/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180411.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 11, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 73 Headlines 15 40 PRODUCTIONS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Diaz and Bush Claim ABM INDUSTRIES: Wade Sues over Cyber Attack AD ASTRA RECOVERY: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Doyle" Suit ADVANCED PHARMA: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium AECOM INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Tafoya Says AERUS LLC: Website Not Accessible to Deaf People, Sullivan Says ARCIMOTO INC: Mendelson Sues over Stock Price Plunge AMY FAY ALTMAN: De Faria Seeks OT Compensation under Labor Law BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Order in Baltimore Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Berkshire Appeals Denial of Class Certification BEST BUY STORES: Touche Appeals N.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Cir. BITCONNECT INT'L: Avalos Sues over Investment Programs BJC HEALTH: "Rhoades" Remanded to Missouri State Court BUENAVISTA INVESTMENT: Tolosa Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA CENTRAL CREDIT: Certification of Class in "Perez" Suit Denied CERES, CA: Court Dismisses 3rd Cause of Action in "Miranda" Suit CHARLES SCHWAB: Lim Seeks May 29 Cutoff to File Writ to Sup. Ct. CHELSEA INDUSTRIES: Macalou Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code CITIZENS BANK: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Fawcett" CITIZENS FOR RAUNER: Garvey Sues over Pre-Recorded Calls CJS SOLUTION: $3.24MM Settlement in "Sanders" Has Prelim Approval COCA-COLA CO: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Becerra" Suit COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York COMBINED INSURANCE: Must Produce Docs in "Nicholes" Suit COMENITY LLC: J. Stephens Individual Claims Dismissed CROWN POLY: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wage, Morales Says DICK'S SPORTING: Pomerantz to Lead in "McKenna" Suit DR PEPPER SNAPPLE: Witmer Balks at Keurig Green Merger Deal EMERSON ELECTRIC: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Order in "Hale" Suit ESTATE INFORMATION: Azimov Files 1st Suit over Debt Collection ESTATE INFORMATION: Azimov Files 2nd Suit over Debt Collection EWC TIMES: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York FACEBOOK INC: Zellmer Sues over Collection of Biometric Info FACEBOOK INC: Williams et al. Sue over Messenger Logs FANNIE MAY: Court Dismisses "Benson" Suit FASHION INSTITUTE: Web Site Not Accessible to Deaf, Sullivan Says FLORIDA BC: "Ward" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA FOOT LOCKER: Rosenberg Sues over Drop in Share Price FRED'S INC: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Taylor" Class Suit GENERAL MILLS: Weninger Files Suit Over Illegal Termination GENERAL MOTORS: "Gavaldon" Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan GENERAL MOTORS: "Hill" Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan GENERAL MOTORS: "Taylor" Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan GEO GROUP: Counterclaims, Affirmative Defenses in "Chen" Narrowed HARBOR CARE: "Adolphe" Suit Brought Before New York Supreme Court HARCOURT GROUP: Denial of "Boice" Class Certification Affirmed HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Vega Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA HOUSTON WASTE: "Uribe" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation HSB LLC: Faces "Logan" Suit in D. Massachusetts IDE PONTIAC: Auto Salesmen Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages IL MULINO USA: Olsen Claims Website Not Blind-Friendly JARROW FORMULAS: "Salganik" Suit Alleges Fraud JOHN DOES: Barry Sues over Settlement Price of VIX Derivatives JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Order re Notice of Pendency Amendment Entered LAS VEGAS, NV: Moore May Proceed in Forma Pauperis LEE CONSTRUCTION: "Tyler" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA LEE LAW: Shanahan Balks at Debt Collection Practices LESSORS INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Harvey Says MADISON COS: Ct. Moots Pipeline Productions' Protective Order Bid MAPCO EXPRESS: "Short" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Damages MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Payne Claims MDL 2179: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Deep Horizon Suit MDL 2613: Court Junks "Dorsey" Suit Over Excessive Overdraft Fee MDL 2741: "Brickey" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal. MDL 2741: "Conley" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal. MDL 2741: "Holstrom" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal. MDL 2741: "Hymas" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal. MDL 2741: "Pertuit" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal. MDL 2741: "Rasey" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal. MDL 2741: "Schmidt" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal. MDL 2741: "Upshaw" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal. MDL 2804: Suit by Georgia Cities Consolidated MDL 2804: "Salmons" Suit vs Purdue Pharma Consolidated MERCK & CO: California School Sues over Sale of Zetia Drug MICHAEL FOODS: Silva Files False Labeling Suit in Washington MICHIGAN: Court Denies Bid to Amend "Rouse" Suit MIDLAND CREDIT: Robbins Sues over Debt Collection Practices MIDLAND FUNDING: Can Compel Arbitration in "Oyola" FDCA Suit MISSISSIPPI: Court Refuses to Reinstate "Gates" Class Suit MONAT GLOBAL: "Alabaster" Suit Alleges Magnuson-Moss Act Breach MONSANTO COMPANY: Andriola Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Litter Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Robbins Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Schreibeises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONTANA: Deal in Suit Over Prison Conditions Has Prelim Approval MOTORCARS WEST: Fails to Pay Wages, Hendricks Says MR. WHITE RESTAURANT: Michel Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Ray" Stayed Pending Outcome in "Hoggard" NETGEAR INC: Fails to Safeguard Consumers' Files, Sassine Says OCWEN MORTGAGE: "Gray" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California OVERSTOCK.COM: Morris Sues over Stock Price Drop PALISADES CLEANING: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages PATENAUDE & FELIX: White Sues over Unauthorized Background Check PRAXAIR INC: Faces "Hassan" Suit in C.D. California Q'MAX SOLUTIONS: Court Refuses to Certify Classes in "Sanchez" RITE AID: Moore Appeals E.D. Pennsylvania Decision to 3rd Circuit ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Spates Says ROSSMOYNE INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Rodriguez Says SAN MATEO HEALTH: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wage, Palomares Says SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: "Tousignant" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation SEARS HOLDINGS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Kloppel" Suit SETERUS INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Whitt" Suit SHORE FUNDING: "Cunningham" TCPA Suit Stayed Pending ACA Decision SIGMA DESIGNS: Stein Balks at Asset Sale to Silicon Laboratories SLEEPY'S LLC: "Hargrove" Class Certification Bid Denied SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Faces "Watkins" Suit over January IPO SPROUTS FARMERS: Public Employees Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop SYNERGY PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Rose" Securities Suit in N.Y. TRI-BOROUGH CERTIFIED: "Rodriguez" Suit Alleges NYLL Violation TRICO WEB LLC: "Rojas" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages, Damages UNITED CONTINENTAL: Sacchi Sues over Flight Cancellation Fees UNITED STATES: Almanza Appeals Ruling to Court of Federal Claims UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Hower Sues over Damaged Frozen Embryos UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Brown Sues over Damaged Embryos US BEAUTY MART: "Hyun" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA US TOBACCO: Court Enters Amended Final Judgment in "Speaks" Suit VALIDUS HOLDINGS: Witmer Balks at AIG Merger Deal VILLAGE FAMILY: Underpays Therapists, Yahalom Claims VITAS HEALTHCARE: "Williams" Suit Alleges FCRA Violation WAL-MART STORES: Count VIII Survives Dismissal Bid in "Johnson" WAL-MART STORES: "Palmer" Sues Over Mislabeled Eggs WALTERS TIMMONS: Fails to Pay All Wages, Hernandez Says WERNER ENTERPRISES: Court Endorses "Abarca" Classes Certification WERNER ENTERPRISES: Petrone Appeals D. Neb. Ruling to 8th Circuit WYNN RESORTS: "Ferris" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations ********* 15 40 PRODUCTIONS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Diaz and Bush Claim ----------------------------------------------------------------- NORBERTO DIAZ and WESLEY BUSH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 15/40 PRODUCTIONS, LTD., a California 17 corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC699516 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 26, 2018), seeks to recover final wages at termination pursuant to the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with uninterrupted meal periods, failed to maintain accurate records of Plaintiffs' meal periods, failed to authorize and permit Plaintiffs to take uninterrupted rest periods, failed to indemnify Plaintiffs for necessary business expenses, failed to timely pay all final wages to Plaintiffs when Defendants terminated Plaintiffs' employment, and failed to furnish accurate wage statements to Plaintiffs. 15|40 Productions is a global, full service, production company with offices in Los Angeles and New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Justin F. Marquez, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232 3128 Facsimile: (213) 232 3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com ABM INDUSTRIES: Wade Sues over Cyber Attack ------------------------------------------- LARRY WADE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH03855 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County, March 23, 2018), seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant to implement commercially reasonable security measures to properly guard against any and all future cyberattacks and to provide prompt, reasonable notification in the event of such an attack. According to the complaint, on August 1, 2017, ABM was the target of an attack on its information technology systems. This attack resulted in unauthorized outside parties gaining access to Defendant's employees' sensitive personal information, including their medical information. Despite the fact that Defendant was storing such sensitive information that it knew was of value to, and vulnerable to, cyber attackers, Defendant failed to take basic security precautions that could have prevented the disclosure of its employees' sensitive Personal Information. Defendant's lax cybersecurity procedures allowed hackers to obtain access to Plaintiff's and other employees' Personal Information. This Personal Information should have been secured by adequate levels of protection and should not have been susceptible to unauthorized access through the use of one of the oldest, and least sophisticated, types of cyber-attacks -- the "phishing email" scheme. A "phishing" attack occurs when nefarious actors transmit fraudulent emails purporting to be from reputable sources in order to induce individuals to reveal personal information such as email passwords and credit card numbers. Defendant was subject to such a phishing attack and was not able to detect, prevent, or respond to the attack in a reasonable manner or within a reasonable time, resulting in Plaintiff's and other employees' Personal Information being compromised as a result. Defendant did not notify Plaintiff and other Class members that their Personal Information was compromised until more than seven months following the disclosure of such Personal Information, including medical information. ABM Industries is a facility management provider in the United States. ABM was founded in 1909 by Morris Rosenberg in San Francisco, CA as a single-person window washing business.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes: Myles McGuire, Esq. Evan M. Meyers, Esq. Jad Sheikali, Esq. David Gerbie, Esq. McGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 893 7002 E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com emeyers@mcgpc.com jsheikali@mcgpc.com dgerbie@mcgpc.com AD ASTRA RECOVERY: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Doyle" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Meghan Doyle filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Meghan Doyle v. Ad Astra Recovery Services Inc., Case No. 1-17-cv-05233, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit. The appellate case is captioned as Meghan Doyle v. Ad Astra Recovery Services Inc., Case No. 18-1575, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MEGHAN DOYLE, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com bwolf@legaljones.com Defendant-Appellee AD ASTRA RECOVERY SERVICES INC. is represented by: Gary J. Repke, Esq. Michael I. Metz-Topodas, Esq. COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHALL & FURMAN PC 30 South 17th Street, 19th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 564-1700 E-mail: grepke@cohenseglias.com mmetz-topodas@cohenseglias.com ADVANCED PHARMA: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium ------------------------------------------------------------ Ilsia Rodriguez and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff(s), v. Advanced Pharma CR, LLC, Samantha Amaba and Ivette Lopez, individually Defendants, Case No. 18-cv -20807 (S.D. Fla., March 2, 2018) seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonably attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act. Advanced Pharma is a medical research company located at 2950 NW 83rd ST, Miami FL 33147 where Rodriguez worked as an hourly, full-time housekeeping employee from approximately March 10, 2016, to January 23, 2018. Plaintiff was also sent to work as a housekeeper to the private residence of Samantha Amaba and Ivette Lopez, located at 8000 West Drive # 114, North Bay Village 33141. Plaintiff regularly and consistently worked in excess of 40 hours every week period, however, she was not paid for overtime hours. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com AECOM INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Tafoya Says --------------------------------------------------- ISSAC TAFOYA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AECOM, INC., a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant, Case No. BC699089 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 23, 2018), seeks to recover all overtime wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was hired by Defendants in 2014, until Plaintiffs employment with Defendant was terminated on or about March 8, 2017. During Plaintiffs employment, he worked as a non-exempt heavy equipment mechanic, and was paid wage payments made in lieu of health benefits, payment for declining health benefits and/or other non- discretionary bonuses and/or commissions or other forms of pay which are not excludable under the California law when calculating an employee's regular rate. Plaintiff s job duties included repairing forklifts and other heavy machinery. During Plaintiffs employment with Defendants, Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 8 hours per workday and/or more than 40 hours per workweek, but did not receive overtime compensation equal to one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for working overtime hours. Specifically, Defendants paid Plaintiff and other non- exempt employees wage payments made in lieu of health benefit, payment for declining health benefits and/or other nondiscretionary bonuses and/or commissions or other forms of pay which are not excludable under the California law when calculating an employee's regular rate. Despite Defendants' payment of Incentive Pay to Plaintiff, Defendants have failed to include all forms of Incentive Pay when calculating Plaintiffs regular rate of pay, thereby causing Plaintiff to be underpaid all required overtime wages. Rather, Plaintiff was only paid one- and-a-half times (or two times in the case of doubletime hours) the base hourly rate, which is not equal to, but less-than the regular rate, as Defendants failed to include the various forms of Incentive Pay earned by Plaintiff during corresponding time periods that are required to be included in the regular rate, but were not. AECOM is an American multinational engineering firm that provides design, consulting, construction, and management services to a wide range of clients. AECOM has approximately 87,000 employees, and is number 161 on the 2017 Fortune 500 list.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L. Burrows, Esq. BURROWS LAW FIRM, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 526 9998 Facsimile: (424) 644 2446 E-mail: cburrows@cburrowslaw.com - and - Sean M. Novak, Esq. NOVAK LAW FIRM, P.C. 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (323) 424 4313 Facsimile: (323) 424 4357 E-mail: smn@novaklawfirm.com AERUS LLC: Website Not Accessible to Deaf People, Sullivan Says --------------------------------------------------------------- PHILLIP SULLIVAN, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AERUS LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02697 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2018), seeks to put an end to systemic civil rights violations committed by Defendant against the deaf and hard of hearing individuals in New York State and across the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying the deaf and hard of hearing individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to non- disabled individuals through http://www.aerushome.com/ The Website provides to the public online content on wellness and cleaning products for businesses and homes, testimonials, blogs, and business and career opportunities offered by Defendant. Yet, the Website contains access barriers that make it difficult, if not impossible, for deaf and hard of hearing individuals to use the Website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for deaf and hard of hearing users to comprehend the audio portion of videos that are posted on the Website. Defendant thus excludes the deaf and hard of hearing from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. In the wave of technological advances in recent years, assistive technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of everyday life, allowing deaf and hard of hearing people to fully and independently access a variety of services, including accessing online videos. The Plaintiff, who currently lives in New York City, is a deaf and hard of hearing individual. He notes that approximately 36 million people in the United States are deaf or hard of hearing. Aerus LLC, formerly Electrolux Corp. USA, manufactures vacuum cleaners, vacuum cleaners and air purifiers. It is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, and has over 500 independently owned franchises in the U.S. and Canada.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class: 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 ARCIMOTO INC: Mendelson Sues over Stock Price Plunge ---------------------------------------------------- JAY MENDELSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARCIMOTO, INC., MARK FROHNMA YER, TERRY L. BECKER, DOUGLAS M. CAMPOLI, THOMAS THURSTON, JEFFERSON CURL, W.R. HAMBRECHT & CO., LLC, and DOES 1-25, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-565324 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 27, 2018), seeks to pursue remedies as a result of Defendants' false and misleading statements and omitted material facts in connection with initial public offering under the Securities Act of 1933. The case is a securities class action on behalf of all those who purchased Arcimoto common stock pursuant to Arcimoto's IPO. The IPO was made under Regulation A of the 1933 Act, and the Offering Circular was filed purportedly pursuant to 17 C.F.R. section 220.253(g)(2). This lawsuit asserts claims under section 12(a)(2) of the 1933 Act, which provides buyers of securities an express remedy for material misstatements or omissions made by any seller or solicitor in connection with the offer or sale of the issuer's securities involving a prospectus or oral communications. The Defendants made numerous misstatements of material facts in connection with the IPO concerning Arcimoto's only product, a three-wheeled electric vehicle. In contrast to the rosy picture presented by defendants, the Company was not selling its vehicles. Arcimoto's prototype vehicles had safety and mechanical issues, the design was not ready for production, and it did not have a facility capable of scaled production. After collecting approximately $20 million from investors, the public soon learned the truth about the Company's business. Arcimoto's stock crashed, and now trades at around $3 per share, less than half of the price of the IPO. Arcimoto is an electric vehicle company from Eugene, Oregon developing the SRK, a tandem two-seat, three-wheeled electric vehicle.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Oddo, Esq. Jenny L. Dixon, Esq. David W. Uris, Esq. Brian J. Robbins, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525 3990 Facsimile: (619) 525 3991 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com soddo@robbinsarroyo.com jdixon@robbinsarroyo.com duris@robbinsarroyo.com AMY FAY ALTMAN: De Faria Seeks OT Compensation under Labor Law -------------------------------------------------------------- CARMEN M. LARIOS DE FARIA, the Plaintiff, v. AMY FAY ALTMAN, ERICK JOSHUA ALTMAN, the Defendant, Case No. 603929/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, earned wages and statutory penalties under the New York Labor Law to remedy violations of the wage-and-hour provisions of the New York Labor Law that occurred at the residences of Defendants Amy Fay Altman and Erick Joshua Altman. The case is a civil action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The Plaintiff also brings this action under the Wage Theft Protection Act, for Defendants' failure to provide written notice of wage rates in violation of the labor laws. According to the complaint, throughout her employment, Plaintiff worked 6 days a week on behalf of Defendants. The Plaintiff always worked at least 65 hours per week. The Plaintiff received weekly compensation between $650.00 per week up to $750.00 per week. The Plaintiff was not paid time and one half for all work performed after 40 hours. Plaintiff has been damaged in that she was never paid overtime for the work performed in excess of 40 hours per week.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Goodman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. GOODMAN P.C. 380 North Broadway, Suite 203 Jericho, New York 11753 Telephone: (516) 597 5840 Facsimile: (866) 415-1019 E-mail: ggoodman@gganylaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Order in Baltimore Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 11-cv-5450, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The lawsuit is part of the multidistrict litigation styled In Re: LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 11-md-2262, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The Plaintiffs in the litigation allege that the Defendants manipulated the U.S. Dollar LIBOR rate during the financial crisis, artificially lowering the rate for their own benefit. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants manipulated the U.S. Dollar LIBOR rate, and that, as a result, purchasers did not receive as much interest payments for their U.S. Dollar LIBOR- based instruments from the banks as they should have. The appellate case is captioned as Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-746, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority, and Plaintiffs- Respondents Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; Jennie Stuart Medical Center, Inc.; City of New Britain; Vistra Energy Corporation; and Yale University are represented by: William Christopher Carmody, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 336-8334 Facsimile: (212) 336-8340 E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com Defendants-Petitioners Bank of America Corporation; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; Bank of America, N.A.; and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., are represented by: Arthur Joseph Burke, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4000 E-mail: arthur.burke@davispolk.com - and - Paul C. Gluckow, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 455-2000 E-mail: pgluckow@stblaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Berkshire Appeals Denial of Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Berkshire Bank, the Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled The Berkshire Bank, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 12-cv-5723, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City), appeals from the District Court's Memorandum and Order entered on February 28, 2018, denying its motion for class certification. The action was brought on behalf of all lending institutions headquartered in the United States, including its fifty states and United States territories, that originated loans, held loans, purchased whole loans, purchased interests in loans or sold loans with interest rates tied to LIBOR, which rates adjusted at any time between August 1, 2007, and May 31, 2010. The lawsuit is part of the multidistrict litigation styled In Re: LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 11-md-2262, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The appellate case is captioned as THE BERKSHIRE BANK, Plaintiff- Petitioner, GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT BANK FOR PUERTO RICO and DIRECTORS FINANCIAL GROUP Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD.; BARCLAYS BANK PLC; BRITISH BANKERS' ASSOCIATION; BBA ENTERPRISES LTD.; BBA LIBOR LTD.; CITIGROUP, INC.; CITIBANK, N.A.; COOPERATIEVE CENTRALE RAIFFEISENBOERENLEENBANK B.A.; CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG; DEUTSCHE BANK AG; HSBC HOLDINGS PLC; HSBC BANK PLC; JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC; HBOS PLC; ROYAL BANK OF CANADA; THE NORINCHUKIN BANK; THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC; UBS AG; WESTLB AG; and WESTDEUTSCHE IMMOBILIENBANK AG, Defendants-Respondents, Case No. 18-718, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Berkshire Bank wants the Second Circuit to determine whether: 1. the District Court erred in finding that Petitioner's damages model did not match its theories of liability under Comcast v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426, 1433, 185 L. Ed. 2d 515 (2013) where Petitioner's expert presented a model for calculating "benefit of the bargain" damages applicable in the vast majority of states in the nationwide class but the explanation of how "out-of-pocket" damages would be calculated using the same model, which the District Court agreed was simple arithmetic, was presented by Petitioner, rather than Petitioner's expert; 2. Petitioner's damages model, which calculates diminished interest payments on LIBOR-linked loans resulting from suppressed LIBOR, is required to incorporate all the possible effects that a non-suppressed "but for" LIBOR may have indirectly had on the Class' loans, including the demand for loans, the non-LIBOR terms of the loans, and default rates of loans; 3. the element of reliance raises individual issues where LIBOR was a uniform misrepresentation made to all class members and a term fundamental to the value of all the class members' loans; 4. the affirmative defense of statutes of limitations raises individual issues, which defeat predominance, even though there exists no evidence that any class member had knowledge of the alleged LIBOR suppression, and this Court previously indicated that articles published in mid-2008 questioning the accuracy of LIBOR were not sufficient for inquiry notice; 5. variations in state law defeat predominance and "superiority" even though standards across states for reliance, statute of limitations and damages can be broadly divided into minimal subcategories and the district court refused to consider the feasibility of subclasses or even limiting the class to a single state; 6. damages calculations defeat predominance even though it is "'well-established' Second Circuit precedent that 'the fact that damages may have to be ascertained on an individual basis is not sufficient to defeat class certification' under Rule 23(b)(3)'" Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp., 778 F.3d 401, 405 (2d Cir. 2015) (citation omitted); and damages tabulations for individual class members is virtually a mechanical task; and 7. Petitioner is an "inadequate" class representative because an attorney assisting class counsel is related to the CEO of Petitioner even though all litigation decisions are made by Petitioner's Board of Directors, not Petitioner's CEO or the assisting attorney, neither of whom are on Petitioner's Board of Directors.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner The Berkshire Bank, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Michael J. Wernke, Esq. Veronica V. Montenegro, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com mjwernke@pomlaw.com vvmontenegro@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com Plaintiffs Amabile, et al., are represented by: Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq. Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq. Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES P.A. 1212 SE Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 320-9507 E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com Plaintiffs The Regents of the University of California; East Bay Municipal Utility District; San Diego Association of Governments; City of Richmond; Richmond Joint Powers Financing Authority; Successor Agency to the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency; City of Riverside; Riverside Public Financing Authority; County of Mendocino; County of Sacramento; County of San Diego; County of San Mateo; San Mateo County Joint Powers Financing Authority; County of Sonoma, and David E. Sundstrom, in his official capacity as Treasurer of the County of Sonoma, are represented by: Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq. Matthew K. Edling, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 E-mail: nnishimura@cpmlegal.com medling@cpmlegal.com - and - Alexander E. Barnett, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 40 Worth Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 201-6820 E-mail: abarnett@cpmlegal.com Plaintiff The City of Houston is represented by: Richard W. Mithoff, Esq. Warner V. Hocker, Esq. MITHOFF LAW FIRM One Allen Center Penthouse, Suite 3450 500 Dallas Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 654-1122 E-mail: Rmithoff@mithofflaw.com whocker@mithofflaw.com - and - Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq. Matthew K. Edling, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 E-mail: nnishimura@cpmlegal.com medling@cpmlegal.com - and - Alexander E. Barnett, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 40 Worth Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 201-6820 E-mail: abarnett@cpmlegal.com National Credit Union Administration Board as Liquidating Agent for U.S. Central Federal Credit Union, et al., is represented by: David C. Frederick, Esq. Wan J. Kim, Esq. Andrew C. Shen, Esq. KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C. Sumner Square 1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7900 E-mail: dfrederick@kellogghansen.com ashen@kellogghansen.com wkim@kellogghansen.com Plaintiffs Triaxx Prime CDO 2006-1 LTD., Triaxx Prime COO 2006-2 LTD., and Triaxx Prime COO 2007-1 L TO are represented by: Dean N. Kawamoto, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 E-mail: dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com Plaintiffs Bay Area Toll Authority, Schwab Short-Term Bond Market Fund, et al., Charles Schwab Bank, N.A., et al., and Schwab Money Market Fund, et al., are represented by: Steven E. Fineman, Esq. Michael J. Miarmi, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: sfineman@lchb.com mmiarmi@lchb.com Plaintiff CEMA Joint Venture is represented by: William E. Walker, Jr., Esq. P.O. Box 192 Massillon, OJ 44648-0192 Telephone: (330) 327-2509 E-mail: williamwalker@gmx.com Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association is represented by: Samuel William Cruse, III, Esq. GIBBS & BRUNS L.L.P. 1100 Louisiana, Suite 5300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 751-5287 E-mail: scruse@gibbsbruns.com - and - Kenneth E. Warner, Esq. WARNER PARTNERS, P.C. 950 Third Avenue, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 593-8000 E-mail: kwarner@WarnerPartnersLaw.com George Maragos is represented by: Thomas J. Mullaney, Esq. LEVENTHAL, MULLANEY & BLINKOFF, LLP 15 Remsen Avenue Roslyn, NY 11576 Telephone: (516) 484-5440 E-mail: tmullaney@lcmslaw.com Darby, Philadelphia, Prudential, and Salix Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. Brockett, Esq. Jacob J. Waldman, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010-1601 Telephone: (212) 849 7000 E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com jacobwaldman@quinnemanuel.com - and - Jeremy D. Andersen, Esq. Chris Barker, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 E-mail: jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com chrisbarker@quinnemanuel.com Plaintiffs The City of Philadelphia and The Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority are represented by: Mathieu J. Shapiro, Esq. OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP Centre Square West 1500 Market Street, Suite 3400 Philadelphia, PA 19102-2101 Telephone: (215) 665-3014 E-mail: mathieu.shapiro@obermayer.com - and - Michael J. Boni, Esq. Joshua D. Snyder, Esq. BONI & ZACK LLC 15 St. Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 822-0200 E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com jsnyder@bonizack.com Baltimore, New Britain, and TCEH and the Proposed OTC Plaintiff Class are represented by: Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Hilary Scherrer, Esq. Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 St. NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.com hscherrer@hausfeldllp.com ngiddings@hausfeldllp.com - and - William Christopher Carmody, Esq. Arun Subramanian, Esq. Seth Ard, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 336-3330 E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com sard@susmangodfrey.com Bondholder Plaintiffs are represented by: Karen L. Morris, Esq. Patrick F. Morris, Esq. MORRIS AND MORRIS LLC 4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 300 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 426-0400 E-mail: kmorris@morrisandmorrislaw.com pmorris@morrisandmorrislaw.com - and - David H. Weinstein, Esq. Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq. WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC 100 South Broad Street, Suite 705 Philadelphia, PA 19110-1061 Telephone: (215) 545-7200 E-mail: weinstein@wka-law.com kitchenoff@wka-law.com Exchange-Based Plaintiffs are represented by: David E. Kovel, Esq. Karen M. Lerner, Esq. KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP 825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 371-6600 E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com klerner@kmllp.com - and - Christopher Lovell, Esq. LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP 61 Broadway, Suite 501 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 608-1900 E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs: Max R. Schwartz, Esq. Donald A. Broggi, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 E-mail: mschwartz@scott-scott.com dbroggi@scott-scott.com Plaintiff The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is represented by: James R. Martin, Esq. Jennifer D. Hackett, Esq. Woody N. Peterson, Esq. ZELLE LLP 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 375 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 899-4100 Facsimile: (612) 336-9100 E-mail: jmartin@zelle.com jhackett@zelle.com wpeterson@zelle.com Plaintiffs Principal Financial Group, Inc.; Principal Financial Services, Inc.; Principal Life Insurance Company; Principal Funds, Inc.; PFI Bond & Mortgage Securities Fund; PFI Bond Market Index Fund; PFI Core Plus Bond I Fund; PFI Diversified Real Asset Fund; PFI Equity Income Fund; PFI Global Diversified Income Fund; PFI Government & High Quality Bond Fund; PFI High Yield Fund; PFI High Yield Fund I; PFI Income Fund; PFI Inflation Protection Fund; PFI Short-Term Income Fund; PFI Money Market Fund; PFI Preferred Securities Fund; Principal Variable Contracts Funds, Inc.; PVC Asset Allocation Account; PVC Money Market Account; PVC Balanced Account; PVC Bond & Mortgage Securities Account; PVC Equity Income Account; PVC Government & High Quality Bond Account; PVC Income Account; and PVC Short-Term Income Account are represented by: K. Craig Wildfang, Esq. Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 E-mail: KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com SSlaughter@RobinsKaplan.com Defendants-Respondents Bank of America Corp., Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch Capital Services, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co., Banc of America Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch International Bank, Ltd., and Bank of America Home Loans are represented by: Paul Mishkin, Esq. Arthur J. Burke, Esq. Robert Wise, Jr., Esq. Adam Mehes, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4292 E-mail: paul.mishkin@dpw.com arthur.burke@davispolk.com rwise@dpw.com adam.mehes@davispolk.com Defendants-Respondents Barclays Bank Plc, Barclays Capital Inc., Barclays U.S. Funding LLC, and Barclays PLC are represented by: Jonathan Schiller, Esq. Leigh Nathanson, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 E-mail: jschiller@bsfllp.com lnathanson@bsfllp.com - and - David Braff, Esq. Yvonne Quinn, Esq. Matthew J. Porpora, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4705 E-mail: braffd@sullcrom.com quinny@sullcrom.com porporam@sullcrom.com Defendant-Respondent Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. is represented by: Daryl A. Libow, Esq. Christopher M. Viapiano, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 1700 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 956-7500 E-mail: libowd@sullcrom.com viapianoc@sullcrom.com Defendants-Respondents Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen- Boerenleenbank B.A., and Rabobank Group are represented by: David R. Gelfand, Esq. Sean M. Murphy, Esq. Mark D. Villaverde, Esq. MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY LLP 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 530-5000 E-mail: dgelfand@milbank.com smurphy@milbank.com mvillaverde@milbank.com Defendants-Respondents British Bankers' Association, BBA Enterprises, Ltd., and BBA Libor, Ltd. are represented by: Jeff G. Hammel, Esq. Richard D. Owens, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 885 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 Facsimile: (212) 751-4864 E-mail: jeff.hammel@lw.com richard.owens@lw.com Defendants-Respondents Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Group, N.A., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Credit Suisse International, and Credit Suisse (USA) Inc. are represented by: Joel Kurtzberg, Esq. Adam Mintz, Esq. CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP 80 Pine Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 701-3000 E-mail: JKurtzberg@cahill.com amintz@cahill.com Defendants-Respondents Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Citigroup Inc., Citigroup Financial Products, Inc., Citi Swapco Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Limited, and Citigroup Funding Inc. are represented by: Andrew A. Ruffino, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP The New York Time Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405 Telephone: (212) 841-1000 E-mail: aruffino@cov.com - and - Lev Louis Dassin, Esq. Jonathan Samuel Kolodner, Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 225-2790 E-mail: ldassin@cgsh.com jkolodner@cgsh.com Defendants-Respondents Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank Financial LLC, and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. are represented by: Moses Silverman, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 E-mail: msilverman@paulweiss.com Defendants-Respondents J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., JPMorgan Chase Bank, Chase Bank USA, N.A., J.P. Morgan Bank Dublin PLC, J.P. Morgan Markets Ltd., J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, and Bear Stearns Capital Markets, Inc., are represented by: Paul Gluckow, Esq. Thomas C. Rice, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 455-2000 E-mail: pgluckow@stblaw.com trice@stblaw.com - and - Lawrence H. Heftman, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 258-5500 E-mail: lheftman@schiffhardin.com Defendants-Respondents Lloyds Banking Group plc, Lloyds Banking Group PLS, Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, and Lloyds Bank PLC (formerly known as Lloyds TSB Bank PLC) are represented by: Marc Gottridge, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 918-3081 E-mail: marc.gottridge@hoganlovells.com Defendants-Respondents HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., HSBC Bank PLC, The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Ltd., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., HSBC Finance Corp., HSBC USA Inc., and HSBC Holdings, PLC are represented by: Gregory Thomas Casamento, Esq. LOCKE LORD LLP Brookfield Place, 200 Vesey Street, 20th Floor New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 415-8600 E-mail: gcasamento@lockelord.com Defendants-Respondents The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Royal Bank of Scotland, RBS Citizens, N.A. (f/k/a Citizens Bank of Massachusetts), and Citizens Bank, N.A., are represented by: Robert G. Houck, Esq. CLIFFORD CHANCE US, LLP 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 878-3224 Facsimile: (212) 878-8375 E-mail: robert.houck@cliffordchance.com - and - Fraser Hunter, Jr., Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (617) 526-6360 E-mail: fraser.hunter@wilmerhale.com Defendant-Respondent The Norinchukin Bank is represented by: Alan M. Unger, Esq. Andrew W. Stern, Esq. Kenneth Meyer, Esq. Thomas Paskowitz, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 839-5785 E-mail: aunger@sidley.com astern@sidley.com kmeyer@sidley.com tpaskowitz@sidley.com Defendants-Respondents Royal Bank of Canada, and RBC Capital Markets, LLC, are represented by: Arthur W. Hahn, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 525 W. Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 902-5241 E-mail: arthur.hahn@kattenlaw.com Defendants-Respondents WestLB AG, Portigon AG, Portigon/WestLB AG, and WestDeutsche Immobilienbank AG are represented by: Christopher M. Paparella, Esq. Marc A. Weinstein, Esq. HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP One Battery Park Plaza New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 837-6000 E-mail: paparella@hugheshubbard.com marc.weinstein@hugheshubbard.com Defendant-Respondent Societe Generale is represented by: Steven Wolowitz, Esq. Andrew J. Calica, Esq. Henninger S. Bullock, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1001 Telephone: (212) 506-2500 E-mail: swolowitz@mayerbrown.com acalica@mayerbrown.com hbullock@mayerbrown.com Defendants-Respondents UBS AG, UBS Securities LLC, and UBS Limited are represented by: Peter Sullivan, Esq. Jefferson E. Bell, Esq. Lawrence J. Zweifach, Esq. Eric J. Stock, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-2346 E-mail: psullivan@gibsondunn.com jbell@gibsondunn.com lzweifach@gibsondunn.com estock@gibsondunn.com BEST BUY STORES: Touche Appeals N.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Nola Touche filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Nola Touche v. Best Buys Stores, L.P., Case No. 1:17-cv-00259-RH-GRJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, attorney fees, expenses, and costs and such other and further relief for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Ms. Touche purchased a five-year consumer products insurance from Best Buy in December 2012 for her Samsung television purchased at the same time to cover defects, manufacturer's warranty and defective parts. She asserts that the TV malfunctioned on October 2017 and the Best Buy representative was unable to fix it and failed to replace it. Best Buy operates more than a thousand Best Buy stores, including stores in all states, districts and territories of the United States under various brand names, including Geek Squad and Magnolia Home Theater. The appellate case is captioned as Nola Touche v. Best Buys Stores, L.P., Case No. 18-11035, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or before April 2, 2018, as to Appellant Nola Touche; and -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before April 16, 2018, as to Appellee Best Buys Stores, L.P.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant NOLA TOUCHE, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, is represented by: N. Albert Bacharach, Jr., Esq. N. ALBERT BACHARACH, JR. PA 4128 NW 13th Street Gainesville, FL 32609-1807 Telephone: (352) 378-9859 Facsimile: (352) 338-1858 E-mail: n.a.bacharach@att.net - and - Adriane M. Isenberg, Esq. ADRIANE M. ISENBERG PA 912 NW 56th Terrance, Suite A Gainesville, FL 32605-6404 Telephone: (352) 331-4922 Facsimile: (352) 331-4996 E-mail: aisenberg@isenberglaw.com Defendant-Appellee BEST BUYS STORES, L.P., d.b.a. Best Buy Geek Squad, d.b.a. Magnolia Home Theater, is represented by: Suzanne E. Gilbert, Esq. Lauren Lynn Millcarek, Esq. Robin Michelle Nauman, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP 200 S Orange Ave., Suite 2600 PO Box 1526 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 244-1150 E-mail: suzanne.gilbert@hklaw.com lauren.millcarek@hklaw.com robin.nauman@hklaw.com BITCONNECT INT'L: Avalos Sues over Investment Programs ------------------------------------------------------ BALTAZAR AVALOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BITCONNECT INTERNATIONAL PLC, BITCONNECT LTD., BITCONNECT TRADING LTD., JOSHUA JEPPESEN, GLENN ARCARO, TREVON BROWN A/K/A TREVON JAMES, RYAN HILDRETH, CRAIG GRANT, JOHN DOE 1 A/K/A NICHOLAS TROVATO A/K/A CRYPTONICK, and RYAN MAASEN, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-21118-UU (S.D. Fla., March 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants for violation of the Securities Act, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, and civil conspiracy. The BitConnect Lending Program was marketed and sold on the Internet as an opportunity for investors to "lend" their BitConnect Coins back to BitConnect, which BitConnect would then purportedly use to generate profits by purchasing BTC when its price was low and selling BTC when its price was high -- a "buy low, sell high" strategy that was purportedly effectuated by a BitConnect-designed "trading bot" implementing a proprietary trading algorithm: the "Volatility Software." In exchange for "lending" BCCs to BitConnect, investors were "guaranteed" lucrative returns on their investments. The BitConnect Staking Program was marketed and sold on the Internet as an opportunity for investors to "stake" their BCCs by holding their BCCs in the BitConnect-QT wallet (a software and/or online wallet created by BitConnect). In exchange for "staking" BCCs in the BitConnect-QT Wallet, investors were "guaranteed" lucrative returns on their investments. As part of their solicitation efforts, BitConnect enlisted multi-level affiliate marketers to further propagate the reach of the BitConnect Investment Programs. Under the Referral Program, BitConnect paid commissions to affiliates who successfully solicited additional investments in the BitConnect Investment Programs. Additionally, affiliate promoters would receive a percentage of any investments made by the investors they referred, as well as a portion of investments made by subsequent investors recruited by their referrals, and so forth -- a standard multi-level-marketing scheme. The Individual Defendants were highly influential affiliate marketers and/or directors of BitConnect. Despite being cloaked in technological sophistication and jargon, Defendants operated a century-old fraud that was simple at its core -- Defendants paid existing investors with new money from new investors, who were in turn expected and incentivized to get more new investors to produce more new money. The Plaintiff and other BitConnect investors were led to believe, and expected, that the BCCs they purchased would be worth more than the BTC they invested with BitConnect. The lawsuit contends the BitConnect Investment Programs constitute "investment contract" securities as defined under the Securities Act. The BitConnect Investment Programs qualify as investment contracts because, inter alia, Defendants have explicitly referred to the programs as lucrative investment opportunities that would lead to "financial freedom" and repeatedly stressed the profit potential from merely holding and "staking" BCCs. The BitConnect Investment Programs were the clear offer and sale of investment contract securities because, inter alia, Defendants touted, and Plaintiff and other BitConnect Investment Program participants reasonably expected, that investors would receive substantial returns and a steady stream of income on their investments. In reality, BitConnect Investment Programs were nothing more than pyramid/Ponzi schemes. After operating for less than a year, BitConnect abruptly shut down its platform and stripped the value from all of Plaintiff's and the Class' investments, leaving them with nearly worthless BCCs. In short, Defendants defrauded tens of thousands of investors by capitalizing on the general public's excitement for digital currencies and by luring unsuspecting investors into purchasing unregistered securities and participating in pyramid/Ponzi schemes. The registration requirements contained within the Securities Act are designed to protect investors by ensuring they are provided adequate information upon which to base their investment decisions. The two basic objectives of registration are: (i) to require that investors receive necessary financial and other significant information concerning securities being offered for public sale; and (ii) to prohibit deceit, misrepresentations, and other fraud in the sale of securities. Absent registration and the protections of the federal securities laws, issuers of securities could seek to market their investment opportunities without disclosing information that might make a potential investor think twice before investing (e.g., conflicts of interest or major setbacks to core product lines) or peddle securities using unbounded exaggerations regarding the progress of its products, business plan, business strategies, or even fabricate the existence of relationships with vendors or other business partners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Donald J. Enright, Esq. Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. John A. Carriel, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363 7500 Facsimile: (212) 636 7171 - and - Emily C. Komlossy, Esq. Ross A. Appel, Esq. KOMLOSSY LAW P.A. 4700 Sheridan St., Suite J Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 842 2021 Facsimile: (954) 416 6223 E-mail: eck@komlossylaw.com raa@komlossylaw.com BJC HEALTH: "Rhoades" Remanded to Missouri State Court ------------------------------------------------------ Judge Rodney W. Sippel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, remanded the case, JEANNE RHOADES On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BJC HEALTH SYSTEM d/b/a BJC Healthcare et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17 CV 2486 RWS (E.D. Mo.). The class action case was originally filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri. BJC is the parent company of the other Defendant hospitals and medical providers named in the petition. Rhoades is employed as a perfusionist at Defendant Missouri Baptist Medical Center. Rhoades' petition asserts state law claims to recover back-pay allegedly owed for "on-call pay," "call-back pay," "voucher pay," and "paid time off" which Rhoades claims her employer has not paid. In her claims she also seeks to recover corresponding contributions to her retirement plan account. The Defendants removed the case invoking the Court's federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. They assert that some of Rhoades claims are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). They argue that the benefits Rhoades seeks to recover in the form of contributions to her retirement plan are claims which can only be brought under 29 U.S.C. Section1132(A)(1)(b). That provision allows plan participants, in relevant part, to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan. Rhoades filed a motion to remand. In her motion she asserts that she is not seeking any direct enforcement, clarification of rights or recovery of benefits under the authority of an ERISA benefit plan. To the contrary, she argues that her claims are not preempted by ERISA because she merely seeks from her employer unpaid wages and the corresponding payments that would be directed to her related retirement plan. She is not seeking benefits due to her under the terms of the retirement plan itself. Judge Sippel holds that because Rhoades is asserting claims against her employer for wages, some of which are in the form of contributions that would be paid into her retirement plan, he finds that Rhoades is not seeking benefits due to her under the terms of her retirement plan. The Judge cited the Goldstein v. Media Mgmt., Inc. where Judge John A. Ross from the Court reached a similar conclusion. Judge Ross found that the plaintiff's claim was not preempted, reasoning that because the plaintiff was seeking the recovery of wages that should have been paid into his retirement plan the claim was not seeking benefits from the plan. As a result, because Jusge Sippel finds that Rhoades' complaint does not assert claims that are preempted by ERISA, Rhoades motion to remand will be granted. Accordingly, the Judge granted Rhoades' motion to remand. He remanded the case to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447 (c). The parties each bear their own costs incurred by reason of these removal and remand proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/BN0R2H from Leagle.com. Jeanne Rhoades, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carl J. Lumley -- clumley@chgolaw.com -- CURTIS AND HEINZ, P.C. BJC Health System, doing business as, Missouri Baptist Medical Center, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis Childrens Hospital, Christian Hospital Northeast-Northwest, doing business as & CH Allied Services, Inc., doing business as, Defendants, represented by Andrew L. Metcalf -- andrew.metcalf@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE AND DEAKINS, David L. Schenberg -- david.schenberg@ogletree.com - - OGLETREE AND DEAKINS & James M. Paul -- jim.paul@ogletree.com - - OGLETREE AND DEAKINS. BUENAVISTA INVESTMENT: Tolosa Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ NATALIA TOLOSA, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. BUENAVISTA INVESTMENT HOLDING LLC, a Florida limited liability company; ANTONIO TURBAY, individually; and LEON GOMEZ MARTINEZ, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-21124-UU (S.D. Fla., March 23, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages, liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties, other damages, and attorney's fees owed to Plaintiff and all other similarly situated persons employed or formerly employed by Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of Defendants who had her wages unlawfully withheld and was not paid a minimum wage in direct violation of the FLSA within the past three years. The Plaintiff Tolosa was employed as a bar tender at BIH's place of business known as La Victoria Social Club. The Plaintiff began her employment with BIH in March 2015 and ended February 2018. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons employed or formerly employed by Defendants had tips unlawfully deducted by Defendants for which they were lawfully entitled pursuant to the FLSA and Plaintiffs were not permitted to retain all tips received by the Employee. The Defendants purport to claim a tip credit allowed by the FLSA. The Defendants willfully and intentionally failed to pay the compensation required by the FLSA as they routinely deducted amounts from the tips received by Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons employed or formerly employed by Defendants, and shared those tips with Defendant BIH and others who do not regularly and customarily receive tips.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miguel Armenteros, Esq. PERLMAN, BAJANDAS, YEVOLI & ALBRIGHT, P.L. 283 Catalonia Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 377 0086 Facsimile: (305) 377 0781 E-mail: miguel@pbyalaw.com eservicemia@pbyalaw.com CENTRAL CREDIT: Certification of Class in "Perez" Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SONIA PEREZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, doing business as CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES OF FL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-6018 (ADS)(ARL)(E.D. N.Y.), Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. On Oct. 16, 2017, the Plaintiff commenced the putative class action against the Defendant, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. That same day, the Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requesting that the Court certifies the class. The Plaintiff also filed a motion to enter the instant motion and continue it until the Defendant entered an appearance. On Nov. 29, 2017, the Defendant answered the complaint. The parties will hold their initial conference before Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay on March 7, 2018. Judge Spatt is unable to conduct the "rigorous analysis" required by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., as the motion was filed contemporaneously with the class action complaint and prior to any discovery or the filing of an answer. Even at the present juncture, there has been little or no discovery that has taken place. More discovery is needed on factual issues associated with class certification. Neither party's interests are properly served by determining class certification prior to the completion of the discovery process. Finally, even if the Judge were to accept the Plaintiff's argument that a putative class action complaint can potentially be rendered moot if the Defendant were to make an individual settlement offer, it still does not require the Plaintiff to have an early, pre-discovery class certification motion remain pending on the Court's docket until the Plaintiff has adequate discovery to file a more fully-developed motion. As a result, the class allegations are equally preserved at this point in the litigation, regardless whether the Court denies the motion without prejudice or allows the motion to remain on the docket until discovery is concluded. Therefore, Judge Spatt denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class certification to renewal following the conclusion of discovery. Further, the Clerk of the Court is instructed to terminate the Motion to Continue as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Memorandum of Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/v6pdaz from Leagle.com. Sonia Perez, on behalf of plaintiff and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Abraham Kleinman, Kleinman, LLC & Tiffany N. Hardy, Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC. Central Credit Services LLC, doing business as, Defendant, represented by Kirsten H. Smith -- ksmith@sessions.legal -- Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, L.L.C.. CERES, CA: Court Dismisses 3rd Cause of Action in "Miranda" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DANIEL MIRANDA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CERES, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00041-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge dale E. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the City's unopposed motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's third cause of action. On Feb. 6, 2018, the City filed a motion to dismiss seeking dismissal only of the Plaintiff's third claim for violation of California Labor Code Section 221-224. In response, Miranda filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion, agreeing to dismissal of the third cause of action in his complaint. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Court vacated the hearing scheduled for March 6, 2018. The lawsuit is one of four related actions against the City alleging that it paid the Plaintiff cash in lieu of health benefits, which were illegally excluded in the City's calculation of employees' regular rate of pay for the purposes of calculating overtime pay. In his complaint in the action, the Plaintiff alleged three claims for relief: (i) seeking compensatory relief and liquidated damages as a collective action under the FLSA; (ii) seeking declaratory relief as a collective action under the FLSA; and (iii) for violation of California Labor Code Sections 221-224 as a class action. Judge Drozd only addresses the Plaintiff's third claim of relief for violation of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff's third cause of action is a claim under California Labor Code Section 221-224 for recovery of wages that are improperly withheld or deducted by an employer. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that when the Defendant made payments to the Plaintiff, and other employees similarly situated, as rebates for spending less than the monthly allowance provided towards the Defendant-provided employee benefits, it withheld 10% of the money owing to the Plaintiff as an administrative or service fee. The Plaintiff alleged that withholding these administrative or service fees without authorization constituted a violation of California Labor Code Sections 221-224 and sought damages for improperly withheld wages for a period of three years. The Judge explains that under the California Government Claims Act, an individual may not sue a public entity or public employee for damages unless a person has presented a timely claim to the public entity, which the public entity has rejected. Pursuant to the California Government Claims Act and the City's municipal claims presentation requirement, claims for wages must be presented in writing to the City before initiating any lawsuit to recover wages. However, in his complaint, the Plaintiff has not alleged any facts demonstrating compliance, or an excuse for noncompliance, with the City's municipal claims presentation requirement and his failure to do so is fatal to his claim for violation of the California Labor Code. Accordingly, the Judge granted the City's unopposed motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's third cause of action. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/vDT0Ua from Leagle.com. Daniel Miranda, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Caren Pamela Sencer -- csencer@unioncounsel.net -- Weinberg Roger and Rosenfeld & Eric Jason Wiesner, Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld. City of Ceres, Defendant, represented by Jesse Jeremy Maddox -- jmaddox@lcwlegal.com -- Liebert Cassidy Whitmore & Michael David Youril -- myouril@lcwlegal.com -- Liebert Cassidy Whitmore. CHARLES SCHWAB: Lim Seeks May 29 Cutoff to File Writ to Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Louis Lim, Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled LOUIS LIM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. CHARLES SCHWAB & Co., INC., Case No. 17A1006, filed with the Supreme Court of United States his application to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for an extension of time to file petition for a writ of certiorari to review judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The current deadline for Mr. Lim to file a petition is March 29, 2018. He requests a 60-day extension of the deadline, up to and including May 29, 2018. The judgment sought to be reviewed is the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Fleming v. Charles Schwab Corporation, 878 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2017). The Ninth Circuit issued its decision on December 29, 2017. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 30, 2018, Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the cases styled FRANCIS X FLEMING, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION; CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC. WALTER W. BETTINGER II; UBS SECURITIES LLC, Defendants-Appellees LOUIS LIM, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., Defendant- Appellee, Case Nos. 16-15179, 16-15189 (9th Cir.). In the case underlying this appeal, Mr. Lim alleged that Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. -- a brokerage firm that executes orders for stock and other investment trades on behalf of its clients -- breached its fiduciary obligations of "best execution" to its clients by failing to use reasonable diligence to ascertain the trading venue that will offer the client the best venue for executing the trade and instead sending a minimum of 95% of all non-directed trades to UBS Securities, LLC, pursuant to a decade- long contract with UBS. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the action as precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA"), which precludes state law causes of action, including those for breach of fiduciary duty, if the complaint alleges fraudulent conduct that was "in connection" with the purchase or sale of covered securities. Mr. Lim appealed the District Court's dismissal (9th Circuit, Appeal No. 16-15189), arguing that the District Court erred by: (1) ruling that Lim's claims were "in connection with" the purchase or sale of a covered security and, thus, precluded by SLUSA; and (2) finding that Lim's claims for breach of fiduciary duty of "best execution" were predicated on fraudulent conduct and, thus, also precluded by SLUSA.[BN] Applicant-Plaintiff Louis Lim, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Kevin A. Seely, Esq. Ashley R. Rifkin, Esq. Steven M. McKany, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com kseely@robbinsarroyo.com arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com smckany@robbinsarroyo.com - and - Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq. David J. Harris, Jr., Esq. FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1333 E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com djh@classactionlaw.com - and - Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. Thomas J. O'reardon II, Esq. Paula R. Brown, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com lhurst@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com pbrown@bholaw.com Respondent-Defendant Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. is represented by: Gilbert R. Serota, Esq. Erica M. Connolly, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 471-3170 Facsimile: (415) 677-6262 E-mail: gilbert.serota@aporter.com erica.connolly@aporter.com - and - Lowell Haky, Esq. Mai Klaassen, Esq. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC. 211 Main Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 667-0622 E-mail: lowell.haky@schwab.com mai.klaassen@schwab.com CHELSEA INDUSTRIES: Macalou Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- Fousseini Macalou, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Chelsea Industries, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 152592/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages including non-overtime wages and overtime wages, pursuant to the New York Minimum Wage Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendant employed approximately 80 or more employees during the class period. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from September 2013 to about January 25, 2018. From around September 2013 to around November 2017, Plaintiff worked for Defendant at Fairway Market. From Around November 2017 to the end of his employment with Defendant, Plaintiff worked for Defendant at Food Emporium. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a delivery person and Plaintiff performed all duties within this capacity including lifting, packing, unpacking, loading, unloading and transporting goods and merchandise by foot to customers' homes. During the period that Plaintiff worked for Defendant at Fairway Market, Plaintiff worked approximately 36-42 or more hours a week; 6-7 hours a day, six days a week. During the period that Plaintiff worked for Defendant at Food Emporium, Plaintiff worked approximately 20 hour a week; 4 hours a day, five days a week. Plaintiff's hours worked and wages paid will be refined after Defendant produce employment, time and wage records it was required to keep under the FLSA and NYLL. The Plaintiff was paid below the NYS minimum wage rate even after the small amount of tips (as opposed to the incorrect amount of tips on the pay stub), he received was included. For example, Plaintiffs hourly rate ranged from $5.65 an hour in 2013 to $7.25 an hour in 2016. Chelsea Industries, manufactures plastic food storage bags, plastic containers, tool bags, tent bag, water bags, rope bags and rope packs and can.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue, Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740 1000 Facsimile: (718) 740 2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com CITIZENS BANK: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Fawcett" ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Barbara Fawcett, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CITIZENS BANK, N.A., Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-11043-TSH (D. Mass.), Judge Timothy S. Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification And To Hold Motion In Abeyance Pending Class Discovery. The Plaintiff has filed suit, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, against Citizens alleging a claim for violation of the National Bank Act. More specifically, Fawcett alleges that Citizen violated the Act by mischaracterizing charges to her account as "Sustained Overdraft Fees," which were in fact interest charges with an annual rate of interest that exceeded the rate permitted to be charged under the Act. When a Citizens Bank checking account customer incurs a debit to their account which exceeds the amount of money in that account, and Citizens honors the debit and charges the customer an "Overdraft Fee of $35." If Citizens returns a check presented for payment by one of its customers due to "insufficient funds," i.e., does not honor the check, it charges $35 against the customer's account, which Citizens refers to as a "Returned Item Fee." If Citizens returns the check due to insufficient funds, the $35 Returned Item Fee is the only fee Citizens Bank charges as a result of a check having been presented for payment which exceeded the balance remaining in the account. If, however, Citizens honors an overdraft by advancing the deficiency to the customer, and if the customer does not repay that advance within a very short period, Citizens charges what it calls a "Sustained Overdraft Fee." This charge is in addition to the initial "Overdraft Fee" Citizens charges at the time the customer's account was first overdrawn. Citizens continues to charge the so-called "Sustained Overdraft Fee" over regular intervals until the customer repays Citizens' monetary advances by returning his or her account to a positive balance. According to Fawcett, the "Sustained Overdraft Fee" is, in fact, an interest charge. The Act limits the interest rate which a national bank such as Citizens can charge its customers. She argues that the annualized interest rate which Citizens charges customers in the guise of "Sustained Overdraft Fees," is substantially greater than the maximum interest rate that the Act permits Citizens to charge. Before the Court are the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification And To Hold Motion In Abeyance Pending Class Discovery, and the Defendant's Motion To Dismiss And/Or Stay And To Compel Arbitration. Citizens, invoking the Federal Arbitration Act, asserts that because the parties have an agreement to arbitrate, the Court must compel arbitration and stay or dismiss Fawcett's claims pending arbitration. The Plaintiff asserts that she cannot be compelled to arbitrate because Citizens cannot prove she was a party to an arbitration agreement. More specifically, she asserts that Citizens has not established that a copy of the 2015 version of the Citizens' Personal Deposit Account Agreement ("PDAA") (the version which contained the Arbitration Agreement) was ever provided to her. Because it is unclear to the Court whether Ms. Fawcett received notice of the amendment to the PDAA adding the Arbitration Agreement, Judge Hillman cannot make a definitive ruling on Citizens' motion to compel arbitration. Therefore, on or before March 21, 2018, Citizens will provide the Court and Ms. Fawcett with whatever evidence it has in its possession to support a finding that it communicated the amendment to the PDAA adding the Arbitration Agreement to Ms. Fawcett and the time period during which it did so. If Citizens fails to provide the necessary evidence by that date, then its motion to stay and compel arbitration will be denied. The Court will then address Citizens' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On or before April 2, 2018, the parties may file supplemental memoranda, not to exceed 15 pages, on the issues of whether the Arbitration Agreement is illusory is for the Court or the arbiter, and whether the Arbitration Agreement applies retroactively, assuming that the Judge finds that Citizens provided adequate notice of the amendment to add the Arbitration Agreement to Ms. Fawcett.) A hearing will be held on Monday, April 9, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. to address Citizens' motion to compel and/or dismiss for failure to state claim. Judge Hillman denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification And To Hold Motion In Abeyance Pending Class Discovery, as he finds that from the standpoint of judicial efficiency, it does not make sense to address the issues raised by that motion until he has have ruled on Citizens' motion to dismiss and/or to stay and compel arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Memorandum of Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/ZYIR6g from Leagle.com. Barbara Fawcett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Edward F. Haber -- ehaber@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Patrick J. Vallely -- pvallely@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP. Citizens Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Brenda R. Sharton -- bsharton@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter, LLP & Stephanie M. Aronzon -- saronzon@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP. CITIZENS FOR RAUNER: Garvey Sues over Pre-Recorded Calls -------------------------------------------------------- PETER GARVEY, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. CITIZENS FOR RAUNER, INC., an Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No.2018CH03859 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County, March 23, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's unlawful practice of making unauthorized prerecorded calls to potential voters' cellular telephones and to recover damages and obtain injunctive relief. According to the complaint, in an effort to promote Bruce Rauner's Illinois gubernatorial reelection bid, Defendant, engaged in an especially pernicious form of marketing: the transmission of unauthorized advertisements in the form of artificial and/or prerecorded calls to the cellular telephones of voters throughout Illinois. The Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system to initiate calls to the wireless telephone lines of Plaintiff and Class members using an artificial and/or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party in strict violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Sawin, Esq. SAWINLAWFIRM, LTD. 55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 853 2490 E-mail: jsawin@sawinlawyers.com CJS SOLUTION: $3.24MM Settlement in "Sanders" Has Prelim Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PATRICIA SANDERS, ANTHONY WILSON, JAIMEY GARRETT, and DANOIS ALLEN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE CJS SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC d/b/a THE HCI GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 17 Civ. 3809 (ER)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. HCI is a healthcare information technology firm that provides training and support to medical facilities in connection with their transition to new electronic recordkeeping systems. The Named Plaintiffs worked as consultants for HCI at various times between 2014 and 2017. They worked for HCI in New York, North Carolina, Maryland, Washington, and Rhode Island. They were classified by HCI as "independent contractors," but allege that they were actually employees. They also allege that they were "regularly" required to work 12-hour shifts for seven days a week while consulting for HCI. However, HCI paid them on an hourly basis for the hours they worked and did not use an overtime rate for hours worked beyond a 40-hour workweek. The Plaintiffs bring nine causes of action against the Defendant. First, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of a proposed Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action, allege that the Defendant failed to pay overtime in violation of the FLSA. Second, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of a nationwide class, allege that the Defendant was unjustly enriched by retaining the benefits of the Plaintiffs' labor without paying overtime. Third, Plaintiffs Sanders and Wilson, on behalf of consultants who worked in New York, allege violations of New York Labor Law. Additionally, Plaintiff Garrett, on behalf of consultants who worked in the state of Washington, brings five claims under Washington law: violations of the Washington Minimum Wage Act, failure to pay for rest breaks, failure to provide meal periods, unpaid wages on termination, and willful refusal to pay wages. Finally, Plaintiff Allen, on behalf of consultants who worked in North Carolina, brings a claim for violation of North Carolina wage and hour laws. After engaging in settlement negotiations with mediator Ruth D. Raisfield, the parties reached an agreement and submitted a proposed settlement to the Court on Jan. 16,2018. On Jan. 29, 2018, the Court denied that motion, finding that it did not have probable cause to hold a full-scale hearing as to the fairness of the agreement. The Plaintiffs have now submitted the Amended Settlement Agreement and request that the Court: (1) grants preliminary approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement; (2) conditionally certifies the proposed settlement class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the proposed collective action under Section 216(b) of the FLSA; (3) preliminarily approves the Named Plaintiffs as the settlement class representatives; (4) appoints Berger & Montague, P.C., Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., and Blanchard & Walker PLLC as class counsel; (5) preliminarily appoints JND Legal Administration as Settlement Administrator and preliminarily approve the costs of claims administration; and (6) approves the Settlement Notice and Claim Forms and the schedule for final approval of the settlement agreement. The Settlement Agreement reached by the parties provides that the Defendants will pay a non-reversionary sum of $3,240,000 in exchange for the release of the Settling Class Members' Released Claims. In its January 29th Order, the Court identified two problems with the Settlement Agreement that precluded preliminary approval. First, the general and non-mutual releases binding on the Named Plaintiffs far exceeded the scope of the FLSA. Second, the parties did not articulate the range of possible recovery for the Plaintiffs. The parties have resolved both of these issues in the Amended Settlement Agreement before the Court. First, the parties have now consented to a release that is still non-mutual, but releases only those complaints that were or could have been asserted in the action against HCI. Second, the Plaintiffs have explained that, based on HCI's production of a spreadsheet showing the hours worked by potential class members, they could expect to recover $3,455,803.50 if completely successful. The Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of a Rule 23(b) Class and an FLSA collective action for the purposes of facilitating a settlement, comprised of all individuals who performed work as a Consultant for The CJS Solutions Group, LLC, doing business as The HCI Group, at any time from May 19, 2014 through on or about May 31, 2016. The Defendants do not oppose class certification for the purposes of achieving settlement and therefore do not contest that the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 have been met. Judge Ramos although the Amended Settlement Agreement provides for a slightly lower recovery, pursuing litigation would also bring considerable risk and delay recovery. Further, the settlement was negotiated for at arm's length with the assistance of an independent mediator, which reinforces the non-collusive nature of the settlement. He is therefore persuaded that the settlement amount is reasonable in light of the Plaintiffs' range of recovery, and should be submitted for a full-scale hearing on its fairness. For the reasons stated in the Court's January 29th Order, Judge also finds that conditional certification is appropriate under these circumstances and that preliminary appointment of Berger & Montague, P.C., Lichen & Liss-Riordan, P.C., and Blanchard & Walker PLLC as class counsel for the settlement class is also warranted. Finally, the Judge finds that the notice is reasonable and constitutes due, adequate, and sufficient notice to the class members. Judge Ramos therefore adopted the following settlement approval process, which safeguards the class members' procedural due process rights, enables the Court to fulfill its role as the guardian of class interests, and is consistent with the standard procedure for evaluating class action settlements: a. Within 10 days of the Order, the Defendant's counsel will provide the settlement administrator with an electronic database containing the names, last known address, last known telephone numbers, last known email addresses, social security numbers or tax ID numbers, and total hours of overtime worked for each class member. b. Within five days of receiving the contract information of the settlement class, the settlement administrator will mail and email the notice and claim forms to the settlement class members. c. Each class member will have 60 days after the initial mailing of the class notice to submit a claim form, object to, or opt-out of the settlement. d. The Court will hold a fairness hearing on June 21, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. e. No later than five days prior to the fairness hearing, the Plaintiffs will prepare and file a motion for final approval of the settlement, together with a motion seeking the payment of attorney's fees, costs, service awards, and administration awards. Accordingly, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/b6tkvi from Leagle.com. Patricia Sanders, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Anthony Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Harold Lichten -- hlichten@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Camille Fundora -- cfundora@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., David M. Blanchard -- blanchard@bwlawonline.com-- Blanchard & Walker PLLC, Eric Lechtzin -- elechtzin@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Olena Savytska -- osavytska@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC, Sarah Schalman-Bergen -- sschalman- bergen@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Shanon Jude Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C. & Jill Stephanie Kahn - - jkahn@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC. Jaimey Garrett, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Beth Ellen Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Jennifer Rust Murray -- jmurray@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie PLLC, pro hac vice, Jill Stephanie Kahn, Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC, Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Berger & Montague, P.C. & Shanon Jude Carson, Berger & Montague, P.C. Danois Allen, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Berger & Montague, P.C. The CJS Solutions Group, LLC, doing business as, Defendant, represented by Gena Brooke Usenheimer -- gusenheimer@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Patrick Bannon -- pbannon@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Richard L. Alfred -- ralfred@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Anne Bider -- abider@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP. COCA-COLA CO: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Becerra" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss SHANA BECERRA, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. C 17-05916 WHA (N.D. Cal.). Becerra brings the putative class action against the Defendant over its labeling of "Diet Coke." Coca-Cola first introduced Diet Coke in 1982, as a sugar-and calorie-free version of its flag-ship cola. For many years, Becerra purchased and consumed Diet Coke in part because she believed, based on Coca-Cola's advertising of the product as "diet," that it would contribute to weight loss or healthy weight management. But for this belief, Becerra claims she would not have purchased Diet Coke. The science, she alleges, now shows Diet Coke consumption actually leads to the exact opposite -- weight gain. Becerra's complaint cites numerous scientific studies purportedly suggesting that nonnutritive sweeteners, like those used in Diet Coke, do not assist in weight loss or healthy weight management, because nonnutritive sweeteners like aspartame interfere with the body's ability to properly metabolize calories, leading to weight gain and increased risk of metabolic disease, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. In October 2017, Becerra commenced the action against Coca-Cola seeking to represent a state-wide class of persons in California who purchased Diet Coke in cans or bottles on or after Oct. 26, 2013 for personal or household use. She asserts claims for violations of the California False Advertising Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, for breach of express warranty, and for breach of implied warranty. Coca-Cola now moves to dismiss Becerra's complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). It argues federal law preempts all of Becerra's claims, and that even if not preempted, Becerra's claims are barred by California's safe harbor rule. Judge Alsup holds that Becerra's complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that Coca-Cola's advertisements are false and misleading. With a conclusory wave of the counsel's hand, Becerra has overstated the actual science set forth in the citations. Becerra's consumer protection statutory claims are accordingly be dismissed. Becerra's claims of breach of express and implied warranty of merchantability must fail for the same reasons stated, the Judge says. The complaint fails to sufficiently allege Coca-Cola misrepresented to consumers that Diet Coke would aid in weight loss or healthy weight management without regard to exercise and nutrition. Accordingly, Becerra's claims for breach of express and implied warranty will also be dismissed. Judge Alsup granted Coca-Cola's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff may seek leave to amend the complaint and will have until March 22, 2018, within which to file a motion, noticed on the normal 35-day track, for leave to file an amended complaint. The motion must include a proposed amended complaint (and a redlined copy) and must explain why the new pleading overcomes all deficiencies pointed out, including those the Order needs not reach. The Plaintiff must plead her best case. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/eiGsBl from Leagle.com. Shana Becerra, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Fitzgerald -- jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC, Andrew B. Sacks, Sacks Weston Diamond, LLC, John Kerry Weston, Sacks Weston Diamond LLC, Melanie Rae Persinger -- melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald PC & Trevor Matthew Flynn -- trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC. The Coca-Cola Company, Defendant, represented by Tammy Beth Webb -- tbwebb@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Catherine A. Williams -- cawilliams@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Jane M. Metcalf -- jmetcalf@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Michael Sochynsky -- msochynsky@pbwt.com -- Covington and Burling LLP & Steven A. Zalesin -- sazalesin@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP. COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02994 (S.D. N.Y., April 5, 2018). Colonial Williamsburg is a living-history museum and private foundation presenting part of an historic district in the city of Williamsburg, Virginia, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group PLLC 30 E39th Street, 2nd Flr. New York, NY 10016-2555 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com COMBINED INSURANCE: Must Produce Docs in "Nicholes" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LUCENDA NICHOLES, Plaintiff, v. COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-CV-10203 (S.D. W.V.), Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Beckley Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Regarding Defendant's Supplemental Responses to the Fourth and Fifth Requests For Production of Documents. The Plaintiff has instituted a class action complaint against the Defendant alleging that the insurance company has engaged in routine, systematic and deceptive practices selling supplemental insurance policies that under law, provides no benefit its Medicaid customers. She asserts claims under the West Virginia Unfair Trade Practices Act and the common law of rescission based on mutual mistake. The Plaintiff has alleged that these sales practices have been an ingrained part of the Defendant's "culture" for decades, which is evidenced by similar lawsuits that were filed in Alabama and Mississippi, resulting in the Defendant's withdrawal from those states' insurance markets. She has also alleged that Defendant has continued its deceptive sales practices overseas, specifically in Australia, which eventually garnered the attention of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The Plaintiff alleges that after the conclusion of the investigation conducted by Australian authorities, the Defendant turned over its Australian operations to an affiliate. In the matter immediately before the Court, the Plaintiff seeks information related not only to the Defendant's electronically stored information ("ESI") that presumably contains discovery pertaining to insurance sales to Medicaid recipients in West Virginia, but also information regarding substantially similar or identical insurance business practices in Alabama, Mississippi, other states, as well as in Australia. One aspect of the recent breakdown in cooperation between the parties with regard to the discovery issues at hand concern which statute of limitations applies, and therefore, which applicable statute of limitation narrows the scope of Plaintiff's Requests. During the informal conference held on Feb. 6, 2018, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn attempted to explore some resolution between the parties of the issues raised in the Plaintiff's Motion. The Plaintiff represented that until recently, the parties' discovery customarily included documentation and information that predated the filing of their lawsuit by four years. Further, she asserted that previously produced discovery revealed that the Defendant changed its own policies over the years with regard to insurance sales to Medicaid recipients, an issue that goes to the heart of her case. Additionally, the Plaintiff argued that since her claims arise in contract, the statute of limitations would be ten years, pursuant to West Virginian law. The Defendant countered that the Plaintiff's claims are based on violations of the West Virginia Unfair Trade Practices Act, for which the statute of limitations is one year, and Plaintiff's other claims are based on violations of West Virginia common law, rescission of a contract based on fraud or mutual mistake, for which the statute of limitations is two years. Regardless of which statute of limitations applies, the Defendant argued that the Plaintiff's Requests go well beyond the statute of limitations addressed by the parties, and are therefore temporally and geographically overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case. On Feb. 23, 2018 came the parties, by the counsel, all for hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Regarding Defendant's Supplemental Responses to the Fourth and Fifth Requests For Production of Documents. The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Regarding Defendant's Supplemental Responses to the Fourth Requests For Production of Documents, requests the following: a. Request No. 1: Documents and information sufficient to show the identity of Combined's in-field agent trainers in the four years preceding the lawsuit to the present. b. Request No. 2: Documents and information sufficient to show employee complaints regarding in-field trainers and their techniques in the four years preceding this lawsuit to the present including but not limited to information captured in Clarify and any other electronic systems identified in request 20 as well as emails and employee exit interviews. c. Request No. 4: All Commissioned Employee Handbooks and drafts of such Handbooks for Combined, and any other subsidiary or affiliate of ACE Insurance or AEON from 2006 to the present, including Ace Insurance Ltd. during the time it sold Supplemental Insurance in Australia. This search should specifically include documents and information in Jeff Frerick's files and those operating under his supervision and direction. d. Request No. 7: Documents and information sufficient to show the Officer and Boards of Directors for Combined Insurance Co. of America, Ace Insurance Ltd., Chubb Ltd., Combined Life Insurance Co. of New York and ACE Insurance Corporation from 2007 to the present. e. Request No. 14: All electronic files from every database used by Combined that contains a reference or information related to Medicaid. f. Request No. 19: A copy in native electronic format of any information created or maintained by any computer system relating to Medicaid, underwriting, agent discipline, pricing, sale, training, consumer complaint-handling and investigations, maintenance, retention, cancellation, claims handling and payment of benefits under Supplemental Insurance Policies from October 2012 to present in the following systems: Clarify Access M-Text Combined Online Processing System Verint Mainframe Field Compliance Disciplinary Action Tracker Webmails AS400 (including Content Manager and LSP) Self-Service System Right Start (Marketing Training Practice App) Combined App (Where you write live Applications) Life 70 Work Force Management. g. Request No. 20: Documents sufficient to show the data dictionaries, field codes, reporting capabilities, operating platforms, algorithms and functional capabilities of any computer system relating to the pricing, sale, maintenance, retention, cancellation, claims handling and payment of benefits under Supplemental Insurance Policies from October 2012 to present for the following systems: Clarify Access M-Text Combined Online Processing System Verint Mainframe Field Compliance Disciplinary Action Tracker Webmails AS400 (including Content Manager and LSP) Self-Service System Right Start (Marketing Training Practice App) Combined App (Where you write live Applications) Life 70 Work Force Management. h. Request No. 22: User Manuals for the systems identified in Request number 20. i. Request No. 23: Any policy manuals, memoranda or any other document governing the circumstances under which the Policy Service Center refers complaints or issues to SCI for handling. The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Regarding Defendant's Supplemental Responses to the Fifth Requests For Production of Documents, requests the following: a. Request No. 1: All Commissioned Employee Handbooks and drafts of such Handbooks or any similar manuals or handbooks for Combined, and any other subsidiary, affiliate or parent from 1990 to the present. b. Request No. 2: All documents and information related to Combined's withdrawal from the insurance markets and/or to cease selling its policies in the States of Alabama and Mississippi and any other State's insurance market. The Magistrate Judge granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion. Specifically, among other things, regarding the Defendant's Supplemental Responses to the Fourth Requests For Production of Documents, he granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's supplemental responses to Request Nos. 1 and 2, and only to the extent that the Defendant is compelled to disclose the identities of its in- field agent trainers as stated for the four years preceding this lawsuit and with respect to Alabama and Mississippi, in the four years preceding Defendant's withdrawal from the Alabama and Mississippi insurance markets. With regard to the Defendant's concerns over non-litigant employees' privacy rights, it is noted that a protective order has already been entered in this matter on April 13, 2017. He also granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's supplemental responses to Request No. 4, and only to the extent that if such documentation exists, that the Defendant is compelled to disclose its Commissioned Employee Handbooks and drafts of such Handbooks as described in Plaintiff's Request No. 4 as stated above for the four years preceding this lawsuit, and with regard to Alabama and Mississippi, in the four years preceding Defendant's withdrawal from the Alabama and Mississippi insurance markets. He granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's supplemental responses to (i) Request No. 14 to the extent it seeks information regarding West Virginia Medicaid recipients predating the filing of Plaintiff's lawsuit by four years'; (ii) Request No. 19 to the extent it seeks information that concerns West Virginia Medicaid recipients; and (iii) Request No. 20 to the extent that it supplements Request No. 19. The Magistrate Judge granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's supplemental responses to Request No. 23 to the extent that the Court has no authority to compel the production of information that does not exist. Regarding the Defendant's Supplemental Responses to the Fourth Requests For Production of Documents, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn granted in part and denied in part supplemental responses to (i) Request No. 1, and only to the extent that if such documentation exists, that the Defendant is compelled to disclose its Commissioned Employee Handbooks and drafts of such Handbooks as described in Plaintiff's Request No. 1 as stated for the four years preceding this lawsuit, and with regard to Alabama and Mississippi, in the four years preceding Defendant's withdrawal from the Alabama and Mississippi insurance markets; and (ii) Request No. 2 to the extent that the Defendant is compelled to produce unto the Plaintiff unprivileged documentation and information concerning its withdrawal from the Alabama and Mississippi insurance markets, plus, the other states markets as described, should such documentation and information exist. Pursuant to Rule 37, the Magistrate Judge invited the Plaintiff to file the appropriate motion for sanctions outlining the reasons sanctions are appropriate in the matter and including the time it took prosecute the Motion to Compel, but specifically with respect to those items granted by the Court. He allowed the Defendant to file an appropriate pleading setting forth why the Court should not issue sanctions and any other objections to the accounting of time filed by the Plaintiff. In accordance with Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the ruling set forth on the non-dispositive motion may be contested by filing, within 14 days, objections to the Order with District Judge Irene Berger. If objections are filed, the District Court will consider the objections and modify or set aside any portion of the Order found clearly to be erroneous or contrary to law. The Clerk is further requested to send a copy of the Order to the counsel of record. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/byESOI from Leagle.com. Lucenda Nicholes, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christa L. Collins, HARMON WOODS PARKER & ABRUNZO, pro hac vice & Damon L. Ellis, MANI ELLIS & LAYNE. Combined Insurance Company of America, Defendant, represented by Eric Jett Hulett -- eric.hulett@steptoe-johnson.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON, John Joseph Meadows -- john.meadows@steptoe-johnson.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Russell D. Jessee -- russell.jessee@steptoe-johnson.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Sheryl Marie Bey -- sbey@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWTIZ, pro hac vice, William N. Reed -- wreed@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWTIZ, pro hac vice & Devon J. Stewart -- devon.stewart@steptoe-johnson.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON. COMENITY LLC: J. Stephens Individual Claims Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- In the case, JENNIFER STEPHENS and CHRISTOPHER GULLEY, on behalf of NJK themselves, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COMENITY, LLC dba COMENITY BANK, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv- 00670-MMD-(1)(A)(D. Nev.), Judge Miranda M. Du of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed with prejudice all individual claims of Stephens against the Defendant. The Parties filed their Joint Motion for Dismissal of the Individual Claims of Plaintiff Jennifer Stephens' Only Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). Accordingly, Judge Du granted and dismissed with prejudice as to all individual claims of Stephens against the Defendant. Each party to bear their own costs and fees. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/MJNcKl from Leagle.com. Christopher Gulley, Plaintiff, represented by Kas L. Gallucci -- admin@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, pro hac vice, Kevin L. Hernandez -- kevin@kevinhernandezlaw.com - - Law Office of Kevin L. Hernandez, Ronald A. Marron, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, pro hac vice & Alexis M. Wood , Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron. Comenity, LLC, doing business as, Defendant, represented by Joel Edward Tasca -- TASCABALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP, Russell Jason Burke -- BURKERBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP & Lindsay C. Demaree -- DEMAREELBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP. Comenity, LLC, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Joel Edward Tasca, Ballard Spahr LLP, Lindsay C. Demaree, Ballard Spahr LLP & Russell Jason Burke, Ballard Spahr LLP. CROWN POLY: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wage, Morales Says -------------------------------------------------------------- BELEN MORALES, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CROWN POLY, INC., a California corporation; 21 and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC699641 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 26, 2018), seeks to recover overtime & minimum wage under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as a "Packer" in 2013, although she has been on a leave of absence since approximately September 2017. Plaintiff's employment with Defendants was terminated during her medical leave of absence. Throughout her employment, Defendants would keep track of Plaintiff's time worked and would unlawfully shave her work time and/or round the work time such that Plaintiff would not be fully paid for all time worked. This time shaving/rounding practice utilized by Defendants was not-even handed over time and would round and shave in Defendants' favor such that Plaintiff was routinely underpaid for her time worked. Further, during Plaintiffs employment with Defendants, she often worked in excess of 10 hours per workday and/or 40 hours per work week, and therefore, had Plaintiff been properly paid for all of the time that she actually worked, she would have been paid additional minimum and/or overtime wages. Crown Poly is a plastic manufacturing company that provides bagging solutions. It offers bagging systems for produce, meat, bakery, bulk, grocery supply, front end, and consumer end products; and compostable, leafy greens, corn and yams, trash, organic, handle tie, eco-friendly, and reusable bags.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Lidman, Esq. Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq. LIDMAN LAW, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segunao, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 322 4772 Facsimile: (424) 322 4775 E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com enguyen@lidmanlaw.com - and - Paul K. Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segunao, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292 2350 Facsimile: (424) 292 2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com DICK'S SPORTING: Pomerantz to Lead in "McKenna" Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the case, BRANDON McKENNA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., EDWARD W. STACK, and LEE J. BELITSKY, Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-3680 (VSB)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (i) granted Ironworkers's motion for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and for approval of its selection of Lead Counsel; and (ii) denied the remaining three motions requesting appointment of the Lead Plaintiff and approval of the Lead Counsel, filed by Brenda Powell, Elliott Stamler, and Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System. The instant action is brought by McKenna on May 16, 2017 against the Defendants on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Dick's securities between March 7, 2017 and May 15, 2017, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Exchange Act. The complaint against Dick's alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Dick's business and operations. In particular, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Dick's had overstated its adjusted EBITDA amounts; (ii) accordingly, the Company lacked effective internal controls; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Dick's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. He alleges that as a result of these material misstatements, which were revealed by a Form 8-K/A report filed with the SEC on May 12, 2017, Dick's share price fell as much as $6.82, resulting in significant losses and damages for Plaintiff and other class members. On the same day that the Plaintiff filed his Complaint, his counsel published notices announcing the initiation of the securities class action. The Notices informed shareholders that if they had purchased Dick's securities during the Class Period, they would have until July 17, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint them as the Lead Plaintiff for the class. After the Notices were published, on June 12, 2017, the counsel for Plaintiff, with consent from the Defendants, requested an extension of time for the Defendants to respond to the Complaint until after the Lead Plaintiff and the Lead Counsel were appointed, and set out a proposed briefing schedule for the filing of the amended complaint, the Defendants' answer, and the Plaintiff's reply after the Lead Plaintiff and the Lead Counsel were selected. On June 13, 2017, Judge Broderick issued an Order granting the extension of time and adopting the proposed schedule. On July 17, 2017, the date specified on the Notices, the Movants filed their motions requesting appointment of the Lead Plaintiff and the Lead Counsel, with supporting declarations and memoranda. On July 21, 2017, Powell withdrew her motion because while she was well-qualified to serve as the Lead Plaintiff in the action, she did not possess the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class. On July 31, 2017, Stamler filed a notice of non-opposition to competing motions for appointment, stating that it appears that Ironworkers possesses the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class. Similarly, on the same day, Pension & Retirement System filed a response stating that it recognized that it did not suffer the greatest loss. On Aug. 1, 2017, Ironworkers filed a notice that its motion was unopposed. Because he finds that Ironworkers has the greatest financial interest of the Movants, and that it satisfies the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23, Judge Broderick granted Ironworkers' motion for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and for approval of its selection of the Lead Counsel. The Judge denied remaining motions. He respectfully requested the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions. Ironworkers has selected Pomerantz as class counsel, and moves for approval of its selection. Having reviewed Ironworkers's Memorandum of Law, as well as Liberman's Declaration and the firm resume, the Court found that Pomerantz is well qualified to serve as lead counsel in the instant case. The attorneys at Pomerantz have had substantial experience with securities litigations as well as securities fraud class actions. Therefore, the Court approved Ironworkers's selection and appoint Pomerantz as Lead Counsel. The Judge directed the Plaintiff, in accordance with the June 13 Order, to file an amended complaint or notify the Defendants that no amended complaint will be filed no later than 60 days after the date of issuance of the Opinion & Order. The Defendants are directed to answer or otherwise respond to the operative complaint no later than 60 days after the Plaintiff serves an amended complaint or notifies Defendants that no amended complaint will be filed. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/8btBgn from Leagle.com. Ironworkers Locals 40, 361 & 417 - Union Security Funds and Iron Workers Local 580 - Joint Funds, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Michael Grunfeld -- mgrunfeld@pomlaw.com -- Shreman & Sterling LLP. Brandon McKenna, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Michael Grunfeld, Shreman & Sterling LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP. Brenda Powell, Movant, represented by Adam M. Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP. Elliot Stamler, Movant, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System, Movant, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld -- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. DR PEPPER SNAPPLE: Witmer Balks at Keurig Green Merger Deal ----------------------------------------------------------- COLLEEN WITMER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC., WAYNE R. SANDERS, LARRY D. YOUNG, DAVID E. ALEXANDER, ANTONIO CARRILLO, JOSE GUTIERREZ, PAMELA H. PATSLEY, RONALD G. ROGERS, DUNIA SHIVE, and M. ANNE SZOSTAK, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00209-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex., March 27, 2018), seeks to enjoin the defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed merger transaction, and in the event the defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages. On January 29, 2018, DPSG Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Maple Holdings Corp. and Salt Merger Sub, Inc., affiliates of Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of DPSG will receive a special cash dividend of $103.75 per share. Following the close of the merger, DPSG's shareholders will own only 13% of the combined company. On March 8, 2018, the defendants filed a preliminary proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement recommends that DPSG's shareholders vote in favor of proposals to approve, among other things, the issuance of DPSG common stock as merger consideration pursuant to the Merger Agreement, and an amendment to the certificate of incorporation of DPSG to provide for an increase in authorized shares to permit issuance of a sufficient number of shares as merger consideration, and a change of DPSG's name to "Keurig Dr Pepper Inc." However, the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295 5310 Facsimile: (302) 654 7530 - and - RM LAW 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324 6800 Facsimile: (484) 631 1305 - and - Joe Kendall, Esq. Jamie J. McKey, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 744 3000 Facsimile: (214) 744 3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com EMERSON ELECTRIC: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Order in "Hale" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Emerson Electric Company filed an appeal from a court ruling in the multidistrict litigation titled IN RE: EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. WET/DRY VAC MARKETING AND SALES LITIGATION, MDL No. 4:12-md-02382-HEA, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the action is brought for alleged violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, violations of consumer protection laws in various states for subclasses and breach of implied warranty redhibition on behalf of the Louisiana subclass. The appellate case is captioned as Jeff Hale, et al. v. Emerson Electric Company, Case No. 18-1585, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appendix is due on April 30, 2018; -- Brief of Appellant Emerson Electric Company is due on April 30, 2018; -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant; and -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Jeff Hale, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Estaban Maravilla, individually and on behalf of all others, Lauren Checki, Kevin Brees, Chad Venhaus, Chris Willis and Fred Wilmer are represented by: Eric D. Holland, Esq. HOLLAND LAW FIRM 300 N. Tucker, Suite 801 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-8111 E-mail: eholland@allfela.com Plaintiffs-Appellees Raymond Gray, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Andrew Bowers, Emilio Gonzales, Kenneth Thompson, Eric Shults Justin Swires, Estaban Maravilla, Lauren Checki, Kevin Brees, Chad Venhaus, Chris Willis and Fred Wilmer are represented by: Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (877) 247-4292 E-mail: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com Plaintiffs-Appellees Justin Swires, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Estaban Maravilla, individually and on behalf of all others, Lauren Checki, Kevin Brees, Chad Venhaus, Chris Willis and Fred Wilmer are represented by: Randall Seth Crompton, Esq. HOLLAND LAW FIRM 300 N. Tucker, Suite 801 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-8111 E-mail: scrompton@allfela.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Anthony G. Simon, Esq. John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiffs-Appellees Estaban Maravilla, individually and on behalf of all others, Lauren Checki, Kevin Brees, Chad Venhaus, Chris Willis and Fred Wilmer are represented by: Reginald Von Terrell, Esq. TERRELL LAW GROUP 223 25th Street Richmond, CA 94804-0000 Telephone: (510) 237-3930 E-mail: reggiet2@aol.com Plaintiffs-Appellees Lauren Checki, Kevin Brees, Chad Venhaus, Chris Willis and Fred Wilmer are represented by: Jay Dinan, Esq. PARKER & WAICHMAN LLP 27300 Riverview Center Boulevard, Suite 103 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Telephone: (239) 390-0055 E-mail: jdinan@yourlawyer.com Plaintiffs-Appellees Kevin Brees, Chad Venhaus, Chris Willis and Fred Wilmer are represented by: Richard J. Arsenault, Esq. NEBLETT BEARD & ARSENAULT P.O. Box 1190 Alexandria, LA 71309 Telephone: (318) 487-9874 E-mail: rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com - and - Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq. CHAIKIN LAW FIRM 12800 University Drive, Suite 600 Fort Myers, FL 33907 Telephone: (239) 470-8338 E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com Defendant-Appellant Emerson Electric Company is represented by: Mark G. Arnold, Esq. Matthew R. Grant, Esq. Joseph C. Orlet, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600 Saint Louis, MO 63105-3441 Telephone: (314) 480-1500 E-mail: mark.arnold@huschblackwell.com matt.grant@husch.com joseph.orlet@huschblackwell.com - and - James F. Bennett, Esq. Hannah Fleener Preston, Esq. DOWD BENNETT 7733 Forsyth, Suite 1900 Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000 Telephone: (314) 889-7300 E-mail: jbennett@dowdbennett.com hpreston@dowdbennett.com ESTATE INFORMATION: Azimov Files 1st Suit over Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- MINA L. AZIMOV, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILIARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. ESTATE INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC D/B/A EIS COLLECTIONS AND NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 152667/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 26, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Estate Information is a collection agency regularly engaging in the business of collecting debts in this State with its principal place of business located at 670 Morrison Road, Suite 300, Gahanna, Ohio 43230. The first letter appears to give Plaintiff notice that her account has been charged-off and the second letter appears to be an initial collection letter. Both letters appear to be concerning reference number "1000345626." The letters were written on EIS' letterhead and both list the "Creditor Name" as "Navient." The charge-off letter lists the "Total due as of charge-off" as $25,503.47, "Total interest accrued since charge-off" as $5,272.87, "Total non-interest charges or fees accrued since charge-off" as $.00, and "Total payments made since charge-off" as $5,579.88. These numbers taken together would calculate the total current balance as $25,196.46. However, the letter lists the "Total Balance" as $25,204.43. Either the "Total Balance" is incorrect, or the "Total due as of charge-off," "Total interest accrued since charge-off," "Total non-interest charges or fees accrued since charge-off" and "Total payments made since charge-off" are incorrect, or all are incorrect. Nonetheless, this inaccuracy was misleading to the Plaintiff, as it would be to the "least sophisticated consumer," and furthermore misstates the character and amount of the alleged debt, in violation of the FDCPA and NYGBL.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Goldenberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SIMON GOLDENBERG PLLC Attorney(s) For Plaintiff 818 East 16th Street Brooklyn, NY, 11230 Telephone: (347) 640 4357 ESTATE INFORMATION: Azimov Files 2nd Suit over Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- MINA L. AZIMOV, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SEVULIARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. ESTATE INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC D/B/A EIS COLLECTIONS AND NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 152686/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 27, 2018), seeks to recover damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, in an attempt to collect the purported debt, EIS sent Plaintiff two letters each dated October 10, 2017. The first letter appears to give Plaintiff notice that her account has been charged-off and the second letter appears to be an initial collection letter. Both letters appear to be concerning reference number "1000345630." The letters were written on EIS letterhead and both list the "Creditor Name" as "Navient. The charge-off letter lists the "Total due as of charge-off" as $49,606.32, "Total interest accrued since charge-off" as $13,473.57, "Total non-interest charges or fees accrued since charge-off" as $0.00, and "Total payments made since charge-off" as $11,186.31. These numbers taken together would calculate the total current balance as $51,893.58. However, the letter lists the "Total Balance" as $51,913.33. Either the "Total Balance" is incorrect, or the "Total due as of charge- off," "Total interest accrued since charge-off," "Total non- interest charges or fees accrued since charge-off" and "Total payments made since charge-off" are incorrect, or all are incorrect. This inaccuracy, the lawsuit contends, was misleading to the Plaintiff, as it would be to the "least sophisticated consumer," and furthermore misstates the character and amount of the alleged debt, in violation of the FDCPA and NYGBL. Additionally, the collection letter lists the "Total Balance" as the same potentially incorrect amount of $51,913.33, and the bottom of the collection letter lists the "Amount Due" as the same potentially incorrect amount of $51,913.33, in further violation of the FDCPA and NYGBL. Estate Information specializes in the collection of deceased debt and specialty recovery functions for creditors in the United States. It offers estate search services, probate filing and collections, bankruptcy proof of claim filings, bankruptcy adversary services, and other recovery solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Goldenberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SIMON GOLDENBERG PLLC 818 East 16th Street Brooklyn, NY, 11230 Telephone: (347) 640 4357 EWC TIMES: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against EWC Times Square, LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EWC Times Square, LLC, EWC 95 Chambers, LLC and EWC P&T, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03029 (S.D. N.Y., April 5, 2018). EWC Times Square, LLC is a business entity registered in the state of New York, located at 289 Park Avenue South, New York, New York 10010.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017-6705 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com FACEBOOK INC: Zellmer Sues over Collection of Biometric Info ------------------------------------------------------------ CLAYTON P. ZELLMER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01880 (N.D. Cal., March 27, 2018), seeks to recover damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Facebook in violating the Biometric Information Privacy Act by capturing, possessing, collecting, storing, receiving through trade, obtaining, and using the biometric identifiers and biometric information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals, without their informed written consent. The Illinois Legislature has found that "[b]iometrics are unlike other unique identifiers that are used to access finances or other sensitive information." 740 ILCS 14/5(c). "For example, social security numbers, when compromised, can be changed. Biometrics, however, are biologically unique to the individual; therefore, once compromised, the individual has no recourse, is at heightened risk for identity theft, and is likely to withdraw from biometric-facilitated transactions." In recognition of these concerns over the security of individuals' biometrics -- particularly in the City of Chicago, which was recently selected by major national corporations as a "pilot testing site[] for new applications of biometric- facilitated financial transactions, including finger-scan technologies at grocery stores, gas stations, and school cafeterias," 740 ILCS 14/5(b) -- the Illinois Legislature enacted the BIPA, which provides, inter alia, that a private entity like Facebook may not obtain or possess an individual's biometrics unless it: (i) informs that person in writing that biometric identifiers or information will be collected or stored, see 740 ILCS 14/15(b); (ii) informs that person in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which such biometric identifiers or biometric information is being collected, stored and used, see id.; (iii) receives a written release from the person for the collection of his or her biometric identifiers or information, see id.; and (iv) publishes publically available written retention schedules and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information, see 740 ILCS 14/15(a). In direct violation of each of the foregoing provisions of Section 15(a) and Section 15(b) of the BIPA, Facebook is actively collecting, storing, and using -- without providing notice, obtaining informed written consent, or publishing data retention policies -- the biometrics of its users and unwitting non-users like Plaintiff. Specifically, Facebook has created, collected and stored over a billion "face templates" (or "face prints") -- highly detailed geometric maps of the face -- from over a billion individuals, millions of whom reside in the State of Illinois. Facebook creates these templates using sophisticated facial recognition technology that extracts and analyzes data from the points and contours of faces appearing in photos uploaded by their users. Each face template is unique to a particular individual, in the same way that a fingerprint or voiceprint uniquely identifies one and only one person. The Facebook has stated publicly on its website that "[w]e are able to suggest that your friend tag you in a picture by scanning and comparing your friend's pictures to information we've put together from the other photos you have been tagged in." According to the same website, this process is performed by recognition software that uses an algorithm to calculate a unique number based on someone's facial features, like the distance between the eyes, nose and ears. Plaintiff, who has never had a Facebook account, brings this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated to prevent Facebook from further violating the privacy rights of Illinois residents, and to recover statutory damages for Facebook's unauthorized collection, storage and use of unwitting non-users' biometrics in violation of the BIPA. Facebook is an American online social media and social networking service company based in Menlo Park, California.[BN] Counsel for Clayton P. Zellmer and the Putative Class: David P. Milian, Esq. CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA, LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372 7474 Facsimile: (305) 372 7475 E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com - and - Albert Y. Chang, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914 2001 Facsimile: (858) 914 2002 E-mail: achang@bottinilaw.com FACEBOOK INC: Williams et al. Sue over Messenger Logs ----------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY WILLIAMS, TYOKA BRUMFIELD, and WENDY BURNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv- 01881 (N.D. Cal., March 27, 2018), seeks compensatory, statutory, punitive damages, and injunction requiring Facebook to purge its extant call and text logs acquired through Facebook Messenger and Facebook Lite smartphone applications. The Facebook exploited a vulnerability in the permission settings for the Facebook Messenger and Facebook Lite smartphone applications in prior versions of the Android operating system. When users install these apps, they are prompted to grant Facebook access to their "Contact List." But upon doing so, the Facebook Messenger and Facebook Lite apps for Android scrape users' call and text logs. That is, Facebook scrapes years' worth of call and text data, including whether each call was "Incoming," "Outgoing," or "Missed," the date and time of each call, the number dialed, the individual called, and the duration of each call. Facebook then incorporates these data into its profile on each user, which it monetizes for advertising purposes. This vulnerability was later patched in October 2017, at which time Facebook ceased this practice. Facebook is an American online social media and social networking service company based in Menlo Park, California.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300 4455 Facsimile: (925) 407 2700 E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com scott@bursor.com FANNIE MAY: Court Dismisses "Benson" Suit ----------------------------------------- Judge Sara L. Ellis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Fannie May's motion to dismiss the case, CLARISHA BENSON and LORENZO SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FANNIE MAY CONFECTIONS BRANDS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 17 C 3519 (N.D. Ill.) without prejudice. Plaintiffs Benson and Smith purchased some delightful treats at two stores owned by Fannie May, and 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 Benson and Smith twenty-four-cubic-inches or more short of satisfaction. The Plaintiffs now bring the putative class action alleging that the candies in question did not simply melt or fly away as their names imply, but that Fannie May never placed them in the box in the first place and did so to trick potential consumers into believing they were receiving more candy than they really were. Plaintiffs' complaint alleges violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and seeks injunctive relief (Count I) and damages (Count II). The Plaintiffs also have two Illinois common-law claims for unjust enrichment (Count III) and breach of implied contract (Count IV). Fannie May moves to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, arguing that the Plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), therefore all of their state-law claims are preempted and must be dismissed. Alternatively, it argues that the Plaintiffs have not adequately pleaded the elements of their ICFA claim, that they lack standing to bring claims on behalf of purchasers of products Plaintiffs did not purchase, and that they lack standing to seek injunctive relief. Judge Ellis finds that the Plaintiffs' barebones allegations are not sufficient to state a violation of Section 100.100(a) under either Rule 8 or the heightened standard under Rule 9(b). Thus, because they have not adequately alleged a violation of the federal regulations, they cannot state a non-preempted claim under Illinois law. The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs, already aware of Fannie May's alleged deceptive practices, cannot claim they will be deceived again in the future. The Plaintiffs allege that they will suffer harm again in the future if they decide to purchase Fannie May's products because they cannot rely upon the packaging. Most courts to address similar circumstances have held that absent some concrete basis to conclude that the plaintiffs will or must purchase the product again in the future and be deceived, they cannot meet the standing requirements for injunctive relief claims. Therefore, he says even if the Plaintiffs adequately pleaded a violation of federal law, they lack standing to seek prospective injunctive relief against Fannie May. Finally, regarding the Plaintiffs' allegation that they only purchase the Mint Meltaways and the Pixies, but seek to bring the action on behalf of a putative class of individuals who purchased eight other Fannie May products, namely, Hot Fudge Truffles, Peanut Butter Buckeyes, Sea Salt Caramels (Dark), Sea Salt Caramels (Milk), Pixies ("Bite Size"), Carmash (Milk), Carmash (Dark), and Trinidads, the Judge finds that the Products are all substantially different in size, ingredients, and in many cases, their packaging. Beyond being candies sold by Fannie May, the Products are not similar enough to grant standing to the Plaintiffs who did not purchase them and thus were not harmed by any alleged mislabeling of those products. For these reasons, Judge Ellis granted Fannie May's motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/zb1yl7 from Leagle.com. Clarisha Benson & Lorenzo Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by James X. Bormes -- info@bormeslaw.com -- Law Office of James X. Bormes, Catherine P. Sons, Law Office of James X. Bormes, P.C. & Kasif Khowaja -- kasif@khowajalaw.com -- The Khowaja Law, LLC. Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Defendant, represented by David Joel Chizewer -- david.chizewer@goldbergkohn.com -- Goldberg Kohn Ltd. FASHION INSTITUTE: Web Site Not Accessible to Deaf, Sullivan Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- PHILLIP SULLIVAN, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FASHION INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02586 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2018), seeks to put an end to systemic civil rights violations committed by Defendant against the deaf and hard of hearing individuals in New York State and across the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying the deaf and hard of hearing individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to non- disabled individuals through http://www.fitnyc.edu The Website provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, and many academic programs offered by Defendant. Yet, the Website contains access barriers that make it difficult, if not impossible, for deaf and hard of hearing individuals to use the Website. The access barriers make it impossible for deaf and hard of hearing users to comprehend the audio portion of videos that are posted on the Website. The Plaintiff lives in New York City, and is a deaf and hard of hearing individual.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class: 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 FLORIDA BC: "Ward" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------- RONALD WARD, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FLORIDA BC HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a SYNERGY EQUIPMENT, the Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-00459-JA-DCI (M.D. Fla., March 27, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Synergy provides heavy and compact rental equipment and services for contractors and developers. Mr. Ward performed work for Synergy at its facilities in Daytona Beach, Jacksonville and St. Augustine Florida locations. Mr. Ward worked numerous workweeks where his hours exceeded 40 but he was not paid time-and-a-half hour for each overtime hour worked. Synergy Equipment is a Bobcat dealer of new and used heavy equipment in Daytona, Fort Myers, Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, Palatka, St. Augustine, and Tampa.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Adams, Esq. Ryan Labar, Esq. LABAR & ADAMS P.A. 2300 East Concord Street Orlando, FL 32803 E-mail: sadams@labaradams.com rlabar@labaradams.com FOOT LOCKER: Rosenberg Sues over Drop in Share Price ---------------------------------------------------- BRIAN ROSENBERG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FOOT LOCKER, INC., RICHARD A. JOHNSON and LAUREN B. PETERS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18- cv-01782 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Foot Locker between August 19, 2016 and August 17, 2017, both dates inclusive. Foot Locker is a retail footwear company that offers athletics footwear, apparel, and equipment for men, women, and kids. The Company serves customers worldwide. As of October 28, 2017, Foot Locker had 3,349 stores in 23 countries in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Founded in 1879, the Company is headquartered in New York, New York. Foot Locker's securities trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "FL." 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) Foot Locker's vendors were transitioning to selling through various online retailers, diminishing the utility of Foot Locker's large number of brick and mortar stores and the once- high value of its exclusivity relationships with those vendors; (ii) competition with online retailers had increased the pricing competition Foot Locker faced while concomitantly lowering demand at its stores; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' statements about Foot Locker's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On May 19, 2017, Foot Locker issued a press release entitled "Foot Locker, Inc. Reports 2017 First Quarter Results," announcing its first quarter 2017 financial results for the period ended April 29, 2017. Foot Locker reported that its 1Q17 revenue growth had plummeted, falling to essentially flat. Same store sales increased only a mere half percent. As a result, Foot Locker reported that its profits fell during the period to $180 million, or $1.36 per share, below the $1.38 per share the Company had led investors to expect, and well below the $191 million, or $1.39 per share, the Company had reported for 1Q16. During the conference call held with investors and analysts that morning, defendants further disclosed that this trend was not restricted to the second half of 2016 and 1Q17, but would continue, and that the Company was then forecasting second quarter 2017 comparable store sales up only in the low single digits, with profits relatively flat compared to the 2Q16. Defendants stated that if sales did not improve, the Company would be forced to cut costs and inventory in order to make its 2017 financial guidance of a mid-single digit EPS increase. On this news, Foot Locker's share price fell $11.73, or 16.65%, to close at $58.72 per share on May 19, 2017. On August 18, 2017, before the open of trading, Foot Locker issued a press release entitled "Foot Locker, Inc. Reports 2017 Second Quarter Results," announcing its 2Q17 financial results for the period ended July 29, 2017. Foot Locker reported that its 2Q17 revenues had now actually declined 4.4% year-over-year, falling nearly $80 million from $1.78 billion in the 2Q16 to $1.7 billion in the 2Q17. Same store sales fell a full 6%. As a result, Foot Locker reported that its profits fell during the period to just $51 million, or $0.39 per share, drastically below the $0.90 per share the Company had led investors to expect, and well below the $127 million, or $0.94 per share, the Company had reported in 2Q16. The Company also stated that it would close approximately 130 stores, more than the 100 stores it had previously announced it would close. During the conference call held with investors and analysts that morning, the Company said it expected weaker sales for the remainder of FY17, with same store sales likely to be down between 3% and 4% for 3Q17 and 4Q17. On this news, Foot Locker's share price fell $13.32, or 27.92%, to close at $34.38 per share on August 18, 2017, on usually high trading volume. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 661 1100 Facsimile: (212) 661 8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697 6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com FRED'S INC: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Taylor" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Tiffany Taylor filed an appeal from a court ruling in her lawsuit titled Tiffany Taylor v. FRED'S, INC., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00495-VEH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 21, 2018, Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins granted in part and otherwise termed as moot Fred's Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint. Ms. Taylor initiated the purported class action arising under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA"), an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), against Fred's on March 29, 2017. On May 24, 2017, Ms. Taylor filed the FAC. The appellate case is captioned as Tiffany Taylor v. FRED'S, INC., et al., Case No. 18-10832, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or before April 2, 2018, as to Appellees Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. and Fred's, Inc.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant TIFFANY TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael C. Bradley, Esq. Christopher T. Hellums, Esq. Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. Austin Brock Whitten, Esq. PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS, PC 2001 Park Place N, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 E-mail: MikeB@Pittmandutton.com ChrisH@Pittmandutton.com JonM@Pittmandutton.com Austinw@Pittmandutton.com Defendants-Appellees FRED'S, INC., and FRED'S STORES OF TENNESSEE, INC., are represented by: Donald Keith Andress, Esq. Jade Eleanor Sipes, Esq. BAKER DONELSON BERMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 420 N 20th St. 1400 Wells Fargo Tower Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 250-8314 E-mail: kandress@bakerdonelson.com jsipes@bakerdonelson.com - and - Kristine Leporati Roberts, Esq. Mary Wu Tullis, Esq. BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 526-2000 E-mail: klroberts@bakerdonelson.com mtullis@bakerdonelson.com GENERAL MILLS: Weninger Files Suit Over Illegal Termination ----------------------------------------------------------- John Weninger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. General Mills Operations, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00321 (E.D. Wis., March 2, 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 Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. General Mills failed to include non-discretionary forms of compensation, such as bonuses in determining overtime compensation due to them during workweeks they worked more than forty hours, says the complaint. Defendant is a manufacturer and marketer of branded consumer foods where Weninger worked at its production facility located at 4625 South 6th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53221 as a Training Coordinator. Plaintiff underwent an arthroplasty on his left hand and wrist. Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment after the latter took a medical leave. [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 GENERAL MOTORS: "Gavaldon" Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled RONALD GAVALDON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. General Motors Company, General Motors Holdings LLC, and General Motors LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00211, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) on March 26, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-10958-MFL to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. General Motors Company, commonly abbreviated as GM, is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis C. Reich, Esq. REICH & BINSTOCK, LLP 4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (713) 622 7271 Facsimile: (713) 623 8724 - and - Richard M. Schechter, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD SCHECHTER, P.C. 1 Greenway Plaza, Suite 740 Houston, TX 77046-0102 Telephone: (713) 623 8919 Facsimile: (713) 622 1680 E-mail: richard@rs-law.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Hill" Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Andrew Hill, Steven Manning, and Nathan Dodge on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. General Motors Company, General Motors Holdings LLC, and General Motors LLC, the Defendants, Case No.1:18-cv-20914, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) on March 26, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-10955-MFL to the proceeding. General Motors Company, commonly abbreviated as GM, is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dennis C. Reich, Esq. REICH & BINSTOCK, LLP 4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (713) 622 7271 Facsimile: (713) 623 8724 - and - Richard M. Schechter, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD SCHECHTER, P.C. 1 Greenway Plaza, Suite 740 Houston, TX 77046-0102 Telephone: (713) 623 8919 Facsimile: (713) 622 1680 E-mail: richard@rs-law.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Taylor" Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled William Taylor and Hayes Ellis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. General Motors Company, General Motors Holdings LLC, and General Motors LLC, the Defendants, Case No.5:18-cv- 00215, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) on March 26, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-10961-MFL to the proceeding. General Motors Company, commonly abbreviated as GM, is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial services.[BN] GEO GROUP: Counterclaims, Affirmative Defenses in "Chen" Narrowed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHAO CHEN, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-5769-RJB (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert J. Bryan of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss or Strike Defendant's Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses. The case arises out of the allegation that the Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiff and a proposed class of immigration detainees commensurate with the Washington Minimum Wage Act. The Defendant's Answer alleges two counterclaims, both of which the Plaintiff seeks to strike under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) or dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Defendant's Answer raises 14 affirmative defenses, all but four of which the Plaintiff seeks to strike. Before the Court is the Chen's Motion to Dismiss or Strike Defendant's Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses. The Plaintiff seeks dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff also moves to strike under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The Plaintiff moves under Rule 12(f) to strike the following affirmative defenses: 8.1 (failure to state a claim), 8.2 (statute of limitations), 8.4 (laches), 8.5 (waiver), 8.8 (ripeness), 8.9 (justiciability), 8.10 (unclean hands), 8.11 (exhaustion of administrative remedies), 8.12 (impropriety of class certification), 8.13 (attorney's fees/costs). The Court has considered the Motion, Defendant The Geo Group, Inc.'s Response, the Plaintiff's Reply, the Defendant's Answer, and the remainder of the file. Judge Bryan granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss or Strike Defendant's Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses as follows: a. Counterclaims: (i) Unjust Enrichment - The motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim denied; and (ii) Counterclaims for declaratory and injunctive relief: The motion to strike is denied without prejudice, except relief requested under the FLSA, which is stricken. b. Affirmative Defenses: (i) the motion is granted as to Affirmative Defenses 8.1 (failure to state a claim), 8.4 (laches), 8.5 (waiver), 8.11 (exhaustion of administrative remedies), 8.12 (impropriety of class certification), 8.13 (attorney's fees/costs), which are stricken; (ii) the motion is denied without prejduice as to Affirmative Defenses 8.2 (statute of limitations), 8.8 (ripeness), 8.9 (justiciability), 8.10 (unclean hands); and the Judge made no finding as to Affirmative Defenses 8.3 (preemption), 8.6 (joinder of DHS/ICE), 8.7 (no legal right to work), and 8.14 (offset). Judge Bryan finds, among other things, that as a practical matter, the counterclaim of unjust enrichment overlaps substantially with Affirmative Defense 8.14 (offset). The counterclaim for Unjust Enrichment may be flawed, but the issue raised by the Plaintiff is whether Defendant has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Defendant has done so. He also finds that under the assumption that the Plaintiff is an employee, Washington law precludes the Plaintiff from waiving his right to the prevailing minimum wage. Alternatively, under the assumption that the Plaintiff was not an employee, the Plaintiff would not be entitled to lost wages under the Washington Minimum Wage Act, and waiver would be a nonissue. Under either scenario, the merits of waiver by the Plaintiff would not be reached. The affirmative defense of waiver is therefore an insufficient defense. He further finds that there is no showing as a matter of law that, under either state or federal law, the Plaintiff needed to exhaust administrative remedies precedent to bringing a Washington Minimum Wage Act claim. The defense is insufficient. Judge Bryan directed the Clerk to send uncertified copies of the Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/ETe0jG from Leagle.com. Chao Chen, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Berger -- berger@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Devin T. Theriot-Orr -- devin@sunbird.law.com -- SUNBIRD LAW PLLC, Jamal N. Whitehead -- whitehead@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Lindsay Halm -- halm@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER & R. Andrew Free -- andrew@immigrantcivilrights.com -- LAW OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE, pro hac vice. The GEO Group Inc, a Florida corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles A. Deacon -- charlie.deacon@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice, Joan K. Mell -- info@3brancheslaw.com -- III BRANCHES LAW PLLC & Mark Emery -- mark.emery@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice. The GEO Group Inc, a Florida corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by Charles A. Deacon, NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, Joan K. Mell, III BRANCHES LAW PLLC & Mark Emery, NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP. Chao Chen, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Adam J. Berger , SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Devin T. Theriot-Orr , SUNBIRD LAW PLLC, Jamal N. Whitehead , SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Lindsay Halm , SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER & R. Andrew Free , LAW OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE. HARBOR CARE: "Adolphe" Suit Brought Before New York Supreme Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Fridane Adolphe, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by Harbor Care, LLC, along with other entities affiliated or controlled by Harbor Care, LLC, Plaintiff v. Harbor Care, LLC and and/or any other related entities, Defendant, Case No. 506822/2018 was brought before the New York Supreme Court on April 5, 2018. Harbor Care LLC was founded in 1998. The company's line of business includes providing inpatient nursing and rehabilitative services to patients who require continuous health care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Virginia & Ambinder, LLP 40 Broad St. New York, NY 10004, USA Tel: +1 212-943-9080 The Defendant is represented by: HODGSON RUSS, LLP 140 PEARL STREET STE 100 BUFFALO, NY 14202 Tel: (716) 856-4000 HARCOURT GROUP: Denial of "Boice" Class Certification Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ERIC BOICE, et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. HARCOURT GROUP, LLC, et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. A146918 (Cal. App.), Judge Peter J. Siggins of the Court of Appeals of California for the First District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court's denial of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs Eric and Vinetta Boice and Yowie Stromberg sued the owners and managers of the Harcourt Hotel for unlawfully preventing them from acquiring rights accorded to long-term tenants by making them check out before they stayed at the hotel for 30 days. The Harcourt Hotel is a 92-unit residential hotel owned by Harcourt Group, LLC and managed by Sojourn Properties, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege the Hotel has a policy of requiring certain guests to move out before they stay 30 continuous days, most commonly on the 28th day, to prevent them from acquiring the status and rights of long-term tenants. They allege this practice violates a statutory proscription against requiring an occupant of a residential hotel to move or to check out and reregister, before the expiration of 30 days occupancy if a purpose is to have that occupant maintain transient occupancy status; and a parallel municipal provision that prohibits landlords from evicting occupants before 32 continuous days of tenancy in order to avoid application of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. The Plaintiffs asserted their allegations were supported by guest registration cards with the notation "must c/o," meaning "must check out," associated with 170 occupants who stayed at the hotel for less than 30 continuous days, 110 of whom left after exactly 28 days, and by the Hotel's admission that it allowed such individuals to reregister at the hotel after a short time. They argued that while the Defendants may deny that the purpose was to have the occupant maintain transient occupancy status, there is a rebuttable presumption that this was in fact their purpose because Defendants allowed the occupants to reregister after that occupant was required to leave. Also, where the vast majority of Proposed Class members were all forced to check out after exactly 28 days, Defendants cannot deny its purpose was to prevent those occupants from accruing tenants' rights. The Plaintiffs' moving papers in support of class certification defined the proposed class as all occupants of the Harcourt Hotel who were required to move out or check out and reregister before 30 consecutive days of occupancy since Dec. 1, 2008. They estimated a class size of at least 200 based on the 170 occupants for whom they had identified registration cards with the "must c/o" notation, out of the approximately 3,000 such cards dating from 2010 provided in discovery. The complaint sought actual damages that resulted from moving as well as statutory damages under the Civil Code and the Rent Ordinance, but at the class certification hearing the Plaintiffs abandoned the actual damages claim for all class members except the named Plaintiffs. In opposition to the class certification, the Defendants explained that occupants generally stay at the Hotel anywhere from one week to several years. The Hotel normally rents rooms on a weekly basis. If guests wish to stay more than four weeks and become long-term tenants under the Rent Ordinance the Hotel requires them to submit a rental application so it can assess their credit, employment status and history of past evictions. The Hotel considers these factors in deciding whether to accept short-term occupants as long-term tenants; a previous eviction or unemployment are usual reasons for an applicant's rejection. At the time of the litigation, 75 of the Hotel's 86 rooms had been occupied by the same tenant for several months and 60 had been occupied by the same tenant for over a year. The court denied the motion for class certification. It ruled that individual issues predominate as to the actual damages for each potential class member and the reasons why each potential class member vacated either one day after moving in or twenty eight days later. An individual action would be better than a class action given these proof issues and an individual has incentive to bring his/her own claim given the ability to recover statutory and actual damages. The court further found that two of the named Plaintiffs were not proper class representatives and that the class was overbroad because it dated back to Dec. 1, 2008, past the three-year statute of limitations. The Plaintiffs filed their timely appeal. In sum, Judge Siggins finds that the record demonstrated that the potential class members would be required to individually prove liability, i.e., that the Hotel forced each of them to move within less than 30 days to prevent them from becoming long-term tenants. Each member, unless the Court approved the counsel's last-ditch bid to abandon their individual claims for actual damages, would also have to prove their damages. Accordingly, the community of interest requirement was not satisfied. As the trail court properly denied the motion for class certification on that basis, the Judge says he needs not address its additional findings that the class was overbroad and two named Plaintiffs were not proper class representatives. The Judge affirmed the order denying class certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/rSSgtj from Leagle.com. HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Vega Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- ALEJANDRO VEGA, on his own behalf and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Georgia Domestic Profit Corporation; WORLDMANUFACTURE LLC, a Georgia Domestic Limited Liability Company; TOM HOLDA L.L.C., a Georgia Domestic Limited Liability Company; CATALYST NUTRACEUTICALS, LLC, a Georgia Domestic Limited Liability Company; MANUFACTURELLC, a Georgia Domestic Limited Liability Company; and TOM HOLDA, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01258-SCJ (N.D. Ga., March 26, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee for Defendants, and was paid his regular rate for all hours worked, including hours worked in excess of 40 hours each week. Throughout their employment, Defendant deprived Plaintiff and all similarly situated hourly employees of proper overtime compensation for his hours worked in excess of 40 hours each week Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals was founded in 1994 and is a Georgia corporation based just north of Atlanta, in the city of Norcross. The company manufactures and sells high-quality herbal products sold by the large, major retailers across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 3273013 E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com HOUSTON WASTE: "Uribe" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------- Javier Uribe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Houston Waste Solutions, LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00726 (S.D. Tex., March 7, 2018), seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Javier Uribe was employed by HWS as a waste disposal driver from approximately March 2016 until October 2017. Defendant Houston Waste Solutions provides roll-off containers in multiple capacities, as well as compactors and balers for virtually any waste, refuse, and recycling requirements for the Greater Houston area. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. George Schimmel, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Tel: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com geordie@a2xlaw.com HSB LLC: Faces "Logan" Suit in D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HSB LLC. The case is styled as Deborah Logan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HSB LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10658-LTS (D. Mass., April 5, 2018). Henry S. Branscome, LLC provides services for utilities, site work or environmental projects. It is a Class A General Contractor with VDOT, SWAM, Newport News Waterworks, Erosion and Sediment Control, Land Disturber and Class 3 Stream Restoration certifications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group PLLC 30 E39th Street, 2nd Flr. New York, NY 10016-2555 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com IDE PONTIAC: Auto Salesmen Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Heather Stanwix and Jon Pensgen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. Ide Pontiac, Inc., Ide Auto, Inc. and Ide Volkswagen, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv- 06182 (W.D. N.Y., March 2, 2018), seeks an award of unpaid hourly wages, statutory damages for failure to provide notices required by New York Labor Law, liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, expert fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief. Defendants are in the business of selling automobiles, servicing and repairing automobiles, and selling automotive parts and accessories. Plaintiffs worked as automotive parts salespersons who claim to have worked in excess of forty hours every workweek without overtime. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Mullin, Esq. FERR & MULLIN, P.C. 7635 Main St. Fishers P.O. Box 440 Fishers, NY 14453 Tel: (585) 869-0210 Fax: (585) 869-0223 IL MULINO USA: Olsen Claims Website Not Blind-Friendly ------------------------------------------------------ Thomas J. Olsen, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Il Mulino USA, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-01931, (S.D. N.Y., March 3, 2018), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans With Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Il Mulino owns and operates Italian restaurants throughout the United States, including locations at 86 W. Third Street, New York, New York and 37 E. 60th Street, New York New York. The complaint says Il Mulino's website offers features to the public that should allow all consumers to access the facilities and services that it offers about its restaurants. Olsen is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website, www.ilmulino.com cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com JARROW FORMULAS: "Salganik" Suit Alleges Fraud ---------------------------------------------- Alexander Salganik, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc., Case No. 2018-CH-03050 (Ill. Cir., March 7, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Illinois Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Jarrow expressly states on the product's packaging the the amount of probiotics is "minimum 3.4 billion viable cells at the time of consumption" per 1 capsule. In reality, the product, when tested within a month from the purchase contained 0.23 bin colony forming units of probiotics per capsule/serving -- this is more than fourteen times less than Jarrow promises and warranties to consumers on the packaging of its product, notes the complaint. Plaintiff Alexander Salganik is a resident of Illinois and purchased Jarro-Dolphilus. Defendant Jarrow distributes and, on information and belief, manufactures its "Jarro-Dophilus+Fos" product in Illinois and specifically in Cook County. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yevgeniy "Eugene" I. Turin, Sr., Esq. 102 N. Milwaukee, S 312 Deerfield, IL 60015 Tel: (847) 656-3323 E-mail: attomey@eugeneturinlaw.com JOHN DOES: Barry Sues over Settlement Price of VIX Derivatives -------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN BARRY, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOES, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02615 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused from Defendants' scheme to manipulate the final settlement price of futures and options contracts linked to the Chicago Board Options Exchange ("CBOE") Volatility Index, products traded on the CBOE, and the CBOE Futures Exchange, an affiliate of the CBOE, in violation to the Sherman Act, the Commodity Exchange Act, and Commodity Futures Trading Commission. VIX purports to measure expected 30-day market volatility based on the real-time pricing of S&P 500 ("SPX") Index option contracts listed for trading on the CBOE. VIX is calculated by using the pricing for SPX Options with Friday expiration dates that are more than 23 days, but less than 37 days, from the current date. The resulting VIX price is published every 15 seconds during regular trading hours (8:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Central time) and extended trading hours (2:00 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. Central time) for SPX Options on the CBOE. Investors cannot invest directly in the VIX because it is an index based on an everchanging group of SPX Options. However, CBOE Global Markets, Inc. has designed several derivative instruments related to VIX, including VIX-linked futures, traded on the CFE, and VIX-linked options, traded on the CBOE. During the timeframe of this Complaint, trading activity in VIX Futures and VIX Options increased exponentially. Specifically, the average daily contract volume for VIX Futures rose from 1,731 contracts in 2006 to 300,568 contracts in 2017 (through August 24, 2017), a 17,263% increase, and the average daily contract volume of VIX Options rose from 23,491 in 2006 to 687,181 in 2017 (through July 2017), a 23,491% increase. In addition to the VIX Futures and VIX Options, financial institutions, including Credit Suisse AG, Barclays Bank, and ProShares, have issued various exchange-traded funds and exchange-traded notes linked to the pricing of VIX Futures. Billions of dollars in these VIX-Linked ETFs and ETNs are traded daily, providing investors with easier access to financial instruments related to expected market volatility and allowing investors to bet that the prices of VIX Futures will either increase or decrease. There are presently at least 18 active VIX ETFs and ETNs (and at least an additional 19 that have closed), which have a combined current market cap of about $3.4 billion. The settlement values of these VIX Futures, VIX Options, VIX- Linked ETFs and ETNs are not calculated directly from VIX, but rather are determined once a month by an auction during which traders submit offers and bids for SPX put and call options. The auction matches those bids and offers to determine clearing prices and then those clearing prices are used to calculate the final settlement price. The final settlement price value is calculated using a modified VIX calculation that only takes into consideration out-of-the money SPX Options, unlike the ordinary VIX calculation which includes both OTM and in-the-money SPX Options. During the period January 1, 2009 to the present, the Defendants conspired to make artificial the monthly final settlement price of expiring VIX contracts by placing manipulative SPX Options orders. It is implausible that one Defendant was capable of manipulating the prices of VIX Derivatives unilaterally as ordinary market forces would counteract its efforts. As a result of Defendants' scheme to manipulate prices of the VIX Derivatives, Defendants caused, and continue to cause, injury to investors who transacted in VIX Derivatives at artificial prices during the Class Period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hollis Salzman, Esq. Kellie Lerner, Esq. Nahid A. Shaikh, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 980 7400 Facsimile: (212) 980 7499 E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com NShaikh@RobinsKaplan.com - and - Laurence Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (866) 767 3653 Facsimile: (212) 202 3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Order re Notice of Pendency Amendment Entered ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re JUNO THERAPEUTICS, INC., Case No. C16-1069 RSM (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, has entered an order regarding the amendment to the Notice of Pendency of Class Action. On Dec. 21, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for an Order establishing a program and schedule for notice to the class of pending class action. The Notice of Pendency of Class Action required any class member seeking exclusion to timely mail a request for exclusion no later than March 19, 2018. On Dec. 22, 2017, the Court entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for an Order establishing a program and schedule for notice to the class of pending class action, and approved the Notice of Pendency of Class Action and the Summary Notice. The parties have been working with the claims administrator to identify a complete list of shareholders identified on the books and records of the Company. The average time required to allow a shareholder to request exclusion is typically between 45 and 60 days from the date the notice is mailed. Some shareholders may not have sufficient time to request exclusion from the deadline given that the current deadline is on March 19, 2018. Therefore, the parties stipulates and agreed, and Judge Martinez approved that (i) the Plaintiffs will initiate mailing of the notice of pendency of class action within 10 business days of the Court's Order approving the stipulation; (ii) the Plaintiffs will modify the exclusion deadline in the notice of pendency of class action, and the new exclusion deadline will be within 60 days of the Notice Date; and (iii) the parties request that the Court enter the order proposed. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/buKjyj from Leagle.com. Man Nguyen, Movant, represented by Clifford A. Cantor. Gilbert Hoang Nguyen, Movant, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANATZ LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP, pro hac vice, Leigh Handelman Smollar -- lsmollar@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP, pro hac vice, Omar Jafri -- ojafri@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP, pro hac vice & Clifford A. Cantor. Goce Veljanoski, Plaintiff, represented by Janissa Ann Strabuk -- jstrabuk@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Jeffrey C. Block -- jeff@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, pro hac vice, Joel Fleming -- joel@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, pro hac vice & Kim D. Stephens -- kstephens@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS. Liberata Paradisco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Duncan Calvert Turner -- duncanturner@badgleymullins.com -- BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC. Gilbert Hoang Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick V. Dahlstrom -pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP, pro hac vice & Clifford A. Cantor, 627 208th Ave. SE. Sammamish, WA 98074-7033 Susan Tan, Plaintiff, Pro se. Juno Therapeutics Inc & Hans E Bishop, individually and on behalf of the marital community, Defendants, represented by Daniel Slifkin -- dslifkin@cravath.com -- CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro hac vice, Drew Liming -- dliming@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, pro hac vice, Ignacio E. Salceda -- Isalcedo@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, pro hac vice, Joni Ostler -- jostler@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, pro hac vice, Karin A. DeMasi -- kdemasi@cravath.com -- CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro hac vice, Lauren M. Rosenberg -- lrosenberg@cravath.com -- CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro hac vice, Morgan J. Cohen, CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro hac vice, Nina F. Locker -- NLocker@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, pro hac vice & Gregory Lewis Watts -- Gwatts@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI. Steven D. Harr & Mark J. Gilbert, Defendants, represented by Daniel Slifkin, CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro hac vice, Karin A. DeMasi, CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro hac vice, Lauren M. Rosenberg, CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro hac vice, Morgan J. Cohen, CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro hac vice & Joni Ostler, WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI. LAS VEGAS, NV: Moore May Proceed in Forma Pauperis -------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL T. MOORE, Plaintiff, v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02022-RFB-NJK (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted the Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915, Moore is proceeding in the action pro se and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. He also submitted a complaint, and a motion to amend his complaint. Finally, the Plaintiff has submitted a motion for jury demand. The Plaintiff attempts to file his complaint as a class action, with him representing the class pro se. The Plaintiff cannot, however, proceed with a class action as a pro se litigant. Magistrate Judge Koppe understands the basic gist of the Plaintiff's grievance appears to be related to public performers and their treatment. At the same time, however, the Plaintiff's 16-page complaint is not "short and plain," and fails to set forth any claim or how the allegations in the complaint support any claim against any Defendant. Quite simply, she says the complaint fails to identify how the factual allegations made state a claim for any particular cause of action, and therefore fails to satisfy Rule 8. Further, the Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 and the Court's Local Rules requiring that an amended complaint be complete in itself. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge granted the bequests by the Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. The Plaintiff will not be required to pay the filing fee of $400. She permitted the Plaintiff to maintain the action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor. The Order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis will not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government expense. Magistrate Judge Koppe dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend, and denied as moot the motion to amend the complaint and the motion for jury demand. The Plaintiff will have until March 29, 2018, to file an Amended Complaint, if the noted deficiencies can be corrected. The Plaintiff may demand a jury in his amended complaint, if he so chooses. If the Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original Complaint) in order to make the Amended Complaint complete. This is because, as a general rule, an Amended Complaint supersedes the original Complaint. Therefore, in an Amended Complaint, as in an original Complaint, each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Failure to comply with this order will result in the recommended dismissal of the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/ga9sWU from Leagle.com. Michael T. Moore, Plaintiff, pro se. LEE CONSTRUCTION: "Tyler" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ TERRI TYLER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LEE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE COMPANY d/b/a LMC CORPORATION AND JERRY R. LEE, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00273 (E.D. Tex., March 23, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation and all other available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Defendants were formerly the employers, co-employers and/or joint employers of Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was hired by LMC as an independent contractor, despite the fact that she worked full time for LMC, and virtually every aspect of her job was controlled by Defendants. The Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and their other co-workers as independent contractors to avoid paying employment taxes, workers' compensation insurance, benefits and overtime. The Plaintiff worked a significant amount of overtime each week but was not paid for it. Plaintiff and other workers for Defendants were paid on an hourly basis, and were paid the same hourly rate for each hour worked, and thus never received overtime pay. For at least three years prior to the filing of this Complaint, the Defendants willfully committed widespread violations of the FLSA by failing to pay these employees for overtime hours worked in excess of forty hours per week at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. Lee Construction provides construction and maintenance services, such as new construction, maintenance, masonry, remodeling, excavation, concrete work, and underground utilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 1020 Macon St., Suite 15 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 908 9861 Facsimile: (817) 394 2412 E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com LEE LAW: Shanahan Balks at Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY J. SHANAHAN, JR., MOLLI M. LARSEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LEE LAW OFFICES, DENNIS P. LEE, and JIMMY NEWTON, the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00129 (D. Neb., March 23, 2018), seeks declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, actual and statutory damages against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiffs' claims arise from Defendants' routine practices of sending initial collection letters: (1) demanding payment "within 30 days of the date of this letter" and/or (2) "In the event that suit is filed: In order to prevent the county sheriff from serving you with a summons at your residence or place of business, you may opt to complete the enclosed Voluntary Appearance." Defendants' actions violate 15 U.S.C. section 1692e, section 1692e(2)(A), section 1692e(3), Sec. 1692e(10), and section 1692g(a).[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class: William L. Reinbrecht, Esq. Pamela A. Car, Esq. CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO 2120 South 72nd St., Suite 1125 Omaha, NE 68124 Telephone: (402) 391 8484 Facsimile: (402) 391 1103 E-mail: billr205@gmail.com - and - O. Randolph Bragg, Esq. HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES 25 East Washington Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372 8822 Facsimile: (312) 372 1673 E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com LESSORS INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Harvey Says ---------------------------------------------------- DARRELL HARVEY, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LESSORS, INC., a Minnesota corporation; LESSORS TRANSPORTATION, INC., a Minnesota corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC699625 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 26, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, jointly and severally have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in their failure to provide all meal and rest breaks in compliance with California law, failure to pay all minimum wages owed for all hours worked, failure to reimburse for all work-related expenses, failure to pay wages without deduction, and failure to provide proper itemized wage statements in violation of the California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter M. Hart, Esq. Peter Choi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART 12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 725 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207 2277 Facsimile: (509) 561 6441 E-mail: Hartpeter@msn.com pchoi.lopH@gmail.com MADISON COS: Ct. Moots Pipeline Productions' Protective Order Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PIPELINE PRODUCTIONS, INC., BACKWOOD ENTERPRISES, LLC, OK PRODUCTIONS, INC., and BRETTMOSIMAN, Plaintiffs, v. THE MADISON COMPANIES, LLC, and HORSEPOWER ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 15-4890-KHV (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge K. Gary Sebelius of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas deemed moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order. The case arises from a failed music concert in Arkansas. The Plaintiffs filed the action on May 21, 2015, alleging that the Defendants agreed to purchase 51% of their "Thunder on the Mountain" music festival in exchange for $750,000, advancing $500,000 of operating capital for the festival, and paying certain operating expenses related to the festival. They further allege that the concert had to be cancelled when defendants reneged on the agreement. The Plaintiffs have asserted claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and tortious interference. They seek damages resulting from the Defendants' breach, including money owed to ticketholders. In 2016, a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against three of the Plaintiffs in the case -- Pipeline Productions, Inc.; Backwood Enterprises, Inc.; and Brett Mosiman -- and the Defendants The Madison Companies, LLC; and Horsepower Entertainment, LLC. In this case, the ticketholders from the Thunder on the Mountain music festival alleged that the Defendants breached contracts and were unjustly enriched. Default judgment was entered against Pipeline, Backwood and Mosiman. Madison and Horsepower issued subpoenas duces tecum to Pipeline's former attorney, Matt Gough; Pipeline's accountant, Colleen Hodge; Central Bank of Midwest; and Intrust Bank. In the instant motion, the Plaintiffs seek a protective order to stop Madison and Horsepower from serving the subpoenas in the Arkansas action. They contend that the Court should not allow Madison and Horsepower to obtain discovery for the case through the service of subpoenas in the Arkansas action that are irrelevant, abusive and overbroad, particularly since the Plaintiffs cannot defend themselves in that case. On Feb. 26, 2018, in the Arkansas action, the plaintiffs and Defendants Madison and Horsepower filed an agreed order of dismissal. The joint stipulation dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against Madison and Horsepower with prejudice. Due to the dismissal of Madison and Horsepower in the Arkansas action, Magistrate Judge Sebelius finds the instant motion moot. Accordingly, he deemed moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/a5ekVt from Leagle.com. Pipeline Productions, Inc., Backwood Enterprises, LLC, OK Productions, Inc. & Brett Mosiman, Plaintiffs, represented by Jack D. McInnes, V -- jack@mcinnes-law.com -- McInnes Law LLC. The Madison Companies, LLC & Horsepower Entertainment, LLC, Defendants, represented by Benjamin D. Scheibe -- bscheibe@bgrfirm.com --Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Richard B. Benenson -- rbenenson@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, pro hac vice, Russell F. Wolpert -- rwolpert@bgrfirm.com -- Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Timothy A. Shultz -- tshultz@gseplaw.com -- Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds & Palmer, LLP & Whitney L. Casement -- wcasement@gseplaw.com -- Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds & Palmer, LLP. Bryan Gordon, Defendant, represented by Benjamin D. Scheibe, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Eric M. George, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa M. Brown, Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds & Palmer, LLP & Russell F. Wolpert, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice. The Madison Companies, LLC & Horsepower Entertainment, LLC, Third Party Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin D. Scheibe, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher M. Kolkey, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Eric M. George, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Richard B. Benenson, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, pro hac vice, Russell F. Wolpert, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Timothy A. Shultz, Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds & Palmer, LLP & Whitney L. Casement, Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds & Palmer, LLP. The Madison Companies, LLC & Horsepower Entertainment, LLC, Counter Claimants, represented by Benjamin D. Scheibe, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher M. Kolkey, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Eric M. George, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Richard B. Benenson, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, pro hac vice, Russell F. Wolpert, Browne George Ross LLP, pro hac vice, Timothy A. Shultz, Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds & Palmer, LLP & Whitney L. Casement, Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds & Palmer, LLP. Backwood Enterprises, LLC, Pipeline Productions, Inc., Brett Mosiman & OK Productions, Inc., Counter Defendants, represented by Jack D. McInnes, V, McInnes Law LLC. MAPCO EXPRESS: "Short" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Damages ------------------------------------------------- Jeanne Short, Plaintiff, v. Mapco Express, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00253, (M.D. Tenn., March 2, 2018), is a collective action brought on behalf of all persons who worked overtime without proper compensation and seeks liquidated damages, interest and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and redress for failure to recognize disability leaves under the Tennessee Disability Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Short was employed by Mapco as a store manager. Plaintiff performed work in excess of forty hours per week on a regular and repeated basis without compensation. She also claims to have been terminated due to her medical condition. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Nina H. Parsley, Esq. MICHAEL D. PONCE & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1000 Jackson Road, Suite 225 Goodlettsville, TN 37072 Telephone: (615) 851-1776 Email: nina@poncelaw.com MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Payne Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- RITA PAYNE, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00015175-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., March 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, Marriott has conducted business by operating vacation ownership resorts and selling vacation ownership interests (i.e. timeshares) and related services in San Diego County and elsewhere within California. The Plaintiff was employed full time by Defendant as a Sales Executive from August 2017 to February 8 2018. The Plaintiff and each member of the Class work(ed) in non-exempt, non-managerial positions, such as Sales Executive positions, however titled, and similar and incidental positions in California. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant currently employs -- and during the relevant period has employed -- hundreds of employees in the State of California in non-exempt positions, such as Sales Executives and/or other similar positions. The Plaintiff and other members of the Class are nonexempt employees within the meaning of the California Labor Code, and the implementing rules and regulations of the IWC California Wage Orders. During the relevant period. Plaintiff and members of the Class were required to work in excess of five hours per day without being provided a 30-minute uninterrupted meal period and in excess of ten hours per day without being provided a second 30-minute uninterrupted meal period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387 7200 Facsimile: (949) 387 6676 - and - Make L. L. Famaes, Esq. Christina M. Lucio, Esq. Mitchell J. Murray, Esq. FARNAES & LUCIO, APC 2235 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 210 Encinitas, CA 92024 i Telephone: (760) 942 9431 Facsimile: (760) 452 4421 MDL 2179: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Deep Horizon Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case, In Re: Deepwater Horizon. The appeal emerges from the Deepwater Horizon multi-district litigation ("MDL 2179"). The Appellants are cooperatives of fishermen and their members, residing in or doing business in numerous Mexican States. They assert that the district court abused its discretion by forcing them to comply with a pretrial order -- PTO 60, a case management order. PTO 60 barred certain remaining Plaintiffs from continuing to bring multi-plaintiff complaints, including class actions. Despite the dictate of PTO 60, the Appellants proceeded to file four putative class actions -- involving nearly 24,000 class members -- seeking damages. The district court rejected these attempts and ordered the Appellants to file single-plaintiff complaints. When the Appellants failed to comply -- even after being given numerous opportunities to do so -- the district court dismissed their claims with prejudice. The Appellants then moved for a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal. They argued that PTO 60 violated the Supreme Court's decision in Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co. There, the Court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 entitles a plaintiff whose suit meets the specified criteria of Rule 23 to pursue his claim as a class action. According to the Appellants, Shady Grove gave them the absolute right to file the class claims. The Appellees argued that Shady Grove is inapposite; it dealt with a New York state law that modified Rule 23's application, and the holding did not suggest that a plaintiff's right to pursue certification of a class action consistent with Rule 23 somehow shields it from dismissal of its claims on other grounds, such as failure to comply with pretrial orders. The district court agreed with the Appellees and denied the motion "for essentially the reasons provided by BP." The Appellate Court reviews the district court's decision for abuse of discretion. It concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion and, therefore, affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Appellate Court finds the Appellant's reliance on Shady Grove is misplaced because that case involved a diversity class-action suit filed in federal court that the district court dismissed because of a New York statute that substantively limited the availability of the class-action device in those circumstances. Shady Grove did not, as the Appellees argue, involve the exercise of a judge's case-management discretion. Here, PTO 60 is a case-management order that the district court issued years into a highly complex MDL. PTO 60 does not impose a substantive limit on the ability of a plaintiff to pursue a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Instead, PTO 60 is a procedural case management order that dictates the continued availability of the class device in a complex MDL. The Appellate Court does not read Shady Grove to be so broad as to restrict a district court's ability to manage its docket by restricting the continued availability of a multi-plaintiff device, years into a complex MDL. Notably, the Appellants fail to identify a case in which a court has read Shady Grove in that fashion. Therefore, it concludes that the district court acted within its discretion to dismiss the Appellants' claims, and it affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appeals case is EDUARDO PINEIRO PEREZ, Individually, doing business as La Sociedad Cooperativa de Produccion Pesquera La Rivera De Tampico de Alto S. C. de R.L, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BP, P.L.C.; BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA, INCORPORATED; BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; TRANSOCEAN, LIMITED; TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INCORPORATED; TRANSOCEAN HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED; TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING, INCORPORATED; HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INCORPORATED; SPERRY DRILLING SERVICES; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees. CLAUDIO GONZALEZ DEL ANGEL, Individually, doing business as Permisionario Claudio Gonzalez Del Angel, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BP, P.L.C.; BP AMERICA, INCORPORATED; BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; TRANSOCEAN, LIMITED; TRANSOCEAN HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED; TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INCORPORATED; TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING, INCORPORATED; HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INCORPORATED; SPERRY DRILLING SERVICES, Defendants-Appellees. FELIPE BARRIOS ANZURES, Individually, doing business as Compro Venta de Felipe Barrios, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BP, P.L.C.; BP AMERICA, INCORPORATED; BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; TRANSOCEAN, LIMITED; TRANSOCEAN HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED; TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INCORPORATED; TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING, INCORPORATED; HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INCORPORATED; SPERRY DRILLING SERVICES, Defendants- Appellees. ARTEMIO ARAN BLANCO, doing business as Grupo Pescadores Libres Artemio Aran, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BP, P.L.C.; BP AMERICA, INCORPORATED; BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; TRANSOCEAN, LIMITED; TRANSOCEAN HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED; TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INCORPORATED; TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING, INCORPORATED; HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INCORPORATED; SPERRY DRILLING SERVICES, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-30475 (5th Cir.). A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/RLeuG9 from Leagle.com. Don Keller Haycraft -- dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Robert Alan York -- ayork@reedsmith.com -- Kerry J. Miller -- kjmiller@bakerdonelson.com -- Richard Cartier Godfrey -- richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- Devin Chase Reid -- dcreid@liskow.com -- Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Sr. -- jeffrey.clark@kirkland.com -- Kristopher Scott Ritter -- kristopher.ritter@kirkland.com -- Aaron Lloyd Nielson -- aaron.nielson@kirkland.com -- Martin R. Martos, II -- martin.martos@kirkland.com -- William H. Burgess -- william.burgess@kirkland.com -- Matthew Regan -- matthew.regan@kirkland.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Mitchell A. Toups -- matoups@wgttlaw.com -- and Vincent Lee Marable, III -- info@paulwebbpc.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. MDL 2613: Court Junks "Dorsey" Suit Over Excessive Overdraft Fee ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Greenville Division, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, IN RE: TD BANK, N.A. DEBIT CARD OVERDRAFT FEE LITIGATION. MDL No. 2613. This order relates only to: Dorsey v. TD Bank, N.A. D.N.J. Case No. 1:17-cv- 00074 D.S.C. Case No. 6:17-cv-01432, Civil Action No. 6:15-MN- 2613-BHH (D. S.C.). In the litigation, a collective group of the Plaintiffs challenge the manner in which the Defendant assessed overdraft fees, posted debit transactions, and assessed "sustained" overdraft fees. Eight putative class actions were filed against TD in various federal district courts. On April 2, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized these actions and assigned them to the Court. On April 15, 2015, the MDL Panel transferred an additional putative class action, Robinson v. TD Bank, N.A., S.D. Fla. C.A. No. 15- cv-60469 ("Robinson I"), to this Court for inclusion in this litigation, MDL 2613. The MDL Panel also conditionally transferred a second additional suit, Robinson v. TD Bank, N.A., S.D. Fla. C.A. No. 15-cv-60476 ("Robinson II"), which transfer Plaintiff Robinson opposed at that time. The sole theory in Robinson II involved a usury claim under the National Bank Act ("NBA"). On Aug. 7, 2015, the MDL Panel resolved Plaintiff Robinson's motion to vacate the Panel's conditional transfer of Robinson II, and transferred the case to the Court for inclusion within MDL 2613. The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("CAC") was filed on June 19, 2015. Though it was filed prior to final transfer of Robinson II into the litigation, the CAC asserted the same usury claim under the NBA that Robinson II asserted, on behalf of the same putative nationwide class of TD Bank customers. TD Bank filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' CAC for failure to state a claim on Aug. 3, 2015. After subsequent briefing and a hearing, the Court issued an Order on Dec. 10, 2015, granting the Motion to Dismiss in part. Inter alia, the Court found that TD Bank's sustained overdraft fee is not "interest" within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. Section 85 and 12 C.F.R. Section 7.4001. As a result, it held that Count VIII of the CAC failed to state a plausible claim for relief from violation of the NBA's prohibition on the taking of usurious interest, and dismissed Count VIII with prejudice. On Jan. 22, 2016, Plaintiff Robinson filed a Motion to Certify Order in Multiple Claims Case. Alternatively, Plaintiff Robinson sought permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), averring that immediate appellate review was necessary to resolve controlling issues of law, and resolution of those issues would significantly advance the resolution of the case as a whole. The Court denied Plaintiff Robinson's Motion to Certify on July 18, 2016. Plaintiff Robinson filed a Motion for Relief from Order of Dismissal ("Motion to Reconsider") on Jan. 18, 2017, citing Farrell v. Bank of Am., N.A., as new authority for her theory that TD's sustained overdraft fees constitute usurious interest under the NBA. The Court denied Plaintiff Robinson's Motion to Reconsider on Jan. 20, 2017, finding the Farrell decision unpersuasive to disturb the Court's prior conclusions regarding the nature of the sustained overdraft fees in question. On May 31, 2017, the MDL Panel transferred Dorsey v. TD Bank, N.A., D.N.J. C.A. No. 1:17-cv-00074, into MDL 2613. The sole count in the Dorsey Complaint asserts a usury claim materially identical to the usury claim included as Count VIII of the CAC, and previously dismissed by the Court. The substance of the usury claim alleges: (1) that TD assesses a $20 sustained overdraft fee if an account is overdrawn and is not brought back into a positive balance within ten business days, and (2) that this fee is an interest charge on an extension of credit, which interest rate exceeds the usury limit under 12 U.S.C. Sections 85-86. The Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss on July 11, 2017. Dorsey responded on Aug. 10, 2017, and the Bank replied on Aug. 22, 2017. Additionally, the Bank filed a notice of supplemental authority on Nov. 27, 2017, to which Dorsey replied on Nov. 30, 2017. In summary, Judge Hendricks finds that Plaintiff Dorsey's reworked arguments are no more persuasive than Plaintiff Robinson's previous attempts to cram a square peg into the proverbial round hole. He finds that the Plaintiff's argument that the law of the case doctrine only applies in the instance of an appellate ruling binding a trial court on the same issue in the same case is unavailing. It ignores the obvious import of the Court reaching consistent results on identical issues in multidistrict litigation, and asks the Court to turn a blind eye to one of the fundamental purposes of a consolidated proceeding. He says application of the doctrine by a trial court to its own interlocutory rulings is discretionary, and the Court exercises its discretion to reach the only rational conclusion here. Accordingly, the Dorsey Complaint is subject to dismissal by application of the law of the case. The Judge agrees with the majority of federal courts that have considered these issues and finds that the sustained overdraft fee is not interest within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. Section 85 and 12 C.F.R. Section 7.4001. As such, the Dorsey Complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief. But assuming arguendo that additional services are necessary to justify the fee as a non-interest charge, the Judge says he needs not become too imaginative to identify services rendered by the Bank for which the sustained fee, but not initial overdraft fees, provides compensation. For these reasons, Judge Hendricks concludes that the Dorsey Complaint fails to state a claim, and is therefore dismissed. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/SC7EXm from Leagle.com. SHAINA DORSEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff M. Ostrow -- ostrow@kolawyers.com -- Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, STEPHEN PATRICK DENITTIS -- sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC, Jonathan M. Streisfeld -- streisfeld@kolawyers.com -- Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert & Robert C. Gilbert -- gilbert@kolawyers.com -- Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert. TD Bank NA, Defendant, represented by SUSAN M. LEMING -- sleming@brownconnery.com -- BROWN & CONNERY, LLP, Thomas William McGee, III -- billy.mcgee@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough & Joshua D. Dunlap -- jdunlap@pierceatwood.com -- Pierce Atwood LLP. MDL 2741: "Brickey" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Gregory Brickey and Nina Brickey, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00333, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March 23, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18- cv-01809-VC to the proceeding. The Brickey case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741- VC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: "Conley" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled James T. Conley and Margaret Conley, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00322, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March 23, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. #: 3:18-cv-01804-VC to the proceeding. The Conley case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741- VC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: "Holstrom" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Beverly Holstrom and Charles Holstrom, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00336, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March 23, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01810-VC to the proceeding. The Holstrom case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741- VC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: "Hymas" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Ricky Hymas and Carol Hymas, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv- 00330, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March 23, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18- cv-01807-VC to the proceeding. The Hymas case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non- Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741- VC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: "Pertuit" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Cliffton Pertuit and Doreen Pertuit, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00332, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March 23, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01808-VC to the proceeding. The Pertuit case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741- VC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: "Rasey" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Matthew T. Rasey, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00320, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March 23, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01803-VC to the proceeding. The Rasey case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non- Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741- VC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: "Schmidt" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Amy Schmidt and Allen L. Schmidt, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18- cv-00324, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March 23, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18- cv-01806-VC to the proceeding. The Schmidt case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741- VC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: "Upshaw" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Marilyn Upshaw and James Upshaw, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18- cv-00323, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March 23, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18- cv-01805-VC to the proceeding. The Upshaw case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741- VC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2804: Suit by Georgia Cities Consolidated --------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled City of Rome, a municipal corporation; Floyd County, Georgia; Chattooga County, Georgia; Whitfield County, Georgia; and City of Cartersville, a municipal corporation, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma, Inc.; The Purdue Frederick Company Inc.; TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.; Cephalon Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Ortho-Mcneil- Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., now known as Janssen; Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; DEPOMED, INC.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergan PLC, formerly known as: Actavis plc; Actavis Inc., formerly known as: Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc.; Actavis LLC Avis Pharma, Inc., formerly known as: Watson Pharma, Inc.; Mallinckrodt PLC; Mallinckrodt LLC; AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; and McKesson, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00052, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on March 23, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-op-45282- DAP to the proceeding. The City of Rome case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 5, 2017. These cases concern the alleged improper marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various prescription opiate medications into cities, states and towns across the country. Responding plaintiffs' positions on centralization vary considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or potential tag-along actions support centralization. Plaintiffs in 15 actions or potential tag-along actions oppose centralization altogether or oppose transfer of their action. In addition to opposing transfer, the State of West Virginia suggests that transferring its case be delayed until the Southern District of West Virginia court decides its motion to remand to state court. Third party payor plaintiffs in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania potential tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers Health and Welfare Fund) oppose centralization of third partypayor actions. Western District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case. The Northern District of Illinois tag- along plaintiff City of Chicago asks the Panel to defer transfer of its action until document discovery is completed. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Sarah S. Vance, United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:17-md-02804-DAP.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jesse Anderson Davis, Esq. Lee B. Carter, Esq. Samuel Leslie Lucas, Esq. BRINSON ASKEW BERRY SIEGLER RICHARDSON & DAVIS, LLP P.O. Box 5007 615 West First Street Rome, GA 30162-5007 Telephone: (404) 261 6020 Facsimile: (404) 261 3656 E-mail: adavis@brinson-askew.com lcarter@brinson-askew.com slucas@brinson-askew.com - and - John W. Crongeyer, Esq. CRONGEYER LAW FIRM, P.C. 2170 DeFoor Hills Road Atlanta, GA 30318 Telephone: (404) 542 6205 Facsimile: (404) 872 3745 E-mail: jwc@birdlawgroup.com - and - Robert K. Finnell, III, Esq. FINNELL FIRM One West Fourth Avenue, Ste. 200 P.O. Box 63 Rome, GA 30162-0063 Telephone: (706) 235 7272 Facsimile: (706) 235 9461 E-mail: bob@finnellfirm.com - and - Robert Harris Smalley, III MCCAMY PHILLIPS TUGGLE & FORDHAM P.O. Box 1105 411 West Crawford Street Dalton, GA 30722-1105 Telephone: (706) 278 4499 Facsimile: (706) 278 5002 E-mail: rsmalley@mccamylaw.com MDL 2804: "Salmons" Suit vs Purdue Pharma Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Walter Salmons and Virginia Salmons, individually and as the next friend or guardian of minor; and W. D., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma Inc.; The Purdue Frederick Company Inc.; McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; AmerisourceBergen Corporation; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.; Cephalon Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Ortho-Mcneil- Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergan PLC, formerly known as: Actavis plc; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. now known as Actavis Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc.; Actavis LLC; and Actavis Pharma, Inc., formerly known as: Watson Pharma, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00385, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on March 23, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-op-45268- DAP to the proceeding. The Salmons case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 5, 2017. These cases concern the alleged improper marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various prescription opiate medications into cities, states and towns across the country. Responding plaintiffs' positions on centralization vary considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or potential tag-along actions support centralization. Plaintiffs in 15 actions or potential tag-along actions oppose centralization altogether or oppose transfer of their action. In addition to opposing transfer, the State of West Virginia suggests that transferring its case be delayed until the Southern District of West Virginia court decides its motion to remand to state court. Third party payor plaintiffs in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania potential tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers Health and Welfare Fund) oppose centralization of third partypayor actions. Western District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case. Northern District of Illinois tag-along plaintiff City of Chicago asks the Panel to defer transfer of its action until document discovery is completed. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Sarah S. Vance, United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:17-md-02804-DAP.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Barry J. Cooper, Jr., Esq. Celeste Brustowicz, Esq. Stephen Wussow, Esq. Victor T. Cobb, Esq. COOPER LAW FIRM 1525 Religious Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 399 0009 Facsimile: (504) 291 1352 E-mail: bcooper@sch-llc.com cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com swussow@sch-llc.com vcobb@sch-llc.com - and - David R. Barney , Jr., Esq. Kevin W. Thompson, Esq. THOMPSON BARNEY 2030 Kanawha Boulevard E. Charleston, WV 25311 Telephone: (304) 343 4401 Facsimile: (304) 343 4405 E-mail: kwthompsonwv@gmail.com - and - John W. Alderman, III, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN W. ALDERMAN 3 Monticello Place Charleston, WV 25314 Telephone: (304) 531 8029 Facsimile: (877) 350 6643 - and - Susan J. VanZant, Esq. P. O. Box 987 Williamson, WV 25661 Telephone: (304) 235 4540 Facsimile: (304) 235 5266 E-mail: susanvanzant@frontier.com MERCK & CO: California School Sues over Sale of Zetia Drug ---------------------------------------------------------- SELF-INSURED SCHOOLS OF CALIFORNIA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP.; SCHERING CORP.; MSP SINGAPORE CO. LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.; GLENMARK GENERICS INC., U.S.A., the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00487 (C.D. Cal., March 23, 2018), is a civil antitrust action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of a proposed class of end-payors who indirectly purchased, reimbursed, or otherwise paid for Zetia (or ezetimibe). Zetia is a blockbuster brand-name drug sold by Merck to treat patients with high cholesterol. The Plaintiff seeks overcharge damages and other relief arising out of an unlawful "reverse payment" agreement that resolved patent infringement litigation between Merck and Glenmark on the eve of trial. Under the Agreement, Glenmark agreed not to introduce a generic version of Zetia for six and a half years. In exchange, Merck agreed not to introduce its own "authorized" generic during Glenmark's first- filer 180-day exclusivity period. As a result of the Agreement, Merck unlawfully prolonged its Zetia monopoly and reaped windfall profits. Through the no-AG Agreement, Merck shared a portion of its ill-gotten gains (totaling hundreds of millions of dollars) with Glenmark. While Defendants profited handsomely from their Agreement, consumers and third-party payors paid inflated prices for brand and generic Zetia. A one-month supply of branded Zetia cost roughly $300 per month before supply of generic ezetimibe costs as little as $10, a reduction of nearly 97%. By delaying generic competition, Defendants' unlawful Agreement has directly caused Plaintiff and the Class to suffer antitrust injury in the form of overcharges. Merck has sold Zetia since receiving FDA approval (and a 5-year exclusivity period) in 2002. In 2006, Glenmark filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application to manufacture and sell a generic version of Zetia. Merck brought a patent infringement suit against Glenmark. On April 24, 2009, the FDA granted tentative approval to Glenmark to manufacture and sell a generic version of Zetia. On May 3, 2010, Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. announced that its generic division, Par Pharmaceutical, had entered into an exclusive agreement with Glenmark under which Par had made a payment to Glenmark for the exclusive right to market, sell, and distribute a generic version of Zetia in the United States. Under that agreement, Par would share Zetia profits with Glenmark. One week later, Glenmark and Merck reached their settlement agreement to resolve the patent litigation. Several of the patents Merck listed in the FDA's "Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations," commonly known as the "Orange Book," were invalid for multiple reasons, including obviousness, inherent anticipation, and inequitable conduct, among other reasons. Merck withheld information from the Patent Office that would have shown that at least one of these patents, the RE'721 Patent, was invalid in light of prior art. On information and belief, Merck acquired and asserted these invalid and unenforceable patents to unlawfully extend its Zetia monopoly and to extract concessions from potential generic competitors, including Glenmark and Par.[BN] Attorneys for Self-Insured Schools of California: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Nicomedes S. Herrera, Esq. Ryan J. McEwan, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. V Chai Oliver Prentice JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC. 601 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500 6800 Facsimile: (415) 395 9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com nherrera@saverilawfirm.com rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com kgibboney@saverilawfirm.com vprentice@saverilawfirm.com MICHAEL FOODS: Silva Files False Labeling Suit in Washington ------------------------------------------------------------- Jaime Silva, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Michael Foods, Inc., M.G. Waldbaum Company, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00324, (W.D. Wash., March 2, 2018), seeks monetary damages, including but not limited to, compensatory, incidental, and consequential damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs incurred by counsel for Plaintiffs in accordance with Washington Consumer Protection Act. Michael Foods, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Minnetonka, Minnesota. Its fully owned subsidiary, M.G. Waldbaum Company, is in the business of production and marketing of shell eggs to consumers under Willamette Egg Farms and Nest Fresh Egg Farms via retail stores such as Wal-Mart. Its labels claims that its laying hens are free range. Consumers typically pay a significant premium for such eggs, due to the touted improvements to the welfare of laying hens, which is itself important to consumers as well as the perceived health benefits from eating the eggs of better treated hens. However, Plaintiff claims otherwise and asserts that Michael Foods' hens are confined in pens. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Tel: (213) 330-7150 Email: melaine@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel: (206) 623-7292 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com MICHIGAN: Court Denies Bid to Amend "Rouse" Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the case, ARTHUR J. ROUSE, et. Al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF MICHIGAN, et. Al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-12276 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Denise Page Hood of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, (i) denied the motion to amend the complaint; (ii) mooted the motion to stay the notice of appeal; and (iii) granted the motion for an enlargement of time to file a notice of appeal. Seven incarcerated Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action complaint and a petition for a writ of mandamus and a writ of habeas corpus. The joint petition for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed without prejudice. The Court subsequently dismissed the complaint and the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice because they failed to comply with an order to correct a deficiency in this case. The Court later denied Plaintiffs Rouse's and William Merriman's post-judgment motions. Plaintiff Rouse has now filed a motion to amend the complaint and a motion to stay the notice of appeal and a request for an enlargement of time. He seeks to amend his complaint to add a retaliation claim. He also brought a motion to stay the notice of appeal pending the Court's adjudication of his earlier filed post-judgment motions. Judge Hood explains that the Court is without power to grant the Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint because the Plaintiff's case was dismissed for want of prosecution based upon his failure to cure the deficiency. The Court must first reopen the Plaintiff's case before he would be permitted to submit an amended complaint. Because Plaintiff Rouse does not have a live case or controversy pending before the Court and has not moved for relief from judgment, he is unable to amend his complaint. Regarding Plaintiff Rouse's motion to stay the notice of appeal pending the Court's adjudication of his earlier filed post- judgment motions, the Judge explains that the Court already denied these motions on Dec. 19, 2017. The request to stay the notice of appeal is moot. The Judge says to the extent that Plaintiff Rouse is requesting an extension of time to file an appeal in the case, such request is granted. The Court's order denying the motions for rehearing was entered on Dec. 19, 2017. The 30 days time to file an appeal began to run on that date. Plaintiff Rouse's request for an extension of time to file an appeal is timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i). The Plaintiff Rouse is only allowed 14 days from the entry of the Order to file a notice of appeal. For these reasons, Judge Hood (i) denied the motion to amend the complaint; (ii) mooted the motion to stay the notice of appeal; and (iii) granted the motion for an enlargement of time to file a notice of appeal. Plaintiff Rouse must file a notice of appeal no later than 14 days from the entry of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/KZk0hh from Leagle.com. Arthur Rouse, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Lance Goldman, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Chris Harner, Plaintiff, Pro Se. William Merriman, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Cedric Simpson, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Frank Doyle, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Robert Wilburn, Plaintiff, Pro Se. John Does, Plaintiff, represented by Pro Se. MIDLAND CREDIT: Robbins Sues over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS ROBBINS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00654-RPC (M.D. Pa., March 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, as a result of an initial debt collection letter to a consumer in Pennsylvania that would lead the least sophisticated consumer to reasonably believe that he could effectively dispute the validity of debt by making a telephone call is deceptive and thus violates FDCPA. Midland Credit, a licensed debt collector, assists customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through various education and payment plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Davidson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826 5477 Facsimile: (561) 961 5684 E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com - and - Daniel G. Ruggiero, Esq. 275 Grove Street Suite 2-400 Newton, MA 02466 Telephone: (339) 237 0343 Facsimile: (339) 707 2808 E-mail: druggieroesq@hotmail.com MIDLAND FUNDING: Can Compel Arbitration in "Oyola" FDCA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ABIGAIL OYOLA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Defendant, C.A. No. 17-cv-40040-TSH (D. Mass.), Judge Timothy S. Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration, dismiss the case, and strike class allegations. The Plaintiff brought the action, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, against the Defendant after the Defendant purchased an account she opened with Credit One Bank in September 2014. She seeks damages for the Defendant's unlawful debt collection in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Massachusetts Debt Collections Practices Act, and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. On Sept. 4, 2014, the Plaintiff opened a Credit One credit card account. The Vice President of Credit One and an authorized representative of MHC Receivables, LLC ("MHC"), and FNBM, LLC ("FNBM"), Vicky Scott, states that after an account holder opens an account, Credit One mails their credit card, enclosed with Credit One's Visa/Mastercard Cardhoolder Agreement, Disclosure Statement and Arbitration Agreement. The Plaintiff disputes ever receiving the Cardholder Agreement but does not dispute activating the Account or using her credit card. There is no credit card application or copy of the Cardholder Agreement with the Plaintiff's signature in the record. On Sept. 30, 2015, Credit One sold, assigned and conveyed all rights, title, and interest to a series of accounts, including the Account, to MHC. MHC subsequently sold, assigned and conveyed all rights, title, and interest to the Account to Sherman Originator III, LLC. The Plaintiff made a final payment on the Account on Jan. 26, 2015. On Sept. 13, 2015, her card was charged off with an outstanding balance of $600.36. On Oct. 23, 2015, Sherman sold, assigned and conveyed all rights, title, and interest to the Account to the Defendant. The Cardholder Agreement states that it will continue to govern even if the transfer or assignment of one's account, or any amount on his/her account, to any other person. The Defendant filed the instant motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis, strike the class allegations in the Complaint, and dismiss the case. The Defendant argues that in compliance with the delegation clause stating that the claims subject to arbitration include the application, enforceability or interpretation of the Agreement, including the arbitration agreement, the claim must be submitted to the arbitrator. Judge Hillman finds that because the Plaintiff does not challenge the formation of the Arbitration Agreement itself, but the receipt and formation of the Cardholder Agreement, as a whole, the delegation clause referring all matters pertaining to the application, interpretation and enforceability of the Cardholder Agreement must be submitted to the arbitrator. Subject to the delegation clause, the issues raised in the Plaintiff's opposition must be submitted to the arbitrator and not the Court. For this reason alone, the motion to compel must be granted. The Judge also finds that even if the delegation clause was not applicable, a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, binding both parties. Additionally, the Defendant has the authority to enforce the Arbitration Agreement. Lastly, the action falls within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement. The Judge states that the language of the Arbitration Agreement not only specifically includes claims involving "collection matters" "relating to" the Plaintiff's account but states that any questions about what Claims are subject to arbitration will be resolved by interpreting this arbitration provision in the broadest way. Because a reasonable interpretation of the Arbitration Agreement is that the unfair debt collection practices of the Defendant involved the debt incurred on the Account, which the Defendant owns, the Plaintiff's argument loses. For these reasons, Judge Hillman granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration, dismiss the case, and strike class allegations. All additional issues raised by the Plaintiff must be submitted to the arbitrator. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/Wwx5Ot from Leagle.com. Abigail Oyola, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Brine -- cmb@brineconsumerlaw.com -- Brine Consumer Law, Donald A. Yarbrough, Donald A. Yarbrough, Esq., pro hac vice & O. Randolph Bragg, Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, pro hac vice. Midland Funding, LLC, Defendant, represented by Cory W. Eichhorn -- Cory.Eichhorn@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP, pro hac vice, Gordon P. Katz -- ordon.katz@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, LLP, Benjamin M. McGovern -- benjamin.mcgovern@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, LLP, Kara G. Thorvaldsen -- kara.thorvaldsen@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, Stephen P. Hall -- Stephen.Hall@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, LLP & William T. Bogaert -- william.bogaert@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP. MISSISSIPPI: Court Refuses to Reinstate "Gates" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NAZARETH GATES, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. THOMAS D. COOK, ET AL., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:71-cv-6-DAS (N.D. Miss.), Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Greenville Division, denied Russell K. Hill' motion to reinstate the class action and to reconsider two orders previously entered by the Court, one entered on March 10, 2011, by then-Magistrate Judge Jerry A. Davis, and one entered on Sept. 22, 1997, by then-Chief Judge L.T. Senter, Jr. The Magistrate Judge finds that Hill filed his motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b), which must be made within a reasonable time after entry of the order in question. Per the March 2011 order, the portion of the class action Hill seeks to reinstate has been closed for almost seven years. And the September 1997 order adopting the then-new Inmate Access to the Court Program ("IACP") is over a decade old. He therefore finds the motion untimely, and it is denied. The Magistrate Judge says while Hill asserts multiple grievances with the IACP, the case is not the proper avenue for redressing those grievances. As Judge Davis stated in the March 2011 order, the case is closed and individual complaints, as always, may be filed, but not in the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/s7N3GN from Leagle.com. Nazareth (nmi) Gates, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Willie Lee Holms, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Hal Zachary, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Mathew Winters, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Gary Butler, Jason Williams & Rudolph Carter, Plaintiffs, represented by Ronald Reid Welch -- prisonlaw@aol.com -- RONALD REID WELCH, ATTORNEY. Martin Groot, No. 4:90cv125, Plaintiff, pro se. Sheriff Willie E. March, Respondent, represented by Charles H. Weissinger, Jr., WEISSINGER & HUNTER. Thomas D. Cook, Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary, also known as Parchman Prison, J. D. Demoville, Member of the Mississippi State Penitentiary Board, Turner Arant, Member of the Mississippi State Penitentiary Board, Sebe Dale, Member of the Mississippi State Penitentiary Board, Robert D. Robinson, Member of the Mississippi State Penitentiary Board, H. L. Roberts, Member of the Mississippi State Penitentiary Board, John Bell Williams, Governor of the State of Mississippi, and their Successors & Ronnie Musgrove, Defendants, represented by Leonard Charlton Vincent, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & David K. Scott, MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. Mississippi Department of Corrections, Defendant, represented by Anthony Louis Schmidt , MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, James Marshall Norris, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Leonard Charlton Vincent, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Pelicia Everett Hall, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Charles Baron Irvin, IRVIN LAW, PLLC, Darrell Clayton Baughn, MDOC, David K. Scott, MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE & Tommy D. Goodwin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. Washington County, Mississippi, Leflore County Jail, Daniel Cummings, Jr., Wendell A. Duncan & Woodrow Webb, Defendants, represented by David K. Scott, MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. Yalobusha County, Mississippi, Defendant, represented by John J. Crow, Jr., JOHN J. CROW, JR., ATTORNEY. Copiah County, Mississippi, Defendant, represented by Elise Berry Munn, SHANNON LAW FIRM. MONAT GLOBAL: "Alabaster" Suit Alleges Magnuson-Moss Act Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Amber Alabaster, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Monat Global Corp., Case No. 5:18-cv-00224 (W.D. Okla., March 13, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for breach of implied warranty of merchantability and violations of Magnuson-Moss Act. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant's material misrepresentations about the safety and characteristics of Monat Hair Care Products have caused damage to Plaintiff and the Class. Defendant provides no warning about the ingredients or potential side effects of using Monat Hair Care Products and, in fact, makes numerous assertions about the safety of its products. Plaintiff Amber Alabaster was a resident of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Defendant manufactured, marketed, sold and distributed Monat Hair Care Products throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Tel: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Andriola Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- GUY ANDRIOLA, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00471-CDP (E.D. Mo., March 29, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Litter Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ PATRICK LITTER, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00473 (E.D. Mo., March 29, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Robbins Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- LARRY ROBBINS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00470-CDP (E.D. Mo., March 29, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Schreibeises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEBRA SCHREIBEIS and NEAL SCHREIBEIS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00476 (E.D. Mo., March 29, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONTANA: Deal in Suit Over Prison Conditions Has Prelim Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN THE MATTER OF LITIGATION RELATING TO CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT AT MONTANA STATE PRISON THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO Terry LANGFORD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gov. Steve BULLOCK, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 93-46-H-DWM-JCL (D. Mont.), Judge Jermiah C. Lynch of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Helena Division, (i) granted the Parties' Joint Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Revised Class Action Settlement, (ii) preliminarily approved the Revised Class Action Settlement attached to the Parties' Joint Unopposed Motion, and (iii) approved the proposed notice. On or before March 9, 2018, the notice will be disseminated to the class as set forth in Paragraph VIII of the Class Action Settlement. The following procedures will govern the submission of objections, if any: (i) any member of the Class may object to the proposed settlement agreement by filing, on or before May 8, 2018, written objections with the Clerk of the Court; (ii) only such objecting Class Members will have the right, if they seek it in their objection, to present objections orally at the Final Approval Hearing; and (iii) the Court will determine whether it will hear from any objecting Class members at the Final Approval Hearing, and will enter an Order identifying all objecting Class Members it wants to hear from at the hearing. The Final Approval Hearing is set at 10:00 a.m. on June 11, 2018. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/B523ll from Leagle.com. In the matter of litigation relating to conditions of confinement at Montana State Prison., In Re, represented by Amy F. Robertson, CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER, pro hac vice, Eric G. Balaban, NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, Jon E. Ellingson, Attoney At Law & Alexander H. Rate -- alex@kugelmanlaw.com -- RATE LAW OFFICE. Montana State Prison Inmates, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander H. Rate, RATE LAW OFFICE, Amy F. Robertson, CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER, pro hac vice, Eric G. Balaban, NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, Jeffrey T. Renz -- jeff.renz@umontana.edu -- CRIMINAL DEFENSE CLINIC & Jon E. Ellingson, Attoney At Law. State of Montana, Department of Corrections Personnel, Defendant, represented by Colleen E. Ambrose, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. MOTORCARS WEST: Fails to Pay Wages, Hendricks Says -------------------------------------------------- JAMES F. HENDRICKS, III, an individual, individually and on behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MOTORCARS WEST, LLC, a foreign corporation, ERIC SCHWARTZ, an individual, HARRISON GRAY, an individual, TONY SCHWARTZ, an individual, and DOES l-50 inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC698857 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. The Defendant is an auto dealership. While working at the Porsche dealership in Chicago, Illinois, Hendricks was presented a lucrative offer of employment on or about January 15, 2014, from Defendants to separate from his job in Illinois and join employment with Defendants, which Hendricks accepted. During employment, Plaintiff managed no people. Plaintiff, an exempt employee, was to be paid on a salary basis plus commission. The Plaintiff was not paid the agreed-upon wages and commissions he was promised when he relocated from Illinois to California When Plaintiff separated, his final paycheck did not include his unpaid wages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lindsey Wagner, Esq. SCOTT WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3900 W Alameda Ave St. 1200 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (213) 377 5200 Facsimile: (561) 653 0020 MR. WHITE RESTAURANT: Michel Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- GASPAR MICHEL On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MR. WHITE RESTAURANT, LLC, f/k/a CLARK COOPER RESTAURANTS, LLC, d/b/a BRASSERIE 19, WILLIAM G. COOPER and CHARLES E. CLARK, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv- 00990 (S.D. Tex., March 29, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, minimum wage, and unpaid wages as liquidated damages, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff Michel was employed at Brasserie 19 as a server. The Defendants paid Plaintiff less than minimum wage while he worked as a server (i.e. $2.13/hour) -- taking advantage of a tip credit, which allowed Defendants to include in its calculation of Plaintiff's wages a portion of the amounts that he received in tips. The Plaintiff received tips from Defendants' customers. Without any written or verbal notice, Plaintiff was forced to participate in a mandatory tip pool, whereby Defendants required Plaintiff and its other servers to contribute a percentage of their total sales during each shift (25%) to a tip pool wholly controlled by Defendants. Defendants automatically deducted this 25% from Plaintiff's tips during each paycheck. Independent of how much money was taken from Plaintiff's bi-weekly check, upon information and belief, the bussers, one of the only known recipients of the tip pool made the same amount of money every two weeks. Defendants' tip pool did not meet the requirements of a valid tip pool because a portion of the tips were retained by the restaurant and/or distributed to employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips, and it required Plaintiff to contribute a greater percentage than is customary and reasonable.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terrence B. Robinson, Esq. Laura A. Hernandez, Esq. Joanna M. Nakamoto, Esq. THE TB ROBINSON LAW GROUP 7500 San Felipe St., Suite 800 Houston, TX 77063 Telephone: (713) 568 1723 Facsimile: (713) 965 4288 E-mail: TRobinson@TBRobinsonlaw.com LHernandez@TBRobinsonlaw.com JNakamoto@TBRobinsonlaw.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Ray" Stayed Pending Outcome in "Hoggard" -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Myron H. Thompson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division, granted the Defendant's a motion to stay the case HAROLD RAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC OF DELAWARE, d/b/a Champion Mortgage Company, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:17cv99-MHT (M.D. Ala.). The Plaintiff filed the putative nationwide class-action lawsuit asserting claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and negligence related to the defendant mortgage company's home inspections for its reverse mortgage customers. The Defendant filed a motion to stay the case while another similar lawsuit earlier filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia proceeds. The lawsuit is now before the Court on the recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge that the motion to stay be granted. Also before the Court are the Plaintiff's objections to the recommendation, and his included requests for preservation discovery and for the Defendant to be required to provide notices to the court shortly after any critical developments in the other case. After an independent and de novo review of the record, Judge Thompson concludes that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, he overruled the objection and adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. The Judge granted the motion to stay, and the case is stayed while the case of Hoggard, et al., v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC of Delaware, d/b/a Champion Mortgage Company, 1:17-cv-99-TK (D.D.C.) is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Thompson directed the Defendant file reports explaining the status of the Hoggard litigation (i) on the first Monday of every third month, beginning in April 2018, and (ii), within 14 days of any decision denying class certification, granting dismissal of any claims, or entering judgment on any claims in the Hoggard case, attaching a copy of the relevant opinions or orders. The Plaintiff's request for preservation discovery is referred back to the Magistrate Judge. The case is administratively closed in the Court during the pendency of the stay. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/1fDVyB from Leagle.com. Harold Ray, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Hemmings -- ahemmings@hemmingsandstevens.com -- Hemmings & Stevens PLLC, pro hac vice, Joseph Holland Aughtman -- jay@aughtmanlaw.com -- The Aughtman Law Firm, Kenneth Jay Grunfeld, Golomb & Honik PC, pro hac vice, Richard Moss Golomb, Golomb & Honik PC, pro hac vice & Jimmy Spurlock Calton, Jr., Calton & Calton. Nationstar Mortgage LLC of Delaware, doing business as, Defendant, represented by Danielle Kara Greco -- danielle.greco@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, Dennis Kyle Deak -- kyle.deak@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice & John C. Lynch -- john.lynch@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice. NETGEAR INC: Fails to Safeguard Consumers' Files, Sassine Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHEL SASSINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NETGEAR, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-01821-HRL (N.D. Cal., March 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendant's violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, breach of express warranties pursuant to Cal. Comm. Code, breach of contract, and (in the alternative) unjust enrichment. The Defendant Netgear is a computer networking company that sells networking hardware to consumers, businesses, and service providers. Among the products Netgear sells is its Network Attached Storage devices, branded under the "ReadyNAS" product line. In general, a NAS is an enclosure containing a number of hard drives that connects to a user's local network and acts as a centralized storage hub. Authorized users on the local network can access the NAS and its files. The primary purpose of a NAS is to store, backup, and share files across a network, such as photographs, documents, music, and videos. Consumers pay a premium for a NAS over conventional hard drives or traditional external drives (e.g., USB hard drives) because NAS devices offer additional file protections and redundancies, that is, synchronized copies of data for backup purposes. Indeed, Netgear advertised that its ReadyNAS devices offer "5 levels of protection" that safeguard against file loss. The protections include anti-virus protection and built-in redundant storage in the event of a hard drive failure. Beyond the built-in protections, Netgear's other advertised feature for the ReadyNAS product line was its "ReadyCLOUD" functionality. With ReadyCLOUD, users could connect to their ReadyNAS devices even when not on their local network. Through this remote connection over the Internet, users could manage their ReadyNAS device and access files on their local ReadyNAS device. Despite Netgear's express promises to safeguard consumers' files, in March of 2017, Netgear remotely triggered the wholesale destruction of its customers' data. As a consequence of Netgear's Deletion Command, consumers' family photographs, videos, and business documents (among other files entrusted to the purported protections of the ReadyNAS devices) were deleted without warning. Worst yet, and due to the design of the ReadyNAS devices, the Deletion Command caused irreversible deletion, which was further exacerbated by Netgear's failure to notify users that their personal files were deleted. As a result, users lost out on any chance of recovering deleted files. Netgear Inc. is a global computer networking company based in San Jose, California, in the United States, with additional offices in around 25 other countries. It produces networking hardware for consumers, businesses, and service providers.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Lily E. Hough, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212 9300 Facsimile: (415) 373 9435 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com lhough@edelson.com OCWEN MORTGAGE: "Gray" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Richard Gray and Kimberly Gray, On behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, and As Private Attorney Generals, the Plaintiffs, v. Ocwen Mortgage Servicing, Inc., a U.S. Virgin Islands corporation; Ocwen Financial Corporation, a Florida corporation; and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. L18-00373, was removed from the Contra Costa Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March 26, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv- 01864-JD to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James Donato. Ocwen Financial is one of the leading mortgage servicing companies in America, serving over 1.5 million customers.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. Attorneys for Defendants: Kenneth Lee Marshall, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4070 Telephone: (415) 675 3400 Facsimile: (415) 675 3434 E-mail: klmarshall@bryancave.com OVERSTOCK.COM: Morris Sues over Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------ BLAKE MORRIS and DENNIS ROSSETTI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. OVERSTOCK.COM, INC., PATRICK BYRNE, and JONATHAN E. JOHNSON, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00271-PMW (D. Utah, March 29, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a securities class action on behalf of Plaintiffs and all other persons or entities, except for Defendants, who purchased, or otherwise acquired, Overstock common stock between August 3, 2017 and March 26, 2018, inclusive. Overstock is an online retailer that also purports to be an "advancer of blockchain technology," such as Bitcoin. However, as recent events have revealed, Overstock's foray into "blockchain technology" has been little more than a thinly veiled strategy to take advantage of the Bitcoin frenzy. During the Class Period, Defendants represented that Overstock was well-positioned to capitalize on the "revolutionary" blockchain technology and deliver "great value to Overstock's shareholders," through, among other things, the Company's Medici Ventures business and its tZERO trading platform. Defendants further represented, in October 2017, that they planned to raise up to $500 million in a "coin offering," consisting of sales of new digital coins for projects based on the blockchain technology of the digital currencies Bitcoin and Ethereum. These representations drove the price of Overstock from $16.45 per share, on August 3, 2017, to a high of $86.90 per share, on January 8, 2018, an increase of more than 500% in five months. But the truth was that: (1) Overstock's coin offering was highly problematic and potentially illegal; and (2) the Company's Medici business was hemorrhaging money. On March 1, 2018, when Overstock announced that the SEC had requested information about its initial coin offering, the Company's stock fell 4.4% to $57.75 from the February 28, 2018 share price of $60.40. Then, on March 15, 2018, the Company stated that "the [SEC] investigation could result in a delay of the tZero security token offering, negative publicity for tZero or us, and may have a material adverse effect on us or on the current and future business ventures of tZero." Overstock also disclosed that the SEC was conducting an examination of advisers at tZERO, the Company's blockchain subsidiary. Further, it was revealed that Overstock's Medici unit had lost $22 million for 2017, despite the fact that Bitcoin prices increased by 1,375% during the same period of time. On this news, the Company's stock fell 5.1% from $48.20 to $45.70. Just 10 days later, on March 26, 2018, Overstock announced that it planned to offer 4,000,000 common stock shares in an underwritten public offering. On this news, the Company's stock fell nearly 15%. Overstock.com, Inc. is an American internet retailer headquartered in Midvale, Utah, near Salt Lake City. Patrick M. Byrne founded the company in 1997 and launched the company in May 1999.[BN] Attorneys for Blake Morris and Dennis Rossetti: Heather M. Sneddon, Esq. Jared D. Scott, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG, P.C. 50 West Broadway, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2035 Telephone: (801) 534 1700 Facsimile: (801) 364 7697 E-mail: hsneddon@aklawfirm.com jscott@aklawfirm.com - and - Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223 6444 Facsimile: (212) 223 6334 E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com rswartz@scott-scott.com - and - Corey Holzer, Esq. Marshall Dees, Esq. Alexandria Rankin, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER LLC 1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392 0090 Facsimile: (770) 392 0029 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com mdees@holzerlaw.com PALISADES CLEANING: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- HERIBERTO HERNANDEZ and JUAN JIMENEZ-LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PALISADES CLEANING SERVICE, INC., and MERCEDES NUNEZ, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 152827/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 29, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, all of the work that Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs have performed has been assigned by Defendants, and/or Defendants have been aware of all of the work that Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs have performed. As part of its regular business practice, Defendants have intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA with respect to Named Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs. This policy and pattern or practice includes, but is not limited to, willfully failing to compensate Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs the properly due minimum wages and overtime wages for all of the hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendants are aware of or should have been aware that federal law required them to pay Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs the properly due wages at the minimum wage rate and wages at an overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Palisades Cleaning is family own and operated. PCS is a service design to support the busy lifestyle of today, offering 100% customer satisfaction, consistent quality workmanship, reasonable rates and on-demand flexibility.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 North Harrison Street, Suite 9F, No. 306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687 9977 E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com PATENAUDE & FELIX: White Sues over Unauthorized Background Check ---------------------------------------------------------------- NIEYSHA WHITE, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PATENAUDE & FELIX, APC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00622-JLS-BGS (S.D. Cal., March 27, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendant's unauthorized and unlawful credit inquiries under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant acquired Plaintiff's credit report through unauthorized inquiries of Plaintiff's "consumer report" as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1681a(d)(1). According to the complaint, sometime around 2012, Plaintiff obtained a Wal-Mart branded Synchrony Bank credit card. Subsequently, Synchrony Bank assigned the Debt to Defendant to initiate collection efforts of the Debt. On April 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California under case number 17-02363-LA7. Plaintiff's Synchrony Debt was included in Plaintiff's Bankruptcy Petition. On April 25, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court sent Synchrony Bank notice of the bankruptcy filing electronically. On July 25, 2017, Plaintiff received an Order of Discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 727. The Synchrony Debt was included in the Order of Discharge; meaning that the Debt had been eliminated, the account was closed, and Plaintiff was no longer personally liable for the Debt. On July 28, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court sent Plaintiff's Order of Discharge to Synchrony Bank electronically. During Plaintiff's Bankruptcy, neither Synchrony Bank nor Defendant filed proceedings to declare the Debt "non-dischargeable" pursuant to 11 U.S.C. At no point during the pendency of the bankruptcy did the parties enter into a reaffirmation agreement. Accordingly, the Synchrony Debt was completely discharged through bankruptcy and the account was closed. However, upon review of Plaintiff's Transunion credit report dated September 28, 2017, Plaintiff discovered that on September 3, 2017, several weeks after the Synchrony Debt was discharged and the account was closed, Defendant impermissibly obtained Plaintiff's consumer credit report by submitting an unauthorized "account review inquiry" to Transunion. By accessing Plaintiff's credit report, albeit unlawfully, Defendant was on actual notice of Plaintiff's bankruptcy discharge and the fact that the Synchrony account it was attempting to collect was discharged and closed. Nevertheless, on December 29, 2017, Defendant submitted a second unauthorized "account review inquiry" to Transunion. The Plaintiff did not conduct any business nor incur any additional financial obligations to Defendant for which Defendant was authorized or permitted to inquire into Plaintiff's credit worthiness. The account for which Defendant was attempting to collect was discharged, closed, and no longer existed as of July 25, 2017.[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 Telephone: (800) 400 6808 Facsimile: (800) 520 5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com amini@kazlg.com veronica@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Ste 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233 7770 Facsimile: (619) 297 1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 409 Camino Del Rio South, Ste 101B San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222 7429 Facsimile: (866) 431 3292 E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com PRAXAIR INC: Faces "Hassan" Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PRAXAIR, INC. The case is styled as Louie Hassan in his individual capacity and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRAXAIR, INC., a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02811 (C.D. Cal., April 5, 2018). Praxair, Inc. is an American worldwide industrial gases company. It is the largest industrial gases company in North and South America, and the third-largest worldwide by revenue.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. Q'MAX SOLUTIONS: Court Refuses to Certify Classes in "Sanchez" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSEPH SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Q'MAX SOLUTIONS, INC., Q'MAX AMERICA, INC., PATRIOT SOLIDS CONTROL, and PATRIOT DRILLING SOLUTIONS, Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-cv-01382-CMA-KLM (D. Colo.), Judge Christine M. Arguello of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied the Plaintiff's (i) Motion for Class Certification of State Law Claims, and (ii) Motion for Conditional Certification of under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate oil and gas industry service companies that provide individuals to work at their client's oil and gas facilities. The Plaintiff worked as a Consultant for the Defendants for approximately three months. He alleges that, during that time, the Defendants violated the FLSA, the Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"), and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order by misclassifying Plaintiff and failing to pay him overtime compensation. The Plaintiff adds that Defendants misclassified numerous employees as non-employee consultants, contractors, or independent contractors and improperly paid them day rates without overtime compensation. As a result, the Plaintiff commenced the action seeking compensation for himself and on behalf of other allegedly misclassified and underpaid Consultants. He now seeks to certify a collective class to pursue the FLSA claim and a Rule 23 class to pursue his Colorado wage claims. The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of the class of all individuals who, during any time within the past three years, worked for some or all of the Defendants in the United States and were classified as non-employees pursuant to either any version of the Master Service Agreement or any similar contract. In Pennsylvania, the following FLSA collective class has already been conditionally certified: All current and former mud engineers/drilling fluid consultants and solids control operators of the Q'Max/Patriot who were classified as independent contractors and paid a day-rate during the last three years. Judge Arguello concludes that the choice-of-law provision in the MSA does not confer upon the Plaintiff, who performed no work in Colorado, standing to bring, on behalf of himself or others, non- contractual claims under Colorado's labor laws. To conclude otherwise would defeat the clear geographical limits expressed in the CWCA and the Colorado Wage Order, and would run afoul of the well-established presumption against the extraterritorial application of state laws. Based on this conclusion, the Judge says she needs not address the Plaintiff's arguments with respect to the Rule 23 certification requirements. For these reasons, Judge Arguello denied the Plaintiff's (i) Motion for Conditional Certification of the FLSA Claim, and Motion for Class Certification of State Law Claims. Moreover, pursuant to her analysis, the Judge, sua sponte, dismissed the Plaintiff's Claim Two and Claim Three for lack of standing. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/7dZ2AY from Leagle.com. Joseph Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Peter David Winebrake -- pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, Robert Andrew Santillo -- asantillo@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake & Santillo, LLC & Brian David Gonzales -- Bgonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com -- Brian D. Gonzales, PLLC. Q'Max America, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Bryce Jordan -- djordan@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC. RITE AID: Moore Appeals E.D. Pennsylvania Decision to 3rd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Kyra Moore filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Kyra Moore v. Rite Aid Hdqtrs Corp., Case No. 2- 13-cv-01515, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 7, 2018, the District Court issued a Memorandum granting the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case. Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is both denied as moot. Following her conversation with Rite Aid, the Plaintiff received an Adverse Action Notice exactly five business days after the date of the Pre-Adverse Action Notice stating that she had not been hired for the position. Plaintiff contends she was rejected for employment solely as a result of her being classified 'Non- Competitive' by Rite Aid's agent LexisNexis. After receiving the Adverse Action Notice, she also initiated a dispute with LexisNexis, which eventually removed her adverse record from the Esteem database. The Class Action Complaint set forth one count against Rite Aid on behalf of a putative class for violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires that any person using a consumer report for employment purposes who intends to take any adverse action based in whole or in part on the report against an applicant for employment must provide the applicant with a copy of the report and a description in writing of the consumers rights, as prescribed in 15 U.S.C. Section 1681g(c)(3), before taking such adverse action. The appellate case is captioned as Kyra Moore v. Rite Aid Hdqtrs Corp., Case No. 18-1551, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant KYRA MOORE, On Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Irv Ackelsberg, Esq. LANGER GROGAN & DIVER PC The Bell Atlantic Tower, Suite 4130 1717 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 320-5660 E-mail: iackelsberg@langergrogan.com - and - Lauren Brennan, Esq. James A. Francis, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. 100 South Broad Street Land Title Building, 19th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 E-mail: lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Sharon M. Dietrich, Esq. COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC. 1424 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 981-3719 E-mail: sdietrich@clsphila.org Defendant-Appellee RITE AID HDQTRS CORP, DBA Rite Aid Corp, is represented by: Caroline M. Austin, Esq. Dana B. Klinges, Esq. Sean Zabaneh, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP United Plaza 30 South 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 979-1887 E-mail: caustin@duanemorris.com dklinges@duanemorris.com SSZabaneh@duanemorris.com ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Spates Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SOL SPATES and WESLEY LEWIS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATON SYSTEMS, INC. and ADRIAN CARRIERS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-03875 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., March 26, 2018), seeks to recover proper wages under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit, on behalf of themselves and a class of persons similarly situated, who have performed delivery driving work for Defendants in the State of Illinois at any time during the applicable limitations period, and who were classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that although Defendants classified them and other similarly situated delivery drivers as independent contractors, they were in fact Defendants' employees under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated drivers had no control over the amount(s) charged for their delivery services. They were not permitted to negotiate with retail customers regarding the rates charged for their services. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated drivers were paid similar fixed rates per delivery, set by the Defendants, which drivers were not permitted to negotiate. The Defendants did not allow Plaintiffs and other similarly situated drivers to work for other companies, and Defendants' management advised Plaintiffs and other similarly situated drivers that performing delivery services for other companies would result in termination of their employment. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated drivers typically worked full time, either five or six days per week. Usually the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated drivers worked approximately 45 to 60 hours per week. The Defendants, at their sole discretion, made deductions from Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated drivers' compensation checks for such costs as, among other things, damage claims, physical damage insurance, load insurance, "rent" for the Qualcomm units, a so-called tax escrow, fuel, fuel taxes, toll payments, direct deposit fees, truck repairs and maintenance. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated drivers either lease or lease-to-own their trucks through the Defendants. However, when the Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated drivers' employment has ended, the Defendants seize the drivers' trucks, regardless of whether the driver has taken the lease-to- own option, and the amount paid by the drivers on the trucks is not remitted to the drivers. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated drivers performed services, pickup and delivery of containers an equipment, which was/is within the usual course of business of the Defendants. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated drivers perform some of their work within facilities controlled by Defendants. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated drivers were entirely dependent upon Defendants for their work, as they were not allowed and as a practical matter could not work for other employers. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated drivers were not in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business. Roadrunner Transportation acquired Adrian Carriers in April 2013 for approximately $14.2 million. After Roadrunner acquired Adrian Carriers, Adrian Carriers continued operating under the oversight of Roadrunner, and Adrian Carriers was rebranded as Roadrunner Intermodal Services. Operational decisions have been made jointly between Adrian employees and Roadrunner Employees.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Catherine Mitchell, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312-233-1550 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com cmitchell@stephanzouras.com - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994 5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com ROSSMOYNE INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Rodriguez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- LUZ RODRIGUEZ, GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ, VENTURA RODRIGUEZ and ANDRES ANGIANO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROSSMOYNE, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC699515 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 26, 2018), seeks to recover minimum and straight time wages and overtime compensation under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs for all hours worked (including minimum wages, straight time wages, and overtime wages), failed to provide Plaintiffs with uninterrupted meal periods, failed to authorize and permit Plaintiffs to take uninterrupted rest periods, failed to maintain accurate records of the hours Plaintiffs worked, failed to indemnify Plaintiffs for necessary business expenses, failed to timely pay all final wages to Plaintiffs when Defendants terminated Plaintiffs' employment, and failed to furnish accurate wage statements to Plaintiffs. Rossmoyne is a full service construction company serving the greater Los Angeles area for over 35 years.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Justin F. Marquez, Esq. Allen Feghali (SBN 301080) MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232 3128 Facsimile: (213) 232 3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com SAN MATEO HEALTH: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wage, Palomares Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- OLGA PALOMARES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE SAN MATEO HEALTH COMMISSION dba THE HEALTH PLAN OF SAN MATEO, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 - 100, the Defendants, Case No. 1001191604 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 29, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay and minimum wage under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have uniformly subjected Plaintiff and all Class Members to uniform policies and practices including unlawful labor practices, including the intentional and willful failure to: pay minimum wage for all hours worked, pay for all overtime hours worked, keep accurate records of total hours worked; furnish accurate itemized wage statements to Plaintiff and the other Class Members that accurately stated the hours worked; and immediately pay Plaintiff and the other Class Members all earned wages upon their separation from their positions at Defendants. The Defendants hired Palomares as a UR Nurse for HPSM. On a daily basis, she and other HPSM Nurses, were expected to meet certain goals and work long hours. Palomares and other HPSM Nurses typically worked 50+ hours a week. Palomares worked with and communicated with other HPSM Nurses at HPSM, who indicated they worked similarly long hours. Palomares' manager was also aware of the number of hours Palomares and other HPSM Nurses were working.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Da Vega, Esq. Matthew H. Fisher, Esq. DA VEGA | FISHER | MECHTENBERG LLP 232 E. Anaparnu St. Santa Barbara, CA 94085 Telephone: (805) 232 4471 Facsimile: (877) 535 9358 E-mail: mfisher@mdmflaw.com mdavega@mdmflaw.com SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: "Tousignant" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ Joshua Tousignant and Heather Welsch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-10439 (D. Mass., March 7, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Joshua Tousignant is an adult resident of Gun Barrel City, Texas. Plaintiff worked as a warehouse associate from July 2017 through February 2018 at Defendant's warehouse in Athens, Texas. Plaintiff Heather Welsch is an adult resident of Kemp, Texas. Plaintiff worked as a warehouse associate from July 2017 through present at Defendant's warehouse in Athens, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. Tamra Givens, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor Wilton, CT 06897 Tel: (203) 653-2250 Fax: (203) 653-3424 E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com SEARS HOLDINGS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Kloppel" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MIKE KLOPPEL and WILSON ADAMS, Plaintiffs, Case # v. SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY, and HOMEDELIVERYLINK, INC., Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-6296-FPG (), Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (i) granted Sears' Motion to Dismiss; (ii) granted in part and denied in part HomeDeliveryLink's Motion to Dismiss; and (iii) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike. In this putative class action, Kloppel and Adams allege that the Defendants misclassified them as independent contractors rather than employees and took illegal deductions from their pay while they performed delivery services for the Defendants in New York State. The Plaintiffs, along with other similarly situated individuals they seek to represent, delivered Sears merchandise to customers' homes throughout New York State. They contracted with Defendant HDL, a third party logistics provider, rather than directly with Defendant Sears. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant HDL treated them as independent contractors even though they were rightfully employees under New York law. They further allege that Defendant HDL unlawfully deducted certain expenses directly from the compensation it paid to the Plaintiffs, including when HDL determined, in its sole discretion, that a delivery had been made in a manner it deem to be unsatisfactory (e.g., damaged goods, damage to customer property). HDL would also deduct other expenses from the compensation it paid such as the cost of truck rental and fuel, and the costs of workers' compensation insurance and general liability insurance from the compensation it paid to the Plaintiffs. Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to furnish the Plaintiffs with an accurate statement of wages listing hours worked, rates paid, gross wages, allowances, deductions taken, and net wages paid. The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Additionally, the Plaintiffs move to strike one of the arguments in Defendant HDL's reply brief, stating that HDL's argument that the only state laws not preempted by the FAAAA are expressly defined in the FAAAA's list of exceptions was raised for the first time in HDL's reply brief. Regarding Defendant HDL's Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant argues that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act ("FAAAA") expressly preempts the New York State Commercial Goods Transportation Industry Fair Play Act. The Plaintiffs argue in response that the FAAAA's preemption clause does not cover the Fair Play Act. Judge Geraci finds that while Defendant HDL has not demonstrated that the Fair Play Act has a significant effect on its rates, routes, or services, it argues that it need not do so when the state law at issue expressly refers to motor carrier rates, routes or services. The FAAAA indeed preempts state laws that explicitly refer to rates, routes, or services regardless of the state law's effect on those three things, but the Fair Play Act is no such law. For these reasons, the Judge will deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' N.Y. Lab. Law Section 862-b claim, but the Court may revisit the preemption issue in later stages of this litigation. Because the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint relates solely to Defendant HDL's conduct, and not to Defendant Sears' conduct, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have no claim for relief against Sears. The Plaintiffs concede that Sears is not alleged to have directly participated in HDL's alleged violations, but argue that Sears is liable for HDL's conduct as the Plaintiffs' "joint employer" with HDL. The Plaintiffs argue that, as their "joint employer," Sears is liable for their New York labor law claims. The Judge Court disagrees. Accordingly, he will grant Defendant Sears' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' labor law claims. The Plaintiffs raise an unjust enrichment claim against both the Defendants based on the same underlying factual allegations as their labor law claims. Because the unjust enrichment claim is entirely duplicative, Judge Geraci will dismiss as to both the Defendants. Finally, regarding the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike, the Judge finds that HDL made that argument, however, in reply to the Plaintiffs' arguments in opposition to HDL's Motion to Dismiss. Because a reply brief responds to issues that the opposing party raised, HDL did not err. He will therefore deny the Plaintiffs' Motion. For the reasons stated, Judge Geraci denied Defendant HDL's Motion to Dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' New York Labor Law claims, but granted as to the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim. He granted Defendant Sears' Motion to Dismiss in full, and dismissed the case against Defendant Sears. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Defendants Sears Holdings Corporation and Sears, Roebuck & Co. as parties to this action. The Judge denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/11LRA6 from Leagle.com. Mike Kloppel & Wilson Adam, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony S. Almeida, The Sattiraju Law Firm, P.C., pro hac vice, Benjamin J. Weber -- bweber@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice, Harold L. Lichten -- hlichten@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice, Ravi Sattiraju , The Sattiraju Law Frim, P.C., pro hac vice, Samuel A. Alba -- sam@legalsurvival.com -- Friedman & Ranzenhofer, P.C. & Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice. Sears Holdings Corporation & Sears, Roebuck & Company, Defendants, represented by Brendan T. Killeen -- brendan.killeen@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael J. Puma , Morgan -- michael.puma@morganlewis.com -- Lewis & Bockius LLP. HomeDeliveryLink, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Butcher -- ABUTCHER@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary, P.C., pro hac vice, Charles Andrewscavage -- CANDREWSCAVAGE@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary, P.C. & Rodney O. Personius -- rop@personiusmelber.com -- Personius Melber LLP. SETERUS INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Whitt" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the case, D. Randolph Whitt, Plaintiff, v. Seterus, Inc. and Federal National Mortgage Association, Defendants, C/A No. 3:17- 1753-MBS (D. S.C.), Judge Margaret B. Seymour of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, (i) denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss, (ii) rendered moot the Defendants' motion to strike, and (iii) denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand. On or about Aug. 1, 2014, Defendant Fannie Mae brought a foreclosure action in the Court of Common Pleas, Lexington County, South Carolina, against the Plaintiff based on nonpayment of a Note. The Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended answer and counterclaims in the Foreclosure Action on or about March 27, 2015, asserting: (1) Breach of Contract/Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and (2) Dual Tracking in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. On Dec. 10, 2015, Defendant Fannie Mae filed a motion for summary judgment in the Foreclosure Action that was granted on April 29, 2016 by Special Referee Lisa Lee Smith. On June 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit against the Defendants in the Court of Common Pleas, Lexington County, South Carolina ("Whitt I"). The Defendants removed the case to federal court on July 5, 2016. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant Seterus, Inc., acting as a loan servicer and agent for Defendant Fannie Mae, offered a modification of the mortgage loan on Feb. 18, 2016, during the pendency of the foreclosure suit. He further alleged that he was denied a loan modification on May 9, 2016, and that between Feb. 18, 2016 and May 9, 2016, the Defendants (i) scheduled a foreclosure hearing, (ii) attended a foreclosure hearing and presented evidence, (iii) submitted a judgment of foreclosure, (iv) filed a judgment for foreclosure after signature by the judge, and (v) scheduled a foreclosure sale. He also alleged that the Defendants held a foreclosure hearing without proper notice to him. According to the Plaintiff, the pursuit of the foreclosure during the pendency of the loan modification was prima facie evidence of improper 'dual tracking' by the Defendants. He also argued that the Defendants participated in the conduct set forth in the complaint with other residents in South Carolina. As a result, the Plaintiff alleged that the proposed class action would be composed of all persons (i) whose properties were foreclosed upon, during the pendency of the Defendants' sham Loan Modification offers, while the Defendants were pursuing a Foreclosure action, and persons (ii) who received improper Notice of Foreclosure Hearings. On March 16, 2017, the Court issued an order dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint based on the Younger abstention doctrine. The Court found that the Plaintiff's Foreclosure Action was an ongoing state proceeding and noted that foreclosure actions call into question important state issues, where state courts serve as the best venue for adjudication. As a result, the Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice, and the Defendants' motion to strike class allegations was denied as moot. The Special Referee issued an order in the Foreclosure Action on April 10, 2017, granting in part and denying in part Fannie Mae's motion for summary judgment. A hearing was scheduled for June 6, 2017, as to the remaining issues in dispute, but was adjourned by mutual consent for 60 days. The instant action was commenced in state court on June 1, 2017 and was removed by the Defendants to the Court on July 5, 2017 ("Whitt II"). The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for a class action, Rule 23, South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure (First Cause of Action); Breach of Contract, Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Second Cause of Action); Civil Conspiracy (Third Cause of Action); violation of S.C. Code. Ann. Section 29-3-630, which requires debt secured must be established before sale by mortgagee (Fourth Cause of Action); Dual Tracking (Fifth Cause of Action). On July 13, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to strike class allegations. They Defendants argue that the Court should again rely on the abstention doctrine to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint. They assert that the Foreclosure Action is still pending in state court and trial was scheduled for August 2017. With respect to the class action, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's proposed class does not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and further contend that the proposed class is not ascertainable under any circumstances, and must be dismissed. In response, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendants' motions have been ruled on by the Court's prior order and therefore are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The Defendants filed a reply alleging that the Plaintiff incorrectly applied the res judicata doctrine to the removal process. On July 31, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, contending that the Defendants are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and cannot bring the action to federal court. The Plaintiff argues that the issue of federal jurisdiction has been conclusively and finally determined and thus the court cannot re- litigate this question. On Aug. 14, 2017, the Defendants filed a reply requesting that the Court reaches the merits of the Plaintiff's complaint and dismiss with prejudice. After reviewing the Plaintiff's complaint in the instant action, Judge Seymour finds that the Plaintiff seeks monetary damages on all causes of action and does not seek equitable or declaratory relief against the Defendants. Based on the language of Quackenbush, she must deny the Defendants' motion to the extent it seeks dismissal based on the abstention doctrine. The Judge also finds that the proceedings in the case would result in simultaneous litigation of the same issues and might interfere with the state foreclosure proceeding. Further, a determination by the state court concerning the Foreclosure Action would be binding on the Court and can preclude the Plaintiff from asserting the same claims. For these reasons, the Judge will exercise her discretion and stay proceedings in the action, pending conclusion of the state Foreclosure Action. Based on this, Judge Seymour (i) denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss, for failure to state a claim, with leave to refile such motion at a later date; (ii) rendered moot the Defendants' motion to strike; and (iii) denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand as the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action. The parties will submit a status report within six months or at the time the underlying action is resolved, whichever is earlier. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Order and Opinion is available at https://is.gd/ZVdzR7 from Leagle.com. D Randolph Whitt, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Griffith, III, Austin and Rogers & Richard Lee Whitt, Austin and Rogers. Seterus Inc & Federal National Mortgage Association, Defendants, represented by Graham Howard Claybrook -- gclaybrook@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods. SHORE FUNDING: "Cunningham" TCPA Suit Stayed Pending ACA Decision ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion to stay the case, CRAIG CUNNINGHAM on behalf of himself And others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHORE FUNDING SOLUTIONS INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-2080 (ADS)(AKT)(E.D. N.Y.). The Plaintiff commenced the putative class action against the Defendant, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"). The action is based on the Defendant's alleged use of an automatic telephone dialing system to deliver text messages to the Plaintiff's phone, without the prior express consent of the Plaintiff. Presently before the Court is a motion by the Defendant requesting that the Court stay the case until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issues a decision in ACA Int'l v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, No. 15-1211 ("ACA"), a case currently pending before it. Oral argument in ACA was heard on Oct. 19, 2016. The issues before the DC Circuit in ACA are unquestionably relevant to the legal issues present in the case at bar. As the Defendant alleges in its motion papers, the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system" under the TCPA is quite relevant to the instant case. Assessing the various interests, Judge Spatt finds that a stay in the case is warranted pending the DC Circuit's decision in ACA. Although it is not immediately clear how long before the DC Circuit issues its decision, it will likely be within the next few months. Such a short-term stay is unlikely to adversely impact the parties in the case. Moreover, the Court and the parties share an interest in conserving resources while a case is pending that may clarify issues raised in the instant case. This will minimize the risk of de minimis motion practice. There are no issues that affect the public interest or non-parties to the case, that the Court is aware of, that warrant cause for restraint. The Court joins other district courts all across the nation in concluding that the various factors weigh in favor of granting a stay until the DC Circuit decides ACA. For these reasons, Judge Spatt granted the Defendant's motion to stay. Within seven days of the issuance of the DC Circuit decision in ACA, the parties will file a joint letter informing the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Memorandum of Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/RyguO2 from Leagle.com. Craig Cunningham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Bellin & Associates LLC & Erik L. Shawn, Bellin & Associates LLC. Shore Funding Solutions Inc., Defendant, represented by Clifford B. Olshaker, Law Offices of Clifford B. Olshaker. SIGMA DESIGNS: Stein Balks at Asset Sale to Silicon Laboratories ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT STEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SIGMA DESIGNS, INC., J. MICHAEL DODSON, MARTIN MANNICHE, SALEEL AWSARE, and ELIAS NADER, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01879-JSW (N.D. Cal., March 27, 2018), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from holding shareholder vote on the Asset Sale and taking any steps to consummate the Asset Sale unless, and until, material information is disclosed to Sigma shareholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Asset Sale or, in the event the Asset Sale is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act. The action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public holders of the common stock of Sigma Designs, Inc. against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Regulation G, 17 C.F.R. section 244.100 in connection with the asset sale of a portion of its business to Silicon Laboratories Inc. On December 7, 2017, the Board caused the Company to enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which Company shareholders would have received $7.05 in cash per share of Company common stock, a deal valued at $282 million. Under the Agreement's terms, consummation of the Merger was subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions by Sigma, including the sale or shut down of Sigma's television and set-top box business and the amendment or termination of certain contracts pursuant to the Agreement, the failure of which allowed the parties to convert from a merger transaction to an asset sale of "all of the assets which relate to our Z-Wave business, including all of our equity interest in certain subsidiaries engaged in the Z-Wave business, and the assumption by Silicon Labs of all of our liabilities related to our Z-Wave business, for $240 million in cash". On January 23, 2018, it was reported that Sigma could not meet the conditions to the merger and the parties proceeded with the asset sale. According to the terms, Sigma shareholders stand to receive between $5.82 and $6.58 per share via two separate distributions from the proceeds of the Asset Sale, representing a potential reduction from the Merger Consideration of 17% and 7%, respectively. As contemplated in the Agreement, the Asset Sale must be approved by Sigma shareholders. On March 19, 2018, to convince Sigma shareholders to vote in favor of the Asset Sale, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Definitive Proxy Statement on a Schedule 14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The materially incomplete and misleading Proxy independently violates both Regulation G (17 C.F.R. section 244.100) and SEC Rule 14a-9 (17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9), each of which constitutes a violation of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On March 22, 2018, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC, which disclosed that Thinh Q. Tran, the Company's founder and, up until January 19, 2018, the President, CEO, and Director, had founded a new company that would purchase the Company's Smart TV and settop box business for approximately $4.7 million in cash. Tellingly, this was the portion of Sigma's business that needed to be sold in order to allow shareholders to receive the full Merger Consideration. While touting the fairness of the Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy, Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Asset Sale, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and rendering certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and misleading. In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the financial projections for the Company that were prepared by the Company and relied upon by the Board in recommending the Company's shareholders vote in favor of the Asset Sale. The financial projections were also utilized by Sigma's financial advisor, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., in conducting the valuation analyses in support of its fairness opinion that the consideration to be received by Sigma via the Asset Sale was fair from a financial point of view to the Company. It is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed prior to the forthcoming shareholder vote in order to allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision regarding the Asset Sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256 2884 Facsimile: (424) 256 2885 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com - and - FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. 685 Third Ave., 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983 9330 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com SLEEPY'S LLC: "Hargrove" Class Certification Bid Denied ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SAM HARGROVE, ANDRE HALL, MARCO EUSEBIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SLEEPY'S, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 10-cv- 01138 (D. N.J.), Judge Peter G. Sheridan of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In 2010, Plaintiffs Hargrove, Hall, and Eusebio, who were all delivery drivers for Sleepy's", filed a complaint in the Court, on behalf of a putative class, alleging that Sleepy's misclassified them as independent contractors rather than employees, and thus denied them protections and benefits under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act ("ERISA"), the Family Medical Leave Act, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. Specifically, they allege that Sleepy's withheld and diverted money from their wages in violation of New Jersey's Wage Payment Law. They also allege that they were not paid overtime for their work, a claim that would also arise under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. Generally, Sleepy's is a New York-based mattress retailer that adopts a comprehensive delivery process. They operate a facility in Robbinsville, New Jersey. The only merchandise dispatched from the Robbinsville terminal is Sleepy's merchandise sold to Sleepy's customers, or transfers from the terminal to another Sleepy's facility. Sleepy's runs approximately 50-60 trucks per day, and sometimes as many as 85-90 trucks during peak season out of the Robbinsville facility. According to Sleepy's, deliveries are performed by contractors. Sleepy's requires its contractors to sign Independent Driver Agreements ("IDA"). Pursuant to the IDA, drivers are classified as independent contractors. The IDA provides for a non-exclusive relationship, meaning that the drivers are considered independent contractors, and may make deliveries for other companies while not performing deliveries for Sleepy's. Contractors and any helpers are required to wear Sleepy's uniforms and Sleepy's ID badges and display Sleepy's advertising on their trucks. Pursuant to the IDA, contractors pay for their own workers compensation insurance, and list Sleepy's as "certificate holder" on their policies. They also purchase motor vehicle insurance and list Sleepy's as an additional insured on their policy. The drivers are also required to agree that while performing deliveries for Sleepy's they will not carry merchandise for any other business until [they] finished the delivery manifest given by Sleepy's. The Plaintiffs contend that, between January 2007 and December 2016 (class period), Sleepy's has contracted with at least 193 individuals to perform deliveries out of its facility in Robbinsville. After the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, on March 29, 2012, the Court entered an order granting Sleepy's motion for summary judgment and denying the Plaintiffs' cross- motion. The decision was appealed and remanded by the Third Circuit who asked for the advice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey regarding which test to apply to determine the nature of an employment relationship under the New Jersey Wage Payment Law and the New Jersey Wage and Hour law. The Supreme Court deemed the "ABC test" to be most appropriate. On remand, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and denied Sleepy's motion for summary judgment. Following the remand, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Count 8, 9, 10, and 11, which arose under the laws of Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and Maryland. However, the following claims remain: Breach of Contract (Count I and II); Mistake (Count III); Rescission (Count IV); Claim for Plan Enforcement under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA) (Count V); Violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) (Count VI); Violations of New Jersey Wage Payment Law (NJWPL) (Count VII); and violations of New Jersey Wage and Hour law (Count VIII). The Plaintiffs now seek certification of the class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. As this Court understands it, the proposed class members would have to meet three criteria that define the class: (1) worked full-time making deliveries for Sleepy's and thus were misclassified as independent contractors; (2) were subject to improper deductions; and (3) worked over 40 hours per week without being paid over-time (time-and-a-half). On December 13, 2017, the Court held oral argument on the motion for class certification. At the hearing, the Court requested clarification as to the methodology used by the Plaintiff to determine the proposed class members. The Court also provided the parties with the option to depose Ms. Shuford which they did on Dec. 20, 2017. Thereafter, parties submitted supplemental briefs for consideration by the Court. Overall, notwithstanding the additional information provided by Ms. Shuford's deposition, Judge Sheridan is still unable to resolve all disputes regarding the definition of this class. There are "gaps" in the record provided, as Ms. Shuford recognized, that would make assessing the size, as proposed by the Plaintiff, tenuous or speculative. While the standard for ascertainability does not mandate identification of all class members at certification, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs still must show how the class members can be identified. Here, identifying the members of the class would require specific fact-finding as to each individual. Thus, at this time, based on the information provided, the Court is unable to grant the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Accordingly, he denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/WYaddg from Leagle.com. SAM HARGROVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, ANDRE HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & MARCO EUSEBIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by ANTHONY L. MARCHETTI, Jr. -- AMarchetti@MarchettiLawFirm.com -- MARCHETTI LAW, P.C. SLEEPY'S LLC, Defendant, represented by MARC DAVID ESTEROW -- mesterow@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC, PAUL CALVIN LANTIS -- plantis@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & THEO E.M. GOULD -- tgould@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC. SLEEPY'S LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by MARC DAVID ESTEROW, LITTLER MENDELSON PC & THEO E.M. GOULD, LITTLER MENDELSON PC. SLEEPY'S LLC, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by MARC DAVID ESTEROW, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, PAUL CALVIN LANTIS, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & THEO E.M. GOULD, LITTLER MENDELSON PC. SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Faces "Watkins" Suit over January IPO -------------------------------------------------------- JAMES WATKINS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOLID BIOSCIENCES, INC., ILAN GANOT, JENNIFER ZIOLKOWSKI, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, LEERINK PARTNERS, LLC, NOMURA SECURITIES CO., LLC, and CHARDAN CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10587 (D. Mass., March 27, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory damages as a result of Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that: a) acquired common stock of Solid Biosciences pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false and/or misleading registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's January 25, 2018 initial public offering and/or acquired Solid Biosciences' securities between January 25, 2018, and March 14, 2018. Solid Biosciences purportedly seeks to cure Duchenne muscular dystrophy, or DMD. The Company's lead product candidate, SGT-001, is a gene transfer under development to restore functional dystrophin protein expression in patients' muscles. The Company's therapy uses adeno-associated virus (AAV) to deliver the transgene into the patient. On January 2, 2018, the Company filed its IPO prospectus with the SEC, which forms part of the IPO Registration Statement that was declared effective on January 25. The Company sold 7,000,000 shares of common stock at a price of $16.00 per share. The Company received proceeds of approximately $112 million from the IPO, net of underwriting discounts and commissions. The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly to be used to fund research and develop a cure for DMD. On January 30, 2018, an article was published by various medical experts highlighting the risks of studies using high doses of gene therapies using adeno-associated virus (AAV). One of the article's co-authors was Dr. James Wilson, a former member of the Solid Biosciences' advisory board. On this news the Company's shares fell $1.20 per share, or over 5%, to close on January 30, 2018 at $22.50 per share. On March 14, 2018, after the close of trading, the Company published a press release announcing that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had placed a clinical hold on the SGT-001 Phase I/II clinical trial, IGNITE DMD. On March 15, 2018, Solid Biosciences' share price fell $16.99 per share, or over 60%, to close at $9.32 per share on March 15, 2018. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that (1) Solid Biosciences' lead drug candidate SGT-001 had a high likelihood of causing adverse events in patients; (2) Solid Biosciences misled investors regarding the toxicity of SGT-001; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements in the Registration Statement regarding Solid Biosciences' business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Solid Biosciences Inc., a life science company, engages in identifying and developing various therapies for duchenne muscular dystrophy in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Glen DeValerio, Esq. Daryl Andrews, Esq. ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP 265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 936 2796 E-mail: glen@andrewsdevalerio.com daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201 9150 Facsimile: (310) 201 9160 SPROUTS FARMERS: Public Employees Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., J. Douglas Sanders, Amin N. Maredia, Donna Berlinski, Andrew S. Jhawar, Shon Boney, Joseph Fortunato, Lawrence P. Molloy, Steven H. Townsend, AP Sprouts Holdings, LLC, AP Sprouts Holdings (Overseas), L.P., Barclays Capital Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00695 (D. Ariz., March 2, 2018), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the underwriting of Sprouts secondary public offering for an aggregate of 15,847,800 shares of Sprouts common stock by AP Sprouts Holdings, LLC and AP Sprouts Holdings (Overseas), L.P. which closed on or about March 10, 2015. The complaint says the Company's 2014 10-K did not offer any qualifying discussion of then-current trends in produce price deflation or the effects of such deflation on the Company's sales growth or outlook. Sprouts' stock price fell $2.73 per share, or 11.62 percent, to close at $20.77 per share on August 7, 2015 -- well below the $35.30 offering price. Barclays Capital Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC are financial services companies that acted as underwriters of the Offering. Sprouts operates a chain of grocery markets with 208 stores in 13 states as of June 28, 2015. It offers fresh, natural and organic produce. Plaintiff provides retirement and related benefits for all Mississippi state and public education employees, officers of the Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol, and certain elected officials, among others. It purchased Sprouts common stock and lost substantially. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James S. Christian, Esq. CHRISTIAN ANDERSON PLC 5050 North 40th Street, Suite 320 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (602) 478-6828 Email: James@ChristianAndersonLaw.com - and - James W. Johnson, Esq. Michael H. Rogers, Esq. James T. Christie, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 Email: jjohnson@labaton.com mrogers@labaton.com jchristie@labaton.com SYNERGY PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Rose" Securities Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- Wendell Rose, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Synergy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Gary S. Jacob, Gary G. Gemignani, Marino Garcia and Troy Hamilton, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01344 (S.D. N.Y., March 1, 2018), seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorney's fees, expert fees, and other costs and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Synergy is a pharmaceutical company with only one commercial product, plecanatide, a prescription medication approved under the trademark name Trulance (TM) for the treatment of adults with chronic idiopathic constipation. Defendants misrepresented that Trulance has a superior side-effect profile to its competitors and that they misrepresented that a loan the company had secured would fund the launch of Trulance without diluting shareholders. Synergy was unable to meet the undisclosed loan agreement conditions to obtain the second tranche of $100 million in financing, which required it to have a least $128 million in cash or cash equivalents and as a result, Synergy needed to issue shares and dilute shareholders. On this news, Synergy's share price fell $0.28, or approximately 10.3% from the previous trading day's closing price of $2.72, to close at $2.44 on November 13, 2017. The next trading day, Synergy's share price fell another $0.41, or approximately 16.8% from the previous trading day's closing price, to close at $2.03 on November 14, 2017. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Richard W. Gonnello, Esq. Sherief Morsy, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 Email: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com smorsy@faruqilaw.com TRI-BOROUGH CERTIFIED: "Rodriguez" Suit Alleges NYLL Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- Anyely Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Tri-Borough Certified Home Care Ltd. et al., Case No. 152047/2018 (Sup. N.Y., March 7, 2018), seeks to recover wages under the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Anyely Rodriguez was at all relevant times a home health care attendant employed in New York by Defendants to provide personal home health care and assistance to Defendants' clients in their homes. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a home health aid from approximately June 2014 through approximately October 2016. The Defendants are primarily engaged in providing nursing and home health aide services at the residences of their clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 943-9080 Fax: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com TRICO WEB LLC: "Rojas" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages, Damages --------------------------------------------------------- Rafael Rojas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Trico Web, LLC and Donald Juiliano, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03092, (D. N.J., March 2, 2018), seeks overtime wages, compensatory and liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and all other legal and equitable remedies under the Fair Labor Standards and Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. Defendants own and operate a full service printing company, serving clients' printing needs throughout the United States and Europe. Rojas was employed by Trico as a laborer, performing assembly, packing, moving and maintenance duties from in or about May, 2013, through in or about early September, 2016. He routinely worked 50-60 hours per day, five to six days per week, all without overtime premium. Defendants automatically deducted thirty minutes per shift for a meal break, despite the fact that Rojas routinely was required to and did work through his break and was unable to take the time off. Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com UNITED CONTINENTAL: Sacchi Sues over Flight Cancellation Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN SACCHI and STEPHEN SIMONI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC. and UNITED AIRLINES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-03805 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., March 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages, restitution, statutory damages, punitive damages, sanctions, interest, court costs, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief for Defendants' systematic practice of breaching its contracts with thousands of consumers nationwide. According to the complaint, for approximately nine months, United.com informed its customers that, for passengers who "[c]hoose to cancel" a flight and use the ticket's value toward another United flight within one year of the original issue date that "[n]o change fee will be required." This statement was false. Customers who cancelled their flight by clicking on the "[c]hoose to cancel" button and then applied the value of their canceled ticket toward a new ticket within one year of the original purchase date were in fact charged a fee. All claims asserted herein arise out of Defendants' contract breaches and are a common fact pattern as to each member of the Class. United Continental is a publicly traded airline holding company headquartered in the Willis Tower in Chicago. UCH owns and operates United Airlines, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kyle Shamberg, Esq. Katrina Carroll, Esq. Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC 211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 750 1265 Facsimile: (312) 750 159l E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com kshamberg@litedepalma.com UNITED STATES: Almanza Appeals Ruling to Court of Federal Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs MANUEL ALMANZA, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Almanza, et al. v. U.S., Case No. 1:13-cv-00130-EDK, in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The appellate case is captioned as Almanza, et al. v. U.S., Case No. 18-1701, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 26, 2018, the Court of Federal Claims issued an Opinion and Order granting in part the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for an Award of Attorney Fees, Expenses and Costs in the case. The original plaintiffs in this case were 290 Customs and Border Protection Officers (CBPOs) and Border Patrol Agents (BPAs) who are now or were formerly employed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security (CBP). They filed this action to recover overtime pay for time that they spent studying outside of regular working hours while attending CBP's Detection Canine Instructor Course. Thereafter, the parties entered into a settlement agreement as to the claims of the CBPOs. Under the settlement, Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their COPRA and Fair Labor Standards Act claims with prejudice in exchange for payment by the government of $1,716,000. In its Order approving the agreement, the Court requested that the parties file supplemental briefs addressing the effect, if any, of the Court's order approving the settlement agreement on the government's arguments: 1) that Plaintiffs are not prevailing parties; and 2) that Plaintiffs have not been awarded any judgment as is required to recover attorneys' fees under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Plaintiffs have requested an award of $2,983,219.95 in attorneys' fees, as well as $28,568.87 in expenses and costs. In its Order approving attorney fees, the Court rejects the Plaintiffs' arguments that an upward adjustment to the lodestar amount is warranted based on additional factors referenced in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974), overruled in part by Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 90 (1989). Hence, the Court ruled that the Plaintiffs are entitled to a total award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,498,703, broken down as follows: -- For the services of David L. Kern: 1,807.55 hours x $450/hour = $813,398. -- For the services of Mark Greenwald: 601.4 hours x $450/hour = $270,630. -- For the services of Robert Gaudet: 564.15 hours x $380/hour = $214,377. -- Paralegal services: 1,741.72 hours x $115/hour = $200,298. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: * Entry of Appearance was due on April 3, 2018; * Certificate of Interest was due on April 3, 2018; * Docketing Statement is due on April 19, 2018; * Appellant/Petitioner's brief is due on May 21, 2018.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MANUEL ALMANZA, et al., AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, are represented by: David Luis Kern, Esq. KERN LAW FIRM 309 East Robinson Avenue El Paso, TX 79902 Telephone: (915) 542-1900 E-mail: dkern@kernkalman.com Defendant-Cross-Appellant UNITED STATES is represented by: Albert Salvatore Iarossi, Esq. DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH, CIVIL DIVISION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PO Box 480 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 616-3755 Facsimile: (202) 514-8624 E-mail: albert.s.iarossi@usdoj.gov UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Hower Sues over Damaged Frozen Embryos ------------------------------------------------------------ TATYANA HOWER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, c/o Brennan Manna & Diamond LLC 200 Public Square, Suite 3270 Cleveland, OH 44114 and PETER CONSTANTINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, c/o Brennan Manna & Diamond LLC 200 Public Square, Suite 3270 Cleveland, OH 44114, the Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., c/o Janet L. Miller, Statutory Agent 3605 Warrensville Center Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122; UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS CLEVELAND MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a as, inter alia, University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital and University Hospitals MacDonald Women's Hospital, c/o Janet L. Miller, Statutory Agent 3605 Warrensville Center Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122; UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS MEDICAL GROUP, INC. c/o Janet L. Miller, Statutory Agent 3605 Warrensville Center Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122; JOHN DOE PROFESSIONAL CORP.; JOHN DOE MECHANIC; JOHN DOES I-X; JOHN DOE MANUFACTURER JOHN DOE MONITOR; and JOHN DOE SECURITY COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. CV 18 895243 (Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., March 27, 2018), seeks to recover damages, equitable relief, and other remedies from Defendants as a result of their misconduct causing irreplaceable damage to Plaintiffs' frozen eggs and embryos. According to the complaint, the Defendants had been preserving, protecting, and storing Plaintiffs' and the other Class Members' eggs and embryos at a University Hospitals Fertility Center located at the Ahuja Medical Center in Beachwood, Ohio. The damage occurred when the temperature rose in a large storage tank in which Defendants had been preserving, protecting, and storing approximately 2,000 of Plaintiffs' and the other Class Members' egg and embryo specimens. In what can only be characterized as gross negligence and an utter breach of trust, decency, and responsible stewardship, Defendants destroyed the hopes, dreams, and futures of hundreds, if not thousands, of prospective Ohio parents and families. Recognizing the extent and consequences of its misconduct, Defendants have reached out to Plaintiffs and the other Class Members to advise them of Defendants' misconduct and that the consequence of their misconduct is that Plaintiffs' and the other Class Members' frozen eggs and embryos -- eggs and embryos that they entrusted to Defendants and were relying on Defendants for their preservation and safekeeping -- may have been destroyed or irretrievably damaged. One of University Hospitals' representatives is reported saying, "It's absolutely devastating." University Hospitals Health System, Inc. provides health care services. The Company manages a network of hospitals, clinics, and physicians for the provision of emergency care, women's services, cancer care, and pediatric services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey C. Miller, Esq. Victoria L. Ferrise, Esq. BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND LLC 200 Public Square, Suite 3270 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 658 2323 Facsimile: (216) 658 2157 E-mail: jcmiller@bmdllc.com vlferrise@bmdllc.com - and - Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq. Barbara A. Podell, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875 3000 Facsimile: (215) 875 4604 E-mail: ssavett@bm.net llederer@bm.net bpodell@bm.net UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Brown Sues over Damaged Embryos ----------------------------------------------------- KATHRYN BROWN individually and on the behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.; UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS CLEVELAND MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a as, inter alia, University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital And University Hospitals MacDonald Women's Hospital; UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS AHUJA MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; JOHN DOE PROFESSIONAL CORP.; JOHN DOE MECHANIC; JOHN DOES I-X; JOHN DOE MANUFACTURER; JOHN DOE MONITOR; and JOHN DOE SECURITY COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. CV 18 895170 (Ohio Court Of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., March 26, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiff and other Class members were injured as a result of the Defendants' conduct which caused irreparable and permanent damage to their frozen eggs. The Defendants are in the business of protecting, preserving, extracting and storing Plaintiffs' and other Class members' eggs and embryos at a University Hospital Fertility Center located at the Ahuja Medical Center located at 3999 Richmond Road, Beachwood, Ohio 44122. The damage and harm occurred when the temperature in the storage tank which the Defendants were using to store, preserve and maintain the viability of embryos and eggs rose. The temperature increase impacted more than 2,000 vials of eggs and embryos, affecting the Plaintiff and other Class members. Defendants' gross and inexcusable conduct was a breach of trust, confidence, decency, stewardship and professionalism, Defendants' actions or lack thereof have ruined and destroyed the hopes, aspirations and dreams of countless prospective parents and families. Defendants' actions have ruined the last chance for the Plaintiffs, as well as other Class members, to have children or additional children. The Defendants have not reached out to the Plaintiffs and other Class members properly for their misconduct and negligence, advising them of the extent of damage done to their eggs and embryos, and are not offering them proper compensation and psychological counseling. University Hospitals, one of the nation's leading health care systems, provides high-quality, patient-centered medical care at locations throughout Northeast Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce D. Taubman, Esq. Brian M. Taubman, Esq. TAUBMAN LAW 1826 West 25th Street Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 621 0794 Facsimile: (216) 621 8886 E-mail: brucetaubman@taubmanlaw.net briantaubman@taubmanlaw.net US BEAUTY MART: "Hyun" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- HYUN IK SHIN on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. US BEAUTY MART, INC., and KEN CHUNG, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01314-SCJ (N.D. Ga., March 29, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. This case is brought on behalf of only those current and former employees who received straight rates, not one and one-half times their regular rates, and were requested to work over 40 hours in a work week. The similarly situated employees are uniformly have been paid the straight time rate for hours worked over 40 in a work week under the same or similar compensation scheme. The Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, typically worked greater than 40 hours each week.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian G. Kim, Esq. BRIAN PLAINTIFF, PC 1815 Satellite Blvd. #303 Duluth, GA 30097 Telephone: (678) 878 4200 Facsimile: (404) 878 4208 E-mail: brian@leonandkim.com US TOBACCO: Court Enters Amended Final Judgment in "Speaks" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James C. Dever, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, has entered her Amended Final Judgment that will incorporate the Final Approval Order on the Class Settlement in the case, TERESA M. SPEAKS, TOBY SPEAKS, STANLEY SMITH, EDDIE BROWN, ROBERT POINDEXTER, MIKE MITCHELL, ROY L. COOK, ALEX SHUGART, H. RANDLE WOOD, ROBIN ROGERS, and DANIEL LEE NELSON, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. TOBACCO COOPERATIVE, INC. f/k/a FLUE-CURED TOBACCO COOPERATIVE STABILIZATION CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:12-CV-729-D (E.D. N.C.). On Feb. 20, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of a class action settlement, and entered a Final Approval Order. Thus, it certifies the Settlement Class. Accordingly, Judge Dever approved the final class action settlement. The Settlement Class includes all individuals, proprietorships, partnerships, corporations, and other entities that are or were shareholders and/or members of U.S. Tobacco at any time during the Class Period, without any exclusion, including any heirs, representatives, executors, powers-of-attorney, successors, assigns, or others purporting to act for or on their behalf with respect to U.S. Tobacco and/or the Settled Claims. All Settled Claims as against the Defendant and the Released Parties are dismissed with prejudice. Judge Dever expressly directed the Clerk of Court immediately to enter the Amended Final Judgment. Upon entry, the Court decrees that the document be deemed an Amended Final Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2018 Amended Final Judgment is available at https://is.gd/Jugb1S from Leagle.com. Teresa M. Speaks, Toby Speaks, Stanley Smith, Eddie Brown, Robert Poindexter, Mike Mitchell, Roy L. Cook, Alex Shugart, H. Randle Wood, Robin Rogers & Daniel Lee Nelson, Plaintiffs, represented by Gary K. Shipman -- gshipman@shipmanlaw.com -- Shipman & Associates, LLP, Namon Leo Daughtry -- leodaughtry@hotmail.com -- Daughtry, Woodard, Lawrence & Starling & William Grainger Wright, Sr. -- wright@shipmanlaw.com -- Shipman and Wright, LLP. U.S. Tobacco Cooperative, Inc., Defendant, represented by Derek Lawrence Shaffer -- derekshaffer@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Lee M. Whitman -- lwhitman@wyrick.com -- Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton, LLP & Paul J. Puryear, Jr. -- ppuryear@wyrick.com -- Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton, LLP. Nellirea Miles, On Behalf of Herself and James D. Miles, Deceased, Interested Party, pro se. James A. Miles, Interested Party, pro se. Melvin M McElveen, Interested Party, pro se. Sharp Farms, Objector, represented by James L. Ward, Jr. , McGowan Hood & Felder LLC, Philip R. Isley -- pisley@bmlilaw.com -- Blanchard, Miller, Lewis & Isley, P.A., Charles Alan Runyan, Runyan & Platte & John L. Coble -- jlc@mwglaw.com -- Marshall, Williams & Gorham. Pender Sharp, Objector, represented by Philip R. Isley, Blanchard, Miller, Lewis & Isley, P.A. & John L. Coble, Marshall, Williams & Gorham. David L. Rose, E. Jerome Vick, Vick Family Farming Partnership, E.J. Vick Farming Company, LLC, Jerome B Vick, J.B. Rose & Sons, Inc., Charles Allen Rose, Sr., Cheryl G Rose, Sheree B. Rose, Estate of James B. Rose, Jr. & Estate of James B Rose, III, Objectors, represented by Christopher S. Battles -- cbattles@shanahanmcdougal.com -- Shanahan Law Group, PLLC & Kieran J. Shanahan -- kieran@shanahanmcdougal.com -- Shanahan Law Group, PLLC. North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services & South Carolina Department of Agriculture, Amicuss, represented by Anne J. Brown , NC Department of Justice. VALIDUS HOLDINGS: Witmer Balks at AIG Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------- COLLEEN WITMER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. VALIDUS HOLDINGS, LTD., ED NOONAN, MAHMOUD ABDALLAH, MICHAEL CARPENTER, MATTHEW GRAYSON, JEFFREY GREENBERG, KARIN KIRTLER-GARVEY, JOHN HENDRICKSON, JEAN- MARIE NESSI, MANDAKINI PURI, GAIL ROSS, THERESE VAUGHAN, and CHRISTOPHER WATSON, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04265 (D.N.J., March 26, 2018), seeks to enjoin the defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed merger transaction, and in the event the defendants consummate the proposed transaction, rescind it and set it aside, or award rescissory damages. This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on January 22, 2018, pursuant to which Validus Holdings, Ltd. will be acquired by American International Group, Inc. and Venus Holdings Limited. On January 21, 2018, Validus's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with AIG. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, stockholders of Validus will receive $68.00 in cash for each share of Validus they own. On March 7, 2018, defendants filed a preliminary proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges herein that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement. Validus Holdings, Ltd. provides reinsurance coverage, insurance coverage, and insurance linked securities management services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Reinsurance, Insurance, and Asset Management.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiff: Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623 3000 Facsimile: (973) 623 0858 E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295 5310 Facsimile: (302) 654 7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324 6800 Facsimile: (484) 631 1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com VILLAGE FAMILY: Underpays Therapists, Yahalom Claims ---------------------------------------------------- BRITTANY YAHALOM, an Individual, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. THE VILLAGE FAMILY SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.BC699642 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 26, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation and minimum wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in California during the Class Period. She was not covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement during that time. She is no longer employed by Defendants. As a Therapist, Plaintiff was improperly classified as an independent contractor, despite failing to meet any test to be such. By paying Plaintiff and her colleagues hourly, Defendants classified Plaintiff and her colleagues as non-exempt employees. Defendants concede this point by already paying and classifying Therapists throughout California as non-exempt "hourly" employees. The Plaintiff was never relieved of all duties for a meal period at any time during her employment by Defendants. Likewise, during her employment by Defendants, Plaintiff was never relieved of her duties so that she could take a rest period. Plaintiff was never paid any meal or rest period premium compensation by Defendants, despite never being provided a legally-compliant meal or rest period. The Plaintiff, and those others similarly situated, were misclassified as independent contractors. This misclassification forced them to pay self-employment tax, as well as deprived them of various benefits that they should have. The failure to properly classify Plaintiff and those similarly situated also deprived them of compensation for overtime and meal and rest breaks, as well as pay for preparation and other time not "billed" directly to clients. Plaintiff complained about this illegal misclassification, upon learning she could not receive state benefits related to her pregnancy disability. As a result, Plaintiff was retaliated against, receiving a cut in pay by more than half and then was ultimately forced out of work with Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alireza Alivandivafa, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1990 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 570 2238 Facsimile: (310) 300 1015 - and - Azad M. Marvazy, Esq. LIGHT LAW GROUP, APC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1990 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 241 3422 Facsimile: (424) 273 8884 VITAS HEALTHCARE: "Williams" Suit Alleges FCRA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Jazzina Williams, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Vitas Healthcare Corporation of California and Does 1-10, Case No. 18-564850 (Calif. Super., March 7, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Plaintiff Jazzina Williams is and at all relevant times was a resident of Elk Grove and Sacramento, California. Plaintiff applied for employment with Defendants in or about late April, 2016, continues to remain employed by Defendants, and continues to be subjected to Defendants' invalid Background Investigation Authorization and Release forms, says the complaint. Defendant Vitas Healthcare Corp of California provides end-of- life care to patients who are terminally ill. The company provides nurses and other specialized and qualified staff at the patients home. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin F. Woodall, Esq. WOODALL LAW OFFICES 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 413-4629 Fax: (866) 937-4109 E-mail: kevin@kwoodalllaw.com WAL-MART STORES: Count VIII Survives Dismissal Bid in "Johnson" --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Benita Y. Pearson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, SHELLEY JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:17CV1894 (N.D. Ohio). The Plaintiff, the mother of minor child B.C., purchased a Mainstays patio set from the Warren, Ohio Wal-Mart sometime in 2009. This patio set included chairs. The Plaintiff alleges that, on or about Sept. 3, 2009, one of the chairs collapsed while B.C., the Plaintiff's then three-year old son, was sitting in the chair. The collapse of the chair caused B.C.'s left middle finger to become stuck in the chair, tearing a tendon in the finger. B.C. underwent surgery to replace the damaged tendon. Post-surgery, B.C. completed physical therapy, but he has not regained normal use of the finger, and the Plaintiff alleges that the impairment is permanent. The Plaintiff has filed a putative Class Action Complaint. In her Complaint, she posits eight counts: (1) violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. Section 1345.01, et seq.; (2) violations of state consumer protection statutes; (3) violations of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act;1 (4) negligence; (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) negligence;2 and (8) violation of the Ohio Products Liability Act, R.C. Section 2307.71, et seq. The Plaintiff alleges all counts as both individual and class claims. Judge Pearson granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. She granted the motion as to all counts except Count VIII, the Ohio Products Liability Act claim. Thus, all of the Plaintiff's claims except Count VIII are dismissed with prejudice. Additionally, the Judge dismissed without prejudice claims of absent putative class members for all Counts, except Count VIII. The Judge finds, among other things, that the Defendant fails to cite to a case holding that the Plaintiff must plead an alternative design in a products liability action. Moreover, Oblak v. Integra Lifesciences Corp., a case upon which the Plaintiff relies, did not hold that a plaintiff must plead an alternative design. Rather, it held that manufacturing and design defect claims require allegations that the defendant manufactured the product; that the product was used by the plaintiff, that the product failed while being used by the plaintiff; and, that the portion of the product that failed could be identified and is so identified in the complaint. She says the Plaintiff's complaint contains allegations sufficient to satisfy this standard. Consequently, Count VIII survives. The Court will schedule a telephonic case management conference to complete the case management schedule. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/NLxGfl from Leagle.com. Shelley Johnson, on behalf of her minor son B.C., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ashton R. Smith -- ashton@jonesward.com -- Jones Ward, Jasper D. Ward, IV -- jasper@jonesward.com -- Jones Ward, pro hac vice & Michelle L. Kranz -- michelle@toledolaw.com -- Zoll & Kranz. Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. & Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendants, represented by Karen L. Giffen -- kgiffen@thinkgk.com -- Giffen & Kaminski, Jan L. Roller -- jroller@thinkgk.com -- Giffen & Kaminski & Tina Y. Rhodes -- trhodes@thinkgk.com -- Giffen & Kaminski. WAL-MART STORES: "Palmer" Sues Over Mislabeled Eggs --------------------------------------------------- Brian Palmer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00459, (N.D. Cal., March 2, 2018), seeks monetary damages, including but not limited to, compensatory, incidental, and consequential damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs incurred by counsel for Plaintiffs in accordance with California's Unfair Competition Law and California's False Advertising Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Cal-Maine is in the business of production and marketing of shell eggs to consumers nationwide via retail stores such as Wal-Mart. Its labels claims that its laying hens are free range. Consumers typically pay a significant premium for such eggs, due to the touted improvements to the welfare of laying hens, which is itself important to consumers as well as the perceived health benefits from eating the eggs of better treated hens. However, Plaintiff claims otherwise and asserts that Cal-Maine's hens are confined in pens. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Tel: (213) 330-7150 Email: melaine@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel: (206) 623-7292 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com WALTERS TIMMONS: Fails to Pay All Wages, Hernandez Says ------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL GIRON HERNANDEZ, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. WALTERS TIMMONS ENTERPRISES, INC., a California Corporation; dba TIMMONS OF LONG B, the Defendant, Case No. BC699630 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all current and past aggrieved employees alleges that Defendants failed to timely compensate employees for non-sales or non-productive activities, failed to authorize and permit paid rest periods, failed to provide meal periods, and failed to pay all wages owed upon termination. Walter Timmons Enterprises retails automobiles and accessories. The Company offers new and used passenger cars, vans, and sports utility vehicles, as well as automotive parts distribution, finance, and maintenance services. Walter Timmons Enterprises serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Strauss, Esq. Andrew C. Ellison, Esq. Rabiah A. Rahman, Esq. STRAUSS & STRAUSS, APC 121 N. Fir Street, Suite F Ventura, CA 93001 Telephone: (805) 641 6600 Facsimile: (805) 641 6607 E-mail: mike@strausslawyers.com andrew@strausslawyers.com WERNER ENTERPRISES: Court Endorses "Abarca" Classes Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, EZEQUIEL OLIVARES ABARCA, ALFREDO ALESNA JR., DAVID CAGLE, STEPHEN L. DAVIS, FRANK EADS, and KENNETH J. SURMAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., DRIVERS MANAGEMENT, LLC, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. WILLIAM SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a C.L. WERNER, INC., a corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case Nos. 8:14CV319, 8:15CV287 (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska recommended that (i) the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification be granted, and (ii) the Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Exhibits Offered in Support of Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification be denied. On June 4, 2014, Antonia Russell filed a putative class action against Werner in California state court for violations of California wage and hour laws. On Aug. 25, 2014, Werner removed the case to the Northern District of California. On Oct. 6, 2014, the case was transferred to the district. On March 30, 2015, an amended complaint was filed by Russell, Abarca, Alesna, Cagle, Davis, Eads and Surman against Werner and Drivers Management. By joint stipulation of the parties, Russell was dismissed as a party on April 24, 2015, and on Sept. 17, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint adding claims under Nebraska wage and hour laws. On May 12, 2015, Smith filed a putative class action against Werner in California state court for violations of California wage and hour laws. On June 26, 2015, Werner removed the case to the Northern District of California. On July 31, 2015, the case was transferred to the district. On Nov. 19, 2015, the captioned cases were consolidated for all purposes, including trial, and Case No. 8:14cv319 was deemed the Lead Case. The Court set March 1, 2016, as the deadline to complete discovery limited to class certification and April 1, 2016, as the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a motion to certify a class. On April 1, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify two classes: a Nebraska Class and a California Class. The operative pleading at that time was the Plaintiffs' third amended complaint, which defined the California Class as all truck drivers who worked or work in California for Werner after the completion of training at any time since four years before the filing of the legal action until such time as there is a final disposition of the lawsuit. On Oct. 28, 2016, Senior District Judge Lyle E. Strom entered a Memorandum and Order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Judge Strom abstained from addressing the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the "Nebraska Class," and granted them leave to file a fourth amended complaint to attempt to provide the Court with an adequately defined and clearly ascertainable definition for the California Class. On Nov. 9, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint. On Dec. 29, 2016, Judge Strom sustained the Defendants' motion to strike portions of the Plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint as it contained new allegations not limited to redefining the Plaintiffs' proposed California Class, in violation of the court's previous order. The Plaintiffs re-filed their fourth amended complaint on Jan. 6, 2017. Their fourth amended complaint purports to bring claims individually and on behalf of similarly situated current and former truck drivers whom Werner employed to work in California after the completion of training, and defines the California Class as all truck drivers who, while working for Werner, picked up and/or dropped off a load in the state of California after the completion of training at any time since four years before the filing of the legal action until such time as there is a final disposition of the lawsuit. With respect to the Nebraska Class, Plaintiffs purport to bring claims individually and "on behalf of similarly situated current and former truck drivers whom Werner employed to work anywhere after the completion of training. The Plaintiffs allege violations of Nebraska law, which Werner has expressly agreed would apply to truck driver employment and define the Nebraska Class as all truck drivers who worked or work anywhere for Werner after the completion of training at any time since four years before the filing of this legal action until such time as there is a final disposition of this lawsuit. The California Class Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' policies violate the California Labor Code, California Industrial Commission Wage Orders, and the California Unfair Competition Law by: (1) failing to provide duty free meal/rest periods (Claim One); (2) failing to pay for off-the-clock work (Claim Two); (3) making improper deductions from paychecks for income earned (Claim Three); (4) failing to provide itemized pay statements as required under California law (Claim Four); and (5) engaging in unlawful business acts and unfair competition for the misconduct alleged in (1)-(4) (Claim Five). Claim Six seeks recovery under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA")3 to the extent recovery for the preceding claims is not obtained. The Nebraska Class Plaintiffs allege the Defendants violated the Nebraska Wage and Hour Act ("NWHA") by paying less than the minimum wage (Claim Seven) and the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act ("NWPCA") by failing to timely pay earned wages, failing to provide accurate itemized pay statements, and making improper wage deductions (Claim Eight). The California Class requests a declaratory judgment that: (1) the Defendants violated the California Labor Code, California Welfare Commission wage orders, and California Unfair Business Practices Act/Unfair Competition Law; (2) the time during which the California Class members are on duty in California constitutes compensable hours of employment for purposes of the California Labor Code and California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders; (3) California Class members are entitled to an award for the unpaid wages, wages for absence of duty free meal/rest periods, recovery of improper deductions from pay earned in California, waiting time penalties, penalties for absence of properly itemized wage statements/record maintenance, and any other applicable statutory penalties; (4) the Defendants must make restitution and disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains; (5) equitable distribution be made of unpaid residue of any recovery pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 384; (6) injunctive relief is appropriate to prohibit future violations; and (7) penalties should be awarded under PAGA. The Nebraska Class requests a declaratory judgment that: (1) Defendants violated the NWHA and NWPCA, (2) the time during which the Nebraska Class members are working anywhere constitutes compensable hours of employment for purposes of Nebraska law; (3) Nebraska Class members are entitled to an award for the unpaid wages, recovery of improper deductions, and any applicable statutory penalties; (4) and Defendants must pay an additional amount to the State Treasurer pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec 48- 1232. Defendants raise numerous affirmative defenses, including: (1) the Plaintiffs consented in writing that their employment with Werner was Nebraska-based and subject to Nebraska law; (2) the Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part because there is a conflict of laws prohibiting the extra-territorial application of California law; the Plaintiffs' claims are barred by (3) ratification and the (4) statute of limitations; and (5) the Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the Dormant Commerce Clause and the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. On May 26, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the instant renewed motion to certify a California Class and Nebraska Class. They seek to certify the California and Nebraska classes as defined by their fourth amended complaint. They state in their brief that the proposed California Class asserts claims "for work performed in California" regardless of a driver's residency. They also alternatively suggest that the Court certify a more narrowly defined California Class limited to Werner drivers who were California residents. They further request that the Court appoints the individually named Plaintiffs in Case No. 8:14cv319 as the class representatives and to appoint the class counsel. In support of their renewed motion, the Plaintiffs filed the Supplemental Declaration of Justin Swidler, and the Declaration of Jacqueline Thompson. The Defendants have filed a Motion to Strike Exhibits Offered in Support of Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification. Having rigorously analyzed the requirements of Rule 23, Magistrate Judge Nelson finds that the Plaintiffs have established that certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Nebraska Class defined as all truck drivers who worked or work anywhere for Werner after the completion of training at any time since four years before the filing of the legal action until such time as there is a final disposition of the lawsuit. The Magistrate Judge further finds that the Plaintiffs have established that certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the alternative California Class defined as all truck drivers who, while working for Werner, were California residents and picked up and/or dropped off a load in the state of California after the completion of training at any time since four years before the filing of the legal action until such time as there is a final disposition of the lawsuit. Upon consideration, he recommended to the Hon. Joseph F. Bataillon, Senior United States District Court Judge, that (i) the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification be granted; (ii) the Court certifies the alternative California Class limited to California residents; (iii) the Court certifies the Nebraska Class; (iv) the Court appoints the named Plaintiffs in Case No. 8:14CV319 as the class representatives; and (v) the Court appoints Swartz Swidler, LLC (by Justin Swidler, and Richard Swartz), Law Offices of James M. Sitkin (by James M. Sitkin), Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho (by David Borgen, James Kan, and Raymond Wendell), and the Turley Law Offices (by William Turley, David Mara, and Jamie Serb) as the Class Counsel. Magistrate Judge Nelson denied the Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Exhibits Offered in Support of Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 28, 2018 Findings and Recommendation and Order is available at https://is.gd/Pl4OH6 from Leagle.com. Ezequiel Olivares Abarca, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Alfredo Alesna, Jr., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, David Cagle, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Stephen L. Davis, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Frank Eads, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated & Kenneth J. Surman, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by David A. Borgen -- dborgen@gbdhlegal.com -- GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, James M. Sitkin -- jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com -- LAW OFFICES OF JAMES M. SITKIN, pro hac vice, Justin L. Swidler -- jswidler@swartz-legal.com -- SWARTZ, SWIDLER LAW FIRM, Laura L. Ho -- lho@gbdhlegal.com -- GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Raymond A. Wendell -- rwendell@gbdhlegal.com -- GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice & Richard S. Swartz -- rswartz@swartz-legal.com -- SWARTZ, SWIDLER LAW FIRM. Werner Enterprises, Inc. & Drivers Management, LLC, Defendants, represented by Brandon J. Crainer, FRASER, STRYKER LAW FIRM, Elizabeth A. Culhane, FRASER, STRYKER LAW FIRM, Joseph E. Jones, FRASER, STRYKER LAW FIRM & Kathryn A. Dittrick, FRASER, STRYKER LAW FIRM. William Smith, Interested Party, represented by David A. Borgen, GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN LAW FIRM, Raymond A. Wendell, GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN LAW FIRM & William D. Turley -- bturley@turleylawfirm.com -- TURLEY LAW FIRM. WERNER ENTERPRISES: Petrone Appeals D. Neb. Ruling to 8th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Phillip Petrone, et al., filed an appeal from a Memorandum & Order entered on February 9, 2018, in their lawsuit entitled Philip Petrone, et al. v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case Nos. 8:11-cv-00401-LSC and 8:12-cv-00304-LSC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha. The appellate case is captioned as Philip Petrone, et al. v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-1574, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 2, 2018, a class of student drivers' attempt at a new trial in a class action against Werner Enterprises has been denied. In May 2017, a federal jury in Nebraska awarded nearly $780,000 to Werner student drivers who weren't paid for rest breaks of 20 minutes or less. However, the class asked that the judgment be altered or amended, arguing that the jury's verdict was based on an erroneous legal standard. Specifically, the student drivers were requesting a partial judgment "as to the compensability of sleeper berth time" or a partial new trial. The plaintiffs sought almost $2.2 million in attorney's fees, as well as about $200,000 in nontaxable costs and $10,000 each for the named plaintiffs. The Nebraska federal judge didn't grant a new trial, saying "there has been no miscarriage of justice that justifies amending the judgement and/or granting a new trial." Instead, the Plaintiffs were awarded $337,293 in attorney's fees, $133,276 in nontaxable costs and expenses, and $10,000 for each of the four named plaintiffs. The class action is made up of more than 50,000 student drivers from August 2008 until Aug. 1, 2014. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript is due on or before April 25, 2018; -- Appendix is due on May 7, 2018; -- Brief of Appellants Phillip Petrone, et al., is due on May 7, 2018; -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant; and -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Philip Petrone, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Joshua S. Boyette, Esq. Richard S. Swartz, Esq. Justin L. Swidler, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway, N., Suite 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 E-mail: jboyette@swartz-legal.com rswartz@swartz-legal.com jswidler@swartz-legal.com - and - Joseph L. Messa, Jr., Esq. Thomas N. Sweeney, Esq. MESSA & ASSOCIATES 123 South 22nd Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 568-3500 E-mail: jmessa@messalaw.com tsweeney@messalaw.com Defendants-Appellees Werner Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Werner Trucking, and Drivers Management, LLC, are represented by: Patrick Joseph Barrett, Esq. Elizabeth A. Culhane, Esq. Joseph Edward Jones, Esq. FRASER STRYKER PC LLO 500 Energy Plaza 409 S. 17th Street Omaha, NE 68102-2663 Telephone: (402) 341-6000 E-mail: pbarrett@fraserstryker.com eculhane@fraserstryker.com jjones@fraserstryker.com WYNN RESORTS: "Ferris" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- John V. Ferris and Joann M. Ferris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wynn Resorts Limited, Stephen A. Wynn, Craig Scott Billings, Stephen Cootey, and Matthew O. Maddox, Case No. 2:18-cv-00479 (D. Nev., March 13, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Wynn Resorts' securities between February 28, 2014 and January 25, 2018, both dates inclusive. Plaintiffs John V. Ferris and Joann M. Ferris acquired Wynn Resorts securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and were damaged upon the revelation of corrective disclosures, says the complaint. Defendant Wynn Resorts owns and operates luxury hotels and destination casino resorts. The Company owns and operates Wynn Las Vegas and Encore in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Wynn Macau and Wynn Palace in Macau, China, and it is currently constructing a new $2.4 billion property called Wynn Boston Harbor in Everett, Massachusetts. The Individual Defendants are officers of Wynn Resorts and possessed the power and authority to control the contents of Wynn Resorts' SEC filings, press releases, and other market communications. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com ********* 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 * * *