/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180430.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 30, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 86 Headlines 149 STREET: "Perez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA 572 W. 173RD STREET: Faces "Paz" Suit in S.D. New York A.& R. LANDSCAPING: Mejia Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA AEGIS SENIOR: July 19 Hearing on "Conlin" Case Settlement ALLIANCE RESOURCE: Faces "Leeper" Suit in S.D. Indiana ALLIED INTERSTATE: 2nd Cir. Revives FDCPA Class Action AMSCAFF LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Macias-Lopez Says ARIZONA: Court Reverses Summary Ruling in Suit Over Surcharge AS SOLUTION: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wage, Aguayo Says AXA FINANCIAL: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Young Claims BANK OF AMERICA: Kaufman Sues over Debt Collection Practices BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Lopez" Suit in N.D. California BCHHOYNE LLC: Violates Landlord-Tenant Rules, Lee Alleges BIG BUS: "Munoz" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA BREW DR KOMBUCHA: "Bazer" Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois CANCER GENETICS: Faces Class Actions Over Misleading Statements CAPELLA EDUCATION: Doctoral Degree Program Deceptive, Wright Says CAPITAL ALLIANCE: Neumeyer Sues over Unsolicited Robocalls CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action Over Excessive ATM Fees CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Seeks to Deny Ritenour Class Certification CH EMPLOYMENT: Fails to Pay Wages, McCray Claims CHASE BANK: Faces "Haynes" Suit in S.D. New York CHEMOURS: Put on Notice Over Genx Air Emissions Amid Class Action CHEVRON U.S.A.: Winkle Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA CIBA INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged "Ponzi Scheme" CITIMED MANAGEMENT: Jimenez Seeks Overtime Wages under Labor Law COLONY NORTHSTAR: Faces Securities Class Action COLONY NORTHSTAR: June 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set COMMONWEALTH BANK: Four Large Pensions Funds Join Class Action COMMUNITY PROBATION: Certification of Two Classes Sought CORDS & CO: Website Not Accessible to Blind, "Kiler" Suit Says DAVIS STUART: Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces "Smith" Suit in N.D. Texas EMBRAER SA: New York Judge Dismisses FCPA Class Action EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Sanfilippo Sues over Plunge in Stock Price ENAGIC USA: Class and Subclasses in "Makaon" TCPA Suit Certified EXPERIAN INFO: Wilson and White Sue over Background Checks EZ CHOICE: Henry Sues over Recurring Debit Practices FACEBOOK INC: Faces Cambridge Analytica Class Action in Delaware FACEBOOK INC: Faces Another Class Action Over Data Misuse FALCON RECOVERY: Faces "Lord" Suit in N.D. New York FAMOUS DAVE'S: "Broad" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA FOREVER 21: Faces "Hameed-Bolden" Suit in C.D. California G. WELDING: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime under FLSA GALVESTON, TX: ACLU Sues Over Discriminatory Bail Practices GLOBAL EXECUTIVE: Levy Seeks to Certify Class GOHEALTH LLC: Beck Seeks to Certify 4 Classes GOODLIFE FITNESS: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Wages HERBALIFE INT'L: Files Motion to Dismiss RICO Class Action HOMETOWN RESTORATION: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages HOSTMARK HOSPITALITY: Robertson Sues over Biometric Data HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Brogan" Suit in C.D. California IDENTIV INC: "Cunningham" Securities Suit Dismissal Affirmed INTEGRITY PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Drivers, McKeon Claims INTERSTATE NATIONAL: Faces "Gattuso" Suit in N.D. Georgia JANI-KING INC: "Mujo" Suit Seeks to Certify Class JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hall Sues over Talcum Powder in Products JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Pelles Sue over Talcum Powder in Products KRISPY KREME: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Donut Labels LIBERTY POWER: Court Denies Summary Judgment in BLT Steak Suit MARIO ALMANZA: Weight Loss Surgery Victims File Class Action LONGFIN CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action MDL 2826: "Designor" Suit over Data Security Breach Consolidated MDL 2826: "Harang" Suit over Data Security Breach Consolidated MDL 2826: "Patni" Suit over Data Security Breach Consolidated MDL 2826: "West" Suit over Data Security Breach Consolidated MDL 2827: "Miller" Suit over iPhone Performance Consolidated MDL 2828: Artesia Hospital's Suit over CPU Defects Consolidated MDL 2828: "Bahcevan" Suit over Defective CPUs Consolidated MDL 2828: "Jones" Suit over Defective CPUs Consolidated MDL 2828: Providence Suit over Defective CPUs Consolidated MDL 2828: Zog Inc. Suit over Defective CPUs Consolidated MECHEL BLUESTONE: $300K Settlement in "Ray" Has Final Approval MEDPARTNERS INC: Rainey Seeks Minimum & OT Pay under FLSA MERCHANTS CREDIT: Taylor Seeks Final Settlement Approval MICHIGAN: Supreme Court to Hear Unemployment Fraud Case MICROSEMI CORP: Rubin Balks at Merger Deal with Microchip MYRIAD GENETICS: Kessman Sues over Misleading Disclosures NATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces "Roth" Suit in C.D. California NAVIENT CORP: Appeals Ruling in Student Loan Class Actions NEW ORLEANS, LA: Cain, et al. Seek to Certify Class NEW ORLEANS MILLWORKS: "Maldonado" Class Conditionally Certified NEW YORK: Seubert Files Suit v. Election Board NVR INC: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Smith, et al. ODWALLA INC: Thompson Sues over "No Added Sugar" Label in Juices OPHTHOTECH CORP: Court Consolidates "Micholle," "Wasson" Suits OUTCOME HEALTH: Settles Suit Over Daily Nutrition Tip Texts OVERSTOCK.COM INC: May 29 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set P.J. CLARKES: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York PHARMACEUTICAL SPECIALIST: Quinonez Seeks to Certify Two Classes PHILLIPS NORTH AMERICA: Faces "Loujangamath" Wage-and-Hour Suit POWERCOR: Class Action Over Victor Bushfires Commences PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY: Fails to Pay Wages, "Sanders" Suit Says PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: Court Dismisses "Gregory" Suit RASIER LLC: Faces "Durgin" Suit in C.D. California RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Dibartolo" Suit in E.D. New York SAGBOLT LLC: "O'Brien" Suit Brought Before New York Supreme Court SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Faces "Fife" Suit in W.D. Washington SETERUS INC: Demurrer Ruling in "Davidson" Suit Reversed SHORE CONSTRUCTION: Conditional Cert. of "Magana" Class Denied ST. LOUIS RAMS: Court Certifies Class, Subclass in "McAllister" STARKIST: AHA Defends "Heart-Check Mark" Logo After Class Action TD ASSET: Faces Class Action Over Trailing Commissions TENET FLORIDA: Averts Class Action Over Health Insurance Payments TIDEWATER FINANCE: Faces "Clark" Suit in C.D. California TIGER BRANDS: Says Not Opposed to Listeriosis Class Action TIGER BRANDS: Files Motions in Listeriosis Class Action UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Quashes Canadian Drivers' Class Action UFC: Expects to Settle Streaming Class Action with Refunds UNITED STATES: Appeals Ruling in Immigrant Minors' Abortion Case UNITED STATES: Class Action Over Male-Only Draft Can Proceed US POSTAL: Owes Payouts to Workers After Class Action Ruling VISIONPRO CONNECTIONS: Fails to Pay Wages, Fearon Says VOLKSWAGEN: Slovenian Consumer Watchdog Files Dieselgate Suit VOYA FINANCIAL: Court Denies Filing of 1st Amended "Patrico" Suit WALMART: Block & Leviton Files RICO Class Action in California WEBSTER INDUSTRIES: Nominee Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA XUNLEI: CEO Says No Basis for Investors' ICO Class Actions * Lawyers Prepare Class Action in Victoria v. Construction Cos. * New Class-Action Created in Montreal Judicial District Court ********* 149 STREET: "Perez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- HILDEBERTO IBARRA PEREZ (A/K/A ALBERTO IBARRA) and SANTIAGO HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. 149 STREET FOOD CORP. (D/B/A FINE FARE SUPERMARKET), 675 MORRIS AVE FOOD CORP. (D/B/A FINE FARE SUPERMARKET), FRANK PIMENTEL, DAISY PIMENTEL, and RIGO DELGADO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03560 (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants. The Defendants own, operate, or control two supermarkets, located at 459 East 149th Street, Bronx, New York 10451 under the name "Fine Fare Supermarket". The Plaintiffs were employed as a stock person and a general assistant at the two supermarkets. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 Facsimile: (212) 317 1620 E-mail: Faillace@empioymentcompliance.com 572 W. 173RD STREET: Faces "Paz" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 572 W. 173rd Street Realty, Corp. doing business as: 572 W. 173rd Street Realty, Corp. The case is styled as Miguel Hernandez Paz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 572 W. 173rd Street Realty, Corp. doing business as: 572 W. 173rd Street Realty, Corp., Haav 575 Realty Corp. doing business as: Haav 575 Realty Corp., Avraham Dishi also known as: AviDishi, Ron Nahum and Alfredo Doe, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03377 (S.D. N.Y., April 18, 2018). The Defendants are engaged in the real estate business.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. A.& R. LANDSCAPING: Mejia Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSE E. MEJIA and other similarly situated current and former landscapers and manual workers, the Plaintiff, v. A.& R. LANDSCAPING, LUIS RAZANO, ALEX RAZANO, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02371 (E.D.N.Y., April 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and earned wages, declaratory relief, liquidated damages, and compensatory damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The case is a civil action brought by Plaintiff and all current and former landscapers and manual workers. The Plaintiff and the collective class work or have worked at A.R. LANDSCAPING, a sole proprietorship, which is owned, controlled, managed and operated by Luis Razano and Alex Razano. The Plaintiff and the FLSA collective also bring this action under the Wage Theft Protection Act, for Defendants' failure to provide written notice of wage rates in violation of said laws.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Tenenbaum, Esq. GOODMAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 380 North Broadway, Suite 203 Jericho, New York 11753 Telephone: (516) 597 5840 Telephone: (631) 656 8180 Facsimile: (866) 415 1019 E-mail: ggoodman@gganylaw.com AEGIS SENIOR: July 19 Hearing on "Conlin" Case Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JAY CONLIN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AEGIS SENIOR COMMUNITIES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 5:17-cv-05534- LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on July 19, 2018 for an order: 1. granting preliminary approval of the Settlement, and preliminarily finding the terms of the Settlement to be fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the amount of the settlement fund; the amount of distributions to class members; the procedure for giving notice to class members; the procedure for objecting to or opting out of the Settlement; and the maximum amounts allocated to an incentive payment, costs and attorney's fees; 2. preliminarily certifying for settlement purposes a Settlement Class of: "all persons who worked for Defendant as a non-exempt employee in California at any time between August 18, 2013 and February 25, 2018"; 3. appointing the Plaintiff as representative for the Settlement Class; 4. appointing Gregory N. Karasik of Karasik Law Firm and Emil Davtyan of Davtyan Professional Law Corporation as counsel for the Settlement Class; 5. appointing Dahl Administration as the Settlement Administrator; 6. directing the Settlement Administrator to provide notice to class members as set forth in the Settlement; 7. establishing the deadlines for members of the Settlement Class to opt out of the settlement or to object to the Settlement; and 8. scheduling a final approval and fairness hearing on a date approximately 120 days after preliminary approval of the Settlement to consider whether the Settlement should be finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to rule on the motion for attorney's fees, costs and service payment to be submitted by Plaintiff. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BY1ViCCX The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. KARASIK LAW FIRM 11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 1275 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 312 6800 Facsimile: (310) 943 2582 E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com - and - Emil Davtyan, Esq. DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 992 2935 Facsimile: (818) 975 5525 E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com ALLIANCE RESOURCE: Faces "Leeper" Suit in S.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alliance Resource Partners, L.P. The case is styled as Carl Leeper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alliance Resource Partners, L.P., Hamilton County Coal, LLC and Doe Defendants 1-20, Defendants, Guill Hulett, Jr., Interested Party, Case No. 1:18-mc-00024-WTL-DML (S.D. Ind., April 16, 2018). Alliance Resource Partners, L.P. produces and markets coal to United States utilities and industrial users. The Company operates its facilities in Kentucky, Illinois, and Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. The Interested Party is represented by: Thomas A. Brodnik, Esq. DONINGER TUOHY & BAILEY LLP 50 South Meridian, Suite 700 Indianapolis, IN 46204-3542 Tel: (317) 638-2400 Fax: (317) 633-6618 Email: tbrodnik@dtblegal.com ALLIED INTERSTATE: 2nd Cir. Revives FDCPA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Colby Hamilton, writing for Law.com, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit again revived an attempted class action suit that U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York has tried to close out twice now, most recently by entering judgment on a Rule 68 settlement offered by the defendants in Franco v. Allied Interstate. On April 9, the panel of Second Circuit Judges Rosemary Pooler, Reena Raggi and Christopher Droney, armed with two recent decisions, vacated and remanded the suit back to Forrest via a summary judgment. The district judge had initially dismissed the amended complaint in the action over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Gilberto Franco had sued Allied Interstate in 2013 over claims mailed to him by the company that warned debtors of a 15 percent pay garnishment, despite the FDCPA allowing the garnishment on disposable income. When Mr. Franco attempted to bring a class suit, Allied Interstate said it was willing to pay $1,501, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs, pursuant to federal civil procedure rules -- the most Mr. Franco was eligible for under the statute, as he sought no actual damages. Judge Forrest granted the dismissal -- which also signaled the end of Mr. Franco's class certification -- but the circuit reversed, finding that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer could not moot a claim in the absence of judgment. With judgment being the key, Allied Interstate sought judgment against it under Rule 54(b) in the case under virtually the same terms, which Forrest granted. Armed with the U.S. Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Campbell- Ewald v. Gomez, as well as its own elaboration on the issue in last year's Geismann v. ZocDoc, the panel on April 9 reversed again, as an unaccepted Rule 68 offer doesn't moot a claim even if the court enters judgment in favor of the plaintiff at the defendant's bidding. The panel also took up Mr. Franco's class certification issue. Despite Allied Interstate's arguments to the contrary, the panel noted that the "sole ground for the denial of class certification was vacated" by the previous decision. Judge Forrest had noted then that class certification was revived. So, too, with the revival of Franco's individual claims comes the revival of the class issue. Reed Smith partner Casey Laffey -- claffey@reedsmith.com -- continued to represent Allied Interstate on appeal. He did not respond to a request for comment. Stern Thomasson name attorney Andrew Thomasson was counsel for Mr. Franco. He likewise did not respond to a request for comment. [GN] AMSCAFF LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Macias-Lopez Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN MACIAS-LOPEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMSCAFF, LLC, a Delaware corporation; AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC, a California corporation; AMERICAN SCAFFOLD, INC., a California corporation; AMERI-FORCE CRAFT SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-2018- 00017800-CU-0E-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., April 10, 2018), seeks to recover all unpaid minimum wages and overtime under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not paid for time worked at the yard during the work day. For example, the Plaintiff often was required to arrive at the yard at 5:00 a.m. to collect and prepare the materials for the assigned project and travel to the job worksite by 6:00 a.m., but the Defendants only paid Plaintiff starting from the time he arrived at the job worksite (i.e. 6:00 a.m.). Similarly, the Plaintiff was never paid for compensable time worked traveling from the job worksite to the yard and/or time worked at the yard when the Plaintiff was required to return to the yard at the end of the work day.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Scott M. Lidman, Esq. Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq. LIDMAN LAW, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 322 4772 Facsimile: (424) 322 4775 E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com enguyen@lidmanlaw.com - and - Paul K. Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292 2350 Facsimile: (424) 292 2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com ARIZONA: Court Reverses Summary Ruling in Suit Over Surcharge ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SABAN RENT-A CAR LLC, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendant/Appellant/Appellee/Cross-Appellee, TOURISM AND SPORTS AUTHORITY, Defendant-in-Intervention/Appellant/Cross- Appellee, Case No. 1 CA-TX 16-0007 (Ariz. App.), Judge Diane M. Johnsen of the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, (i) reversed the tax court's order granting summary judgment to the car-rental companies under the Arizona Constitution and directed entry of judgment in favor of the Arizona Department of Revenue ("ADOR") and Arizona Tourism and Sports Authority ("AzSTA") on that claim; (ii) affirmed the judgment in favor of ADOR and AzSTA under the Dormant Commerce Clause; and (iii) reversed the tax court's refund order. A class of car-rental companies sued to invalidate a surcharge enacted to build sports facilities to be owned by AzSTA. The car-rental companies argued the surcharge is invalid both under Article IX, Section 14 of the Arizona Constitution and under the Dormant Commerce Clause implied by the United States Constitution. The tax court ruled the surcharge was invalid under the Arizona Constitution (but not under the Dormant Commerce Clause) and ordered a refund. AzSTA is a corporate and political body the legislature created in 2000. By statute, AzSTA's boundaries are those of any county that has a population of more than two million persons, meaning (then and now) Maricopa County. The legislature directed AzSTA to build and operate a multipurpose facility -- a stadium/events center -- that could accommodate a professional football team, a college bowl game, and other sporting events and entertainment, cultural, civic, meeting, trade show or convention events. The legislature also granted AzSTA the power to contract to host the Super Bowl and college football national championship and playoff games and to build Major League Baseball spring-training facilities and youth and amateur sports and recreational facilities. Although AzSTA may charge for use of its facilities, it cannot levy taxes or assessments to build those facilities. Instead, the legislature authorized Maricopa County voters to approve taxes to fund AzSTA's construction projects. Among the taxes the legislature authorized voters to impose is the one challenged here: A surcharge on the gross proceeds of car-rental businesses. Maricopa County voters approved the car-rental surcharge authorized by Section 5-839 in November 2000, just months after the legislature established AzSTA. As authorized, the surcharge is the greater of 3.25% of the gross proceeds or gross income from the business or $2.50 per car rental, payable by the car- rental business, not the customer. If a customer rents a vehicle as a temporary replacement for another vehicle, the surcharge charged the car-rental company is a flat $2.50. In August 2009, Saban sought a refund of amounts it had paid under Section 5-839, claiming the surcharge violated Article IX, Section 14 of the Arizona Constitution and the Dormant Commerce Clause implied by the U.S. Constitution. After ADOR denied the refund and that decision was upheld on administrative review, Saban challenged the ruling in the tax court, seeking injunctive relief and a refund on behalf of a class of all similarly situated car-rental companies. The court granted AzSTA leave to intervene as a Defendant, then certified a class of all businesses that paid the surcharge from September 2005 through March 2008. After discovery, the tax court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment that although the surcharge did not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, it was invalid under Article IX, Section 14 of the Arizona Constitution. The court ruled that ADOR would have to refund the tax to class members but could recoup the amount of the refund, over time, from AzSTA pursuant to A.R.S. Section 42- 5029(G) (2018). It granted ADOR's motion for entry of judgment pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), leaving the amount of the refund to be determined. Reviewing de novo the grant of a motion for summary judgment, Judge Johnsen finds that contrary to Saban's contention, Section 14's text, context and history teach that the voters did not intend it to encompass every tax or fee in any way "relating to" vehicles. Instead, she concludes Section 14 applies to a tax or fee that is a prerequisite to, or triggered by, the legal operation or use of a vehicle on a public thoroughfare. By that reasoning, she holds it does not apply to the surcharge enacted pursuant to A.R.S. Section 5-839. The Judge also finds that A.R.S. Section 5-839 and the resulting car-rental surcharge are not discriminatory on their face; nor do they cause any discriminatory effects on interstate commerce. Finally, assuming arguendo that a state tax that is non- discriminatory on its face and in its effect may be invalid solely based on a discriminatory purpose, Saban has not demonstrated that the challenged surcharge has a discriminatory purpose that violates the Dormant Commerce Clause. Judge Johnsen concludes that the car-rental surcharge authorized under A.R.S. Section 5-839 is not invalid under Article IX, Section 14 of the Arizona Constitution, and reversed the tax court's ruling on summary judgment to the contrary, including its award of attorney's fees and costs. She affirmed the superior court's ruling that the surcharge is not unconstitutional under the Dormant Commerce Clause. Accordingly, she vacated the superior court's refund order, directed entry of judgment in favor of ADOR and AzSTA and remanded for any further required proceedings consistent with her decision. A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/AZVQxO from Leagle.com. Mandel Young, PLC, Phoenix, By Taylor C. Young -- taylor@mandelyoung.com -- Robert A. Mandel -- rob@mandelyoung.com -- Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants Saban et al. Kickham, Hanley, PLLC, Royal Oak, MI By Gregory D. Hanley -- ghanley@kickhamhanley.com -- pro hac vice Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants Saban et al. Aiken, Schenk, Hawkins & Ricciardi, PC, Phoenix, By Shawn K. Aiken -- ska@ashrlaw.com -- Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants Saban et al. Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix, By Kimberly J. Cygan, Jerry A. Fries, Co-Counsel for Defendant/Appellant/Appellee/Cross-Appellee ADOR. Osborn Maledon, PA, Phoenix, By Thomas L. Hudson -- thudson@omlaw.com -- Eric M. Fraser -- efraser@omlaw.com -- Co- Counsel for Defendant/Appellant/Appellee/Cross-Appellee ADOR. Fennemore Craig, PC, Phoenix, By Timothy J. Berg -- tberg@fclaw.com -- Theresa Dwyer -- tdwyer@fclaw.com -- Emily Ayn Ward -- eward@fclaw.com -- Co-Counsel for Defendant-in- Intervention/Appellant/Cross-Appellee AzSTA. Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Phoenix, By Scot L. Claus -- sclaus@dickinsonwright.com -- Vail C. Cloar -- vcloar@dickinsonwright.com -- Co-Counsel for Defendant-in- Intervention/Appellant/Cross-Appellee AzSTA. Lewis, Roca, Rothgerber, Christie, LLP, Phoenix, By Robert G. Schaffer -- bschaffer@lrrc.com -- Counsel for amici curiae Halikowski and ADOT. Gammage & Burnham, PLC, Phoenix, By Michael R. King -- mking@gblaw.com -- Cameron C. Artigue -- cartigue@gblaw.com -- Christopher L. Hering -- chering@gblaw.com -- Counsel for amici curiae Convention and Visitors Bureaus. Pima County Attorney's Office, Tucson, By Regina L. Nassen, Counsel for amicus curiae Pima County. Gallagher & Kennedy, PA, Phoenix, By Michael K. Kennedy -- mkk@gknet.com -- Mark C. Dangerfield -- mark.dangerfield@gknet.com -- Counsel for amicus curiae Arizona Chamber of Commerce. Perkins Coie, LLP, Phoenix, By Paul F. Eckstein -- PEckstein@perkinscoie.com -- Thomas D. Ryerson -- TRyerson@perkinscoie.com -- Counsel for amicus curiae City of Phoenix. AS SOLUTION: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wage, Aguayo Says -------------------------------------------------------- MAYRA AGUAYO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AS SOLUTION NORTH AMERICA, INC.; SOS SECURITY, LLC, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18901777 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 20, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wage and minimum wage under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to their Security Guards (aka Residential Security Agents) rights by failing to: provide Security Guards pay for all wages earned including regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wage (Defendants require Class Members to work "off the clock" at the beginning and end of their shifts); pay for "on-duty" meal periods, "on- duty" rest breaks; failing to keep and provide accurate and timely records of wages earned and other legally mandated records; and failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members whose employment has terminated (voluntarily resigned or were terminated) a final payment of his or her wages in a prompt and timely manner in conformity with Labor Codes. AS Solution provides executive protection and security services for Fortune 500 corporations.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Plaintiffs Class: Matthew S. Da Vega, Esq. Matthew Fisher, Esq. Ted Mechtenberg, Esq. DA VEGA FISHER MECHTENBERG, LLP 232 E. Anapamu St. Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: 805 232 4471 Facsimile: 877 535 9358 E-mail: Mdavega@mdmtlaw.com AXA FINANCIAL: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Young Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ LAWRENCE YOUNG AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. AXA FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC AND AXA EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18- cv-03543-PAC (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2018), seeks permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's websites, WWW.US.AXA.COM.COM, are not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Defendant allegedly failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually- impaired people. AXA Equitable Financial Services, LLC provides insurance services. The Company offers life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, brokerage, and advisory services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 175 Varick St., 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Telephone: (646) 770-3775 Facsimile: (646) 867-2639 E-mail: brad@markslawpc.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212 228 9795 Facsimile: 212 982 6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com BANK OF AMERICA: Kaufman Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ LYNNE KAUFMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., the Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-80526-RLR (S.D. Fla., April 20, 2018), seeks to recover injuries and statutory damages caused by BANA's violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff and Class Members are Florida homeowners whose homes have been in foreclosure. BANA is servicer of Plaintiff's and Class Members' homeowner mortgage loans and enforces, and regularly acts as, a debt collector of Plaintiff's and Class Members' mortgage loans. In its servicing of mortgage loans, BANA has routinely and systematically charged homeowners, including Plaintiff and Class Members, "estimated" fees via standardized statements it has sent them that list the amounts it requires for them to pay off their loans. In Payoff Statements, BANA readily concedes that their "Total Amount[s] Due may include estimated fees, costs, additional payments and/or escrow disbursements that will become due" but had yet to be incurred. In its servicing of mortgage loans, through Payoff Statements BANA has also routinely and systematically charged homeowners, including Plaintiff and Class Members, "Other Amounts Due," including an array of fees, including "vacant property registration" fees. These fees and the manner BANA discloses them are unlawful. The mortgage instruments of Plaintiff and Class Members only authorize charges for fees actually incurred for services actually performed. Years ago, in a widely publicized decision, the Eleventh Circuit held "estimated" fees violated the FDCPA and FCCPA. Further, BANA has entered a government consent decree to that same effect. Moreover, the "vacant property registration" fees BANA charged were marked-up by additional fees for which BANA rendered no services and whose rates are set by local governments. Also, the FDCPA requires debt collections to represent debt information in a non-misleading manner and not to misrepresent amounts owed. Defendant's Payoff Statements violate both these proscriptions. Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational financial services company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. It is ranked 2nd on the list of largest banks in the United States by assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan A. Shaw, Esq. Mark S. Fistos, Esq. Kimberly A. Slaven, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 989 6333 Facsimile: (954) 989 7781 E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com mperez@zpllp.com mfistos@zpllp.com kslaven@zpllp.com - and - J. Dennis Card Jr., Esq. Darren R. Newhart, Esq. CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A. 721 US Highway 1, Suite 201 North Palm Beach, FL 33408 Telephone: (561) 692 6013 Facsimile: (305) 574 0132 E-mail: DCard@cloorg.com Darren@cloorg.com BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Lopez" Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America, N.A. The case is styled as Laura Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02346 (N.D. Cal., April 18, 2018). Bank of America National Association operates as a bank. The Bank accepts deposits, makes loans, and provides other financial and investment services for the public. Bank of America serves individual and institutional customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. BCHHOYNE LLC: Violates Landlord-Tenant Rules, Lee Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- DAROLYN LEE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. BCHHOYNE, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH05154 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., April 20, 2018), seeks to recover compensation and injunctive relief for dozens of current, former and future tenants in a 196 units in several contiguous residential apartment buildings owned or managed by the Defendant who failed to disclose the name and address of the financial institution holding those tenants' security deposits in the leases signed by the tenants as required by Municipal Code of Chicago, Ch. 5, Sec. 12- 080(a)(3) ("RLTO") and who also failed to provide current, legally conforming Summaries of the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance at the commencement of, or during the course of their tenancies as required under Section 5-12-170, of the RLTO.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Morris, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID S. MORRIS 333 South Wabash Ave., Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 986 3200 E-mail: davidsmorris@ameritech.net BIG BUS: "Munoz" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA --------------------------------------------------- VICTOR MUNOZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIG BUS TOURS LIMITED; OPEN TOP SIGHTSEEING SAN FRANCISCO, LLC; and DOES 1-200, the Defendant, Case No. CGC-18-565969 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 20, 2018), seeks to recover damages resulting from Defendants' failure to pay for all compensable overtime worked, declaratory and injunctive relief, compensation for all uncompensated work, liquidated and/or other damages, penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was formerly employed as a bus operator by the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have engaged in an unlawful pattern and practice of failing to pay operators for all compensable overtime, in violation of the FLSA, and California Labor Code. Big Bus Tours, is an operator of open top bus sightseeing tours founded in London in 1991. The company operates in 20 cities of 11 countries with more than 150 buses around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven G. Tidrick, Esq. Joel B. Young, Esq. THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM 1300 Clay Street, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 788 5100 Facsimile: (510) 291 3226 E-mail: sgt@tidricklaw.com jby@tidricklaw.com BREW DR KOMBUCHA: "Bazer" Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Vladislav Bazer, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Brew Dr. Kombucha, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 18CH02943, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago) on April 10, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-02560 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Jorge L. Alonso. Brew Dr. provides non-alcoholic beverages. The Company offers organic tea blends without adding any juices and flavors after fermentation. Brew Dr Kombucha provides ginger, tumeric, herbal, and mint lemonade blends. Brew Dr Kombucha serves customers in the State Oregon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Louis Gerbie, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893 7002 E-mail: dgerbie@mcgpc.com - and - David M Schultz, Esq. Todd Philip Stelter, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60601-1081 Telephone: (312) 704 3445 E-mail: dschultz@hinshawlaw.com tstelter@hinshawlaw.com CANCER GENETICS: Faces Class Actions Over Misleading Statements --------------------------------------------------------------- GenomeWeb reports that at least two class action lawsuits have been filed against Cancer Genetics alleging the company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information pertinent to investors. One lawsuit was filed by Gainey McKenna & Egleston with the US District Court District of New Jersey, following Cancer Genetics' announcement of its fourth quarter financial results on April 2. At that time the company said that after a comprehensive review of its strategy and organization subsequent to the departure of its former CEO Panna Sharma, it recorded a bad debt expense of $4.4 million and wrote off $1.8 million of its accounts receivables for its fourth quarter. A significant portion of the collection issues with accounts receivables were recorded after 2015, following Cancer Genetics' $14 million acquisition of Response Genetics. Additionally, Cancer Genetics said that on Dec. 31, 2017, its "cash position and history of losses required management to assess [its] ability to continue operating as a going concern," the law firm said in a statement. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of investors who acquired Cancer Genetics' stock or other securities between March 23, 2017 through April 2, 2018. A second lawsuit was announced on April 9 by the law firm Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, which also alleged that Cancer Genetics made misleading statements and failed to disclose that it "had ineffective disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting." Through a spokesperson, Cancer Genetics declined to comment. [GN] CAPELLA EDUCATION: Doctoral Degree Program Deceptive, Wright Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CAROLYN WRIGHT and DEBBRA KENNEDY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. CAPELLA EDUCATION COMPANY, and CAPELLA UNIVERSITY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-01062 (D. Minn., April 20, 2018), seeks redress for Plaintiffs and potentially thousands of similarly situated doctoral students who were harmed by Capella's deceptive doctoral degree process -- a process intended to ensure that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for students to timely complete, or complete at all, their doctoral programs. According to the complaint, Capella essentially operated a "bait and switch" program. The bait was displayed when Capella's marketing materials and recruiters misled prospective and current students making misleading statements about the time to completion and cost of their mostly student-loan financed doctoral degrees: Ms. Wright was told her Doctor of Nursing Practice degree would take two years and cost approximately $35,000, and Ms. Kennedy was told that PhDs in Education or Doctoral Degrees in Education would cost approximately $45,000- $55,000 and take three to three-and-a-half years to complete. Capella's marketing materials, recruiters, and student handbooks also reassured prospective students that after their doctoral course work, colloquium, and/or field hours were completed, they would be awarded a doctoral degree. Capella doctoral students signed up for the program and completed their classes, colloquium, and/or field hours. Once the doctoral students were committed, having invested significant amounts of time and money in the program completing their coursework, problems began. Instead of completing the promised doctoral degree program requirements and being awarded a doctoral degree in the advertised time, Capella employed the "switch." Capella created an endless routine of hurdles and benefitted from additional tuition payments. Students who believed they were getting ever closer to obtaining their doctoral degree were in fact stuck with decreasing resources, faculty turnover, disorganization and a lack of oversight, all of which increased the length of the doctoral students' enrollments at Capella. Frustrated, the Plaintiffs, and upon information and belief thousands of other doctoral students, realized that contrary to Capella's promises, they did not have control over the time it would take to complete their doctoral degree program; they were at the mercy of Capella advisors who can and did ensure that doctoral students would be misled, confused, and ultimately cheated out of their money to the benefit of Capella. Capella Education Company is an education services holding company which owns for-profit, online Capella University and other assets. It was founded in 1991 by Stephen Shank, former CEO of Tonka Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roberta A. Yard, Esq. Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Roberta A. Yard, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD E-1250 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Facsimile: (651) 287-2103 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com r.yard@rwblawfirm.com - and - Paul Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE 818 Lafayette Avenue, Second Floor St. Louis, MO 63010 Telephone: (314) 833 4826 E-mail: plesko@prwlegal.com CAPITAL ALLIANCE: Neumeyer Sues over Unsolicited Robocalls ---------------------------------------------------------- LANCE NEUMEYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ALLIANCE GROUP; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, the Plaintiff, Case No. 3:18-cv-00759-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal., April 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant), in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiffs cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. According to the complaint, beginning in or around November of 2017, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -6104, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services. The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone number (248) 621-5851 confirmed to be Defendant's number. The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). The Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1). During all relevant times, the Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Further, Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -6104 was added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about February 8, 2012. The Defendant placed multiple calls soliciting its business to Plaintiff on his cellular telephone ending in -6104 in or around November 2017. The Defendant continued to call Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action Over Excessive ATM Fees ------------------------------------------------------- Sean Forbes, writing for Law360, reports that customers have slapped Capital One NA with a proposed class action in California federal court, accusing the bank of charging fees on its own ATMs that are supposed to be fee-free and charging excessive fees on other out-of-network ATMs. The suit filed on April 6 claims that Capital One has both deceived its customers and breached its contract with account holders by imposing fees when customers make balance inquiries on the bank's own ATMs. The case is Figueroa v. Capital One, N.A. et al, Case No. 3:18- cv-00692 (S.D.N.Y.). The case is assigned to Judge Jeffrey T. Miller. The case was filed April 6, 2018. [GN] CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Seeks to Deny Ritenour Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CANDICE RITENOUR, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; CHERYL WEISER, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:16-cv-02011-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant will move the Court on May 21, 2017, for an order denying a class certification of Plaintiffs' claims and striking Plaintiffs' class allegations. The Plaintiffs allege claims on behalf of a class and subclass defined as: Class: "all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time from September 30, 2012 to final judgment"; and Subclass A: "[Members of Class] who earned commission/nondiscretionary bonuses/non-discretionary performance pay which was not used to calculate the regular rate of pay used to calculate the overtime rate for the payment of overtime." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=it9FEKck Attorneys for Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC: Terry E. Sanchez, Esq. Margaret G. Maraschino, Esq. Sara A. Mcdermott, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 683 9100 Facsimile: (213) 683 4015 E-mail: terry.sanchez@mto.com margaret.maraschino@mto.com sara.mcdermott@mto.com CH EMPLOYMENT: Fails to Pay Wages, McCray Claims ------------------------------------------------ MAY A MCCRAY, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. CH EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CRESCENT HEIGHTS, INC., a Florida corporation; CRESCENT HEIGHTS OF AMERICA, INC., a Florida corporation; LANSING DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-565953 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages earned for all hour worked under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to her and other similarly situated current and former California-based hourly workers, including but not limited to concierges, for unpaid wages and other related relief. These claims are based on Defendants' alleged failures to provide all meal and rest periods in compliance with California law, pay all wages earned for all hours worked, provide accurate wage statements, timely pay final wages upon termination of employment, and fairly compete.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. Sehyung (Logan) Park, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 312 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone (818) 582 3086 Facsimile (818) 582 2561 E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com logan@spivaklaw.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (562) 256 1047 Facsimile: (562) 256 1006 E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com CHASE BANK: Faces "Haynes" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chase Bank U.S.A., N.A. The case is styled as Rusty Haynes, Debtor and Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chase Bank U.S.A., N.A., Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-03307-NSR (S.D. N.Y., April 16, 2018). Chase Bank USA, N.A. provides financial services, which includes consumer and commercial banking.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Reese Shaw, Esq. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (Albany) 30 South Pearl Street Albany, NY 12207 Tel: (518) 694-4227 Fax: (518) 434-0665 Email: ashaw@bsfllp.com - and - Charles Wayne Juntikka, Esq. Charles Juntikka & Associates, LLP 1250 Broadway 24th Flr. New York, NY 10001 Tel: (212) 315-3755 Fax: (212) 315-9032 Email: CHARLES@CJALAW.COM - and - George F. Carpinello, Esq. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (FL) 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (518) 434-0600 Fax: (518) 434-0665 Email: gcarpinello@bsfllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Alan Schoenfeld, Esq. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP (NYC) 7 World Trade Center New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 937-7294 Fax: (212) 230-8888 Email: alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com - and - Noah Adam Levine, Esq. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (NYC) 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich St. New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 230-8875 Fax: (212) 230-8888 Email: noah.levine@wilmerhale.com CHEMOURS: Put on Notice Over Genx Air Emissions Amid Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Henderson, writing for Triangle Business Journal, reports that amid continued concern over GenX and its presence in the Cape Fear River -- the main drinking water source for Wilmington and surrounding areas -- North Carolina has put Chemours (NYSE: CC) on notice over air emissions of the chemical. On April 6, the N.C. Division of Air Quality submitted a 60-day notice to Chemours outlining NCDAQ's intention to modify the air permit for Chemours' Fayetteville Works facility. "Based on our investigation, DAQ has concluded that the conditions under which the current version of the permit was issued on December 14, 2016 have changed," it states in a letter to Chemours. "At that time, DAQ had no knowledge that Chemours was emitting GenX compounds at the current rates reported by Chemours, that GenX compounds emitted from the Chemours facility in such quantities that were transmitted and deposited on the land surface by rainfall several miles away from the facility, or that such deposition caused or contributed to widespread contamination of groundwater in violation of the state's groundwater standards," NCDAQ further states. By April 27, Chemours must show that GenX air emissions from the facility do not violate groundwater standards, or they will be prohibited. "DAQ tested rainwater for GenX compounds during rain events Feb. 28-March 2 and found GenX levels between 45 parts per trillion and 810 parts per trillion at 13 locations within seven miles of the facility," NCDAQ states. "The state's provisional health goal of 140 parts per trillion for drinking water should not be compared to rainwater concentrations as the latter is not intended for direct consumption." "With the added measurements of direct emissions, NCDAQ estimates Chemours' annual GenX emissions to be more than 2,700 pounds, or approximately 40 times higher than originally reported in early 2017 and four times higher than their revised estimate submitted to DAQ in October 2017," NCDAQ adds. NCDAQ's notice to Chemours comes at a time when residents of Wilmington and surrounding areas are involved in a class-action lawsuit that alleges DuPont and former wholly-owned subsidiary Chemours disregarded tests and illegally dumped GenX. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and Susman Godfrey are serving as co-lead counsel for the class. Aside from the traditional means of water contamination, Cohen Milstein noted recently that independent research suggests that GenX may be airborne as well. Chemours did not immediately respond to a request for comment on NCDAQ's notice. [GN] CHEVRON U.S.A.: Winkle Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- JACK VAN WINKLE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHEVRON U.S.A., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00372-GJF-KRS (D.N.M., April 20, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation and all other available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. was formerly the employer of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a safety advisor and paid a salary for each week worked, regardless of the number of hours worked in each day or each week. The Defendant paid Plaintiff (and other similarly situated employees) a salary in order to avoid paying overtime. During his time with Defendant, the Plaintiff typically worked 100 hours per week. Yet Plaintiff (and other similarly situated employees) did not receive any additional compensation for the hours worked above forty in a week, and thus Defendant denied their workers overtime pay in violation of federal law. Chevron is a major oil and gas production company. The Plaintiff worked as a safety advisor of Defendant from approximately January of 2014 until April of 2016. Because Plaintiff and the other Chevron employees are paid a weekly salary, regardless of the number of hours worked in a given week (even those above forty), they are denied overtime pay in violation of the FLSA. The Defendant failed to make a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA and/or the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Instead, Defendant knowingly, willfully or with reckless disregard carried out its illegal pattern or practice regarding overtime compensation. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated are entitled to liquidated damages for such conduct.[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 CIBA INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged "Ponzi Scheme" -------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Land, writing for Law.com, reports that a putative class action filed on April 4 in federal court in San Francisco accuses California-based CIBA Insurance of operating as an illegal "ponzi scheme" in collaboration with a number of insurance company partners, including co-defendant Great Lakes Insurance SE. According to the complaint, CIBA -- which operates in 48 states -- rakes in tens of millions of dollars in premiums annually while circumventing insurance laws in California and nationally. CIBA and its insurance company partners have issued coverage for more than $50 billion in property, but only have $1 billion available in coverage per occurrence for the entire pool of insureds, the complaint said. By working with companies that are legally registered insurers, but conceal CIBA's role in covering the first million dollars of smaller claims, the lawsuit claims CIBA can "illegally engage in the business of insurance in California (and across the country) while avoiding compliance with statutory requirements for insurance carriers and evading scrutiny from state insurance regulators." A "single catastrophic occurrence could deplete the entire shared limit of available coverage, i.e., property owners could be stuck for footing the bill for repairs and replacements despite paying thousands of dollars for insurance coverage," the complaint said. The arrangements not only jeopardizes those carrying CIBA policies, but also impact the way claims are handled, according to the complaint. Plaintiff Sage Apts LLC, a Wyoming apartment complex, canceled the CIBA program policy it purchased through Great Lakes "due to poor claims handling" after paying "tens of thousands of dollars in premiums and property assessments for property and liability insurance." Great Lakes is based in Munich, Germany. The complaint was filed in California's Northern District by a group of lawyers including William Levin, Laurel Simes and Rachel Abrams of San Francisco's Levin Simes; William Merlin and Michael Poli of Los Angeles' Merlin Law Group; Adam Moskowitz, Howard Bushman and Adam Schwartzbaum of Coral Gables, Florida's Moskowitz Law Firm; and Andrew Friedman of Phoenix, Arizona's Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint. "Our team has been investigating these Ponzi scheme claims for over a year with some of the best experts in the country," said Mr. Moskowitz, and "will all continue to meet with consumers that have policies with CIBA, especially those in California where CIBA is based." The complaint said CIBA has been providing commercial property insurance since 1993, but has expanded rapidly over the past 10 years. "The reason this is scary is because they're not being regulated as an insurance company, and the result are these precarious policies," said Mr. Moskowitz. Asked how CIBA has avoided scrutiny all these years, Mr. Moskowitz said "they've been able to skirt the insurance regulators, so there are no regulators checking their books every month. If they were following the law someone would have picked this up." There was no immediate reply from a CIBA communications official on April 6, and Great Lakes could not be reached for comment. A response statement from CIBA attorney Michael Kennick of Fullerton, Calif.'s Kennick & Associates said the complaint's allegations are "completely without merit. The lawsuit is being spearheaded by an attorney who has been making similar allegations against CIBA for many years without success." Mr. Kennick said a similar suit in DeKalb County, Ga. was thrown out last year when the court "summarily dismissed with prejudice all claims against CIBA (and its carriers) stating that the allegations were void of any legal merit." "The lawsuit falsely states that exhaustion of the $1 billion limit of coverage can occur by a single natural disaster thereby exposing CIBA and its member for all amounts above that limit," Mr. Kennick said. "As a fact, the CIBA program provides a dedicated limit of coverage above $1 billion that is not subject to a group aggregate and applies up to the limits stated on the Declaration Page of a member's policy, up to $150 million for each insured." CIBA's " business structure is reviewed by various insurance experts, including a former Department of Insurance director, who have consistently concluded that CIBA complies with applicable insurance regulations and standards," Mr. Kennick said. This post has been updated to include CIBA's response. [GN] CITIMED MANAGEMENT: Jimenez Seeks Overtime Wages under Labor Law ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Jimenez, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Citimed Management Services Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 706258/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 23, 2018), seeks to recover maximum liquidated damages (for the period after April 9, 2011) and interest for being paid overtime wages and non-overtime wages later than weekly, and costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New York Labor Law. The Defendant was engaged in the business of providing physical therapy services. The Defendant employed over 80 employees during the class period across several locations. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from in or around January 2016 until on or about March 23, 2018. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a manual worker performing all manual, physical and repetitive tasks within the capacity including cleaning, doing repairs, handling patients and their belongings in and out, wheeling patients in and out, etc. The Plaintiff was paid at a regular rate of about $14 an hour. The Plaintiff and the putative class members were paid on a bi-weekly basis in violation of NYLL. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff at a rate of at least 1.5 times his regular rate for overtime hours worked (hours over 40 in a week) - the Defendant paid the Plaintiff at his straight regular rate for overtime hours worked. For example, for the Biweekly pay period ending July 2, 2017, the Plaintiff worked at least 82.52 hours and Defendant paid Plaintiff at his straight regular rate of $14 an hour for each and all of these 82.52 hours worked.[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 COLONY NORTHSTAR: Faces Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Colony NorthStar, Inc. ("Colony NorthStar " or the "Company") (NYSE: CLNS) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Colony securities between February 28, 2017 through March 1, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/clns. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Colony NorthStar's Healthcare and Investment Management segments were performing worse than reported; and (2) consequently, Colony NorthStar's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/clnsor you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Colony NorthStar you have until June 5, 2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. It represents institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. [GN] COLONY NORTHSTAR: June 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, on April 9 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of Colony NorthStar, Inc. (NYSE:CLNS) ("Colony NorthStar" or the "Company") securities during the period between February 28, 2017 through March 1, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until June 5, 2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in Colony NorthStar securities during the Class Period. Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has yet been certified in the above action. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose during the Class Period that Colony NorthStar's Healthcare and Investment Management segments were performing worse than reported. According to the complaint, following a March 1, 2018 announcement of a goodwill impairment of $375 million attributable to the Investment Management segment and disappointing performance due to challenging industry conditions in healthcare, the value of Colony NorthStar shares declined significantly. If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment in Colony NorthStar securities purchased on or after February 28, 2017 and held through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-6616. [GN] COMMONWEALTH BANK: Four Large Pensions Funds Join Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reports that four large US pension funds have joined a new class action against the Commonwealth Bank over alleged breaches of continuous disclosure obligations related to the lender's money-laundering scandal. Law firm Phi Finney McDonald said it was approached by sophisticated institutional investors to initiate an action after they learned of an existing action filed in Federal Court in October. The action would seek compensation for anyone who acquired CBA shares between June 16, 2014 and August 3, 2017 -- a longer period than that covered by Maurice Blackburn's rival action. Phi Finney McDonald director, Odette McDonald said their class action is therefore open to a greater number of investors. "We consider that the integrity of CBA's anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing systems, and compliance with laws and directions of regulators, was of incredible importance to CBA shareholders", Ms McDonald said. "This is clear from the proactive steps investors have taken in driving this action". The law firm is inviting investors to join the US pension funds, which control billions of dollars, in signing up to the action. Law firm Maurice Blackburn filed a statement of claim naming then chief executive Ian Narev and current chair Catherine Livingstone as being among those who knew regulator AUSTRAC had accused CBA of breaching money-laundering and terrorism funding laws. The lender was accused of failing to promptly disclose the 2015 allegations to the market. The public pension funds involved are the California State Teachers Retirement System, Teachers Retirement System of Texas, Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management Board, and Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association. CBA on April 10 said it has not received any formal communications or documents in relation to the latest action. [GN] COMMUNITY PROBATION: Certification of Two Classes Sought -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled KAREN MCNEIL, LESLEY JOHNSON, TANYA MITCHELL, INDYA HILFORT, and SONYA BEARD, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. COMMUNITY PROBATION SERVICES, LLC; COMMUNITY PROBATION SERVICES, L.L.C.; COMMUNITY PROBATION SERVICES; PROGRESSIVE SENTENCING, INC.; PSI- PROBATION II, LLC; PSI-PROBATION, L.L.C.; TENNESSEE CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC; TIMOTHY COOK; GILES COUNTY, TENNESSEE; PATRICIA MCNAIR; MARKEYTA BLEDSOE; HARRIET THOMPSON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00033 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs move the court for an order to certify classes: Class for Equitable Relief: "all persons who, at any time since April 23, 2014, (1) have incurred, or will incur, court-imposed financial obligations arising from a traffic or misdemeanor case in Giles County General Sessions or Circuit Court; and (2) are currently being supervised, or will be supervised, on probation in that case by Community Probation Services, LLC, Community Probation Services, L.L.C., Community Probation Services, Progressive Sentencing, Inc., PSI-Probation II, LLC, PSI-Probation, L.L.C., or Tennessee Correctional Services, LLC"; and Damages Class: "all persons who, at any time since April 23, 2014, (1) have incurred court-imposed financial obligations arising from a traffic or misdemeanor case in Giles County General Sessions or Circuit Court; and (2) have been assigned to be supervised on probation in that case by Community Probation Services, LLC, Community Probation Services, L.L.C., Community Probation Services, Progressive Sentencing, Inc., PSI-Probation II, LLC, PSI-Probation, L.L.C., or Tennessee Correctional Services, LLC." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Jbj3r6B9 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kyle Mothershead, Esq. 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 982 8002 Facsimile: (615) 229 6387 E-mail: kyle@mothersheadlaw.com - and - Elizabeth Rossi, Esq. Jonas Wang, Esq. Eric Halperin, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 910 17th Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 599 0953 Facsimile: (202) 609 8030 E-mail: elizabeth@civilrightscorps.org jonas@civilrightscorps.org eric@civilrightscorps.org CORDS & CO: Website Not Accessible to Blind, "Kiler" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MARION KILER, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. THE CORDS & CO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02375 (E.D.N.Y., April 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by The Cords' failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The lawsuit says the Defendant is denying blind and visually- impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services The Cords provides to their non- disabled customers through http//:www.Thecords.com. The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thecords.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials, employment opportunities and other programs offered by The Cords. Yet, Thecords.com contains thousands of access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, The Cords excludes the blind and visually- impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (917) 373 9128 Facsimile: (718) 504 7555 DAVIS STUART: Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations ----------------------------------------------------- Katy Andersen, writing for 59 News, report that two former employees of Davis Stuart have filed class action complaints against the home for troubled youth in Lewisburg, accusing the company of violating the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act Connie Hamilton and Rocky Adkins are named in two separate lawsuits against Davis Stuart. Both allege the company did not pay them properly. According to court documents, Mr. Adkins and Ms. Hamilton allege Davis Stuart required them to work before and after their scheduled shifts, totaling more than 40 hours a week, but failed to pay them any overtime. They also said Davis Stuart did not pay for their required training and travel time and failed to pay retirement benefits in a "timely manner." Mr. Adkins and Ms. Hamilton are being represented by Attorney Stephen P. New. According to Mr. New, since filing the lawsuit in January, about two dozen more people who work and have previously worked for Davis Stuart have come forward with the same allegations. He said he believes these practices date back 10 years. According to their website, Davis Stuart "operates as a private, non-profit organization providing services for adolescents ages 12-18, recovering from abuse, neglect, or behavioral issues." 59 News has reached out to Davis Stuart and is waiting for a response. A trial date has not been set at this time. [GN] DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces "Smith" Suit in N.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Tonia Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Cavalry SPV I, LLC and John Does l-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00972-C (N.D. Tex., April 17, 2018). Dynamic Recovery Solutions is a debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan David Kandelshein, Esq. The Law Offices of Jonathan Kandelshein 18208 Preston Rd, Suite D-9 #256 Dallas, TX 75252 Tel: (469) 677-7863 Fax: (972) 380-8118 Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com EMBRAER SA: New York Judge Dismisses FCPA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Buckley Sandler on April 10 disclosed that a class action against Brazilian aerospace firm Embraer SA was recently dismissed by U.S. District Judge Richard Berman. The class action, which was brought in federal district court in New York, alleged that the firm had failed to adequately disclose the scope and possible financial impact of ongoing corruption investigations by the DOJ and SEC, harming the company's investors. In granting the firm's motion to dismiss, Judge Berman held that the company's disclosures were sufficient as a matter of law, and that requiring disclosures advocated by the putative class plaintiffs would effectively require reporting companies to acknowledge guilt for conduct that was still being investigated and had not yet been charged. The underlying bribery alleged in the complaint (and being investigated by regulators) involves the firm's October 2016 admissions that from 2007 to 2011, company executives made payments to government officials in several countries, including the Dominican Republic, Saudi Arabia, Mozambique, and India, totaling $11.5 million. The firm received government contracts resulting in profits over $83 million in exchange. This decision is a clear win for publicly traded companies currently under investigation for corruption-related conduct. Had the case proceeded, companies may have faced difficult choices between making more detailed disclosures to investors regarding the potential merits of ongoing investigations and protecting themselves against incriminatory public statements about these same matters. [GN] EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Sanfilippo Sues over Plunge in Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN SANFILIPPO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. EDGE THERAPEUTICS, INC., BRIAN A. LEUTHNER, and ANDREW SAIK, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-08236 (D.N.J., April 23, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff and the other Class members against all defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of Defendants' wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest. The case is a class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Edge common stock between December 29, 2017 and March 27, 2018, inclusive. The Plaintiff pursues claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Edge operates as a clinical-stage biotechnology company, to discover, develop and commercialize hospital-based therapies for the management of acute, life-threatening neurological conditions. On March 28, 2018, the Company published a press release announcing the discontinuation of the Phase 3 Newton 2 study, stating in relevant part. On this news the Company's shares fell $14.28 per share, or over 90%, to close at $1.31 per share on March 28, 2018. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: that the Company's lead product candidate EG-1962 would likely fail a futility analysis in connection with the NEWTON 2 study; and, that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements and Defendants' statements about Edge's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.[BN] Counsel for Steven Sanfilippo: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994 1700 Facsimile: (973) 994 1744 - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201 9150 Facsimile: (310) 201 9160 ENAGIC USA: Class and Subclasses in "Makaon" TCPA Suit Certified ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EDWARD MAKARON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ENAGIC USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. CV 15-05145 DDP (Ex)(C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Enagic is a "direct selling company" that markets alkaline water filtration and ionization systems. Enagic does not sell devices to consumers in the United States directly, but instead utilizes a network of thousands of distributors. The parties dispute whether these distributors are independent contractors or are controlled by Enagic. On May 18, 2015, the Plaintiff received a call on his cell phone. When the Plaintiff answered the call, he heard a 22-minute prerecorded phone message encouraging him to purchase an Enagic water machine and to become a distributor. Two days later, the Plaintiff received a phone call from Gary Nixon, who tried to convince him to purchase an Enagic product and recruit him to be an Enagic salesperson. Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), it is unlawful to make any call using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to any cellular telephone service. It is also unlawful to initiate a phone call to a residential phone line with an artificial or prerecorded voice. The Plaintiff represents that he has obtained information from third party calling services, including Phone Prospector and Phone Burner, that three of the thousands of distributors associated with the Defendant made over 15,000 phone calls using third party phone dialing systems. The Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint alleges that Engagic and/or its distributors, who are alleged to be Enagic's agents, called his cell phone with an automatic dialing system and played a pre-recorded message, in violation of the TCPA. The Plaintiff now moves to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) comprised of all persons within the United States who received a telephone call from Defendant or one of its Distributors, on said Class Member's telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, between July 8, 2011 and Present, as well as various related subclasses. Judge Pregerson granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. He certified a class comprised of all persons within the United States who received a telephone call from the Defendant or one of its Distributors, on said Class Member's telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, between July 8, 2011 and Present. The Judge also certified these subclasses: (1) Prerecorded Voice Subclass, comprised of all persons within the United States who received a telephone call from Defendant or one of its Distributors, on said Class Member's telephone made through the use of any system that utilized an artificial Case 2:15-cv-05145-DDP-E Document 101 Filed 03/13/18 Page 15 of 16 Page ID #:3132 or prerecorded voice, between July 8, 2011 and Present; (2) Cell Phone Subclass, comprised of all persons within the United States who received a telephone call from Defendant or one of its Distributors, on said Class Member's cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, between July 8, 2011 and Present; (3) Prerecorded Voice Cell Phone Subclass, comprised of all persons within the United States who received a telephone call from Defendant or one of its Distributors, on said Class Member's cellular telephone made through the use of any system that utilized an artificial or prerecorded voice, between July 8, 2011 and Present; and (4) Prerecorded Voice Cell Phone 2015 subclass, comprised of all persons within the United States who received a telephone call from Defendant or one of its Distributors, on said Class Member's cellular telephone made through the use of any system that utilized an artificial or prerecorded voice, between Jan. 1, 2015 and Dec. 31, 2015. Judge Pregerson appointed the Plaintiff as the Class Representative and his attorneys as the Class Counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/xBrVi1 from Leagle.com. Edward Makaron, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Meghan Elisabeth George , Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC, Thomas Edward Wheeler -- twheeler@toddflaw.com -- Todd M Friedman Law Offices PC, Adrian Robert Bacon -- abacon@toddflaw.com -- Law Offices of Todd Friedman PC & Todd M. Friedman -- tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Todd M Friedman Law Offices PC. Enagic USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andre Joseph Cronthall -- acronthall@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, Dwight M. Francis -- dfrancis@gardere.com -- Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, pro hac vice, Fred R. Puglisi -- fpuglisi@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP & Jay T. Ramsey -- jramsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP. EXPERIAN INFO: Wilson and White Sue over Background Checks ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHN WILSON and NIEYSHA WHITE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 37-2018- D0019369-CU-NP-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., April 20, 2018), seeks to recover damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently and willfully inaccurately reporting the location of the courthouse in which Plaintiffs filed for bankruptcy in violation of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. Experian is a "consumer reporting agency" which publishes information bearing on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility for, among other things, credit to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and employment purposes. As a "consumer reporting agency," the Defendant was required to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report related, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1681 e(b). The Plaintiffs' consumer report contained inaccurate information. On January 28, 2016, Wilson filed bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of California located at 325 West F Street, San Diego, CA 92101. Sometime thereafter, or about November 22, 2016, Wilson requested and obtained a copy of his consumer report from Experian. Upon close inspection, Wilson realized that Experian had reported the location of his bankruptcy information as "940 FRONT ST RM 5N26, SAN DIEGO CA 92101", rather than the true address. On April 24, 2017, White filed bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of California located at 325 West F Street, San Diego, CA 92101. Sometime thereafter, or about September 28, 2017, White requested and obtained a copy of her consumer report from Experian. Upon close inspection, White realized that Experian had reported the location of her bankruptcy information as "940 FRONT ST RM 5N26, SAN DIEGO CA 92101", rather than the true address as indicated. As a consumer reporting agency, Experian had a duty and obligation to report true and accurate information regarding public records. The Plaintiffs believe that the inaccuracy was due to Defendant's unreasonable procedures. As a result of Defendant's inaccuracy, the Plaintiffs suffered injury and such injury was caused by Defendant's inclusion of the inaccurate entry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 mona@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, Suite 101B San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222 7249 Facsimile: (866) 431 3292 E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com EZ CHOICE: Henry Sues over Recurring Debit Practices ---------------------------------------------------- SANDRA HENRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EZ CHOICE FINANCIAL CORP. and DOES 1-10, the Defendant(s), Case No. 8:18-cv-00694 (C.D. Cal., April 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants debiting Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' bank accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' accounts, thereby violating the California False Advertising Act; California Unfair Business Practices Act; and the Federal Credit Repair Organizations Act; and the California Credit Services Act. The Plaintiff also seeks to stop Defendant's continued false advertisement of providing a money back guarantee for their service, when in fact, they refuse to return any monies paid to them for their services; and to stop Defendant's gathering of payments for credit repair services prior to actually rendering any services to consumers. According to the complaint, prior to May of 2017, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendant, whereby Defendant would deduct funds from Plaintiff's account on a reoccurring basis. However, in or around October of 2017, Plaintiff canceled this service. Despite this, Defendant continued to deduct funds from Plaintiff's account multiple times on a reoccurring basis, without Plaintiff's consent or authorization. The Defendant's automatic withdrawals caused an overdraft on Plaintiff's bank account, causing her actual injury in the forms of additional fees. The Plaintiff never provided Defendant with any authorization to deduct these sums of money on a regular recurring basis from Plaintiff's banking account after the cancellation of the service. The Defendants continued to deduct this monthly sum from Plaintiff for several months without Plaintiff's authorization. Additionally, Defendants did not provide to Plaintiff, nor did the Plaintiff execute, any written or electronic writing memorializing or authorizing these recurring or automatic payments in the first instance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com FACEBOOK INC: Faces Cambridge Analytica Class Action in Delaware ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fields PLLC disclosed that on April 10, 2018, a class action lawsuit against Facebook, Inc., in the United States Federal District Court in Delaware, was filed on behalf of both American and British Facebook users, alleging the social media company failed to protect the personal information of 70.6 million Facebook users in the U.S. and another more than 1 million in the United Kingdom. The lawsuit was also filed against Cambridge Analytica LLC, SCL Group Limited and Global Science Research Limited, organizations that obtained the Facebook user data to develop and foster political propaganda campaigns. The suit also names Aleksandr Kogan, a founding director of Global Science Research Ltd. Former Trump campaign and White House Advisor Steve Bannon led Cambridge Analytica in 2014 at the time the data was collected and extracted. Rebekah Mercer, a prominent Trump campaign donor, was a member of the board of Cambridge Analytica at the time. "Facebook utterly failed in its duty and promise to secure the personal information of millions of its users, and, when aware that this stolen information was aimed against its owners, it failed to take appropriate action," said Robert Ruyak -- robertr@ruyakcherian.com -- co-lead counsel in the class action suit. "Facebook must be held responsible for failing to protect its users' personal information. We must also make certain that organizations like Cambridge Analytica and their benefactors -- the Mercer family and Steve Bannon -- are held accountable for this egregious theft and misuse and cannot further exploit it." "Facebook has made billions of dollars selling advertisements targeted to its customers, and in this instance made millions selling advertisements to political campaigns that developed those very ads on the back of their customers' own stolen personal information," said co-lead counsel Richard Fields. "That's unacceptable, and they must be held accountable." "The defendants effectively abused the human right to privacy of ordinary Facebook users and, if that were not enough, then the fruits of that abuse are alleged to have undermined the democratic process. This case will go some way to ensure that neither of these things can happen in the future," said co- counsel Jason McCue -- jason.mccue@mccue-law.com -- an expert on UK data privacy and human rights law. The lawsuit alleges that in 2014, Cambridge Analytica, SCL and GSR improperly acquired the personal information of 71.6 million Facebook users, including names, phone numbers, mailing and email addresses, political and religious affiliations, and interests. This was done to accomplish Cambridge Analytica's driving principle: to build psychological profiles of voters to effect election results in the United States and The United Kingdom. GSR was granted access by Facebook to collect data solely for academic research. Instead the data was used by Cambridge Analytica and GSR for purely political and commercial purposes. The information was obtained by using a digital application called thisisyourdigitallife, developed by Cambridge University psychologist Aleksandr Kogan. Mr. Kogan created a personality quiz that required individuals to use their Facebook login credentials to take the quiz. Approximately 270,000 Facebook users installed the application, and gave their personal information to Mr. Kogan and Cambridge Analytica. The design of the application allowed Mr. Kogan and Cambridge Analytica to obtain without consent the personal information of more than 71 million Facebook users in the U.S. and U.K. who were Friends of the original 270,000 users. When Facebook first learned of the true nature of Cambridge Analytica's work in 2015, they failed to notify Facebook users and to ensure that the stolen data was destroyed, which enabled its use through the 2016 U.S. elections and the June 2016 UK "Brexit" Referendum. The plaintiffs are represented by co-lead counsel Robert Ruyak of RuyakCherian LLP, and Richard Fields of Fields PLLC, both in Washington, D.C., by Jason McCue and Matthew Jury -- matthew.jury@mccue-law.com -- of McCue & Partners LLP in London, and by Christopher P. Simon -- csimon@crosslaw.com -- of Cross & Simon, LLC in Wilmington, Delaware. [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Faces Another Class Action Over Data Misuse --------------------------------------------------------- Shara Tibken, writing for Cnet, reports that a law firm on April 9 filed another lawsuit against Facebook for failing to protect consumer data. The suit, following a similar case, was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose. It accuses Facebook of "unjust enrichment and violation of privacy and consumer-protection laws when it permitted app developers and other third parties to exploit its 'lax to non-existent enforcement practices,'" according to a press release from law firm Hagens Berman. The firm alleges breach of contract and violation of California's unfair competition law, among other complaints. The suit asks for damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs, as well as injunctive relief "to ensure that Facebook's users are not injured by similar shenanigans again." It wants class action status. Facebook reiterated a comment from Paul Grewal, its deputy general counsel. "We are committed to vigorously enforcing our policies to protect people's information," he said in response to the awsuit. "We will take whatever steps are required to see that this happens." Facebook has been facing the biggest scandal in its 14-year history. Personal info from about 300,000 users was originally collected in 2013 for a personality quiz app called This is Your Digital Life, designed by Aleksandr Kogan, a Cambridge University researcher. Because of how Facebook worked at the time, Mr. Kogan was able to access data from friends of the quiz takers -- up to 87 million of them -- and share the information with Cambridge Analytica. The data analytics firm then may have used the data to help the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election. Outcry over the misuse of data has caused Facebook to make changes to its site, including launching a tool to notify users if they were affected by the Cambridge Analytica data scandal. Facebook also announced new privacy settings and a clearer privacy policy and said it's auditing the thousands of apps on its site to make sure it knows how data is being collected. CEO Mark Zuckerberg was slated to testify before Congress on April 10 and April 11. The US government wants Mr. Zuckerberg to explain how so much personal data could have been shared about users, as well as what he's doing to prevent this from happening in the future. Attorney John Yanchunis of law firm Morgan & Morgan filed a lawsuit against Facebook and requested class action status. That suit alleges the companies violated California's unfair competition law. It seeks damages paid to plaintiff Lauren Price and, as a proposed class action, to others similarly affected. The April 9 lawsuit alleges that "Facebook stood idly by" while an app developer "sucked down the data portfolios of 70 million- plus of its users." It also said that Facebook "made only the weakest attempts to prevent further access to this data." That complaint initially includes three plaintiffs: Carol Johnson from Novato, California; Daniel Paul of Boulder, Colorado; and Steve Mortillaro of Nashville, Tennessee. They say that Facebook likely shared their data with Cambridge Analytica without their permission. Hagens Berman is seeking additional people to join its proposed class action suit. It noted that it "has represented millions of consumers in class action cases, recovering more than $200 billion in victories and settlements." "Facebook has repeatedly failed to uphold its own privacy agreements and policies, and it's brazenly neglected the data security of the billions of those who use its social media service," Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman, said in a statement. "Instead of choosing to be vigilant, making appropriate investments in data security and stopping this massive harvesting of users' information by third parties, Facebook stood by as the private information of millions was funneled into the hands of bad actors." [GN] FALCON RECOVERY: Faces "Lord" Suit in N.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Falcon Recovery Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Amanda Lord, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Falcon Recovery Systems, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-00475-FJS-CFH (N.D. N.Y., April 18, 2018). Falcon Recovery Systems LLC offers adjustment and collection service located in Canton, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. Marcus & Zelman, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Tel: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com FAMOUS DAVE'S: "Broad" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE BROAD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FAMOUS DAVE'S RIBS INC., the Defendants, Case No. 508082/2018 (S.D. Fla., April 20, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, and other damages for Plaintiff and their similarly-situated co-workers - servers, bartenders, and other similarly situated non-tipped employees -- who work or have worked for the Famous Dave's restaurant located at 1060 Corporate Drive, Westbury, NY 11590. According to the complaint, throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendant applied a tip credit to Tipped Employees' wages and paid Tipped Employees a reduced minimum wage rate. The Defendant, however, did not satisfy the requirements under the New York Labor Law or the Fair Labor Standards Act by which they could take a tip credit towards the hourly rates paid to Tipped Employees. In that regard, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and other Tipped Employees with notification of the tipped minimum wage rate or tip credit provisions of the NYLL or the FLSA, or of their intent to apply a tip credit to Plaintiffs and other Tipped Employees' wages. As a result, the Defendant is liable to Tipped Employees for the difference between the full minimum wage rate and the tipped minimum wage rate paid for all hours worked up to 40 each workweek. The Defendant applied the same employment policies, practices, and procedures to all Tipped Employees at the Famous Dave's in Westbury, New York.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Collective: Brian S. Scnaffer, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300 0375 Counsel to Defendant: David Feather, Esq. FEATHER LAW FIRM, P.C. 666 Old Country Rd #605 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 745 9000 E-mail: dfeather@featherlawfirm.com FOREVER 21: Faces "Hameed-Bolden" Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forever 21 Retail, Inc. The case is captioned as Jowharah Hameed-Bolden and Ali Conrad O'Brien, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Forever 21 Retail, Inc. and Forever 21, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03019-SJO-JPR (C.D. Cal., April 10, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge S. James Otero. Forever 21 operates retail stores for clothing and accessories for shoppers in United States and Canada. The stores offer casual tops, dressy tops, basics, sweaters, outerwear, pants, shorts, dresses, skirts, and denim clothing.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin F Ruf, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY AND MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201 9150 Facsimile: (310) 201 9160 E-mail: kruf@glancylaw.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN AND MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275 5272 Facsimile: (813) 275 9295 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com G. WELDING: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- MARCELINO SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. G. WELDING CONTRACTOR, CORP., a Florida Corporation, and ROBERLAY ROMERO, individually, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-21593-JEM (S.D. Fla., April 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida law. According to the complaint, the Defendants had knowledge of the actual hours worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated non-exempt employees in multiple work weeks between April 2015 and the present, all of which work was for the benefit of Defendants. Nonetheless, the Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to compensate Plaintiff and the other similarly situated employees with time and one-half wages for all of their actual overtime hours worked, instead accepting the benefits of the work performed by Plaintiff and the others similarly situated to him without paying the overtime compensation required by the FLSA. G. Welding is a full service metal and aluminum fabricator providing welding and installation services of fences, doors, decks, stairs, and railings, for residential and commercial customers throughout the State of Florida.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Keith M. Stern, Esq. Hvazel Solis Rojas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. One Flagler 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 901 1379 Facsimile: (561) 288 9031 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com hsolis@workingforyou.com GALVESTON, TX: ACLU Sues Over Discriminatory Bail Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- Newsfix reports that the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and Arnold & Porter has filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Galveston County, for violating the constitutional rights of people arrested for misdemeanors and felonies. The lawsuit alleges that the county's Judge's, Magistrates, and the District Attorney's hold alleged criminals in jail if they can't afford bail, while allowing those who can pay to go home to their families, jobs, and communities. With each day in jail, the person's chances for a fair trial diminishes as evidence and witnesses disappear, and many who are innocent usually plead guilty simply to end the ordeal. This is the first filing by the ACLU to include the District Attorney as a defendant in bail reform litigation. The plaintiff Aaron Booth, age 36, was arrested on Apr. 8, for drug possession. He cannot afford the $20,000 money bail required by the court's bail schedule. Mr. Booth fears losing his job because he is in jail. "A system that requires people to buy their freedom is not a system interested in dispensing justice," said Trisha Trigilio, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Texas. "Our client is seeking one thing, a fair hearing. Rich or poor, everyone should have a meaningful chance for a judge to hear them out before they are locked in a jail cell but that's not what's happening in Galveston County." Galveston's system of wealth-based detention is arbitrary, the lawsuit argues. Each offense has an assigned dollar amount. If a person can arrange to pay the full amount to the sheriff in cash or property, or can arrange for payment through a bail bond company or another third party, the sheriff releases that person automatically. Those who cannot pay the predetermined bail amount must remain in jail indefinitely. "A person's wealth should never decide their freedom, but that's exactly what's happening in Texas and across the country," said Brandon Buskey, staff attorney with the ACLU's Criminal Law Reform Project. "Galveston's bail system disregards the presumption of innocence, destroys families, and negatively affects jobs, and homes." The lawsuit against Galveston County is a continuation of efforts from the ACLU Campaign for Smart Justice to end wealth-based bail detention in Texas and across the nation. The ACLU Campaign for Smart Justice hopes to reduce the U.S. jail and prison population by 50 percent and combat racial disparities in the criminal justice system. They also plan to end money bail and eliminate wealth-based pretrial detention through legislative advocacy, voter education, and litigation. "Studies consistently show that individuals who are held in jail until trial are more likely to be convicted, and more likely to be sentenced to prison, than those who are released pending trial," said Christopher Odell -- christopher.odell@arnoldporter.com -- an attorney with Arnold & Porter. "Our goal is to ensure that the criminal justice system is fair to everyone in Galveston County, whether they're rich or poor or somewhere in between." [GN] GLOBAL EXECUTIVE: Levy Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled NURIT LEVY f/k/a NURIT LAVERTOVSKY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL EXECUTIVE SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 9:18- cv-80284-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons (a) with a Florida address, (b) to whom Global Executive Solutions, LLC, (c) between March 6, 2017 and March 6, 2018, (d) in connection with the collection of a consumer debt, (e) mailed an initial debt collection communication not returned to Global Executive Solutions, LLC as undeliverable, (f) that stated (i) "[i]f you dispute this amount, or any portion thereof, you need to dispute the account in writing within 30 days," or (ii) "[i]f you notify us in writing within 30 days of receiving this notice, this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment or verification." 2. appointing herself as class representative; and 3. appointing her counsel as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PFoNJ1yW Counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed class: 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 - Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq. Kuhn Raslavich, P.A. 2124 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite B Tampa, Florida 33606 Telephone: (813) 422 7782 Facsimile: (813) 422 7783 E-mail: ben@thekrfirm.com GOHEALTH LLC: Beck Seeks to Certify 4 Classes --------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MATTHEW TODD BECK, individually and on behalf of all CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GOHEALTH, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; NORVAX, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA, INC., d/b/a FLORIDA BLUE, a foreign corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02889 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify these classes: Auto-Dialed Calls Class: "all persons within the United States subscribing to a cellular telephone number to which GoHealth Defendants initiated a telephone call for health insurance marketing purposes through the Predictive Dialer, Broker Dialer, or similar system, from April 23, 2014 through the date the Court rules on Plaintiff's motion for class certification, whose telephone number was obtained prior to July 9, 2015"; Auto-Dialed Calls BCBSFL Class: "all persons within the United States subscribing to a cellular telephone number to which GoHealth Defendants or BCBSFL or both initiated a telephone call in order to market BCBSFL health insurance through the Predictive Dialer, Broker Dialer, or similar system, from April 23, 2014 through the date the Court rules on Plaintiff's motion for class certification, whose telephone number was obtained prior to July 9, 2015"; Prerecorded Calls Class: "all persons within the United States subscribing to a residential or cellular telephone number to which GoHealth Defendants a telephone call for health insurance marketing purposes using an artificial or prerecorded voice, from April 23, 2014 through the date the Court rules on Plaintiff's motion for class certification, whose telephone number was obtained prior to July 9, 2015"; and Prerecorded Calls BCBSFL Class: "all persons within the United States subscribing to a residential or cellular telephone number to which GoHealth Defendants or BCBSFL or both initiated a telephone call in order to market BCBSFL health insurance using an artificial or prerecorded voice, from April 23, 2014 through the date the Court rules on Plaintiff's motion for class certification, whose telephone number was obtained prior to July 9, 2015." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Zr3p80lh The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith J. Keogh, Esq. Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726 1092 Facsimile: (312) 726 1093 E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com GOODLIFE FITNESS: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Sara Mojtehedzadeh, writing for The Star, reports that gym giant GoodLife Fitness has settled a class-action lawsuit over unpaid wages for $7.5 million, after employees claimed the company "systematically failed" to accurately compensate them for hours of work and overtime. The suit originally filed in October 2016 by Toronto-based labour law firm Goldblatt Partners alleged that the gym did not pay employees for certain kinds of work, such as preparation for classes and seeking out new clients, and created "an unlawful barrier to payment of overtime" at its 166 locations across Ontario. Last year, the scope of the suit was expanded nationwide -- so the settlement, which is pending court approval, will impact thousands of current and former non-managerial employees across Canada. After the $60 million class action launched, GoodLife made significant changes to its payment policies. It began paying personal trainers for their prospecting hours and removed clawbacks on their commission. It also began paying trainers for preparation and administrative tasks and paying lieu time at time-and-a-half, rather than straight time, as required by law. Carrie Eklund, the representative plaintiff in the suit, said she was "proud of what this case and this settlement have achieved for GoodLife employees." "I started this class action because I believed GoodLife employees deserved to be paid for all of their hard work, and the changes this claim encouraged and the settlement money to be paid to the class go a long way towards that goal." Personal trainers will get around $5.5 million out of the settlement, and fitness advisers around $800,000. Other job classifications will be paid out from the balance of the $7.5 million settlement. Individual dollar figures will be determined based on the amount of work employees did at the gym from October 2014 to the end of December 2017. GoodLife will donate cheques that are not cashed after six months to the Canadian Cancer Society. David Patchell-Evans, the founder and CEO of GoodLife Fitness, said in an emailed statement that he could not comment on the specifics of the settlement as it is still before the courts, but said it was "important to come to a settlement that is reasonable for all to bring closure to this case." "We are hopeful that the court approves the proposed settlement so that we may continue on our journey to provide the best experience for our members and associates." Goldblatt lawyer Josh Mandryk said the settlement would put "millions of dollars into the pockets of current and former GoodLife employees, and the changes encouraged by this class action will mean millions more in wages for current and future employees each year going forward." "Work in the fitness industry is notoriously precarious," said Goldblatt co-counsel Christine Davies. "This settlement and the changes made since this class action was filed sent a strong message that all work must be paid and will have reverberations throughout the fitness industry." The Star has previously reported on an organizing campaign at GoodLife that resulted in around 650 Toronto personal trainers unionizing after complaints of poor pay and health and safety concerns. Unionized employees are eligible for settlement payouts up until Dec. 5, 2017, when they signed their first collective agreement. GoodLife will also pay $1 million in legal fees for the plaintiffs. [GN] HERBALIFE INT'L: Files Motion to Dismiss RICO Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Sandra Lane, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Herbalife International, a global multi-level marketing corporation, on Dec. 22 filed a motion to dismiss a legal action filed against the company that alleged violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The motion was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In the motion for dismissal, Herbalife attorneys said that plaintiffs like Jeff Rodgers did not allege the most basic elements of a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim. "The complaint does not, and cannot, allege the existence of a distinct enterprise as opposed to the ordinary business affairs of Herbalife and its distributor network," the motion states. Herbalife also stated that plaintiffs did not allege a cognizable injury to their businesses or property, but instead experienced losses stemming from a failed business opportunity. It alleges that this is not recoverable under RICO. Another argument made by Herbalife's attorneys was that the case should be dismissed because payment had already been made to some of the plaintiffs in a previous lawsuit, Bostick v. Herbalife. It stated that the other plaintiffs should not receive payment because their claims are subject to arbitration. Charges of misrepresentation were the basis of this lawsuit filed by the former Herbalife distributors and some of their spouses in September. As stated in the defendant's motion, plaintiffs say that the promises made by Herbalife about achieving a "guaranteed pathway to attaining life-changing financial success" were not realistic. To achieve this financial success, the distributors said they were "encouraged" to attend every training event and spent thousands to attend them. As a result, plaintiffs asked to be reimbursed for the cost of attending these training events as well as the money they spent on what they considered to be a "fraudulent and illusory" business opportunity, the motion states. In addition, plaintiffs alleged that Herbalife was conducting a RICO operation. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, in order to be found guilty of violating the RICO statute, it must be proved "that an enterprise existed, that the enterprise affected interstate commerce, that the defendant was associated with or employed by the enterprise, that the defendant engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity and that the defendant conducted or participated in the conduct of the enterprise through the commission of at least two acts of racketeering activity as set forth in the indictment." This lawsuit is but one of several filed against Herbalife, a company that offers nutritional supplements, weight management, sports nutrition and personal care products. In another legal action in 2016, conducted by the Federal Trade Commission, Herbalife agreed to a $200 million settlement with the FTC. This was based on the allegations that the company had been offering more compensation for recruitment of new distributors than for sales of the products. "This settlement will require Herbalife to fundamentally restructure its business so that participants are rewarded for what they sell, not how many people they recruit," FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez said in the press release. "Herbalife is going to have to start operating legitimately, making only truthful claims about how much money its members are likely to make, and it will have to compensate consumers for the losses they have suffered as a result of what we charge are unfair and deceptive practices." [GN] HOMETOWN RESTORATION: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Darcy Reddan, writing for Law360, reports that New York-based construction company Hometown Restoration LLC has been hit with a potential collective action that alleges its employees were not properly compensated for working overtime, according to a complaint filed in New York federal court on April 6. A former employee of Hometown Restoration, Segundo Alfredo Zaruma Angamarca, alleged that the construction company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law by failing to properly compensate employees for overtime hours worked or provide notice of employees' rights. The case is Alfredo Zaruma Angamarca et al v. Hometown Restoration, LLC et al, Case No. 1:18-cv-03058 (S.D.N.Y.). The case is assigned to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The case was filed April 6, 2018. [GN] HOSTMARK HOSPITALITY: Robertson Sues over Biometric Data -------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS ROBERTSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HOSTMARK HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., RAINTREE ENTERPRISES MART PLAZA, INC., INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP OPERATING CORP. d/b/a HOLIDAY INN CHICAGO MART PLAZA RIVER NORTH, the Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-05194 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., April 20, 2018), seeks to redress and curtail Defendants' unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs sensitive biometric data. According to the complaint, when Defendants hire an employee, he or she is enrolled in its employee database. The Defendants use the employee database to monitor the time worked by its hourly employees. While most employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), the Defendants' employees are required to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Biometrics are not relegated to esoteric comers of commerce. Many businesses -- such as Defendants -- and financial institutions have incorporated biometric applications into their workplace in the form of biometric timeclocks, and into consumer products, including such ubiquitous consumer products as checking accounts and cell phones. Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendants' employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a database containing fingerprints or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed - like in the recent Equifax and Uber data breaches - employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and private information. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq., specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, Defendants' disregard their employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collect, store, disseminate and use their employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA. Hostmark Hospitality Group, is a hotel management company located in Schaumburg, IL and operates throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan James B. Zouras Stephan Zouras, LLP 205 N. Michigan A venue Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312 233 1550 Facsimile: 312 233 1560 E-mail: aficzko@stephanzouras.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Brogan" Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyundai Motor America. The case is styled as Maryanne Brogan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hyundai Motor America, Kia Motors America Inc, Hyundai Motor Company and Kia Motors Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00622-DOC- KES (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2018). The Hyundai Motor Company is a South Korean multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in Seoul, South Korea.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Austin B Cohen, Esq. Charles E Schaffer, Esq. Daniel C Levin, Esq. LevinSedran and Berman LLP 510 Walnut Street Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Tel: (215) 592-1500 Fax: (215) 592-4663 Email: acohen@lfsblaw.com CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com dlevin@lfsblaw.com - and - Jeffrey L Koenig, Esq. Hecht KleegerPintel and Damashek 19 West 44th Street Suite 1500 New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 490-5700 Fax: (212) 490-4800 Email: koenig@lawyer1.com IDENTIV INC: "Cunningham" Securities Suit Dismissal Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, THOMAS CUNNINGHAM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IDENTIV, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-15220 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Cunningham's Second Amended Complaint. In this putative class action, Lead Plaintiff Cunningham appeals the district court's dismissal of his Second Amended Complaint alleging securities fraud by Identiv Inc., Identiv's former CEO Jason Hart, and Identiv's former CFO Brian Nelson in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Appellate Court reviewed de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It found that Cunningham (i) failed to adequately plead scienter as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995; (ii) failed to allege specific facts giving rise to a strong inference, at least as compelling as any opposing inference, that the Defendants acted with contemporaneous intent to defraud investors; (iii) did not adequately plead loss causation; and (iv) failed to establish a causal connection between a material misrepresentation and the loss faced by the Plaintiffs. The Court concluded that the second amended complaint lacked specific facts indicating that the decline in the Defendant's stock price was proximately caused by a revelation of fraudulent activity rather than by changing market conditions, changing investor expectations, or other unrelated factors. Accordingly, it adopted the detailed and well-reasoned analysis in the district court's order entered Jan. 4, 2017. A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/jMCKBV from Leagle.com. INTEGRITY PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Drivers, McKeon Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MCKEON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. INTEGRITY PIZZA LLC, and INFINITY PIZZA LLC d/b/a Domino's Pizza, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv- 00932 (D. Colo., April 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its Domino's stores, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order. The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores. The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. Matthew Haynie, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210 Dallas, Texas 75202 Telephone: (214) 210 2100 Facsimile: (214) 346 5909 E-mail: www.foresterhaynie.com INTERSTATE NATIONAL: Faces "Gattuso" Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Interstate National Dealer Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Frank Gattuso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Interstate National Dealer Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01536-MHC (N.D. Ga., April 10, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mark H. Cohen. Interstate National Dealer Services, Inc. provides service contract and extended warranty programs in the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robin Frazer Clark, Esq. ROBIN FRAZER CLARK, PC Centennial Tower, Suite 2300 101 Marietta Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 873 3700 Facsimile: (404) 876 2555 E-mail: robinclark@gatriallawyers.net JANI-KING INC: "Mujo" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SIMON MUJO and INDRIT MUHARREMI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL, INC., JANI-KING INC., and JANI-KING OF HARTFORD, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01990-VAB (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all individuals who have entered into a franchise agreement with Jani-King and performed cleaning services for Jani-King in Connecticut since December 5, 2010"; 2. designating themselves as Class Representatives; and 3. designating their counsel, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. and The Hayber Law Firm, LLC, as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=REDwa6ee The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter Delano, Esq. Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994 5800 Facsimile: (617) 994 5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com pdelano@llrlaw.com - and - Richard E. Hayber, Esq. THE HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC. 221 Main Street Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: (860) 522 8888 Facsimile: (860) 218 9555 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hall Sues over Talcum Powder in Products ----------------------------------------------------------- LAURA HALL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CAROLYN WHITE, the Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV326338 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 10, 2018), seeks to recover damages as a result of ovarian cancer, which was directly and proximately caused by wrongful conduct by Defendants, the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of the talcum powder, the main ingredient of their products, which include "Johnson's Baby Powder" and "Shower to Shower." The Plaintiff or Plaintiff's Spouse or Plaintiff's Decedent purchased the products and used them on a daily basis in and around her perineal regions. The Plaintiff further used the products to dust other parts of her bodies including, but not limited to, her face, under arms and chest in proximity to their breathing zone. The Plaintiff also used the products when diapering her children and on their bed sheets and for other household purposes. The Plaintiff's parents and others further used the products when diapering the Plaintiff. Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. F/K/A Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the products to consumers. Imerys Talc America, Inc. mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Lee Cirsch, Esq. Michael Akselrud, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC 21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (310) 277 5100 Facsimile: (310) 277 5103 E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Susanne Scovern, Esq. Joseph McPeak, Esq. SCOVERNLAW 201 Spear St., Suite 1105 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (888) 725 1890 E-mail: scovern@scovernlaw.com joseph@mcpeak@scovernlaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Pelles Sue over Talcum Powder in Products ------------------------------------------------------------ PAMELA PELLE AND WESLEY PELLE, the Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV326357 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 10, 2018), seeks to recover damages as a result of ovarian cancer, which was directly and approximately caused by wrongful conduct by Defendants, the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of the talcum powder, the main ingredient of Johnson & Johnson's products, which include "Johnson's Baby Powder" and "Shower to Shower. The Plaintiffs purchased the products and used them on a daily basis in and around her perineal regions. The Plaintiff further used the products to dust other parts of her bodies including, but not limited to, her face, under arms and chest in proximity to their breathing zone. The plaintiff further used the products when diapering her children and on their bed sheets and for other household purposes. The Plaintiff's parents and others further used the products when diapering the plaintiff. The Plaintiff purchased the products and used the products by applying the PRODUCTS to her body in accordance with the instructions for use that accompanied the products and in a reasonably foreseeable manner. Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. Johnson & Johnson And Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. F/K/A Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the products to consumers. Imerys Talc America, Inc. mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the products.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Lee Cirsch, Esq. Michael Akselrud, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC 21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (310) 277 5100 Facsimile: (310) 277 5103 E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com KRISPY KREME: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Donut Labels ------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Trock and Ryan Naumann, writing for Blast, report that Krispy Kreme is once again in the legal fryer after a woman is holding them accountable for the alleged natural ingredients advertised in their delicious donuts. According to freshly baked documents obtained by The Blast, Irina Agajanyan filed a class action lawsuit on April 6 against the Krispy Kreme Donut Corporation accusing them of engaging in a deceptive practice of selling donuts "With the words such as 'blueberry' and 'maple' in their names, which do not contain the named ingredients." Ms. Agahanyan specifically calls out the "Glazed Blueberry Cake Doughnut," "Glazed Blueberry Cake Doughnut Hole," "Maple Iced Glazed," "Strawberry Iced," and "Strawberry Iced with Sprinkles." She claims that purchasing the alleged fake fillings gave her a false sense of getting the proper nutrition that she needed, and claims had she known about the "lack of real ingredients," they never would have been purchased. Interestingly, this isn't the first time Krispy Kreme has been accused of selling fake fillings; a similar class action lawsuit was filed in 2016 claiming the donut maker engaged in false advertising and mislead customers about the nutritional content of the fruit filling inside several of their donut products. That case was dismissed by the plaintiff in 2017. Also in 2017, Krispy Kreme was on the receiving end of another class-action lawsuit for allegedly having misleading nutritional labels. That lawsuit was dismissed as well. This time around, Ms. Agahanyan wants Krispy Kreme to stop selling any donuts with the words "Blueberry" and "Maple" in their name, and also for the donut giants to pay $1,000 per plaintiff in the class action suit. The Blast reached out to Krispy Kreme for comment, and breakfast. [GN] LIBERTY POWER: Court Denies Summary Judgment in BLT Steak Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Shlomo S. Hagler of the New York County Supreme Court denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the case, BLT STEAK LLC and BLT FISH LLC, Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY POWER CORP., LLC, d/b/a LIBERTY POWER NEW YORK, and LIBERTY POWER HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants, Docket No. 151293/13, Motion Seq. No. 005 (N.Y. Sup.). In their Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are Energy Services Companies ("ESCOs") that supply electricity to residential and commercial customers. The Plaintiffs maintain that Liberty Power offers different rate plans to its customers, which generally run for a fixed period of time. When a Liberty Power customer's rate term ends and that customer does not explicitly renew that or another rate plan, rather than return the customer to Consolidated Edison ("Con Edison"), Liberty Power instead places the customer into the Variable Rate Plan, which Liberty Power refers to as its 'default' plan. Under the Terms and Conditions of the Variable Rate Plan, a customer's enrollment automatically renews every 30 days. The rate that a customer is charged under the Plan varies from month to month, based upon various factors. The Terms and Conditions of the Variable Rate Plan unambiguously promised that Liberty Power customers on that Plan will be charged a competitive price tied to the market price paid by Liberty Power to purchase the electricity on the customer's behalf. The Plaintiffs allege that, in reality, one of the components of the rate that they were charged under the Plan was a hidden, fixed fee that was not 'established each month' but rather remained unchanged for long periods of time. This fixed fee is a so-called margin fee that represents Liberty Power's pre- determined profit on the sale of electricity. The margin fee under fixed rate plans is low and is adjusted frequently. By contrast, under the Plan, the margin fee is as much as 17 times higher than on its fixed rate plans and often remains unchanged for more than three years. As a result, the rates charged under the Plan were not "remotely" tied to the wholesale price of electricity and were significantly higher that the rates charged by Con Edison. The restaurants operated by BLT Steak and BLT Fish originally received electricity through Con Ed. In March 2005, upon deregulation of electricity delivery in New York, both restaurants switched to Liberty Power as their electricity supplier. BLT Fish and Liberty Power allegedly entered into a contract, which remained in effect until approximately May 31, 2012. BLT Steak and Liberty Power allegedly entered into a contract, which remained in effect until approximately June 30, 2012. The Plaintiffs allege that at the time of termination, they were enrolled in the Plan and were charged at least $350,000 more than under the market rate for a full requirements contract. On these facts, the Plaintiffs assert a claim for breach of contract. Specifically, they allege that, under the Plan, Liberty Power was obligated to charge the Plaintiffs and the class members only a market-based supply charge based on the purchase of electricity in a competitive market. Instead, Liberty Power charged the Plaintiffs arbitrary and exorbitant amounts well in excess of market rates, including by assessing a hidden fee that frequently doubled the price customers paid. The Defendants move pursuant to CPLR 3212 for an Order granting summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. In support of their contention that the parties never entered into a contract, the Defendants proffers the Rosen Affidavit. They also rely on a testimony of James Haber, one of the Plaintiffs' witnesses, a manager of BLT Restaurant Group, an entity that owns both the Plaintiffs, who testified that he never authorized his employees to enter into a contract with Liberty Power, nor was he aware of the existence of a contract between plaintiffs and Liberty Power. They further argue that the Plaintiffs are barred from recovery of payments pursuant to the voluntary payment doctrine and the Plaintiffs voluntarily paid the monthly bills without protest from 2005 until May 2012. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion. In opposition, they state that the only claim remaining in the case, is whether the Defendants breached contractual terms between the parties from 2009 onward. They also raise an issue of fact as to whether or not the voluntary payment doctrine applies. Judge Hagler finds that it is undisputed that payment was made to Con Edison for electrical service covering the Plaintiff restaurants and that the Con Edison bills for the period 2005 through 2012 listed Liberty Power as the electrical supplier. The parties' differing accounts regarding what agreement, if any, governed the parties' relationship after 2009, which according to the Plaintiff is the claim remaining in this matter, raises an issue of fact, as to whether there was an enforceable contract between the parties. The Judge says although the Defendants claim that the Terms and Conditions only apply to customers who enrolled with the Defendants after 2009, the Plaintiffs contend that the Variable Rate Plan applies to all customer who do not explicitly renew or cancel their contracts. In addition, as a matter of law, if, after expiration of a contract, the parties continue to conduct business in the same manner as they did before, they impliedly assent to a new contract on the same terms as the prior one. As such, if there was a contractual obligation, there is also an issue of fact as to whether the Defendants breached an agreement by imposing the rates charged to the Plaintiffs. The Judge also finds that although the Defendants argue that Con Ed billing statements provided specific rates at which the Plaintiffs were billed, the record fails to establish that the Plaintiffs possessed sufficient information necessary for them to determine if they were being overcharged and by how much. Accordingly, there is an issue of fact as to whether the Plaintiffs had full knowledge of the facts, necessary to invoke the voluntary payment doctrine. Because he will deny the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, the Judge says it is not necessary to consider the Plaintiffs' alternative grounds for denial, namely that further discovery is needed. For these reasons, Judge Hagler denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212. A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/xPbeQ0 from Leagle.com. MARIO ALMANZA: Weight Loss Surgery Victims File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Katie LaGrone, writing for WPTV, reported that "He had taken a huge chunk of my liver," said a victim in Montana. "I will do everything I could to make sure he can't do this to people anymore," said another victim in California. More than a dozen others patients in America shared the same sentiment about Dr. Mario Almanza. Now the Tijuana doctor, who describes himself as the leading gastric sleeve surgeon in the world, will have to defend himself against a multi-million dollar class action lawsuit in Arizona. Dr. Almanza, who states on his website that he's performed more gastric sleeve procedures than any other surgeon in the world, is one of twenty defendants named in the suit filed recently by several Arizona patients. Among them, Jessica Ballandby who traveled to Tijuana in 2014 for a gastric sleeve only to return with a cut spleen and life-long problems. "I ended up having to have female surgery and now my thyroid is messing up," she told our sister-station KNXV recently. WPTV first introduced Jessica in 2015 when she and more than a dozen other patients across the country spoke publicly, accusing Dr. Almanza of botching their weight loss surgeries. Kaycha Baez of Central Florida says she was sent to Dr. Almanza by Weight Loss Agents, a South Florida-based medical tourism company quick to state that they are not a medical referral agency. Ms. Baez returned home with a hole in her stomach. "Why wasn't this detected in Mexico? Why do I have to deal with it at home?" she told us in 2015. Over the course of our investigation in 2015 and 2016, WPTV confirmed at least four Americans died after surgery with Dr. Almanza. The doctor claims he learned about the deaths following our reports. In an interview granted with our sister station, KGTV in San Diego, Almanza claimed unhappy patients were bribed by disgruntled employees. This new class-action lawsuit accuses Dr. Almanza and a number of Arizona-based medical businesses and a medical middleman of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and negligent supervision. Among the businesses sued include Fill Centers USA, a medical group with 40 branches nationwide. The group would help care for patients after they returned from surgery in Mexico. Attorney Robert Gregory, who is representing the Arizona patients in the class-action suit, believes the lawsuit could expand nationwide. "I've spoken to potential plaintiffs in places like New Mexico, Florida, Washington, Arizona of course and California so the potential is definitely there. Patients who had these surgeries are angry at what happened to them," he said. "I was healthier and prettier when I was bigger. I'd do anything to go back," said Jessica Ballandby. If you believe you are a victim of weight loss surgery in Mexico and/or Dr. Mario Almanza and would like to learn more about this class action lawsuit, contact attorney Robert Gregory of the Gregory Law Group at 480-664-0855. [GN] LONGFIN CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on April 9 disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Longfin Corp. ("Longfin") (NASDAQ:LFIN) Class A common stock during the period between December 15, 2017 and April 2, 2018 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the Southern District of New York and is captioned Miller v. Longfin Corp., et al., No.18-cv-3121. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from April 3, 2018. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/longfin/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Longfin and its CEO with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Longfin is a finance and technology company that provides trade and physical commodities solutions for finance businesses and trading platforms. In December 2017, Longfin went public through Regulation A+ ("Reg A+") of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012. Under Reg A+ issuers can raise up to $50 million from investors through "public solicitation" without having to register the offering with the SEC or state regulators. Shortly after going public, Longfin announced that it was buying Ziddu.com ("Ziddu") to enable global trade through the use of blockchain technology. The Company purchased Ziddu from an affiliate of its CEO and Chairman, Venkata S. Meenavalli, in exchange for 2.5 million Longfin Class A common shares. On this news, the price of Longfin Class A shares jumped more than 1,200% in two days. Effective March 16, 2018, Longfin was added to two widely tracked stock indices, the Russell 2000 Index and the Russell 3000 Index (the "Russell Indices"). The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Longfin had misrepresented the location of its primary offices and the identity of key employees in its public statements; (ii) Longfin had numerous material weaknesses in its operations and internal controls over financial reporting; (iii) Longfin was ineligible for inclusion in the Russell Indices; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of defendants' false statements and/or omissions, the price of Longfin Class A shares was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. On March 26, 2018, Citron Research accused the Company of inaccuracies in its financial reporting and fraud. The same day, Russell issued a statement announcing that Longfin would be removed from its global indices after market close on March 28, 2018, approximately 12 days after being added. Then, on April 2, 2018, Longfin filed its annual report on Form 10-K for its 2017 fiscal year, which revealed that the Company was subject to an SEC investigation (which ultimately led to a court-imposed freeze on $27 million in illicit trading proceeds), suffered from a multitude of material weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting, and may not be able to continue as a going concern. The foregoing events caused the price of the Company's stock to decline 86%, from $71.10 per share on March 23, 2018, to close at $9.89 per share on April 3, 2018. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Longfin Class A common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a law firm representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. [GN] MDL 2826: "Designor" Suit over Data Security Breach Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled REBECCA DESIGNOR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. Uber Technologies Inc., Raiser, LLC., and Rasier-CA, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-05289, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on April 10, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-03003-PSG-GJS to the proceeding. The Designor case is being consolidated with MDL 2826 in re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 4, 2018. These putative class actions share complex factual questions arising from Uber's announcement on November 21, 2017, that a data security breach of its network occurred in late 2016 in which the personal information of 57 million Uber users was downloaded by unauthorized individuals outside the company. Common factual questions are presented with respect to Uber's practices in safeguarding its users' personal information, the investigation into the breach, the alleged delay in disclosing the breach, and the nature of the alleged damages. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. In its April 4, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that the Central District of California is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Three actions are pending in this district. The Uber defendants support this district if centralization is granted over their objection, and plaintiffs in two Northern District of Illinois actions support it as their second choice. California has a significant connection to this litigation, as Uber Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this state, where much of the common evidence, including witnesses, will be located. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez oversees the litigation. The lead case is 2:18-ml-02826-PSG-GJS. Uber Technologies is a peer-to-peer ridesharing, food delivery, and transportation network company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with operations in 633 cities worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dianne M Nast, Esq. Daniel N Gallucci, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 923 9300 Facsimile: (215) 923 9302 E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com dgallucci@nastlaw.com Attorneys for Defendants: Allison M Holt, Esq. E. Desmond Hogan, Esq. Michelle A Kisloff, Esq. Vassiliki Iliadis, Esq. Stephen A Loney, Jr., Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637 5872 Facsimile: (202) 637 5910 E-mail: allison.holt@hoganlovells.com desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com michelle.kisloff@hoganlovells.com vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com stephen.loney@hoganlovells.com MDL 2826: "Harang" Suit over Data Security Breach Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Julius J. Harang, Norbert Hennrich, Betsy Hennrich, Sam Mangano, Stephen Goerke, Jeff Klueff, Dara Swango, Jesse Lopez, Don Lapato, and Ryan Glaze, the Plaintiffs, v. Uber Technologies Inc.; Rasier, LLC; Travis Kalanick; Salle Eun Yoo; Katherine Tassi; Sabrina Ross; John Flynn; Chief Deputy Joe Sullivan; Dara Khosrowshahi; Apple Inc.; Tim Cook; and Unknown John Does and Jane Does, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08500, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on April 10, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-02998-PSG-GJS to the proceeding. The Harang case is being consolidated with MDL 2826 in re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 4, 2018. These putative class actions share complex factual questions arising from Uber's announcement on November 21, 2017, that a data security breach of its network occurred in late 2016 in which the personal information of 57 million Uber users was downloaded by unauthorized individuals outside the company. Common factual questions are presented with respect to Uber's practices in safeguarding its users' personal information, the investigation into the breach, the alleged delay in disclosing the breach, and the nature of the alleged damages. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. In its April 4, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that the Central District of California is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Three actions are pending in this district. The Uber defendants support this district if centralization is granted over their objection, and plaintiffs in two Northern District of Illinois actions support it as their second choice. California has a significant connection to this litigation, as Uber Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this state, where much of the common evidence, including witnesses, will be located. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez presides over the litigation. The lead case is 2:18-ml-02826-PSG-GJS. Uber Technologies is a peer-to-peer ridesharing, food delivery, and transportation network company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with operations in 633 cities worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C Vlahakis, Esq. Ahmad Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq. Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. Nathan Charles Volheim, Esq. Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575 8181 Facsimile: (630) 575 8188 E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com ahmad.sulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com Attorneys for Uber Technologies Inc.; Rasier, LLC; Salle Eun Yoo; Katherine Tassil Sabrina Ross; John Flynn; and Dara Khosrowshahi: Allison M Holt, Esq. E. Desmond Hogan, Esq. Michelle A Kisloff, Esq. Vassi Iliadis, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637 5872 Facsimile: (202) 637 5910 E-mail: allison.holt@hoganlovells.com desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com michelle.kisloff@hoganlovells.com vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com - and - Christopher B Wilson, Esq. Eric D. Brandfonbrener, Esq. Regina L. LaMonica, Esq. PERKINS COIE, LLC 35 W Wacker Dr, Ste 3750 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 263 5601 E-mail: ebrand@perkinscoie.com RLaMonica@perkinscoie.com Attorneys for Travis Kalanick: Robin Anne Linsenmayer, Esq. Eric Matthew Hairston, Esq. Melinda Haag, Esq. Walter Francis Brown, Jr., Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 95025 Telephone: (650) 614 7423 E-mail: rlinsenmayer@orrick.com ehairston@orrick.com mhaag@orrick.com wbrown@orrick.com - and - Brett Michael Doran, Esq. Francis A Citera, Esq. GREENBERT TRAURIG LLP 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 457 8400 E-mail: doranb@gtlaw.com citeraf@gtlaw.com Attorneys for Chief Deputy Joe Sullivan: Matthew S Ryan, Esq. Emily Cohen Rossi Vermylen, Esq. COTSIRILOS TIGHE STREICKER POULOS AND CAMPBELL LTD 33 North Dearborn Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 332 5675 Facsimile: (312) 263 4670 E-mail: mryan@cotsiriloslaw.com evermylen@cotsiriloslaw.com Attorneys for Apple Inc. and Tim Cook: Mark Steven Mester, Esq. Kathleen Patricia Lally, Esq. Megan C Fitzpatrick, Esq. Sean M Berkowitz, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 876 7700 E-mail: mark.mester@lw.com kathleen.lally@lw.com megan.fitzpatrick@lw.com sean.berkowitz@lw.com MDL 2826: "Patni" Suit over Data Security Breach Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Junaid Patni, Charlene Marsh, and Kimberly Crawl, the Plaintiffs, v. Uber Technologies Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Rasier, LLC, Travis Kalanick, Sallie Eun Yoo, Angela M. Padilla, Katherine Tassi, Sabrina Ross, Craig Clark, John Flynn, Chief Deputy Joe Sullivan, Dara Khosrowshani and JOHN AND OR JANE DOES, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 08709, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on April 10, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-03002-PSG-GJS to the proceeding. The Patni case is being consolidated with MDL 2826 in re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 4, 2018. These putative class actions share complex factual questions arising from Uber's announcement on November 21, 2017, that a data security breach of its network occurred in late 2016 in which the personal information of 57 million Uber users was downloaded by unauthorized individuals outside the company. Common factual questions are presented with respect to Uber's practices in safeguarding its users' personal information, the investigation into the breach, the alleged delay in disclosing the breach, and the nature of the alleged damages. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. In its April 4, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that the Central District of California is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Three actions are pending in this district. The Uber defendants support this district if centralization is granted over their objection, and plaintiffs in two Northern District of Illinois actions support it as their second choice. California has a significant connection to this litigation, as Uber Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this state, where much of the common evidence, including witnesses, will be located. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez presides over the litigation. The lead case is 2:18-ml-02826-PSG-GJS. Uber Technologies is a peer-to-peer ridesharing, food delivery, and transportation network company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with operations in 633 cities worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C Vlahakis, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD 2500 South Highland Avenue Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575 8181 Facsimile: (630) 575 8188 E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com - and - Allison M Holt, Esq. E Desmond Hogan, Esq. Michelle A Kisloff, Esq. Vassi Iliadis, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637 5872 Facsimile: (202) 637 5910 E-mail: allison.holt@hoganlovells.com desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com michelle.kisloff@hoganlovells.com vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com - and - Christopher B Wilson, Esq. Eric D. Brandfonbrener, Esq. Regina L. LaMonica, Esq. PERKINS COIE, LLC 35 W Wacker Dr, Ste 3750 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 263 5601 E-mail: ebrand@perkinscoie.com RLaMonica@perkinscoie.com MDL 2826: "West" Suit over Data Security Breach Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Bradley West, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, UBER USA, LLC, Uber Technologies Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Rasier, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08593, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on April 10, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-03001-PSG-GJS to the proceeding. The West case is being consolidated with MDL 2826 in re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 4, 2018. These putative class actions share complex factual questions arising from Uber's announcement on November 21, 2017, that a data security breach of its network occurred in late 2016 in which the personal information of 57 million Uber users was downloaded by unauthorized individuals outside the company. Common factual questions are presented with respect to Uber's practices in safeguarding its users' personal information, the investigation into the breach, the alleged delay in disclosing the breach, and the nature of the alleged damages. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. In its April 4, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that the Central District of California is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Three actions are pending in this district. The Uber defendants support this district if centralization is granted over their objection, and plaintiffs in two Northern District of Illinois actions support it as their second choice. California has a significant connection to this litigation, as Uber Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this state, where much of the common evidence, including witnesses, will be located. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez presides over the litigation. The lead case is 2:18-ml-02826-PSG-GJS. Uber Technologies is a peer-to-peer ridesharing, food delivery, and transportation network company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with operations in 633 cities worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben Barnow, Esq. Erich Paul Schork, Esq. Anthony L Parkhill, Esq. Jeffrey Daniel Blake, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES PC One North LaSalle Street Suite 4600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 621 2000 Facsimile: (312) 641 5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com e.schork@barnowlaw.com j.blake@barnowlaw.com - and - Aron David Robinson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ARON ROBINSON 180 W. Washington Street, Suite 700 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 857 9050 E-mail: adroblaw@aol.com Attorneys for Defendants: Allison M Holt, Esq. E Desmond Hogan, Esq. Michelle A Kisloff, Esq. Vassi Iliadis, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637 5872 Facsimile: (202) 637 5910 E-mail: allison.holt@hoganlovells.com desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com michelle.kisloff@hoganlovells.com vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com - and - Christopher B Wilson, Esq. Eric D. Brandfonbrener, Esq. Regina L. LaMonica, Esq. PERKINS COIE, LLC 35 W Wacker Dr, Ste 3750 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 263 5601 E-mail: ebrand@perkinscoie.com RLaMonica@perkinscoie.com MDL 2827: "Miller" Suit over iPhone Performance Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Mark Miller, Chris Spearman, and Craig Stanford, on behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, the Apple Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00889, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose) on April 23, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-02328-EJD to the proceeding. The Miller case is being consolidated with MDL 2827 in re: Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 4, 2018. All responding parties support centralization, but there is some disagreement as to the transferee district. In addition to the movant, plaintiffs in 30 actions and potential tag-along actions (as well as plaintiff in one action in the alternative) support centralization in the Northern District of California. The Plaintiff in a Southern District of Florida action proposes centralization in that district, while common defendant Apple Inc. supports centralization in the Northern District of California or, alternatively, the Central District of California. In its April 4, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that these actions share factual questions arising from allegations that Apple included code in updates to its mobile operating system (iOS) that significantly reduced the performance of older-model iPhones. The Plaintiffs also allege that Apple misrepresented the nature of the iOS updates and failed to adequately disclose to iPhone owners the impact the iOS updates would have on the performance of their iPhones. Discovery regarding the engineering of the iPhone and the iOS updates likely will be technical and complex. Plaintiffs assert similar causes of action for false advertising, alleged unfair business practices, trespass to chattels, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Moreover, plaintiffs bring these actions on behalf of overlapping putative classes of iPhone owners. Centralization thus will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila. The lead case is 2:15-md-02661-MHW-EPD. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert W. Gifford, Esq. Kenneth Craig Johnston, Esq. JOHNSTON PRATT PLLC 1717 Main Street, Suite 3000 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 974 8000 Facsimile: (972) 474 1750 E-mail: rgifford@johnstonpratt.com kjohnston@johnstonpratt.com Attorneys for Apple, Inc.: Clyde Moody Siebman, Esq. SIEBMAN REYNOLDS BURG & PHILLIPS LLP 300 N Travis Street Sherman, TX 75090-0070 Telephone: (903) 870 0070 Facsimile: (903) 870 0066 E-mail: siebmanecfin@texoma.net MDL 2828: Artesia Hospital's Suit over CPU Defects Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Artesia General Hospital, et al., a New Mexico not-for-profit corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Intel Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-01216, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Portland) on April 20, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00684-SI the proceeding. The Artesia case is being consolidated with MDL 2828 in re: Intel Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 5, 2018. All responding parties agree that the actions share factual issues arising out of allegations that Intel manufactured its computer processors to use "speculative execution" technology, which left the processors exposed to security vulnerabilities known as "Spectre" and "Meltdown," and that the fix for this problem can considerably slow the processors' speed. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. In its April 5, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that centralization in the District of Oregon is appropriate. The Defendant Intel and the Plaintiffs in at least nine related actions support centralization in that district. Intel has extensive operations there, including its employees who evaluated the security vulnerabilities and developed patches to mitigate them, as well as the team that led the development of the first Intel processor to use speculative execution. It is likely, therefore, that relevant evidence and witnesses will be located in this district. The Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon has been assigned to the case. The lead case is 3:18-md-02828-SI. Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in the Silicon Valley.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lucas Williams, Esq. HINKLE SHANOR LLP P.O. Box 10 Roswell, NM 88202-0010 Telephone: (575) 622 6510 Facsimile: (575) 623 9332 E-mail: lwilliams@hinklelawfirm.com - and - Andrew J Cloutier, Esq. Michael E. Jacobs, Esq. Thomas Mark Hnasko, Esq. HINKLE SHANOR LLP P.O. Box 10 Roswell, NM 88202-0010 Telephone: (575) 622 6510 Facsimile: (575) 623-9332 E-mail: acloutier@hinklelawfirm.com mjacobs@hinklelawfirm.com thnasko@hinklelawfirm.com - and - Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone (619) 398 4340 E-mail: bgralewski@kmllp.com Attorneys for Intel Corp.: Miriam Kim, Esq. Allison Marie Day, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 512 4041 E-mail: Miriam.Kim@mto.com allison.day@mto.com MDL 2828: "Bahcevan" Suit over Defective CPUs Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Alexandr Bahcevan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Intel Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00187, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Portland) on April 20, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00689-SI the proceeding. The Bahcevan case is being consolidated with MDL 2828 in re: Intel Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 5, 2018. All responding parties agree that the actions share factual issues arising out of allegations that Intel manufactured its computer processors to use "speculative execution" technology, which left the processors exposed to security vulnerabilities known as "Spectre" and "Meltdown," and that the fix for this problem can considerably slow the processors' speed. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. In its April 5, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that centralization in the District of Oregon is appropriate. The Defendant Intel and the Plaintiffs in at least nine related actions support centralization in that district. Intel has extensive operations there, including its employees who evaluated the security vulnerabilities and developed patches to mitigate them, as well as the team that led the development of the first Intel processor to use speculative execution. It is likely, therefore, that relevant evidence and witnesses will be located in this district. The Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon has been assigned to the case. The lead case is 3:18-md-02828-SI. Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in the Silicon Valley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. Quentin Alexandre Roberts, Esq. Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363 7500 Facsimile: (866) 367 6510 E-mail: qroberts@zlk.com Attorneys for Intel Corp.: Miriam Kim, Esq. Allison Marie Day, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 512 4041 E-mail: Miriam.Kim@mto.com allison.day@mto.com MDL 2828: "Jones" Suit over Defective CPUs Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Carl Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Intel Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00105, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Northern the District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Portland) on April 20, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00686-SI the proceeding. The Jones case is being consolidated with MDL 2828 in re: Intel Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 5, 2018. All responding parties agree that the actions share factual issues arising out of allegations that Intel manufactured its computer processors to use "speculative execution" technology, which left the processors exposed to security vulnerabilities known as "Spectre" and "Meltdown," and that the fix for this problem can considerably slow the processors' speed. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. In its April 5, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that centralization in the District of Oregon is appropriate. The Defendant Intel and the Plaintiffs in at least nine related actions support centralization in that district. Intel has extensive operations there, including its employees who evaluated the security vulnerabilities and developed patches to mitigate them, as well as the team that led the development of the first Intel processor to use speculative execution. It is likely, therefore, that relevant evidence and witnesses will be located in this district. The Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon is assigned to the case. The lead case is 3:18-md-02828-SI. Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in the Silicon Valley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. THE CONSUMER LAW GROUP 16870 W. Bernardo Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (619) 308 5034 Facsimile: (888) 341 5048 E-mail: alan@clgca.com - and - Jeff S. Westerman, Esq. WESTERMAN LAW CORP 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 698 7450 Facsimile: (310) 775 9777 E-mail: jwesterman@jswlegal.com MDL 2828: Providence Suit over Defective CPUs Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled City of Providence, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Intel Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00894, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Portland) on April 20, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00698-SI the proceeding. The Providence case is being consolidated with MDL 2828 in re: Intel Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 5, 2018. All responding parties agree that the actions share factual issues arising out of allegations that Intel manufactured its computer processors to use "speculative execution" technology, which left the processors exposed to security vulnerabilities known as "Spectre" and "Meltdown," and that the fix for this problem can considerably slow the processors' speed. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. In its April 5, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that centralization in the District of Oregon is appropriate. The Defendant Intel and the Plaintiffs in at least nine related actions support centralization in that district. Intel has extensive operations there, including its employees who evaluated the security vulnerabilities and developed patches to mitigate them, as well as the team that led the development of the first Intel processor to use speculative execution. It is likely, therefore, that relevant evidence and witnesses will be located in this district. The Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon is assigned to the case. The lead case is 3:18-md-02828-SI. Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in the Silicon Valley.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David A. Straite, Esq. Donald R Hall, Esq. Laurence D. King, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687 1980 Facsimile: (212) 687 7714 E-mail: dstraite@kaplanfox.com dhall@kaplanfox.com Attorneys for Intel Corp.: Miriam Kim, Esq. Allison Marie Day, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 512 4041 E-mail: Miriam.Kim@mto.com allison.day@mto.com MDL 2828: Zog Inc. Suit over Defective CPUs Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Zog, Inc., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Intel Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00298, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Portland) on April 20, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00691-SI the proceeding. The Zog case is being consolidated with MDL 2828 in re: Intel Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 5, 2018. All responding parties agree that the actions share factual issues arising out of allegations that Intel manufactured its computer processors to use "speculative execution" technology, which left the processors exposed to security vulnerabilities known as "Spectre" and "Meltdown," and that the fix for this problem can considerably slow the processors' speed. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. In its April 5, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that centralization in the District of Oregon is appropriate. The Defendant Intel and the Plaintiffs in at least nine related actions support centralization in that district. Intel has extensive operations there, including its employees who evaluated the security vulnerabilities and developed patches to mitigate them, as well as the team that led the development of the first Intel processor to use speculative execution. It is likely, therefore, that relevant evidence and witnesses will be located in this district. The Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon is assigned to the case. The lead case is 3:18-md-02828-SI. Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in the Silicon Valley.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eli Greenstein, Esq. Jennifer Lauren Joost, Esq. Stacey Marie Kaplan, Esq. Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400 3000 Facsimile: (415) 400 3001 E-mail: egreenstein@ktmc.com jjoost@ktmc.com skaplan@ktmc.com jmeltzer@ktmc.com - and - David H. Thompson, Esq. COOPER & KIRK PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 220 9600 Facsimile: (202) 220 9601 E-mail: dthompson@cooperkirk.com Attorneys for Intel Corp.: Miriam Kim, Esq. Allison Marie Day, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 512 4041 E-mail: Miriam.Kim@mto.com allison.day@mto.com MECHEL BLUESTONE: $300K Settlement in "Ray" Has Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL RAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MECHEL BLUESTONE, INC. and DOUBLE-BONUS COAL COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 5:15- cv-03014 (S.D. W.Va.), Judge Irene C. Berger of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Beckley Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Approve Notice of Final Settlement, Approve Attorney Fees, and Enter Administrative Termination Order. On May 3, 2016, the Court certified the matter as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The parties mediated the case twice with the assistance of the Honorable Omar Aboulhosn, achieving success when they entered a Mediation Agreement on Jan. 20, 2017. The Parties have agreed to final terms of a Settlement Agreement. The parties have agreed to settle the matter pursuant to these agreed-upon terms: 1. The Defendants agree to pay to the Plaintiffs the sum of $300,000 inclusive of attorney fees, costs, class administration fee, and class representative fee. 2. Call-Back List: Within 60 days after notice of the settlement agreement issues, the class members may notify the class counsel whether they wish to be placed on a Call-Back List from which they will be returned to employment on the basis of their seniority at the Double Bonus Mine, as outlined in the Agreement. a. Seniority: The List Members will be ranked in accordance with the seniority that they had earned at the Double Bonus Mine prior to their final layoff at that mine. b. Covered Mines: List Members will be considered for every full-time job at the next three underground coal mines, inclusive of preparation and refuse facilities serving those mines, at which no collective bargaining agreement is in place at the time of hiring List Members, that the Bluestone Entities control or operate, in McDowell, Wyoming, Mercer, or Raleigh Counties, W.Va. i. The hourly wage rate of such jobs must be equal to or greater than $28 per hour for the first year of a List Member's employment there. ii. If a Covered Mine ceases operation within a year of hiring a List Member, such mine ceases to be a Covered Mine and the Defendants must honor the call-back obligations under this Agreement at one additional Covered Mine that is next opened by the Bluestone Entities. iii. Mechel Bluestone, Inc., Bluestone Resources, Inc., Bluestone Industries, Inc., Dynamic Energy, Inc., Gilbert Mine, Inc., JCI Coal Group, LLC, and coal-producing divisions thereof, and wholly owned and controlled coal producing subsidiaries and wholly owned and controlled coal producing affiliates, or other subsidiaries and affiliates wholly owned and controlled by principals of the Defendants, will be treated as one and the same Bluestone Entities for purposes of the Covered Mines and the Agreement. iv. If a training opportunity is available at a Covered Mine, the Defendants must inform eligible List Members of such opportunity in sufficient time for such List Members to participate in the training. c. Recall Rights: When a job opportunity exists at the Covered Mines, the Defendants will review the List and will recall to employment, in the order of their seniority, List Members with the ability to perform the work of such job. i. The Defendants will inform List Members of call-back opportunities by means of both certified mail and telephone message delivered to the addresses and numbers provided by class counsel or the class members themselves. ii. A List Member who does not return to work after receiving offers at each of the Covered Mines will sacrifice his seniority on the list and will have his name removed from the list. iii. Any person on the list who secures other employment during the period when no work is available for him at the Covered Mines will in no way jeopardize his seniority while engaged in such other employment. Upon receipt of notice of a call-back opportunity, List Members will have five business days to accept or reject each such opportunity. d. Settlement of Disputes Regarding Recall Rights: i. Disputes arising regarding a List Member's recall rights will be resolved as follows. ii. An earnest effort will be made to settle differences at the earliest practicable time. iii. At all steps of the dispute process, the party initiating the dispute will disclose to the List Member and to Class Counsel a full statement of the facts relied upon by them. iv. If no settlement is reached within 7 days of the nondisputing party receiving notice of the dispute, the parties will reach mutual agreement on an arbitrator within the following 7 days. At the earliest possible time, but no later than 15 after referral to him, the arbitrator will conduct a hearing in order to hear testimony, receive evidence and consider arguments. v. The costs of arbitration will be borne by the disputing party. vi. No Class Member may be excluded from the List except for just cause. vii. No List Member may be denied a recall opportunity for a job if they are able to perform the work of such job. viii. The List Members will be entitled to be present at any conference, meeting, or hearing regarding a dispute as to their recall rights. 3. Payment to Class Members: The Class Members who are not List Members will each receive from Defendants a sum of $3,046.87 plus an additional amount of Excess Funds. 4. Attorney Fee: The Class counsel will receive an attorney fee of $70,000. 5. Class Administration: The Class counsel will receive an administrative fee of $25,000 to administer the settlement. 6. Class Representative: The Defendants agree to pay to Michael Ray a class representative fee of $10,000. This amount will be in addition to his right to claim an individual member settlement and Excess Funds. 7. Excess Funds: Any excess funds that remain from the settlement amount of $300,000, less payments to the class members, less Attorney's Fee, less Class Administration, and less Class Representative Fee, will be considered the Excess Funds. Those Excess Funds will be divided equally among all the Class Members who do not opt to be List Members. However, in no case may a distribution of Excess Funds, when added to a payment, cause any Class Member to receive more than $11,000 in a total gross individual settlement award. 8. Periods for Performance: a. $150,000 has been paid by the Defendants and held in trust by the Class Counsel pending approval of the Order. b. $150,000, plus interest calculated daily and compounding annually at a rate agreed upon by the parties, running from Jan. 19, 2018 until the time of payment, will be paid to Class Counsel in a lump sum by the Defendants by no later than Feb. 26, 2018, and held in trust by Class Counsel pending approval of the Order. The Class Counsel will initiate notice of the final settlement within seven days of the approval of the Settlement and will allow for class members to retrieve payments as set forth in the Notice of Final Settlement. The Agreement provides for payments of a minimum of $3,046.87 to each of the 64 class members, and alternately provides those class members the option to be placed on a Call-Back List with recall rights at various mining operations, based on the miners' seniority status at the Double-Bonus Mine No. 65, in lieu of receiving payment. If miners opt to participate in the settlement by being placed on the Call-Back List, they will possess recall rights on that List, based on their Double-Bonus mine seniority. The Agreement also provides that the class representative would receive a fee of $10,000, the class would be administered by the class counsel for a fee of $25,000, and the attorney fee for class counsel would be $70,000. Due to the passage of time since the initial Mediation Agreement, the parties have agreed that the 60 days for class members to opt for the Call-Back List will run from the date that the Final Notice of Settlement is mailed by the Class Counsel and that all elections are final after those 60 days. On March 22, 2017, the Court Ordered that the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement be granted, that the Mediation Agreement be approved pending the final settlement hearing, and that the Plaintiff's proposed plan for providing class notice of the Mediation Agreement be approved. The Plaintiff provided notice to the putative class members of the Fairness Hearing by U.S. Mail to each class member listed and agreed upon by the parties. On May 24, 2017, the Plaintiff appeared before the Court for the Fairness Hearing, and presented the Mediation Agreement reached by the parties in the matter. At the Fairness Hearing, the Court indicated its approval of the agreement subject to issuance of a final order making findings under Rule 23(e) and giving effect to that approval. Thereafter, the Plaintiff submitted documentation to support the parties' assessment of the reasonable attorney fees and costs, and filed therewith the pending Motion to Approve Notice of Final Settlement, Approve Attorney Fees, and Enter Administrative Termination Order. After careful review and consideration, Judge Berger finds, among other things, that the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class Members pursuant to Rule 23(e), inclusive of the fees for the class representative and administrator; and the attorney's fees and costs are found to be reasonable, adequately-documented by time records submitted on the record, and commensurate with the degree of success achieved by the class in the case. Accordingly, the Judge approved (i) the class Settlement, as set forth in the Order, and will be implemented in accordance with its terms; (ii) the plan set out for giving notice to the class; and (iii) the attorney's fees and costs. An Order of Termination will be entered to allow for class administration. She directed the Clerk to send a copy of the Order to the counsel of record and to any unrepresented party. A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/Ll1T7C from Leagle.com. Michael Ray, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bren J. Pomponio, MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC. & Samuel Brown Petsonk, MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC. Mechel Bluestone, Inc., Double-Bonus Coal Company & Dynamic Energy, Inc., Defendants, represented by Andrew L. Ellis, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS, John F. Hussell, IV, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS & John D. Wooton, Jr., THE WOOTON LAW FIRM. MEDPARTNERS INC: Rainey Seeks Minimum & OT Pay under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- CRYSTAL RAINEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MEDPARTNERS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00267-DPM (E.D. Ark., April 20, 2018), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other Nurse Practitioners, Certified Nursing Assistants and related hourly paid healthcare workers lawful minimum and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The case is a hybrid class and collective action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other hourly paid Nurse Practitioners, Certified Nursing Assistants and related hourly paid healthcare workers employed by Defendant at any time within a three-year period preceding the filing of this Complaint. The Defendant has willfully and intentionally committed violations of the FLSA. The Defendant is a for-profit, Tennessee corporation, owning and operating outpatient medical facilities that provide diagnostic and treatment services to patients. The Defendant's annual gross volume of sales made or business done was not less than $500,000 -- exclusive of exercise taxes at the retail level that are separately stated -- during each of the three calendar years preceding the filing of this Complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Burks, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221 0088 Facsimile: (888) 787 2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com chris@sanfordlawfirm.com MERCHANTS CREDIT: Taylor Seeks Final Settlement Approval -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JANNETTE TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCHANTS CREDIT ADJUSTERS, INC. and PANSING, HOGAN, ERNST & BACHMAN, LLP, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00452-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for final certification, final approval of a proposed class action settlement, and entry of Final Order and Judgment. On October 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the class action lawsuit, asserting class claims against Defendants under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Rt4whWFt Attorneys for Plaintiff and The Putative Class: William L. Reinbrecht, Esq. Pamela A. Car, Esq. William L. Reinbrecht, Esq. CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO 2120 S. 72nd Street, Suite 1125 Omaha, NE 68124 Telephone: (402) 391 8484 Facsimile: (402) 391 1103 E-mail: billr205@gmail.com - and - Tregg R. Lunn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TREGG LUNN 830 L Street, Suite 200 Lincoln, NE 68508 Telephone: 402 730 7012 E-mail: tregg@tregglunnlaw.com MICHIGAN: Supreme Court to Hear Unemployment Fraud Case ------------------------------------------------------- WMUK reports that the case over people falsely accused of unemployment fraud is headed to the Michigan Supreme Court. The Michigan Supreme Court will hear a case about people falsely accused of unemployment fraud in the state. The Detroit Free Press reports that the state's highest court issued an order on April 7 that it will take up the case. The state Court of Appeals dismissed a class action suit in July of last year, saying it had been filed too late. The state has acknowledged that at least 20,000 people were falsely accused to unemployment fraud because of a state computer system. It's possible that as many as 40,000 people were wrongly accused of scamming the state of unemployment benefits. [GN] MICROSEMI CORP: Rubin Balks at Merger Deal with Microchip --------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL RUBIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MICROSEMI CORPORATION, JAMES J. PETERSON, DENNIS R. LEIBEL, KIMBERLY E. ALEXY, THOMAS R. ANDERSON, WILLIAM E. BENDUSH, RICHARD M. BEYER, PAUL F. FOLINO, WILLIAM L. HEALEY and MATTHEW E. MASSENGILL, the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00653 (C.D. Cal., April 20, 2018), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed merger transaction, unless and until defendants disclose and disseminate the material information identified above to Microsemi, and in the event the Defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages to Plaintiff and the Class. The case is a class action brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Microsemi Corporation against Microsemi and its Board of Directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Microsemi will be acquired by Microchip Technology Incorporated through its wholly owned subsidiary Maple Acquisition Corporation. On March 1, 2018, Microsemi issued a press release announcing it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger to sell Microsemi to Microchip for $68.78 in cash per Microsemi common share. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $8.35 billion. On April 19, 2018, Microsemi filed a Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Microsemi stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) Microsemi insiders' potential conflicts of interest; (ii) Microsemi's financial projections, relied upon by the Company's financial advisor, Qatalyst Partners LP; and (iii) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by Qatalyst. The failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as Microsemi stockholders need such information in order to cast a fully informed vote or seek appraisal in connection with the Proposed Transaction. Microsemi Corporation is an Aliso Viejo, California-based provider of semiconductor and system solutions for aerospace & defense, communications, data center and industrial markets.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: 310/208-2800 Facsimile: 310/209-2348 E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682 3025 Facsimile: (212) 682 3010 MYRIAD GENETICS: Kessman Sues over Misleading Disclosures --------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW KESSMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MYRIAD GENETICS, INC., MARK CHRISTOPHER CAPONE, PETER D. MELDRUM, R. BRYAN RIGGSBEE, and JAMES S. EVANS, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00336-PMW (D. Utah, April 20, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of Myriad between August 13, 2014 and March 12, 2018, both dates inclusive. Myriad develops and markets molecular diagnostic products to provide physicians with information to help guide the care of their patients, to prevent disease, delay the onset of disease, and catch disease at an early stage. Myriad purports to employ a variety of proprietary techniques designed to provide an understanding of the genetic basis of disease and the role of genes in the onset, progression and treatment of disease. Founded in 1991, the Company is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and its stocks trade on the NASDAQ Global Select under the ticker symbol "MYGN." Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Myriad made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Myriad was submitting false or otherwise improper claims for payment under Medicare and Medicaid for the Company's hereditary cancer testing; (ii) the foregoing conduct would foreseeably subject Myriad to heightened regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement action; (iii) Myriad's revenues from its hereditary cancer testing were in part the product of improper conduct and unlikely to be sustainable; and (iv) as a result, Myriad's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 12, 2018, post-market, Myriad disclosed that it had received a subpoena from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, in connection with "an investigation into possible false or otherwise improper claims submitted for payment under Medicare and Medicaid," specifically relating to Myriad's hereditary cancer testing. The subpoena covers a time period from January 1, 2014 -- less than four months after the September 2013 launch of Myriad's myRisk test -- through the date of the subpoena's issuance. On this news, Myriad's share price fell $4.01, or 12.14%, to close at $29.01 on March 13, 2018. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS SCOFIELD 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, Utah 84093-6160 Telephone: (801) 322 2002 Facsimile: (801) 912 0320 E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com - and - 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 NATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces "Roth" Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Business Factors, Inc. of Nevada. The case is styled as Aaron Roth, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Business Factors, Inc. of Nevada and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv- 03256 (C.D. Cal., April 18, 2018). National Business Factors specializes in medical billing, collection services and outsource receivable solutions in Carson City.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. NAVIENT CORP: Appeals Ruling in Student Loan Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------- Jillian Berman, writing for Marketwatch, reports that a recent court ruling may offer hope for thousands of struggling borrowers looking to escape education-related debts. A Texas bankruptcy judge denied a request by student loan company, Navient, last month to dismiss a class-action lawsuit accusing the firm of illegally collecting on loans that were discharged in bankruptcy. Navient is appealing. Patricia Christel, a spokeswoman for the Navient, declined to comment on pending litigation, but noted in an email that the company supports reform "that would allow federal and private student loans to be dischargeable in bankruptcy for those who have made a good-faith effort to repay their student loans over a five-to-seven year period and who still experience financial difficulty." The decision last month means the case can move forward and it also offers the opportunity for an appellate court to weigh in on whether loans historically viewed as exempt from bankruptcy discharge can actually be wiped away in the process. "This is one to watch for potential," said John Rao, an attorney at the National Consumer Law Center and expert on consumer bankruptcies. The ruling comes as lawyers across the country are increasingly looking to challenge the conventional wisdom that any type of student loan isn't dischargeable in bankruptcy. It also comes as the Department of Education is reviewing the high standard student loan borrowers must meet in order to have their debts discharged in bankruptcy. This case centers around a very specific type of debt -- and a small share of Navient's private loan portfolio -- money loaned to borrowers to pay for unaccredited programs, such as bar exam study courses and K-12 educational expenses. The lawyers representing the class estimate that about 16,000 borrowers fall into this category, according to Austin Smith, one of those attorneys. But if the appellate court rules in favor of the plaintiffs that could indicate that borrowers with similar loans from other companies could also be entitled to relief. "If I were advising other companies who have these loans and have taken similar positions as Navient -- I would be worried," said Dalie Jimenez, a professor of law at the University of California-Irvine's School of Law. Reasons for student loans to be exempt from discharge in bankruptcy To discharge a loan in bankruptcy, they must fall into one of four categories: 1. A federal student loan. 2. A student loan made by a qualified nonprofit (say, by a school). 3. A qualified education loan, which could be made by a for- profit company, but would need to be made for qualified educational expenses; in other words, those incurred at an accredited program for the cost of attendance. 4. Funds received as an "educational benefit." Traditionally, bankruptcy courts have determined that the types of loans in question in this case can't be discharged because they were received as an "educational benefit." But recently, lawyers and judges have started to question whether loans to help borrowers study for the bar and other similar debts truly fit into that category. "It does definitely reflect a trend of this kind of decision," Mr. Rao said of the recent ruling. In his order, the judge argues that the phrase "educational benefit," likely refers to something different from simply a loan used for educational expenses. And, instead, refers to arrangements like money fronted by an employer for a worker to attend college that would need to be repaid if that employee leaves their job. "By its use throughout [the provision], Congress was certainly aware of the term "loan" and is presumed to have made a conscious decision of when to use it and when to choose something different," the order reads. The legislative history of funds with 'educational benefit' That rationale appears to be in line with the legislative history of the educational benefit term, according to a recent paper by Jason Iuliano, a fellow at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law. The paper argues that -- by viewing funds received for educational benefit to mean loans -- judges have been interpreting the educational benefit language too broadly. Mr. Iuliano notes that during congressional hearings around the time the language was added, an expert explained to members of Congress that it was meant to only exempt conditional grants from being discharged in bankruptcy. "It was an effort to stop this very, very narrow category of exceptions," Mr. Iuliano said. "It just ballooned up to cover pretty much anything you can make a case that advances one's education." Judges have been using this broader interpretation in part because it's been so rarely challenged historically, Mr. Iuliano said. Because of the popular narrative that student debt is impossible to discharge in bankruptcy, it's extremely rare for debtors to actually attempt to do so. What's more, lawyers have also historically shied away from representing student loan borrowers trying to discharge their debt in bankruptcy, Mr. Iuliano said. Now that's starting to change, said Mr. Rao. As more lawyers are beginning to challenge whether these debts are dischargeable in bankruptcy, judges are now hearing and carefully considering both arguments, he said. "Judges are not just going to automatically assume that the loan is entitled to this protection from discharge," Mr. Rao said. Of course, the case is far from over. And Mr. Iuliano notes that even if the judge rules in a way that's the most favorably possible to the debtors, the ruling would still only cover a fraction of borrowers or those with these very specific types of loans from this company. Still, he said there's reason to believe these borrowers tend to be worse off than others with student loans and so it would help those who are struggling the most. "There's probably a large swath of people that this applies to that they could get some fairly immediate relief," Professor Jimenez said. [GN] NEW ORLEANS, LA: Cain, et al. Seek to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ALANA CAIN, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-04479- SSV-JCW (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying a class of: "all persons who currently owe or who will incur court debts arising from cases adjudicated in the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court." The Defendants attempted to moot this lawsuit by representing to the Court that they modified certain policies and practices. But as the Court observed, the Plaintiffs still face the possibility of alleged constitutional injury if they fail to pay their court debts, and in any case, the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception applies because it is undisputed that a constant stream of class members is subjected to the same violations on an ongoing basis. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UHsTKJmD Attorneys for Plaintiffs Alec Karakatsanis, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 916 G Street, NW Suite 701 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 681 2409 E-mail: alec@civilrightscorps.org - and - Bill Quigley, Esq. William P. Quigley, Esq. 7214 St. Charles Ave. Campus Box 902 New Orleans, LA 70118 Telephone: (504) 710 3074 E-mail: quigley77@gmail.com - and - Anna Lellelid, Esq. ANNA LELLELID-DOUFFET PO Box 19388 New Orleans, LA 70179 Telephone: (504) 224 9670 E-mail: lellelid.law@gmail.com - and - Jon Greenbaum, Esq. Mateya Kelley, Esq. LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1401 New York Ave NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 662 8315 E-mail: jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org mkelley@lawyerscommittee.org - and - Jonathan P. Guy, Esq. David P. Fuad, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP 1152 15th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-1706 Telephone: (202) 339 8516 E-mail: jguy@orrick.com dfuad@orrick.com NEW ORLEANS MILLWORKS: "Maldonado" Class Conditionally Certified ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, OSMAN MALDONADO, v. NEW ORLEANS MILLWORKS, LLC, et al., Section: "J" (5), Civil Action No. 17-1015 (E.D. La.), Judge Carl J. Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification, Judicial Notice, and for Disclosure of Names and Addresses of Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs. This is a collective action filed by Plaintiffs Maldonado, Josue Nunez, Mauricio Hernandez, and Marvel Guerrero, under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). They brought the suit on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated to recover allegedly unpaid overtime wages for manual work they performed for Defendants, O&G Construction, LLC, Olan David Del Arca Sabat, New Orleans Metalworks, Inc, and David Waldheim. O&G is a commercial construction company that is owned and managed by Olan David Del Arca Sabat and specializes in providing manual labor for general contractors, including New Orleans Metalworks, Inc. ("NOMW"). NOMW, owned by David Waldheim, is a general contractor that provides construction services in the greater New Orleans area. NOMW allegedly engaged O&G to provide labor for its jobsites. Plaintiffs allege that they were hired by O&G as laborers prior to March 2015 to perform work such as painting, sheet-rocking, and finishing. Initially, the lawsuit was brought by Plaintiff Maldonado against Millworks and its owner Scott Taranto. By two subsequent amendments to his complaint, Plaintiff Maldonado added O&G and Sabat, and replaced Millworks and Taranto with NOMW and Waldheim as the Defendants. On June 8, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part NOMW's Motion to Dismiss, holding that Plaintiff Maldonado had adequately alleged an individual FLSA overtime claim but had not sufficiently pleaded a FLSA collective action. The Court granted Plaintiff an additional 21 days to file an amended complaint alleging a FLSA collective action. On June 16, 2017, a third amended collective action complaint was filed by Maldonado, Nunez, Hernandez, and Guerrero, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. On Aug. 22, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Conditional Class Certification, Judicial Notice, and for Disclosure of the Names and Addresses of Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs. The Defendants opposed the motion, and the Plaintiffs filed a reply. The Plaintiffs seek to maintain their FLSA claim as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). As such, they move the Court to conditionally certify a collective action of employees limited to the following: All individuals who worked or are working performing manual labor for O&G during the previous three years, and who are eligible for overtime pay pursuant to the FLSA, and who did not receive full overtime compensation. The Plaintiffs argue that the allegations in their complaint as well as their attached sworn declarations and timesheets demonstrate clear violations of the FLSA that are not personal to them, but rather are part of the Defendants' general policy not to pay their employees overtime. O&G foremen allegedly supervised the Plaintiffs and would send the employees' timesheets to a NOMW supervisor. The Plaintiffs allege that they and their co-workers were paid by check bearing the name O&G, and would be paid an hourly rate regardless of the number of hours that they worked per week and that they often worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs argue that this information establishes that there is likely a group of similarly situated individuals entitled to receive notice of this lawsuit. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate the existence of a class of similarly situated individuals. First, O&G opposes conditional class certification, arguing that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that they were the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan. They also assert that the Plaintiffs' proposed class definition violates Federal Rule Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) regarding the joinder of the Defendants. Because NOMW and O&G are both named Defendants in the litigation, the Defendants argue that the potential class must be comprised of employees who have worked for both NOMW and O&G, rather than limiting the class to current and former employees of O&G exclusively. NOMW also filed an opposition to the motion, adopting and incorporating by reference O&G's arguments and further contending that conditional class certification is improper because the Plaintiffs have not established their status as employees. Judge Barbier finds that the complaint and the Plaintiffs' declarations set forth substantial allegations that the putative class members were together victims of a single decision, policy, or plan. The alleged policy of failing to pay employees performing manual labor an overtime rate for work performed in excess of forty hours a week constitutes a factual nexus which binds the named plaintiffs and the potential class members together. Accordingly, he finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied their lenient burden of showing that there is likely a class of "similarly situated" employees entitled to receive notice. As discovery proceeds to completion, the Defendants may move for decertification if it is determined that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of establishing that they and the proposed class members are similarly situated. The Defendants submitted no further objections to the form, content, or timing of the Plaintiffs' proposed notice. Accordingly, Judge Barbier granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification, Judicial Notice, and for Disclosure of Names and Addresses of Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs, and conditionally certified as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The Judge ordered that the Notice will be sent to the all individuals who worked or are working performing manual labor for O&G during the previous three years, and who are eligible for overtime pay pursuant to the FLSA, and who did not receive full overtime compensation. The Defendants will have 14 days from the entry of the Order to produce the full names, dates of employment, and last known addresses of all potential opt-in Plaintiffs. The time period within which the potential opt-in Plaintiffs may opt-in is 90 days. The 90-day opt-in period will begin to run on the date that the Defendants provide a complete list of the names, dates of employment, and last known addresses of all potential opt-in Plaintiffs. A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Order and Reasons is available at https://is.gd/uLGVeF from Leagle.com. Osman Maldonado, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated,, Josue Nunez, Mauricio Hernandez, Marvel Guerrero, Antonio Rodriguez, Jose S. Hernandez, Nerlin Sosa, Carlos Enriquez-Galeas Hernandez, Fredis Rodriguez, Luis Alonso Martinez, Enil Ponce, Jose Guiterrez, Alba Luz Coello, Nelson Rodriquez, Lorenzo Funes Romero, Yessica Quintanilla, Alex Mena & Jose Bordalez, Plaintiffs, represented by Roberto L. Costales -- costaleslawoffice@gmail.com -- Costales Law Office, Emily Westermeier -- eaw@beaumontcostales.com -- Costales Law Office & William Henry Beaumont -- whbeaumont@gmail.com -- William H. Beaumont Law. O&G Construction LLC & Olan David Del Arca Sabat, Defendants, represented by Lawrence J. Centola, III -- info@mbfirm.com -- Martzell & Bickford & Christopher Hicks Carbine, Martzell & Bickford. David Waldheim & New Orleans Metalworks, Inc., Defendants, represented by Cesar Roberto Burgos -- cburgos@burgoslawfirm.com -- Burgos & Associates, LLC, Gabriel Omar Mondino -- gmondino@burgoslawfirm.com -- Burgos & Associates, LLC, George M. McGregor, Jr. -- gmcgregor@burgoslawfirm.com -- Burgos & Associates, LLC & Robert J. Daigre -- rdaigre@burgoslawfirm.com - - Burgos & Associates, LLC. NEW YORK: Seubert Files Suit v. Election Board ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andrew M. Cuomo. The case is styled as David Seubert, Caroline Tolbert, Mark Whelan, Dilys Farney, Richard Hastings, Lynn Lanphear and Linda Lanphear, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Andrew M. Cuomo in his official capacity as Governor of the State of New York, The New York State of Board of Elections and The Monroe County Board of Elections, Defendants, Case No. 6:18- cv-06303 (W.D. N.Y., April 17, 2018). New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew K Preston, Esq. Bee Ready Fishbein Hatter & Donovan, LLP 170 Old Country Road, Suite 200 Mineola, NY 11501 Tel: (516) 746-5599 Fax: (516) 746-1045 Email: apreston@beereadylaw.com NVR INC: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Smith, et al. -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Paul Smith, et al., the Plaintiff, v. NVR, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08328 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order denying class certification without prejudice. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 23, 2018, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.3(b). A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ewMqzUnN ODWALLA INC: Thompson Sues over "No Added Sugar" Label in Juices ---------------------------------------------------------------- COY THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated California citizens, the Plaintiffs, v. ODWALLA, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-2D18-00019815-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., April 20, 2018), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from further unfair and deceptive business practices regarding the deceptive advertising, sales, and other business practices relating to the Odwalla Juices. The Plaintiff brings this action for himself and on behalf of all citizens of California who purchased one or more containers of Odwalla Juices, including those branded as "Berry Greens", "Groovin' Greens", and "100% Orange Juice", and that conspicuously included the maxim "No Added Sugar" on their label and/or outer packaging created, manufactured, distributed, marketed, and/or sold by Defendant Odwalla, Inc. and DOES 1-10. The action arises out of the representation "No Added Sugar" as placed by Defendants on the labels and/or outer packaging of Odwalla Juice containers. The Food and Drug Administration regulations promulgated pursuant to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act of 1938 specify the exact nutrient content claims for sugar that are permitted on a food label. The Defendants' "No Added Sugar" claims on its Odwalla Juices containers fail to comply with these requirements, as set forth below. Defendants have inter alia violated California's Sherman Law and numerous consumer protection statutes, which wholly adopt the federal requirements. In California more than 30% of adults are obese, and approximately 16% of children and adolescents are obese. The obesity epidemic has been fueled, in part, by the increased consumption of foods high in sugar. Obesity and excess sugar consumption, in turn, are linked to a variety of other health problems, including, heart disease, tooth decay and diabetes. Consumers are increasingly aware of the importance of sugar consumption and react positively to packaging that states "No Added Sugar." To profit from consumers' well-placed and increased focus on limiting and adjusting onward sugar consumption, the Defendants prominently feature a "No Added Sugar" representation on the front labels of its Odwalla Juice containers. The FDA forbids the use of the representation "No Added Sugar" claims unless the product having such a claim meets the following criteria: No amount of sugars, as defined in 21 C.F.R. section 101.9(c)(6)(ii), or any other ingredient that contains sugars that functionally substitute for added sugars is added during processing or packaging; the product does not contain an ingredient containing added sugars such as jam, jelly, or concentrated fruit juice; the sugar content has not been increased above the amount present in the ingredients by some means such as the use of enzymes, except where the intended functional effect of the process is not to increase the sugars content of a food, and a functionally insignificant increase in sugars results; the food that it resembles and for which it substitutes normally contains added sugars; and the products bear a statement that the food is not "low calorie" or "calorie reduced" (unless the food meets the requirements for a "low" or "reduced calorie" food) and that directs consumers' attention to the nutrition panel for further information on sugar and calorie content. Odwalla Inc. is an American food product company that sells fruit juices, smoothies and food bars. It was founded in Santa Cruz, California, in 1980 and since 1995 is headquartered in Half Moon Bay, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq. Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. Josnua C. Anaya, Esq. FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP 550 WestC Street, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238 1333 Facsimile: (619) 238 5425 E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com trk@classactionlaw.com jca@classactionlaw.com OPHTHOTECH CORP: Court Consolidates "Micholle," "Wasson" Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, FRANK MICHOLLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION, DAVID R. GUYER, MICHAEL G. ATIEH, GLENN P. SBLENDORIO, and SAMIR PATEL, Defendants. MARK WASSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION, DAVID R. GUYER, MICHAEL G. ATIEH, GLENN P. SBLENDORIO, and SAMIR PATEL, Defendants, Case Nos. 17-CV-210 (VSB), 17-CV-1758 (VSB)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (i) granted the motions to consolidate Micholle and Wasson complaints; (ii) granted Pension Plan's motion for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and for approval of the lead counsel; and (iii) denied the remaining motions from Jenkins, the Kirk Group, the Bristol Group, Oppenheim, Magiera, Ferber, and the Wang Group for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff. On Jan. 11, 2017, Micholle filed a class action complaint against Ophthotech and the Individual Defendants, alleging that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act ("Exchange Act"), and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated pursuant to the Exchange Act by misrepresenting the results of its studies for Fovista, a drug being tested to treat a retinal disorder called age-related macular degeneration. The essence of Micholle's claim is that, between May 11, 2015 and Dec. 12, 2016, Ophthotech mischaracterized both the results of Fovista's efficacy and the results of the drug's phase three trial. Micholle claims that, as a result of Ophthotech's positive characterizations of the phase one and phase two clinical trials, the market price of Ophthotech stock was artificially inflated. This, in turn, caused Micholle and others who purchased Ophthotech securities during the Class Period substantial losses when Ophthotech issued a press release on Dec. 12, 2016, announcing that the results of the phase three trial "had failed to achieve its primary endpoint. On Jan. 11, 2017, the same day that he filed his complaint, Micholle published a notice of the complaint on Globe Newswire in accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). The notice was addressed to all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Ophthotech between May 11, 2015 and Dec. 12, 2016, and detailed the claims in the Micholle Complaint. It informed the Class that they had until March 13, 2017 to file for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff. Several months later, on March 9, 2017, Wasson filed a class action complaint against the Defendants. The Wasson Complaint's claims arise out of the same facts and allege the same misrepresentations against the Defendants for the period between May 11, 2015 and Dec. 9, 2016. Since the Micholle Complaint was filed, eight Plaintiffs and Plaintiff groups have filed motions requesting consolidation of the Ophthotech Actions, appointment of the Lead Plaintiff, and approval of the Lead Counsel. Jenkins moves to appoint himself as the Lead Plaintiff and for approval of Frank Sims Stolper LLP and Wolf Popper LLP as the lead counsel and liaison counsel, respectively. Colin Kirk, Dora Jordan, and Sonia Carrero-Pomeroy ("Kirk Group") move to appoint themselves as Lead Plaintiffs and for approval of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. as the co-lead counsel. City of Bristol Pension Fund, Brandon Suedekum, Ashok Dalal, Sergio Albonico, and Mayur Shah ("Bristol Group") move to appoint themselves as the Lead Plaintiffs and for approval Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP and Levi & Korsinsky LLP as the co-lead counsel. Oppenheim Asset Management Services S.a.r.l. moves to appoint itself as the Lead Plaintiff and for approval of Motley Rice LLC as the lead counsel. Magiera moves to appoint himself as the Lead Plaintiff and for approval of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP as the lead counsel. Xing Wang and Genghong Zhao ("Wang Group") move to appoint themselves as the Lead Plaintiffs and for approval of Pomerantz LLP and Goldberg Law PC as the co-lead counsel. Sheet Metal Workers' Pension Plan of Southern California, Arizona, and Nevada moves to appoint itself as the Lead Plaintiff, and for approval of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as the lead counsel. Brian Ferber moves to appoint himself as the Lead Plaintiff and for approval of Gainey McKenna & Egleston as the lead counsel. All the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff groups, except Magiera, who did not file a motion for consolidation, but who does not oppose consolidation, move to consolidate the Ophthotech Actions. In response to the motions for appointment of the Lead Plaintiff and approval of the lead counsel, the Kirk Group, Oppenheim, Ferber, and Magiera filed notices of nonopposition acknowledging that they do not possess the largest financial interest. Three of the remaining movants filed oppositions to the competing motions. On March 27, 2017, Jenkins filed an opposition to the Pension Plan, Bristol Group, and Wang Group's motions. On the same day, the Pension Plan filed an opposition to all competing motions. Lastly, on March 28, 2017, the Bristol Group filed an opposition to the competing motions. Thereafter, the Wang Group, Jenkins, the Bristol Group, and the Pension Plan filed replies in support of their motions. The Defendant has not taken a position on the merits of these motions. In light of the fact that the motions for consolidation are unopposed, as well as the substantially similar nature of the Ophthotech Actions and the common questions of law and fact arising under these actions, Judge Broderick will grant the Movants' motions for consolidation. The Judge finds that Pension Plan is the "most adequate" Plaintiff under the PSLRA, and that the remaining Movants have failed to rebut this presumption. Pension Plan initially calculated its losses at $1,004,573.27. After excluding the stock bought and sold before Dec. 12, 2016, the Pension Plan reduced its losses to $988,499.07. The record indicates that this calculation is accurate and that the Pension Plan suffered approximately $988,499 in total losses between May 11, 2015 and Dec. 12, 2016. Thus, the Pension Plan is the appropriate Lead Plaintiff for the consolidated action. Having reviewed the Pension Plan's Memorandum of Law, as well as Rosenfeld's Declaration and the firm resume, the Judge finds that Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, the Pension Plan's proposed Lead Counsel, will adequately and effectively represent the interests of the class. The attorneys at Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP have substantial experience with securities litigation and securities class actions. He will approve the Pension Plan's selection and will appoint Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as the Lead Counsel. For these reasons, Judge Broderick granted the motions for consolidation based on the similarity of the Ophthotech Actions. Because he finds that Pension Plan is the presumptive Lead Plaintiff and no other Movants have rebutted that presumption, he granted Pension Plan's motion for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and for approval of the lead counsel. The Pension Plan has a substantial financial interest and meets the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23. The remaining motions from Jenkins, the Kirk Group, the Bristol Group, Oppenheim, Magiera, Ferber, and the Wang Group for appointment as lead plaintiff are denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the pending motions. Pension Plan is directed to file an amended consolidated complaint no later than 30 days after the date of issuance of his Opinion & Order. The Defendants are directed to answer or otherwise respond to the amended consolidated complaint no later than 30 days after Pension Plan serves the amended consolidated complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/tgMk5l from Leagle.com. Mark Wasson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon Lee Hopkins -- shopkins@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP. OUTCOME HEALTH: Settles Suit Over Daily Nutrition Tip Texts ----------------------------------------------------------- Jonah Comstock, writing for mobihealthnews, reports that things aren't getting any better for Outcome Health, the digital health media company that recently settled a three-month legal battle over claims that the company misled its investors and defrauded its customers. Now the company, which installs screens in waiting rooms and charges pharma companies and other stakeholders to advertise on them, has agreed to settle another court case, this one a class action suit by people who signed up for health tips via text message in 2015. Fierce first spotted the news. Outcome Health will pay $2.9 million to the class, but doesn't admit any fault or wrongdoing. Christy Griffith originally filed suit in March 2016 against Outcome Health, still known at the time as ContextMedia. Ms. Griffith said she signed up for daily nutrition tips via text messages after seeing the service advertised on one of Outcome Health's waiting room screens. At first, the messages didn't offer any way to opt out. Later, the words "To opt-out, reply STOP" were added to the text messages, but multiple repeated attempts to opt out went unanswered, and Griffith continued to receive daily texts. The suit alleges that using an automated system to text people without their consent is a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), including continuing to text someone who has withdrawn their consent. According to the settlement agreement, the courts will subpeona wireless carriers to get the names of everyone who signed up for the service and received messages. Those individuals will be contacted by direct mail to instruct them on how to submit a claim to be included in the class. After a certain amount of time, the money will be distributed among the class based on the number of texts they received after opting out of the service. Outcome Health's recent troubles began last fall when a Wall Street Journal investigation alleged that the company's employees misled clients using inaccurate and manipulated advertisement performance data. Shortly thereafter a handful of Outcome's top investors filed a lawsuit against the startup claiming they were misled by Outcome's founders prior to their $487.5 million investment. This caused even more problems for the startup as hospitals and professional associations cut ties and halted expansion plans in the wake of the suit. [GN] OVERSTOCK.COM INC: May 29 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP on April 9 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Overstock.com, Inc. ('Overstock or the 'Company) (NASDAQ:OSTK) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of Utah, and docketed under 18-cv-00290, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Overstock securities between August 3, 2017 and March 26, 2018, both dates inclusive (the 'Class Period), seeking to recover damages caused by defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 'Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Overstock securities between August 3, 2017, and March 26, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have until May 29, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained atwww.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at [email protected] or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Overstock is an online retailer that offers discounted brand-name merchandise for sale over the internet. In late 2014, the Company formed a wholly-owned subsidiary, Medici Ventures ('Medici), as part of its initiative to develop and advance blockchain technology. Medici oversees a portfolio of blockchain technology and fintech businesses, which includes tZERO. In December 2016, the Company issued publicly traded blockchain preferred shares of Overstock.com, Inc. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Overstock's coin offering was highly problematic and potentially illegal; (ii) the Company's Medici business was hemorrhaging money; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Overstock's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 1, 2018, Overstock announced that the Securities and Exchange Commission ('SEC) had requested information about its initial coin offering. The Company's filing with the SEC, Form 8-K, stated in relevant part: [I]n February2018, the Division of Enforcement of the SEC informed the Company that it is conducting an investigation in the matter Re: Overstock.com, Inc. (NY-9777) and requested that the Company voluntarily provide certain documents related to the Offering and the Tokens in connection with its investigation. The Company is in the process of responding to this document request and will cooperate with the SEC in connection with its investigation. On this news, Overstock's share price fell $2.65, or 4.38%, to close at $57.75 on March 1, 2018. On March 15, 2018, post-market, the Company filed an annual report on Form 10-K with the SEC, announcing the Company's financial and operating results for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2017 (the '2017 10-K). In the 2017 10-K, the Company provided an update on the SEC probe, stating in relevant part: '[I]n February 2018, the Division of Enforcement of the SEC informed tZERO and subsequently informed us that it is conducting an investigation and requested that we and our affiliates, including Medici Ventures and tZERO, voluntarily provide certain information and documents related to tZERO and the tZERO security token offering in connection with its investigation. We are in the process of responding to these document requests and intend to cooperate fully with the SEC in connection with its investigation, which will require the time and attention of tZERO and our personnel and may have an adverse effect on our ability to focus attention on our businesses and our ability to raise capital. In addition, the 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. On this news, Overstock's share price fell $2.50, or 5.18%, to close at $45.70 on March 16, 2018. Then, on March 26, 2018, post-market, Overstock announced that it planned to offer 4,000,000 shares of its common stock in an underwritten public offering. On this news, Overstock's share price fell $6.68, or 14.97%, to close at $37.92 on March 27, 2018. With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. [GN] P.J. CLARKES: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against P.J. Clarkes Restaurant Corp. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. P.J. Clarkes Restaurant Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03425 (S.D. N.Y., April 18, 2018). The Defendant is engaged in the restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com PHARMACEUTICAL SPECIALIST: Quinonez Seeks to Certify Two Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled BRIANNA QUINONEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHARMACEUTICAL SPECIALTIES, INC., a foreign business corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-05966-TJH-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify classes: "all consumers nation-wide who purchased a product in the Vanicream SPF 50+ product line, within the applicable statute of limitations, for personal use until the date notice is disseminated:"; and "all California consumers who purchased a product in the Vanicream SPF 50+ product line, within the applicable statute of limitations, for personal use until the date notice is disseminated." Excluded from this Class are Defendants and its officers, directors and employees and those who purchased a Product in the Vanicream SPF 50+ product line for the purpose of resale. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gMOgwnHt The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Farahi, Esq. Raymond Collins, Esq. FARAHI LAW FIRM, APC 22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Ste 230 Telephone: (310) 774 4500 Facsimile: (424) 295 0557 E-mail: justin@farahilaw.com raymond@farahilaw.com - and - Farzad Rastegar, Esq. Thomas S. Campbell, Esq. RASTEGAR LAW GROUP 22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Ste 200 Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (310) 961 9600 Facsimile: (310) 961 9094 E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com tom@rastegarlawgroup.com PHILLIPS NORTH AMERICA: Faces "Loujangamath" Wage-and-Hour Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- SHELLY LOUJANGAMATH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHILLIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ANGIOSCORE, INC., a Delaware corporation; THE SPECTRANETICS CORPORATION d.b.a. SPNC, INC., a Delaware corporation; " and DOES l through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18901786 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages for all hours worked under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to provide all paid rest periods, provide all meal periods, pay all wages for all hours worked at the correct rates of pay, indemnify for all expenses, and provide accurate written wage statements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. Sehyung "Logan" Park, Esq. THE SPlVAK LAW FIRM 1116530 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 312 4 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone (818) 582 3086 Facsimile (818) 582 2561 E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com logan@spivaklaw.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (562) 256 1047 Facsimile: (562) 256 1006 E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com POWERCOR: Class Action Over Victor Bushfires Commences ------------------------------------------------------ The Australian Associated Press reports that a multi-million dollar class action has been launched against electricity distributor Powercor over bushfires in southwest Victoria which destroyed homes and ravaged the region's dairy farms. Lawyers on April 11 confirmed they have begun a class action in the Supreme Court of Victoria, alleging the March 17 bushfire at Terang was caused when powerlines clashed or arced, leading to molten metal falling to the ground. The bushfire raged through at least 6500 hectares of farmland, killing thousands of livestock. Lawyers estimate total losses will exceed $40 million. Maddens Lawyers' Brendan Pendergast, who successfully sought compensation for bushfire victims after Black Saturday, is confident liability against Powercor will be proven. "A safe system of electrical distribution should be designed such that arcing and clashing does not occur in high wind, high fire danger circumstances," he said in a statement. It was lucky no one was killed in the fires, although many people were distressed, he added. "The community distress is amplified by the fact that many people impacted were also impacted in 1983 as a result of the Ash Wednesday fires, which were also caused by electrical events," Mr Pendergast said. Multiple fires burned at the same time across southwest Victoria, hitting the areas of Garvoc, Gazette and Camperdown, in combination destroying 30 homes and sheds and killed thousands of cattle and sheep. The law firm has already issued a $20 million class action against Powercor for victims of the Garvoc fire. There are further plans to launch similar proceedings in relation to fires at Gazette and Camperdown. Powercor says it is co-operating with Energy Safe Victoria as it continues to investigate the Terang and Garvoc fires. "Our thoughts are with all who have been affected," a spokeswoman for the energy company said in a statement to AAP. The devastating bushfires which spanned more than a week have been dubbed the St Patrick's Day fires. [GN] PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY: Fails to Pay Wages, "Sanders" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- LA'OTIS NICKELSON, SHONDRECA SANDERS, ROYLENA HUMPHREYS, and AMBER TREPAGNIER the Plaintiffs, v. PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY CARE CENTER, LLC; KEYORKA DENNIS, OFFICIALLY AND PERSONALLY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04147 (M.D. La., April 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, in connection with their employment with Defendants, the Plaintiffs prepared patient treatment records and reports. The Plaintiffs counseled patients individually and in group sessions, to assist in overcoming dependencies in adjusting to life. The Plaintiffs were required to travel from site to site to conduct work on behalf of Defendants. The Plaintiffs were not compensated for attending mandatory monthly meetings and trainings. The Plaintiffs were not compensated or reimbursed for travel from site to site. The Plaintiffs' starting salaries ranged from $18 to $20 an hour. Beginning in or about December 2015, the Defendants starting paying Plaintiffs irregularly. The Defendants initially claimed that the reason for the irregular payments was a change in providers. Days beyond the scheduled pay date would pass with Plaintiffs receiving no compensation for hours worked. When employees complained about not being compensated, the Defendants threatened to terminate them. Over a period of approximately 18 months, the Plaintiffs waited patiently to receive full compensation for hours worked. The Defendants' reasons for delays in paying Plaintiffs or not paying them at all evolved from alleged changes in providers to "recent financial hardships"; "repeated changes at the state level"; and "slowing of claims payments". The Defendants made repeated promises by email and other written correspondences to pay Plaintiffs wages that they earned. Because of they were not paid earned wages, each Plaintiff herein ended her employment with Defendants. The Defendants never paid Plaintiffs all of the wages Plaintiffs earned, from December 2015 through the dates each Plaintiff's employment with Defendants ended.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nghana Lewis Gauff, Esq. 1317 W Airline Ste E LaPlace, LA 70068 Telephone: (504) 402 5911 Facsimile: (985) 359 4805 E-mail: nlglawfirm@bellsouth.net PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: Court Dismisses "Gregory" Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL GREGORY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PRONAI THERAPEUTICS INC., NICK GLOVER, and SUKHI JAGPAL, Defendants, Case No. 16 Civ. 8703 (PAE)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted ProNAi's motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint ("AC"). Pronai, a clinical stage oncology company, produced only one product, PNT2258, which was purportedly designed to target cancers that over-express B-cell lymphoma such as Hodgkin's lymphomas and non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients with relapsed or refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma. On June 6, 2016, the Company issued a press release announcing interim data for the two Phase 2 trials and revealed that PNT2258 had failed to produce sufficient efficacy results to justify its continued clinical development. On this news, the price of Pronai common stock declined from a closing share price of $6.38 per share on June 3, 2016 to close at $2.07 per share on June 6, 2016, a loss of more than 67%, on extremely heavy trading volume. In this putative class action under the federal securities laws, Lead Plaintiffs Gregory, Yeshan Jagroo, and Mindy Frost claim that pharmaceutical company ProNAi, its CEO and President Glover, and its CFO Jagpal made false and misleading statements touting the prospects of PNT2258, ProNAi's sole drug candidate. These statements were made between July 15, 2015, the day ProNAi's initial public offering prospectus was released, and June 6, 2016, the day ProNAi announced the discontinuation of development of PNT2258. The Plaintiffs allege that, during the Class Period, ProNAi made some 70 false and misleading statements, spanning a series of disclosures, and these statements that are alleged to be actionable concern the status of PNT2258 at various points in its complex testing and development. As a general proposition, the Plaintiffs' core theory is that ProNAi consistently overstated PNT2258's prospects, downplayed or failed to disclose historical and more recent negative test results, and identified as risk factors circumstances that had already come to pass. The misstatements on which the Plaintiffs focus can be broadly grouped into four categories: (1) ProNAi's statements regarding the efficacy of PNT2258; (2) ProNAi's failure to more timely disclose protocol amendments; (3) ProNAi's statements to the effect that it had designed clinical trials with an eye toward FDA approval; and (4) ProNAi's failure to reveal that it lacked appropriate internal disclosure mechanisms. The Plaintiffs bring the lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased ProNAi securities between July 15, 2015 and June 6, 2016, and lost substantially. They allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the corresponding rule of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. Pending now is ProNAi's motion to dismiss the AC for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b). Judge Engelmayer finds only one set of statements materially misleading: ProNAi's non-forward-looking opinion statements made after September 2015 about the potential novel applications of PNT2258. He holds these statements misleading for failure to disclose the universally negative results to date of ProNAi's internal preclinical studies. As to other challenged statements, although not finding these actionable, the Judge, solely for the purpose of considering scienter, will also assume arguendo that (i) ProNAi's omission of the fact that additional patients discontinued the Pilot Phase II trial made statements about the trial's efficacy materially misleading; and that (i) ProNAi's failure to disclose the disease progression of patients using ProNAi was also actionable. He does so because these categories present closer questions than the balance of the 70 statements that the Plaintiffs put at issue, as to which their challenges fall far short of the mark. As to any challenged statement, to state a claim, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs would still need to adequately plead scienter. The AC fails to do so. It does not plausibly allege (or come close to alleging) that any challenged statement was made with the intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud. First, the AC pleads that only a subset of this testing data was conveyed to Glover -- none, as pled, was communicated to CFO Jagpai. Second, and more important, the AC does not plead any facts to suggest that -- until the actual termination of PNT2258's development at the end of the Class Period -- Glover, Jagpai, or someone else whose intent could be imputed to ProNAi subjectively believed that PNT2258 had ceased to have promise or should be abandoned. bsent such factual allegations, the Defendants' qualified opinion statements reciting that there was some promise for ProNAi in novel applications must be viewed as reflecting sincerely held views. Third and finally, the nature of the undisclosed information matters. There is in general no freestanding obligation to disclose preclinical data. And sincerely held statements of opinion are rarely actionable. As to the Plaintiffs' against ProNAi, Jagpal and Glover under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, the Judge finds that such claims can lie only against the individual Defendants, as ProNAI is not a controlling person of itself. In any event, to state a claim under Section 20(a), the Plaintiffs must adequately allege a primary violation by the controlled person. Because the Plaintiffs have not done so, their Section 20(a) claim must also be dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Engelmayer dismissed the AC in its entirety, with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions pending at docket number 22 and to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/sWh33d from Leagle.com. ProNai Investor Group, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Shannon Lee Hopkins -- shopkins@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP. Yeshan Jagroo, Lead Plaintiff, pro se. Mindy Frost, Lead Plaintiff, pro se. Michael Gregory, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon Lee Hopkins, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP. ProNAi Therapeutics Inc., Nick Glover & Sukhi Jagpal, Defendants, represented by Peter Andrew Stokes -- peter.stokes@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Fulbright & Jaworski LLP & Robin D. Adelstein -- robin.adelstein@nortonrosefulbright.com - - Norton Rose Fulbright Us LLP. RASIER LLC: Faces "Durgin" Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rasier, LLC. The case is styled as Brittany Durgin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rasier, LLC, Rasier- CA, LLC and Uber Technologies Inc, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv- 03169-PSG-GJS (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2018). Rasier LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber Technologies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrice L Bishop, Esq. Stull Stull and Brody 9430 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Tel: (310) 209-2468 Fax: (310) 209-2087 Email: service@ssbla.com RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Dibartolo" Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Receivable Management Services Corporation. The case is styled as Michael A. Dibartolo, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Receivable Management Services Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02232 (E.D. N.Y., April 16, 2018). The Receivable Management Services Corporation (RMS) provides debt recovery services to companies from a wide range of industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com SAGBOLT LLC: "O'Brien" Suit Brought Before New York Supreme Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Evelyn O'Brien, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sagbolt, LLC and Ocean Properties Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 65232/2018, was brought before the New York Supreme Court on April 16, 2018. Sagbolt LLC operates a resort.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph T. Moen ESQ 63 Putnam Street Ste 202 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Tel: (518) 588-0316 The Defendant is represented by: CHAUDHURI LAW PLLC 57 WEST 57TH STREET 4TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 457-6734 SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Faces "Fife" Suit in W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scientific Games Corp. The case is styled as Sheryl Fife, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Scientific Games Corp., a Nevada corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv- 00565 (W.D. Wash., April 17, 2018). Scientific Games Corporation is an American company that provides gambling products and services to lottery and gambling organizations worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cecily C Shiel, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS 1700 SEVENTH AVE, STE 2200 SEATTLE, WA 98101 Tel: (206) 682-5600 Email: cshiel@tousley.com - and - Janissa Ann Strabuk, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS 1700 SEVENTH AVE, STE 2200 SEATTLE, WA 98101 Tel: (206) 682-5600 Email: jstrabuk@tousley.com SETERUS INC: Demurrer Ruling in "Davidson" Suit Reversed -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EDWARD DAVIDSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SETERUS, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. D071502 (Cal. App.), Judge Cynthia Aaron of the Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth District, Division One, reversed the judgment of the trial court sustaining the Defendants' demurrer and remanded the case for further proceedings. In this case, Davidson, on behalf of California residents who have been subjected to the Defendants' allegedly unlawful debt collection practices, brought a putative class action against Seterus and its parent company, International Business Machines, Inc. ("IBM"), alleging that the Defendants violated California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), in September 2016. Davidson alleges that the defendants are debt collectors who are subject to the requirements of the Rosenthal Act, and that they were acting as debt collectors when they undertook the allegedly unlawful conduct described in his complaint. He alleges that the Defendants' conduct violates the Rosenthal Act's prohibitions against causing a telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously to annoy the person called and communicating by telephone with the debtor with such frequency as to be unreasonable and to constitute an harassment to the debtor under the circumstances. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants violated the prohibition against the false representation that information concerning a debtor's failure or alleged failure to pay a consumer debt has been or is about to be referred to a consumer reporting agency, and that the Defendants violated the Rosenthal Act's requirement that they comply with the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Davidson's UCL cause of action is based on the alleged violations of the Rosenthal Act which, he asserts, constitute per se violations of the UCL. The Defendants filed a demurrer to Davidson's complaint on May 11, 2016. They argued that Davidson is unable to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under the Rosenthal Act because neither Seterus nor IBM is a debt collector who engages in debt collection under the Rosenthal Act. IBM also argued that the cause of action against IBM is too uncertain because the complaint does not allege sufficient facts to establish that IBM is a debt collector and that it is liable for Seterus's conduct. After full briefing, the trial court issued a tentative ruling on the Defendants' demurrer on Sept. 6, 2016, in which it indicated its intention to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend. The court held a hearing on the matter on September 9, and subsequently adopted its tentative ruling. In sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, the trial court acknowledged the existence of a split of authority in the federal courts as to whether the Rosenthal Act's definition of debt collector includes a mortgage servicer. However, the court agreed with those courts that have concluded that a mortgage servicer may not be considered to be a debt collector under the Rosenthal Act. The court determined that because Davidson's UCL claim was derivative of his Rosenthal Act claim, the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The court also ruled, in the alternative, that as to IBM, the complaint failed to plead sufficient facts to demonstrate that IBM could be held liable for the actions of its subsidiary, Seterus. The trial court further determined that no amendment could cure the deficiencies of the complaint, and that the demurrer should therefore be sustained without leave to amend. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the Defendants on Oct. 5, 2016. Davidson filed a timely notice of appeal. Davidson contends that the trial court erred in (i) determining that mortgage servicers are not debt collectors under the Rosenthal Act, and (ii) concluding that Davidson failed to plead facts sufficient to state a cause of action against IBM on an alter ego theory Judge Aaron concludes that the Rosenthal Act's definition of debt collector applies to a mortgage servicer who engages in debt collection practices in attempting to obtain repayment of mortgage debt, and that the trial court improperly sustained the Defendants' demurrer on the ground that the Act does not apply to mortgage servicers. She ultimately agrees with Davidson's contention, in no small part due to our adherence to the general rule that civil statutes for the protection of the public are, generally, broadly construed in favor of that protective purpose. The fact that the Rosenthal Act's definitional language is sufficiently broad to include mortgage lenders and/or mortgage servicers within its purview, she concludes that mortgage lenders and mortgage servicers can be debt collectors under the Rosenthal Act. Given her reversal of the court's ruling with respect to the Rosenthal Act claim, the Judge must also reverse the court's ruling with respect to Davidson's UCL claim, since that claim is premised on his Rosenthal Act claim. The Judge finds that the complaint alleges that both Seterus and IBM were actively engaged in the offending conduct. For example, Davidson alleges that each of the Defendant ratified the other's acts, and that they aided and abetted each other in committing the offending acts and omissions. Davidson has therefore alleged that IBM, itself, was actively involved in the challenged conduct; the complaint is not solely about the conduct of its subsidiary entity, Seterus. These allegations, she says, are sufficient to state a cause of action against IBM for violations of the Rosenthal Act and the UCL. The trial court's sustaining of the demurrer as to IBM on this basis must also be reversed. For the reasons she stated, Judge Arron reversed the judgment of the trial court. Appellant Davidson is entitled to costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/029nx0 from Leagle.com. Capstone Law, Glenn A. Danas -- Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com - - Melissa Grant -- Melissa.Grant@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Liana C. Carter -- Liana.Carter@CapstoneLawyers.com -- and Arnab Banerjee -- Arnab.Banerjee@CapstoneLawyers.com -- for Plaintiff and Appellant. Larson O'Brien, Stephen G. Larson -- slarson@larsonobrienlaw.com -- Robert C. O'Brien -- robrien@larsonobrienlaw.com -- and Paul A. Rigali -- prigali@larsonobrienlaw.com -- and Steven A. Haskins -- shaskins@larsonobrienlaw.com -- for Defendants and Respondents. Wright, Finlay & Zak and Jonathan D. Fink for American Legal & Financial Network, California Mortgage Association and California Mortgage Bankers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents. SHORE CONSTRUCTION: Conditional Cert. of "Magana" Class Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MAGANA, v. SHORE CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al., Section: "G" (4), Civil Action No. 17-1896 (E.D. La.), Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification, Judicial Notice, and for Disclosure of the Names and Addresses of the Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff filed the putative class action on March 6, 2017, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that he worked for Defendants Shore Construction and Kristi Caton as a "rigger" unloading barges in Gibson, Louisiana. He claims that the Defendants paid him a regular rate of $9.00 per hour, an overtime rate of $13.50 per hour, and a $50 per diem. Thus, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants wrongfully did not include the $50 per diem in the calculation of his overtime premium pay. On June 13, 207, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion. On July 11, 2017, the Defendants filed an opposition to the Plaintiff's motion. On July 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a reply to the Defendants' opposition. The Plaintiff alleges that there is a "Putative Class" consisting of individuals who worked more than 40 hours a week at Shore Construction and did not receive proper overtime pay. He asserts that he and his coworkers all recorded their hours in the same way, were supervised by the same foremen, and did not live far distances from the jobsite. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff does not provide a sufficient factual basis for his allegations, as he submitted no evidence and nothing other than conclusory assertions in his Complaint that there is any common, policy, plan, or scheme. Moreover, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiff presents no evidence or even substantial allegations that the workers in his proposed collective action have the same job titles, the same job responsibilities, or work at the same location. Judge Brown explains that in Rendon v. Global Technical Solutions, LLC, the Court found that conditional certification of a collective action was warranted when the plaintiff provided the names of two potential opt-ins, despite the fact that the plaintiff did not provide affidavits from those two individuals. There, the plaintiff argued that his proposed class had the same jobs and same basic responsibilities and stated that the proposed class earned substantially similar wages. The Court characterized the plaintiff's evidence as "sparse," but nevertheless certified a class because the plaintiff had named two potential opt-in plaintiffs. Here, similar to Rendon, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff does not provide any affidavits from any potential options stating that similarly situated individuals are interested in the suit to support his "Putative Class." However, unlike Rendon where the Plaintiff named two potential opt-in Plaintiffs, in which the Court characterized his evidence as "sparse," the Plaintiff also does not provide any names of potential opt-in Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff asserts that copies of his paychecks illustrate the Defendants' policy, but his paychecks alone do not establish that the Defendants had a policy of widespread violations affecting similarly-situated employees, as he fails to present an affidavit or even the name of a single similarly-situated employee. Despite the lenient standard in Lusardi to certify a collective action, the Judge finds that at least some evidence beyond unsupported factual assertions of a single decision, policy, or plan should be presented. Since the Plaintiff fails to present such evidence, he fails to meet this lenient standard. Accordingly, Judge Brown denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification, Judicial Notice, and for Disclosure of the Names and Addresses of the Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs. A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/mSksnT from Leagle.com. Magdaleno Bibian Magana, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, pro se. Shore Construction, LLC & Kristi Caton, Defendants, represented by Gavin H. Guillot -- Gavin.Guillot@pjgglaw.com -- Pusateri Johnston Guillot & Greenbaum, Elizabeth Belle McIntosh -- Elizabeth.McIntosh@pjgglaw.com -- Pusateri Johnston Guillot & Greenbaum & Salvador Joseph Pusateri -- Salvador.Pusateri@pjgglaw.com -- Pusateri Johnston Guillot & Greenbaum. ST. LOUIS RAMS: Court Certifies Class, Subclass in "McAllister" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, RONALD McALLISTER, Plaintiff, v. THE ST. LOUIS RAMS, LLC, Defendants, Case Nos. 4:16-CV-172 SNLJ, 4:16-CV-262, 4:16-CV-297, 4:16-CV-189 CONSOLIDATED (E.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part (i) McAllister's motion for class certification; (ii) Arnold's motion for class certification; (ii) Envision's motion for class certification. The matter is comprised of four consolidated lawsuits relating to the St. Louis Rams football team's January 2016 decision to move the team to a new stadium in Inglewood, California. The Rams' home stadium had been located in St. Louis, Missouri since 1995. The St. Louis Rams required football fans who wished to purchase season tickets to buy Personal Seat Licenses ("PSLs") that entitled the PSL holder to buy one season ticket per year in a designated section of the stadium. Approximately 46,000 PSLs were sold. Upon the announcement that the Rams would move to California, lawsuits were filed by PSL holders and others against the Rams claiming damages arising from the Rams' move. PSL holders purchased their PSLs subject to License Agreements, which are at the heart of this controversy. An entity known as FANS, Inc. sold PSLs for home football games until Sept. 1, 1995. Those PSLs were sold pursuant to an agreement known as the "FANS" contract. After Sept. 1, 1995, the Rams sold the PSLs directly pursuant to the "Rams" contract. The Rams announced they would move the team from St. Louis to California in January 2016. The Rams claim that all rights and obligations under the Rams and FANS Contracts expired when the team moved to California, and lawsuits were filed. Plaintiff McAllister alleged that the Rams terminated the PSLs thus triggering the Rams' contractual duty to refund "deposits" that the Rams had received. Two other groups of Plaintiffs led by Envision and Arnold sued under the theory that the Rams were still required to use "best efforts" to secure tickets to home games in California for PSL holders and that PSL holders still had the right to transfer their PSLs by sale or otherwise. The Court consolidated those cases, and the parties filed motions to test the Plaintiffs' legal theories. The results depended entirely on which PSL Agreement, the FANS Contract or the Rams Contract was at issue. The Court held that the "best efforts" obligations expired along with the FANS Contract upon the Rams' move to California based on a clause unique to the FANS Contract: The Rams terminated the FANS Agreement because it became invalid on the Rams' move to California and now must refund deposits according to the contract. On the other hand, the Rams Contract contained no such clause, so it was not terminated upon the Rams' move to California. The Rams Contract requires the Rams to use Best Efforts to secure tickets for seats at games where the transferred home games are played. The result was that the Arnold and Envision "ticket theory" applied to the Rams PSL Contract while the McAllister "refund theory" applied to the FANS PSL Contract. The parties apparently agreed that Arnold and Envision would thus go forward with a class of Rams PSL holders while McAllister would represent the FANS PSL holders. McAllister filed an early motion for class certification consistent with that understanding moving for certification of a class of only FANS PSL holders. Months later, McAllister filed an amended motion for class certification that seeks to represent classes of both FANS and Rams PSL holders. He asserts that the FANS Contract has been terminated as stated in this Court's order and that the Rams Contract has more recently been shown to be terminated by the Rams. That recent termination occurred, McAllister argues, when Rams PSL owners called the Rams' ticket office after the Rams announced season tickets were available, the ticketing agent told them that those PSLs are no longer valid. McAllister proposes the following Classes and Subclasses: a. FANS Class: All persons or entities who, at the conclusion of the 2015 season, owned a PSL purchased from Fans, Inc. b. FANS MMPA Subclass: All natural persons who are members of the FANS Class. c. Rams Class: All persons or entities who, at the conclusion of the 2015 season, owned a PSL: (a) purchased from the St. Louis Rams; or (b) acquired through the Rams' PSL transfer program. d. Rams MMPA Subclass: All natural persons who are members of the Rams Class. Arnold and Envision have also moved to certify classes under the "ticket theory." As part of their motions, they ask that the Court not certify McAllister's classes of Rams PSL holders. The Arnold Plaintiffs propose one class definition and one subclass definition: a. Rams Class: (A) All persons or entities who (i) purchased PSLs directly from the Rams; or (ii) had any Rams or FANS PSL transferred to them; or (iii) upgraded their PSL tier; and (B) purchased Rams season tickets through their PSLs for the 2015 season; or (C) did not purchase Rams season tickets for the 2015 season but did not receive a PSL cancellation notice from the Rams. b. MMPA subclass: All natural persons who are members of the Rams Class who purchased PSLs primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Envision Plaintiffs propose the following class and subclass definitions: a. Class: All persons or entities who possessed PSLs subject to the Rams' Agreement, and who continued to be PSL owners through, and purchased season tickets for, the 2015 season, including the following subclasses: i. Charter Subclass: All persons or entities who purchased one or more PSLs directly from the St. Louis Rams, and who continued to be PSL owners through, and who purchased season tickets for, the 2015 season. ii. Upgrade Subclass: All persons, or entities who originally signed a PSL Agreement with FANS, Inc. or the Rams, and later upgraded their PSLs, and who continued to be PSL owners through, and purchased season tickets for, the 2015 season. iii. Transfer Subclass: All persons or entities who took transfer of one or more PSLs after September 1, 1995, whose interest in the PSLs was recorded on the books and records of the Rams, and who continued to be PSL owners through, and purchased season tickets, for the 2015 season. iv. MMPA Subclass: All natural persons who are members of the Class (excluding entities because, pursuant to the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), Section 407.025.1, RSMo, damages are only recoverable by persons who purchase or lease merchandise primarily for personal, family or household purposes). Judge Limbaugh declined to certify McAllister's proposed Rams Class. McAllister cites witnesses who testify that the Rams told PSL holders that the Rams "PSLs are no longer valid." He says this does not entitle McAllister to represent a class of Rams PSL Holders seeking to get their "deposits" back. The Rams have always maintained that both PSL contracts terminated when they moved to California. The fact that the Rams' ticket agents continue to say the contracts are "invalid" does not affect the Court's ruling that the Rams Agreement entitled Rams PSL holders to activation of the Best Efforts Clause not to a refund of deposits. The Judge certified McAllister's proposed class definition for the FANS PSL Holders with modifications as follows: a. FANS Class: All persons or entities who, at the conclusion of the 2015 season, owned a PSL purchased from Fans, Inc. that was not later transferred or upgraded. b. FANS MMPA Subclass: All natural persons who are members of the FANS Class and who never claimed the PSL expense as a tax deduction for business purposes. McAllister is appointed as the class representative, and his counsel as the class counsel. The Judge also certified a modified version of Arnold's proposed class definition as manageable, ascertainable, and in accordance with the facts of the case. a. Rams Class: (A) All persons or entities who (i) purchased PSLs directly from the Rams; or (ii) had any Rams or FANS PSL transferred to them; or (iii) upgraded their PSL tier; and (B) purchased Rams season tickets through their PSLs for the 2015 season; or (C) did not purchase Rams season tickets for the 2015 season but did not receive a PSL cancellation notice from the Rams. b. MMPA subclass: All natural persons who are members of the Rams Class who purchased PSLs primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and who never claimed the PSL expense as a tax deduction for business purposes. The Judge appointed the Arnold Plaintiffs as the class representatives. At the invitation of Arnold's counsel, the counsel for both Arnold and Envision is appointed as the class counsel. Accordingly, Judge Limbaugh granted in part and denied in part (i) McAllister's motion for class certification; (ii) Arnold's motion for class certification; (ii) Envision's motion for class certification. He appointed Plaintiff McAllister is as the Class Representative for the FANS Class and FANS MMPA Subclass. McAllister's attorneys, as listed on the motion, are appointed as the counsel for the FANS Class and FANS MMPA Subclass. He also appointed Plaintiffs Richard Arnold, R. McNeeley Cochran, and Brad Pearlman as the Class Representatives for the Rams Class and Rams MMPA Subclass. The Counsel for the Arnold and Envision plaintiffs, as listed on their motions for class certification, are appointed as the counsel for the Rams Class and Rams MMPA Subclass. A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/Z6Trqc from Leagle.com. Ronald McAllister, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony S. Bruning -- tony@bruninglegal.com -- THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC, Anthony S. Bruning, Jr. -- aj@bruninglegal.com -- THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC, Richard S. Cornfeld -- rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com -- LAW OFFICE RICHARD S. CORNFELD, Ryan L. Bruning -- ryan@bruninglegal.com -- THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC, Edward Morris Roth, THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC, 555 Washington Ave, St. Louis, MO, 63#600A 101, Kevin Paul Green -- kevin@ghalaw.com -- GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC, Mark C. Goldenberg -- mark@ghalaw.com -- GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC & Thomas P. Rosenfeld -- tom@ghalaw.com -- GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC. Brad Pearlman, Plaintiff, represented by Fernando Bermudez, BERMUDEZ LAW STL, LLC. Envision, LLC, Robert D Bohm, Sue Bohm & Edward E. Mock, Consolidated Filer Plaintiffs, represented by David R. Bohm -- drbohm@dmfirm.com -- DANNA MCKITRICK, P.C. & Michael Ryan Cherba -- mrcherba@dmfirm.com -- DANNA MCKITRICK, P.C. Richard Arnold & R. McNeely Cochran, Consolidated Filer Plaintiffs, represented by Fernando Bermudez, BERMUDEZ LAW STL, LLC & Martin M. Green, LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN GREEN P.C. James Pudlowski, Consolidated Filer Plaintiff, represented by Steven J. Stolze -- sstolze@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC & Daniel T. DeFeo, DEFEO AND KOLKER, LLC. Louis C. Cross III, Gail Henry & Steve Henry, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Consolidated Filer Plaintiffs, represented by Steven J. Stolze, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, A Delaware General Partnership, Defendant, represented by Amy Elizabeth Sestric -- amy.sestric@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP, Anders C. Wick -- anders.wick@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth T. Ferrick -- elizabeth.ferrick@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP, Roger K. Heidenreich -- roger.heidenreich@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP & Stephen H. Rovak -- stephen.rovak@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP. The St. Louis Rams Partnership & ITB Football Company, LLC, Consolidated Filer Defendants, represented by Amy Elizabeth Sestric , DENTONS US LLP, Anders C. Wick , DENTONS US LLP, Elizabeth T. Ferrick , DENTONS US LLP & Roger K. Heidenreich , DENTONS US LLP. St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission, Movant, represented by Nicholas J. Lamb -- nlamb@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN, LLP. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, A Delaware General Partnership, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Amy Elizabeth Sestric, DENTONS US LLP, Anders C. Wick, DENTONS US LLP, Elizabeth T. Ferrick, DENTONS US LLP & Roger K. Heidenreich, DENTONS US LLP. Regional Convention and Visitors Commission, Third Party Defendant, represented by David A. Dick -- ddick@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Nicholas J. Lamb, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP & Shaun C. Broeker -- sbroeker@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN, LLP. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, A Delaware General Partnership, Counter Claimant, represented by Amy Elizabeth Sestric, DENTONS US LLP, Anders C. Wick, DENTONS US LLP, Elizabeth T. Ferrick, DENTONS US LLP & Roger K. Heidenreich, DENTONS US LLP. Ronald McAllister, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Anthony S. Bruning , THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC, Anthony S. Bruning, Jr. , THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC, Richard S. Cornfeld , LAW OFFICE RICHARD S. CORNFELD, Ryan L. Bruning , THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC, Edward Morris Roth , THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC, Kevin Paul Green , GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC, Mark C. Goldenberg , GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC & Thomas P. Rosenfeld , GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC. STARKIST: AHA Defends "Heart-Check Mark" Logo After Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Blank, writing for SeafoodSource, reports that the American Heart Association defended its "Heart-Check Mark" logo on food products, after a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States against Starkist tuna for using the logo. Tuna products from Starkist, owned by Dongwon Industries in South Korea, do not disclose that the Heart-Check Mark is a "paid endorsement," according to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. "StarKist's products contain a brazen misrepresentation that causes consumers to falsely believe that StarKist products are healthier than products made by other food manufacturers," Plaintiff Abraham Jacob Warner, a resident of Walker Valley, New York, said. "In fact, a food manufacturer must pay the American Heart Association in order to place the Heart-Check Mark on its products. However, in violation of state and federal law, StarKist fails to disclose on its product labels that the Heart- Check Mark is a paid endorsement." A Starkist spokesperson told SeafoodSource that the company had "no comment" on the lawsuit. The AHA makes a "significant profit" off the sale of rights to use the Heart-Check Mark, according to the complaint. "The AHA can do this because the presence of the Heart-Check Mark on a product increases sales and allows companies such as StarKist, to sell their Heart-Check Mark products at a price premium," the complaint said. However, a spokesperson for AHA explained how the organization's Heart-Check Mark labeling program works. "Participating food manufacturers pay administrative fees per product to cover program operating expenses. Revenues cover the expenses of the program itself, which include product testing and certification, program management and oversight, legal and contract fees, program marketing and staff resources," Suzanne Grant, media relations and corporation communications for AHA, told SeafoodSource. "AHA's Heart-Check Mark program is an important resource for the general consumer to use to select healthier food choices. All products must meet AHA, FDA [Food and Drug Administration] and USDA [United States Department of Agriculture] dietary guidelines and comply with U.S. government regulations for coronary heart disease health claims," Grant added. The complaint asks the judge to award USD 50 (EUR 41) for each class member, or an increase in the award of damages to an amount not to exceed three times the actual damages up to USD 1,000 (EUR 813), along with reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The plaintiff is represented by Finkelstein Blankinship Frei- Pearson & Garber LLP, a White Plains, New York-based law firm that specializes in class action lawsuits. [GN] TD ASSET: Faces Class Action Over Trailing Commissions ------------------------------------------------------ Siskinds LLP and Bates Barristers P.C. on April 9 disclosed that they have filed a proposed class action against TD Asset Management Inc. ("TDAM") regarding trailing commissions paid to discount brokers on TD mutual funds. The action alleges that TDAM, as the trustee and manager of TD mutual funds, pays substantial sums of money out of TD mutual funds as trailing commissions to discount brokers through which the mutual funds are sold. These payments reduce the returns of investors. TDAM describes the purpose of the trailing commissions as compensation for "services and advice" provided to investors. However, discount brokers are prohibited from providing investment advice to investors, and so it is alleged that investors who hold these funds in discount brokerages receive no value for the trailing commissions paid. The action seeks to advance claims on behalf of all persons, wherever they may reside or be domiciled, who hold or held, at any time prior to the conclusion of the trial of the common issues in the proposed class action, units of a TD mutual fund through a discount broker. Gary Stenzler, the proposed representative plaintiff in the action said "I invested in mutual funds to save for my retirement and to help fund my children's education. I was troubled to learn that the trustee of the mutual funds I owned was taking a portion of my life's savings to pay my discount broker for advice and services which I did not receive." "Canadians entrust their hard-earned savings to the trustee of their mutual funds on the understanding that the trustee will protect and maximize the value of their investments. Paying trailing commissions to discount brokers as compensation for advice that is never provided to investors is not just or fair," said Michael Robb -- michael.robb@siskinds.com -- of Siskinds LLP in London. "It's time for investors to challenge this long-standing practice of paying trailing commissions to discount brokers, which is common throughout the mutual fund industry in Canada. This practice continues today despite ongoing regulatory review of embedded commissions having regard to investor protection concerns," said Paul Bates of Bates Barristers P.C. Class Member Contacts: If you hold or previously held units of a mutual fund that pays trailing commissions in a discount brokerage account, we encourage you to complete the information form on the website of Siskinds LLP at www.siskinds.com/mutual-fund-trailing- commissions/ by clicking on the "Receive Updates on this Case" link. If you would like to contact Class Counsel, please direct your inquiries to Siskinds LLP at 1800-461-6166 x 4228 or laura-marie.paynter@siskinds.com [GN] TENET FLORIDA: Averts Class Action Over Health Insurance Payments ----------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Joseph, writing for Law.com, reports that Miami litigator Alan D. Lash helped one of South Florida's largest hospital systems beat back a putative class action lawsuit with the potential for far-reaching fallout. The Lash & Goldberg partner worked with partner Greg Weintraub and senior counsel Dave Ruffner to represent Tenet Florida Inc. in closely watched litigation that once targeted insurance companies but now aims to recoup billions of dollars from hospitals across the country. "This does have significant implications . . . industry-wide," Mr. Lash said. "There are several of these actions that are pending in (Florida) and other states." Lash & Goldberg's client, Tenet, operates 10 acute-care hospitals, three standalone emergency centers, urgent-care clinics and more than 20 surgical and diagnostic imaging offices in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties. It is one of several hospital systems in the continental U.S. and Puerto Rico facing suit in federal court from a Medicare Advantage assignee looking to recover insurance payments under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. The plaintiff is linked to Miami-based MSP Recovery Law Firm, which claims hospitals collected billions of dollars from Medicare and Medicaid when other insurers should have paid. Under federal law, the public health insurance programs are set up as secondary rather than primary payers. This means any other insurer should pay before Medicare or Medicaid covers the balance on claims. But details that emerged last year suggested federal health officials lost hundreds of millions of dollars in overpayments to Medicare Advantage health plans under. At the time, NPR reported losses for 2007 alone were about $128 million and went unnoticed until an initial round of audits. MSP Recovery's lawsuit suggests Tenet contributed to the losses. The complaint claimed the hospital system double-billed and never returned overpayments. Plaintiff MSPA Claims 1 LLC, an assignee of Florida Healthcare Plus Inc., filed suit against a Tenet subsidiary, St. Mary's Medical Center Inc. of West Palm Beach, pinpointing an alleged Medicare overpayment of about $286 for a beneficiary identified only by initials. It then sought class certification for a broad recovery. "The hospital collects from both sides," said plaintiffs lawyer John H. Ruiz, co-lead counsel in the MSP Recovery suits. "It is something that is impermissible by law and frankly unethical. . . . That's the nature of the beast here. There are billions upon billions of dollars that are overpaid." But Lash and his team argued the plaintiff lacked legal standing to sue the health care company and persuaded U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams in Miami to close the case. "The statute that the plaintiffs were suing under . . . the Medicare Secondary Payer Act . . . only allows Medicare Advantage organizations to sue insurance companies, known as primary payers," Mr. Lash said. "Since the hospital was a provider and not a primary payer, we did not believe that the statute . . . gave them standing." Judge Williams agreed. The judge dismissed three of the plaintiff's claims with prejudice, dismissed two others without prejudice and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims brought under state law. [GN] TIDEWATER FINANCE: Faces "Clark" Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tidewater Finance Company. The case is styled as Rose Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tidewater Finance Company and Prenovost, Normandin, Bergh & Dawe, A Professional Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00624 (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2018). Tidewater Finance Company provides finance to retail consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew M Loker, Esq. Kazerouni Law Group APC 245 Fischer Avenue Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: ml@kazlg.com TIGER BRANDS: Says Not Opposed to Listeriosis Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Eyewitness News reports that fast-moving consumer goods company Tiger Brands says that the reports that it's opposed the class actions brought against it are inaccurate. In a statement on Twitter, the company says two separate applications for certification of a class action have been filed, one by Richard Spoor and one by LHL attorneys. "As a result, Tiger Brands is faced with two competing class actions which are mutually exclusive. What Tiger Brands is opposing is the fact that two class actions are being brought against us simultaneously. Procedurally, this is not possible." The class action relates to the listeriosis outbreak which claimed the lives of at least 180 people. Those who've been affected want both by Tiger Brands and Enterprise Foods to be found liable for the deaths and injuries caused. The company says that all parties need for the court to decide whether the class action should go ahead, which of the two class actions should go ahead or whether a hybrid of the two should go ahead. "Tiger Brands cannot respond to two class actions concurrently. This is a legal administrative process with timelines for response, and Tiger Brands had to respond by the deadline to reserve its rights. "We confirm that the application for certification is a precursor to a claim action. The class action has not started yet." [GN] TIGER BRANDS: Files Motions in Listeriosis Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Daniels, writing for jacarandafm, reports that Tiger Brands filed a motion declaring its interests to an application for certification of a class action lawsuit at the High Court in Johannesburg. At least 180 people died as a result of the outbreak of the ST6 listeria strain. Tiger Brands was forced to close two factories after government tests linked one of its facilities to the outbreak. Two competing class actions have been launched by LHL Attorneys Incorporated as well as human rights lawyer Richard Spoor. According to the production giant's chief corporate affairs officer, Mary Jane Morifi, is it up to the court to decide whether the class action will proceed. Spoor previously told Jacaranda FM that ten people have agreed to be the face of the class action lawsuit that affected thousands of consumers. "The administrative processes that's now going is for all parties to go and approach the court to decide whether firstly any of the class action should go ahead and if they do go ahead which of these class actions should go ahead or a combination of both. Not all can be heard at the same time." No claims have thus far been brought but Ms. Morifi says they are not rejecting any motion brought by an interested party to have the dispute settled out of courts. "This is a legal process that had already been instituted so we having to respond to that but that doesn't preclude sometime in future to come together and work out other alternative mechanisms of resolving this." [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Quashes Canadian Drivers' Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Sara Mojtehedzadeh, writing for The Star, reports that Uber drivers who want to fight their employer in court will have to go to the Netherlands to do it, an Ontario judge has ruled -- exposing what employment lawyer Lior Samfiru calls a dangerous loophole in the province's labour laws. The decision follows a class-action lawsuit launched by Toronto- based Samfiru Tumarkin LLP arguing Uber drivers are employees entitled to protection under the Employment Standards Act -- not independent contractors as the company claims. Uber fought the class action, arguing that its service agreements with individual drivers specify that disputes must be resolved through arbitration in the Netherlands, where one of the company's arms is incorporated. The Ontario superior court agreed, quashing the class action for now. The firm representing drivers has served its notice to appeal the decision, which Mr. Samfiru says sets a dangerous precedent for Ontario workers' rights. "It robs any driver from having a remedy here," Mr. Samfiru said. "Aside from the obvious logistical issues, the cost is prohibitive." "You can take our employment laws and essentially throw them in the garbage. Rights are of no value if they cannot be enforced." Uber spokesperson Xavier Van Chau said the superior court decision pointed to the dispute resolution mechanisms the company already provides, such as drivers' "In-App Support" where customer service representatives respond to "queries and complaints" over small sums of money. "Uber's legal team is located primarily in the Netherlands with local assistance in certain jurisdictions in which Uber operates. When drivers' complaints or disputes with Uber cannot be resolved through either level of assistance with In-App Support or at a Greenlight Hub, the matter may be referred to Uber's legal team," the decision said. Mr. Samfiru says the Ministry of Labour should intervene by changing its employment laws to prevent disputes being arbitrated overseas. Currently, the Employment Standards Act is silent on the matter, which Mr. Samfiru argues could open the door to other corporations adding arbitration clauses to workers' contracts to evade local legal obligations. "This is not an Uber specific situation. There's nothing unique to the Uber arrangement," he said. Ministry of Labour spokesperson Janet Deline said Minister Kevin Flynn was aware of the superior court decision. "The Government of Ontario is currently reviewing the case and considering whether to seek leave to intervene in this matter," she said." The original class action filed last year sought $200 million in damages on behalf of around 20,000 Uber drivers in Ontario and claimed they were Uber employees entitled to rights like the minimum wage and overtime pay. Uber argues its drivers are independent contractors, a category of worker that is not covered by employment legislation. Under Ontario law, a worker is generally considered an employee if the business directs the nature of their work, including deadlines and pay rates. Other indicators include providing a worker with tools and equipment to do their job or the ability to suspend, dismiss, or discipline a worker. The Ministry of Labour can find a worker is an employee even if their employer calls them an independent contractor. Recent reforms introduced through new employment legislation, Bill 148, mean it is now explicitly prohibited to misclassify an employee as an independent contractor. When disputes arise, the onus is on the employer to prove the worker is not an employee. "Courts in the United States, Australia and France have all recognized that rideshare drivers are self-employed," said Mr. Van Chau. "Drivers can set their own schedule hour-by-hour, day-by-day, and week-by-week. In Canada, approximately half of all drivers drive less than 10 hours a week. This means that these partners can tend to child care, invest in their education or work another job, driving only when they need or want -- even if that's just to pay an unexpected bill or the rent between jobs." South of the border, Uber has been the subject of numerous class action suits arguing its drivers are employees. Uber initially agreed to a $100 million settlement to one of the first such suits launched in California, after a district judge called their arbitration agreements unconscionable. But an appeals court subsequently upheld Uber's arbitration clause. Mr. Samfiru says he is not aware of any jurisdiction with legislation that forbids arbitration clauses when it comes to employment rights, although there is a similar provision in Ontario's consumer protection laws. Given new protections for vulnerable workers introduced by the provincial government in November, Mr. Samfiru says it's now more urgent than ever to ensure they can't be sidestepped. "If the ESA can now be circumvented that way, these changes are meaningless," he said. [GN] UFC: Expects to Settle Streaming Class Action with Refunds ---------------------------------------------------------- Steven Marrocco, writing for MMA Junkie, reports that the UFC and its streaming partner are expected to settle a class-action lawsuit over streaming problems with "The Money Fight" between Floyd Mayweather and Conor McGregor, awarding partial or full refunds to fans unable to watch the blockbuster event in its entirety. The settlement, which has met preliminary approval from a federal judge in Nevada, offers "tiered refunds" to fans depending on how much of the event they were unable to watch due to technical difficulties, according to a press release issued by Hart Robinovitch Zimmerman Reed LLP, which represents plaintiffs in the suit against the UFC and streaming partner NeuLion. Fans who missed over 5 minutes of Mayweather vs. McGregor will get a full refund of the $99.99 pay-per-view price. Those who missed some, but less than 5 minutes, will get $50. And those who missed only preliminary bouts will get $25. Fans who also were out money for food and beverage bought for viewing parties will receive a smaller token of consideration: They get a choice between one to three months of free access to UFC Fight Pass or a $5 payment. The settlement will move toward final approval after a comment period and a fairness hearing scheduled for July 20. The class-action lawsuit was filed this past October by fight fan Cameron Park, who alleged the UFC and Neulion violated state consumer protection laws when they delivered a faulty pay-per- view product. It was one of eight class-action suits filed by disgruntled fans after high demand overwhelmed online and broadcast platforms carrying the event, resulting in widespread outages. As MMAjunkie previously reported, one fan's lawsuit was sent to arbitration after a judge ruled that Showtime's terms of use gave proper notification that any disputes would be resolved without the court. Showtime and the UFC offered refunds to those affected by the technical difficulties immediately after the event. They downplayed the severity of technical glitches encountered by fans, who flooded social media with complaints as outages began. Despite the issues, UFC President Dana White claimed the spectacle showdown between then-UFC lightweight champ McGregor (21-3 MMA, 9-1 UFC, 0-1 boxing) and boxing king Mayweather (50-0 boxing) set a record for the most lucrative pay-per-view event in history, drawing 6.7 million worldwide buys. But Showtime executive Stephen Espinoza said the event did not break the domestic pay-per-view record, resulting in an ugly war of words that continues to this day. Mayweather said he remains interested in fighting in the UFC, but said Showtime and CBS would need to be involved. At the press conference for UFC 223, White said, "that ain't happening" and called Espinoza several unflattering names. [GN] UNITED STATES: Appeals Ruling in Immigrant Minors' Abortion Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Mason Pieklo, writing for Rewire News, reports that attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice on April 9 appealed a lower court ruling ordering the Trump administration stop blocking abortion access for undocumented, unaccompanied pregnant minors in its custody. The appeal came in Garza v. Hargan, a lawsuit brought by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of pregnant undocumented minors in federal custody who attorneys claim had their requests for abortion care thwarted by members of the Trump administration. In late March, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that the administration's policy of requiring Scott Lloyd, the virulently anti-choice director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), to personally sign off on any action that "facilitates" an abortion was an attempt to "nullify" a minor's right to an abortion. "ORR's policy vests the power to decide the future of [an undocumented minor]'s pregnancy in one man: Director Lloyd," Judge Chukan wrote. Judge Chutkan ordered the administration stop "interfering with or obstructing" any undocumented pregnant minor in its custody from accessing a judicial bypass; medical appointments related to pregnancy dating; objective and unbiased pregnancy counseling; abortions; and other pregnancy-related care. Judge Chutkan also ordered the administration to stop forcing minors in its custody to reveal either the fact of their pregnancy or their abortion decision to anyone, and to stop revealing those facts itself. Judge Chutkan also certified the Garza v. Hargan litigation as a class action. That means her ruling blocking the administration's policy and ordering officials to stop thwarting abortion access applies to every undocumented minor in federal custody who seeks an abortion, and not on a case-by-case basis. The appeal follows a request by the administration to stay the March decision while the appeal continues. The court has not yet ruled on that request. [GN] UNITED STATES: Class Action Over Male-Only Draft Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------ Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the National Coalition for Men can proceed with its class action lawsuit challenging the government's men-only mandate for registering for the military draft, a federal judge ruled on April 6. Although the U.S. military is now an all-volunteer force, to stay prepared for a major war the Military Select Service Act requires men age 18 to 25 to register with the Select Service System. The government held its last draft, for the Vietnam War, in 1973. All men, including undocumented immigrants, who do not register and keep their contact information current can be sentenced to five years in prison, fined up to $250,000 and be disqualified from federal financial aid and citizenship, though no man has been prosecuted for failing to register since the 1980s. The National Coalition for Men, represented by Marc Angelucci in Los Angeles, sued the Select Service System in April 2013, claiming the male-only draft registration rule is unconstitutional gender discrimination. The Pentagon in January 2013 lifted a ban on women serving in front-line combat positions. The coalition seeks an injunction ordering the government to make both men and women register for the draft. As of February there were 213,851 women in the military, about 16 percent of the 1.3 million total members, according to the Department of Defense. U.S. District Judge Gray Miller on April 6 denied the government's motion to dismiss the coalition's class action. The government claimed the coalition's co-plaintiffs, James Lesmeister and Anthony Davis, lack standing, as neither has been drafted, nor are they at risk of being prosecuted, because they have registered for the draft. "Regardless, both have a continuing obligation to update SSS with changes to their information. That obligation, paired with the requirement to register with SSS, constitutes an injury sufficient for Article III standing," Judge Miller wrote. In its dismissal motion, the government said the challengers are trying to intrude on Congress's authority to oversee military affairs, and their claims are precluded by the U.S. Supreme Court 1981 ruling in Rostker v. Goldberg, involving men who made similar sex-discrimination arguments about draft-registration rules. Justices Byron White wrote a dissent, joined by Justice William Brennan, who also joined a separate dissent by Justice Thurgood Marshall. The 6-3 majority in Rostker held that because women were excluded from combat, there was no need to draft them, so the male-only rule was constitutional. But Judge Miller ruled that the coalition has made a viable gender discrimination claim under the Fifth Amendment's equal protection clause, due to the military's new policy of letting women fight on the front lines. "Regarding Rostker's holding that the male-only draft did not violate the Constitution, the factual circumstances of this case are different. . . . Now, women can serve in combat roles," Miller, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in an 8-page order. The coalition filed the lawsuit in April 2013 in the Central District of California. U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer dismissed it, but the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. Fischer again nixed the coalition's claims in November 2016, finding it lacked standing since its only co-plaintiff, James Lesmeister, was not a coalition member. Fischer transferred the case to the Southern District of Texas because Mr. Lesmeister lives near Houston. The coalition filed an amended complaint in August 2017, adding class claims and its member Anthony Davis as a plaintiff. Judge Miller found the addition of Davis was enough for the coalition to establish "associational standing." The coalition, founded in 1977, is based in San Diego, California. It helped bring a lawsuit in 1985 against Hancock International Airport in Syracuse, New York, for having diaper- changing tables only in the airport's women's restrooms. Settlement of that case led to the placement of changing tables in men's bathrooms throughout the United States, the coalition says on its website. Its attorney, Marc Angelucci, is vice president of its board. He started its Los Angeles chapter in 2001. Mr. Angelucci said in a statement on April 8 the coalition is pleased with Judge Miller's order. But he said its goal is not necessarily to force the government to make women sign up for the draft. "NCFM takes no position on whether the best approach is to end mandatory draft registration or to require both men and women to register. Nor does NCFM take any position as to whether women should be in combat, as the draft can include noncombat positions. As a men's rights organization, NCFM's concern is with the unconstitutional sex discrimination against men. How to resolve the illegality is up to the federal government," he said. The Department of Justice did not respond on April 8 to an email seeking comment on Miller's order. [GN] US POSTAL: Owes Payouts to Workers After Class Action Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Katz, writing for Government Executive, reports that the U.S. Postal Service will soon have to make a payout to as many as 130,000 current and former employees as part of a class-action lawsuit, with an anti-discrimination oversight body finding the mailing agency created a program to rid its rolls of employees injured on the job under the guise of trying to accommodate them. The final ruling from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission came more than 10 years after a former employee first filed a class complaint alleging USPS subjected employees to a "pattern and practice" of discrimination under its National Reassessment Program. EEOC said the initiative, which the Postal Service had in place between 2006 and 2011, subjected a class of employees to disparate treatment, a removal of reasonable accommodations without proving an undue burden, improper disclosure of medical information and general violations of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. USPS, under the direction of the commission, is in the process of notifying employees affected by the program of their potential eligibility to seek individual relief. The lawsuit commenced after an employee who suffered an on-the- job injury in 1997 was told in 2006 that under the National Reassessment Program her post-disability assignment had been deemed extraneous work and was escorted off the premises. USPS launched the program ostensibly as a "return-to-work" initiative that would also help eliminate "make-work" jobs that "did not contribute to or otherwise contribute to delivery of the mail," but would not serve as a cost savings project. In reality, EEOC found, USPS used the program for the objective of shedding employees who required special accommodations. When launching the program, USPS directed injury compensation specialists at 74 districts across the country to prepare account files for all employees classified as limited duty or in rehabilitation. The agency tasked district leaders with making every reasonable effort to identify positions for employees deemed to be in "make-work" jobs. If they could not find a modified position, they would notify employees there was "no work available," place them on leave without pay and escort them out of the facility. Over a six-year discovery process, EEOC found 15,000 employees were given new assignments and 10,000 were notified of "no work available." More than 100,000 employees either recovered and returned to their pre-injury positions or left the agency while the program was in place. USPS has fought back at every step of proceedings, saying the affected class did not have standing and its actions did not constitute any wrongdoing. EEOC affirmed an initial ruling by an administrative judge in finding the agency's true intentions were to rid itself of employees on "injured on duty," status rather than any legitimate operational objective. "In targeting IOD employees, officials acting under the auspices of the NRP had subjected them to disparate treatment because of their disabilities," EEOC said in its ruling. It went on to say, "In implementing the NRP, [USPS] officials disregarded the agency's obligations under the Rehabilitation Act, and had done so in a fashion that could only be described as cavalier." A wide array of internal documents and emails supported that claim, such as a 2010 "congratulatory" message from a district leader in Texas who praised his colleagues for reaching the goal of reducing injured employees "on rolls by 25 percent." The email played a song titled "Cripple Creek" as background music. In another email, a human resources manager sent a message to leaders including the postmaster general that said the reassessment program would reduce the number of IOD employees by 14,000. "Every one of these emails, and numerous others, lays bare the intensity with which the NRP teams at the agency's headquarters, areas, and districts pursued their goal of reducing the IOD rolls," EEOC said. "Their statements clearly and unequivocally contradict the stated explanation for the existence of the NRP as a means to eliminate unnecessary work." IOD employees were also subjected to a toxic work environment as a result of the program, EEOC said. Employees made comments in response to its announcement such as "was past due," "see you bums at Walmart," and "get rid of them all." "Throughout the agency there was a pervasive fear among IOD employees that being subjected to the NRP would cause them to lose their jobs with the agency and have to work in less- desirable jobs for employers such as Walmart or McDonald's, a fear that was stoked not only by managers but by other employees," EEOC said. The Postal Service stripped employees of the reasonable accommodations they had been provided without engaging in an interactive process with employees or considering their individual needs, EEOC found. In one case, an employee suffered a knee injury that prevented extended standing and in 2002 received a job as a safety instructor. In a 2010 NRP meeting, he was informed his job was no longer available and was sent home. Another employee spent 20 years in a limited-duty work position that involved administrative tasks, special projects and mail delivery before being let go under the reassessment program. USPS failed to ever define what actually constituted "necessary work," which ultimately hurt the agency. "None of that work disappeared after the IOD employees who had been doing it had left the premises," EEOC said. "Other employees had to step in and take over, which left many facilities short-staffed." The EEOC has already ruled the individual who brought the class action forward is entitled to attorney's fees and other "individual relief." Other members of the class must proactively file claims to prove they are members of the class and will then also be entitled to relief. The law firm Thomas & Solomon, which fought the case in front of EEOC, has launched a website to help impacted employees file claims, predicting USPS will fight back against every single individual. The American Postal Workers Union and National Association of Letter Carriers have estimated about 130,000 current and former employees may benefit from the EEOC decision. Thomas & Solomon has sent letters to members of the class in addition to USPS, which was required to notify those individuals of their eligibility to sign their names onto the suit within 10 days of EEOC's ruling. [GN] VISIONPRO CONNECTIONS: Fails to Pay Wages, Fearon Says ------------------------------------------------------ ROHAN FEARON, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. VISIONPRO CONNECTIONS, INC., d/b/a VISIONRPRO, VISIONPRO CORP. d/b/a VISIONPRO, VISIONPRO NETWORKS d/b/a VISIONPRO, and any other affiliated entities that employed Plaintiff and members of the Putative Class, the Defendants, Case No. 508064/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 20, 2018), seeks to recover wages and benefits to which the Plaintiffs were statutorily entitled to receive pursuant to New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, in April 2012, continuing through the present, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime and time and one-half their regular rate of pay; failed to reimburse Plaintiffs for business expenses borne for the benefit and convenience of the Defendants; and unlawfully deducted wages from Plaintiffs' paychecks. The Defendants paid Plaintiffs a piece rate for each job performed. The Defendants failed to ensure that Plaintiff and the Putative Class members were paid the appropriate overtime wage required under the NYLL. The Plaintiffs were required to use Defendants' company trucks when performing jobs for customers. From approximately April 2012 and, continuing through the present, the Plaintiffs were required to purchase their own equipment and tools, and pay the cost for parking incurred in furtherance of Defendants' business. Until approximately 2015, the Plaintiffs were also required to purchase their own gas, in furtherance of Defendants' business. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of deducting monies from its cable technicians' wages for, inter alia, missing cable boxes. The reduction of wages imposed by these deductions was not agreed upon in writing with the technicians in violation of the NYLL.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Class: Lloyd Ambinder, Esq. Michele Moreno, Esq. Joel Goldenberg, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 Facsimile: (212) 943 9082 E-mail: mmoreno@vandallp.com VOLKSWAGEN: Slovenian Consumer Watchdog Files Dieselgate Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers Weekly reports that the Slovenian consumer watchdog has filed a lawsuit on behalf of some 6,000 Slovenian consumers against Volkswagen in the global Dieselgate scandal. Given the "rulings in individual cases in German courts", the Slovenian Consumer Association head Breda Kutin believes the class action has "good chances for a positive outcome".[GN] VOYA FINANCIAL: Court Denies Filing of 1st Amended "Patrico" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LISA PATRICO, Plaintiff, v. VOYA FINANCIAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16 Civ. 7070 (LGS)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Lorna S. Schofiled of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The Plaintiff initiated the putative class action on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of the Nestle 401(k) Savings Plan and "All Other Similarly Situated Individual Account Plans" against Voya Financial; Voya Institutional Plan Services, LLC; Voya Investment Management, LLC; and Voya Retirement Advisors, LLC ("VRA"). The Plaintiff is a participant in the Plan which permits participants to invest the funds in their accounts using various investment vehicles. The "menu" of investment options is selected by the Plan's sponsor and named fiduciary, Nestle USA. Under an agreement between Nestle and Defendant Voya Institutional, Voya Institutional provides record-keeping and platform services to the Plan, including keeping track of Plan participants' assets, maintaining a call center and online web portal and preparing periodic account statements. The Administrative Services Agreement makes clear that Voya Institutional does not provide investment advisory services, including managed account services, to Plan participants. To provide Plan participants access to investment advice, Nestle entered into a separate Investment Advisory Services Agreement with Voya Institutional's subsidiary, Defendant VRA. Under the Nestle-VRA Agreement, VRA offers Plan participants two options for investment advice: a self-service, online program called "Personal Online Advisor," for which Nestle pays VRA a fixed "Platform Fee," and a managed account service called "Professional Account Manager," for which Nestle pays VRA both the Platform Fee and an additional fee based on the value of each participant's account. Although VRA offers these programs, Financial Engines Advisors, LLC provides the investment advice pursuant to an agreement between VRA and Financial Engines. Under that agreement, VRA agreed to provide its discretionary managed account portfolio management service, the Personal Asset Manager Program, to enable Advisor to brand and offer the same as the Professional Account Manager to Program and potential Program Participants. VRA's sub-advisory agreement with Financial Engines is disclosed in the Nestle-VRA Agreement and in a brochure for Plan participants about the program. The FAC alleges that by structuring its investment advisory program in this way, VRA received a fee for services that it did not provide and to which it was not entitled. Based on this alleged conduct, the FAC alleges that VRA and the other Defendants, including Voya Institutional and its parent Voya Financial, breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in prohibited transactions in violation of ERISA. Although the proposed FAC alleges seven more causes of action than the Complaint for a total of nine, both the Complaint and the FAC are based on substantially the same allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the Defendants and Nestle, a non-party. In an Opinion and Order dated June 20, 2017, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint, holding that it failed adequately to allege that any Defendant was an ERISA fiduciary with respect to the fees charged for the investment advice service, or that any ERISA fiduciary caused the Plan to pay those fees with actual or constructive knowledge that they were excessive. The Court further held that the Complaint failed to make any specific allegations as to Voya Financial, Voya Institutional and Voya Investment Management, LLC, and therefore that it failed to state a claim against them. Pursuant to the June 20, 2017, Order, the Plaintiffs were permitted to file a motion for leave to file a proposed amended complaint. The Plaintiff moves for leave to file the FAC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). Proposed Counts II, IV, V and VI allege that Voya Institutional and VRA breached their fiduciary duties, or in their capacity as Plan fiduciaries, engaged in prohibited transactions in violation of ERISA. Judge Schofield finds that each of these Counts would be futile as a matter of law because the FAC does not adequately allege that Voya Institutional or VRA were Plan fiduciaries with respect to the challenged conduct. Count III alleges that VRA engaged in a prohibited transaction under ERISA Section 406(b)(2) based on VRA's conduct in marketing Financial Engines' services to the Plans for a fee. The Judge says this claim also would be futile because the FAC does not plead sufficiently that VRA was a fiduciary with respect to the challenged action. The Judge also finds that Count I, which alleges that Voya Financial, Voya Institutional and VRA knowingly participated in Nestle's violation of ERISA Section 406(a), fails because the FAC fails to allege sufficient facts that Nestle engaged in a prohibited transaction by paying allegedly excessive fees to VRA. Count VII alleges that that Voya Institutional received a prohibited "kickback" in violation of ERISA Sec 406(b)(3) because it received dividend payments from VRA, its subsidiary, in connection with Financial Engines' services. She says this claim would be futile because the FAC does not allege that Voya Institutional was a fiduciary with respect to the challenged conduct. Finally, as to Counts VIII and IX which seek equitable relief under ERISA Section 502(a)(3) from Voya Financial and Voya Institutional based on their allegedly benefiting from VRA's "ill-gotten" fees, Judge Schofield holds that the FAC's claims for equitable relief under Section 502(a)(3) are derivative of its breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction claims. Because the FAC fails to allege that any ERISA fiduciary violated ERISA, the FAC's claims for equitable relief necessarily fail. Accordingly, Judge Schofield denied as futile the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file the FAC because none of the claims could survive a motion to dismiss. She directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket No. 73 and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/41iu4A from Leagle.com. Lisa Patrico, On Behalf of The Nestle 401(K) Savings Plan and All Other Similarly Situated Individual Account Plans, Plaintiff, represented by Ellen T. Noteware -- enoteware@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., James A. Bloom, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Thomas Johnson, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, Shanon Jude Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Todd S. Collins -- tcollins@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Todd Michael Schneider -- tschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP & John Joseph Nestico, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLC. Voya Financial, Inc., Voya Institutional Plan Services, LLC, Voya Investments Management, LLC & Voya Retirement Advisors, LLC, Defendants, represented by Robert Wagner Diubaldo -- rdiubaldo@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., James F. Jorden -- jjorden@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, Richard D. Euliss -- reuliss@carltonfields.com - - Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Waldemar J. Pflepsen -- wpflepsen@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., pro hac vice & William Glenn Merten -- gmerten@carltonfields.com -- Jorden Burt LLP, pro hac vice. WALMART: Block & Leviton Files RICO Class Action in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Block & Leviton LLP on April 9 disclosed that it has filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against Walmart (WMT), Bloomingdales, DSW (NYSE: DSW), Burlington (NYSE: BURL), and other leading retailers (the "Retailer Defendants") asserting, on behalf of its clients, claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). The suit alleges that the Retailer Defendants have participated in a long-running racketeering scheme with a Utah company, Corrective Education Company ("CEC"), which operates a program that a California court recently described as "textbook extortion." The case was filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California and is captioned Doe v. Walmart, et al., No. 5:18-cv- 02125 (N.D. Cal.). The lawsuit alleges that the Retailer Defendants have been detaining people at their stores, accusing them of shoplifting, and then offering a choice: pay $400 to $500 to CEC or be reported to criminal authorities. "This case is intended to prove that we are all equal under the law," said Block & Leviton partner, Jason Leviton -- jason@blockesq.com -- "Our country's racketeering and extortion laws apply with equal force whether you're a common street hoodlum or one of the Harvard MBAs who founded CEC. We're trying to stop these illegal shakedowns and get compensation for victims." For more information or to view a copy of the complaint, please visit http://www.blockesq.com/cec If you have information relevant to this matter or would like additional information about your legal rights, please contact Jason Leviton, Joel Fleming, or Jacob Walker of Block & Leviton at 617.398.5600. Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with information relevant to this matter is assured. Based in Boston, Oakland, and Washington, D.C., Block & Leviton LLP is a class-action law firm, representing consumers, employees, and investors nationwide. [GN] WEBSTER INDUSTRIES: Nominee Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ ADAM NOMINEE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WEBSTER INDUSTRIES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00910-JZ (N.D. Ohio, April 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins were "employees" within the meaning of the FLSA. The Defendant's hourly, non-exempt employees included Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins. Pursuant to Defendant's uniform companywide policy, the Defendant does count as hours worked the time that Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins spend performing pre-shift work. Such preshift work includes, but is not limited to, collecting and donning certain clothing and personal protective equipment. The Defendant requires that Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins be ready to start their workday promptly at the beginning of their shifts. To do so, the Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins must collect and do certain clothing and personal protective equipment before the start of their shifts. These pre-shift activities, which were performed for Defendant's benefit, were an integral and indispensable part of Plaintiff's and the Opt-Ins' principal activities. The Defendant arbitrarily failed to count this pre-shift work performed by Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins as "hours worked." The Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins performed this unpaid work every workday, and it constituted a part of their fixed and regular workday. The Plaintiff estimates that he spent approximately 30- 45 minutes performing this preshift work per week. This unpaid work performed by Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins was practically ascertainable to Defendant. The Defendant's practice of not paying for this pre-shift work results and has resulted in Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins not being paid all of their overtime on a nearly daily basis. The Plaintiff and each Opt-In have each worked a substantial number of uncompensated hours during the three-year period immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint, which has resulted in unpaid overtime. Webster Industries develops and manufactures conveyor chains. It provides malleable iron castings, cast chains, chain sprockets, SBR chains, combination chains, elevator buckets, HSB chains, and mill and drag chains; and steel belt conveyors, such as apron conveyors and piano hinge conveyors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER, LLC 7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D Massillon, Ohio 44646 Telephone: (330) 470 4428 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com XUNLEI: CEO Says No Basis for Investors' ICO Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------- Saheli Roy Choudhury, writing for CNBC.com, reports that the CEO of Chinese tech company Xunlei said on April 9 there was no basis for the multiple class action lawsuits his company received from investors. That followed an announcement from the firm last year that it would use blockchain technology and cryptocurrency for its cloud computing services. The lawsuits allege that Xunlei -- which is publicly listed in New York -- knowingly participated in unlawful initial coin offerings (ICOs), and made false statements about the legitimacy of those activities that had an impact on the stock price, according to a report from CoinDesk. The company sells a device called OneThing Cloud that lets users share idle computing resources such as bandwidth and storage in exchange for a digital token called LinkToken. Those digital assets can be redeemed for other services from the company, it says. Xunlei uses the spare bandwidth and storage to create enterprise- level cloud computing services that are sold to other firms. The company claims its model means cloud services at a relatively lower cost. The Chinese tech company announced its cryptocurrency project last October after Beijing banned firms from raising new funds by issuing virtual coins. Xunlei CEO Lei Chen told CNBC's Akiko Fujita and Martin Soong that his company did not break any rules with the cryptocurrency project. "We didn't make a public offering of a coin," Chen said at the annual Boao Forum for Asia on April 10. "By making a public offering, really you need to use it to raise money. We have never used a coin to raise any money at all, that's never our intention." He explained that the digital token would allow transparent bookkeeping for the computing resources that users share on the company's cloud platform. "We are a small capital company, so our stock price does fluctuate, but I don't think there's any basis for the lawsuit because we're operating in China and it is the Chinese law and regulations that we need to observe," Mr. Chen said. "So the definition of ICO has to be interpreted in the Chinese market," he added. Xunlei's board also said in an open letter last year that it would require the real identities of participants in its cryptocurrency project and measures would be taken to stop illegal transactions, according to local media reports. But plaintiffs in the lawsuits allege that the tokens are like an ICO because the company requires users to first buy the hardware before they can receive the tokens, according to the CoinDesk report. Still, Xunlei's stock price has suffered: Shares fell nearly 21 percent in March. [GN] * Lawyers Prepare Class Action in Victoria v. Construction Cos. --------------------------------------------------------------- Duncan Hughes, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that a $4.2 billion class action on behalf of about 250,000 owners and residents of about 1400 apartments is being planned in Victoria as the first stage in a national campaign against construction companies to compensate for the costs of replacing combustible cladding. Law firm Adley Burstyner and Roscon Property Services are preparing the first round of legal actions on behalf of Victorian owners that is expected to roll on to NSW, non-residential buildings, then other states and territories. The law firm is seeking registrations of interest to establish whether there is enough backing to make the case worthwhile. "Urgency is needed. But the tragedy is that it can take all too long," said Adley Burstyner's principal lawyer, David Burstyner -- dburstyner@adleyburstyner.com.au -- about the risk to owners and occupants of high-rise towers that have been fitted with flammable cladding. They are targeting large building companies including Hickory Building, Hamilton Marino, LU Simon Builders and Probuild. "A group claim -- or class action -- is superior because not only does it give the claim group enough legal and financial muscle for court proceedings against powerful and aggressive opponents, it also it enables a single settlement and ends the uncertainty caused by the potential for multiple actions to be spread over years," Mr Burstyner said. "Architects may want to blame engineers, the engineers may blame building surveyors, who may want to blame the builders. This settles all claims in one go with a court order prohibiting future claims -- a builder will not have to hold back out of fear of copycat claims." In Melbourne, a fire in 2014 raced up 13 floors of the Lacrosse building in Docklands in about 10 minutes, leading to the evacuation of more than 450 people. Apartment owners are fighting LU Simon over who should pay the costs of replacing the cladding in the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal in a case due to start in September. It is unclear how the class action bid will be affected by this case. Mr Burstyner estimated a class action seeking rectification and compensation for losses caused by defective cladding could take between one and three years. The firm is considering no-win, no-fee payment as a way of securing outcomes for the owners' corporation without them having to bring a special resolution with a 75 per cent majority, which is difficult to achieve because of high numbers of detached and passive investors. NSW has identified 1000 buildings with potentially dangerous combustible cladding, and Victoria has drawn up a list of 1400. About 96 per cent of building permits in Victoria are not compliant, according to an Auditor-General's investigation. More than eight in 10 NSW apartments have defects, according to a University of NSW report in 2012. The average cost of cladding replacement on a high-rise building is between $40,000 and $60,000 per unit, according to building specialists. "We have tried relentlessly to civilly resolve cladding matters with builders without any luck for stakeholders, so this is the next logical step," said Sahil Bhasin, Roscon's national general manager. "Each owners' corporation should not have to spend $100,000-plus in the legal system to achieve an outcome; this will be a great result for stakeholders." Mr Bhasin warned that outer-suburban buildings under seven floors are "ticking time bombs" because they generally do not have sprinkler systems installed. The planned action follows a Victorian Supreme Court ruling that the Victorian Building Authority, a government agency, no longer has authority to order builders to rectify cladding defects. That means it is individual apartment owners -- or the owners' corporations -- that need to ensure their buildings are safe from serious fire risks. Fears have been heightened by last year's fire in the 24-storey Grenfell Tower, in east London, which killed 71 people. Government inquiries have made extensive recommendations about lowering the risk of fire and improving building materials. [GN] * New Class-Action Created in Montreal Judicial District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Cardwell, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the creation of a new class-action division in the Montreal judicial district that will be devoted to hearing all authorization demands is expected to both speed up and improve the management of cases by a select group of judges who are experienced and interested in that area of law. But it is also expected to change the way lawyers prepare and practise in the filtering phases of the highly popular civil lawsuits in a jurisdiction that is widely seen as class-action friendly. Announced by Superior Court of Quebec Chief Justice Jacques Fournier and co-ordinating Judge Pierre-C. Gagnon at a standing- room-only meeting organized by the Barreau du Quebec's decade-old committee on class actions in the provincial regulator's offices on Jan. 12, the new division will feature a group of 10 judges who will collectively handle all class action filings as of Sept. 1. If and when filings are authorized, they will be reassigned to the other 63 Superior Court judges who work in Montreal for litigation management. In a presentation on the new group presented by Justice Gagnon, the justices list a series of motivating factors for introducing the new class action management framework. Chief among them is the increased workload related to class action suits in Quebec since the enactment of the new Code of Civil Procedure in 2016. According to the data provided by the justices, 65 new class actions were filed in Montreal in 2017, bringing the total number of active cases (including pre- and post-authorization and at the liquidation stage) to 338. Of those 338 cases, 155 are in the pre-authorization phase, 100 are in post-authorization, 16 are in appeal, 40 are in liquidation, 37 are suspended and 56 were orphaned. On average, the 73 Superior Court justices in Montreal handle four or five cases each. However, the varied nature and complexity of those cases, together with regular events among the justices such as retirements, nominations to the Court of Appeal of Quebec and special assignments, have resulted in some cases taking two years or more in the pre-authorization stage. Adding to the delays is the fact that the justices were dealing with these cases on judge days, which created work overloads, scheduling challenges and limited opportunities to hear from parties. Those delays in today's post-Jordan legal environment have drawn sharp criticism from other justices. Court of Appeal of Quebec Judge Marie-France Bich slammed the Superior Court of Quebec's handling of class action pre-authorization filings in a six- paragraph rebuke in paragraph 69-75 in the 2016 decision in Charles v. Boiron. To accelerate matters, the group of 10 judges in the new division will take all cases in which authorization has not been decided, which is estimated to be an annual average of 15 or 16 each. The other group of 63 judges will then manage litigation in one or two authorized cases a year. "The goal is to streamline the process and point cases to judges who are most comfortable with class actions," says Jean Saint- Onge, senior counsel with Borden Ladner Gervais LLP and moderator of the January meeting. He also chairs the Barreau's committee on class actions, which has been quietly lobbying for the creation of the new division, and organizes Canada's most high-profile annual conference on the subject, which took place in March in Montreal. According to Mr. Saint-Onge, the 10 judges who have been tapped for the new group are the most experienced Superior Court justices in class action cases in Montreal. He says several of them, including Donald Bisson, Chantal Chatelain, Gary Morrison and Chantal Tremblay, also worked extensively in class actions before being named to the bench. "They are the most comfortable with class actions," says Mr. Saint-Onge. The new division, he adds, will help the 10 judges deal with the specific rules of procedure that make the first certification or authorization stage a complex area of law in of itself. "The growing number and complexity of cross-border and multi- jurisdictional cases means case law is evolving all the time," says Mr. Saint-Onge. "We need judges with an up-to-date, overall picture of class actions and who know the players." He says a letter sent to the justices in early February by Quebec Barreau president Paul-Matthieu Grondin that praises the initiative and offers the regulator's "collaboration to help ensure its success" also reflects the positive reactions he's heard from Quebec lawyers in the field of class action. "I haven't heard anything negative," says Mr. Saint-Onge. For Vincent de l'Etoile -- vincent.deletoile@langlois.ca -- a partner in Langlois's litigation group, who works almost exclusively defending class actions for large corporate clients in Quebec and across Canada, the new division will almost certainly help the system deal more efficiently and predictably with the increasing number of cases. But he says there is a risk that over time the 10 judges could develop a stringent jurisprudence that could "do away with the legal intricacies of cases and formulate an approach that will not be applicable to all cases." He also believes the advent of the new division -- and the fact that the judge will change if and when authorization is granted - - means lawyers will likely change their courtroom approach in the pre-authorization stage. "I think lawyers will feel less a need to build relationships with judges from day one and educate the court by explaining what the case is all about," says Mr. de l'Etoile. "Arguments will likely become more succinct." [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. * * * End of Transmission * * *