/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180509.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 9, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 93 Headlines 1 PERSON AT A TIME: Seeks Approval of Settlement in "White" Suit 8POINT3 ENERGY: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action Suit ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Gross Moves to Certify Two Classes Under FCRA AESOP USA: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Claims ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Renvall Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages ALEC MITCHELL: Hernandez Sues over Unsolicited Fax Advertisement ALLEN & MILLER: Prendergast Sues over Debt Collection Practices ALPINE SITE: O'Loughlin Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA AMCO INSURANCE: Thorpe Sues over Spam Text Messages APEX HEALTHCARE: Karon Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls APPLE INC: Shegerian & Associates Files Class Action Lawsuit ARSTRAT COLLECTIONS: Saget Sues over Debt Collection Practices AUTOMOTIVE PARTS: August 1 Settlement Approval Hearing Set BARNES & NOBLE: 7th Cir. Reinstates Data Breach Class Action BC LIBERAL PARTY: Judge Strikes Down Proposed Class Action Suit BIDDING UNLIMITED: Payton Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls BIG CHIEF: Misclassified Welders, "Young" Suit Claims BILLY REID: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Fischler Claims BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: "Mayes" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class CALIF OFF TRACK WAGERING: Fails to Pay Straight-Time & OT Wages CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Figueroa" Suit in California Over ATM Fees CAREFIRST INC: SCOTUS Denies Petition for Writ of Certiorari CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Class Cert. Bid Deadline Moved to Aug. 6 CBOE EXCHANGE: Manipulated VIX Trading, Siegel Alleges CBOE GLOBAL: Manipulated VIX Trading, Terwilliger Claims CENTURY FENCE: Fails to Pay Legally Required Wages, Reilly Says CHEROKEE ROCK: Strickland Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA CHICAGO, IL: Judge Throws Out Lead Pipes Class-Action Lawsuit COCA-COLA COMPANY: "Robles" Suit Moved to C.D. California COLONY NORTHSTAR: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action COMMERCEHUB INC: Gordon Balks at GTCR LLC Merger Deal COMMUNITY INSURANCE: Denied Health Plan Benefits, A.G. Suit Says DEVILLE ASSET: Green Sues over Debt Collections Practices DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed DOORDASH INC: Sahito Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE: "Margaryan" Suit Seeks to Certify Class DUPONT: Plaintiffs Respond to Bid to Dismiss GenX Suit DUKE UNIVERSITY: Workers Get Class Status in Retirement Challenge EMERGENCY CONSULTANTS: Keller Seeks to Certify FLSA Class ENHANCED RECOVERY: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in "Johnson" Okayed EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Inscho Sues over Background Check ERICSSON: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action EVANGELINE PARISH: Settlements Resolve Investigative Holds Suits EXTRUDEX ALUMINUM: Martin Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA FACEBOOK INC: Skotnicki Sues over Illegal Access of User Data FAIRMOUNT SANTROL: Klein Balks at Unimin Corp. Merger Deal FOCUS RECEIVABLES: Bond Seeks to Certify Class in Robocalls Suit FULFILLMENT LAB: Malet-Jowett Asks Court to Certify Class FUN EATS: Lopez Sues over "Tip Credit" System GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Tarkowskis Sue over Zofran's Side Effects GLAZE DONUTS: Underpays Bakers, "Tapia" Suit Claims GOOGLE INC: Female Engineer's Fight for Equal Pay GOPRO INC: July 27 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set GRAND ISLE: "Sandlin" Suit Has Conditional Class Certification GUARDIAN LIFE: Web Sites Are Blind-Inaccessible, Young Says HEALTHCARE SERVICE: Terrys Sue over Air Transport Ambulance Fee HOMELAND SECURITY: Parton Sues over Gov't Employees Data Breach HYO DONG GAK: "Zhinin" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Class Certification Denied without Prejudice IRON CONTAINER: Rodriguez-Tellez Seeks Unpaid OT Wage under FLSA JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Mihalich" Suit Moved to S.D. Illinois JUST BORN: Escobar Seeks to Certify Hot Tamales Purchasers Class KOHN LAW: Stanaszak Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification KRATON CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit KRISPY KREME: Faces Another Lawsuit Over Fruit-Flavored Doughnuts LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: October 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set LEXINGTON INSURANCE: "Franklin" Suit Moved to W.D. Missouri LIBERTY STUDENT: Sadrarhami Sues over Marketing Phone Calls LORALI BUILDING: Acceptance Distances from Tenancy Class Suit LOWE'S COMPANIES: Reetz Sues over 401(k) Plan Investment Losses LTI TRUCKING: "Ratliff" Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction LUX VENDING: Accused by "Dunleavey" Class Suit of Violating TCPA MACY'S FLORIDA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Haynes Claims MASSACHUSETTS: Bell Sues over Assaults & Inhumane Treatment MDL 2804: Trial Date Set for Opioid Class-Action MDLIVE INC: "Mezzasalma" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Jones et al. Sue over Inflated DRAM Prices MEDCARE INVESTMENT: Certification of Employees Class Sought MESILLA VALLEY TRANS: "Ratliff" Suit Dismissed MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Steamfitters Alleges Securities Violations MONAT GLOBAL: Hair Care Products Have Harmful Effects, Row Claims MONSANTO COMPANY: Caminiti Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Bradleys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Harleys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Johnson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Torres Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MUZZY'S DAY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and OT, Knight Says MY FINANCIAL: Karon Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls NANO: "Brola" Suit Seeks to Recover Purchases, Investments in XRB NARS COSMETICS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Says OAK LODGE: Settlement Reached in "Jenkins" Class Suit OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Lawsuit OMEGA PROJECT: Schubert Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA PATTERSON COS: May 29 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline PERSONAL HOME: "Fayer" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA PETROFORCE ENERGY: Brooking, et al. Sue over Securities Fraud PHYSICIANS LABORATORIES: "Rivas" Suit Moved to C.D. California PLAZA SERVICES: Reddick Sues over Debt Collections Practices PLY GEM: Court Dismisses Stockholder Litigation Suit QUALITY INTEGRATED: McElveen Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA QUINSTREET INC: Reed Alleges Misleading Financial Statements QWEST CORPORATION: Seiffert Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA RAINBOW SHOPS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Fischler Says RED PAYMENTS: Roller Sues over Phony Customer Accounts RESTAURANT BRANDS: Failed to Honour Terms, Franchisee Claims ROUND ROCK: Stone Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA RSP PERMIAN: "Murphy" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA RUSSO BROTHERS: Guzman Seeks Payment of Overtime & Earned Wages SELECT PORTFOLIO: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Bivens" Suit SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action T-MOBILE US: Pritchett Sues over Unsolicited Text Ads TALLGRASS ENERGY: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action TERRA'S KITCHEN: Lopez Sues over Auto-Renewal of Services TOOTSIE ROLL: Lawsuit Asks Junior Mints to Fill Box TOUCHPOINT 360: Arugu Seeks to Certify Class of Unpaid Workers TRUECAR INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action Suit UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fridman Files 1st Suit over Spam Text Messages UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fridman Files 2nd Suit over Spam Text Messages UNITED OF OMAHA: "Bentley" Suit Granted Class Certification WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed WALGREENS.COM: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Haynes Claims WIRELESSPCS CHICAGO: "Hunter" Class Suit Underway XSPORT FITNESS: Motion to Certify Class Continued, Court Says ********* 1 PERSON AT A TIME: Seeks Approval of Settlement in "White" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the lawsuit styled MARK WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 1 PERSON AT A TIME, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01047-NBF (W.D. Pa.), jointly move the Court for an order: -- certifying the proposed class; -- preliminarily approving the terms of the proposed class action settlement agreement; -- approving the form and method of providing notice of the settlement to the members of the class; and -- scheduling a final fairness hearing in this matter. A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NVHom6sb The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com jetzel@carlsonlynch.com kabramowicz@carlsonlynch.com The Defendant is represented by: Marla N. Presley, Esq. Joanna M. Rodriguez, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 1001 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1000 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 232-0404 Facsimile: (412) 232-3441 E-mail: Marla.Presley@jacksonlewis.com Joanna.Rodriguez@jacksonlewis.com 8POINT3 ENERGY: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Notice is hereby given that Monteverde & Associates PC has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for The Northern District of California, case no. 3:18-cv-01989-SI, on behalf of shareholders of 8point3 Energy Partners LP, ("8point3 Energy " or the "Company") (NasdaqGS: CAFD) who held 8point3 Energy securities and have been harmed by 8point3 Energy and its board of directors' (the "Board") for alleged violations of Sections 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the sale of the Partnership to Capital Dynamics. Under the terms of the agreement each common share of 8point3 Energy will be converted into the right to receive $12.35 per share. The complaint alleges that this offer is inadequate and alleges that the proxy statement (the "Proxy") provides materially incomplete and misleading information about the Company's financials and the transaction, in violation of Sections 14(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. 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. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America Telephone:: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Gross Moves to Certify Two Classes Under FCRA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled THOMAS GROSS, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADVANCED DISPOSAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-01920-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla.), moves the Court to certify this Fair Credit Reporting Act case as a class action for two distinct national classes of consumers: (1) Background Check Class: All ADS Inc. employees and job applicants in the United States who were the subject of a consumer report that was procured by ADS Inc. within two years of the filing of this complaint through the date of final judgment in this action as required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2)(A) and as to whom ADS Inc. used the purported disclosure and authorization form, or substantially similar forms, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and (2) Adverse Action Class: All ADS Inc. employees and prospective employees in the United States against whom adverse employment action was taken by ADS based, in whole or in part, on information contained in a consumer report obtained within two years of the filing of this complaint through the date of final judgment in this action, and who were not provided the proper pre-adverse notice as required under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3)(A). The Defendant is a solid waste company that provides services to residential, commercial, and industrial consumers. As do many employers, the Plaintiff contends, ADS obtains employment-purpose consumer reports (commonly known as "background checks") for use in its hiring process. He alleges that, among other things, ADS unlawfully obtained his consumer report because ADS never had his lawful authorization to do so. Mr. Gross also asks the Court to designate him as Class Representative, to appoint his counsel and their firm and members as class counsel, to and allow them to notify the Class members. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OAem2Bvr The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, #700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 33802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com The Defendant is represented by: Jacqueline Simms-Petredis, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 3200 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 367-5751 E-mail: jsimms-petredis@burr.com - and - K. Bryance Metheny, Esq. Hilson H. Carlton, Esq., Burr & Forman LLP 420 North 20th Street, Suite 3400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 458-5178 E-mail: Bmetheny@burr.com Hcarlton@burr.com AESOP USA: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Claims -------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AESOP USA, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03792-VSB (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2018), seeks permanent injunction to cause Aesop to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff, who is legally blind, brings this civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.aesop.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Olsen and other blind or visually-impaired people. Aesop denies full and equal access to its Website. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, asserts claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law against Aesop.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Christopher H. Low, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392 4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Renvall Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- KATIE RENVALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00809-H-NLS (S.D. Cal., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Albertsons Companies LLC in negligently, knowingly, or willfully transmitting unsolicited, autodialed SMS or MMS text messages, en masse, to Plaintiff's cellular device and the cellular devices of numerous other individuals across the country, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant directed an unsolicited text message to Plaintiff's cellular device by transmitting the message to a cellular telephone number that bears an area code (619) corresponding to a location in Southern District of California. The Plaintiff became distracted and aggravated as a result of receiving Defendant's unsolicited text message advertisement. The Defendant operates and maintains numerous brick-and-mortar grocery stores, and is the second-largest supermarket chain in North America.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. David W. Hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 766 3534 Facsimile: (415) 402 0058 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com dhall@hedinhall.com - and - Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq. Albert Y. Chang, Esq. Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914 2001 Facsimile: (858) 914 2002 E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com achang@bottinilaw.com ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com ALEC MITCHELL: Hernandez Sues over Unsolicited Fax Advertisement ---------------------------------------------------------------- OREN HERNANDEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALEC MITCHELL, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-60989-BB (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2018), seeks to recover statutory damages against Defendant for unsolicited facsimile advertisement promoting its goods and/or services that was negligently sent to a telephone facsimile machine that did not contain a Telephone Consumer Protection Act compliant opt-out notice. This is a class action alleging that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and implementing regulations by sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements to persons and entities that do not contain the legally required opt-out language. On April 4, 2018, the Plaintiff received the Facsimile Advertisement, which indicates that the sender purchases trucks, cargo vans, sprinters, and pick-up trucks. An investigation revealed that the contact information provided on the Facsimile Advertisement is linked to Defendant Mitchell. The Defendant caused and authorized a third-party to transmit the Facsimile Advertisement promoting Defendant Mitchell's goods and/or services to Plaintiff's telephone facsimile machine at 954-753- 2063. The Advertisement failed to contain an opt-out notice stating that the recipient may make a request to the sender not to send any future faxes and that failure to comply with the request within 30 days is unlawful. The Defendant sent similar unsolicited facsimile advertisements without compliant opt-out notices to the telephone facsimile machines of other persons and entities. By sending the Facsimile Advertisement, the Defendant harmed the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class by shifting the cost of adverting to the consumer in violation of the TCPA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Heller, Esq. Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin FL 34698 Telephone: (305) 323 6433 E-mail: shawn@sjlawcollective.com josh@sjlawcollective.com - and - Peter Bennett, Esq. Richard Bennett, Esq. BENNETT & BENNETT 1200 Anastasia Ave., Ofc 360 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 444 5925 E-mail: peterbennettlaw@gmail.com richardbennett27@gmail.com ALLEN & MILLER: Prendergast Sues over Debt Collection Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- KENICKAY PRENDERGAST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLEN, MILLER & GREENE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-60972-UU (S.D. Fla., April 29, 2018), seeks redress for unlawful conduct of Defendant relating to dispatching thousands of unlawful collection letters to Florida consumers, whereby such letters in violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The FDCPA "is a consumer protection statute that 'imposes open- ended prohibitions on, inter alia, false, deceptive, or unfair'" debt-collection practices. Congress enacted the FDCPA after noting abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors." The Defendant has allegedly dispatched thousands of unlawful collection letters to Florida consumers in an attempt to collect consumer debts while neglecting to adequately provide consumers with information guaranteed to them under the FDCPA. The debt at issue (consumer debt) is the amount Plaintiff allegedly owes the current creditor, whoever that may be. The consumer debt is a "debt governed by the FDCPA. See 15 U.S.C section 1692a(5). The Plaintiff is a "consumer" within the meaning of the FDCPA. The Defendant is a "debt collector" as defined by the FDCPA. On February 12, 2018, the Defendant sent a collection letter to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the Consumer Debt. Section 1692g of the FDCPA requires debt collectors to make certain disclosures, and/or provide consumers with certain information, depending on the circumstances. In the second sentence of the excerpt depicted above from the Collection Letter, Defendant omits material language that it is required to include pursuant to the FDCPA. Defendant has a duty to adequately advises Plaintiff and members of the class of their rights under section 1692g of the FDCPA. Here, in the Collection Letter, the Defendant states: "If you notify this office in writing within 30 days from receiving this notice, this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment and mail you a copy of judgment or verification." The Defendant failed to inform Plaintiff and members of the class that Plaintiff would need to notify Defendant "that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed" in order to invoke her rights under Sec. 1692g(a)(4) of the FDCPA. See 15 U.S.C section 1692g(4). Furthermore, nowhere in the Collection Letter does it state who the current creditor of the debt is as Defendant is required to clearly and effectively disclose pursuant to 15 U.S.C section 1692g(a)(2) of the FDCPA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954 907 1136 Facsimile: 855 529 9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com ALPINE SITE: O'Loughlin Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------- JEFF T. O'LOUGHLIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALPINE SITE SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01346 (S.D. Tex., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage & Hour Law, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. According to its website, Alpine tests and installs engineered screwpiles for commercial construction projects, including power stations, oil and gas refineries and natural gas plants. Alpine employed O'Loughlin as a laborer, machine operator and welder during the last three years. During O'Loughlin's employment with Alpine, he worked in Texas, Louisiana, Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Alpine paid O'Loughlin on an hourly basis. During O'Loughlin's employment with Alpine, he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Alpine, though, allegedly did not pay O'Loughlin for all of the hours that he worked, and it did not count all of the hours that O'Loughlin worked towards its obligation to pay overtime. Alpine knew or reasonably should have known that O'Loughlin worked in excess of forty hours per week. Alpine did not pay O'Loughlin overtime as required by 29 U.S.C. section 207(a)(1) for the hours he worked in excess of 40 per week. Instead, Alpine failed to pay for all of the hours that O'Loughlin worked and to count all of the hours that O'Loughlin worked towards its obligation to pay overtime.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222 6775 Facsimile: (713) 222 6739 AMCO INSURANCE: Thorpe Sues over Spam Text Messages --------------------------------------------------- CHRIS THORPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMCO INSURANCE AGENCIES, INC., a Texas corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01393 (S.D. Tex., May 1, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted autodialed text messages to cellular telephones without consent, and to obtain redress, including injunctive relief, for all persons injured by its conduct. The Defendant is an insurance agency that provides consumers with various choices of insurance plans and provides guidance to consumers on which insurance option to choose. Unsolicited telemarketing is a common practice among companies trying to increase their customer base. Text message marketing has become more common in recent years as cell phone use increases. Unfortunately for consumers, the Defendant sends text messages to consumers who have not signed up for Defendant's services. That is, in an attempt to solicit a response from consumers who have not signed up for Defendant's services, and to ultimately increase Defendant's revenue by encouraging consumers to purchase its services, the Defendant conducted (and continues to conduct) a wide-scale solicitation campaign that features the sending of unsolicited text messages to consumers' cellular telephones -- without consent, all in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, by sending the unsolicited text messages, Defendant caused Plaintiff and the other members of the Class actual harm and cognizable legal injury. This includes the aggravation and nuisance, and invasions of privacy that result from the sending and receipt of such text messages, a loss of value realized for the monies consumers paid to their carriers for the receipt of such text messages, and a loss of the use and enjoyment of their phones, including wear and tear to the related data, memory, software, hardware, and battery components, among other harms.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative Class: Jason Johnson, Esq. TERREL LAW GROUP 8303 Southwest Freeway #450 Houston, TX 77074 Telephone: (346) 718 8286 E-mail: Jjohnson@terrellawgroup.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 23rd floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333 9427 Facsimile: (888) 498 8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469 5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com APEX HEALTHCARE: Karon Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL KARON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. APEX HEALTHCARE ADVISORS, INC., a Florida corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00999 (N.D. Ohio, May 1, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing calls using "an artificial or prerecorded voice" to the telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent; stop the Defendant from calling consumers who are registered on the National Do Not Call Registry; and obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. Apex Healthcare, both directly and through unincorporated alter- egos, purports to be a broker for consumer's seeking health insurance. In reality, Apex Healthcare is a lead generation business, obtaining and selling consumer leads to brokers and agents. For example, on a call with Plaintiff, Defendant's agent referred to the entity calling as "Health Registration Center." Health Registration Center appears to be the operator of six call centers in South Florida, one of which shares the same address, down to the suite number, as Apex Healthcare. The Complaint notes that in recent years, insurance firms such as Apex Healthcare have turned to unsolicited telemarketing as a way to increase its customer base. Widespread telemarketing is a primary method by which Apex Healthcare solicits new customers. The TCPA prohibits companies, such as Apex Healthcare, from placing calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice when making calls to residential telephones without first obtaining consent. Apex Healthcare has violated, and continues to violate, the TCPA and its implementing regulations by placing prerecorded calls to residential telephone subscribers (a) who have not expressly consented to receiving such calls and/or (b) who have expressly requested not to receive such calls. Despite the FCC's ruling, the industry guidelines, and the commercial availability of programs that help callers filter out non-consenting numbers, Apex Healthcare fails to take the necessary steps to ensure that its prerecorded calls are placed only to consenting recipients. Rather, in an effort to increase revenue and skirt additional costs, Apex Healthcare simply ignores the law when contacting individuals via prerecorded calls to their residential telephones. Apex Healthcare knows or should know that its prerecorded calls are placed to non-consenting residential telephone subscribers. Ultimately, Apex Healthcare is responsible for verifying telephone number ownership and obtaining consent before placing prerecorded calls to residential telephone subscribers Apex Healthcare was, and is, aware that its unsolicited prerecorded calls were, and are, unauthorized as it fails to obtain prior express written consent before placing those calls to consumers. Ultimately, consumers are forced to bear the costs of receiving these unsolicited prerecorded calls. Telemarketers can easily and inexpensively avoid calling consumers who are registered on the National Do Not Call Registry by "scrubbing" their call lists against the National Do Not Call Registry database. The scrubbing process identifies those numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, allowing telemarketers to remove those numbers and ensure that no calls are placed to consumers whom opt-out of telemarketing calls. To avoid violating the TCPA by calling registered numbers, telemarketers must scrub their call lists against the Registry at least once every 31 days.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Adam T. Savett, Esq. SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC 2764 Carole Lane Allentown, PA 18104 Telephone: (610) 621 4550 Facsimile: (610) 978 2970 E-mail: adam@savettlaw.com APPLE INC: Shegerian & Associates Files Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Carney Shegerian, Esq. -- cshegerian@shegerianlaw.com -- trial lawyer and founder of the Los Angeles-based employment discrimination firm Shegerian & Associates, recently announced a class action lawsuit against Apple, Inc. alleging that Apple has and continues to violate the California Equal Pay Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act by paying women Experts less than it pays men for equal or similar work. In June 2011, Shegerian & Associates client Camille Wade began working for Apple as a specialist at the Apple Store in Los Angeles, California, and was thereafter promoted to the position of "Expert". From then until January 2017, Wade was a full-time employee, at which point she inquired about moving to a part-time Expert position due to family matters. Her supervisor expressed two part-time Expert openings, and assured Wade that male Experts who switched from full-time to part-time were able to maintain their current pay rate. In March 2017, Wade was offered a part-time Expert position, however unlike male employees, her hourly rate was decreased by $2.00 per hour from her full-time hourly rate. She accepted the position working at the reduced rate performing the same or similar work to her male Expert counterparts until December 2017. "The treatment of long time Apple Expert Camille Wade and all of her female counterparts is not only morally wrong but is illegal," said Carney Shegerian. "Regardless of gender, all employees should be treated fairly and equally." "Apple didn't just violate Camille's legal rights, but they have violated the rights of potentially hundreds of other female employees. We are urging anyone who feels they were treated similarly to come forward and join the class action suit to bring justice to women who were not paid the same as their male counterparts." Shegerian & Associates is urging other Apple employees who were treated similarly to contact our offices to determine if they may be eligible to join the class.[GN] ARSTRAT COLLECTIONS: Saget Sues over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- JOANNE SAGET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARSTRAT COLLECTIONS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-60970-CMA (S.D. Fla., April 28, 2018), seeks redress for the Defendant's unlawful conduct in dispatching thousands unlawful collection letters to Florida consumers, whereby the letters violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant was acting as a debt collector in respect to the collection of Plaintiff's debts. The debt at issue is the amount Plaintiff allegedly owes the current creditor for medical services on March 29, 2016. The current creditor of the Consumer Debt is Quest Diagnostics. The Consumer Debt is a "debt" governed by the FDCPA. According to the lawsuit, the Defendant's Collection Letter omits material language that is required to be included pursuant to the FDCPA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907 1136 Facsimile: (855) 529 9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com AUTOMOTIVE PARTS: August 1 Settlement Approval Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------- If You Bought or Leased a New Vehicle, or Bought Certain Replacement Parts for a Vehicle Since 1995 You Could Get Money From Settlements Totaling Approximately $1.04 Billion Fifty-six defendant groups and their affiliates have agreed to Settlements resolving claims that they fixed the price of certain vehicle components. This may have caused individuals and businesses to pay more for certain new vehicles and replacement parts. These Settling Defendants deny any claims of wrongdoing. Am I included? You may be included if, from 1995 to 2018, you: (1) bought or leased a qualifying new vehicle in the U.S. (not for resale) or (2) bought a qualifying vehicle replacement part (not for resale) from someone other than the manufacturer of the part. In general, qualifying vehicles include four-wheeled passenger automobiles, cars, light trucks, pickup trucks, crossovers, vans, mini-vans, and sport utility vehicles. Visit the website or call for a full list of Settling Defendants and applicable time periods and to determine whether you are included. What do the Settlements provide? The Settlements, totaling $432, 823, 040, are being presented to the Court for approval. The court previously approved settlements totaling $604,069,618. The Settlement Funds (minus expenses, attorney fees, and other costs) will be used to pay consumers and businesses in 30 states and the District of Columbia. The Settlements also include non-monetary relief, including cooperation, and agreements by certain Settling Defendants not to engage in certain conduct for a period of 24 months. The 30 states are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont West Virginia, and Wisconsin. How can I get a payment? You must submit a Claim Form online or by mail. There is no deadline yet to submit a claim. If you already filed a claim, you do not need to submit another claim for the same vehicle or part. You can get a Claim Form at the website or by calling the toll-free number below. At this time, it is unknown how much each Class member who submits a valid claim will receive. Payments will be based on the proposed Plan of Allocation (available at the website). What are my rights? Even if you do nothing, you will be bound by the Court's decisions. If you want to keep your right to sue, you must excluded yourself by July 13, 2018. If you do not exclude yourself, you may object to one or more of the Settlements applicable to the Settlement Class in which you remain by July 13, 2018. Visit the website for important information. The Court will hold a hearing on August 1, 2018, to consider whether to approve the Settlements. Settlement Class Counsel may also request reimbursement of costs and expenses as well as attorneys' fees of up to 25% of the Settlement Funds (minus costs and expenses). You or your own lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense. For More Info or to File a Claim: 1-877-940-5043 www.AutoPartsClass.com This litigation is known as In re: Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation. BARNES & NOBLE: 7th Cir. Reinstates Data Breach Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The National Law Review reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has reinstated a data breach class action filed against Barnes & Noble (B&N). The litigation, styled as Dieffenbach v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., now heads back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which previously dismissed the complaint three times for lack of standing and/or failure to state a claim. The lawsuit stems from a September 2012 data breach in which "skimmers" gained access to the payment card readers in B&N stores and siphoned off customer names, payment card numbers, expiration dates, and PINs. "Skimming" is an 'old school' hacking technique involving tampering with the PIN pad terminals to exfiltrate the payment card data that runs through them when a card is swiped. Payment card data was skimmed from PIN terminals in 63 B&N stores, located in 9 states. The plaintiffs filed a putative class action in March 2013, five months after B&N disclosed the breach (again, 'old school' -- it is now standard practice for class actions to be filed within hours of the public announcement of a major data breach). As relevant here, they alleged claims for: (1) breach of implied contract (to secure payment card data); (2) violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud & Deceptive Practices Act (ICFA); (3) violation of the California Security Breach Notification Act (DBNA); and (4) violation of the California Unfair Competition Act (UCA). In September 2013, the district court dismissed the original complaint without prejudice for lack of standing, holding that the plaintiffs alleged no economic loss tied to the breach. The district court entertained a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in October 2016. In between these two motions to dismiss, the Seventh Circuit decided Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015), reversing the dismissal of a payment card data breach class action on standing grounds. (See our Alert here.) In light of this new circuit precedent, the district court held that the B&N plaintiffs satisfied the standing requirement, based on allegations of future substantial risk of identity theft and their lost time and money spent to protect against it. The district court nonetheless again dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim because the plaintiffs did not allege "any cognizable damages," a required element of each claim. A different judge of the same district court subsequently dismissed a second amended complaint in June 2017, again concluding that the plaintiffs failed to allege any "economic or out of pocket damages caused by the data breach." The district court rejected, as legally insufficient, alleged injuries including diminution in value of the plaintiffs' personal information, the lost value of their time and cell phone minutes spent rectifying fraudulent charges (later reimbursed), and the cost of credit monitoring renewed "in part" because of the breach. The Seventh Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal order, holding that the second amended complaint satisfied federal pleading standards as to the alleged injuries resulting from the data breach. At least at the pleading stage and under the particular claims asserted, the Court saw no real distinction between alleging a cognizable injury for standing and for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes. Instead, the Court characterized the dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of injury -- instead of under Rule 12(b)(1) for no standing -- as simply "a new label for an old error." In the Seventh Circuit's view, alleging an injury-in-fact for standing purposes will also satisfy the requirement of alleging a cognizable injury and entitlement to damages - at least under the substantive claims presented in the B&N case. The Court explained that "the federal rules [of civil procedure] do not require plaintiffs to identify items of loss (except for special damages)." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(3) does not require a plaintiff to allege the details of the injury. Rule 54(c) entitles a plaintiff to any relief available under law, regardless of whether such relief is pled in a complaint. Although Rule 9(g) requires specific allegations about the details of "special damages," neither party alleged that the identified losses were such. Turning to the facts and the state law claims, the Court noted the following injuries alleged by the two named plaintiffs: (1) a 3-day delay in restoration of one plaintiff's bank account funds and loss of access to her funds during this period; (2) time spent with police and the bank to mitigate the actual and prospective fraud; (3) deactivation of the other plaintiff's credit card for several days; (4) a $17.99 per month charge for credit monitoring one plaintiff renewed as a result of the breach; and (5) one plaintiff's failure to receive the benefit of her bargain with B&N. These alleged injuries were sufficient under the DBNA claim, because that law creates a statutory right to damages for its violation. The first two injuries likewise sufficiently pled the statutory injury of "lost money or property" under the UCA claim. The monthly credit monitoring charge was "a form of actual damages," as required by the Illinois CFA. There are at least a few silver linings in the decision for data breach defendants. Perhaps most importantly, the Court recognized that a failure to receive the full benefit of a bargain (or alleged diminution in the value of a good or service due to failed data security) is not a "loss" that can support damages, at least where there is no "defect" alleged in the purchased goods, and no alleged promises of "a particular level of security, for which [the plaintiff] paid." This statement should help defendants defeat the "diminished value" arguments that are now very popular with the plaintiff's bar in similar circumstances. (See, e.g., our recent post on car hacking litigation.) The Court also was careful to note that its decision was founded on the liberal pleading requirements that must be applied at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, and that it had not considered the merits of the claims. It likewise expressed doubt as to whether that the suit should be certified as a class action, because both the state laws and potential damages "are disparate." Finally (FINALLY!), the Court noted that "Barnes & Noble was itself a victim" that suffered economic injuries, and that "Plaintiffs may have a difficult task showing an entitlement to collect damages from a fellow victim of the data thieves." In the end, the Court noted, none of the state laws at issue expressly make "merchants liable for failure to crime-proof their point-of-sale systems." As we have noted in the past, different courts across the country are reaching different conclusions about whether data breach class actions are sufficiently pled to proceed beyond the initial motions to dismiss under both Rule 12(b)(1) (standing) and Rule 12(b)(6) (judgment as a matter of law). As it has been since Remijas, the Seventh Circuit remains the friendliest circuit for data breach class action plaintiffs -- but it's company is quickly growing. What remains to be seen is whether other courts will follow the Seventh Circuit's lead in rejecting motions to dismiss data breach class actions under Rule 12(b)(6), as they have on standing-based motions under Rule 12(b)(1).[GN] BC LIBERAL PARTY: Judge Strikes Down Proposed Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Zytaruk, writing for Surrey Now-Leader, reports that a B.C. Supreme Court judge has struck down a proposed class action lawsuit against the BC Liberal Party that claimed the former provincial government unjustly enriched itself by spending tax money on non-essential, pre-election partisan advertising. Justice Ward Branch, in his April 10 judgment in Vancouver noted the plaintiff was David Trapp, 63, a Canadian citizen and B.C. resident who "pleads that he has paid taxes throughout his working life and retirement." Branch agreed with the BC Liberals' counsel that the proposed class action should be struck on grounds it disclosed no "reasonable cause of action." The claim had not yet been certified as a class proceeding. Trapp alleged the former provincial Liberal government "engaged in taxpayer-funded partisan and non-essential advertising" prior to the May 14, 2013 provincial general election and continued to do so after it won. The same allegations applied concerning spending in the lead-up to the May 9, 2017 election. The judge also agreed with the defendants' position that the political party "is not proper defendant and that the plaintiff has failed to plead a proper cause of action against it." Trapp proposed to launch a class action civil claim on behalf of "all individual, private, taxpaying citizens of the Province of British Columbia, wherever they reside," claiming the former Liberal government breached its fiduciary duty to taxpayers by diverting tax money to the party to "commit the conversion." Branch noted that "once tax dollars enter the government's coffers, it would not be proper to characterize those as 'goods of the plaintiff.' Rather they become the property of the government." He also found an "absence of a proper pleading of damage on the part of the proposed class. "As the plaintiff emphasized in their argument, they are not actually seeking a return of their tax dollars, but simply a redirection of the funds to more worthy government causes," he wrote in his reasons for judgment. "I find that this desire to simply control the government's decision-making power does not qualify as 'damage' in the sense contemplated by a common law conspiracy claim." On the matter of "unjust enrichment, Branch said, Canadian law permits recovery for this if a plaintiff can establish there was an enrichment or benefit to the defendant and a corresponding deprivation of the plaintiff. "The only 'deprivation' alleged is the failure of the government to expends its funds on other worthy causes, although the plaintiff does not specify what exactly those causes should be," the judge observed. "I find that this is not the type of deprivation contemplated by an action for unjust enrichment. Taxpayers cannot generally control how government funds are spent. There is no guarantee that any monies spent on other objects would necessarily be spent on causes favoured by each and every taxpayer. Indeed, it is virtually assured that they will not be. [GN] BIDDING UNLIMITED: Payton Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN PAYTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIDDING UNLIMITED INCORPORATED DBA BIDZ.COM, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03657 (C.D. Cal., May 1, 2018), seeks to recover damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com BIG CHIEF: Misclassified Welders, "Young" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------- BARNEY J. YOUNG, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIG CHIEF PLANT SERVICES LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00411-SLP (W.D. Okla., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover all damages available under the Fair Labor Standards Act, including back wages, liquidated damages, legal fees, costs and post-judgment interest, for Defendant's misclassification of Plaintiff as an independent contractor and for failure to pay Plaintiff time and one-half his respective regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven day workweek. The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and as a FLSA collective action on behalf of all other similarly situated current and/or former employees of Defendant who work(ed) as welders, who are/were paid an hourly rate of pay, who are/were misclassified as independent contractors under the FLSA, and who are/were not paid time and one-half their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven day workweek in the time period of three years preceding the date this lawsuit was filed. Young worked exclusively for Big Chief as a welder performing duties which involved the fusing of materials in connection with Defendant's fabrication of structures for the oil and gas industry. Young worked for Defendant from approximately December 2014 to September 2017 in and around Western Oklahoma. Young was paid an hourly rate by Defendant. Young was issued 1099s by Defendant in connection with his work. Young was not paid any corresponding overtime premium compensation for his overtime hours worked.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Currier, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521 3605 Facsimile: (214) 520 1181 E-mail: rcurrier@baronbudd.com BILLY REID: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Fischler Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BILLY REID, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02591 (E.D.N.Y. Fla., May 1, 2018), seeks permanent injunction to cause Billy Reid to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff, who is legally blind, brings this civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.billyreid.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Fischler and other blind or visually-impaired people. Billy Reid denies full and equal access to its Website. Billy Reid, Inc. designs apparels, bags, and accessories. The company offers shirts, knits, sweaters, tees, shots, trousers, ties, and shorts for men; and tops, dresses, jackets, and bottoms for women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392 4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: "Mayes" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled BARBARA THAXTON and ANGELA D. MAYES, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated current and former employees, the Plaintiffs, v. BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and BOJANGLES', INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-269 (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a class of: "similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants, Bojangles' Restaurants, Inc. and Bojangles, Inc. "; and 2. authorizing Court-supervised notice to those individuals, in accordance with Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IvStM02V The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754 8001 Facsimile: (901) 754 8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com pjackson@jsyc.com CALIF OFF TRACK WAGERING: Fails to Pay Straight-Time & OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Scimeca, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Southern California Off Track Wagering Incorporated, a California Corporation; Northern California Off Track Wagering Incorporated, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00021061-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover all straight-time and overtime wages owed to non-exempt hourly replacement tellers for all time actually worked, including but not limited to, on-call time and reporting- time pay; and all wages owed each and every pay period under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other members of the SCOTW Class and NCOTW Class were entitled to receive straight-time and overtime wages for all time spent working for Defendants by being engaged to wait for a register assignment and/or performing teller duties, on days when they reported to work at a race track. To the extent that the hours worked (including hours engaged to wait) exceeded eight hours in a day and/or 40 hours in a workweek, Plaintiff and other members of the SCOTW Class and NCOTW Class were entitled to receive compensation at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander I. Dychter, Esq. S. Adam Spiewak, Esq. DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC 1010 Second Ave., Suite 1835 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 487 0777 Facsimile: (619) 330 1827 E-mail: Alex@DychterLaw.com Adam@DychterLaw.com - and - Raphael A. Katri, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL A. KATRI 8549 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 940 2034 Facsimile: (310) 733 5644 E-mail: RKatri@SoCalLaborLawyers.com CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Figueroa" Suit in California Over ATM Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- JACOB FIGUEROA, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-00692-JM-BGS (S.D. Cal., April 6, 2018), arises from the Defendant's alleged: (a) unfair and unconscionable assessment of ATM fees on balance inquiries undertaken at its own, in-network ATMs, which it promises will be entirely fee-free; and (b) its deceptive, unfair and unconscionable assessment of two out-of-network ATM fees, when an accountholder conducts a balance inquiry that precedes a cash withdrawal at out-of-network ATMs. Capital One is a national bank with its headquarters and principal place of business located in McLean, Virginia. Capital One has hundreds of affiliates, such as Capital One Financial and Capital One Bank, N.A. Among other things, Capital One is engaged in the business of providing retail banking services to consumers, including Plaintiff and members of the putative classes, which includes the issuance of debit cards for use by its customers in conjunction with their checking accounts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Brittany C. Casola, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1900 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com bcasola@carlsonlynch.com - and - Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielpllc.com - and - Richard D. McCune, Esq. Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT LLP 2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216 Redlands, CA 92374 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com jkk@mccunewright.com - and - Taras P. Kick, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM APC 201 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 350 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 395-2988 Facsimile: (310) 395-2088 E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com CAREFIRST INC: SCOTUS Denies Petition for Writ of Certiorari ------------------------------------------------------------ Eric W. Richardson, Jacob D. Mahle and Brent D. Craft, writing for Cincinatti Business Courier, report that the United States Supreme Court recently denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in CareFirst, Inc. v. Attias, permitting a data breach class action to proceed against a medical insurer. In doing so, the court passed on an opportunity to resolve the confusion among lower courts in determining Article III federal standing for such cases or, in other words, when a plaintiff can bring suit as a result of a data breach. The Supreme Court addressed standing in a non-data breach context in the case of Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA. In that case, the Supreme Court reiterated that, in order for a plaintiff to have standing to invoke the jurisdiction of federal courts under Article III of the United States Constitution, a plaintiff must allege an injury that is actual or imminent. Although the mere possibility of injury does not establish standing, a "substantial risk" of injury can be sufficient to create Article III standing. In Clapper, the court held that the named plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which permitted electronic surveillance of individuals who are not "United States persons" and who are reasonably believed to be outside the United States. Although the named plaintiffs -- consisting of human rights groups, lawyers, media organizations and others -- claimed that their communications with foreign contacts were likely to be intercepted in this program, the court held that, because they could not demonstrate that their communications had, in fact, been intercepted, they could not demonstrate injury and therefore lacked standing to maintain the suit. Clapper also held that voluntarily assuming mitigation costs was not sufficient -- on its own -- to establish injury. Following Clapper, a circuit split has persisted regarding the issue of standing in the context of data breach class actions. On one side, a number of circuit courts have held that -- even in the absence of proof that one's personal information actually has been misused -- the mere fact that the information was accessed and/or that the victims of the breach incurred costs as a result of the unauthorized access (e.g., credit monitoring) posed a sufficient risk of injury to confer standing. For example: In Attias v. CareFirst, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded that, "simply by virtue of the hack and the nature of the data" alleged to be taken, substantial risk of injury to plaintiffs existed, even though no proof of actual misuse had yet been shown. In Galaria v. Nationwide Ins. Co., the Sixth Circuit (which is based in Cincinnati and includes federal courts in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee) held that standing existed where Social Security numbers were accessed and credit monitoring costs to mitigate the potential identity theft were incurred. InLewert v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., the Seventh Circuit held that standing existed where credit card information was stolen and plaintiffs incurred charges to mitigate potential effects of the breach. Other circuit courts, however, have held that plaintiffs, in order to have standing to sue, must demonstrate that their personal information was not only accessed in a data breach, but was actually misused as a result (e.g., a fraudulent line of credit being taken out in the victim's name). For example: InBeck v. McDonald,the Fourth Circuit rejected an argument that mitigation costs constituted "injury," and held that injury may be "reasonably likely" to occur based on the theft of personal information but still not be sufficiently "imminent" to provide a plaintiff standing to sue. In re SuperValu, Inc. the Eight Circuit held that the existence of a data breach -- by itself -- was insufficient to establish standing, even though credit card information was accessed and one plaintiff faced a fraudulent charge (but did not ultimately suffer a loss from that charge). InWhalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., the Second Circuit concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing where her credit card information was stolen, but the card was promptly cancelled after the breach and no other personally identifying information was alleged to have been stolen. Whether or not CareFirst was the most appropriate vehicle for the Supreme Court to weigh in on this issue, the court's decision to deny review ensures that lower courts must continue to proceed with a lack of needed clarity in applying Clapper to data breach cases. [GN] CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Class Cert. Bid Deadline Moved to Aug. 6 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CANDICE RITENOUR and CHERYL WEISER, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-02011-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiffs' motion to modify scheduling order in substantial part; and 2. continuing Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class certification from April 9, 2018 to August 6, 2018. The Court also vacated the pretrial conference and trial cases, and will reset these dates after ruling on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Further requests for extension of deadlines are strongly disfavored. The Defendant's motion to deny class certification is denied without prejudice in light of Plaintiffs' continued deadline. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5q4U3WsJ CBOE EXCHANGE: Manipulated VIX Trading, Siegel Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM SIEGEL, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CBOE EXCHANGE, INC.; CBOE GLOBAL MARKETS, INC.; CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE, LLC; BELVEDERE TRADING, LLC; CITIGROUP MARKET DERIVATIVES, INC.; CITIGROUP FINANCIAL PRODUCTS, INC.; CITADEL SECURITIES, LLC; CONSOLIDATED TRADING, LLC; CTC, LLC; IMC FINANCIAL MARKETS LLC; WOLVERINE TRADING L.P.; and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03021 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2018), seeks redress under the Sherman Act and the Commodities Exchange Act for investors in certain derivatives of the benchmark Volatility Index ("VIX") during specific trading sessions from January 1, 2008 to the present. The VIX is a benchmark index created by Defendant CBOE Exchange, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant CBOE Global Markets, Inc. Created in 1993, the VIX purports to measure the implied volatility of large cap U.S. stocks over 30 days in the future. The VIX has been popularly referred to as the "fear index." The VIX is based on Standard & Poor's 500 Index and estimates volatility exposure within that index. While the VIX is a benchmark that cannot be traded, the CBOEI has created tradeable contracts for VIX Futures and VIX Options. The former were introduced in 2004, while the latter were introduced in 2006. The price of VIX Futures and VIX Options are inextricably linked to VIX, including on settlement. From the inception of tradeable contracts in 2004 to the present, trading activity in VIX Instruments has increased significantly. The average daily contract volume for VIX Futures rose from 1,731 contracts per day in 2006 to 300,568 contracts per day in 2017 (through August 24, 2017), a 17,263% increase. Meanwhile, the average daily volume of VIX Options in 2006 was 23,491, and rose to 687,181 in 2017 (through July of 2017), a 23,491% increase. On February 12, 2018, there was made public a letter from a whistleblower to the Securities & Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that disclosed that the whistleblower had submitted a TCR (tip, complaint or referral form) to the agencies. The Market Maker Defendants' manipulation of the VIX has caused injury to investors in VIX Instruments. Defendants' conduct violates Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act, and the Commodity Exchange Act. CBOE's actions in permitting VIX Instruments to be traded despite the fact that they are readily susceptible to such manipulation was and continues to be a violation of the Commodity Exchange Act.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff William Siegel: Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 111 W Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750 1265 E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com kshamberg@litedepalma.com - and - Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1600 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 445 4003 Facsimile: (415) 445 4020 E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com mweiler@bfalaw.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Hilary Scherrer, Esq. Scott A. Martin, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 St. NW, Suite 650 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 540 7200 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com hscherrer@hausfeld.com smartin@hausfeld.com mlehmann@hausfeld.com CBOE GLOBAL: Manipulated VIX Trading, Terwilliger Claims -------------------------------------------------------- NATHAN L. TERWILLIGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CBOE GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE LLC, and CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03074 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by CBOE's failure to enforce bylaws, rules, regulations, or resolutions that it was required to enforce under the Commodity Exchange Act This case turns in part on the concept of market volatility, which is uncertainty about future changes in the value of securities. Market volatility is important to investors, as it has a strong relationship with market performance: market volatility tends to decline as the stock market rises, and increase as the market falls. The most popular measure of near- term market volatility is the VIX, an index created and calculated by the CBOE and over which it has exclusive commercial rights. The VIX purports to represent the stock market's expectation of volatility over the next 30 days. CBOE calculates the VIX using weighted prices for certain out-of-the-money Standard & Poor 500 Options, a security created by the CBOE for its own business purposes and traded only on the CBOE's own exchange, for which CBOE itself retains ultimate responsibility and control. CBOE commercialized its VIX index by creating proprietary products called VIX Futures and VIX Options that also trade only on CBOE's own exchange. Every transaction involving VIX Futures and Option contracts generates a fee for CBOE, and these fees, together with fees generated by trading in SPX Options, make up the majority of CBOE's total revenues. CBOE repeatedly touted VIX Futures and VIX Options to investors as effective tools for trading and risk management. The settlement value of VIX Futures and VIX Options is calculated by CBOE by reference to a figure called the VIX Special Opening Quotation, using a methodology created by CBOE specifically for this purpose. Rather than looking at transactions in SPX Options over the course of the trading day, the generation of the VIX SOQ turns on out-of-the- money SPX Options trades and quotes posted during a very short period -- an auction occurring before the trading day begins. Accordingly, even a single manipulative trade posted in that period of relative illiquidity could move the VIX up or down. Second, the cost for such manipulative trading is minimal, as CBOE imposed only a five cent per-option contract threshold for the bid quote of an SPX Option to be included in the settlement calculation. Third, the SOQ process' use of quotes provided by traders rather than actual trades enabled traders to easily manipulate the SOQ value without engaging in actual trades. In this respect the SOQ process created and executed by CBOE lacked fundamental safeguards imposed by other commercial volatility indexes such as the VSTOXX, a European market volatility index, which, like VIX, is also traded through options and futures. VSTOXX, however, is calculated based on actual trading that occurs during a period in normal market hours, and only options trades with a premium of .5 Euros are included in its calculation -- a bar more than ten times higher than that employed by CBOE. France's financial markets regulator, Autorite des Marches Financiers, has asserted that the VIX settlement process is much more vulnerable to manipulation than the VSTOXX. Given these serious flaws, it is not surprising that there is ample evidence that the settlement process for VIX Futures and VIX Options is in fact routinely manipulated up to the present day, to the detriment of investors in these instruments on CBOE's exchange, including Plaintiff. A May 23, 2017 paper by academics John Griffin and Amin Shams describes suspicious spikes between 2008 and 2015 in the volume of the out-of-the-money options used to calculate the VIX SOQ, occurring at the settlement time of the VIX index. Griffin and Sham conclude that these spikes are consistent with manipulation and are inconsistent with innocent trading practices such as hedging. Experts retained by Plaintiff conducted their own independent analysis of the VIX Futures and VIX Options settlement process in 2018, and similarly concluded that on SOQ settlement dates for VIX Futures and VIX Options there were massively higher volumes of trading in the out-of-the-money SPX options that influence the SOQ settlement pricing of these instruments relative to other dates. They found similar suspicious volume and other indications consistent with manipulation on April 18, 2018, the expiration date of VIX Options purchased by Plaintiff. Strikingly, the CBOE itself took the unusual step of acknowledging in a Form 8-K dated April 24, 2018, that the VIX final settlement value on April 18, 2018, was "higher than what market participants may have otherwise expected" and asserted that it intended to take certain steps to improve its settlement processes. Despite the vulnerabilities in the design of the VIX SOQ process, the mounting evidence that VIX was in fact being systematically manipulated, and the foreseeability of the harm such manipulation would pose to investors trading in VIX Futures and VIX Options, CBOE in bad faith did nothing to alter its SOQ calculation process or address its defects, as it had powerful financial incentives to permit manipulation to go on. On monthly settlement days, manipulation gave rise to markedly higher trading volume, which in turn resulted in higher transaction fees for CBOE. This failure to take reasonable care to ensure the SOQ settlement process was free of manipulation resulted in billions in losses to investors like Plaintiff who traded in VIX Futures and Options and held these instruments on their settlement dates, when manipulation occurred. By its conduct, CBOE is liable to the Class under the common law of negligence, as it breached the quantum of reasonable care it owed Plaintiff and the Class to ensure that its services settling VIX Futures and Options on its own exchange were not subject to illicit manipulation. By the same conduct, the CBOE also violated the Commodity Exchange Act, which requires that the CBOE observe rules requiring it to prevent manipulation and other abusive practices in its contract market. CBOE's conduct caused injury to Plaintiff and other members of the Class who transacted in CBOE's proprietary products, VIX Futures and VIX Options, that CBOE knew was recklessly indifferent to knowing were being traded in a manipulated market, at manipulated prices, and with artificial price trends, during the Class Period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Michael W. Stocker, Esq. Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623 7292 Facsimile: (206) 623 0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com mikes@hbsslaw.com beth@hbsslaw.com CENTURY FENCE: Fails to Pay Legally Required Wages, Reilly Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Reilly, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs v. Century Fence Company, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00315 (W.D. Wisc., May 1, 2018), seeks redress for Century Fence's failure to pay legally required compensation to the Plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin law. The Plaintiffs frequently performed work at the company shop, including but not limited to loading trucks, before driving or riding company trucks to the jobsite. The Plaintiffs sometimes worked at more than one jobsite during the same day, so that they had to travel between jobsites. The Defendants did not always count as time worked, and did not always pay the Plaintiffs for their riding time to the jobsite after working at the shop; as well as for their riding time between jobsites during their workdays. Century Fence paid the Plaintiffs at their shop rate for their shop work, at a travel rate for their travel work when it was paid; and paid to the Plaintiffs much higher hourly rates when they worked on prevailing wage and so-called Davis-Bacon Projects. When the Plaintiffs performed both lower rated; and higher rated prevailing wage and Davis-Bacon projects during the same week, Century Fence whenever possible would pay the work with the lowest pay rates at overtime rates though said work occurred during straight time hours; and would pay the work with the highest pay rates at straight time rates though said work occurred during overtime hours worked. Century Fence computed all of the Plaintiffs' overtime pay as 1.5 times the pay rate for the type of work performed, rather than 1.5 times the average wage rate earned by the Plaintiffs during the workweek. On each of their jobsites the Plaintiffs performed similar pavement marking and related work; though they may receive different pay rates for their work depending on the wage rate(s) required by the prevailing wage/Davis-Bacon determinations in effect for the projects. Century Fence informed its foremen that they would receive a bonus if there was sufficient profitability on the projects that they were involved with; so that the bonuses were promised to the foremen to encourage them to complete their projects in a more efficient manner; and so that the foremen expected to receive these bonuses regularly. Century Fence did not include the paid bonuses when computing the foremen's regular rate for their overtime pay. When the Plaintiffs performed work on prevailing wage/Davis-Bacon projects, Century Fence would make hourly 401(k) contributions for the Plaintiffs in an amount equal to the difference between the full hourly wage required by the rate determination for the project, and the total value of cash and other fringe benefits received by the employee. The Plaintiffs therefore may receive thousands of dollars of 401(k) contributions or $0 in 401(k) contributions during a given quarter, depending on the amount of prevailing wage work performed during the quarter, as well as the differential between the full prevailing wage, and their cash and other fringe benefits received for prevailing wage work performed. Century Fence made 401(k) contributions to its employees' accounts, but only when they worked on prevailing wage projects, for the purpose of offsetting its liability for employment taxes and overtime pay, rather than to systematically provide for the retirement of its employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C. 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 271 4500 Facsimile: (414) 271 6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com CHEROKEE ROCK: Strickland Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY STRICKLAND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHEROKEE ROCK, INC.; ECOSTIM, INC.; and ECO-STIM ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01389 (S.D. Tex., May 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. EcoStim provides hydraulic fracturing technology and field- management services to customers in the offshore natural gas and oil industry. EcoStim employed Strickland as a Service Supervisor, sometimes called a "Treater," from April 2017 to March 2018. Though EcoStim labeled Strickland a supervisor, Strickland's primary duties were nonexempt. As a Service Supervisor, Strickland was primarily tasked with pumping operations, including rigging up and rigging down, monitoring equipment, maintaining the well and fixing any problems. The Service Supervisors report to the Field Supervisor. Strickland's primary duties did not include office or nonmanual work. Strickland's primary duties were not related to the management or general business operations of EcoStim or its customers. Strickland's duties did not differ substantially from the duties of traditionally nonexempt hourly workers. Strickland did not exercise a meaningful degree of independent discretion with respect to the exercise of his duties. Strickland did not have the discretion or authority to make any decisions with respect to matters of significance. During Strickland's employment with EcoStim, he regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week. Strickland was generally scheduled to work 84 hours per workweek and often worked more. EcoStim knew or reasonably should have known that Strickland worked in excess of forty hours per week. EcoStim did not pay Strickland overtime "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he [was] employed." Instead, EcoStim paid Strickland a fixed sum of money regardless of the number of hours he worked in a workweek. In other words, EcoStim paid Strickland overtime at a rate less than one and one- half times the regular rate at which he was employed in violation of the FLSA. EcoStim knew or reasonably should have known that Strickland was not exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. EcoStim failed to maintain accurate time and pay records for Strickland as required by 29 U.S.C. section 211(c) and 29 C.F.R. pt. 516.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. Bridget Davidson, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222 6775 Facsimile: (713) 222 6739 CHICAGO, IL: Judge Throws Out Lead Pipes Class-Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hawthorne, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that Mayor Rahm Emanuel's administration has fended off a lawsuit demanding the removal of lead pipes connecting homes to the public water system, but the judge who threw out the case in March acknowledged that scores of Chicagoans are drinking tap water contaminated with the brain-damaging metal. In a seven-page decision, Cook County Circuit Judge Raymond W. Mitchell said he dismissed the complaint against the city "on the narrowest possible grounds" based on other court rulings that limit Illinois residents from seeking damages when government actions cause harm. Before delving into the arcane details of case law, Mitchell noted that research has outlined how Emanuel's aggressive overhaul of the water system is increasing the chances that Chicagoans are exposed to lead in their tap water. The judge also cited allegations in the complaint that lead is leaching out of pipes conveying otherwise clean water to homes, despite corrosion-inhibiting chemicals the city adds to the water supply. "City actions have increased the levels of lead in the water," Mitchell wrote. "The city nevertheless pursues its projects and insists that the water is safe to drink." Lawyers for the two plaintiffs had sought lead tests for every Chicagoan and payouts from the city for affecting the value of private property. But the lawsuit failed to provide evidence the plaintiffs had been poisoned by lead, Mitchell wrote, and the alleged damages were too broadly defined. A spokesman for the city Law Department welcomed the decision, filed March 29. The plaintiffs' lawyers said they plan to appeal. Chicago required the use of lead service lines between street mains and homes until Congress banned the practice in 1986. The Tribune reported that lead was found in tap water drawn from nearly 70 percent of the 2,797 Chicago homes that sent samples to the city for testing in the past two years. Tap water in 3 of every 10 homes sampled had lead concentrations above 5 parts per billion, the maximum allowed in bottled water by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Yet as Emanuel borrows hundreds of millions of dollars for water projects, Chicago is keeping lead service lines in the ground. The mayor's office has said it is up to homeowners, not the city, to decide if it is worth replacing the pipes at their own expense. Chicago officials test tap water for lead in just 50 homes every three years, the minimum required under federal regulations. The limited sampling typically has found little or no lead in tap water at those homes. As a result, the city has never been required to warn residents about the presence of lead service lines at thousands of Chicago homes. The lawsuit dismissed in March was filed days after the Tribune reported in 2016 that the Department of Water Management had removed references to lead from flyers distributed before city crews dug up streets to replace aging water mains. Lawyers for a Seattle-based law firm, who were joined later by Chicago personal injury attorney Philip Corboy, repeatedly cited a 2013 study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that found high levels of lead in drinking water after street work. Kirkland & Ellis, a Chicago-based international law firm, represented the city for free in the case. Steve Patton, Esq. -- StevePattonLaw@aol.com -- Emanuel's former chief legal adviser, works for the firm, which has defended the lead industry in several other lawsuits seeking to hold corporations accountable for health problems caused by exposure to the toxic metal in paint and water. [GN] COCA-COLA COMPANY: "Robles" Suit Moved to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Anthony Robles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Coca-Cola Company; Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 30-02018-00982180, was removed from the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:18-cv-00728 to the proceeding. The Coca-Cola Company is an American multinational beverage corporation, and manufacturer, retailer, and marketer of nonalcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Attorneys for The Coca-Cola Company and Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc.: Maria R Harrington, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 2050 Main Street Suite 900 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 705 3000 Facsimile: (949) 724 1201 E-mail: mharrington@littler.com COLONY NORTHSTAR: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that purchasers of Colony NorthStar, Inc. (NYSE: CLNS) have filed a class action complaint against the company's officers and directors for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between February 28, 2017 and March 1, 2018. Colony NorthStar ("Colony") is a diversified equity REIT with an embedded institutional and retail investment management business. Colony NorthStar Accused of Including False Statements in its SEC Filings According to the complaint, Colony officials attested to the accuracy of the financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud in the company's public filings. However, Colony's financial results were not as accurate as the company represented to investors because Colony's Healthcare and Investment Management segments were performing worse than reported. On March 1, 2018, Colony announced a goodwill impairment of $375 million to reflect lower value in its Investment Management business. During the company's conference call that same day, Colony's President and Chief Executive Officer stated, "Our earnings performance has not lived up to expectations, emanating from more challenging industry conditions in healthcare, real estate as well as our retail broker dealer distribution business[.]. . . . " On this news, Colony's stock fell over 22% to close at $6.00 per share on March 1, 2018, and has since continued to fall, closing at $5.58 on April 12, 2018. Colony NorthStar Shareholders Have Legal Options If you would like more information about your rights and potential remedies, contact attorney Leonid Kandinov at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website. Leonid Kandinov, Esq. Robbins Arroyo LLP Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Toll Free: (800) 350-6003 E-mail: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN] COMMERCEHUB INC: Gordon Balks at GTCR LLC Merger Deal ----------------------------------------------------- BRIAN GORDON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. COMMERCEHUB, INC., RICHARD N. BAER, MARK P. CATTINI, MICHAEL P. HUSEBY, LUIS ANTONIO UBINAS, DAVID GOLDHILL, BRIAN J. WENDLING, CHAD HOLLINGSWORTH, FRANCIS POORE, and BETSY MORGAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00512- FJS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., April 27, 2018), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from holding shareholder vote on a proposed merger and taking any steps to consummate the proposed merger unless, and until, material information is disclosed to CommerceHub shareholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the proposed merger or, in the event the proposed merger is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act. The action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public holders of the common stock of CommerceHub, Inc. against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed merger between CommerceHub and certain affiliates of GTCR LLC and Sycamore Partners Management, L.P. On March 5, 2018, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which each share of CommerceHub common stock will be exchanged for $22.75 in cash, representing approximately $1.1 billion in the aggregate. On April 18, 2018, to convince CommerceHub shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. While Defendants are touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy, they have failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Merger, thereby rendering certain statements in the Proxy false and/or misleading. In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for the Company; (ii) the sale process leading up to the Proposed Merger; and (iii) certain prior relationships between the Company's financial advisor, Evercore Group L.L.C. and GTCR. It is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed to the Company's shareholders prior to the forthcoming shareholder vote so that they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Innessa Melamed Huot, Esq. Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983 9330 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com ihuot@faruqilaw.com COMMUNITY INSURANCE: Denied Health Plan Benefits, A.G. Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- A.G., by and through her father, N.G., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a ANTHEM BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00300-TSB (S.D. Ohio., May 1, 2018), seeks an order requiring Defendant to cover all medically necessary services at outdoor behavioral health/wilderness therapy programs in the future. This action, brought under the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act, 29 U.S.C. sections 1001-1191c, arises from Defendant's arbitrary decision to deny health plan benefits for medically necessary services for outdoor/wilderness behavioral health treatment for mental health and substance abuse issues even though the plan at issue provided mental health and substance abuse benefits. Outdoor/wilderness behavioral health programs offer cost- effective treatment for adolescents and young adults with mental health and substance abuse diagnoses. Outdoor/wilderness behavioral health programs provide traditional, evidence-based mental health and substance abuse treatments in a wilderness setting. The Defendant denies coverage for treatment at outdoor/wilderness behavioral healthcare programs on the incorrect basis that such treatment "is not available under the benefit plan for [sic] Wilderness Treatment Program as described in your Certificate of Coverage." The problem with this position is that (a) there is no express exclusion for covering such services; and, (b) coverage for behavioral and mental health is otherwise included in Defendant's coverage grants. Based on the plan's plain language and invoking the rules of construction applicable to ERISA health insurance plans, Defendant has wrongfully denied coverage for these medically necessary services.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative: Robert R. Sparks, Esq. STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA 150 E. Fourth Street, 4th Floor Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Telephone No.: (513) 621 2120 Facsimile No.: (513) 241 8259 E-mail: rrsparks@strausstroy.com - and - Jordan Lewis, Esq. JORDAN LEWIS, P.A. 4473 N.E. 11th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334 Telephone No.: (954) 616 8995 Facsimile No.: (954) 206 0374 E-mail: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com DEVILLE ASSET: Green Sues over Debt Collections Practices --------------------------------------------------------- PORCHEA GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DEVILLE ASSET MANAGEMENT, LTD, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00119 (W.D.N.C., May 1, 2018), seeks to recover damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. According to the complaint, some time prior to February 1, 2018, an obligation was allegedly incurred to Santander/Chrysler. The alleged Santander/Chrysler obligation arose out of a transaction in which money, property, insurance or services, which are the subject of the transaction, are primarily for personal, family or household purposes. The alleged obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). Santander/Chrysler is a "creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(4). Santander/Chrysler or subsequent owner of the Santander/Chrysler debt contracted the Defendant to collect the alleged debt. On or about February 1, 2018, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a collection letter regarding an alleged debt originally owed to Santander/Chrysler. The Letter was the first communication from Defendant to the Plaintiff with regards to the alleged Santander/Chrysler debt. The Plaintiff received the letter and read it. The Letter stated in part: "Re: Santander/Chrysler" The February 1, 2018 letter fails to explicitly or implicitly identify Plaintiff's current creditor. The Plaintiff, as would any least sophisticated consumer, was left unsure as to what current creditor Defendant was attempting to collect for. The obligation is not only to identify the name of the creditor, but to convey the name of the creditor clearly and explicitly. Merely listing "Re: Santander/Chrysler" on a collection letter does not explicitly convey that "Santander/Chrysler" is the current creditor to whom the debt is owed. The FDCPA gives consumers a statutory right to receive certain information, including the name of the creditor to whom the debt collector is attempting to collect for, which the Plaintiff was deprived of in this case. As a result of the Defendant's violations of the FDCPA, the Plaintiff was harmed. Defendant's actions are part of a pattern and practice used to collect consumer debts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Shapiro, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN T. ORCUTT, P.C. 1738 Hillandale Road, Suite D Durham, NC 27705 Telephone: (919) 286 1695 E-mail: cshapiro@johnorcutt.com - and - Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695 3282 Facsimile: (732) 298 6256 E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled RONALD UNTERSHINE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS INC. and JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00679-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16- 3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). One defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv- 1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FdzNxFje The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com DOORDASH INC: Sahito Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------- RASHID SAHITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DOORDASH, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-08451 (D.N.J., April 27, 2018), alleges that the Defendant willfully violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and invaded Plaintiffs' privacy by causing unsolicited text messages to be made to Plaintiff's and other class members' cellular telephones through the use of an auto-dialer. The Defendant allegedly made one or more unauthorized text message to Plaintiff's cellular phones using an automatic telephone dialing system for the purpose of soliciting business from Plaintiff. The Defendant continued to make unauthorized text message to Plaintiff's cellular phones using ATDS for the purpose of soliciting business from Plaintiff even after Plaintiff requested that the text messages stop. The TCPA was enacted to protect consumers from unsolicited and unwanted telephone calls and text messages exactly like those alleged in this case. DoorDash is an on-demand restaurant delivery service founded in 2013 by Stanford students Andy Fang, Stanley Tang, Tony Xu and Evan Moore.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Ari H. Marcus, Esq. Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695 3282 Facsimile: (732) 298 6256 E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE: "Margaryan" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JACKIE FITZHENRY-RUSSELL, ROBIN DALE, and GEGHAM MARGARYAN, as individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC., DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP, INC., and DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00564-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on June 13, 2018 for an order to certify a class of: "all persons who, between December 28, 2012 and the present, purchased any Canada Dry Ginger Ale products in the state of California." The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court appoint them as class representatives on all claims, and Gutride Safier LLP as lead class counsel and The Margarian Law Firm as liaison class counsel. The Plaintiffs finally ask the Court to order the parties to meet and confer and present this Court, within 15 days of an order granting class certification, a proposed notice to the certified class. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=60qySW5o Attorneys for Jackie Fitzhenry-Russell and Robin Dale: Adam J. Gutride, Esq. Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie Mccrary, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (415) 639 9090 Facsimile: (415) 449 6469 - and - Matthew T. Mccrary, Esq. 265 Franklin St, Suite 1702 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (214) 502-2171 Attorney for Plaintiff Gegham Margaryan: Hovanes Margarian, Esq. THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 210 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 553 1000 Facsimile: (818) 553 1005 DUPONT: Plaintiffs Respond to Bid to Dismiss GenX Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Adam Wagner, writing for The Fayetteville Observer, reports that lawyers in a class action lawsuit against Chemours and DuPont on April 13 claimed the chemical companies "are once again playing fast and loose with the law and the truth" in a response to their motion to dismiss the lawsuit centered around the chemical GenX and others like it. "The issues they have raised are deficient in many different ways, which are addressed in our papers. They attack our complaint on several different aspects, all of which we don't believe are supported in the law, and that's what we address," said Ted Leopold,Esq. the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs. In early March, Chemours and E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company filed a motion to dismiss the case. Among the reasons outlined by Chemours were that the plaintiffs allegedly failed to prove any of their asserted claims and also failed to establish causation of alleged personal injuries outlined in the initial complaint. The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. "To be actionable . . . . a discharge of chemicals must cause the plaintiff to suffer actual harm," Chemours and DuPont's lawyers wrote on March 2. "This requirement dooms Plaintiffs' complaint, which is long on accusations of deception and misconduct (accusations that Defendants strongly deny), but short on assertions of cognizable injury or causation." In a section of April 13 filing addressing the medical conditions of the four people representing the legal class, the response said the bar for causation is, at this point, very low. Rather than establishing causation, the document said, they must simply put forth enough facts to allow the court to infer that the chemicals caused the injuries. "It is certainly reasonable," the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote, "to infer that Plaintiffs developed cancer, liver disease, thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis because Defendants polluted their water with chemicals that have been scientifically linked to cancer, liver disease, thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis." At this point, the class action suit is moving forward as expected, Leopold said. "It's all part of preliminary jockeying, if you will," Leopold said. Another ongoing debate in the case is whether the plaintiff will be able to sample wastewater from Chemours to determine what chemicals have historically been discharged there. In late November, with a deadline looming, Chemours agreed to cease all GenX and Nafion wastewater discharges. "We want to be able to test the chemicals before they are dispersed into the waterway so we have an understanding of the exact type of chemicals that are being emitted into the Cape Fear River before they are diluted," Leopold said. "They are fighting us tooth and nail on that . . . We think it's much more than just GenX at this point." The lawsuit is separate from one filed in February by dozens of residents who live near the Bladen County plant. That lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court, alleges that Chemours and DuPont secretly released GenX and similar compounds into the groundwater, lakes, air, soil and Cape Fear River. [GN] DUKE UNIVERSITY: Workers Get Class Status in Retirement Challenge ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Duke University is the second prominent college to face a certified class action over how it runs its retirement plan. A federal judge in North Carolina granted class status to about 40,000 current and former Duke employees who say the school's retirement plan carried high fees and offered bad investment options. In February, employees at New York University received class status in their lawsuit raising similar claims. Duke and NYU are among 17 prominent colleges to be sued in recent years over their retirement plans. These lawsuits are the first to be certified as class actions and may ultimately provide a blueprint for how the other cases are resolved. Most other cases have survived early legal challenges, with judges allowing litigation to proceed against Cornell, Emory, MIT, Columbia, Yale, and others. The case against NYU is scheduled to go to trial April 16. Class Certified The Duke employees met all requirements for class certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina said in an April 13 decision. The case involved many questions common to all class members, including whether the defendants acted as plan fiduciaries, whether they breached their duties, and whether any breaches caused losses to the plan, Eagles said. Duke said class status wasn't warranted in part because some of the employees may have read plan communications that put them on notice of the alleged problems outside of the relevant statute of limitations. Eagles said even if Duke was correct, the school "would be successful only in limiting damages, not precluding them entirely." Duke also argued that some class members may have profited by investing in the challenged funds, but Eagles said that was no barrier to class certification. Finally, Eagles found the workers had constitutional standing to bring suit because at least some of them had invested in each of the plan investment options challenged by the lawsuit. Schlichter Bogard & Denton and Puryear & Lingle represent the Duke employees. Morgan Lewis & Bockius and Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein represent Duke. The case is Clark v. Duke Univ., M.D.N.C., No. 1:16-cv-01044, order granting class status 4/13/18.[GN] EMERGENCY CONSULTANTS: Keller Seeks to Certify FLSA Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ROBERT M. KELLER, for himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EMERGENCY CONSULTANTS, LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company (f/k/a Emergency Consultants, Inc.), PRAIRIE EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, LLP, a Michigan limited liability partnership, and DERIK K. KING, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00448-RJJ-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff moves the Court pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for entry of an order: 1. conditionally certifying Plaintiff's proposed collective FLSA class defined as: "all current and former physician assistants and nurse practitioners employed by any of the defendants, or limited liability partnerships in which Defendant King is, or has been an agent of, from April 6, 2015 to the present, who were paid based on the number of hours worked and who did not receive overtime payment at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for any hours worked in a workweek in excess of 40." 2. requiring Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's order, identify all physician assistants and nurse practitioners by providing a list, in electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses of all potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for defendants from April 6, 2015 to the present; 3. implementing a procedure whereby court-approved notice of Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail) to Plaintiff's proposed class as set forth above; and 4. equitably tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class members from the date of the filing of this Motion for Conditional Certification until the putative class members receive notice. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nvYS4xHv The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Blodgett, Esq. Anders J. Gillis, Esq. PARKER HARVEY PLC 901 S. Garfield Avenue, Suite 200 Traverse City, MI 49686 Telephone: (231) 929 4878 E-mail: ablodgett@parkerharvey.com agillis@parkerharvey.com - and - Matthew L. Wikander, Esq. Charissa Huang, Esq. SMITH HAUGHEY RICE & ROEGGE, P.C. 100 Monroe Center NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2802 Telephone: (616) 774 8000 E-mail: mwikander@shrr.com chuang@shrr.com Attorneys for Defendant: Allan S. Rubin, Esq. Daniel C. Waslawski, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 2000 Town Center, Suite 1650 Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (248) 936 1900 E-mail: rubina@jacksonlewis.com daniel.waslawski@jacksonlewis.com ENHANCED RECOVERY: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in "Johnson" Okayed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ERIN JOHNSON, on behalf of plaintiff and a class, the Plaintiff, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00330-PPS (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Philip P. Simon entered an order on May 2, 2018. 1. granting Plaintiff Erin Johnson's renewed motion for class certification of: "(a) all individuals who were sent a letter by defendant Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, (b) offering a settlement of a debt incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, (c) and stating that "your delinquent account may be reported to the national credit bureaus" (d) where the debt was reported to one or more national credit bureaus (Equifax, Trans Union, or Experian) on or before the date in the letter for receipt of the settlement, or first payment thereof, and (e) the letter was sent at any time during a period beginning July 13, 2016 and ending August 3, 2017 (f) to a mailing address in the State of Indiana"; and 2. appointing Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC as counsel for the class. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DTNLVpZi EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Inscho Sues over Background Check ------------------------------------------------------ PATRICK INSCHO, on behalf of himself and all consumers similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00790-MMD-VCF (D. Nev., May 1, 2018), seeks to recover actual, statutory, and punitive damages, costs, and attorney fees brought against Equifax pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax is a consumer-reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis. As part of this process, Equifax uses an automated and systematic procedure to gather and report derogatory public records in credit reports, such as tax liens and judgments. However, Equifax does not follow similar procedures to gather updated information when the tax lien or judgment is released, satisfied, vacated or otherwise removed. Equifax's failure to timely gather updated information is a violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1681e(b) because Equifax has not implemented reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy in the preparation of the consumer reports that it furnished regarding Plaintiff and the class members. Unlike credit accounts, Equifax affirmatively seeks out and purchases public records data, including Nevada tax liens and civil judgments, to include this derogatory information in the credit reports it sells. Equifax proactively gathers and disseminates this derogatory information even though there is nothing in the FCRA that affirmatively requires it to do so. Equifax does not follow reasonable procedures to gather information when the tax liens or judgments are released, satisfied, vacated, appealed, or similarly dismissed, with the same rigor and process that it employs to gather information initially. Equifax uses a third party as a vendor to collect information regarding judgments and tax liens. Equifax's vendor was obligated to collect and provide all affirmative tax liens and judgments under its contract with Equifax. However, in contrast, the vendor was only obligated to collect and provide updates and dispositions if the vendor determined it was "commercially reasonable" to do so. As a matter of common policy, Equifax and its vendors rarely collect any tax lien or judgment disposition information. In short, Equifax published public records data that it knew would be inaccurate if a release, satisfaction, dismissal, vacatur, or appeal had occurred--relying on consumers to clean up their own files via the dispute process after learning of the inaccuracy, rather than paying to have these dispositions collected with the same vigor that it collected records of the initial entry of the judgment or lien. Equifax does not routinely collect this information even though Equifax has been sued repeatedly for its failure to adopt reasonable procedures to timely gather and report updated public record information. The methods and processes used by Equifax to gather releases, satisfactions, vacaturs, and dismissals throughout Nevada was materially the same for the five years preceding the date of filing of this Complaint. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, Equifax's conduct regarding the collection of disposition information was willful and carried out in reckless disregard for a consumer's rights as set forth under the FCRA. By example only and without limitation, Equifax's conduct is willful because it was intentionally accomplished through intended procedures; it had knowledge of its violation through other lawsuits in other jurisdictions but it did nothing to rectify the problem in Nevada; and as Equifax's diligence in collecting and reporting derogatory information is believed by it to be of greater economic value to its paying customers than "disposition" information that demonstrated that the debt was no longer owed to those customers. As a result of Equifaxs conduct, Plaintiff and the putative class members suffered particularized and concrete injuries, including damages to their reputations, reductions to their credit scores, and increased risks that they would be denied credit.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jordan Butler, Esq. Don Springmeyer, Esq. WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP 3556 E. Russell Road, Second Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 Telephone: (702) 341-5200 Facsimile: (702) 341-5300 E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com JButler@wrslawyers.com - and - Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424 7570 Facsimile: (703) 591 0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC 43 SE Main St, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55422 Telephone: (612) 594 5933 Facsimile: (612) 584 4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net ERICSSON: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notified investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Ericsson securities between April 8, 2013 and July 17, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site. 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) Ericsson prematurely recognized revenues and improperly delayed the recognition of costs related to services contracts; and (2) consequently, Ericsson materially overstated its revenues, margins, and profits during the Class Period. On July 18, 2017, Ericsson disclosed that it would be terminating, renegotiating or revising 42 long-term service contracts with total annual sales of almost $1 billion. Following this news, Ericsson's American Depositary Share price fell $1.21, or 16.62%, to close at $6.07 on July 18, 2017. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/ericor 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 Ericsson 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. Peretz Bronstein,Esq. Yael Hurwitz,Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Telephone: 212-697-6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com [GN] EVANGELINE PARISH: Settlements Resolve Investigative Holds Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- KLFY News reports that a pair of settlement agreements has resolved class-action claims that law enforcement officers in a rural Louisiana community used illegal "investigative holds" to arrest and secretly jail hundreds of people for questioning. A court filing on April 11 said all of the federal lawsuit's claims against Evangeline Parish Sheriff Eddie Soileau and his office have been settled. A separate agreement resolved the claims against the city of Ville Platte and its police chief. Terms weren't disclosed. The lawsuit's claims mirrored a 2016 report by the U.S. Justice Department, which said unconstitutional arrests were a routine part of criminal investigations in Evangeline Parish for more than two decades. The department's report said people often were strip-searched, held in cells without beds, toilets or showers and detained for at least three days -- sometimes much longer -- without getting a chance to talk to loved ones or contest their arrests. Detectives told federal investigators they used these investigative holds when they didn't have sufficient grounds for an arrest but had a "hunch" or "feeling" that somebody may be involved in criminal activity. The class action over these holds hit a snag last year when a judge dismissed three plaintiffs' claims because they were freed from jail more than a year before their lawyers sued. The judge rejected arguments by plaintiffs' lawyers that a one-year statute of limitations shouldn't apply in this case because people were told to keep silent. New York-based plaintiffs' attorney Daniel Rehns,Esq. said in an email on April 12 that he can't comment on the settlements. Soileau and Ville Platte Police Chief Neal Lartigue didn't immediately respond to messages. In his orders dismissing the claims, U.S. District Judge Donald Walter said he can reopen the case if the settlement isn't "consummated" within 90 days. The Justice Department, which began investigating in April 2015, counted a "staggering" number of investigative holds for such a sparsely populated community. Ville Platte police officers used the practice more than 700 times between 2012 and 2014; the sheriff's office made more than 200 such arrests over the same period. Evangeline Parish, approximately 80 miles west of Baton Rouge, has a population of roughly 34,000 residents. Ville Platte has approximately 7,300 residents, with blacks accounting for 64 percent of the city's population. Plaintiffs' lawyers said the total number of arrests for investigative holds is likely underreported because the agencies use a "rudimentary" system for keeping arrest records. "In fact, both agencies privately acknowledged to the (Justice Department) that they used the practice of investigative holds for as long as anyone at either agency can remember," their suit said. In its report, the Justice Department said the police department and sheriff's office admitted that the holds are unconstitutional and took "laudable steps to begin eliminating their use."[GN] EXTRUDEX ALUMINUM: Martin Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MARTIN, the Plaintiff, v. EXTRUDEX ALUMINUM, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00973 (N.D. Ohio, April 27, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, the Opt-Ins and the Ohio Class are current or former hourly, non-exempt employees of Defendant. The Plaintiff, Opt-Ins and Ohio Class frequently worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek, entitling them to overtime compensation under the FLSA. For example, Plaintiff would, at times, work in excess of 50 hours in a week. The Plaintiff, the Opt-Ins and the Ohio Class were not paid all of the overtime compensation they earned. Pursuant to Defendant's uniform companywide policy, Defendant rounds its employees' clock-in time in a manner in which an employee always loses credit for time actually worked. The Defendant's practice of improperly rounding time always in its favor, which resulted in its employees always losing time worked, results and has resulted in Defendant's employees, including Plaintiff, being underpaid for overtime hours worked on a nearly daily basis. This, in turn, results and has resulted in Defendant's employees, including Plaintiff, being underpaid overtime hours worked on a weekly basis. The Plaintiff, and each Opt-In and the members of the Ohio Class 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 significant unpaid overtime. Extrudex Aluminum specializes in manufacturing aluminum extrusions for industries like commercial, consumer, marine, architecture, industrial architecture, and residential.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Michaela Calhoun, 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 FACEBOOK INC: Skotnicki Sues over Illegal Access of User Data ------------------------------------------------------------- CRAIG SKOTNICKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., and CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00655-UNA (D. Del., April 30, 2018), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from engaging in further negligent, deceptive, unfair, and unlawful business practices relating to the "wrong" that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted by disregarding the very privacy safeguards they promised users. In a keynote speech in San Francisco in 2014, Zuckerberg vowed, "In every single thing we do, we always put people first;" promising that Facebook would give people control over how they share their information. Just four years later, on March 21, 2018, Zuckerberg addressed fresh reports of the misappropriation of personal data of 50 million Facebook users by an app made by Global Science Research Ltd. and Cambridge Analytica, admitting: "This was clearly a mistake. We have a basic responsibility to protect people's data, and if we can't do that then we don't deserve to have the opportunity to serve people." Then, on April 4, 2018, Facebook publicly stated that up to 87 million users' data may have been improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica. Zuckerberg added that he regrets the company waited so long to inform its users of what happened: "I think we got that wrong." On March 17, 2018, The Guardian and The New York Times revealed that data analytics firm Cambridge Analytica harvested private information from Facebook users "on an unprecedented scale." At the time, Facebook's "platform policy" allowed third party applications to accumulate data from "friends" of Facebook users for the purpose of improved user experience, but prohibited it from being sold or used for advertising. Although Facebook knew about the misuse of its users' data in 2015, it chose to hide this information from its users until forced to confront the issue on March 17, 2018. Just one month earlier, in February 2018, both Facebook and the CEO of Cambridge Analytica, Alexander Nix, told a U.K. parliamentary inquiry on fake news that the company did not possess or employ private Facebook data. When asked if Cambridge Analytica had Facebook user data, Simon Milner, Facebook's U.K. policy director, told U.K. officials: "They may have lots of data but it will not be Facebook user data. It may be data about people who are on Facebook that they have gathered themselves, but it is not data that we have provided." Cambridge Analytica's Nix told officials: "We do not work with Facebook data and we do not have Facebook data. Nix was later caught on tape touting campaign tactics such as entrapping political opponents using bribes and sex workers and was terminated on March 20, 2018. In direct contradiction to the actual events stemming from Cambridge Analytica's improper use of Facebook user data, Facebook's applicable Data Use Policy at the time of the activity stated: "Facebook does not share your information with third parties for the third parties own and independent direct marketing purposes unless we receive your permission. Facebook's current Data Use Policy states: "We do not share information that personally identifies you (personally identifiable information is information like name or email address that can by itself be used to contact you or identifies who you are) with advertising, measurement or analytics partners unless you give us permission." Cambridge Analytica is a privately held company that combines data mining and data analysis with strategic communication for use in marketing and other strategies. Facebook is a social networking website. By the end of 2017, Facebook had more than 2.2 billion active users. Facebook's stated mission is "to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what's going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them."[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the proposed class: Christopher P. Simon, Esq. David G. Holmes, Esq. CROSS & SIMON, LLC 1105 North Market Street, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777 4200 Facsimile: (302) 777 4224 E-mail: csimon@crosslaw.com dholmes@crosslaw.com - and - Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq. Ann Ritter, Esq. Fred Baker, Esq. Andrew Arnold, Esq. Annie Kouba, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Facsimile: (843) 216-9450 E-mail: jflowers@motleyrice.com aritter@motleyrice.com fbaker@motleyrice.com aarnold@motleyrice.com akouba@motleyrice.com FAIRMOUNT SANTROL: Klein Balks at Unimin Corp. Merger Deal ---------------------------------------------------------- MELVYN KLEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FAIRMOUNT SANTROL HOLDINGS INC., JENNIFFER D. DECKARD, MATTHEW F. LEBARON, WILLIAM E. CONWAY, MICHAEL G. FISCH, CHARLES D. FOWLER, STEPHEN J. HADDEN, MICHAEL C. KEARNEY, WILLIAM P. KELLY, MICHAEL E. SAND, and LAWRENCE N. SCHULTZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00646-UNA (D. Del., April 27, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding stockholder vote on a proposed merger or proceeding to conclude the proposed merger unless and until all necessary material information is disclosed to Fairmount's stockholders in advance of the vote on the proposed merger, and in the alternative, if the proposed merger is concluded, then Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for the Class resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act. The action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public stockholders of Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. against Fairmount and the members of the Company's board of directors and for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed merger between Fairmount and Unimin Corporation, a subsidiary of SCR-Sibelco NV. On December 11, 2017, the Board caused the Company to enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, under which each share of Fairmount's common stock will be converted into the right to receive: (i) the number of shares of Unimin common stock that will result in the holders of Fairmount Common Stock, together with the holders of certain Fairmount equity awards, owning 35% of the Unimin Common Stock; and (ii) an amount in cash equal to the result of (x) $170,000,000, divided by (y) the Fully Diluted Fairmount Share Number, without interest. On April 18, 2018, the Defendants authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Registration Statement on form S-4/A with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act in an effort to persuade Fairmount's stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Merger. The Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information in numerous respects, including but not limited to: (a) financial projections for both companies; (b) the valuation analyses performed by Fairmount's financial advisor, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, in support of its fairness opinion; (c) information relating to the Background of the Merger; and (d) potential conflicts of interest involving Wells Fargo as financial advisor to Fairmount. The special meeting of Fairmount stockholders to vote on the Proposed Merger is imminent. In order for the Fairmount stockholders to properly exercise their rights to vote, the material information that has been omitted from the Proxy must be disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior to the stockholder vote. Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Ernst, Esq. Daniel P. Murray, Esq. O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC 901 N. Market St., Suite 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 778 4000 E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com dmurray@oelegal.com - and - Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983 1300 Facsimile: (212) 983 0383 E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com FOCUS RECEIVABLES: Bond Seeks to Certify Class in Robocalls Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled AMANDA BOND, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. FOCUS RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv- 00500-R-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on October 15, 2018, to certify a class consisting of: "all persons within the United States who received any telephone calls from Defendant to said person's cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and such person had not previously consented to receiving such calls within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint." The Plaintiff will also move the Court for appointment of Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for appointment of Plaintiffs' attorneys as Class Counsel. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uqRjK74q Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, 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 FULFILLMENT LAB: Malet-Jowett Asks Court to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled EMILY MALET-JOWETT, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE FULFILLMENT LAB, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00064- ILRL-MBN (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the court to grant her motion for class certification. The Plaintiff notes that this motion is being submitted pursuant to Local Rule 23.1(B) and reserves her right to supplement the Motion for Class Certification upon the conclusion of discovery. The proposed Class is legally and factually appropriate and warranted, and Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification should be granted. The Plaintiff maintains that the class satisfies all Rule 23(a) pre-requisites for certification and commonality predominates over any individual issues. In support of this motion, the Plaintiff relies on the arguments set forth in the attached memorandum. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2Dc8cjOh The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Mille Kirkland, Esq. Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. Emily. A. Westermeier, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 534 5005 Facsimile: (504) 272 2956 FUN EATS: Lopez Sues over "Tip Credit" System --------------------------------------------- Veronica Lopez, Brent Hellman, Megan McGuinn, Shoshana Swain, Alejandra Ventura, Hamna Choudhry, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the Plaintiffs, v. Fun Eats and Drinks, LLC dba Champps, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18- cv-01091-L (N.D. Tex., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and Class Members in accordance with the FLSA in that they failed to lawfully administer a "tip credit" system, thereby violating the FLSA minimum wage requirements. The Plaintiffs and Class Members were paid a sub-minimum hourly wage plus tips, which were improperly shared among other employees, who may not lawfully participate in a tip pool. Furthermore, Defendant also subjected Plaintiffs and Class Members to other unlawful deductions from their tips, which is also a violation of condition two of the tip credit. Finally, Defendant failed to inform Plaintiffs and Class Members of the FLSA's Section tip-credit provisions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479 9229 Facsimile: (817) 260 0801 E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Tarkowskis Sue over Zofran's Side Effects -------------------------------------------------------------- DARA TARKOWSKI and ADAM TARKOWSKI, as Parents and Next Friends of E.T., a Minor, the Plaintiffs, v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10827 (D. Mass., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, as well as equitable relief in an effort to ensure that similarly situated mothers-to-be are fully informed about the risks, benefits and alternatives attending drugs marketed for use in pregnant women, and such other relief as may be deemed just and proper arising from injuries and birth defects as a result of exposure to Zofran. According to the complaint, Zofran was developed by GSK to treat only those patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea imaginable -- that suffered as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments by cancer patients. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Zofran in 1991 for use in cancer patients who required chemotherapy or radiation therapy to treat intractable nausea and vomiting. Although the only FDA approval for Zofran was for cancer patients, GSK marketed Zofran "off label" as a safe and effective treatment for the very common side effect of a normal pregnancy -- pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting -- otherwise known as "morning sickness." GSK did this despite having knowledge that such representations were utterly false, as GSK had never undertaken a single study on the effects of this powerful drug on a pregnant mother or her child growing in utero. Unlike another anti-nausea prescription drug available on the market -- which is FDA-approved in the United States for treating morning sickness -- GSK never conducted a single clinical trial to study Zofrans effects on pregnant women or their developing babies before marketing the drug to pregnant women. GSK simply chose not to study Zofran in pregnant women or to seek FDA approval to market the drug for treatment of morning sickness. GSK avoided conducting these studies because clinical study would have hampered GSK's marketing of Zofran and decreased profits by linking the drug to serious birth defects. GSK's conduct was tantamount to using expectant mothers and their unborn children as human guinea pigs. As a result of GSK's fraudulent marketing campaign, doctors (who were led to believe the drug was safe) were induced to prescribe Zofran to unsuspecting pregnant women throughout the United States. These women ingested the drug, on the advice of their treating physicians, because they innocently believed that Zofran was an appropriate drug for use in the circumstances. When these women ingested the drug, they had no way of knowing that Zofran had never been studied in pregnant women, much less shown to be a safe and effective treatment for pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting. By contrast, GSK knew that Zofran was unsafe for ingestion by expectant mothers. In the 1980s, GSK conducted animal studies which revealed evidence of teratogenicity, intrauterine deaths and malformations in offspring, and further showed that Zofran's active ingredient transferred through the placental barrier from pregnant female mammals to their fetuses. A later study conducted in humans confirmed that ingested Zofran readily crosses the human placental barrier and exposes fetuses to substantial concentrations of the drug's active ingredient. GSK did not disclose this information to pregnant women or their treating physicians. In 1992, GSK began receiving mounting evidence of birth defects associated with Zofran. GSK had received at least 32 such reports by 2000, and has received more than 200 such reports to date. GSK never disclosed these reports to pregnant women or their treating physicians. In addition, scientists have conducted large -- scale epidemiological studies that have demonstrated an elevated risk of developing birth defects such as those suffered in this case when women ingest Zofran during their pregnancies. GSK has not disclosed these epidemiological studies to pregnant women or their treating physicians. Instead, GSK sales representatives specifically marketed and promoted Zofran as a morning sickness treatment throughout the relevant time periods. At or around the same time, GSK also entered civil settlements with the United States that included more than $1 billion in payments to the federal government for its illegal marketing of various drugs. GSK's conduct has caused devastating, irreversible, and life-long consequences and suffering to innocent newborns and their families, like Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff's minor child, E.T., was born in 2012 with congenital defects after Dara Tarkowski was prescribed and began taking Zofran beginning early in her first trimester of pregnancy to alleviate various symptoms of morning sickness. E.T. was exposed to Zofran in utero during the periods when his body tissues and major organs were forming and susceptible to developmental insult from environmental exposure. To the fullest extent that medical technology can determine, there is no genetic cause for E.T.'s condition. E.T. has no family history of any of the conditions from which she suffers. E.T. has had to undergo multiple surgeries to date as a result of these congenital defects. E.T. was diagnosed with multiple kidney defects, including but not limited to hydronephrosis, hydroureter, dilation and tortuosity of the right ureter. Had Dara Tarkowski known the truth about Zofran's unreasonable risk of harm to her developing child, which was concealed by GSK, she would never have taken Zofran, and her child would never have been injured. GSK is a British pharmaceutical company headquartered in Brentford, London. Established in 2000 by a merger of Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carolyn Daley Scott, Esq. POWER ROGERS & SMITH, L.L.P., 70 W. Madison, Suite 5500 Chicago, IL 60602 GLAZE DONUTS: Underpays Bakers, "Tapia" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------- EFRAIN TAPIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GLAZE DONUTS CORPORATION, GLAZE ARTISAN DONUTS LLC, GLAZE WEST CALDWELL LLC, and JULE HAZOU, as an individual, the Defendants, Case No. :18-cv-08517-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., April 30, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory damages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. According to the complaint, during Plaintiff's employment by Defendants, Plaintiff's primary duties were as a baker, doughnut maker, and cleaner, and performing other miscellaneous duties from October 2014 until June 2016 and from June 2017 to November 2017. Although the Plaintiff worked approximately 60 hours per week during his employment, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff time and half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263 9594 GOOGLE INC: Female Engineer's Fight for Equal Pay ------------------------------------------------- Ellen Huet, writing for Bloomberg BusinessWeek, reports that in 2010, Kelly Ellis got the dream Silicon Valley job: a software engineering position at Google. So when she first noticed things at work that suggested she was earning less than her male colleagues, she wasn't sure how to reconcile it with her idea of the company. "I think I just didn't want to believe that Google could be evil," she says in the latest episode of the Decrypted podcast. Ellis left Google in 2014. In September 2017, she and two other women sued Alphabet Inc.'s Google for discrimination. They and a fourth plaintiff, added in January, allege that Google pays women less than men for the same or similar work and puts women on career paths with lower pay ceilings. Google denies the allegations in her lawsuit and said in a blog post in March that its analyses found no pay gap on the basis of gender or race -- though its calculations excluded 11 percent of its workforce. To tell Ellis's story, we trace her path from her first day at Google to her decision to sue. She knows she has a long legal journey ahead. She and her co-plaintiffs hope to get their case approved as a class-action lawsuit, which could open it up to thousands of women who have worked at Google. Ellis says she hopes her efforts will help make the tech industry more equitable. "If entire groups of people are being compensated unfairly or not given the same opportunities because of factors that they can't help, then that's not the kind of industry I want to be in," she says in the episode, which was produced in partnership with the Reveal podcast from the Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX. [GN] GOPRO INC: July 27 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------------- All Persons Who Purchased Shares Of GoPro, Inc. ("GoPro" Or The "Company") Class A Common Stock In GoPro's June 26, 2014 Initial Public Offering (the "IPO"), Or Between June 26, 2014 And November 19, 2014, Inclusive, And Who Were Allegedly Damaged Thereby SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO IN RE GOPRO, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION Lead Case No.: CIV537077 SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on July 27, 2018 at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Marie S. Weiner, Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, at the San Mateo County Courthouse, Dep't 2, 400 County Center, Redwood City, California 94063, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned action ("Action") for $5,000,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Final Judgment as provided under the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement ("Stipulation") should be entered, dismissing the Amended Class Action Complaint filed in the Action on the merits and with prejudice; (3) the release by the Class of the Released Claims, as set forth in the Stipulation, should be provided to the Released Defendants' Parties; (4) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice"), referenced below); (5) to grant Plaintiffs' request for a service or incentive award out of the Settlement Fund in connection with their role in prosecuting this action on behalf of the Class; and (6) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court. This Action is a securities class action against GoPro, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of GoPro's June 26, 2014 IPO, alleging that GoPro's Registration Statement and Prospectus, issued in connection with the IPO, contained material omissions and false statements relating to certain aspects of GoPro's business, including its expenses, intellectual property, competitive risks, products and financial results. IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SHARES OF GOPRO CLASS A COMMON STOCK (ticker symbol: "GPRO") IN THE JUNE 26, 2014 IPO, OR BETWEEN JUNE 26, 2014 AND NOVEMBER 19, 2014, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release to the address below that is postmarked on or before July 26, 2018. Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim and Release by July 26, 2018 will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action. If you are a Member of the Class and do not request exclusion therefrom, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not limited to, the Final Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim and Release. If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more fully describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), or a Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain these documents (as well as a copy of the Stipulation, which contains the complete terms of the Settlement and the definitions of all capitalized defined terms used in this Summary Notice) online at www.GoProShareholderLitigation.com, or by writing to: GoPro Shareholder Litigation Settlement JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91346 Seattle, WA 98111 Telephone: 833/380-5566 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for a copy of the Notice or Proof of Claim and Release form, may be made to Plaintiffs' Counsel: Yury A. Kolesnikov Bottini & Bottini, Inc. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: 858/914-2001 Facsimile: 858/914-2002 If you desire to be excluded from the class, you must submit a request for exclusion postmarked by June 27, 2018, in the manner and form explained in the notice. All members of the class who do not properly request exclusion from the class will be bound by the settlement entered in the action even if they do not file a timely proof of claim and release. If you are a class member, you have the right to object to the settlement, the plan of allocation, the request by plaintiffs' counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, and/or the payment to plaintiffs for their time and expenses. Any objections must be sent to class counsel and the court and postmarked by June 27, 2018, in the manner and form explained in the notice. Dated: March 28, 2018 HON. MARIE S. WEINER SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE SAN MATEO COUNTY, CA GRAND ISLE: "Sandlin" Suit Has Conditional Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled WESLEY SANDLIN, the Plaintiff, v. GRAND ISLE SHIPYARD, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-10083-LMA- DEK (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Lance M. Africk entered an order on May 3, 2018: 1. granting in part and denying in part Sandlin's motion for conditional certification; 2. granting Sandlin's proposed "Misclassification Class"; 3. denying Sandlin's proposed "Off-the-Clock Class"; 4. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) with respect to: "all current and former Life Representatives who worked for Grand Isle at any location throughout the United States between May 2015 and April 2016"; 5. directing Grand Isle to provide Sandlin's counsel with the names, positions, dates of employment, all personal addresses, telephone numbers (home and mobile), and all personal email addresses for the class members, and directing Grand Isle to provide such information in a format, to be agreed upon by the parties, within 10 days of the date of this order; 6. directing Sandlin to amend his proposed notice and directing Sandlin's counsel to mail a copy of the amended "notice of rights" and "consent form" via regular U.S. Mail and via electronic mail to all persons contained on the class list within 10 days of receiving the class list; 7. Simultaneous with the first mailing, directing Sandlin's counsel to send a text message to the class members with a link to the notice of rights and consent form; and 8. 30 days after the first mailing, direct6ng Sandlin's counsel to send reminder notice consisting of the notice of rights and consent form via mail, email, and text message to all class members who have not opted into this case. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=53iq3PEF GUARDIAN LIFE: Web Sites Are Blind-Inaccessible, Young Says ----------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE YOUNG AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA AND BIRKSHIRE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:18-cv- 03067 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2018), arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their Web sites -- http://www.guardianlife.com/and http://www.berkshirelife.com/-- to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America is a company with offices and locations throughout New York State and New York County. Guardian Life owns and operates locations, subsidiary companies and the Websites, which provides a variety of insurance options and products, such as life insurance, dental insurance, etc., nationwide. Guardian Life advertises, markets, distributes and sells insurance plans throughout New York County. Birkshire Life Insurance Company of America is a foreign business corporation company with offices and locations throughout New York State and New York County. Birkshire Life owns and operates locations, subsidiary companies and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Guardian Life.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. 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 HEALTHCARE SERVICE: Terrys Sue over Air Transport Ambulance Fee --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA and JEFFREY TERRY, husband and wife, each individually and on behalf of their minor child, G. TERRY, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, a mutual legal reserve company, d/b/a BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF OKLAHOMA, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18- cv-00415-C (W.D. Okla., April 27, 2018), seeks judgment against BCBSOK for breaching contract in the amount of alleged balance of $45,149.14 plus attorney's fees, costs incurred, and additional damages arising by virtue of collections suit initiated by RMH. According to the complaint, to save their child's life, RMH, evacuated him by emergency air ambulance from Great Plains in Elk City to Children's, which was the closest hospital that could provide the necessary care. RMH billed Plaintiffs $49,999.00 for the flight from Elk City to Children's in Oklahoma City. On or about May 29, 2014, BCBSOK sent an Explanation of Benefits stating the amount Plaintiffs may owe for the emergency air ambulance services was zero dollars, leading Plaintiffs to believe they would owe zero dollars for the emergency air ambulance services. However, like most of BCBSOK's documents, this one was ambiguous later noting that "your claim has been denied." On September 4, 2014, BCBSOK sent Plaintiffs another EOB stating that the total benefits approved by BCBSOK for the emergency air ambulance transfer amounted to $2,909.92 and informed Plaintiffs that they were responsible for the remaining $47,089.08 of the air ambulance bill because RMH was an out-of- network provider. On or about September 22, 2014, the Plaintiffs verbally appealed BCBSOK's benefit determination and contacted BCBSOK by telephone inquiring as to why BCBSOK paid such a small amount of the air ambulance bill. A BCBSOK representative informed Plaintiffs that BCBSOK would review the claim. On October 7, 2014, BCBSOK adjusted the claim and sent another EOB stating that the total benefits approved by BCBSOK for the emergency air ambulance transfer was $4,849.86, an amount only $1,939.94 greater than BCBSOK's original benefit determination. Simultaneously, BCBSOK informed the Plaintiffs -- parents of a premature child born with severely undeveloped lungs -- that "[s]ince an out-of-network provider performed the services, you are responsible for additional charges. No explanation was provided to Plaintiffs by BCBSOC in the EOB of why the amount was adjusted or how it decided how much to pay. Consequently, BCBSOK paid only a fraction of the bill, $4,849.86, which resulted in RMH alleging that Plaintiffs owed a remaining balance of $45,149.14. The Plaintiffs, in an emergency situation with their newborn child's life on the line, were without the luxury of taking the time to identify any in-network air ambulances, if any such air ambulances existed. No in-network air ambulance was available in that location at that time. According to the lawsuit, a declaratory judgment is both necessary and proper in order to set forth and determine the rights, obligations, and liabilities that exist among the parties. The Plaintiffs' demand judgment against Defendant declaring BCBSOK's failure or refusal to pay the amount it agreed to pay to RMH violates applicable law, thus rendering the Contract noncompliant under the ACA, establishing a breach, and showing BCBSOK's bad faith. BCBSOK owed its insureds a duty to pay the amounts it had agreed with RMH were owed for air ambulance transport.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Christina and Jeffrey Terry, on their own behalf and on behalf of their minor child, G. Terry, and on behalf of all others similarly situated: Noble K. McIntyre, Esq. Jeremy Thurman, Esq. MCINTYRE LAW FIRM 8601 South Western Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73139 Telephone: (877) 917 5250 Facsimile: (405) 917 5405 E-mail: noble@mcintyrelaw.com - and - Edward L. White, Esq. Kerry D. Green, Esq. EDWARD L. WHITE, PC 829 East 33rd Street Edmond, Oklahoma 73013 Telephone: (405) 810 8188 Facsimile: (405) 608 0971 E-mail: ed@edwhitelaw.com kerry@edwhitelaw.com - and - Mike Torrone, Esq. LOGAN & LOWRY, LLP 101 South Wilson Street P. O. Box 558 Vinita, OK 74301 Telephone: (918) 256 7511 Facsimile: (918) 256 3187 E-mail: mtorrone@loganlowry.com HOMELAND SECURITY: Parton Sues over Gov't Employees Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit, LAHOMA SUE PARTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, and THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18- cv-00409-SCY-JHR (D. N.M., May 1, 2018), arises out of the historic data breach that the OPM, DOI, and DHS jointly permitted to occur in or around the Spring of 2015. The named agencies do not know exactly when the breach occurred. Although OPM has not revealed or does not know the exact dates, it was ultimately revealed that the OPM suffered at least two major breaches that resulted in the unauthorized access and theft of private personnel records of millions of federal government employees, including the records of Plaintiff and the Class Members. The lawsuit alleges that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued a report titled, "The OPM Data Breach: How the Government Jeopardized Our National Security for More Than a Generation." In its report, the Committee points out: "Despite this high value information maintained by OPM, the agency failed to prioritize cybersecurity and adequately secure high value data." The report continues: "The lax state of OPM's information security left the agency's information systems exposed for any experienced hacker to infiltrate and compromise." Disturbingly, the report notes that the breach could have been prevented or significantly mitigated. Moreover, according to the report, the DHS and OPM were aware that a hacking incident was underway since approximately March 20, 2014. DHS and OPM monitored this hacking incident and formulated a plan to stop it. Nevertheless, as the Committee concluded: the agencies' response was ineffective and failed to take steps which were known to be available, and which would have prevented the ultimate exfiltration of data that eventually occurred. The information compromised included employees' name, social security number, date of birth, and other highly sensitive personal data including financial information, background checks, and personal identifying information of relatives. Defendants knew for years that they had archaic, inadequate systems in place to protect the highly valuable and sensitive personal data of Federal Employees. Nevertheless, they took no steps to correct the glaring problems. As a result of Defendants' gross negligence and willful acts and omissions, Plaintiff's and the Class Members' personal data was allowed to fall into the hands of unknown parties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Lewis, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JASON J. LEWIS, LLC 201 12th St. NW Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 244 0950 Facsimile: (505) 214 5108 - and - Marshall J. Ray, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARSHALL J. RAY, LLC 201 12th St. NW Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 312 7598 HYO DONG GAK: "Zhinin" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS GUAMAN ZHININ, and NELSON ANTONIO GUAMAN, on behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated HYO DONG GAK, INC., BANBAT RESTAURANT, INC., and NACK GYEUN MUN, Case No. 1:18-cv- 03102 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2018), alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and other relief. Hyo Dong Gak, Inc., is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York, with a principal place of business in New York City. Hanbat Restaurant, Inc., is a business entity organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York with a principal place of business in New York City. Nack Gyeun Mun is an owner, officer, director and managing agent of the Corporate Defendants. The Corporate Defendants are separate corporations, but each engage in related activities; namely, they operate adjacent Asian restaurants, which shared the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com jcilenti@jcpclaw.com IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Class Certification Denied without Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JENNIFER D. HOVERMALE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. IMMEDIATE CREDIT RECOVERY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-05646-RBK-JS (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Robert B. Kugler entered an order: 1. denying Plaintiff's motion for settlement of class action including enforcement of settlement agreement; 2. denying Plaintiff's motion to certify class without prejudice; and 3. denying Defendant's cross-motion for settlement enforcement and for sanctions. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ef6RCyFE IRON CONTAINER: Rodriguez-Tellez Seeks Unpaid OT Wage under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ-TELLEZ, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C 206(B), the Plaintiff, v. IRON CONTAINER, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and JOHN MARTORANO, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-21698-KMW (S.D. Fla., April 28, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wage compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the lawsuit, John Martorano had operational control of Plaintiff and is therefore an employer pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 203(d). The Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee, entitled to be paid at the rate of one and one half for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Martorano knew or should have known that Plaintiff suffered or was permitted to work overtime for Employer as defined in 29 U.S.C. section 203 (g). Martorano failed and/or refused to compensate Plaintiff for such work in excess of 40)hours at rates no less than one and one-half times the regular rates for which he was employed. At all material times, Martorano knew or should have known that such refusal and/or failure is prohibited by the FLSA and intentionally and willfully violated the FLSA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Monica Espino, Esq. ESPINO LAW 2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 802 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 704 3172 Facsimile: (305) 722 7378 E-mail: me@espino-law.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Mihalich" Suit Moved to S.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Barbara Mihalich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2018-L- 000264, was removed from the Madison County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (East St. Louis) on April 27, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01027 to the proceeding. Johnson & Johnson offers world's largest range of consumer healthcare products.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Dan H. Ball, Esq. BRYAN CAVE 211 North Broadway One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 259 2000 E-mail: dhball@bryancave.com JUST BORN: Escobar Seeks to Certify Hot Tamales Purchasers Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled STEPHANIE ESCOBAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JUST BORN, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01826-TJH-PJW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the court for an order on July 16, 2018: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons who purchased opaque boxes of 5-oz. Mike and Ike and 5-oz. Hot Tamales in California for personal use and not for resale during the time period February 3, 2013, through the present. Excluded from the Class are Defendants' officers, directors, and employees, and any individual who received remuneration from Defendants in connection with that individual's use or endorsement of the Products"; 2. appointing herself as Class Representative; and 3. appointing Ryan J. Clarkson, Shireen M. Clarkson, and Bahar Sodaify of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=I4PBuU6C Attorneys for Stephanie Escobar: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 9255 Sunset Blvd., Ste. 804 Los Angeles, CA 90069 Telephone: (213) 788 4050 Facsimile: (213) 788 4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com KOHN LAW: Stanaszak Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DAVID STANASZAK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. KOHN LAW FIRM, S.C., and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00680-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16- 3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). One defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv- 1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KRVSSJzx The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com KRATON CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- On February 26, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Kraton Corporation (NYSE:KRA). Federman & Sherwood reminds current and former shareholders of Kraton Corporation that they only had until April 27, 2018, to move the court for appointment as a lead plaintiff in this case. The Complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you purchased Kraton Corporation shares between October 25, 2017 and February 21, 2018, have large losses as a result of your trades during this time period, and wish to join this litigation as a potential lead plaintiff, please contact our office as soon as possible. Our firm seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. Federman & Sherwood has extensive experience and expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud. We represent investors throughout the country in shareholder litigation. William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone:(405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com [GN] KRISPY KREME: Faces Another Lawsuit Over Fruit-Flavored Doughnuts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that a third consumer in California is suing Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc., trying to prove the company misleads customers about the nutritional content of fruit and maple fillings in several products. The lawsuit was filed April 6 by Irina Agajanyan with a request for class-action status. The complaint, as the other two were, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The November 2016 lawsuit by Jason Saidian and October 2017 lawsuit by Jacquline Salem were both voluntarily dismissed, including Salem's complaint just a day later. At the heart of the three complaints is the plaintiffs' claims that Krispy Kreme knowingly sells fruit- and maple-flavored doughnuts that do not include "real ingredients." The three lawsuits focused on California's false-advertising laws, along with claims of breach of contract, common law fraud, intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. Hovanes Margarian, who is representing Agajanyan, said they had no comment on pending litigation. Her attorneys acknowledged the similarities in her case and Saidian, including saying "the Saidian case is presumed to have settled on an individual basis" because of the voluntary dismissal. However, the Saidian dismissal said both parties paid for their legal costs, typically a sign that no settlement had been reached. Agajanyan said she filed a complaint Dec. 8 with Krispy Kreme, saying its blueberry and maple doughnuts did not contain real ingredients. Agajanyan said the company did not respond. What moves the lawsuits from being considered as potentially frivolous is that California law has a low bar for proving violations of business and professions code, as well as false advertising and breach of contract. One potential difference between Agajanyan and Saidian's lawsuits is that Saidian requested at least $5 million in damages, as well as disgorging of profits made from the products. Krispy Kreme typically sells its variety doughnuts for $1.09 apiece and $8.99 for a dozen. Agajanyan is requesting restitution of $1,000 for each potential class-action plaintiff, any actual damages and a court order that would prevent Krispy Kreme from selling blueberry and maple doughnuts and from using the words blueberry and maple in the names of doughnuts. The Agajanyan and Saidian complaints both list glazed blueberry cake and donut holes, and maple iced glazed doughnuts sold in Krispy Kreme's shops. Agajanyan included strawberry iced with sprinkles, while Saidian included chocolate-iced raspberry-filled, glazed raspberry-filled and maple bar. Complaint Agajanyan based her complaint from a July 7, 2017, visit to a Krispy Kreme shop in Burbank, California. She said that once she tasted the doughnuts, she "became suspicious" of the ingredients, "determined that ingredients mentioned in the product names were false" and "undertook a pre- complaint investigation." According to Agajanyan's legal complaint, "Although Krispy Kreme knew or should have known from the very start of the distribution and sale of class products that the blueberry doughnuts and maple doughnuts did not contain real ingredients, it misrepresented that the class products had real ingredients when distributing the doughnuts in the U.S. in order to make them more attractive to consumers." It continues: "Plaintiff and the class members will never know whether a doughnut they are purchasing from Krispy Kreme has real ingredients based on the name of the product." Saidian claimed that he purchased a raspberry doughnut in 2015 because raspberries "are a rich source of vitamin C, vitamin K, potassium and dietary fiber ... and help fight against cancer, heart and circulatory disease, and age-related decline." Saidian's attorneys cited other potential health benefits from premium maple and blueberry ingredients. Both complaints said the plaintiffs would not have bought the doughnuts if they had felt or known the fruit filling did not include "real ingredients." Krispy Kreme has not filed a response to the Agajanyan lawsuit and did not respond to the Winston-Salem Journal's requests for comment. However, Krispy Kreme spoke to the Saidian complaint several times in court filings. The company's defense essentially boiled down to this argument by its attorneys: Because Krispy Kreme doesn't advertise that its doughnuts contain real fruit, how can it be accused of false advertising? As the Krispy Kreme attorneys stated their defense against the Saidian complaint, their comments became increasingly incredulous. Some examples are: No reasonable consumer would expect a doughnut to deliver the same level of antioxidants, for example, as green tea." "Consumers also understand that doughnuts are desserts and contain flavoring ... that are shorthand references and are not intended to describe the ingredients of the doughnuts." "What exactly did he think the raspberry and blueberry doughnuts contained? Was it raw fruit? Fruit jelly? Fruit jam? Dried fruit?" Krispy Kreme's attorneys say federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act regulations prohibit states from requiring restaurants to impose -- at the point of sale -- additional labeling requirements beyond federal requirements that include number of calories per item and a statement of how the item fits within a 2,000-calorie diet. Saidian's lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, which means it can be refiled. The motion preserves the ability to pursue class- action claims if submitted and approved by the court. AmLaw Litigation Daily called the Saidian complaint one of the three worst consumer-protection lawsuits of 2016. Jenna Greene, a blogger for AmLaw, wrote that "consumer protection lawsuits, while sometimes heroic, can also be uniquely dumb." "News flash: doughnuts are not a health food," Greene wrote. The lawsuit "wouldn't be so dopey except when it gets all indignant about the health benefits doughnut eaters are being denied. "Yeah, if only that doughnut you just ate had some real raspberries, you totally wouldn't get cancer or heart disease."[GN] LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: October 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP regarding the Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In re LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION CLASS ACTION Master File No. 3:15-cv-00347-EMC SUMMARY NOTICE This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. TO: ALL PERSONS THAT PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES, INC. ("LEAPFROG") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 5, 2014 THROUGH JUNE 11, 2015, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD") You may be entitled to receive money from a class action settlement. The average recovery in the Settlement per allegedly damaged share is estimated to be approximately $0.125 per share, before the deduction of any Court-approved fees and expenses, and approximately $0.083 per allegedly damaged share, after the deduction of attorneys' fees and expenses and the costs of notice and administration of the Settlement. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, that a hearing will be held on October 18, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable Edward M. Chen, United States District Judge, at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated February 22, 2018 (the "Stipulation"), of the above-captioned litigation ("Action") for $5,500,000.00 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Judgment should be entered by the Court dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees (not to exceed 25% or $1,375,000) and expenses (not to exceed $275,000) and the application by Lead Plaintiff for reimbursement of its time and expenses of $5,600 should be approved. IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED LEAPFROG COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MAY 5, 2014 AND JUNE 11, 2015, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies by writing to LeapFrog Enterprises Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. BOX 404056, Louisville, KY 40233-4056, or on the internet at www.LeapFrogSecuritiesClassAction.com. If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim by mail postmarked no later than August 8, 2018, or submitted electronically no later than August 8, 2018, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by August 8, 2018, will subject your claim to possible rejection and may preclude you from receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not request exclusion, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that it is received no later than August 8, 2018. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by the Settlement entered in the Action even if they do not submit a timely Proof of Claim. Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the fee and expense application must be submitted to the Court in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice no later than August 8, 2018. If you object, but also want to be eligible for a payment from the Settlement, you must still submit a Proof of Claim or you will not receive a payment from the Settlement. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the following addresses: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART San Diego, CA 92101 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 MOTLEY RICE LLC CHRISTOPHER F. MORIARTY 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 DATED: March 20, 2018 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LEXINGTON INSURANCE: "Franklin" Suit Moved to W.D. Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA M. FRANKLIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1816-CV04397, was removed by the Defendant from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00322-RK to the proceeding. Lexington Insurance Company is a surplus lines insurance company wholly owned by AIG. It is the largest surplus lines insurer based in the U.S., and it offers property, casualty, and specialty lines insurance products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David T. Butsch, Esq. Christopher E. Roberts BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC 231 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 260 Clayton, MO 63105 E-mail: butsch@butschroberts.com roberts@butschroberts.com - and - Joe D. Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PRESS, P.C. 168 North Meramec Avenue, Suite 150 Clayon, MO 63105 E-mail: jacobson@archcitylawyers.com Attorneys for Defendant Lexington Insurance Company: Wade P.K. Carr, Esq. Mark L. Hanover, Esq. Kristine M. Schanbacher, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 4520 Main Street, Suite 1100 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 460 2400 E-mail: wade.carr@dentons.com mark.hanover@dentons.com kristine.schanbacher@dentons.com LIBERTY STUDENT: Sadrarhami Sues over Marketing Phone Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- ALI SADRARHAMI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-00732 (C.D. Cal., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. According to the complaint, the Defendant is a private company, not affiliated with the Department of Education or any academic or governmental entity. The Defendant offers loan consolidation services and repayment programs. At no time did Plaintiff have any relationship with Defendant nor did Plaintiff solicit Defendant's services. The Plaintiff never requested Defendant to review his student loans, calculate consolidated payments, nor did he request Defendant to provide him with any repayment programs. To solicit consumers with the Defendant's lucrative offers and payment plan options, the Defendant calls consumers advising them that "they prequalified for the federal student loan forgiveness program." Despite never soliciting Defendant, on or about April 24, 2018, at approximately 1:01 p.m., the Plaintiff received an unwelcomed automated impersonal voicemail from phone number (800) 218-0839 on his cellular telephone number ending in "5114." The voicemail stated, "You're prequalified for the federal student loan forgiveness program. Please call us back at (800) 549-6685 to discuss your repayment options or press one to be connected to a live representative. Press two if you would like to be removed." This voicemail is meant to deceive consumers into believing that they have dealings with Defendant or Defendant is currently servicing consumers' student loans. The telephone call sent from Defendant's number appeared to be autodialed based on lack of any personal information and the impersonal nature of the soliciting content of the voicemail. Moreover, the voicemail was prerecorded. Further, since the Plaintiff had no prior relationship with Defendant, and in fact since Defendant, it shows that Defendant's unsolicited phone call was autodialed. These telephonic communications constituted telephone solicitations. The Defendant did not have prior express consent nor a written consent to send marketing phone call to Plaintiff's cellular number. Through this action, the Plaintiff suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest in privacy, which is specifically addressed and protected by the TCPA. The Plaintiff was personally affected because Plaintiff was frustrated and distressed that Defendant harassed Plaintiff with the unsolicited marketing phone call using an automatic telephone dialing system despite Plaintiff's request to cease and desist Defendant's unwanted communication. Defendant's autodialed telephone messages forced Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers to live without the utility of their cellular phones by forcing Plaintiff and class members to silence their cellular phones and/or block incoming numbers.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Yana A. Hart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233 7770 Facsimile: (619) 297 1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com yana@westcoastlitigation.com LORALI BUILDING: Acceptance Distances from Tenancy Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- ACCEPTANCE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, the Plaintiff, v. THE LORALI BUILDING, LLC, THE LORALI COMPANY, LLC, JAMES STOLLER, MICHAEL STEIN, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH05544 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., April 30, 2018), seeks declaration that it does not owe a duty to defend or indemnify Lorali Building, Lorali Company or Stoller under policies of insurance issued to Lorali Building, with respect to a purported class action complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, entitled Michael Stein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Lorali Building, LLC, The Lorali Company, LLC, and James Stoller a/k/a Jim Stoller, individually and d/b/a "Lorali LLC", Case No. 18 CH 02632 (Underlying Lawsuit). Stein filed a complaint in the Underlying Lawsuit. The Underlying Lawsuit is filed on behalf of Stein and a class of all tenants of a single room occupancy building located at 1039-1045 W. Lawrence Avenue in Chicago for 32 continuous days or longer from March 1, 2016 to the present. The Underlying Lawsuit alleges that Lorali Building is the record owner of the Building. The Underlying Lawsuit alleges that beginning in or around October 2015 and continuing through the present, Stein occupied a unit in the Building. The Underlying Lawsuit alleges that throughout Stein's tenancy, the Building suffered from unsafe, unsanitary, and uninhabitable conditions. The Underlying Lawsuit alleges that Stein complained to defendants orally and in writing about the conditions, however, the defendants took little or no action to ameliorate or address the problems. The Underlying Lawsuit alleges that on or about February 13, 2018, within one year of Stein's complaints to the defendants regarding the conditions of the Building, the defendants filed an eviction action against Stein, Cook County Case No. 18 Ml 701136. On behalf of the class, the Underlying Lawsuit asserts claims for violations of the Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance as a result of the defendants' alleged policy of not providing tenants with copies of RLTO summaries (Count I) and failure to maintain the premises in compliance with the RLTO because of the Building's unsafe, unsanitary, and uninhabitable conditions, including a severe and intractable infestation of cockroaches, bedbugs, and/or mice throughout the dwelling units and common areas (Count II).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip R. King, Esq. Le G. Trieu, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 474 7900 Facsimile: (312) 474 7898 E-mail: pking@cozen.com ltrieu@cozen.com LOWE'S COMPANIES: Reetz Sues over 401(k) Plan Investment Losses --------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Reetz, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Lowe's 401(k) Plan, the Plaintiff, v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., Administrative Committee of Lowe's Companies, Inc., John and Jane Does 1-20, and Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00075-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover losses, disgorge profits that Hewitt received on account of its fiduciary breaches, and obtain equitable relief and other appropriate relief as provided by Sections 409 and 502 of Employee Retirement Income Security Act. According to the complaint, Lowe's imprudently selected and retained Hewitt Growth Fund for the Plan, in consultation with Hewitt (which served as the Plans fiduciary investment consultant), despite the fact that (1) the Hewitt Growth Fund was a new and largely untested fund at the time it was added to the Plan; (2) the Hewitt Growth Fund was underperforming its benchmark at the time it was added to the Plan and continued to underperform after it was added to the Plan; and (3) the Hewitt Growth Fund was not utilized by fiduciaries of any similarly- sized plans and was generally unpopular in the marketplace. To make matters worse, Defendants placed over $1 billion of the Plan's assets into this new, underperforming, and unpopular fund, and disturbed participants' investment choices by transferring assets from eight existing funds in the Plan (which were generally performing well) and putting them in the Hewitt Growth Fund, which replaced these existing funds in the Plan's investment lineup. Prior to this $1 billion investment by the Plan, the Hewitt Growth Fund had struggled to attract capital from other investors and had only $350 million in total assets, such that the Plan's investment resulted in a four-fold increase in the size of this fund. Hewitt had a conflict of interest in recommending this proprietary fund for the Plan, and improperly did so to further its own financial interests instead of the interests of the Plan's participants. Lowe's should have recognized this conflict of interest, and should have recognized (as other 401(k) plan fiduciaries did) that the Hewitt Growth Fund was inappropriate for the Plan. By causing the Plan to include and retain this fund, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under Section 404 of ERISA and caused the Plan to suffer millions of dollars in investment losses. Lowe's Companies, Inc., is a Fortune 500 American company that operates a chain of retail home improvement and appliance stores in the United States, Canada and Mexico.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: F. Hill Allen, Esq. THARRINGTON SMITH, L.L.P. P.O. Box 1151 Raleigh, NC 27602-1151 Telephone: (919) 821 4711 Facsimile: (919) 829 1583 E-mail: hallen@tharringtonsmith.com - and - Paul J. Lukas, Esq. Kai H. Richter, Esq. Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. Brandon T. McDonough, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256 3200 Facsimile: (612) 338 4878 E-mail: lukas@nka.com krichter@nka.com cengstrom@nka.com bmcdonough@nka.com LTI TRUCKING: "Ratliff" Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JEROME RATLIFF, JR., the Plaintiff, v. LTI TRUCKING SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07190 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jorge L. Alonso entered an order: 1. granting Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; and 2. dismissing Plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction. All other pending motions are denied as moot. The status hearing previously set for June 20, 2018 is stricken. The Court said, "Plainly, the Plaintiff has alleged a technical violation of the statute, namely that Defendant failed to provide the relevant notice within three business days. The question is whether the Plaintiff has alleged concrete harm. This Court thinks he has not. The plain language of the statute tells this Court that the purpose of notifying the consumer is so the consumer can obtain a copy of the report and then dispute with the consumer reporting agency (i.e., HireRight) the accuracy of the information. See 15 U.S.C. section 1681(b)(3)(B)(i)(IV). The Plaintiff does not allege that any of the information was inaccurate, so, like the Supreme Court in Spokeo, this Court cannot fathom how the Plaintiff could have suffered concrete harm. He does not even allege that he asked for a copy of the report and was denied. The Plaintiff, instead, argues that his privacy has been invaded by the technical violation, but the Court does not see anything in the language of the statute that suggests a privacy right. Nor does the Plaintiff allege defendant obtained the report without his permission. Without an allegation of concrete harm, the Plaintiff has failed to allege injury in fact and, therefore, has failed to establish that he has standing to sue. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this case and must dismiss it. Two other courts in this district considered nearly identical allegations by this particular plaintiff and, like this Court, concluded that plaintiff failed to allege concrete harm. Ratliff v. Celadon Trucking Serv., Inc., Case No. 17 CV 7163, 2018 WL 1911797 (N.D. Ill. April 23, 2017) (dismissing case for lack of jurisdiction); Ratliff v. A&R Logistics, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-2787, 2018 WL 1124412 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 28, 2018) (same). From the fact that plaintiff did not file an amended complaint in A&R Logistics, this Court concludes that amendment would be futile." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rKWD9WFd LUX VENDING: Accused by "Dunleavey" Class Suit of Violating TCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- PHILIP DUNLEAVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LUX VENDING, LLC, a foreign corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-21367-DPG (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2018), seeks to secure redress for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Through the action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's alleged illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Lux Vending is a Georgia corporation whose principal office is located in Atlanta, Georgia. The Defendant directs, markets, and provides its business activities throughout the state of Florida and any other state in which a "Bitcoin ATM" is located. Lux Vending is a company that deals in cryptocurrency, owns and operates Bitcoin ATMs. This service is intended to be a way of depositing and buying Bitcoins, a rapidly-expanding cryptocurrency, into a secure account.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone (305) 479-2299 Facsimile (786) 623-0915 E-mail: Ashamis@ShamisGentile.com MACY'S FLORIDA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Haynes Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS HAYNES, Individually, the Plaintiffs, v. MACY'S FLORIDA STORES, LLC, A Florida Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18- cv-60985-DPG (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiff attempted to access and/or utilize Defendant's website, but was unable to, and continues to be unable to, enjoy full and equal access to the website and/or understand the content therein because numerous portions of the website do not interface with and are not readable by Screen Reader Software ("SRS"). More specifically, features of the website that are inaccessible to the visually impaired include, but are not limited to, the following: Defendant's website contains graphics, links, headings, forms and text with information that is not fully readable and/or compatible with SRS. The Plaintiff continues to attempt to utilize the website and/or plans to continue to attempt to utilize the website in the near future. In the alternative, Plaintiff intends to monitor the website in the near future, as a tester, to ascertain whether it has been updated to interface properly with SRS. Macy's Florida Stores, LLC owns and operates a chain of department stores. Macy's Florida Stores, LLC was formerly known as Burdines, Inc. and changed its name to Macy's Florida Stores, LLC in February 2004.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Duane Crooks, Esq. Thomas B. Bacon, Esq. THOMAS B. BACON, P.A. P.O. Box 450973 Sunrise, FL 33345 Telephone: (305) 761 2146 E-mail: crookslawfirm@gmail.com tbb@thomasbaconlaw.com MASSACHUSETTS: Bell Sues over Assaults & Inhumane Treatment ----------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY BELL, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC., SILVIO DEPINA, HERMANO JOSEPH, JOSEPH CINTOLO, AINSLEY LAROCHE, and JALISE ANDRADE, the Defendants, Case No. 18-01314A (Mass. Super. Ct., April 30, 2018), seeks to recover money damages, and compensatory and punitive damages caused by inhumane treatment suffered by Plaintiff from the Department of Youth Services of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Volunteers of America of Massachusetts, Inc., and the individuals who worked for them at Casa Isla Short-Term Treatment and Revocation Center, a juvenile detention center operated by VOA and DYS. The Plaintiff was beaten, indecently assaulted, and subjected to inhumane treatment by the Defendants or their agents while he was detained at Casa Isla in 2013 and 2014. He seeks to represent a class of all people who were detained at Casa Isla in 2012, 2013 and 2014, and who were subject to the same or similar treatment as he received. On information and belief, hundreds of people have been subjected to unconstitutional treatment after admission to Casa Isla in 2012, 2013, and 2014.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David M. Hass, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BURTON J. HASS 640 Main Street Malden MA 02148-3919 Telephone: (781)322 3900 E-mail: BJHlaw@msn.com MDL 2804: Trial Date Set for Opioid Class-Action ------------------------------------------------ Marlene Satter, writing for BenefitsPro, reports that as the opioid crisis drags on, the wheels of justice continue to turn, with distributors of opioids scheduled to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in May and a federal judge in Ohio setting a trial date for next March for cases from three of the cities and counties that have brought suit against drug companies. Reports from The Hill detail the actions, with the executives from five opioid distributors set to be questioned about how millions of pills flooded little towns in West Virginia. Meanwhile, Judge Dan Polster in Ohio is choosing cases from the "hundreds brought under Poster's review" to serve as "bellwethers" that could bring settlements or further legal action to drive change. In addition, the Senate Finance Committee has announced a hearing on ways to better the response to the opioid epidemic by Medicare and Medicaid. According to the first report, representatives from McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health Inc., AmerisourceBergen Corporation, Miami-Luken, Inc. and H.D. Smith Wholesale Drug Company will testify before the House committee after an Energy and Commerce investigation found that the companies collectively distributed millions of pain pills just in that state, which has been the target of some of the worst effects of the epidemic. Miami-Luken alone sent 4 million pills to the town of Oceana between 2008-2015. Oceana has a population of just 1,390 people. According to a letter from the committee to the company in January, "This means that in 2014 alone, Miami-Luken provided roughly 689 pills for every man, woman and child in Oceana." The lawsuit Polster scheduled for next year is part of "a massive combined lawsuit against drug manufacturers and distributors over the opioid epidemic," says the report. Polster is quoted saying to Reuters in the report that while he wants a settlement, the companies have "asserted forcefully that they cannot reach final settlement without litigating certain matters." He is also quoted saying, "I'm confident we can do something to dramatically reduce the number of opioids that are being disseminated, manufactured and distributed. Just dramatically reduce the quantity and make sure that the pills that are manufactured and distributed go to the right people and no one else." [GN] MDLIVE INC: "Mezzasalma" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled KARINA MEZZASALMA, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MDLive, Inc. a Foreign Corporation and JUSTIN WOLLER, the Defendants, Case No. 18-004771-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on April 27, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18- cv-21691-KMM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge K. Michael Moore. MDLive is a telehealth provider focused on digital delivery of high-quality, convenient, and cost-efficient medical care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flager Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com Attorneys for Defendants: Barry Adam Postman, Esq. S. Jonathan Vine, Esq. Sheena Danielle Smith, Esq. COLE SCOTT & KISSANE 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 120 West Palm Beach, FL 33417 Telephone: (561) 383 9200 Facsimile: (561) 683 8977 E-mail: postman@csklegal.com Jonathan.Vine@csklegal.com sheena.smith@csklegal.com MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Jones et al. Sue over Inflated DRAM Prices ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELE JONES, DAVID LAIETTA, KIMBERLY YORK, BENJAMIN MURRAY, WANDA DUREYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SK HYNIX, INC. (F/K/A HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.), SK HYNIX AMERICA, INC. (F/K/A HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.), the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv- 02518-JSW (N.D. Cal., April 27, 2018), alleges that the Defendants combined and contracted to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices at which DRAM was sold in the United States from at least June 1, 2016 to February 1, 2018. Defendants' conspiracy artificially inflated prices for DRAM throughout the supply chain that were ultimately passed through to Plaintiffs and the Class, causing them to pay more for DRAM Products than they otherwise would have absent Defendants' conspiracy. Dynamic random access memory (DRAM) is one of the most common forms of semiconductor memory. DRAM is made from silicon wafers, and is widely used as a component in digital electronics, such as in mobile phones, PCs and servers, laptops, tablets, TVs, set-top boxes, cameras, and in industrial applications, such as in automotive, military, and aviation devices. The alleged co-conspirators, Samsung, Micron, and Hynix, are the three companies that control nearly one-hundred percent of the DRAM market. The Defendants are the world's largest manufacturers of DRAM, collectively controlling 96% of worldwide DRAM market share as of mid-2017. Prior to entering into the conspiracy, Defendants acted independently in deciding how to balance supply (and capacity) to meet industry demand for DRAM. Acting independently, firms sought to gain market share though increases in their supply. For example, during the period from 2014-2015, the Defendant Samsung added wafer capacity throughout the period in an attempt to take market share from the other Defendants. DRAM prices fell during this time. But in the face of the willingness of the three firms controlling the DRAM market to steal share through price competition (and supply increases), Defendants made a near simultaneous decision in 2016 to restrict growth in the supply of DRAM to stop the downward pressure on prices and, indeed, to cause DRAM prices to skyrocket upward. The plausibility of the alleged conspiracy is also buttressed by the fact that Defendants have previously been convicted for conspiring to fix prices of DRAM. In 2005, the United States Department of Justice brought criminal charges against the very same Defendants as named here for participating in a conspiracy to fix prices of DRAM sold in the United States between 1999 and 2002. Samsung and SK Hynix2 pleaded guilty to the DOJ's charges -- and paid some of the largest criminal fines in history for their illegal conduct. Micron also admitted its participation in the earlier DRAM conspiracy, but was given amnesty from DOJ prosecution in exchange for its cooperation under the DOJ's Antitrust Leniency Program. Fourteen individual employees of Defendants also pleaded guilty for their participation in the earlier DRAM conspiracy -- paying fines of $250,000 each, and serving prison sentences ranging from 7 to 14 months. Defendants and their co-conspirators also collectively paid over $650 million to settlement civil price-fixing claims related to their prior conduct in the DRAM market. The Defendants' conspiratorial conduct between 2016 and 2018 violated Section One of the Sherman Act and the antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws of various states. As a result, Plaintiffs and the Class paid artificially inflated prices for DRAM Products, and thereby suffered antitrust injury to their business or property. The Defendants manufacture DRAM in fabrication plants. The Defendants manufacture DRAM at their fabs in Korea and China. DRAM is made from silicon wafers. To make DRAM, silicon wafers are cut into individual chips called "dice." The dice are printed with electronics, and are then considered complete. Capacity for DRAM is often discussed in terms of new "wafer starts." DRAM chips are classified into types based on the number of data transfers a chip can process per cycle. DRAM types are most commonly denoted by the term Double Data Rate ("DDR"), and are suffixed by numbers 2-6. For example, DRAM types include DDR3 and DDR4. Micron is an American global corporation based in Boise, Idaho. The company produces many forms of semiconductor devices, including dynamic random-access memory, flash memory, and solid- state drives.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. Rio S. Pierce, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. Anthony Shapiro, Esq. Ronnie Spiegel, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725 3000 Facsimile: (510) 725 3001 E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com riop@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com tony@hbsslaw.com ronnie@hbsslaw.com MEDCARE INVESTMENT: Certification of Employees Class Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled COLLENE COLLIER, KAREN GROCE and BARRY KUSNICK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MEDCARE INVESTMENT CORPORATION d/b/a MEDCARE INVESTMENT FUNDS, CARDIOVASCULAR CARE GROUP, INC., and CCG OF LOUISIANA, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00331 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs, in furtherance of their claims under the Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act, move the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "(a) Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated former employees who worked at, received assignments from, or reported to Defendants' Facilities, (b) who were terminated without cause beginning on or about February 3, 2017, and within thirty (30) days of that date, or (c) who are affected employees within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section 2101(a)(5)), (d) who are not bound by a release of WARN Act claims against Defendants, and (e) who have not filed a timely request to opt out of the Class"; 2. appointing Outten & Golden LLP as Class Counsel; 3. appointing Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives; and 4. approving the form and manner of Notice. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SiR68tal Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative class: Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245 1000 - and - David W. Garrison, Esq. Seth M. Hyatt, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Bank of America Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244 2202 Facsimile: (615) 252 3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com shyatt@barrettjohnston.com MESILLA VALLEY TRANS: "Ratliff" Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JEROME RATLIFF, JR., the Plaintiff, v. MESILLA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION, INC., and MVT SERVICES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07192 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jorge L. Alonso entered an order: 1. granting Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; and 2. dismissing Plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction. All other pending motions are denied as moot. Status hearing previously set for June 20, 2018 is stricken. The Court said, "Plainly, the Plaintiff has alleged a technical violation of the statute, namely that Defendant failed to provide the relevant notice within three business days. The question is whether the Plaintiff has alleged concrete harm. This Court thinks he has not. The plain language of the statute tells this Court that the purpose of notifying the consumer is so the consumer can obtain a copy of the report and then dispute with the consumer reporting agency (i.e., HireRight) the accuracy of the information. See 15 U.S.C. section 1681(b)(3)(B)(i)(IV). The Plaintiff does not allege that any of the information was inaccurate, so, like the Supreme Court in Spokeo, this Court cannot fathom how the Plaintiff could have suffered concrete harm. He does not even allege that he asked for a copy of the report and was denied. The Plaintiff, instead, argues that his privacy has been invaded by the technical violation, but the Court does not see anything in the language of the statute that suggests a privacy right. Nor does the Plaintiff allege defendant obtained the report without his permission. Without an allegation of concrete harm, the Plaintiff has failed to allege injury in fact and, therefore, has failed to establish that he has standing to sue. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this case and must dismiss it. Two other courts in this district considered nearly identical allegations by this particular plaintiff and, like this Court, concluded that plaintiff failed to allege concrete harm. Ratliff v. Celadon Trucking Serv., Inc., Case No. 17 CV 7163, 2018 WL 1911797 (N.D. Ill. April 23, 2017) (dismissing case for lack of jurisdiction); Ratliff v. A&R Logistics, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-2787, 2018 WL 1124412 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 28, 2018) (same). From the fact that Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint in A&R Logistics, this Court concludes that amendment would be futile." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=g954wwYG MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Steamfitters Alleges Securities Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 PENSION PLAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC., J. MARIO MOLINA, JOHN C. MOLINA, TERRY P. BAYER, and RICK HOPFER, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03579 (C.D. Cal., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Molina common stock between October 31, 2014 and August 2, 2017, inclusive. Molina is a managed care company, focused on 4.5 million members eligible for Medicaid, Medicare, and other government-sponsored healthcare programs. Molina's health plans are operated by various wholly- owned subsidiaries, each of which is licensed as a health maintenance organization. As of December 31, 2017, Molina had 5,300 employees and operated in 13 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. During the Class Period, Molina misled investors regarding the scalability of its existing administrative infrastructure. Scalability refers to a system's capacity to handle a growing amount of work, and administrative infrastructure refers to personnel, processes, and technology that allow Molina to administer health plans through various business functions, including provider payment and utilization management. Utilization management is a cost management tool that evaluates the necessity and efficiency of healthcare. Molina executives falsely claimed that the Company's existing administrative infrastructure could support rapid growth into existing Medicaid markets and new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplaces in a cost- effective manner. Molina later admitted that its existing administrative infrastructure was built for a "much smaller, simpler business" and was "never" designed to support the Company's growth strategy. The truth regarding Molina's failed growth strategy and inadequate administrative infrastructure was revealed through a series of partial disclosures, including the Company's April 28, 2016 earnings release. On that date, Molina reported a sharp earnings miss for the first quarter ended March 31, 2016 and drastically cut full-year 2016 earnings guidance. Molina blamed the poor results on higher costs tied to administrative capacity issues. On this news, Molina's common stock price fell $12.46 per share, or 19.40 percent, to close at $51.76 per share on April 29, 2016. On February 15, 2017, Molina announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and full-year ended December 31, 2016. Despite Molina's prior expressions of commitment to a rapid growth strategy, Molina executives cautioned that the Company could not commit to ACA Health Exchange participation beyond 2017. On this news, Molina's common stock price fell $10.71 per share, or 17.88 percent, to close at $49.18 per share on February 16, 2017. On August 2, 2017, Molina announced its financial results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2017. The Company reported a net loss of $230 million for the quarter, termination of its ACA Health Exchange participation in Utah and Wisconsin, and a major restructuring plan. During the related earnings call, Molina revealed that its administrative infrastructure was never designed to sustain such rapid growth. On this news, Molina's common stock price fell $3.92 per share, or 5.92 percent, to close at $62.32 per share on August 3, 2017. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common stock, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoyv GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201 9150 Facsimile: (310) 201 9160 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com - and - Christopher J. Keller, Esq. Eric J. Belfi, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907 0700 Facsimile: (212) 818 0477 E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com ebelfi@labaton.com fmcconville@labaton.com MONAT GLOBAL: Hair Care Products Have Harmful Effects, Row Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Row, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MONAT GLOBAL CORP., a Florida Corporation, and ALCORA CORP., a Florida Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-21731-JEM (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2018), assert that the Defendants' representations that their "specialty" hair care products under the Monat brand are safe, naturally-based, and designed to increase hair strength and growth, are deceptive, misleading, unfair, and unlawful, because Defendants have actively concealed and failed to disclose the harmful side effects caused by its hair care products. The Plaintiff and the proposed classes purchased and used Defendants' hair care products after relying on its representations about the products' safety and efficacy. However, complaints concerning Monat's products have become commonplace in the wake of its recent and rapid growth. Rather than increasing hair growth and minimizing breakage, individuals using the hair care products have reportedly suffered hair loss and scalp injury. Instead of disclosing the risk of hair loss and other injury, the Defendants have intentionally concealed these risks and continues to sell its products as safe and defect-free. For example, Monat advertises its products as "safe" and "clinically proven," and claims they provide "outstanding clinical results." It also touts its "Scientific Board" of physicians that it utilizes to extend [its] commitment to quality, integrity, customer safety and superior product development. The Plaintiff relied on Defendants' representations as to the safety and efficacy of its hair care products, and purchased Monat's Hydration System on November 18, 2017, and Monat's Restore Leave-In Conditioner, Smoothing Deep Conditioner, and Renew Shampoo on December 25, 2017. According to the Complaint, the active concealments and material omissions induced the purchase of hair care products that no reasonable consumer would likely purchase, let alone pay a premium for. Every consumer who purchased Defendants' defective hair care products without the facts concerning risks and side effects having been disclosed prior to purchase were injured equally at the point of sale when, instead of obtaining the premium, safe, and natural hair care product they thought they were getting, they obtained Defendants' dangerous and defective product. Had the potential impacts of the defective hair care products designed and sold by Defendants been disclosed, reasonable consumers would not have paid the hefty premium charged for these products, or more likely, would not have purchased the products at all.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julie Braman Kane, Esq. Lindsey Lazopoulos Friedman, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476 7400 Facsimile: (305) 476 7444 E-mail: julie@colson.com lindsey@colson.com b.cancela@colson.com eservice@colson.com - and - Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339 6900 E-mail: ymflaherty@locklaw.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Amanda M. Williams, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333 8844 Facsimile: (612) 339 6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com awilliams@gustafsongluek.com rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Caminiti Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Caminiti, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00678-SNLJ (E.D. Mo., April 30, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendants Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, and Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 11181 Overbrook Road, Suite 200 Leawood, KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 451 3433 Facsimile: (913) 839 0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Bradleys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- CARL and BETTY BRADLEY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. Case: 4:18-cv-00664 (E.D. Mo., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. "Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, and Roundup Export Herbicide. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Harleys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ BARRY AND KELLY HARLEY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00667 (E.D. Mo., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. "Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, and Roundup Export Herbicide. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Johnson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- LUDIE JOHNSON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00673 (E.D. Mo., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. "Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, and Roundup Export Herbicide. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Torres Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ GILBERT and BELINOLA TORRES, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00661-PLC (E.D. Mo., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. "Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, and Roundup Export Herbicide. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MUZZY'S DAY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and OT, Knight Says ---------------------------------------------------------- DONNA KNIGHT, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MUZZY'S DAY SQUARE FLORIST, INC. AND JOSEPH MAZZARINO, JR., the Defendants, Case No. 18-01318D (Mass. Sup. Ct., April 30, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime pay under the Massachusetts Wage Act and Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Law. The Defendants allegedly violated these statutes by failing to pay the Plaintiff for all hours worked, failing to pay the Plaintiff for hours worked in excess of 40 per week at the rate of one and one-half times her regular hourly rate and failing to pay the Plaintiff for hours worked on Sunday in at the rate of one and one-half times her regular hourly rate. Muzzy's is a retail florist shop. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants in or around January 2014 as a floral designer. The Plaintiffs last date of work for the Defendants was on or about June 21, 2017. The Plaintiffs rate of pay was originally $15 per hour, which was increased to $16 per hour in 2015, $per hour in 2016 and $18 per hour in 2017. The Plaintiffs regular work hours were from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. However, Plaintiff was frequently required to work additional hours, beginning as early as 6 a.m. and working at times until as late as 7:30 p.m. The Plaintiff was also frequently required to work on Saturdays and Sundays. During many weeks, Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week. During the weeks in which Plaintiff worked 40 or more hours, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at one and one-half times her regular hourly rate. As a retail store, Muzzy's was required to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked on Sunday at one and one-half times her regular hourly rate. However, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for hours worked on Sunday at one and one-half times her regular hourly rate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard M. Brown, Esq. BOSTON EMPLOYMENT LAW PC 1170 Beacon Street, Suite 200 Brookline, MA 02446 Telephone: (617) 566 8090 Facsimile: (617) 566 8091 E-mail: hmb@bostonemploymentlaw.com MY FINANCIAL: Karon Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL KARON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MY FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LLC, a California limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01000 (N.D. Ohio, May 1, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing calls using "an artificial or prerecorded voice" to the telephones of consumers nationwide without prior express written consent; stop the Defendant from calling consumers who are registered on the National Do Not Call Registry; and obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. My Financial Solutions purports to provide assistance to student loan borrowers in obtaining student loan forgiveness and student loan consolidation.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Adam T. Savett, Esq. SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC 2764 Carole Lane Allentown PA 18104 Telephone: (610) 621 4550 Facsimile: (610) 978 2970 E-mail: adam@savettlaw.com NANO: "Brola" Suit Seeks to Recover Purchases, Investments in XRB ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALEX BROLA, individually; and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NANO f/k/a RAIBLOCKS f/k/a HIEUSYS, LLC, a Texas company; COLIN LEMAHIEU, an individual; MICA BUSCH, an individual; ZACH SHAPIRO, an individual; and TROY RETZER, an individual, Case No. 1:18-cv-02049 (E.D.N.Y., April 6, 2018), seeks compensatory and equitable relief rescinding their purchases of/investments in XRB and/or restoring to them the assets and funds they were wrongfully induced into investing. The action is brought by Alex Brola who -- upon investment solicitations and specific instructions and representations of safety and security made by NANO representatives -- opened a customer account at BitGrail, an Italian-based cryptocurrency exchange, for the primary purpose of investing in and exchanging a cryptocurrency called Nano (f/k/a RaiBlocks) [XRB], which was developed and promoted (but never registered with any regulatory authority) by the Defendants, who are based in the United States. NANO is a Texas company with its principal place of business located in Austin, Texas. According to NANO's own published promotional materials, NANO is a "low-latency payment platform" that "utilizes a novel block-lattice architecture" on which "each account has [its] own blockchain as part of a larger directed acyclic graph." Colin Lemahieu is a resident of Austin, Texas. According to NANO's own published promotional materials, Lemahieu co-founded NANO in 2014 and serves as the company's Lead Developer, "spearheading development of the core protocol." Mica Busch is a resident of Chicago, Illinois. According to NANO, Busch is a key member of NANO's core team, serving as a Control System developer for NANO's web and Android systems. Zach Shapiro is a resident of Brooklyn, New York. According to NANO, Shapiro is a key member of NANO's core team, as he "runs Mobile, Wallets, and Product" for the company and serves as the company's head iOS Developer. Troy Retzer is a resident of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. According to NANO', Retzer is a key member of NANO's core team, as he manages and directs the company's marketing and Community and Public Relations efforts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Braunstein, Esq. THE BRAUNSTEIN LAW FIRM, PLLC 3 Eberling Drive New City, NY 10956 Telephone: (845) 642-5062 E-mail: mbraunstein@braunsteinfirm.com - and - David C. Silver, Esq. Jason S. Miller, Esq. SILVER MILLER 11780 W. Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 Telephone: (954) 516-6000 E-mail: DSilver@SilverMillerLaw.com JMiller@SilverMillerLaw.com NARS COSMETICS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Says ----------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NARS COSMETICS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03925 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2018), seeks permanent injunction to cause NARS to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff, who is legally blind, brings this civil rights action against Defendant NARS Cosmetics, Inc. for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.narscosmetics.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Olsen and other blind or visually-impaired people. NARS denies full and equal access to its Website. Olsen, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, asserts claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law against NARS. NARS Cosmetics is a French cosmetics and skin care company founded by make-up artist and photographer Francois Nars in 1994. The cosmetics line began with twelve lipsticks sold at Barneys New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP Christopher H. Lowe 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392 4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com OAK LODGE: Settlement Reached in "Jenkins" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MADELINE JENKINS, individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. OAK LODGE, LLC, PARC 73, LLC and MICHAEL STEVENS, Case No. 3:17-cv- 01673-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a collective defined as for the purposes of settlement: "all hourly non-exempt employees of Oak Lodge, LLC, Parc 73, LLC, or Michael Stevens within the three years prior to the date of filing of this Complaint"; 2. approving settlement calculations agreed upon by the Parties; and 3. approving proposed Notice Form, and granting such other and further relief as is necessary to effectuate an efficient settlement in this action. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=O4Un12An Counsel For Plaintiffs: Charles J. Stiegler, Esq. STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC 318 Harrison Ave., Suite 104 New Orleans, La. 70124 Telephone: (504) 267 0777 Facsimile: (504) 513 3084 E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com - and - Robert B. Landry III, Esq. ROBERT B. LANDRY III, PLC 5420 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 204 Baton Rouge, LA 70808 Telephone: (225) 349 7460 Facsimile: (225) 349 7466 E-mail: rlandry@landryfirm.com Counsel For Defendants: Ross Dooley, Esq. Luke Piontek, Esq. David C. Fleshman, Esq. David B. Phelps, Esq. Jessica Browne, Esq. ROEDEL PARSONS KOCH BLACHE BALHOFF & MCCOLLISTER, A.L.C. 8440 Jefferson Highway, Suite 301 Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 929 7033 Facsimile: (225) 928 4925 OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP ("Scott+Scott"), a national securities and consumer rights litigation firm, is notifying investors that class action lawsuits have been filed against Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: OBLN) ("Obalon" or the "Company") and other defendants, related to alleged violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased Obalon securities between October 5, 2016 and January 23, 2018, you are encouraged to contact a Scott+Scott attorney at (844) 818-6980 for additional information. Obalon manufactures medical devices, including a medical gastric balloon for weight loss therapy. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company recognized revenue in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting principles; (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls over accounting and financial reporting; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements and defendants' statements about Obalon's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On January 23, 2018, Obalon announced that "a purported whistleblower contacted KPMG LLP, the Company's independent auditors, to make certain allegations relating to allegedly improper revenue recognition during the Company's fourth fiscal quarter of 2017." The Company further stated that "Obalon's Audit Committee will oversee an internal investigation of these allegations." On this news, Obalon's stock price fell $1.73 per share, or 33.3%, to close at $3.46 per share on January 23, 2018. The $3.46 closing price represented a total decline of nearly 77%, from the Initial Public Offering price of $15.00 per share. What You Can Do If you purchased Obalon securities between October 5, 2016 and January 23, 2018, dates inclusive, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, please contact attorney Rhiana Swartz at (844) 818-6980, or at rswartz@scott-scott.com. Investors have until April 16, 2018, to move for lead plaintiff. Rhiana Swartz,Esq. Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP Telephone: (844) 818-6980 E-mail: rswartz@scott-scott.com [GN] OMEGA PROJECT: Schubert Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------- STEVE SCHUBERT, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. OMEGA PROJECT SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01372 (S.D. Tex., April 30, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant required Plaintiff to work more than 40 hours in a workweek as a quality assurance consultant. The Defendant misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor and failed to pay him any premium for overtime hours worked. The Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for all hours in excess of 40 in a workweek at one and one-half times their regular rate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq. William M. Hogg, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, LLP Galvin B. Kennedy 4409 Montrose Blvd Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523 0001 Facsimile: (713) 523 1116 E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com whogg@kennedyhodges.com PATTERSON COS: May 29 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors that they have until May 29, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Patterson Companies, Inc. (NasdaqGS:PDCO), if they purchased the Company's shares between June 26, 2015 and February 28, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Get Help Patterson investors should visit us at https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-patterson-companies-inc- securities-litigation-1 or call to speak to our claim center toll-free at (844) 367-9658. About the Lawsuit Patterson and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On February 12, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission disclosed that it had filed a complaint against the Company for violating antitrust regulations through a conspiracy with other dental supply companies to fix the prices of dental products and refuse to offer discounts or service to buying groups representing dental practitioners. Then, on March 1, 2018, the Company revealed dismal financial results for 2018Q3 and the departure of its Chief Financial Officer. On this news, the price of Patterson's shares plummeted $7.48 per share, or 23% in one day. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. ClaimsFiler's team of experts monitor the securities class action landscape and cull information from a variety of sources to ensure comprehensive coverage across a broad range of financial instruments. [GN] PERSONAL HOME: "Fayer" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- FIM FAYER and JELENA JURKOVA, the Plaintiffs, v. PERSONAL HOME CARE, LLC; PERSONAL CARE, LLC; HOMECENTRIS HEALTHCARE, LLC; and MATTHEW AUMAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01276-RDB (D. Md., May 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. The lawsuit arises out of the Defendants' willful and unlawful conduct in failing to properly compensate Plaintiffs and the Class for their earned wages. Members of the Class all share or shared similar job titles, job skills and job responsibilities and were subjected to the same terms and conditions of employment, as well as the same systematic failure by Defendants to properly compensate them for all wages earned. Personal Home provides health care services. The Company offers home, personal, and respite care, nurse monitoring, and care coordination services.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class: Judd G. Millman, Esq. Bruce M. Luchansky, Esq. Samuel C. Pinsky, Esq. LUCHANSKY LAW 606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B Towson, Maryland 21204 Telephone: (410) 522 1020 Facsimile: (410) 522 1021 E-mail: judd@luchanskylaw.com lucky@luchanskylaw.com sam@luchanskylaw.com PETROFORCE ENERGY: Brooking, et al. Sue over Securities Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT E. BROOKING and ROSEMARY E. BROOKING, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PETROFORCE ENERGY, LLC, WILLIAM D. VEASEY IV, and JAVIER ALVARADO, the Defendants, v. ZEPHYR OILFIELD SERVICES LLC, and TRUSTAR OPERATING COMPANY INC., Nominal Defendants, Case No. D-1- GN-18-002050 (Tex. 201st Judicial Dist., Travis Cty., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover rescission, actual and exemplary damages, and attorneys' fees and costs resulting from securities fraud committed by the Defendants. According to the complaint, beginning in December 2012, the Defendants marketed oil and gas investments in the form of equity interests in limited partnerships and a joint venture. The Defendants offered and sold these investments -- which were unregistered securities -- to Plaintiffs and other similarly- situated investors and made material misstatements and omissions to them in connection with those offers and sales. Among other things, the Defendants failed to disclose that the expenses on Defendants' wells were far higher than what was disclosed to Plaintiffs and others in large part due to massive amounts of paraffin wax in the oil wells, which was also known by Defendants and not disclosed. The Defendants also neglected to disclose that Defendant Alvarado, an unregistered broker, received thousands in commissions from these illegal securities sales, all while acting as an officer of Defendant Petroforce. The Defendants also falsely informed Plaintiffs and others that they would be able to deduct the entirety of their investment from their taxes within a short period. The Defendants also offered to amend the securities purchased by their investors, so that the investors would become general partners rather than limited partners and failed to disclose any related risks in this offering. On July 24, 2017, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission sued the Defendants in the Western District of Texas, alleging that they committed securities fraud, sold unregistered securities, and sold securities without registering as brokers. All Defendants immediately settled with the SEC, each consenting to an agreed judgment involving disgorgement, penalties, and injunctive relief. PetroForce Energy is a privately held oil and gas company with headquarters located in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse Z. Weiss, Esq. Ryan T. Shelton, Esq. BROPHY EDMUNDSON SHELTON & WEISS PLLC 210 Barton Springs Road. Suite 500 Austin, TX 78704 Telephone: (512) 596 3622 Facsimile: (512) 532 6637 E-mail: jesse@beswlaw.com ryans@besw1aw.com PHYSICIANS LABORATORIES: "Rivas" Suit Moved to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Melissa Rivas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Physicians Laboratories, Inc., an Arizona corporation; MDX Logistics, a Michigan corporation; Sebapharma GmbH & Co. KG, a corporation organized under the laws of Germany; CVS Health Corp., a Delaware corporation; Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation; Rite Aid Corporation, a Delaware corporation; The Kroger Co., a Ohio corporation; iHerb, Inc., a California corporation; Bed Bath & Beyond, a New York corporation; Vitacost, a Delaware corporation; Alex Fazeli, an individual; Monroe Fazeli, an individual; and Does 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. 30-02018-00979214, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana) on April 27, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:18-cv-00729 to the proceeding. Physicians Laboratory provides reference laboratory testing and consultant pathology services to hospitals, physician offices, veterinarians, and industries in Nebraska and Iowa.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Attorneys for Costco Wholesale Corporation: William A Delgado, Esq. WILLENKEN WILSON LOH AND DELGADO LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 3850 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 955 9240 Facsimile: (213) 955 9250 E-mail: wdelgado@willenken.com PLAZA SERVICES: Reddick Sues over Debt Collections Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ Tamika Reddick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Plaza Services, LLC and John Does 1-25, the Defendant(s)., Case No. 2:18-cv-00225-HCM-RJK (E.D. Va., May 1, 2018), contends that some time prior to May 19, 2017, an obligation was allegedly incurred to First Virginia. The First Virginia obligation arose out of subject transactions in which money, property, insurance or services were used primarily for personal, family or household purposes. Specifically Plaintiff incurred a loan from First Virginia the funds of which she used to purchase personal, family and household items. The alleged First Virginia obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). First Virginia is a "creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692a(4). First Virginia or a subsequent owner of the First Virginia debt contracted with the Defendant to collect the alleged debt. The Defendant collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal Services, telephone and internet. On or about May 19, 2017, Defendant sent the Plaintiff an initial contact notice regarding the alleged debt owed to First Premier Bank. When a debt collector solicits payment from a consumer, it must, within five days of an initial communication (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of the judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. 15 U.S.C. section 1692g(a). This is known as the "G-Notice." The "G-Notice" in the May 19, 2017 Letter does not meet the required guidelines of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act because it fails to include that the consumer must dispute the debt in writing to validly exercise her options under the statute. The Defendant Plaza's Letter fails to differentiate that the consumer's dispute and validation request must be in writing and is misleading because without the proper instruction the least sophisticated consumer would effectively lose part of his/her right to dispute and request validation of the debt within the 30-day period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aryeh E. Stein, Esq. MERIDIAN LAW, LLC 600 Reisterstown Rd., Ste 700 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: (443) 326 6011 Facsimile: (410) 653 9061 E-mail: astein@meridianlawfirm.com - and - Yaakov Saks, Esq. RC LAW GROUP, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282 6500 Facsimile: (201) 282 6501 E-mail: ysaks@rclawgroup.com PLY GEM: Court Dismisses Stockholder Litigation Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Notice is hereby provided to all persons who held shares of Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. common stock at any time during the period from and including January 31, 2018 through April 3, 2018. The purpose of this Notice is to inform you about developments with respect to the putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 2018-0151-AGB (the "Action"), including the effects on Ply Gem and its stockholders, the dismissal of the Action, and an agreement to pay attorneys' fees (inclusive of expenses) to counsel for Plaintiffs in the Action. By way of background, Plaintiffs commenced the Action on behalf of a putative class of Ply Gem stockholders to challenge the disclosures made by Defendants in connection with a series of transactions set forth in a January 31, 2018 merger agreement between Ply Gem and Pisces Midco, Inc. ("Pisces"), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of funds sponsored by Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, LLC ("CD&R"). Pursuant to this agreement, Pisces will acquire all outstanding shares of Ply Gem for the right to receive $21.64 per share in cash consideration (the "Merger" or the "Transaction"). The Transaction was approved by written consent without a stockholder vote. On February 14, 2018, Ply Gem filed a Preliminary Information Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on Form PREM14C that, among other things, described the background of the Transaction, the fairness opinion issued in connection with the Transaction, and certain financial projections generated by Ply Gem's management. Plaintiffs filed verified class action complaints in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware related to the Transaction alleging that the Individual Defendants had breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information necessary for Ply Gem stockholders to determine whether to seek appraisal of their shares (as defined above, the "Action"). On March 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, a Motion for Expedited Proceedings, and a Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Proceedings. On March 23, 2018, Ply Gem filed a Definitive Information Statement with the SEC on Form DEFM14C. On April 3, 2018, Ply Gem filed supplemental disclosures to moot Plaintiffs' claims in a Form 8-K (the "Amended Recommendation Statement") (accessible on the United States Securities and Exchange Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1284807/00012848071800001 5/a2018428k.htm). This Form 8-K supplemented Ply Gem's Definitive Information Statement to include certain additional information (the "Supplemental Disclosures"), which mooted Plaintiffs' disclosure claims in the Action. Later that same day, on April 3, 2018, the parties in the Action jointly submitted to the Court a Stipulated [Proposed] Order Dismissing Action as Moot and Retaining Jurisdiction to Determine Plaintiffs' Counsel's Application for an Award of Attorneys' Fees & Reimbursement of Expenses (the "Stipulation"). The Court granted the Stipulation the same day, and thereby dismissed the Action with prejudice as to Plaintiffs, and without prejudice as to any absent members of the putative class. Pursuant to the Order, the Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of determining Plaintiffs' counsel's anticipated application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, including any award based on Ply Gem issuing the Supplemental Disclosures (such application, the "Fee and Expense Application"). Only after the Action was dismissed did the parties commence and engage in discussions to resolve issues regarding Plaintiffs' counsel's anticipated Fee and Expense Application. After negotiations, Defendants agreed to make an all-inclusive fee and expense payment to Plaintiffs' counsel in the Action in the amount of $199,000.00 to resolve the Fee and Expense Application. This amount will be paid by Ply Gem within thirty (30) calendar days of final dismissal and closure of the Action. The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, this payment of fees and expenses or its reasonableness. [GN] QUALITY INTEGRATED: McElveen Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- CHAD McELVEEN, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUALITY INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00414-C (W.D. Okla., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant allegedly required the Plaintiff to work more than forty hours in a workweek without overtime compensation. The Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers throughout the United States as exempt from overtime under the FLSA. The Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for all hours in excess of forty in a workweek at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay. The Defendant operates in the construction and inspection industry. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a utility inspector from approximately January of 2012 to December of 2017.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amber L. Hurst, Esq. HAMMONS, GOWENS, HURST & ASSOCIATES 325 Dean A. McGee Avenue Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Telephone: (405) 235 6100 Facsimile: (405) 235 6111 E-mail: amberh@hammonslaw.com - and - Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. John Neuman, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (281) 885 8844 Facsimile: (281) 885 8813 E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com QUINSTREET INC: Reed Alleges Misleading Financial Statements ------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM REED, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUINSTREET, INC., DOUGLAS VALENTI, and GREGORY WONG, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-02517-JSW (N.D. Cal., April 27, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of QuinStreet between February 10, 2016 and April 10, 2018, both dates inclusive. On February 9, 2016, after market hours, QuinStreet filed a form 10-Q for the second quarter of 2016 with the SEC which provided the Company's financial results and position for the quarter ending December 31, 2015. The 2Q16 10-Q was signed by Defendant Wong. The 2Q16 10-Q contained signed certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by Defendants Valenti and Wong attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud. On August 19, 2016, QuinStreet filed its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2016 with the SEC which provided the Company's annual financial results and position. The 2016 10- K was signed by Defendants Valenti and Wong. The 2016 10-K contained signed SOX certifications by Defendants Valenti and Wong attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud. On September 8, 2017, QuinStreet filed its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30 with the SEC which provided the Company's annual financial results and position. The 2017 10-K was signed by Defendants Valenti and Wong. The 2017 10-K contained signed SOX certifications by Defendants Valenti and Wong attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud. According to the complaint, the financial statements were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operational and financial results, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) QuinStreet recklessly disregarded the occurrence of click-through fraud; (2) QuinStreet-owned websites experienced phony, low quality traffic for its clients; (3) QuinStreet practices were not geared toward providing its clients with valuable customers or high-quality leads or clicks; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. QuinStreet is a publicly traded marketing company based in Foster City, California. QuinStreet uses performance-based advertising with search engine marketing strategies to promote clients over the Internet.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785 2610 Facsimile: (213) 226 4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com QWEST CORPORATION: Seiffert Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN SEIFFERT, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. QWEST CORPORATION d/b/a CENTURYLINK QC, and CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00070-BMM (D. Mont., April 30, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is a former Engineer for CenturyLink. He performed manual and clerical tasks for which CenturyLink paid him a salary. CenturyLink classified the Plaintiff and other Engineers as exempt "management" employees even though Plaintiff never managed or supervised any employees. CenturyLink is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "CTL" and "is the second largest U.S. communications provider to global enterprise customers with customers in more than 60 countries(.)" CenturyLink provides managed network services, which connects more than 350 metropolitan areas with more than 450,000 route miles of fiber network globally. During the Collective Period, CenturyLink failed to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff and each member of the Engineer FLSA Collective Class. CenturyLink's failure to pay overtime compensation to each member of this Collective Class violates federal law. Until recently, CenturyLink's policy and practice was to deny earned wages including overtime pay to its Engineers. In particular, CenturyLink required these employees to perform work in excess of 40 hours per week, but failed to pay them overtime by illegally classifying all such employees as exempt from the overtime requirements. CenturyLink operated under a scheme to deprive these employees of overtime compensation by failing to properly compensate them for all hours worked. CenturyLink represented to its employees and the public that its Engineers are "management" employees, when CenturyLink knows these employees do not supervise other employees. CenturyLink's deliberate illegal classification of its Engineers as exempt from the overtime requirements resulted in CenturyLink willfully violating the FLSA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip McGrady, Esq. MCGRADY LAW 309 Wisconsin Ave. Whitefish, MT 59937 Telephone: (406) 322 8647 Facsimile: (406) 324 7313 E-mail: Philip@mcgradylawfirm.com RAINBOW SHOPS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Fischler Says ------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RAINBOW SHOPS INC. AND A.I.J.J. ENTERPRISES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv- 02522-BMC (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2018), seeks permanent injunction to cause Defendants to change their corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that their Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff, who is legally blind, brings this civil rights action against Defendants Rainbow Shops Inc. and A.I.J.J. Enterprises, Inc. for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, www.rainbowshops.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Fischler and other blind or visually-impaired people. Fischler, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, asserts claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law against Defendants. Rainbow Shops, commonly referred to as just Rainbow is a privately held, moderately priced American retail apparel chain comprising several lifestyle brands primarily targeting teens and young women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392 4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com RED PAYMENTS: Roller Sues over Phony Customer Accounts ------------------------------------------------------ BRIAN ROLLER, d/b/a Kalos Street, L.L.C., the Plaintiff, v. RED PAYMENTS L.L.C. and FIRST DATA GLOBAL LEASING, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01834-WD (E.D. Pa., May 1, 2018), alleges that Red Payments and First Data routinely open additional credit or debit card accounts without their customer's authorization or knowledge. The lawsuit claims that Red Payments can create these phony additional accounts because the victims are already their customers. So when these customers do not use the new accounts but still get charged fees on them, for example, a monthly minimum fee, equipment leasing fees, and annual usage fees, all on an account or accounts they did not know even existed, First Data invoices the customer just as it does for their actual account that is processing transactions on a monthly basis. Because the same company send them the same bill for the complicated payment processing services they understand they are paying for, customers more often than not pay the fees and costs of the additional, unauthorized accounts without realizing they have been duped. Often, the Defendants simply "pay" the resulting fees from the newly-created account(s) simply by taking money from the clients' existing accounts. First Data specializes in providing merchants, agents, bank partners and ISOs with cost-effective solutions for leasing quality.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class: Richard M. Golomb, Esq. Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. David J. Stanoch, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 985 9177 Facsimile: (215) 985 4169 E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com dstanoch@golombhonik.com RESTAURANT BRANDS: Failed to Honour Terms, Franchisee Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Adam Burns and Ian Bickis of Canadian Press report that the federal government is looking into concerns raised by a dissident group of Tim Hortons franchisees about the potential violation of terms Ottawa placed on a deal that saw Canada's most iconic restaurant chain taken over by a Brazilian firm. The government will examine allegations that Tim Hortons owner Restaurant Brands International has failed to live up to promises it made to the federal government under the Investment Canada Act in 2014, said Economic Development Minister Navdeep Bains in an interview on April 13. "I've asked my officials to look into the matter, to address the issues, to see what are the concerns being raised, the accuracy and validity of those issues, and to make sure we do our proper due diligence," said Bains. Under the Investment Canada Act, there are a variety of tools available to make sure conditions are met, he said, ranging from going to court to imposing penalties, but it's premature to speculate on any outcome. He said he was concerned about the issues raised in a letter sent to him by lawyers representing the Great White North Franchise Association, which represents about half of Canadian Tims franchisees. "Tim Hortons is a household name, Tim Hortons franchisees exist throughout Canada. These are many businesses that are owned and operated by families, so of course we're concerned, we understand that this is an important issue. But at the same time we want to make sure that we do our due diligence and look at all the facts," said Bains. In the letter, the lawyers cite numerous commitments that Brazilian firm 3G Capital, which owns RBI, made to the federal government when it acquired Tim Hortons in 2014, including maintaining franchisee relationships, the rent and royalty structure for five years and keeping existing employment levels at Tims franchises across Canada. They say the company has failed to live up to those commitments, and that "appropriate remedies" should be made to franchisees. "The franchisees are increasingly concerned with RBI's self- serving attempts to significantly increase its margins at the expense of the franchisees," the letter stated. The franchisees specifically say that the company has effectively changed the rent and royalty structure by saddling them with increasing costs and requiring them to renovate stores at their own costs. RBI announced in March that the coffee-and-doughnut chain and its restaurant owners will invest $700 million to spruce up almost all of its Canadian locations over the next four years, but the franchisee group was quick to point out it believed the plan was ill-conceived and would cost individual restaurant owners about $450,000 each. In response to word that the federal government is looking into the franchisees' claims, a spokesman for Tim Hortons said the company hadn't been notified of any official inquiries. "What I can tell you, is that every year we have reported to the government on meeting our undertakings, without complaint," said spokesman Patrick McGrade. "We have always been and remain committed to doing good business in Canada." The federal government approved the takeover of Tim Hortons Inc. by Burger King Worldwide Inc. in December 2014. Then-industry minister James Moore signed off on the deal, but included several caveats, following a review of the agreement under the Investment Canada Act. The dispute over the so-called "covenants" is the latest move in an ongoing dispute between Tim Hortons franchisees and the parent company, which they claim has been cutting costs and squeezing restaurant owners' profits, most recently by refusing to raise prices to help them cope with Ontario's minimum wage hike. The franchisees' association vowed to "do everything in our power" to assist an outspoken member whose restaurant licence renewal is being denied amid his ongoing tensions with the fast food giant. The board said Mark Kuziora, who is involved in a class action against RBI, was told by RBI in early April that he would be denied a renewal for one of the two Toronto Tim Hortons franchises he owns. The class-action lawsuit lodged on behalf of Kuziora is over the company's alleged improper use of a national advertising fund.[GN] ROUND ROCK: Stone Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ JEREMY STONE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. ROUND ROCK RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC and MATTHEW O'DONNELL, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv- 01319-ESW (D. Ariz., April 28, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its Papa John's stores, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizonia Employment Practices and Working Conditions law. According to the complaint, the Defendants operate numerous Papa John's 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] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Matthew Haynie, Esq. Jay Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 1701 N. Market St., No. 210 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 210 2100 E-mail: matthew@foresterhaynie.com jay@foresterhaynie.com RSP PERMIAN: "Murphy" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RSP PERMIAN, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00079 (W.D. Tex., May 1, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, even though Murphy and the FLSA Class regularly worked more than 12 hours per day for weeks on end, RSP did not pay Murphy and the FLSA Class any overtime compensation. RSP's policy of classifying its workers as independent contractors and failing to pay them overtime, including Murphy, violates the FLSA because these workers are, for all purposes, day rate employees performing non-exempt job duties. It is undisputed that Murphy and the FLSA Class are maintaining and working with oilfield machinery, performing manual labor, and working long hours out in the field. Because Murphy and the FLSA Class were misclassified as independent contractors by RSP, they should receive overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713 352 1100 Facsimile: 713 352 3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877 8788 Facsimile: (713) 877 8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com RUSSO BROTHERS: Guzman Seeks Payment of Overtime & Earned Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO D. GUZMAN, and other similarly situated current and former contractors and manual workers, the Plaintiff, v. RUSSO BROTHERS CONTRACTING INC. and THOMAS RUSSO, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18- cv-02519 (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2018), seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants for their unlawful actions, compensation for their failure to pay overtime wages and earned wages, and liquidated damages, compensatory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the collective class work or have worked at the Russo Brothers Contracting Inc. controlled, managed and operated by Thoms Russo. As part of its regular business practice, the Defendants have intentionally, willfully and repeatedly harmed Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective by engaging in a pattern and/or policy of violating the FLSA. This policy and/or policy includes, inter alia, the following: (a) Failing to pay employees the applicable overtime rate for all time worked in excess of 40 hours per week; (b) Failing to keep accurate records of hours worked by employees as required by the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants have engaged in their unlawful conduct pursuant to a corporate policy of minimizing labor costs and denying employees compensation. Defendants' unlawful conduct has been intentional, willful and in bad faith, and has caused significant damage to Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Tenenbaum, Esq. GOODMAN LAW GROUP P.C. 380 North Broadway, Suite 203 Jericho, NY 11753 Telephone: (516) 597 5840 Facsimile: (866) 415 1019 E-mail: ggoodman@gganylaw.com SELECT PORTFOLIO: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Bivens" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Steven Bivens filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Steven Bivens v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04325-ELR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. is a loan servicing company with operations in Salt Lake City, Utah and Jacksonville, Florida. The appellate case is captioned as Steven Bivens v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Case No. 18-11215, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or before April 23, 2018, as to Appellee Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant STEVEN BIVENS, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, is represented by: Wayne Charles, Esq. WAYNE CHARLES, PC 395 Highgrove Drive Fayetteville, GA 30215 Telephone: (770) 241-8936 E-mail: wc115@bellsouth.net Defendant-Appellee SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., is represented by: Elizabeth Joy Campbell, Esq. LOCKE LORD, LLP 777 S Flagler Dr., Suite 215a West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 833-7700 E-mail: ecampbell@lockelord.com - and - Alexandra Marie Dishun, Esq. LOCKE LORD, LLP 3333 Piedmont Rd. NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 870-4679 E-mail: adishun@lockelord.com SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Solid Biosciences Inc. (NASDAQ:SLDB) who purchased shares pursuant to the January 25, 2018 initial public offering and/or between January 25, 2018 and March 14, 2018. The action, which was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws. According to the complaint, throughout the class period Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Solid Bioscience's lead drug candidate, SGT-001, had a high likelihood of causing adverse events in patients; (2) the company misled investors regarding the toxicity of SGT-001; and (3) consequently, defendants' statements in the Registration Statement regarding Solid Biosciences' business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading. Shareholders have until May 29, 2018 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to be an absent class member. If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-c/solid-biosciences-inc?wire=3 [GN] T-MOBILE US: Pritchett Sues over Unsolicited Text Ads ----------------------------------------------------- CURRON PRITCHETT, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE US, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-05545 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., April 30, 2018), seeks to recover damages, and all costs and attorneys' fees together with legal interest. According to the complaint, within the last year, the Plaintiff, received numerous text message advertisements to his cellular telephone from Defendant. These text message advertisements were solicitations encouraging the Plaintiff to purchase goods and services from Defendant. For example, one such text message encouraged Plaintiff to "get a Samsung tablet free after 24 mo. finance agreement. Just sign up for a new qualifying T-Mobile plan." The Plaintiff received multiple other similar text message advertisement calls from Defendant. The Defendant never discloses how to opt-out of the text advertisement campaign. At the time he received the text messages, Plaintiff was not a customer nor a cellular subscriber of Defendant. Plaintiff has never been a customer or a cellular subscriber of Defendant. The Plaintiff had not expressly consented in writing prior to receiving any solicitations from Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William H. Beaumont, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC 3151 W. 261h Street, Second Floor Chicago, IL 60623 Telephone: (773) 831 8000 Facsimile: (504) 272 2956 E-mail: whb@beaumontcostales.com TALLGRASS ENERGY: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Notice is hereby given that Monteverde & Associates PC has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:18-cv-00545, on behalf of public common unitholders of Tallgrass Energy Partners, LP ("TEP" or the "Company") (NYSE: TEP) who held TEP public common units and have been harmed by TEP and its board of directors (the "Board") for alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the acquisition of the Company by Tallgrass Energy GP, LP ("TEGP"). Under the terms of the merger agreement (the "Merger Agreement"), each issued and outstanding TEP common unit, except for any TEP Common Units owned by Tallgrass Equity, LLC, will be converted into the right to receive 2.0 TEGP Class A Shares. The complaint alleges that this offer is inadequate and that the Form S-4 Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") provides materially incomplete and misleading information about the Company's financials and the transaction, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the Registration Statement contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for TEP; (ii) the valuation analyses conducted by the Company's financial advisor, Evercore Group L.L.C. ("Evercore"); (iii) the background process leading up to the signing of the Merger Agreement; and (iv) the potential conflicts of interest Evercore faced as a result of its historical dealings with TEP and TEGP. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. 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. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Click here for more information: www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/ It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America Telephone:: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] TERRA'S KITCHEN: Lopez Sues over Auto-Renewal of Services --------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TERRA'S KITCHEN, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 - 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00842-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 1, 2018), seeks to recover damages, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code. According to the complaint, during the Class Period, the Defendant made automatic renewal or continuous service offers to consumers in California and (a) at the time of making the automatic renewal or continuous service offers, failed to present the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms, in a clear and conspicuous manner and in visual proximity to the request for consent to the offer before the subscription or purchasing agreement was fulfilled; (b) charged Plaintiff's and Class Members' credit or debit cards, or third-party account without first obtaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' affirmative consent to the agreement containing the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms; and (c) failed to provide an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer merchandise, or products sent to Plaintiff and Class Members under the automatic renewal of continuous service agreements are deemed to be an unconditional gift pursuant. Terra's Kitchen, LLC provides meal delivery services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706 6464 Facsimile: (949) 706 6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com TOOTSIE ROLL: Lawsuit Asks Junior Mints to Fill Box --------------------------------------------------- Reg Wydeven, writing for Post Crescent, reports that when we were kids, my buddy Pearl and I loved to go to the movies. Back then, we could buy our ticket, some candy and a soda for $5. I would usually buy Milk Duds, but Pearl favored Junior Mints. Because we were huge Milwaukee Bucks fans, Pearl would bring a pen to the theater and write "Bridge" on the box so it read Junior Bridge Mints, a play on the name of the Bucks' all-time leader in games played, Junior Bridgeman. We would usually tear into our candy and have it gone before the coming attractions were over. I thought we were gluttonous, but according to a recent lawsuit, it may not have been our fault. Paige Stemm filed a consumer fraud lawsuit against Tootsie Roll Industries, the maker of Junior Mints, claiming the company uses deceptive packaging. The suit alleges that there is as much air in the box as there is candy. According to Stemm's attorney, Christopher Moon, "They have created this oversized theater box and it misleads consumers because consumers believe they're getting more candy when they purchase a box of Junior Mints than they're actually getting." He believes, "The size of the actual packaging is itself a misrepresentation." Stemm filed the suit in federal court in Chicago and seeks class action status. She considered suing after she bought a box of Junior Mints at a Walgreen's for about $1. Hers is the most recent example of a string of lawsuits against food manufacturers for allegedly deceptive and unnecessary empty space in packaging. Known as "slack fill," the FDA defines it as "the difference between the actual capacity of a container and the volume of product contained therein." Most of the time, slack fill is necessary to provide an air cushion for the food inside, such as preventing potato chips from turning into crumbs. Moon asserts, however, "In a situation like Junior Mints, that empty space actually can increase the chances that the candies will be damaged because they move around quite a bit inside the hard cardboard box." Last year, Biola Daniel filed a class action lawsuit in federal court in Manhattan against Tootsie Roll echoing the same complaints about the slack fill in Junior Mints boxes. Moon's law firm filed a similar lawsuit against Ferrara Candy, which makes Lemonheads, Jujyfruits, Chuckles and other candies that allegedly have too much empty space in their packaging. According to the American Bar Association, the number of federal class-action lawsuits related to slack fill in food packaging increased from 20 in 2008 to more than 110 in 2015. Moon said that Stemm is seeking undisclosed damages and an order that Tootsie Roll repackage its Junior Mints so that "they either fill the box more or reduce the size of the packaging to reduce the unlawful slack fill." Junior Mints were introduced in 1949, but were bought by Tootsie Roll in 1993. Coincidentally, that's the same year of the "Seinfeld" episode "The Junior Mint," where Kramer accidentally drops one of the mints from a hospital observation gallery into the chest cavity of a patient on the operating table. "Who's going to turn down a Junior Mint?" Kramer asks, arguing, "it's chocolate, it's peppermint, it's delicious!" If Stemm gets her way, boxes of Junior Mints will have more chocolate and peppermint and less empty cavity.[GN] TOUCHPOINT 360: Arugu Seeks to Certify Class of Unpaid Workers -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DONNA ARUGU, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TOUCHPOINT 360, LLC and E.A. LANGENFELD ASSOCIATES, LTD., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00343-LY (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of: "individuals who were paid a day rate with no overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, direct prompt disclosure of contact information of potential class members by Defendants, and authorize Plaintiff's counsel to notify them of this lawsuit." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=O4Un12An The Plaintiff is represented by: Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq. Daniel A. Verrett, Esq. MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 700 West Summit Drive Wimberley, Texas 78676 Telephone: (512) 782 0567 Facsimile: (512) 782 0605 E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com daniel@morelandlaw.com TRUECAR INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of TrueCar, Inc. ("TrueCar") (NASDAQ:TRUE) between February 16, 2017 and November 6, 2017. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. To get more information go to: http://www.zlk.com/pslra-d/truecar-inc?wire=3 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll- free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the United Services Automobile Association ("USAA") had been planning significant changes to its website that would have a material adverse effect on the volume of purchases generated by USAA; (2) that USAA made significant changes to its website that would have a material adverse effect on the volume of purchases generated by USAA; (3) that the changes to USAA's website maintained by TrueCar caused a material adverse effect on the volume of purchases generated by USAA; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about TrueCar's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you suffered a loss in TrueCar you have until June 1, 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. [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fridman Files 1st Suit over Spam Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL FRIDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and RASIER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-21688-DPG (S.D. Fla., April 27, 2018), seeks injunction requiring Uber to cease sending unsolicited text messages to former drivers and other consumers, as well as an award of actual and/or statutory damages and costs. This case challenges Defendant Uber's practice of sending unsolicited text messages to former Uber drivers that, prior to sending them texts, Uber has deactivated and terminated its agreements and relationships with, and to other consumers that have never been Uber drivers. Uber's unsolicited texts violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and caused Plaintiff and putative members of the Class to suffer actual harm, including the aggravation, nuisance, loss of time, and invasions of privacy that result from the receipt of such text messages, lost value of cellular services paid for, and a loss of the use and enjoyment of their phones, including wear and tear to their phones' data, memory, software, hardware, and battery components, among other harms. Uber is a peer-to-peer ridesharing, food delivery, and transportation network company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with operations in 633 cities worldwide.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff Michael Fridman and all others similarly situated: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469 5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fridman Files 2nd Suit over Spam Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANNY GESEL REZNIK FRIDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and RASIER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv- 21689-RNS (S.D. Fla., April 27, 2018), seeks injunction requiring Uber to cease sending unsolicited text messages to former drivers and other consumers, as well as an award of actual and/or statutory damages and costs. This case challenges Defendant Uber's practice of sending unsolicited text messages to former Uber drivers that, prior to sending them texts, Uber has deactivated and terminated its agreements and relationships with, and to other consumers that have never been Uber drivers. Uber's unsolicited texts violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and caused Plaintiff and putative members of the Class to suffer actual harm, including the aggravation, nuisance, loss of time, and invasions of privacy that result from the receipt of such text messages, lost value of cellular services paid for, and a loss of the use and enjoyment of their phones, including wear and tear to their phones' data, memory, software, hardware, and battery components, among other harms. Uber 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: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469 5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com UNITED OF OMAHA: "Bentley" Suit Granted Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled BENTLEY, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-07870- DMG-AJW (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order granting class certification, in part, and denying, in part, as to certain individuals excluded from the class. The following class is certified for the purpose of pursuing Count I of the complaint against Defendant for breach of contract: "all beneficiaries who made a claim, or would have been eligible to make a claim, for the payment of benefits on life insurance policies renewed, issued, or delivered by United of Omaha Life Insurance Company in 2013 in the State of California that lapsed or were terminated by Omaha for the non-payment of premium after January 1, 2013 (and which were not affirmatively cancelled by the policyholder), and as to which policies one or more of the third-party notices described by Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 of the California Insurance Code were not sent by Omaha prior to lapse or termination." The Court also appointed Plaintiff as class representative and Joseph M. Vanek of the law firm of Vanek Vickers & Masini, P.C. and Jason Zweig of the law firm of Hagens Berman Sobol & Shapiro LLP as class counsel pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 23(g). Within 30 days of this Order, class counsel shall provide the Court with a proposed form of class notice. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xPapgQ6q WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled AUDREY MACHNIK, as successor in interest to MICHAEL MACHNIK, the Plaintiff, v. WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00678-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16- 3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). One defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv- 1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nJ5SJhxb John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com WALGREENS.COM: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Haynes Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS HAYNES, Individually, the Plaintiffs, v. WALGREENS.COM, INC. A Foreign Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-60987-KMM (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, and attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a Florida resident, lives in Broward County, is sui juris, and qualifies as an individual with disabilities as defined by the ADA. The Plaintiff is blind and therefore unable to fully engage in and enjoy the major life activity of seeing. The Plaintiff also utilizes the internet. The Plaintiff is unable to read computer materials and/or access and comprehend internet website information without software specially designed for the visually impaired. Specifically, the Plaintiff utilizes the JAWS Screen Reader software, which is one of the most popular reader Screen Reader Software ("SRS") utilized worldwide. The Plaintiff is also an advocate of the rights of similarly situated disabled persons and is a "tester" for the purpose of asserting his civil rights and monitoring, ensuring, and determining whether places of public accommodation and/or their websites are in compliance with the ADA. The Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation as defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA, 28 CFR 36.201(a) and 36.104. The place of public accommodation that the Defendant owns, operates, leases or leases is a chain of stores located throughout the nation, State of Florida, and Broward County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn L.M. Hairston, Esq. Thomas B. Bacon, Esq. THOMAS B. BACON, P.A. 2525 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 300 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 200 8784 E-mail: Shawn@Hairstonlaw.com tbb@thomasbaconlaw.com WIRELESSPCS CHICAGO: "Hunter" Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled Datisha Hunter, et al., the Plaintiff, v. WirelessPCS Chicago LLC, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv- 00980 (N.D. Ill.), remains pending. The Hon. Judge Ronald A. Guzman entered an order resetting the time for initial status hearing and hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification to May 2, 2018 at 9:00 a.m., according to the docket entry made by the Clerk on May 1, 2018. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3g0peuXz XSPORT FITNESS: Motion to Certify Class Continued, Court Says ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Lundon Gooden, the Plaintiff, v. XSport Fitness Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02200 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Manish S. Shah entered an order continuing the motion to certify class. According to the docket entry was made by the Clerk on May 1, 2018, Plaintiff's motion to file amended complaint is granted. The Defendants shall respond to amended complaint by July 5, 2018. Motion to certify class and motion for case management order are entered and continued. Defendants' Motion to stay shall be filed by May 11, 2018 and noticed for presentment before the Court. Defendants shall file a response to the motion for case management order by May 11, 2018. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eiqvLzub ********* 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 * * *