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Here, the court reviewed the class notice that was proposed when the parties sought preliminary approval of the settlement and found it sufficient. Notice was sent by the settlement administrator to the 1,562 class members on September 19, 2017.Of those notices, 119 were returned to the sender, of which sixteen had a forwarding address on file. For the remaining 103 class members, notice was again attempted at new addresses for ninety- six of the class members, ultimately resulting in only twenty- four class members to whom no notice could be delivered. Therefore, it appears that approximately 98 percent of the class members received notice of this settlement. The court concludes adequate notice was provided to the vast majority of the class here. In assessing whether a district court's determination of the fairness of a class action settlement was within its discretion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals balances the following factors: (1) the strength of the plaintiffs' case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; (6) the experience and views of counsel; (7) the presence of a governmental participant; and (8) the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. Plaintiff explains in his brief in support of the motion for final approval that the class faced risks at the class certification stage due to two factors: (1) the issue of whether Winn's bonuses and commissions were discretionary and therefore would not need to be included in the regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime; and (2) the fact that defendant advised plaintiff that it had settled another class action previously which incorporated certain of the same class members, such that only about seven months of the class period remained relevant. According to class counsel, there was perhaps a 50% chance that the class would not prevail on the merits of some or all of their claims. Both counsel confirmed at the hearing on the pending motion that defendant had a good faith argument regarding the discretionary nature of the bonuses. Since demonstrating the bonuses were not discretionary was a necessary component of plaintiff's case, resolution of this issue against plaintiff would have resulted in the class recovering nothing. Therefore, while plaintiff believes his claims had merit, it was not certain that he would ultimately prevail in this matter on behalf of the class. Plaintiff has indicated he believes there was substantial risk the class would not be awarded significant damages because of the possibility that defendant might successfully claim the bonuses were discretionary. It is not only possible but likely that further litigating this case to a final resolution would have required significant investments of both time and expenses, absent a settlement. It is unclear whether there are any risks associated with maintaining class action status throughout a trial in this matter. No information is currently before the court suggesting that individuals in this matter are governed by different policies. Therefore, the court concludes there was little risk in maintaining the suit's status as a class action until its resolution. The amount offered in settlement in this case is $250,000. Plaintiff's counsel estimates that the realistic total recovery here for both the California Class and the FLSA Class would be $400,524.46, and therefore a settlement of $250,000 reflects a recovery of more than half of what the class could reasonably expect to recover. Overall, the court concludes the amount offered in settlement is not unreasonable in this case, since there were apparently not an unduly large number of instances in which the alleged labor law violation could have occurred. Consideration of this factor weighs slightly against finding the settlement fair in this case. The parties engaged in little to no formal discovery here. According to plaintiff's counsel, both parties propounded written discovery, and then the parties agreed to engage in informal discovery and explore the possibility of the cost effective alternative of settlement. It appears the parties sought to settle this case from the outset and did not engage in any substantive discovery or motion practice. Aside from simply weighing against the fairness of the settlement, the dearth of discovery completed in this case also suggests class counsel's views regarding the adequacy of the settlement should be accorded somewhat less credence than would be the case had significant discovery been undertaken. Plaintiff's counsel declares that he received his B.A. from the University of California at Santa Barbara in 1998 and his J.D. from the University of California at Davis in 2002. He became a member of the California State Bar in 2002, and worked for two different law firms until August 2007, when he started his own practice concentrating on wage and hour class actions. This opinion weighs only slightly in favor of finding the settlement reasonable, given the limited discovery undertaken by the parties. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1715(b), defendants are required to serve any proposed settlements in class actions on certain state and federal officials within ten days of settlement. The court may not give final approval to any proposed settlement until at least 90 days have passed since all of the necessary officials were served. The requisite 90 days have now passed, and no governmental agency has sought to intervene. This weighs in favor of the settlement. No class members have objected to the settlement, and only one class member has opted out of being included in it. The lack of objections or large numbers of class members opting out of the settlement suggests general approval of the settlement by the class. The award of attorneys' fees sought here -- thirty percent of the settlement fund is on the high end of amounts typically awarded in the Ninth Circuit. See Morales v. Stevco, Inc., No. 1:09-cv- 00704, 2011 WL 5511767 AWI JLT, (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2011), the typical range of acceptable attorneys' fees in the Ninth Circuit is 20% to 33 1/3% of the total settlement value, with 25% considered the benchmark. That said, both the fee award and settlement amount are relatively small, and plaintiff's counsel voluntarily reduced the amount of fees sought in this case. Therefore, the amount of attorneys' fees sought here is not indicative of collusion between class counsel and defendant. Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement and certification of the settlement class is granted, the settlement class is certified, and the court approves the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydxh4zmd from Leagle.com. Adam Goodwin, individually and individually on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Malk -- mm@malklawfirm.com -- Michael Malk, Esq., Apc. Winn Management Group LLC, a Massachusetts Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Mark J. Jacobs -- mjacobs@laborlawyers.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLC & Shaun Jordan Voigt -- svoigt@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP. YEREIM OF SPRING VALLEY: "Lorenzana" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Leandro Flores Lorenzana, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Yereim of Spring Valley, Inc., Yereim of Spring Valley New York, Inc., Yereim of Monsey, Inc., Sholum Heimowitz and Lazar Katz, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01708 (S.D. N.Y., February 23, 2018), seeks to recover, unpaid "spread- of-hours" and overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law. Defendants own, operate, or control a Jewish private school, located at 33 Union Road, Spring Valley, New York 10977 under the name "Talmud Torah Khal Adas Yereim," where Lorenzana was employed as a janitor and a handy man. Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked and repeatedly failed to pay him wages on a timely basis. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com * Alston & Bird Attorneys Discuss Recent Class Action Rulings ------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Akerman, Esq. -- alex.akerman@alston.com -- Christina Bortz, Esq. -- christina.bortz@alston.com -- Sam Bragg, Esq. -- sam.bragg@alston.com -- David Carpenter, Esq. -- david.carpenter@alston.com -- Caitlin Counts, Esq. -- caitlin.counts@alston.com -- and Charles Cox, Esq. -- charles.cox@alston.com -- of Alston & Bird, in an article for JDSupra, present Class Action Roundup: Winter 2018. Where the (Class) Action Is Welcome to 2018 and the latest edition of Roundup covering significant decisions and settlements from the last quarter of 2017. On the docket this quarter is another slate of cases covering a variety of industries, products, and legal arguments that keep class action practitioners so busy. Consumer Protection and Products Liability cases were the most common in this quarter and dealt with issues that included the pricing of burritos and Super Bowl tickets as well as claims of odors in cars and alleged side effects of pills. Standing issues and the enforceability of arbitration agreements were common themes in these cases. For the financial industry, notable cases covered issues of labor standards for bank employees and retirement plan participants, overlapping with other common employment issues of age bias and unpaid time while complying with company rules. Major settlements finalized this quarter included the Takata airbag MDL, with four settlements totaling more than $500 million, and a settlement of more than $200 million in an antitrust class action from student athletes over scholarships. Looking ahead to the first quarter of 2018, we'll feature a summary of the recent Hyundai ruling overturning a nationwide class action settlement in an MDL on choice-of-law issues and establishing a "heightened need" to undertake choice of law analysis in the settlement context. This ruling could have far-reaching implications in the class action world. Another case worth watching will be an upcoming argument in the Ninth Circuit on a core Spokeo issue -- more to follow when the decision comes in on that one. Antitrust/RICO Rail Shippers' Damages Model Runs Off the Tracks In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:07- mc-00489 (D.D.C.) (Nov. 13, 2017). Judge Friedman. Denying class certification. Judge Friedman denied the direct purchaser rail shippers' motion for class certification, holding that the rail shippers could not satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement because their damages model contained too many uninjured shippers. Judge Friedman explained that to satisfy the predominance requirement at the class certification stage, the rail shippers had to show that "all or virtually all" of the class members' injuries can be proved through common evidence. Because 12.7 percent of the members were uninjured, Judge Friedman held that the rail shippers failed to meet that burden. Uninjured Class Members Don't Hurt Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification In re Asacol Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:15-cv-12730 (D. Mass.) (Nov. 9, 2017). Judge Casper. Granting class certification. Purchasers of ulcerative colitis drugs moved for class certification. The defendant drug manufacturers argued that inclusion of potential uninjured purchasers in the proposed class precluded class certification because (1) there was no administratively feasible mechanism for distinguishing between injured and uninjured class members; and (2) the presence of uninjured class members meant that individual issues predominated. Judge Casper rejected both arguments because the purchasers could use affidavits and supporting documentation at the claims stage to distinguish between injured and uninjured class members. And, according to Judge Casper, since just 10 percent of class members were uninjured, individual issues did not predominate. Common Corporate Parent Doesn't Provide Basis for Numerosity Challenge In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:14-md02503 (D. Mass.) (Oct. 16, 2017). Judge Casper. Granting class certification. Direct purchasers of acne medication proposed a class of 48 members and argued that joinder was impracticable due to the size of the class and geographic dispersion of the members. The defendant drug manufacturers took issue with the purchasers' calculation of class size, contending that limiting class members to their common corporate parent resulted in a class of less than 40, which failed to satisfy the numerosity requirement. Judge Casper rejected the drug manufacturers' argument, finding no evidence that the plaintiffs were artificially inflating the class size and holding that the plaintiffs should be considered distinct entities for class certification purposes even though they share a common parent. Banking, Financial Services & Insurance On Second Thought . . . Ambulatory Surgical Center of Somerset, et al. v. Allstate Fire Casualty Insurance Co., No. 3:16-cv-05378 (D. N.J.) (Oct. 5, 2017). Judge Thompson. Reconsidering denial of motion to compel arbitration and reversing. In a class action brought by a hospital and car accident victims asserting claims for personal injury protection (PIP) coverage benefits for medical bills, Allstate moved to compel arbitration under the New Jersey Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act (AICRA) and New Jersey's "deemer statute." After initially denying the motion, Judge Thompson reversed herself and held that the broad arbitration language in the AICRA extended to the deemer statute. She explained that her prior decision was "misplaced," failed to consider the impact of amendments to the PIP statute that allow insurers to force arbitration, and to deny arbitration would be "unjust and inconsistent with the scheme set forth in the New Jersey legislature." Insurer Not Required to Indemnify Class Action Under California Labor Code The Talbots Inc. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Co., No. 1:17-cv- 11107 (D. Mass.) (Sept. 29, 2017). Judge Stearns. Granting motion to dismiss. A Massachusetts district court held that AIG had no duty to indemnify Talbots for a putative class action alleging labor violations arising from "a uniform policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against" their employees. The plain language of the insurance policy excluded claims brought under either the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) or the California Labor Code, and all of the claims were "either directly tied to, or a natural outgrowth of, the company's employment and labor practices." Mortgage Servicer Finds Reporting Mortgage Interest to Be Taxing Rovai v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., No. 5:14-cv-01738 (S.D. Cal.) (Oct. 18, 2017). Judge Bashant. Denying motion to dismiss. Judge Bashant denied defendant Select Portfolio Servicing's (SPS) motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. SPS was the servicer of Rovai's mortgage loan. She filed suit alleging that the company sent her tax forms in 2011 and 2012 that incorrectly reported the amount of mortgage interest she paid to SPS. She alleged that her reliance on the incorrect forms caused her to file inaccurate tax returns and that she received smaller tax deductions as a result. SPS moved to dismiss, arguing that Rovai did not have Article III standing due to her failure to plead both injury-in- fact and causation. The court disagreed and held that allegations of receiving smaller tax deductions in 2011 and 2012 were sufficient to show economic injury, and those injuries were fairly traceable to SPS's failure to provide correct tax forms. Judge Grants Class Certification to Retirement Plan Participants Leber v. The Citigroup 401(k) Plan Investment Committee, et al., No. 1:07-cv-09329 (S.D.N.Y.) (Nov. 27, 2017). Judge Stein. Granting motion for class certification. Judge Stein certified a class of Citigroup 401(k) plan participants alleging that the committees responsible for overseeing the plan breached their fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty by favoring certain investment options that had higher management fees than comparable alternatives. The court rejected an argument that the named plaintiffs did not have standing to assert claims related to funds they did not invest in, and went on to find that the Rule 23 requirements were satisfied. The court held that common questions predominated, such as whether Citibank failed to prudently and loyally monitor the plan's investments, and that the plaintiffs' claims were typical of those of the class because Citibank's misconduct affected each of those funds in the same way. Seventh Circuit Declines Relief to Elderly Insureds Toulon v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 16-1510 (7th Cir.) (Dec. 14, 2017). Affirming dismissal. Sophia Toulon argued that Continental Casualty had engaged in a scheme to lure elderly people into purchasing long-term care insurance by offering low premiums and not disclosing that premiums would substantially increase when the elderly insureds would be likely to need the coverage. Unfortunately for Toulon, neither the district court nor the Seventh Circuit was convinced that any of Continental's statements or actions were fraud since the policy expressly conferred upon Continental the right to increase premiums. [GN] * DOJ Probe May Spark Generic Drug Price Fixing Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Lane, writing for National Public Radio, reports that forty-five states and the Department of Justice are claiming that generic-drug prices are fixed and the alleged collusion may have cost U.S. business and consumers more than $1 billion. In their complaint, prosecutors say that when pharmacies asked drugmakers for their lowest price, the manufacturers would rig the bidding process. "The companies would work out in advance who would get the lowest price and then the other competitors may put in what we would call a cover bid," says Michael Cole, who heads the antitrust department at the Connecticut attorney general's office. (Such bids give the appearance of competitive bidding.) Through subpoenas, Mr. Cole's team has assembled millions of texts, emails and phone calls between 2012 and 2015. The prosecutors say the records show executives divvying up customers, setting prices and giving the illusion that generic pharmaceuticals were transacted in an open and fair marketplace. Because of this price-fixing scheme, prosecutors say, health insurance premiums and copays increased. They also say tax- funded programs like Medicare and Medicaid overspent on drugs. So far, two executives from Heritage Pharmaceuticals have pleaded guilty to antitrust crimes. Both are now feeding information to prosecutors who say the two rigged prices on, among other drugs, the common antibiotic doxycycline, which shot the price up 8,000 percent. "To the extent that taxpayers have had to pay that bill, I think that the taxpayers should recover. And we will get involved on the civil side and recover damages for the U.S. government," Makan Delrahim, head of the Department of Justice's antitrust division, said at a seminar. The fact that the Department of Justice is involved has caught the attention of class-action lawyers. Jason Dubner -- jdubner@butlerrubin.com -- an attorney for Butler, Rubin, Saltarelli & Boyd, says the allegations are so massive that prices throughout the generic industry could have been affected. "You start to get an understanding just how widespread this alleged conspiracy was to cover so many different types of cures," he says. Law firms that specialize in class actions have already lined up as many as 80 companies that may have paid too much, including retail pharmacies, employee unions and insurance companies. Mr. Dubner predicts more will join as the lawsuit progresses, perhaps even individual consumers. The pharmaceutical manufacturers named in the complaint have either declined to comment or denied the allegations, saying they have a robust compliance program. Ronny Gal, a market analyst for Sanford Bernstein, says on average, the generic-drug industry has lowered prices for consumers. But, he says, in an efficient marketplace, generic- drug wholesalers should have kept prices in check. "In a market that has only three or four really large distribution organizations, they are sometimes tempted to maximize their own profits in a way that does not always 100 percent reflect the best interest of their clients," Mr. Gal says. This is what investigators are looking at now. In their complaint they suggest -- but don't allege -- that the price- fixing conspiracy also involved drug distributors. Prosecutors are sending more subpoenas and planning a new complaint. "It could be more generic manufacturers, it could be more drugs, it could be more entities in the distribution chain. It could be all of that," Mr. Cole, of the Connecticut attorney general's office, says. A spokesperson for McKesson, one of the largest generics distributors, said the company is cooperating with requests for information from prosecutors and that it competes aggressively for the lowest price available. Based on what's in the current lawsuit, Mr. Gal estimates an eventual settlement would be around $1 billion. But he says that number could go as high as $5 billion, especially if more drugs are included. [GN] * Gig Economy Renews Debate Whether Contractors Are Misclassified ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yuki Noguchi, writing for National Public Radio, reports that freelancers and contract workers make up the fastest-growing segment of the American workforce, and are expected to surpass half of all workers within a decade. But, under current employment law, these workers are ineligible for most of the rights and benefits of traditional employees. As their ranks grow so, too, do the court challenges from workers who say they are improperly classified as contractors, and wrongfully denied eligibility for things like unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, and protections under most federal anti-discrimination laws. Popular gig platforms -- such as Uber, Handy, Lyft and Instacart that allow workers to find episodic work -- are at the center of many new court cases. And the disputes are renewing a debate on the issue of whether contractors are misclassified, which has existed in other industries for decades. Last month, a case pitting food-delivery business Grubhub against a former driver, Raef Lawson, became the first gig economy case in the country to reach a trial verdict. In that case, Mr. Lawson, an aspiring Los Angeles actor, worked as a part-time driver. He sued Grubhub in 2015, saying the company exerted significant control over when and where he delivered food during his shifts -- much the way a manager controls an employee. Therefore, he argued, he should be considered an employee, with rights to minimum wage, overtime pay, and reimbursement of expenses. The magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court of Northern California disagreed, ruling Lawson was appropriately classified as an independent contractor, largely because of the ways in which Lawson was unlike a traditional employee. "He didn't receive performance evaluations, he didn't have to go through training or orientation, he didn't have to wear a specific uniform," says Richard Meneghello, an attorney who represents companies in similar cases. "Those are all the kinds of things that are really hallmarks of a typical employee- employer relationship." A loss for Grubhub would've reverberated throughout the new gig economy, Mr. Meneghello says. It would "would open up a whole range of benefits -- not only potentially increased pay for minimum wage and overtime, but also protection under civil rights laws and workers' compensation, and a whole raft of benefits," he says. The judge, Jacqueline Scott Corley, acknowledged the ruling was a close call, noting that the booming class of gig workers has attributes of both employees and contractors. However, the law forces her to choose between two stark designations, in what she called an "all-or-nothing proposition." That means each case is going to depend on particular circumstances, Mr. Meneghello says. "It's a real roll of the dice every time a gig economy company has a case like this," he says. (One major class-action case, involving Uber drivers, is on hold at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, pending a Supreme Court ruling on whether employers can force the workers to arbitrate their cases individually, instead of acting as a class.) Over the last century, a full-time employment model has dominated the American workforce, and the country's workplace laws are built around it. But as employers and workers alike embrace the greater flexibility of contract work, there are more questions about which laws should apply, and to whom. Many companies are skirting their employer obligations by misclassifying workers as independent contractors, says David Weil, dean of the Heller School at Brandeis University. "Businesses can get all the benefits of closely controlling everything that happens in the delivery of a service or the creation of a product," says Mr. Weil, a former Labor Department administrator under President Obama who enforced fair wage laws. "And yet when it comes to responsibility for basic employment conditions like health and safety, or like compliance with labor standards, our laws let them off the hook completely." Moreover, people working as contractors cannot sue for workplace violations under most federal laws, making them vulnerable to exploitation, Mr. Weil says. In his work at the Labor Department, he says he saw cases involving exploitation of warehouse workers, for example, who were labeled contractors doing the work of employees but earning below the minimum wage. "The probability of violation was very high where you had subcontracting, outsourcing relationships," Mr. Weil says. Even where there are no clear violations, many contractors say the legal structure gives employers the upper hand. Seth Dudzinski, for example, has worked in quality control for two San Francisco-area pharmaceutical companies as a contractor for the last five years. Mr. Dudzinski, 33, feels he should be classified as an employee, because he does the same work as employees, except he wears a different color ID badge. "There is a shuttle that only full-time employees could use that is six blocks from my house, but I would have to pay to use it, so that's a little messed up," he says. The shuttle would make his commute 45 minutes, but taking public transportation takes up to two hours. Mr. Dudzinski says he desperately wants to be hired so he can be eligible for things like stock options and employer retirement contributions, but he feels he can't push for it. "There isn't much room to negotiate," he says. And, he says, he's keenly aware that his contractor status restricts his ability to complain. [GN] * Polsinelli Attorneys Say Token Issuers May Face Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael S. Foster, Esq. -- mfoster@polsinelli.com -- Mark A. Olthoff, Esq. -- molthoff@polsinelli.com -- and Richard B. Levin, Esq., of Polsinelli, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that cryptocurrencies, like Bitcoin and Ethereum, had a breakout year in 2017. The price of Bitcoin rose from approximately $1,000 per Bitcoin on January 1, 2017, to $13,000 per Bitcoin on December 31, 2017, with a high of approximately $20,000 per Bitcoin. Ethereum increased from approximately $10 per Ether to $755 during the same time period. Both Ether and Bitcoin are used by investors to buy into Initial Coin Offering ("ICO") opportunities, which are similar to Initial Public Offerings ("IPOs") and were an extremely popular way of raising capital in exchange for "crypto tokens" in 2017. These ICOs, however, have spurred recent class action lawsuits. "Given the wide fluctuations in the price of cryptocurrencies -- and recent precipitous drop -- and the fact that many people paid for tokens of blockchain based start-ups, we have only likely begun to see the beginning of class action lawsuits filed relating to blockchain-related companies or companies that participated in ICOs. Because anyone with an idea for a project can gain financial backing without going through the formalities of an IPO, there are obvious chances for the public to be scammed, leading to potential lawsuits," they said. "We believe it is highly likely other issuers of tokens will face class action lawsuits. Any company planning to conduct a token offering using an ICO should proceed with caution. Similarly, anyone looking to invest in a token offering should make sure the offering is conducted in compliance with applicable state and federal laws." [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 * * *