/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180510.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 10, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 94 Headlines A CAB TAXI: Injunction Order in "Murray" Wage Suit Reversed 5 STAR ROOFING: Faces "Willis" Suit in N.D. Alabama ABBOTT LABS: Leawood Attorney Files Acid Reflux Medication Suit ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Cty Employees' Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop AMERICAN HONDA: Must Face Acura HandsFreeLink Class Action AMSHER COLLECTION: Faces "Bergin" Suit in E.D. New York ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Cash" Suit in N.D. Illinois AT&T MOBILITY: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Roberts" Suit AUDI AG: Ontario Judge Points Out Problems with Carriage Motions BANK OF NEW YORK: Must Defend Against "Butterline" Class Claims BARKERVILLE GOLD: Osgoode Receives $80K Settlement Cy-pres Award BNSF RAILWAY: Wins Bid for Judgment; "Sumlin" Suit Claims Tossed CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces V8 Splash False Advertising Class Action CANADA: Suit Over Freedom-of-Information Web Breach Mulled CANADA: Parents of Children with Autism File Discrimination Suit CATHOLIC CHURCH: Faces Class Action Over St. Patrick Child Abuse CENTRAL CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in "Machnik" Suit CENTRAL LOAN: Jones Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement CENTRUS ENERGY: Newman's Class Certified for Settlement Purposes CHEROKEE COUNTY, GA: Class Action v. DSS Moves to Federal Court CHICAGO BRIDGE: Judd Sues Over McDermott Merger Deal CIGNA CORP: Faces ERISA Class Action in Pennsylvania CIGNA CORP: Misrepresents ASH Charges, Class Action Alleges COCONINO COUNTY, AZ: Inmate Sues Over Jail's Immigration Policy CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR: Hatmaker Seeks to Certify 2 Retiree Classes CORECIVIC: Sued for Violating Anti-Human Trafficking Law DE VILLE ASSSET: Faces "Stephens" Suit in E.D. New York DOUBLEDOWN INTERACT: Faces Class Action in Washington DUPONT: GenX Class Action Plaintiffs Respond to Motion Dismiss DURHAM SCHOOL: School Bus Drivers File Wage Theft Claims DURHAM SCHOOL: Romo's Bid for Prelim. Nod of Settlement Denied EASY SPIRIT: Faces "Olsen" Suit in E.D. New York ENTRUST GROUP: 3rd Amended Complaint in "White" Suit Underway ESTATE INFORMATION: Faces "Azimov" Suit in S.D. New York F&M TRUST: Finalizes $10MM Class Action Settlement Agreement FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Over Face-Tagging in Photos Okayed FEDERAL RECOVERY: Faces "Cinelli" Suit in E.D. New York FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Certification of Class Sought in "Kaur" Suit FINISAR CORP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims FLINT, MI: Lead-Tainted Water Class Action Can Proceed FLINT, MI: SCOTUS Won't Review Water Crisis Suit Remand Ruling FLORIDA: Orlando City Council Joins Gun Control Class-Action FMA ALLIANCE: Certification of Class Sought in "Defalico" Suit FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Gochet Moves for Certification of Class GEC RESTAURANT: "Keyes" Labor Suit Seeks Minimum Wages GEMFIELDS: Mozambican Miners File Human Rights Class Action GETSWIFT: One Shareholder Class Action Likely to Proceed GIMAC DIVISION: Cardona Moves for Conditional Class Certification GIRARD, OH: Faces Class Action Over I-80 Speed Camera Tickets GRASSY SPRAIN: Faces "Castro" Suit in E.D. New York GREENCORE: U.S. Subsidiary Faces Wage Class Action GROUPON INC: Dancel Moves to Certify Class & Subclass HEINZ: Retirees Mull Class Action Over Health Benefit Cuts HOME DEPOT USA: Faces "Stumbrice" Suit in S.D. New York HORING WELIKSON: Faces "Razilova" Suit in E.D. New York IDERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Raatz Files Suit Over Holdco Merger Deal INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS: Northrup Moves to Certify Class Under TCPA JAMAICA: CRH Junior Doctors Plan to Pursue Class Action JARDINE LLOYD: May Face Class Action Over Brokerage Advice JARDINE LLOYD: Law Firm Calls on Local Councils to Join Suit JFK MEDICAL: Mendez Must Amend Bid to Certify Class on May 21 JOHN DOES: "Musso" Alleges Volatility Index Derivative Rigging JPMORGAN CHASE: "Khosroabadi" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Interest KEURIG GREEN: July 12 Final Approval Hearing on "Sanchez" Deal KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Settles Workers' Wage Class Action LAS VEGAS, NV: June 5 Deadline to Amend "Moore" Complaint LE ARLINGTON: 4th Bid to Dismiss "Ecoquij-Tzep" FLSA Suit Denied LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Phone Boot Loop Problem LONGFIN CORP: June 4 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims MCDONALD'S CORP: "Killeen" Suit Over Value Meal Prices Dismissed MDL 2804: River Forest Joins Opioid Crisis Class Action MERCK & CO: Filing of Amended Suit in Mumps Vaccine Case Barred MERITER HEALTH: Morgan Lewis Didn't Admit to Mishandling Conflict MYEXPERIAN INC: Vinsant Seeks to Certify Supervisors/CSRs Class NESTLE: Faces SweeTARTs Candies False Advertising Class Action NEW LONDON HOUSING: Judge Reardon Reopens Thames River Case NEW YORK: Linden Plaza Tenants File Class Action NISSAN NORTH: Townsend Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling NORTHLAND GROUP: Wins Final OK of "Santiago" Suit Settlement OWL INC: Perez Renews Bid to Issue Notice to Supervisors, Drivers PAYPAL HOLDINGS: June 12 Deadline to Amend "Sgarlata" Suit PLATINUM CORRAL: Wins Approval of Settlement in "Johnson" Suit RACK ROOM: Wins Prelim. OK of $26,866 Settlement in "Stebbins" RICHARDSON, TX: Bowman to Take Red Light Camera Suit to Sup. Ct. NTT DATA: Faces "Watkins" Suit in E.D. Virginia PERSOLVE LEGAL: Faces "Johnson" Suit in E.D. New York PURDUE PHARMA: Faces "Klodzinski" Suit in S.D. New York RED ROSE NAIL: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in "Fu" FLSA Suit RODAN + FIELDS: Faces Class Action Over Lash Boost Product ROSICKI ROSICKI: "Reizes" Suit Disputes Debt Collection SELECT COMFORT: TCCWNA Class Action Returns to 3d Cir. SIMM ASSOCIATES: Gustafson Nicolaic Files FDCPA Class Action SONAM'S STONEWALLS: Bids to Dismiss "Gonpo" Suit Granted in Part SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Class Action Over Quake Insurance Pending SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Out-of-Court Class Action Settlement Likely SPECIALIZED LOAN: Discovery Bid in "Kimble" Suit Okayed STEARN'S PRODUCTS: Meyers Sues Over Product Mislabeling TTC INVESTMENTS: Faces "Truglio" Suit in D. Connecticut TESLA MOTORS: Securities Suit Over Model 3 Production Pending TIGER BRANDS: Listeriosis Death Toll Rises to 193, NICD Reveals TOWNE PROPERTIES: Court Certifies Class in "Duggan" ERISA Suit TRIPLE J: $177,000 Counsel Fee Okayed in "Mateo-Evangelio" Suit UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Must Defend Against Medical Society Claims UNITED OF OMAHA: Awaits Order on Bentley's Bid to Certify Class UNITED STATES: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "D'Apuzzo" Suit UTI WORLDWIDE: Court Grants Angley's Bid for Class Certification VENICE HMA: Briggs Moves to Certify Class of Nurse Case Managers VITAL RECOVERY: Certification of Class Sought in "Johnson" Suit WISE FOODS: Faces Chip Bags "Slack Fill" Class Action YANG FAMILY: "Liu" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Late Wages ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Judge Has Yet to Rule on Motion to Dismiss * Marshall University, WVU to Launch Consumer Assistance Project * Three Legal Aid Groups Get Class Action Settlement Donations ********* A CAB TAXI: Injunction Order in "Murray" Wage Suit Reversed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, A CAB TAXI SERVICE, LLC; A CAB, LLC; AND CREIGHTON J NADY, Appellants, v. MICHAEL MURRAY; AND MICHAEL RENO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Respondents, Case No. 72691 (Nev.), Judge Michael L. Douglas of the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court's order granting Murray's motion for preliminary injunction. The class action involves claims under the Minimum Wage Amendment of the Nevada Constitution. In the order certifying the class, the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, excluded another individual, Jaminska Dubric, from participating in the class. Dubric later filed a separate action against Appellants A Cab Taxi Service, LLC, A Cab, LLC, and Creighton J. Nady ("ACTS"), alleging that ACTS was not paying employees the constitutionally mandated minimum wage. In the Dubric action, ACTS and Dubric were in settlement negotiations and jointly moved the district court to be certified as a class. While the motion to certify was pending, Murray filed a motion to enjoin ACTS from entering into a settlement agreement with Dubric. Judge Kenneth C. Cory of the district court granted the injunction, precluding ACTS from entering a settlement with Dubric and requiring ACTS to withdraw the motion to certify. ACTS took an appeal from the injunction order. Judge Douglas explains that NRCP 65(d) requires the district court's order granting preliminary injunction to set forth the reasons for its issuance; be specific in terms; and describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained. However, the lack of a statement of reasons does not necessarily invalidate a permanent injunction, so long as the reasons for the injunction are readily apparent elsewhere in the record and are sufficiently clear to permit meaningful appellate review. The Judge finds that the district court's order enjoining ACTS in the Dubric action fails to satisfy the minimum requirements to support injunctive relief under NRCP 65(d). Moreover, his review of the record demonstrates that the reasons for the injunction are not readily apparent or sufficiently clear. Thus, he concludes that the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, he reversed the district court's order granting the preliminary injunction. A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Order is available at https://bit.ly/2JETRoi from Leagle.com. 5 STAR ROOFING: Faces "Willis" Suit in N.D. Alabama --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 5 Star Roofing and Restoration LLC. The case is styled as Richard Willis, an individual and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 5 Star Roofing and Restoration LLC, an Alabama corporation d/b/a 5 Star Roofing, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00679-TMP (N.D. Ala., May 1, 2018). 5 Star Roofing and Restoration LLC is engaged in roofing construction.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James H McFerrin, Esq. MCFERRIN LAW FIRM 3117 Manitou Lane Birmingham, AL 35216 Tel: (205) 637-7111 Fax: (205) 637-7212 Email: jhmcferrin@gmail.com ABBOTT LABS: Leawood Attorney Files Acid Reflux Medication Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- James Dornbrook, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports that Leawood lawyer Kirk Goza, Esq. -- kgoza@gohonlaw.com -- filed suit against some of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the United States, on behalf of 27 clients who took acid reflux medication that allegedly caused kidney damage. [GN] ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Cty Employees' Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jackson County Employees' Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., Joey A. Jacobs, Brent Turner, David Duckworth, E. Perot Bissell, Christopher R. Gordon, Vicky B. Gregg, William F. Grieco, Wade D. Miquelon, William M. Petrie, Hartley R. Rogers, Reeve B. Waud and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00286, (M.D. Tenn., March 14, 2018), seeks to recover losses on behalf of the investors who purchased or obtained Acadia publicly traded securities pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Acadia is a healthcare company that operates inpatient psychiatric facilities, residential treatment centers, group homes, substance abuse facilities, and facilities providing outpatient behavioral healthcare services to serve the behavioral health and recovery needs of communities throughout the United States and the UK. Defendants falsely stated that the quality of its U.K. operations gave the Company a competitive strength which would drive future growth and profitability and issued false and misleading guidance regarding the company's actual and projected 2017 revenue, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization and earnings per share. These false and misleading statements allowed defendants and certain of their officers, directors and affiliated entities to offload over $143 million worth of Acadia while its stock price was artificially inflated. When the truth came out, Acadia's stock price collapsed, plummeting 26% from a closing price of $44.12 per share on October 24, 2017 to a closing price of $32.68 per share on October 25, 2017. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Wood, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2203 Fax: (615) 252-3798 Email: cwood@rgrdlaw.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 Fax: (313) 578-1201 Email: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com - and - Jerry E. Martin, Esq. MARTIN & GARRISON LLC 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 Email: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com AMERICAN HONDA: Must Face Acura HandsFreeLink Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that an Acura HandsFreeLink class-action lawsuit is still connected as the judge refused to dismiss the entire complaint. The class-action alleges Honda wanted to beat competitors to the punch by creating a hands-free feature that allowed customers to use Bluetooth wireless technology, hence the beginning of HandsFreeLink in 2004 Acura models. The plaintiffs admit Acura did get the feature to the public, but the automaker allegedly failed to create a system that switched off when not in use. The HandsFreeLink systems are allegedly left activated when drivers remove the ignition keys, causing a "constant and substantial parasitic electric drain on the electric system." The plaintiffs claim owners get stuck with dead batteries, failed alternators and the added expense of constantly replacing the batteries. The plaintiffs also claim cars equipped with HandsFreeLink systems are less valuable than other vehicles that have working hands-free systems. Replacing a defective system can cost more than $1,000 and there is allegedly no way to guarantee the replacement system won't also drain the battery. The lawsuit says even though customers pay for the systems, some owners choose to make the systems worthless by disabling the HandsFreeLink systems to protect the batteries and other components. According to the plaintiffs, Honda/Acura has known about the problems since 2005, but in place of offering real solutions, Honda chose to send allegedly useless technical service bulletins to dealers. Those bulletins let dealers know about customer complaints but allegedly didn't contain correct methods to repair the problems. Plaintiff Lindsay Aberin says she bought a new 2005 Acura TL equipped with HandsFreeLink in January 2005, a car she still owns. The plaintiff says she took the car to an Acura dealer in February 2008 seeking repairs of the HandsFreeLink system. The dealer replaced the battery under warranty, but the plaintiff says the problem reappeared two years later and the fog lights were replaced. This was allegedly followed by another dealer visit another two years later and the battery was again replaced. In November 2013, Ms. Aberin took the Acura to a dealer again because of HandsFreeLink problems and this time the driver-side headlight inverter and ignitor were replaced. The plaintiff says she had to take the Acura to a dealer in November 2013 because of more problems with the hands-free system and the dealer replaced a headlight bulb and front marker bulb. Two months later the car was back at the dealer because of system problems and the passenger-side headlight ignitor was replaced, followed by another dealer visit more than a year later when the starter was allegedly replaced. According to the plaintiff, she took the Acura to the dealer multiple more times as more parts were replaced. Ms. Aberin says she had no clue the HandsFreeLink system was allegedly causing all the problems and trips to the dealer. In 2016 the plaintiff allegedly disabled the system permanently, all because Honda never admitted there were problems with the system and never fixed the problems even after repeated attempts. Honda has succeeded in getting multiple claims dismissed in the past and its most recent motion to dismiss is no different. The judge ruled certain warranty and consumer protection claims don't hold water because the affected plaintiffs waited too long to file those claims. Express warranty claims were also tossed because the warranties don't cover the design defects alleged in the class-action lawsuit. However, the judge said the plaintiffs presented enough evidence to allege the automaker concealed possible defects in the Acura cars. Included in the class-action lawsuit are all Acura vehicles equipped with HandsFreeLink units with the alleged defects. The Acura HandsFreeLink lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California - Aberin, et al., v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. [GN] AMSHER COLLECTION: Faces "Bergin" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amsher Collection Services, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Bergin, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Amsher Collection Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02588 (E.D. N.Y., May 1, 2018). AmSher Collection Services, Inc. provides collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Cash" Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Artis Cash, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Velocity Investments, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03110 (N.D. Ill., May 1, 2018). Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is engaged in debt collection.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.[BN] AT&T MOBILITY: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Roberts" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit titled Marcus Roberts, et al. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-03418-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. The appellate case is captioned as Marcus Roberts, et al. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, Case No. 18-15593, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 11, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's Order granting the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the appellate case entitled MARCUS A. ROBERTS; KENNETH A. CHEWEY; ASHLEY M. CHEWEY; JAMES KRENN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Defendant-Appellee, No. 16-16915 (9th Cir.). Plaintiffs Marcus Roberts, Ashley and Kenneth Chewey, and James Krenn appeal an order compelling arbitration of their putative class action claims against AT&T Mobility LLC. The Plaintiffs allege that AT&T falsely advertised their mobile service plans as unlimited when in fact it intentionally slowed data at certain usage levels. AT&T moved to compel arbitration, and the Plaintiffs opposed on First Amendment grounds. The District Court compelled arbitration, holding as a threshold matter that there was no state action. On appeal, the Plaintiffs raise two arguments. First, they claim there is state action whenever a party asserts a direct constitutional challenge to a permissive law under Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727 (1996). Second, the Plaintiffs contend that the Federal Arbitration Act, including judicial interpretations of the statute, "encourages" arbitration such that AT&T's actions are attributable to the state. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by May 7, 2018; -- Transcript is due on June 5, 2018; -- Appellant AT&T Mobility LLC's opening brief is due on July 16, 2018; -- Appellees Ashley M. Chewey, Kenneth A. Chewey, James Krenn and Marcus A. Roberts' answering brief is due on August 16, 2018; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees MARCUS A. ROBERTS, KENNETH A. CHEWEY, ASHLEY M. CHEWEY and JAMES KRENN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. HATTIS LAW 935 Cowper Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (650) 284-8495 E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com - and - Roger N. Heller, Esq. Michael Sobol, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: rheller@lchb.com msobol@lchb.com - and - Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 5 Professional Circle, Suite 204 Colts Neck, NJ 07722 Telephone: (732) 226-0004 E-mail: Schmidt@whafh.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 201 North Franklin Street Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com Defendant-Appellant AT&T MOBILITY LLC is represented by: Donald Manwell Falk, Esq. Elspeth V. Hansen, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 3000 El Camino Real Two Palo Alto Square Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 331-2000 E-mail: dfalk@mayerbrown.com elspeth.hansen@mayerbrown.com - and - Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq. Andrew John Pincus, Esq. Kevin Ranlett, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com apincus@mayerbrown.com kranlett@mayerbrown.com AUDI AG: Ontario Judge Points Out Problems with Carriage Motions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael McKiernan, writing for Law Times, reports that defendants should be completely excluded from carriage motions as part of a broader overhaul to the process for selecting class counsel, according to one of the lawyers on the losing side of the recent bruising battle to prosecute a price manipulation claim against a number of German automakers. In Quenneville v. Audi AG, Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Perell pointed out that one of the problems with carriage motions "is that defendants feast off them, and Class Counsel make arguments that at the certification motion they will submit are out of bounds." "That dysfunctional phenomena occurred in the case at bar," Justice Perell added as he awarded carriage to Harrison Pensa LLP and Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP, shutting out a partnership among Koskie Minsky LLP, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP and Siskinds LLP in a "photo-finish" that the judge said left little to choose between the two proposed sets of class counsel. But Justice Perell also lamented the current practice on carriage motions, which he said turns them "into a blood sport of lawyer- bashing," as "gross and not helpful." "Unfortunately, it has become conventional in a carriage motion for the rival Class Counsel to extol their own virtues and to badmouth their rival," he added in his decision. "I think it would make sense to change the process for assigning carriage, whether it's done judicially or via a legislated fix," says Ren Bucholz, a lawyer with Toronto-based Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein, who appeared on the motion. "One of the things we should consider is whether carriage motions should be held in camera. I'm sure defendants would say it's a violation of the open court principle," he says. David Wingfield -- dwingfield@strosbergco.com -- a Toronto-based partner with Strosberg Sasso Sutts, who argued the case for the victorious consortium, agrees that carriage motions put prospective class counsel in an awkward position due to the presence of defendants. "If you have a motion that involves different views of the best approach, it's hard not to develop those arguments fully, but it has to be done in their full view," he says, adding that some defendants even like to participate in the carriage motion. For example, in the recent motion to decide carriage of the alleged bread price-fixing class action, also won by a group including Strosberg Sasso Sutts, the defendants expressed a preference for the losing consortium, prompting Justice Ed Morgan to remark in David v. Loblaw; Breckon v. Loblaw that a "more cynical person might think that the Defendants simply prefer the more passive of the two competing class counsel groups over the more proactive group." Mr. Wingfield says he would also welcome a reformulation of the test for awarding carriage, with a smaller number of factors focused on the desire of counsel to advance the class action and the sophistication of their case theory. "I would certainly support the concept that the 16-part test should be reduced to something far more limited and objective, and I think this decision points in exactly that direction," agrees his co-counsel in Quenneville, Jonathan Foreman -- jforeman@harrisonpensa.com -- a partner with London, Ont. firm Harrison Pensa. In his decision, Justice Perell suggests a number of the 16 factors have become "dysfunctional" and could effectively be dispensed with. For instance, he said the factor of the "quality of proposed class counsel" threatens to instigate a "beauty pageant or a cockfight" and should only rarely be a significant consideration in awarding carriage. In addition, he suggested that law firms seeking carriage in the future should hire independent counsel to argue the motion. But James Orr -- jorr@agmlawyers.com -- a class action lawyer with Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP, says he's not so sure about the idea. "Unless the goal is full employment for Toronto lawyers, I would disagree," says Orr, who notes that the courtroom for his last carriage motion could barely accommodate all the lawyers involved. "There were probably 20 or 30 gowned." The competing counsel in Quenneville launched their actions within a week of one another following a July 2017 report in a German magazine alleging that Audi, BMW, Daimler, Porsche and Volkswagen had all engaged in an anti-competitive scheme to gain an advantage over non-German competitors between 1990 and 2016. The article claims they collaborated on the design, development, engineering and marketing of luxury vehicles, characterizing the alleged arrangement as monopoly-like rather than a direct conspiracy to fix prices. After trying and failing to come to a consortium agreement, the two groups moved toward a carriage motion to settle the issue. However, at the same time, the team led by Harrison Pensa and Strosberg Sasso Sutts delivered a motion record for certification, including an expert report. Justice Perell described the move as "ill-advised" considering carriage had not yet been settled, but he also criticized the decision of the competing team of counsel to attack alleged deficiencies in the expert report in front of the defence. Ultimately, Justice Perell concluded that case theory was the "most-weighty factor for determining who should have carriage" and plumped for the "more creative and more developable case theory" proposed by Mr. Wingfield and his team. [GN] BANK OF NEW YORK: Must Defend Against "Butterline" Class Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LISA BUTTERLINE, et al. v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al, Civil Action No. 15-1429 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Juan R. Sanchez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (i) denied the Bank's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, except as to the Plaintiffs' request for punitive damages; and (ii) denied as premature the Bank's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations. Plaintiffs Lisa and Mark Butterline previously owned real property located at 2713 East Huntingdon Street in Philadelphia. They fell behind on their mortgage payments, and in November 2007, the Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. The Bank eventually obtained a default judgment in the amount of $62,764.79 in April 2009. The Bank thereafter sought to execute its foreclosure judgment, causing the Property to be sold at a sheriff's sale on Nov. 1, 2011. The sale generated competitive bidding, and the Bank purchased the Property with a winning bid of $93,000, approximately $30,000 more than the amount of its foreclosure judgment. Following the sale, the City did not prepare and keep on file a schedule of proposed distribution of the sale proceeds, as required by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 3136(a). Nor did it enforce the payment terms set forth in its pre-sale advertising. Instead, on July 23, 2012, the City deeded the Property to the Bank in exchange for the Bank's payment of only the costs owed on the Property -- e.g., the Sheriff's costs in conducting the sale, taxes, charges for water and gas, etc. -- which totaled $16,291.11, rather than the entire $93,000 bid amount (or the full amount by which the bid amount exceeded the Bank's foreclosure judgment). The deed was recorded on Oct. 31, 2012. In December 2014, the Plaintiffs filed an administrative claim (known as a "DART" claim) with the Sheriff's Office, pursuant to the Sheriff's local rules, requesting all excess funds obtained as a result of the sale in the case -- i.e., the amount by which the Bank's bid exceeded the sum of its foreclosure judgment and the costs on the Property. On Dec. 18, 2014, the City rejected Plaintiffs' administrative claim, stating that because the Bank, as executing creditor, "won the bid," it was required to pay only the pending cost (i.e. Sheriff's cost, transfer taxes, water) and the Plaintiffs were thus not due any monies from the Sheriff Sale. The Plaintiffs contend the City has a policy of collecting only the costs owed to the City where, as here, the winning bidder is also the executing creditor, leaving any excess proceeds from the sheriff's sale uncollected. In contrast, when the winning bidder is a third party, the City collects the full amount of the bid, though it does not distribute the excess proceeds to the former owner unless the former owner submits an administrative claim to the Sheriff's Office. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs filed the putative class action lawsuit against the City and the Bank, initially asserting a procedural due process claim against the City and a contract claim against the Bank based on their mortgage contract with the Bank. The Court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss, but allowed the Plaintiffs an opportunity to seek leave to amend. The Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion for leave to amend, which the Court denied as to the City on futility grounds. However, the Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend as to the Bank, which did not oppose the Plaintiffs' motion, resulting in the filing of the instant Second Amended Complaint in which the Plaintiffs seek to recover the excess proceeds of the sheriff's sale from the Bank as a third-party beneficiary of the sale contract between the Bank and the Sheriff. The Plaintiffs seek to pursue this action on behalf of a class composed of all individuals or entities whose real property was foreclosed and sold to the Bank at the sheriff sale and who did not recover the excess funds remaining from such sheriff's sale after all liabilities on the real property had been satisfied. The Bank now moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' third-party beneficiary breach of contract claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, to strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion and, in the event their third-party beneficiary claim is dismissed, seek leave to file a third amended complaint to assert claims for unjust enrichment and conversion against the Bank. Because the facts alleged in the Second Amended Complaint support the reasonable inference that (1) the sheriff's sale resulted in a sale contract between the Sheriff and the Bank, wherein the Bank agreed to purchase the Property for $93,000; and (2) the Plaintiffs are intended third-party beneficiaries of the sale contract insofar as the sale generated excess proceeds, Judge Sanchez finds that the Plaintiffs have stated a third-party beneficiary breach of contract claim against the Bank. He denied the Bank's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. While the Bank does suggest that identifying the class members will require the Court to determine whether the Sheriff's Office published a Schedule of Distribution, whether each potential class member filed a timely claim demanding entitlement to any excess funds, and whether the Sheriff's Office distributed some or all of the funds, the Judge finds that it is not clear that such inquiry will be necessary given the Plaintiffs' allegations that the City has a policy to collect only costs when the Bank wins the bid at a sheriff's sale. As to predominance, the Bank mentions this issue only briefly, arguing that for the same reasons the class is unascertainable, individual issues will predominate over common issues. Unhelpfully, the Plaintiffs fail to respond. Given the scant attention devoted to this issue in the parties' briefs, Judge Sanchez says he is not persuaded a class discovery would be futile in the case. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on whether the Plaintiffs' proposed class can ultimately be certified, he does not find a basis to strike the class allegations at this stage. As to the Bank's bid to strike the Plaintiffs' request for punitive damages, the Plaintiffs do not respond to the Bank's argument on this point, and, as the Bank notes that under Pennsylvania law, punitive damages are not recoverable in an action solely based upon breach of contract. The Judge therefore struck the Plaintiffs' request for punitive damages. A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Memorandum is available at https://bit.ly/2r97IMz from Leagle.com. LISA BUTTERLINE & MARK BUTTERLINE, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, represented by CHRISTOPHER G. HAYES, LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HAYES, DANIEL C. LEVIN -- dlevin@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, MICHAEL G. LOUIS -- mlouis@macelree.com -- MacELREE, HARVEY, GALLAGHER, FEATHERMAN & SEBASTIAN, LTD. & WILLIAM T. WILSON -- wtw@becounsel.com -- BAILEY & EHRENBERG PLLC. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, N.A. AS SUCCESSOR TO JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR RESIDENTIAL ASSET MORTGAGE PRODUCTS, INC., MORTGAGE ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-RP1 I/P/A BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST, CO., Defendant, represented by JOELLE EPSTEIN -- epstein@blankrome.com -- BLANK ROME, KEVIN G. MCDONALD, KML LAW GROUP, P.C., LAURA E. VENDZULES -- lvendzules@blankrome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP & MICHAEL A. IANNUCCI -- iannucci@blankrome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP. BARKERVILLE GOLD: Osgoode Receives $80K Settlement Cy-pres Award ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alexia Kapralos, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that Osgoode Hall Law School's Investor Protection Clinic has received an $80,000 cy-pres award from a class action settlement that will help the clinic remain open throughout the summer. The injection of cash was a "very welcome surprise," according to the clinic's academic director, Poonam Puri. The Toronto-based clinic will be putting the court-directed award toward hiring four summer students so client files can remain open past the academic term. Neither the clinic nor the law school were involved in the class action directly (a settlement in the shareholder proceeding involving Barkerville Gold Mines Ltd.). Rather, the clinic received the money as a result of a decision made by Justice Paul Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. "When the class members in a class action proceeding can't be easily identified, or it would be uneconomical to distribute the funds, a court has discretion to grant a cy-pres award so that you're allocating the funds as close as possible through other means that are in the best interests of the class," says Ms. Puri. This clinic aids people who believe their investments have been mishandled and cannot afford a lawyer. The first of its kind in Canada, the clinic was founded by Osgoode Hall Law School and FAIR Canada (Canadian Foundation for the Advancement of Investor Rights) and launched in September 2017. It was initially funded by close to $100,000 in seed money from the Law Foundation of Ontario, says Ms. Puri. "It really allowed us to put the clinic together and launch. But the funding is only for a limited period of time and it's only seed funding, not operational funding," she says. "We are thinking of ways to ensure sustainability, to make sure we can provide this service for the community, not just for a limited period of time, but for the foreseeable future." Counsel for the plaintiff in the case where the cy-pres award came from, Andrew Morganti, of Morganti & Co., contacted the clinic to see if it would be interested in receiving the award on behalf of the settlement. In September, 10 more students, in addition to the four hired during the summer, will be joining the clinic for school credit -- a total of 14 students (there were 12 in the last session). Also, lawyers from six business law firms assist the students by sharing their expertise and oversee particular files. Since the four students will be able to work at the clinic during the summer, Ms. Puri says that this is advantageous because they'll have more time to understand and learn the files, know what the procedures are and as a result, will be able to help the upcoming group of students joining them in the fall, rather than everyone starting from scratch. Ms. Puri says eventually she'd like the clinic to have an in- house lawyer. "The students are loving the program. They're really loving the opportunity to be able to engage directly with people who have been harmed or who believe that they've been harmed, and help them navigate forward," she says. [GN] BNSF RAILWAY: Wins Bid for Judgment; "Sumlin" Suit Claims Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable John F. Walter granted BNSF's motion for judgment on the pleadings in the lawsuit titled Henry Sumlin, et al. v. BNSF Railway Company, et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-02364-JFW-KK (C.D. Cal.). Judge Walter ruled that BNSF's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted in its entirety, and all of the Plaintiffs' claims alleged in the First Amended Complaint are dismissed, with prejudice. In light of the Court's ruling, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is moot. The parties are ordered to meet and confer and agree on a proposed Judgment, which is consistent with this Order. In the unlikely event that counsel are unable to agree upon a proposed Judgment, Judge Walter says, the parties shall each submit separate versions of a proposed Judgment along with a Joint Statement setting forth their respective positions. BNSF, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas, is one of the largest railroad companies in the United States. BNSF operates 8,000 locomotives and has a rail network of 32,500 route miles in 28 states and Canada. The Plaintiffs are California residents, who work as through-freight employees for BNSF. The Plaintiffs contend that BNSF violated the California Labor Code and Industrial Wage Commission Wage Order Number 9 by failing to compensate them for missed rest periods. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=I0BeVu0m CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces V8 Splash False Advertising Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the maker of V8 Splash is alleged to have failed to disclose that the drinks contained artificial flavoring. Hortense Sims, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint on April 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Campbell Soup Co. and Y&R over alleged violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Campbell's V8 Splash products are falsely advertised in the state of California. She alleges the drinks contain less than 2 percent of the juice the products are named for and that they are mostly water and corn syrup. She also alleges Campbell's conceals the fact the drinks are artificially flavored. The suit states defendant Y&R is the advertising agency responsible for the labeling and advertising of V8 Splash. As a result, Ms. Sims claims she and class members lost money because they paid a price premium for a product that contained undisclosed artificial flavors. The plaintiff holds Campbell Soup Co. and Y&R responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to label the products in accordance with federal and state labeling regulations and omitting the required information that the products contain artificial flavoring. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment for punitive damages, order requiring the defendants to conduct corrective advertising, attorney fees, costs and such other and further relief as the court may deem just, equitable, or proper. She is represented by Ronald A. Marron and Michael T. Houchin of Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron in San Diego. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case number 5:18-cv-00668-PSG-SP [GN] CANADA: Suit Over Freedom-of-Information Web Breach Mulled ---------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that a Nova Scotia law firm is investigating the potential for a class action lawsuit following a breach of the province's freedom-of-information Internet portal affecting thousands of sensitive documents. Between March 3 and March 5, approximately 7,000 documents -- containing birth dates, social insurance numbers, addresses and government services' client information -- were inappropriately accessed. Lawyer Ray Wagner says it's concerning that such information was compromised and accessed so readily, and that government delayed informing the public. The government waited nearly a week to inform the public, while police began their investigation. A Halifax man was charged. Mr. Wagner says anyone who lives in Nova Scotia and is concerned that their information was inappropriately accessed, should contact his law firm. [GN] CANADA: Parents of Children with Autism File Discrimination Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gloria Henriquez, writing for Global News, reports that a group of parents of children on the autism spectrum say they're ready to take legal action against the government of Quebec and its school boards, because they say the system is discriminating against their children. Claudia Taboada is one of those parents. "We have no life, we have no life and this is going on. It's going to go forever," Ms. Taboada said in tears. She worries her 17 year-old will not get the services he needs past the age of 21. "[It's as if] at 21, children [are] not autistic anymore, and it's what scares me because at 21 there are no services," Ms. Taboada explained. They say the government's lack of services and long waiting lists force them to seek private care. Desperate to access services, parents like Sam Kuhn have resorted to crowdfunding to pay for the speech therapy his seven year-old daughter Charlotte needs. Mr. Kuhn even protested in front of Quebec's Public Health Minister Lucie Charlebois in an effort to access the services his daughter needs. At a press conference on April 15, parents were at wit's end and left with no other choice but to take legal action. They now plan to file multiple civil rights complaints to the Commission of Human Rights. "We want respect, we want that their rights for education, for living, for dignity are respected," Ms. Taboada said, "and we're going to go all the way. All the way." The Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations (CRARR) believes the province's failure to provide proper services and education is a clear display of discrimination based on disability -- and that violates children's rights. Together, the parents and the centre are also looking to launch a class action lawsuit against school boards. "For failure to accommodate, for failure to integrate children, but also against many of the rehabilitation centres and healthcare system for failure to provide the equal protection of the law," said Fo Niemi, executive director of the Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations. A spokesperson for public health minister Lucie Charlebois told Global News the government is aware of the increasing needs of the autism community. And that's why the province is investing $29 million a year into its 2017-2022 autism action plan. But families affected say that help is nowhere to be seen. "I haven't seen any of this money and I don't think my colleagues have," Ms. Taboada said. And that's why she's calling on other parents to join their fight. "We are sick and tired of the government not listening to us," Ms. Taboada said. "This is for our children. We have to go and we have to fight." [GN] CATHOLIC CHURCH: Faces Class Action Over St. Patrick Child Abuse ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julianne Langshaw, writing for Gippsland Times, reports that the Catholic Church in Gippsland is set to become embroiled in a landmark class action to be brought by alleged victims of child abuse, which could run into millions of dollars. The proposed action relates to alleged historical child sex and physical abuse offences at St Patrick's College, Sale, many of which are said to have occurred in the 1970s when the school housed boarders. Two St Patrick's cases have already been prosecuted in the criminal system, with another case against a Marist Brother, alleging multiple victims, set to go to trial later this year. Another criminal case was unable to proceed after the accused lay teacher died. The class action, which will allege a failure in duty of care, will attract state and national attention, as this is expected to be the first class action lawsuit in Victoria against the Catholic Church under impending changes to state government legislation, which are anticipated to pass in the Legislative Council within weeks. Under the new laws, both individuals and class action parties will be able to sue the church's highly valuable property trusts, and other such structures, that were previously 'untouchable'. With at least 28 known reports of sexually and physically abused victims from St Pat's, the class action is now at the 'public notification' stage, to encourage other St Pats victims to come forward. St Pat's Sale class action leader and lead plaintiff, 'Michael', said sexually and physically abused victims now finally had a chance to seek reasonable and acceptable compensation. "As a fellow St Pat's sexually and physically abused victim, I know firsthand the horrors and trauma that we've all been through," he said. "A nightmare it has been. "That's why I've been prepared to volunteer my time, particularly over the past three years, to help get justice for all our victims. "It's been a degrading, humiliating and heart breaking process for all of us abused victims to go through, after being shunned for decade after decade by the Catholic Church." The public awareness campaign is one of the final steps to lodging the class action lawsuit in the Victorian Supreme Court. Michael believes there could be many other victims who have remained silent. "They need to know it is now safe to come forward, even if their initial enquiries are anonymous," he said. He added victims who wanted to undertake their own legal actions and negotiations separately could still do so. "But with a class action, there are many advantages to those victims who would prefer to take a less 'confronting' approach," he added. "We'll have the best legal expertise in the country fighting our fight, on a no-win, no-fee basis. "And no expensive litigation funders, either." Victims could be entitled to pain and suffering compensation alone of up to $500,000, but there is no legal impediment to compensation awards in the millions. As this is expected to the first class action lawsuit to go before the Victorian Supreme Court under the proposed new legislation, Michael said his team was "disciplined and taking a highly detailed and methodical approach to every set of the process, to ensure winning this precedent-setting case". Michael said he had been in "productive discussions" with several law firms, including giants Slater and Gordon and Maurice Blackburn, and would soon be selecting a legal firm to run the class action. In the meantime, he encouraged victims, on a strictly confidential basis, to email the volunteer class action manager will.waterside@outlook.com "We'll also be ensuring that collusion, an important legal issue, won't be able to occur between our victims," he added. Michael said he was hopeful justice would prevail, so that victims could "put the nightmare behind them". Early last year, the Catholic Diocese of Sale was named Australia's most prolific for child sexual abuse, with the highest proportion of alleged paedophile priests nationwide over 60 years. According to a report, released by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, 15.1 per cent of all Sale Diocese priests who ministered from 1950 to 2010 were named as alleged perpetrators, giving it the highest overall proportion of child sexual abusers of dioceses across Australia. In February The Age newspaper reported its investigations had revealed the Catholic Church in Victoria was worth more than $9 billion, making it the biggest non-government property owner in the state -- and much wealthier than it had admitted in evidence to major inquiries into child sexual abuse. A six-month investigation by The Age found that the church misled the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse by grossly undervaluing its property portfolio, while claiming that increased payments to abuse survivors would likely require cuts to its social programs. Figures extrapolated from a huge volume of Victorian council valuation data showed the church had more than $30 billion in property and other assets, Australia wide. Based on these figures, The Age concluded the church was the largest non-government property owner, by value, in the state, and close to the largest in Australia, rivalling giant Westfield, with its vast network of shopping centres and other assets. A spokesperson for the Catholic Church was approached for comment, but none was able to be issued at this time. [GN] CENTRAL CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in "Machnik" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Audrey Machnik moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit styled AUDREY MACHNIK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00557-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). 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, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that 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). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff contends. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LC7FFc2C The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 CENTRAL LOAN: Jones Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled HARRY JONES, GLORY JONES, and PETER HODDERSEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CENTRAL LOAN ADMINISTRATION & REPORTING d/b/a CENLAR FSB, AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, STANDARD GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and VOYAGER INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:16-cv-09245 (D.N.J.), submit with the Court their Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of Settlement Class, and Appointment of Class Representatives. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KoctsE3U The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kyle Tognan, Esq. BATHGATE, WEGENER & WOLF, P.C. One Airport Road P.O. Box 2043 Lakewood, NJ 08701 Telephone: (732) 363-0666 Facsimile: (732) 363-9864 E-mail: ktognan@bathweg.com - and - Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Howard M. Bushman, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC 2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 740-1423 E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com howard@moskowitz-law.com - and - Robert J. Neary, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: rn@kttlaw.com - and - Lance A. Harke, Esq. HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP 9699 NE Second Avenue Miami Shores, FL 33138 Telephone: (305) 536-8220 Facsimile: (305) 536-8229 E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com CENTRUS ENERGY: Newman's Class Certified for Settlement Purposes ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Michael R. Barrett grants the motion for class certification for purposes of settlement in the lawsuit captioned CHARLES NEWMAN, et al. v. CENTRUS ENERGY CORP, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00449-MRB (S.D. Ohio). Charles Newman, Gary Johnson, and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, have entered into a proposed Settlement Agreement with the Defendants to resolve the claims in this putative class action lawsuit. Plaintiffs Charles Newman, Gary Johnson and Proposed Plaintiff Donna Steele (the Class Representatives) seek certification of a Settlement Class. The parties have entered into a Stipulation of Settlement and also have agreed on a proposed Class Notice. The Court defines the settlement class in this litigation, for settlement purposes only, as: Former employees of the United States Enrichment Corporation, (along with their spouses, surviving spouses, and eligible dependents), at the gaseous diffusion facilities in Piketon, OH and Paducah, KY, who were: (1) represented by the USW or a predecessor union, and; (2) who, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement and/or the Privatization Act, are, will be, or were eligible to receive retiree health care and prescription drug benefits from Centrus after having attained age 65. The Court appoints Charles Newman, Gary Johnson, and Donna Steele as Class Representatives to represent the Settlement Class, and appoints Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, as Class Counsel. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vvTE6GRD CHEROKEE COUNTY, GA: Class Action v. DSS Moves to Federal Court --------------------------------------------------------------- WLOS reports that there are new developments involving the Department of Social Services in Cherokee County. The class action lawsuit filed against Cherokee County DSS has been moved to federal court. The NC Department of Health and Human Services took over the agency several weeks ago. The lawsuit claims child welfare workers removed potentially hundreds of kids from their homes illegally. The lawsuit says those DSS employees did not follow state law to get a judge's approval to remove children from their biological parents. [GN] CHICAGO BRIDGE: Judd Sues Over McDermott Merger Deal ---------------------------------------------------- Paul E. Judd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., Marsha C. Williams, L. Richard Flury, Larry Mcvay, W. Craig Kissel, Deborah M. Fretz, James R. Bolch, James H. Miller and Forbes I.J. Alexander, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00799 (S.D. Tex., March 14, 2018) seeks to recover damages caused by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Chicago Bridge provides a range of services, including conceptual design, technology, engineering, procurement, fabrication, modularization, construction, commissioning, maintenance, program management and environmental services, to customers in the energy infrastructure market throughout the world. McDermott International, Inc. and its affiliates, McDermott Technology, B.V., McDermott Technology (Americas), LLC and McDermott Technology (US), LLC. will combine their business with Chicago Bridge beginning with McDermott launching an offer to exchange any and all of Chicago Bridge common stock for 2.47221 shares of McDermott common stock. McDermott stockholders will own approximately 53% of the outstanding shares of McDermott common stock and Chicago shareholders will own approximately 47% of the outstanding shares of McDermott common stock. However, the registration statement failed to disclose potential conflicts of interest involving Centerview Partners LLC, the Chicago Bridge's financial advisor, its financial forecasts and the valuation analyses prepared by Centerview in connection with the rendering of its fairness opinion, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Simmons, Esq. Stephen Higdon, Esq. DEANS & LYONS, L.L.P. 325 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 965-8500 Facsimile: (214) 965-8505 Email: csimmons@deanslyons.com shigdon@deanslyons.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 Facsimile: (202) 333-2121 Email: denright@zlk.com etripodi@zlk.com CIGNA CORP: Faces ERISA Class Action in Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------- Adam Lidgett, writing for Law360, reports that Cigna and American Specialty Health have been hit with a proposed ERISA class action in Pennsylvania federal court accusing them of colluding to saddle members and plans with the charges ASH incurs for processing claims and administering a network on Cigna's behalf. Cigna Corp., Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co., American Specialty Health Inc. and American Specialty Health Group Inc. were hit with an Employee Retirement Income Security Act complaint -- dated April 12, but entered on April 13 -- by Kathleen Kilroy. The case is styled Kilroy v. Cigna Corporation et al, Case No. 2:18-cv-01557 (E.D. Pa.). The case is assigned to Judge Honorable Nitza I Quinones Alejandro. The case was filed April 13, 2018. [GN] CIGNA CORP: Misrepresents ASH Charges, Class Action Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- Evan Sweeney, writing for Fierce Healthcare, reports that Cigna was hit with a class-action lawsuit accusing the insurer of colluding with a claims administrator in a cost-shifting scheme to overcharge members. Filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania by a Macy's employee who was insured by Cigna, the complaint alleged that the insurer "misappropriates millions of dollars every year" from members by diverting administrative costs from vendors. The lawsuit also accused Cigna of falsifying Explanation of Benefits (EOB) forms to misrepresent charges from American Specialty Health, a company contracted by the insurer to process and administer healthcare claims and build provider networks, including chiropractors. Rather than paying for the administrative charges from ASH using plan fees and subscriber premiums, the complaint alleged Cigna disguises the charges as medical expenses. The class-action complaint claims the insurer violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which sets minimum standards for health plans. "By their uniform misrepresentations, Cigna and ASH are able to shift the cost for ASH's charges from Cigna to Cigna's members and ERISA Plans," the complaint (PDF) reads. "Defendants deplete the members' HRA and HSA funds and the assets of the plans to pay for these charges, rather than using them to pay for medical services." The suit further argued that the scheme could mean Cigna is reporting inaccurate Medical Loss Ratios, used to calculate the percentage of premium income versus medical expenses. The Affordable Care Act established minimum MLR thresholds for individual and small-group markets as well as large-group markets. A Cigna spokesperson said the insurer cannot comment on pending litigation. A spokesperson for American Specialty Health also declined to comment. The lawsuit comes on the heels of another class-action lawsuit, accusing Cigna of overcharging its members with artificially inflated drug costs. The insurer is looking to close a $67 billion deal to acquire Express Scripts, which has drawn scrutiny from lawmakers. [GN] COCONINO COUNTY, AZ: Inmate Sues Over Jail's Immigration Policy --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a lawsuit is challenging a Northern Arizona jail's practice of detaining inmates longer than required by local or state charges through holds requested by federal immigration officials. Inmate Guillermo Tenorio-Serrano filed the suit in March against Coconino County officials to challenge the constitutionality of the jail policy that honors immigration detainer requests, the Arizona Daily Sun reported. The Coconino County jail has held inmates for up to two days longer than required, allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to take custody of people suspected of being in the country illegally. Mr. Tenorio-Serrano was arrested on misdemeanor charges related to driving under the influence in December. Jail staff notified immigration agents who then sent an administrative warrant and a detainer request. While Mr. Tenorio-Serrano, 32, could have made bail, he chose not to so he could avoid being taken into custody by ICE agents. Jail policy requires staff to comply with detainer requests. Sheriff Jim Driscoll, who is named in the suit, said the policy adheres with a state law that mandates agencies to generally cooperate with and assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. "Cooperation to me is that a federal agency makes a request of us, I am going to try to comply with that," Mr. Driscoll said. "Is the request legal? That's for the courts to determine." In a statement, the Coconino County Board of Supervisors said the lawsuit will serve as an opportunity to get a final ruling on the constitutionality of parts of the state law. Kathryn Mahady, the attorney for Mr. Tenorio-Serrano, claims that prolonging the detention of inmates violates both the Arizona Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. Ms. Mahady said she will ask the court to give the lawsuit class- action status on behalf of additional individuals. [GN] CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR: Hatmaker Seeks to Certify 2 Retiree Classes ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned BETTY HATMAKER and CHARLENE EDWARDS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR SECURITY, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv- 00351-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn.), move for certification of these two classes: * Post-65 Retiree Class: All individuals, spouses, surviving spouses, and/or eligible dependents of individuals, who worked at Y-12 as hourly or salaried employees and who retired from such employment between 1985 and 2015, are Medicare-eligible (at least aged sixty-five (65)), and whose negotiated healthcare and related benefits have been or may be improperly modified, amended or terminated by CNS as of January 1, 2015; and * Pre-65 Retiree Class: All individuals, spouses, surviving spouses, and/or eligible dependents of individuals, who worked at Y-12 as hourly or salaried employees and who retired from such employment between 1985 and 2015, are below the age of Medicare eligibility (under sixty-five (65) years of age), whose negotiated healthcare and related benefits have been or may be improperly modified, amended or terminated by CNS as of January 1, 2015. The Classes exclude any judge presiding over this action and members of their family. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to restore their healthcare benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 as promised to them during their active employment at the Y-12 National Security Complex. Having suffered significant changes to their healthcare plans taking effect on January 1, 2015, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant breached its fiduciary duties to the Plaintiffs and proposed Class Members under the ERISA. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives and their attorneys as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ohwoirHl The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Mark E. Silvey, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com mark@gregcolemanlaw.com CORECIVIC: Sued for Violating Anti-Human Trafficking Law -------------------------------------------------------- Betsy Woodruff, writing for Daily Beast, reports that a private prison company forced immigrant detainees to work for as little as $1 per day if they wanted toilet paper, toothpaste, and safe lodging, according to a new lawsuit filed on April 17. The class action suit, filed in federal court for the Middle District of Georgia, pits three plaintiffs -- Wilhen Hill Barrientos, Margarito Velazquez Galicia, and Shoahib Ahmed -- against CoreCivic, the nation's largest private prison company. Messrs. Barrientos and Velazquez Galicia are both currently detained in the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Ga. Mr. Ahmed was previously detained there before giving up his asylum claim. The three allege that CoreCivic is violating a federal anti-human trafficking law with the work program that it oversees. The detention center characterizes its work program as voluntary. But according to the lawsuit detainees are paid pennies per hour -- generally $1 to $4 per day -- for tasks such as mopping floors, scrubbing toilets, and serving meals. The lawsuit quotes a report from the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general finding that staff at the Stewart facility didn't give detainees soap, toilet paper, and toothpaste "promptly or at all when detainees ran out of them." "In one instance, Mr. Barrientos ran out of toilet paper and requested another roll from a CoreCivic officer," the lawsuit says. "The CoreCivic officer told Mr. Barrientos to use his fingers to clean himself." According to the lawsuit, detainees are directed to use their wages to buy toilet paper and other hygiene products from the detention center commissary. And the only way immigrants can talk to their family outside the detention center is if they buy costly phone cards from the commissary, according to the lawsuit. The suit says officers at the facility threatened to revoke Mr. Barrientos' access to the commissary if he called in sick. Immigrants who resist participating in the work program can face criminal charges or up to 30 days in solitary confinement, the suit says. They also are subjected to worse living quarters. [GN] DE VILLE ASSSET: Faces "Stephens" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against De Ville Assset Management, Ltd. The case is styled as Maureen Stephens, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. De Ville Assset Management, Ltd, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02589 (E.D. N.Y., May 1, 2018). DeVille Assset Management, Ltd is engaged in the collection of debt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com DOUBLEDOWN INTERACT: Faces Class Action in Washington ----------------------------------------------------- The Investor reports that Korean social casino game operator DoubleUGames said on April 15 that a lawsuit filed against its US affiliate Doubledown Interact would have limited impact. DoubleUGames' statement came after a class action suit was filed against four social casino game companies including DDI in Washington on April 12, following a court ruling on March 28 terming operations of US-based Big Fish Casino as illegal online gambling as per state law. "We believe that the ruling of the Ninth Circuit of US Court of Appeals on Big Fish Casino is quite unusual," the company said in a statement, citing four previous cases that all rejected gambling claims. [GN] DUPONT: GenX Class Action Plaintiffs Respond to Motion Dismiss -------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Henderson, writing for Triangle Business Journal, reports that plaintiffs in the recently consolidated GenX class- action lawsuit against DuPont and former wholly-owned subsidiary Chemours have filed a response to the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. [GN] DURHAM SCHOOL: School Bus Drivers File Wage Theft Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Durham School Services school bus drivers working with the support of ARISE Chicago, Teamsters Local 777, Teamsters Local 50 and the Steering in the Right Direction Coalition have filed 17 individual complaints for lost wages against the National Express subsidiary Durham School Services with the Illinois Department of Labor. National Express is a U.K.-based transportation company, with their North American operations headquartered in Lisle, Ill. The 17 complaints are in addition to another complaint filed against the company in the state of Illinois in March, bringing the total lost wages alleged by the drivers to $44,930.68. Durham has paid out over $12 million to workers since 2011, including a settlement after an audit by the New York State Attorney General's office, two statewide class action lawsuits brought by workers in California and one class action suit in Baltimore, Md. The most recent class action suit against the company was settled on April 2, 2018 with California workers for $3.9 million. Durham bus drivers in Illinois allege several forms of wage theft, including not being paid for all hours worked, being required to work off the clock, not having errors on their paychecks corrected and being forced to buy supplies that they needed without being reimbursed. They question why public dollars are being paid to a private company that they say steals wages. Wage theft is particularly exploitative among school bus contractors because their workforce is typically composed of low-wage workers who already struggle to make ends meet. Sharon Jones is a former Durham bus driver and a charging party in one of the wage theft complaints filed on April 16. "As a Durham bus driver, I could not earn a livable wage, so I had to work a second job," Ms. Jones said. "I had to work evenings and weekends just so I could make sure my bills were paid. I had to sleep in my car because it cost too much time and money to head home between a.m. and p.m. routes. I even bought an electric blanket that I could plug into the cigarette lighter so I could stay warm in the bad weather." Ms. Jones said she believes that the wage theft complaints being filed against Durham School Services are not isolated incidents, but rather part of a pattern of bad behavior that the company needs to address. "I could talk all day about the problems Durham school bus workers face, but I'm here today with solutions," Ms. Jones said. "I want to ask Durham to sit down and talk with their workers to create safe, respectful jobs. I want Durham to pay its drivers for all of the hours and minutes that they work, and I want Durham to treat their workers with dignity." Arise Chicago is a workers' rights organization that trains and organizes low-wage workers to recover stolen wages and improve working conditions. Since 2002, Arise Chicago members have recovered over $8 million in owed wages and compensation. Steering in the Right Direction is a network of Durham School Services employees fighting for change that works closely with Arise Chicago, the Teamsters Union and other community organizations. SITRD focuses on wage theft, safety and worker respect issues. Find us on Facebook @steeringintherightdirection. Founded in 1903, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters -- http://www.teamster.org-- represents 1.4 million hardworking men and women throughout the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. [GN] DURHAM SCHOOL: Romo's Bid for Prelim. Nod of Settlement Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on April 10, 2018, in the case titled Yudina Romo v. Durham School Services, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01929 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Gary Feinerman. The minute entry states that: -- Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class settlement is denied as moot; -- Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to file memorandum in support of unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class settlement in excess of 15 pages is granted; -- Plaintiff shall file her memorandum as a separate docket entry; and -- Amended notice of motion that was set for April 11, 2018, is stricken. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zU7LwWTQ EASY SPIRIT: Faces "Olsen" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Easy Spirit LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Easy Spirit LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02594 (E.D. N.Y., May 2, 2018). Easy Spirit, LLC comprises business operations that distribute apparel and accessories under the brand Easy Spirit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com ENTRUST GROUP: 3rd Amended Complaint in "White" Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, PATRICIA BAILEY WHITE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. JAY PEARSON a/k/a JERRY PEARSON a/k/a JERRY O. PEARSON, JR., ENTRUST MID- SOUTH, LLC n/k/a/MID SOUTH RETIREMENT SERVICES, LLC, THE ENTRUST GROUP, INC., and ENTRUST ADMINISTRATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-00487-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), remains pending. The Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint against the Defendants on March 19, 2018. Pursuant to the Court's Feb. 26, 2018 Minute Order, the current deadline for the Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the Third Amended Complaint is April 9, 2018. The Defendants have reviewed the Third Amended Complaint and investigated the allegations contained therein, and, based on that review and investigation, do not believe that the Plaintiff has stated or could state an actionable claim against them. Their counsel informed the Plaintiff's counsel by telephone on March 30 and by April 2 letter, of the Defendants' belief that there is no actionable wrong or damage that can be truthfully alleged by the Plaintiff against the Defendants in the matter, and asked whether the Plaintiff would cause a dismissal the case with prejudice as a result. The Plaintiff and her counsel are in the process of evaluating the Defendants' position. To provide an opportunity for the Plaintiff and her counsel to complete their evaluation and to provide an opportunity for the Parties to complete their meet and confer efforts regarding the foregoing, the Parties agreed to continue the Defendants' deadline for answering or otherwise responding to the Third Amended Complaint by 16 days to April 25, 2018. The Parties through their counsel, stipulated, and Judge John A. Mendez of the District Court for the Eastern District of California approved the extension. A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Order is available at https://bit.ly/2r9M22R from Leagle.com. Patricia Bailey White, Plaintiff, represented by David Keith Dorenfeld -- David@dorenfeldlaw.com -- Dorenfeldlaw, Inc., Michael Winston Brown -- michael@dorenfeldlaw.com -- Dorenfeldlaw, Inc., Cathy Jackson Lerman, Cathy Jackson Lerman, P.A., pro hac vice & Joseph Fogel -- joefogel@lawfogel.com -- Fogel and Associates. ESTATE INFORMATION: Faces "Azimov" Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Estate Information Services, LLC. The case is styled as Mina L. Azimov, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Estate Information Services, LLC, d/b/a eis collections and Navient Solutions, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03911 (S.D. N.Y., May 1, 2018). Estate Information Services, LLC is a collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. F&M TRUST: Finalizes $10MM Class Action Settlement Agreement ------------------------------------------------------------ Shelby White, writing for Central Penn Business Journal, reports that Chambersburg-based F&M Trust Co. said it finalized a settlement agreement in a class-action lawsuit arising from a trust company it bought in 2008, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A tentative settlement agreement calls on F&M Trust to pay $10 million to resolve all claims arising or potentially arising from the issue, according to the agreement. A hearing for preliminary approval of the agreement is scheduled for May 4, according to the SEC filing. F&M Trust recognized the settlement payment as an expense in the fourth quarter of 2017 and said it expects to fund the payment out of "available resources," the filing said. The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing on the bank's part. F&M spokesman Matt Weaver said the company did not have any additional information to provide beyond what was in the SEC filing. The suit, filed in 2015 in federal court, alleged that Community Trust Co., which F&M Trust acquired in 2008, and F&M Trust did not exercise proper oversight of funds they held between 2002 and 2010 on behalf of employee-benefit plans created by an independent lawyer. The plans covered over 500 participants and included employer- owned life insurance policies for company principals and employees. Those participants are the class covered by the settlement with F&M Trust. F&M is a subsidiary of Franklin Financial Services Corp. The bank has assets of approximately $1 billion and operates 22 branches throughout Central Pennsylvania. [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Over Face-Tagging in Photos Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------- David Ingram, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. federal judge ruled on April 17 that Facebook Inc must face a class action lawsuit alleging that the social network unlawfully created facial templates for people without their permission. The ruling adds to the privacy woes that have been mounting against Facebook for weeks, since it was disclosed that the personal information of millions of users was harvested by the political consultancy Cambridge Analytica. U.S. District Judge James Donato ruled in San Francisco federal court that a class action was the most efficient way to resolve the dispute over facial templates. [GN] FEDERAL RECOVERY: Faces "Cinelli" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Federal Recovery Group, Inc. The case is styled as Gaitano Cinelli, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Federal Recovery Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02607 (E.D. N.Y., May 2, 2018). Federal Recovery Group, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Certification of Class Sought in "Kaur" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kuldeep Kaur moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit entitled KULDEEP KAUR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00556-PP (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). 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, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that 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). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff contends. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=buNbHgBC The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 FINISAR CORP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 16 disclosed that it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Finisar Corporation (NASDAQ:FNSR) resulting from allegations that Finisar may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. On April 16, 2018, Reuters reported that the U.S. Department of Commerce has banned American companies, including Finisar, from selling components to Chinese telecom equipment maker ZTE Corporation for seven years after ZTE violated the terms of an agreement relating to a U.S. sanctions violation case. On this news, shares of Finisar fell $0.66 per share or over 4% to close at $15.62 per share on April 16, 2018. Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover losses suffered by Finisar investors. If you purchased shares of Finisar please visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1324.htmlto join the class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was ranked No. 1 in the Nation for Number of Securities Class Action Settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the Top 3 each year since 2013. [GN] FLINT, MI: Lead-Tainted Water Class Action Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------ Brent Owen, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that the US Supreme Court has denied review of a July 2017 Sixth Circuit ruling that revived two federal class action lawsuits seeking redress for plaintiffs alleging injury as a result of the lead-tainted water crises in Flint, Michigan. In addition to ensuring that the Flint, Michigan water crises remains active in the national conversation, the Supreme Court's decision leaving in place the Sixth Circuit's reasoning paves the way for drinking water claims that might otherwise be preempted by the Safe Water Drinking Act (SWDA). Practically, the decision may result in additional monetary relief for Flint residents. The Crises In April 2014, Flint's emergency manager switched the source of the city's drinking water to the Flint River. The switch -- which eventually resulted in charges of criminal negligence against some officials -- caused many residents to complain about the water's quality. After receiving complaints for months, officials acknowledged E. coli and total coliform bacteria in the water but maintained that additional chlorine fixed the issue. Eventually, officials also revealed that the water supply contained lead at 13,200 ppb. (Lead is hazardous waste at 5,000 ppb.) Although the water supply has since been switched back, the fallout and litigation from the crises continues. Preemption In terms of monetary exposure and scope, the US Supreme Court's recent certiorari denial implicates some of the most consequential litigation still winding its way through the courts. The Supreme Court left in place the Sixth Circuit's holding that two groups of plaintiffs' constitutional claims were not preempted by the Safe Water Drinking Act (SWDA), and that their constitutional law claims against Michigan government entities could proceed. The plaintiffs, Flint residents and water users, allege race and wealth-based discrimination, state- created danger, racially-motivated conspiracy, due process violations, and various contract, tort, and equitable claims. The Sixth Circuit held that the SDWA did not satisfy the three requirements to find claims preempted. First, it held that no clear legislative intent by Congress precluded section 1983 claims under the SWDA. Second, SDWA's remedial scheme was not so broad as to fully redress the harms suffered by the Flint residents and water users. Finally, the Sixth Circuit held that the rights protected by federal law provided greater remedies, and were different than, the rights protected by the SWDA. By denying certiorari, the Supreme Court allowed the litigation to continue in the Eastern District of Michigan. The district court is probably several years away from reaching the merits of the case, but this threshold victory allows plaintiffs to press forward and seek additional relevant information about the causes of the crises. Implications The continuation of the underlying class action lawsuits may provide additional relief to Flint residents. That relief will likely redress injuries caused by the contaminated water rather than focus on remediation efforts-which were largely addressed in a separate settlement between nonprofit groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and the Michigan and Flint governments (and related officials). Specifically, that separate settlement will require Michigan to pay $87 million for the City of Flint to identify and replace at least 18,000 unsafe water lines by 2020. In contrast, the ongoing litigation could result in damages for Flint residents and water users harmed by the unsafe drinking water. [GN] FLINT, MI: SCOTUS Won't Review Water Crisis Suit Remand Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Powell, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court on April 16 said it will not review a Sixth Circuit ruling directing that a proposed class action Flint residents brought against Michigan environmental officials over the water crisis there be returned to state court. The justices rejected a certiorari petition current and former Michigan Department of Environmental Quality officials filed in an effort to challenge a September ruling by the Sixth Circuit, which upheld a federal judge's decision to send back to state court the Flint residents' proposed class action. The case is styled Patrick Cook, et al., Petitioners v. Melissa Mays, et al., Case No. 17-1144 (U.S.). The case was filed February 15, 2018. [GN] FLORIDA: Orlando City Council Joins Gun Control Class-Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Holfeld, writing News6, reports that Orlando city commissioners voted 6-1 on April 16 to join a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of a 2011 state law that penalizes local governments for violating preemption of the firearms regulations. Orlando becomes the largest of an estimated 12 cities joining a class-action lawsuit filed by the city of Weston on April 2. Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer told News 6 on April 16 that in his view, the state's gun control statute (790.3) "goes too far." "It's one thing to pre-empt a local government from taking action in a specific area, it's another to try to penalize local government officials for acting in their official responsibilities," Mayor Dyer said. City Councilman Jim Gray was the sole no vote. Mr. Gray argued the resolution could prove to be a political mistake. "The return on this investment isn't a good one," Mr. Gray told the council. Under the existing legislation "any such existing ordinances rules or regulations (established by local governments) are hereby declared null and void." The penalties for establishing gun ordinances is $5,000 for each government official and up to $100,000 for city governments. Orlando city attorney Mayanne Downs said the penalties are unconstitutional. She recommended that the council approve the resolution. "There's no need to go this far," she said. "If we pass an ordinance and it was pre-empted then the ordinance traditionally becomes null and void. That's enough. We don't also have to get smacked down in the process." Ms. Downs said the lawsuit doesn't ask for a compromise but rather a "declaration" from the court so the city knows the legal boundaries. The city is not challenging the state Legislature's ability to pre-empt local government's ability to establish gun-related ordinances. It only challenges the language that allows strict consequences. "They could remove any of us from office, they could put us in jail or they could fine us," Mayor Dyer said. As far as winning the lawsuit, Ms. Downs smiled and said, "We don't enter lawsuits we don't win, usually." Ms. Downs said lawsuits of this nature could take months or even years. [GN] FMA ALLIANCE: Certification of Class Sought in "Defalico" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Penny Defalico moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled PENNY DEFALICO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FMA ALLIANCE LTD. and JH PORTFOLIO DEBT EQUITIES LLC d/b/a JH CAPITAL GROUP, Case No. 2:18-cv-00559-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). 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, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that 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). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff contends. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DDXS7UJL The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Gochet Moves for Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------------ Keanna Gochet moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled KEANNA GOCHET, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FRANKLIN COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00560-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). 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, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that 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). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff contends. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Kem7fvuK The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 GEC RESTAURANT: "Keyes" Labor Suit Seeks Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Britny Keyes, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. G.E.C. Restaurant Management & Design, LLC (d/b/a Green Eggs Cafe) and Green Eggs Cafe 1306, Inc. (d/b/a Green Eggs Cafe), Case No. 18-cv-02233 (E.D. Pa., March 14, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Green Eggs Cafe operates three restaurants in Philadelphia where Keyes worked as a server. Defendants never provided Keyes a paycheck, paystub, or any other accounting of wages and tips earned, says the complaint. Keyes' tips would allegedly be shared with runners, busboys and baristas. Keyes was compensated solely from customer tips when she was employed as a server by Defendants. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. Marc L. Gelman, Esq. Maureen W. Marra, Esq. Daniel Keenan, Esq. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 351-0613 Facsimile: (215) 922-3524 Email: jgoodley@jslex.com GEMFIELDS: Mozambican Miners File Human Rights Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Natalie Greve, writing for miningmx, reports that a group of over 100 Mozambican miners have filed a class action lawsuit against coloured gemstone miner Gemfields, alleging "serious human rights abuses" at the group's Montpuez ruby mine, in northeastern Mozambique. Bloomberg reported on April 16 that the group would be represented by London-based law firm Leigh Day, which claim that the company's security team at the mine shot, beat and humiliated miners. The firm further alleges that mine security sexually abused and unlawfully detained workers on the mine. The claimants include family members representing four miners who were allegedly killed, the law firm said in a statement on April 16. Gemfields has since said that it would "vigorously defend" itself against the claim. [GN] GETSWIFT: One Shareholder Class Action Likely to Proceed -------------------------------------------------------- Misa Han, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that more class action lawyers are piling onto GetSwift over the alleged breach of continuous disclosure rules but one class action is likely to go ahead. On April 13, boutique shareholder class action law firm Phi Finney McDonald filed a class action against GetSwift, with funding from Therium Australia. This means there are now three separate shareholder class actions filed against the ASX-listed GetSwift, including the one filed by Squire Patton Boggs and another filed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth. Quinn Emanuel is defending GetSwift. On April 17 GetSwift shares were trading at $0.465, down nearly 90 per cent from the December high of $4.60 around the time when the company announced a deal with Amazon. But Justice Michael Lee of the Federal Court said at a case management hearing on April 13 that GetSwift should face only one class action case. "I think we can say we've crossed the Rubicon that I am persuaded that you won't be vexed with multiple proceedings," Justice Lee said to GetSwift's barrister Alan Shearer. "It's a question of what goes forward," he said. 'I'm a bargain' Peter Brereton, SC, who is acting for the Corrs class action, said the claim was estimated to be worth between $120 million and $140 million and about 200 people have signed up to the action. Squire Patton Boggs' class action barrister William Edwards said the claim was estimated to be between $75 million and $100 million, with 100 people signed up to the action. International Litigation Partners, which is funding the Squire Patton Boggs class action, would take a 22.5 per cent commission on the settlement sum, Mr Edwards said. Squire Patton Boggs in its initial media announcement in February "estimates that the total claim size may exceed $300 million", although Mr Edwards denied that was the case and blamed the media for publishing the figure. "There's no evidence about whether or not that was in fact an accurate record [. . .] the press likes to exaggerate these things," he said on April 13. The court heard on April 13 the Phi Finney McDonald's partners working on the case had a charge-out rate of $737 an hour, compared to $962 at Corrs and $1045 for Squire Patton Boggs' Amanda Banton. "We're, by far, the least expensive," Phi Finney McDonalds' class action barrister David Collins, QC, said. When Justice Lee asked whether Mr Collins' personal rates were "marginally more expensive than a partner at Corrs but significantly cheaper than Ms Banton's", Mr Collins quipped: "I'm a bargain. Everyone knows that." The class actions and an Australian Securities and Investments Commission investigation of the company were triggered by an investigation in The Australian Financial Review into GetSwift's market announcements and failure to disclose contract losses. [GN] GIMAC DIVISION: Cardona Moves for Conditional Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned ROSSEL CARDONA, et al, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated v. GIMAC DIVISION INC, et al, Case No. 2:17-cv-11665-SM-JCW (E.D. La.), move for conditional class certification, judicial notice, and for disclosure of the names and addresses of potential "opt- in" plaintiffs. The action arises from a "generally applicable rule, policy, or practice" pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3MID0S8m The Plaintiffs are represented by: 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 E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com whbeaumont@gmail.com eaw@beaumontcostales.com GIRARD, OH: Faces Class Action Over I-80 Speed Camera Tickets ------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Gauntner and Michelle Nicks, writing for 21WFMJ, report that a federal class action lawsuit has been filed against the City of Girard in protest of speed camera tickets received on Interstate 80. Speed camera tickets in Girard have always been a source of controversy. According to a Cleveland law firm it's suspected hundreds if not thousands of people wrongly received tickets for driving faster than 55 along I-80 in Girard between December 7th, 2017 and January 7th of 2018. Attorney Marc Dann with Dann Law in Cleveland says, "It's a little confusing. My understanding is that when the construction was completed on I-80 the speed limit was restored back to 65 miles an hour. Apparently one sign was left on the road saying that the speed limit was 55 in that zone." It was on that basis that Girard issued the speeding tickets, but Attorney Dann says that was not the correct speed. He says the city refuses to reimburse drivers who dispute the tickets. "The other thing we just learned this morning and we're interested in talking to people about is that some of these tickets have been referred to collection agencies. If a collection agency is trying to collect a debt that somebody doesn't actually owe then they may have claims against the collection agency as well," Attorney Dann said. In response Girard's Mayor James Melfi says what's ironic is who filed this federal class action lawsuit. "Attorney Marc Dann used to represent the citizens of this community first as a state senator and then as the attorney general. So it will be interesting to see him on the other side. Maybe he can find his way to Girard. Because I really don't remember the times he was here when he served the citizens of our city," Mayor Melfi said. The speeding tickets in this case range from $104 to $179 and Mayor Melfi says they are used to make the streets safer and generate revenue. Since August of 2016 Girard has collected $2-Million and that money has been used to buy ten new police cruisers and pave $750,000 in streets along with other projects. And as far as safety. "422 is now a street you can pull out on from a side street, that wasn't the case before," according to Mayor Melfi. Attorney Dann says, "The way class action lawsuits work is that everybody that had a ticket during that time frame is automatically a member of the class. So if the class gets certified people don't actually have to sign up. In fact, the only people that might want to pay attention are those who have damages out of the ordinary and you think you might want to bring your own lawsuit. So there's no need to call necessarily. There's no need to sign up anywhere. But just pay attention to the case as it goes forward. Girard will have to notify all the people who were issued tickets in that time frame and give them an opportunity to make a claim." But Attorney Dann would like to hear from anyone who has been contacted by a collection agency because those could end up being separate claims. A Canfield couple and a Stark County woman are already part of the lawsuit, claiming they received civil fines ranging from $104 to $179 after being ticketed for driving between 60 and 75 mph on I-80 during the period. The lawsuit, which asks for a trial by jury, asks the court to invalidate the tickets as well as award attorney fees unspecified actual and punitive damages. The city has not yet answered the suit. This isn't the first time speed cams have been challenged in Girard. In 2010 Girard settled a class action suit filed after the city used an unmanned speed camera to collect fines. Since then the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that cities and townships are permitted under law to use traffic cameras without a law enforcement officer present to witness the violation. Ohio lawmakers are considering a bill that would cut state funding to Ohio communities using traffic cameras to issue tickets and collect fines. [GN] GRASSY SPRAIN: Faces "Castro" Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grassy Sprain Group, Inc. The case is styled as George Castro, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Grassy Sprain Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02608 (E.D. N.Y., May 2, 2018). Grassy Sprain Group, Inc. is a Florida Corporation based in Boca Raton.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com GREENCORE: U.S. Subsidiary Faces Wage Class Action -------------------------------------------------- The Irish Times reports that Greencore boss Patrick Coveney is facing a further headache over the food company's US business as it has been named as a defendant in a potential class-action suit over wage polices at one of its plants. A Greencore US subsidiary is named alongside local staffing agency Elite in a case filed last month that concerns a facility in Romeoville, Illinois. [GN] GROUPON INC: Dancel Moves to Certify Class & Subclass ----------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled CHRISTINE DANCEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GROUPON, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-02027 (N.D. Ill.), moves the Court to certify these Class and Subclass: * Instagram Class: All persons in the United States who maintained an Instagram account and whose photograph (or photographs) from such account was (or were) acquired and used on a groupon.com webpage for an Illinois business (the "Class"). * Personal Photo Subclass: All members of the Instagram Class whose likeness appeared in any photograph acquired and used by Groupon (the "Subclass"). Excluded from the Class and Subclass are (1) Defendant, Defendant's agents, subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest, and those entity's current and former employees, officers, and directors, (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge's immediate family, (3) persons who execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class and Subclass, (4) persons who have had their claims in this matter finally adjudicated and/or otherwise released, and (5) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded person. The Plaintiff filed this matter in the Circuit Court of Cook County on February 5, 2016, and, following a period of class discovery, filed a motion for class certification. Groupon removed the case to the Court on March 20, 2018. Ms. Dancel also asks the Court to appoint her as representative of the Class and Subclass and to appoint her counsel as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hPDIdQTa The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Ben Thomassen, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 N. LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jededelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com bthomassen@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Facsimile: (415) 373-9435 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com HEINZ: Retirees Mull Class Action Over Health Benefit Cuts ---------------------------------------------------------- WPXI.com reports that retirees from the former Heinz Plant in Troy Hill say the company that took over operations has slashed their promised health benefits. They told Channel 11 saw this coming, but when the contract was rejected on April 15 and members didn't support a strike vote, the company pushed their own contract. "They took our medical, our healthcare away, and we're at the point in life where we need our health care," said Janie Carter Williams, who worked at the plant for 37 years. According to the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 23, on April 15 Riverbend Foods, which currently owns the facility, implemented a new contract that includes a payout of the retiree health care plan at the end of the year. "These are immoral monsters!" said retiree Nancy Plecenik. Retirees younger than 65 will receive a $10,000 check, and those 65 and older will receive a $2,500 check. "Do you know how much that would do for us? . . . Not even 10 months of health care. Break a leg! Break a finger!" Ms. Williams said. When Channel 11 reached out to the company, a spokesperson sent this statement: "The agreement provides a very good and competitive wage and benefit package and provides for continued retiree health care through the end of this year." "I actually talked to one of the guys on the phone that owns the company," said retiree Larry Thompson. "I tried talking to him about health care and he said I'm not going to talk about health care because it's dead! You're never gonna see it again." Retirees are looking into the possibility of filing a class- action lawsuit. [GN] HOME DEPOT USA: Faces "Stumbrice" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Depot USA, Inc. The case is styled as James Stumbrice and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-03929-KMK (S.D. N.Y., May 2, 2018). The Home Depot, Inc. or Home Depot is an American home improvement supplies retailing company that sells tools, construction products, and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Alexander El-Hag, Esq. El-Hag and Associates, P.C. 91 New Street Ridgefield, CT 06877 Tel: (914) 755-1579 Fax: (914) 206-4176 Email: jordan@elhaglaw.com HORING WELIKSON: Faces "Razilova" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Horing Welikson & Rosen, P.C. The case is styled as Olessia Razilova, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Horing Welikson & Rosen, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02610 (E.D. N.Y., May 2, 2018). Horing Welikson & Rosen, P.C. is a law firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com IDERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Raatz Files Suit Over Holdco Merger Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Raatz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., James Geraghty, Vincent Milano, Julian C. Baker, Mark Goldberg, Maxine Gowen, Kelvin M. Neu, William S. Reardon, Biocryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Nautilus Holdco, Inc., Island Merger Sub, Inc. and Boat Merger Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-10485 (D. Mass., March 14, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the merger between Biocryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Nautilus Holdco, Inc., and rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger. The complaint also seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Shareholders of Idera will receive 0.20 of a newly issued share of common stock of Holdco for each share of Idera common stock that they own. Merger agreement provides for a "no solicitation' clause that prevents Idera from soliciting alternative proposals and constrains its ability to negotiate with potential buyers. Plaintiff claims that the consideration paid to the company's shareholders is inadequate considering that the intrinsic value of the company is more than the amount offered in the proposed mergers. Idera is a clinical-stage patient-focused biopharmaceutical company developing novel nucleic acid therapeutic approaches for the treatment of certain cancers and rare diseases. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq. MATORIN LAWOFFICE, LLC 18 Grove Street, Suite 5 Wellesley, MA 02482 Tel: (781) 453-0100 Email: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com - and - RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 295-5310 - and - RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484) 324-6800 INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS: Northrup Moves to Certify Class Under TCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled John Northrup, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals v. Independent Truckers Group, Inc., David E. Lindsey, Innovative Health Insurance Partners, LLC, and Cyberx Group, LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-01890-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla.), asks the Court to certify this class: all persons within the United States who received a text message from a Defendant, as listed in documents produced in this case, identified as CXG028 - 32, and attached as Exhibits B through F to Cory Fein's declaration. Mr. Northrup also asks the Court to appoint him as class representative and his counsel as class counsel, and to order the parties to confer on a class notice plan. The Defendants obtained a database of truck drivers' mobile phone numbers and engaged in a text message advertising campaign trying to sell their services to the truck drivers in the database, the Plaintiffs contends. Without the consent of the truck drivers, he asserts, the Defendants used an automatic telephone dialing system that sent thousands of text messages within a couple of hours in clear violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6Uw2i5nm The Plaintiff is represented by: Cory S. Fein, Esq. CORY FEIN LAW FIRM 712 Main St., #800 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (281) 254-7717 Facsimile: (530) 748-0601 E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com - and - Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: seth@epllc.com JAMAICA: CRH Junior Doctors Plan to Pursue Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Erica Virtue, writing for The Gleaner, reports that junior doctors at the Cornwall Regional Hospital (CRH) have indicated that they will pursue a class-action suit against the Government regarding the unhealthy environment at the western Jamaica hospital. The incensed doctors informed the Jamaica Medical Doctors Association (JMDA) of the impending lawsuit at a meeting held on April 11, minutes of which were obtained by The Gleaner. The JMDA, represented by president Dr Elon Thompson, heard that the Western Regional Health Authority (WHRA) had moved out of the hospital complex two years ago, and was paying rent at US$100,000 per month. "If they were moved out so long in advance, it suggests that something else was known and hidden from them (the junior doctors)," read a section of the minutes. In a no-holds-barred meeting, the JMDA was bashed by the membership and accused of abandoning them. However, the association apologised and reiterated that calls and attempts at meetings with the ministry have been denied. The doctors are of the view that the public is not fully aware of what is happening at the hospital. The meeting was asked why the JMDA had not taken legal action to get the Pan American Health Organization report when its efforts were unsuccessful. The JMDA said it had made repeated attempts to get the PAHO and environmental reports and was denied. It only received a leaked copy. The JMDA representative "stated that we will engage an attorney re class action lawsuit/equivalent in Jamaica," the minutes read. The meeting was also told that "the dockets seen in staff clinics [were] to be kept and photocopied for information purposes". Meanwhile, Health Minister Dr Christopher Tufton on April 17 reacted calmly to the junior doctors' decision to pursue a class- action suit against the Government: "I have said publicly that persons have a right to act in their best interest," Dr. Tufton stated. He said he had met with doctors some weeks ago and had never denied any meeting with them. On the relocation of the WHRA, he was unable to say how much was paid for rent, but said it was his understanding that they had moved because of space. The Gleaner has learned that lawyers are actively scouting patients to represent them in impending lawsuits. [GN] JARDINE LLOYD: May Face Class Action Over Brokerage Advice ---------------------------------------------------------- Katie Walsh, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that global insurer Jardine Lloyd Thompson faces a possible class action based on allegations brokerage advice may have led local councils across Australia to pay excessive premiums, possibly for years. Law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan revealed it is "well advanced" in looking into possible proceedings against JLT, arguing it owed a duty of care to councils. "The fact that many local councils have, since leaving JLT, made substantial savings on their premiums, indicates that JLT may not have acted in the best interest of local councils or their ratepayers, who really are the ones 'paying the cost' for these insurance schemes," said QE managing partner Michael Mills. JLT provides insurance services to more than 500 of the almost 550 councils across Australia. QE claims local councils "regularly procured some or all of their insurance through various insurance schemes that were managed by JLT and its related entities", after receiving advice from JLT acting as their insurance broker. Insurance related services were also provided. JLT has specialized in local government services since the 1970s, at a time when councils found it hard to secure insurance. Each state has a mutual scheme grouping local councils, behind which JLT delivers services. But in 2015, the Victorian Auditor-General's Office criticised the scheme in that state. No competitive tender The Auditor-General noted management agreements had not been subjected to a competitive tender process since an original agreement entered in 1993 by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV), the statutory body which represents the state's 79 local councils and has voluntary insurance schemes. That was despite a 2010 independent review which raised "concerns about the performance of the provider" and recommended competitive tendering. In 2012, MAV entered a new decade-long agreement with JLT, with a 5-year extension clause. "With no market testing for the past 10 years, MAV cannot reliably demonstrate value for money from its insurance business activities or that the arrangements with its service provider are appropriate for the needs of member councils," the report said. In 2014, the City of Ballarat told ratepayers it was saving more than $600,000 after putting its insurance out to tender, equating to a one per cent cut in rates. Quinn Emanuel said it was "well advanced in its investigations" into bringing proceedings. In February, it obtained access to JLT documents relating to the scheme on behalf of Mornington Peninsula Shire Council. 'No case': JLT Granting access in a ruling handed down just before Christmas, Federal Court chief justice James Allsop said in all circumstances, "the belief that the council may have a right to relief is one that is reasonably held". "Though the language of the Auditor-General's report is somewhat opaque, it provides a reasonable basis for the council to believe that there may be a right to obtain relief from JLT concerning the levels of fees and costs if there be, as there may be, a fiduciary relationship between JLT and member councils," he ruled. Without resolving the disagreement over whether a fiduciary duty was owed, he held it was "plausible". "The relationship is potentially one in which members of the LMI scheme were vulnerable to any abuse by JLT of its position and, depending on the terms of the management agreement between MAV and JLT, it may also be one in which JLT has undertaken to act in the interests of the members of the LMI scheme." A spokeswoman for JLT said the company was "confident that the council has no case for compensation against JLT". "This case involved no more than a preliminary decision that the council is entitled to discovery of certain documents so that it may decide whether or not to start a proceeding," she said. She emphasized the court "did not receive evidence [or] form a view as to whether there are reasonable prospects of a case for compensation". [GN] JARDINE LLOYD: Law Firm Calls on Local Councils to Join Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Mills, Managing Partner at QE says, "Jardine Lloyd Thompson (JLT), as a broker of insurance, owed a duty of care to our clients. The fact that a number of local councils have, since leaving JLT, made substantial savings on their premiums, indicates that JLT may not have acted in the best interest of local councils or their ratepayers, who really are the ones 'paying the cost' for these Insurance Schemes." JLT may also have breached its fiduciary duties owed to local councils as members of the Insurance Schemes, in its capacity as manager of those Insurance Schemes. Local councils who were advised by JLT in relation to their insurance arrangements and/or were members of the Insurance Schemes from 30 June 2006 should register their interest in the class action by contacting Nicholas Lennings on (02) 9146 3500 or CouncilsClassAction@quinnemanuel.com. Eligible local councils may be entitled to damages if the class action is commenced and is successful. [GN] JFK MEDICAL: Mendez Must Amend Bid to Certify Class on May 21 ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Kenneth A. Marra entered an order in the lawsuit entitled SANDRA LOIS MENDEZ, AMY R. BRAZEE, SETH GATES, and LORI R. SINGER, f/k/a Lori R. Kogan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. JFK MEDICAL CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d/b/a JFK MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Case No. 9:17-cv- 80866-KAM (S.D. Fla.): (1) granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Supplement Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs shall file an amended motion on May 21, 2018; and (2) denying as moot, without prejudice to raising any arguments or grounds previously asserted in the amended motion, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class and the Defendants' Motion Requesting Judicial Notice in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on January 26, 2018. Since then, the parties have engaged in discovery disputes and the Defendants have provided additional documents to the Plaintiffs, according to the Order. The Plaintiffs state that they expect additional documents on April 13 and April 20, 2018. Consequently, the Plaintiffs seek to supplement their motion for class certification. After reviewing the record with respect to the discovery disputes among the parties, the Court believes that the Plaintiffs should have the opportunity to supplement their motion. For the ease of the Court, Judge Marra notes, the best course of action is for the Plaintiffs to file an amended motion for class certification as opposed to filing a supplement. Hence, Judge Marra rules that the Plaintiffs' amended motion is due May 21, 2018, and the Federal and Local Rules shall govern the deadlines for the response and reply memoranda. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=j8KJsceu JOHN DOES: "Musso" Alleges Volatility Index Derivative Rigging -------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Musso, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. John Does, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv- 02269 (S.D. N.Y., March 14, 2018), seeks treble damages arising out of the alleged manipulation of the prices of financial instruments linked to the Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index in violation of the Sherman Act and the Commodities Exchange Act. Defendants allegedly colluded with each other to manipulate the trading prices of Volatility Index Derivatives through the placing of manipulative S&P 500 Index options orders that were intended to cause Volatility Index Derivative settlement prices to spike artificial. Musso transacted in Volatility Index Derivative, including Proshares Ultra Volatility Index Derivative Short-Term Futures and Velocity Shares. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Frederic S. Fox, Esq. Donald R. Hall, Esq. Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. Ralph E. Labaton, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 687-1980 Fax: (212) 687-7714 Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com ffox@kaplanfox.com dhall@kaplanfox.com jcampisi@kaplanfox.com rlabaton@kaplanfox.com - and - Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Tel: (914) 934-9200 Fax: (914) 934-9220 Email: jak@klafterolsen.com JPMORGAN CHASE: "Khosroabadi" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Interest -------------------------------------------------------------- Badri Khosroabadi, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02147 (C.D. Cal., March 14, 2018), seeks damages for breach of contract, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, prejudgment interest, costs of suit and such other and further relief in violation of the California Business & Professions Code. Khosroabadi purchased a house, and simultaneously entered into a home loan agreement in which Chase is the lender. The bank required her to maintain escrow accounts, into which she deposit significant funds for the payment of property tax and insurance on the property. However, she never received from interest on the monies she pre-paid and held by J.P. Morgan for the payment of the taxes and insurance. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Jason A. Ibey, Esq. Nicholas Barthel, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com jason@kazlg.com nicholas@kazlg.com KEURIG GREEN: July 12 Final Approval Hearing on "Sanchez" Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALVARO SANCHEZ on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-04657-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted Sanchez's Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. Sanchez's motion came on for hearing on March 22, 2018. Having reviewed the terms of the Settlement, including the plan of allocation and the release of claims, Judge Davila concludes that the proposed Settlement meets the criteria for preliminary settlement approval. The Settlement has no obvious defects and falls within the range of possible approval as fair, adequate, and reasonable, such that notice to the Class is appropriate. The Judge conditionally certified the settlement class of all former non-exempt, hourly associates who worked for temporary staffing agencies, including but not limited to Select Staffing, at any time between July 14, 2011 and July 3, 2017, who were assigned by such temporary staffing agencies to work at the Defendant's Castroville Plant. He appointed Sanchez to serve as the Class Representative, and the Plaintiff's counsel, Fitzpatrick, Spini & Swanston as the Class Counsel. He also appointed Simpluris, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator. The Judge approved the Class Notice Packet and the manner of distributing the Class Notice Packet to the Class. Under the plan, the Defendant will provide the Settlement Administrator within 15 calendar days after the Court enters its Preliminary Approval Order, the Class Information. Within 21 days after the Settlement Administrator receives the Class Information, the Settlement Administrator will mail the Class Notice Packets in both English and Spanish to all Class Members at their last known address, unless modified by any updated address information that the Settlement Administrator obtains in the course of administration of the Settlement. Prior to the mailing of the Class Notice Packets, the Settlement Administrator will update any new address information for Class Members as may be available through the National Change of Address database or equivalent system. The Settlement Administrator will trace all returned undeliverable Class Notice Packets and re-mail them to the most recent address available no later than seven calendar days following receipt of the returned mail. For any Class Notice Packets returned to the Settlement Administrator without a forwarding address, the Settlement Administrator will conduct a skip-trace and will promptly re-mail the Class Notice Packet to any newly found address or addresses. The re-mailed Class Notice Packet will be identical to the original Class Notice. The Judge set the Final Approval Hearing for July 12, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. No later than 10 court days before the Final Approval Hearing, the Plaintiff will file a motion for final approval of the Settlement. No later than 14 calendar days before the deadline for the Class Members to object or opt-out from the Settlement, the Plaintiff will file a motion for approval of the Class Counsels attorneys' fees and costs The Class Members will have 60 calendar days after the date on which the Settlement Administrator mails the Class Notice Packets to submit to the Settlement Administrator a valid Opt-Out Form. A valid Opt-Out Form will be deemed timely submitted to the Settlement Administrator if it is mailed to the Settlement Administrator by first-class mail and postmarked by no later than 60 calendar days after the Settlement Administrator first mails the Class Notice Packets to the Class Members. The Defendant may, at its election, rescind the Settlement and all actions taken in its furtherance of it will be thereby null and void, if more than 10% of the Class Members opt-out of the Settlement. The Defendant must exercise this right of rescission, in writing, within seven calendar days after the Settlement Administrator first notifies the parties that the conditions expressed have been satisfied. Any Class Member who wishes to object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement must do so in writing, and filed with the Court no later than 60 calendar days after the date that the Class Notice Packets are first mailed to Class Members by the Settlement Administrator. The Class Members will have 180 calendar days to cash their settlement checks. Checks allocated to those who cannot be located during the notice process will be cancelled by the Claims Administrator who will promptly place the funds in a Reserve Fund to be used to pay amounts allocated to the Class Members who cannot be located within the time provided, but who are later located up to six months after the Effective Date, and who are otherwise qualified for such payment. All payments made from the Reserve Fund will be made as soon as practicable after the Class Members are located. Any funds remaining in the Reserve Fund after six months and any remaining funds from "uncashed checks" will be distributed to the Watsonville Law Center -- http://www.watsonvillelawcenter.org-- which provides free legal services to low-income individuals on the Central Coast. A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Amended Order is available at https://bit.ly/2JGFJuP from Leagle.com. Alvaro Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Bernard James Fitzpatrick -- bjfitzpatrick@fandslegal.com -- Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston & Charles Swanston, Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston Attorneys at Law. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Defendant, represented by Laura P. Worsinger -- lworsinger@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett & Jon David Cantor -- jdcantor@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, LLP. KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Settles Workers' Wage Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Amy Baxter, writing for Home Health Care News, reports that Kindred Healthcare (NYSE: KND) and one of its subsidiaries, Gentiva Certified Healthcare, agreed to settle a class action suit alleging the companies failed to pay some workers minimum wage or provide them adequate breaks, a violation of California law. Kindred and Gentiva agreed to pay $12 million to roughly 1,600 people. Kindred's home health and hospice business is currently undergoing an acquisition by Humana (NYSE: HUM) and two private equity groups. LAS VEGAS, NV: June 5 Deadline to Amend "Moore" Complaint --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL T. MOORE, Plaintiff(s), v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendant(s), Case No. 2:17-cv-02022-RFB-NJK (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted the Plaintiff's motion to extend time to file an amended complaint. The Plaintiff is proceeding in the action pro se and requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. On Feb. 27, 2018, the Court granted his application to proceed in forma pauperis, and screened his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915. The Court identified numerous deficiencies in the Plaintiff's complaint, and therefore dismissed his complaint with leave to amend to provide him an opportunity to cure those defects. The Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, which alleges violations of his and the public performers he represents' rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Thirteenth Amendments based on encounters and incidents involving the Defendants. The Plaintiff has also filed a motion to extend time to file his amended complaint. He submits that he has been injured, and asks for additional time to file an appropriate complaint if the Court determines that his amended complaint is deficient. The Plaintiff submits that he is not petitioning for a class action on behalf of himself and the Sonic Laborers and Visual Entertainers Union members who are public performers on the Las Vegas Strip and Fremont Street. However, Magistrate Judge Koppe finds that the Plaintiff submits numerous times that he intends to pursue his claims and seek relief on behalf of other individuals. As the Court previously states, the Plaintiff cannot proceed with a class action as a pro se litigant. The Plaintiff further alleges that he is General Counsel of The Sonic Laborers and Visual Entertainers Union, and that he was granted an admission to the Federal Courts in 1997 in San Francisco by Judge Burton Litvack in two cases as Special Representative/Esquire of the United Food and Commercial Workers' Union. According to the Magistrate Judge, the Plaintiff is also not a licensed attorney under the laws of the State of Nevada and, therefore, cannot use what he alleges was admission to the Federal Courts over 20 years ago in the State of California by an Administrative Law Judge to override Clark County's use of NRS for bar membership. Even construing the Plaintiff's amended complaint liberally, the Magistrate Judge finds that his allegations consist solely of conclusory statements such as, the Defendants operate under the direction and control of the casinos and violate public performers' human, labor, civil and constitutional rights; and the Defendants are maliciously prosecuting us to terminate their livlihoods. The conclusory allegations fail to state how the allegations support any claim against any Defendant and, therefore, fail to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Koppe granted the Plaintiff's motion to extend time to file an amended complaint. She dismissed with leave to amend the Plaintiff's amended complaint. The Plaintiff will have until June 5, 2018, to file a second amended complaint, if the noted deficiencies can be corrected. If he chooses to amend his complaint a second time, the Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make the second amended complaint complete. In a second amended complaint, as in an original and any previous amended complaints, each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Order is available at https://bit.ly/2HDSqFX from Leagle.com. Michael T. Moore, Plaintiff, pro se. LE ARLINGTON: 4th Bid to Dismiss "Ecoquij-Tzep" FLSA Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PASCUAL ECOQUIJ-TZEP, and all others similarly situated under 29 USC 216(b) Plaintiff, v. LE ARLINGTON, INC. d/b/a MW HAWAIIAN GRILL also d/b/a MW'S HAWAIIAN GRILL also d/b/a LITTLE TOKYO and f/k/a SHUN FAR EL PASO, INC., GRAND FAST FOOD INC d/b/a FAMOUS CAJUN GRILL and also d/b/a FAMOUS WOK, SHIZHONG ZHANG, YING HUI WANG, and KONG SHEN WANG, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-625-BN (N.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge David L. Horan of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, denied the Defendants' Fourth Motion to Dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Ecoquij-Tzep, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, sued Defendant Hawaiian Grill, as his former employer, alleging that it failed to pay him the minimum wage or overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Ecoquij- Tzep asserted that the case is brought as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Hawaiian Grill filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which was granted in part and denied in part. This pattern has repeated itself with each amended complaint -- although Ecoquij-Tzep added Defendants in his Second Amended Complaint -- until the Court denied the Defendants' Amended Third Motion to Dismiss as to Ecoquij-Tzep's Third Amended Complaint Under 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-216 Overtime and Minimum Wage Violations. In the Third Amended Complaint, Ecoquij-Tzep brings the FLSA claims on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and again asserts that the case is brought as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). By the time he filed the Third Amended Complaint, the Court had already granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). In a Feb. 28, 2018 Notice that the Plaintiff's Counsel Has Not Received Any Signed Consent Forms, Ecoquij-Tzep reported that, pursuant to the Court's Amended Phase 2 Scheduling Order, the Opt-In Period lasted until Feb. 13, 2018 and the deadline for the Plaintiff's counsel to file consent forms with the Court was Feb. 27, 2018; that, as of the end of business on Feb. 27, 2018, the office of the Plaintiff's counsel had not received any signed consent forms and thus there were no consent forms to file with the Court; and that he respectfully requests that the Court take notice that his counsel did not receive any signed consent forms during the Opt-In Period. Thereafter, in a March 13, 2018 Status Report regarding the Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Order Requiring Parties to Mediate Within Forty-Five Days, Ecoquij-Tzep reported that, while a class was conditionally certified in the case on June 21, 2017, no opt-in Plaintiffs returned opt-in consent forms during the Opt-In Period and that, therefore, at this time the Plaintiff will proceed only on his individual claim. Ecoquij-Tzep has not filed a consent form in the case. The Defendants have filed a Fourth Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1). They assert that the Plaintiff brought the action as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(B) on behalf of all other similarly situated; that Ecoquij-Tzep has not filed a written consent form and there are no other prospective Plaintiffs similarly situated as defined and required under the FLSA; that Ecoquij-Tzep has not filed for relief on an individual basis; and that, acccordingly, the Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismisses the Plaintiff's lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and awards them just costs under 28 U.S.C. Section 1919. Ecoquij-Tzep filed a response, and the Defendants filed a reply. Magistrate Judge Horan holds that pursuing both an individual action and a putative collective action is neither logically inconsistent not legally mutually exclusive. Ecoquij-Tzep's failure to timely file a written consent had major implications as to the collective action -- he is not a part of the certified class -- and as to the running of the statute of limitations as to any claimant as a part of the collective action. But there now effectively is no collective action, and Ecoquij- Tzep seeks to proceed only on his individual action, which he contends did not require him to plead more than he has. This, the Magistrate Judge determines, he may do, and may do without the need for any separate written consent based on Allen v. Atl. Richfield Co. or the need for any additional or different allegations in his complaint and without any limitations issues, since he filed his March 4, 2016 complaint well within Section 255(a)'s two-year statute of limitations. For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Horan denied the Defendants' Fourth Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1). A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://bit.ly/2JFKSDf from Leagle.com. Pascual Ecoquij-Tzep, and all others similarly situated under 29 USC 216(b), Plaintiff, represented by Robert Lee Manteuffel, J H Zidell PC, Jamie Harrison Zidell, J H Zidell PC & Joshua Aaron Petersen, J H Zidell PC. Le Arlington Inc, doing business as MW Hawaiian Grill, doing business as MW'S Hawaiian Grill, doing business as Little Tokyo, formerly known as Shun Far El Paso Inc, Defendant, represented by Xenos Man-Wah Yuen -- office@syhlaw.com -- Siegel Yuen & Honore PLLC, pro hac vice & David Mullican, Jr., Siegel Yuen & Honore PLLC, pro hac vice. Le Arlington Inc, doing business as MW Hawaiian Grill, doing business as MW'S Hawaiian Gril, doing business as Little Tokyo, formerly known as Shun Far El Paso Inc, Defendant, represented by Trevin Rayvon Ware -- trwarelaw@gmail.com. Grand Fast Food Inc, doing business as Famous Cajun Grill, doing business as Famous Wok, Shizhong Zhang, Ying Hui Wang & Kong Shen Wang, Defendants, represented by Xenos Man-Wah Yuen, Siegel Yuen & Honore PLLC, pro hac vice, David Mullican, Jr., Siegel Yuen & Honore PLLC, pro hac vice & Trevin Rayvon Ware. Grand Fast Food Inc, Counter Claimant, represented by Xenos Man- Wah Yuen, Siegel Yuen & Honore PLLC, David Mullican, Jr., Siegel Yuen & Honore PLLC & Trevin Rayvon Ware. Pascual Ecoquij-Tzep, and all others similarly situated under 29 USC 216(b), Counter Defendant, represented by Robert Lee Manteuffel, J H Zidell PC, Jamie Harrison Zidell, J H Zidell PC & Joshua Aaron Petersen, J H Zidell PC. LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Phone Boot Loop Problem ---------------------------------------------------------- Ellen Roseman, writing for Toronto Star, reports that in April 2017, LG Electronics faced a U.S. class action lawsuit involving a defect with its phones, including the G4, G5 and the Google Nexus 5X. LG admitted to a manufacturing issue, caused by loose contact between components, which would make the phone attempt to restart endlessly until the battery was completely drained. Nicknamed "boot loop," this can be a fatal condition for smartphones, rendering them useless. "High usage or physical damage can cause internal pressure on the central processing unit in smartphones, which can lead to boot loop," said Puneet Jain, head of marketing for LG Electronics Canada. "When developing the LG G4 and Nexus 5X, LG introduced new upstart technology to the CPU in order to increase the performance of our devices." The boot loop issue was identified in early versions of the LG G4 and Nexus 5X phones manufactured in mid-2015. The phone has been modified to correct the problem, he said, and the problem isn't expected to recur after repair. After settling the U.S. class action suit, LG informally extended the warranty to 24 months for phones with the boot loop defect, which often kicks in after the one-year warranty expires. But in the past few weeks, I've been hearing from people who don't qualify for LG's warranty extension. They feel stuck in an endless loop of being shuffled from retailer to manufacturer and back again. Victor Liang bought his Nexus 5X phone from Google Store Canada. He asked Google for help when he found the boot loop problem and was directed to LG Canada. LG refused to do a warranty repair because the Nexus 5X phone he had, sold by Google in Canada, was a U.S. model. "If we contact LG in the U.S., we need a U.S. address to get a free repair. Not all of us have U.S. friends who will let us use their U.S. address. There are also costs to send a phone to the U.S. and then back to a Canadian address," Mr. Liang said. "It's like you drive a Japanese car and the dealer tells you to get a warranty repair in Japan." Another Nexus 5X owner, who preferred not to be named, chose the phone because of good reviews and a reasonable price ($500). Google's new line of Pixel phones, the successor to the Nexus brand, is in the $800 to $1,000 range. His boot loop problem showed up 22 months after purchase. Again, LG Canada refused service because the serial number of his phone indicated it was from a batch meant for the U.S. market. "LG referred me to Google, which said I was past the one-year warranty and I had to speak to LG to get the extended warranty. Both sides refused to take responsibility and blamed the other. "Just to clarify, these phones were bought through Google Canada (not Google U.S.), paid for in Canadian dollars and shipped from their Toronto warehouse, as clearly stated on the invoice." I wrote to both LG and Google, asking why they were refusing to fix a known defect in these cases. They blamed communication errors and apologized for turning Nexus 5X owners away. "We experienced a misunderstanding in our call centre regarding LG's service support of Nexus 5X devices purchased directly from Google," said Jain of LG Electronics Canada. "This misunderstanding has been addressed and all LG service representatives are now fully aware of the policy and are able to support it accordingly. "We ask anyone experiencing issues with their Nexus 5X to contact LG's service centre at 1-888-542-2623." Google Canada said Nexus 5X customers with problems should get in touch with its customer support team, which has out-of-warranty solutions available. In another case, Carlos Martins bought his Nexus 5X phone in September 2016. Within 17 months, the boot loop problem made his phone unusable while he was spending time in Florida. He called his carrier (Freedom Mobile) in Toronto for help and was told the phone was no longer under warranty after one year. "Since I was not leaving Florida for another month, I went to a phone repair shop I know well in Daytona Beach. They lent me a phone while mine was in repair." He later bought the used phone because the attempted repair was not successful. On his return to Toronto in late March, he asked LG to fix it under the extended 24-month warranty. LG turned down his request, saying he had voided his warranty by using an unauthorized repair service to check his phone. The repair cost would be $478.70 for a phone that originally cost $500. And if he didn't accept, LG would charge him $35 to analyze his phone and ship it back. I argued that Martins went to a Florida repair shop only after being told his phone was out of warranty. If he'd known of the 24-month coverage of the boot loop problem, he'd have waited to return to Toronto. LG reconsidered and decided to cover him after all. "We understand he was in another country and might not have understood the difference between an authorized service centre using original parts vs. a non-authorized repair centre using third-party parts that would void his warranty," said spokesperson Corina Fisher. "As such, we sympathize with Carlos and would be pleased to make an exception to our policy and offer him repair at no cost." In my view, LG had a duty to fix these defective phones, no matter where they were made, which retailers sold them and when customers bought them. Let's hope it will finally do so. [GN] LONGFIN CORP: June 4 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on April 15 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased Longfin Corp. ("Longfin") (NASDAQ:LFIN) securities between December 13, 2017 and April 2, 2018. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Company issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Longfin had material weaknesses in its operations and internal controls that hindered the Company's profitability; (ii) Longfin did not meet the requirements for inclusion in Russell indices; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you suffered a loss in Longfin you have until June 4, 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. To obtain additional information, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-c/longfin- corp?wire=3. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. [GN] LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 16 disclosed that it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Lumentum Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ:LITE) resulting from allegations that Lumentum may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. On April 16, 2018, Reuters reported that the U.S. Department of Commerce has banned American companies, including Lumentum, from selling components to Chinese telecom equipment maker ZTE Corporation for seven years after ZTE violated the terms of an agreement relating to a U.S. sanctions violation case. On this news, shares of Lumentum fell $5.83 per share or over 9% to close at $58.47 per share on April 16, 2018. Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover losses suffered by Lumentum investors. If you purchased shares of Lumentum please visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1323.htmlto join the class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was ranked No. 1 in the Nation for Number of Securities Class Action Settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the Top 3 each year since 2013. [GN] MCDONALD'S CORP: "Killeen" Suit Over Value Meal Prices Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Elaine E. Bucklo of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, dismissed the case, Kelly Killeen, Plaintiff, v. McDonald's Corporation and Salabad, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17 CV 874 (N.D. Ill.). In this putative class action, the Plaintiff sues McDonald's and one of its franchisees claiming that they violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and unlawfully enriched themselves, by deceptively advertising and marketing certain "Extra Value Meals" for sale in their restaurants. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, but the Judge confines her analysis to a single, dispositive issue. According to the complaint, (i) the Defendants market and sell Extra Value Meals that bundle together several menu items that can also be purchased a la carte; and (ii) the Defendants marketed Extra Value Meals as "a value," meaning that the marketing suggested that the cost of an Extra Value Meals was less than the aggregate cost of its individual components purchased separately, when that was not always the case. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants' advertising and marketing was intended to dupe consumers (two classes of whom she seeks to represent) into paying more for items they could have bought at a lower cost. Judge Bucklo finds that the Plaintiff's theory has superficial appeal: common experience favors her assertion that consumers expect to pay less for items bundled together and billed as a "value" package than they would pay if they purchased the items separately. But even assuming the Defendants' marketing of the Extra Value Meal had a tendency to mislead consumers in this respect, Illinois law is clear that where other information is available to dispel that tendency, there is no possibility for deception. The Plaintiff does not claim that the prices the Defendants charged for their menu items were unavailable to her at the time she made her purchase. Indeed, anyone familiar with fast-food restaurants such as McDonald's surely knows that prices are typically displayed on menus located near the registers. Understandably, Judge Bucklo finds that the Plaintiff may not have wished to take the time to compare prices, but there is no question that doing so would have dispelled the deception on which her claims are based. Judge says a straightforward, price- to-price comparison based on information available at the point of purchase would unequivocally dispel any misleading inference that could be drawn from the name "Extra Value Meal." A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://bit.ly/2FuHWqq from Leagle.com. Kelly Killeen, Plaintiff, represented by Samuel Abraham Shelist, Shelist Law Firm, LLC. McDonald's Corporation, Defendant, represented by David James Doyle -- ddoyle@freeborn.com -- Freeborn & Peters, LLP & David J. Ogles -- dogles@freeborn.com -- Freeborn & Peters LLP. Salabad, LLC, Defendant, represented by Nathan H. Lichtenstein -- nlichtenstein@agdglaw.com -- Aronberg, Goldgehn, Davis & Garmisa & Amy Rapoport Gibson -- agibson@agdglaw.com -- Aronberg Goldgehn Davis & Garmisa. MDL 2804: River Forest Joins Opioid Crisis Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Nona Tepper, writing for Oak Park, reports that River Forest village trustees unanimously approved joining a class action lawsuit against manufacturers and distributors of prescription opioids at a regular board meeting on April 9. The class action suit, which is pending in the Federal District Court in Cleveland, consolidates complaints by hundreds of cities like Chicago, counties like Cook and Native American tribes across the nation, said Village Attorney Greg Smith. Defendants include such pharmaceutical giants as Johnson & Johnson; large health-care distributors like Cardinal Health; and pharmacy chains like the Deerfield-based Walgreens, according to a report in the New York Times. Village President Cathy Adduci said opioid abuse is "plaguing our nation." "The village has expended taxpayer funds in response to prescription opioid abuses, and the village seeks to recover these expenditures that are attributable to the wrongful acts and omissions of those involved in manufacturing, distributing and promoting opioids," reads the new village resolution. River Forest will retain the Chicago-based Edelson PC law firm for representation. The village will not pay any attorneys' fees or expenses unless it achieves recovery, settlement or judgment in the opioid matter, according to the new resolution. If the judge rules an outcome in the case -- Mr. Smith said the judge was pushing for a settlement sometime in 2018 -- River Forest will pay 23 percent of the net recovery if the matter is resolved pre-complaint; 28 percent if the matter is resolved after a complaint is filed but before a summary judgment briefing is completed; and 32 percent of the net recovery if the matter is resolved after summary judgment briefing is completed in either the village's lawsuit or in any related consolidated proceeding, according to the resolution. "The president and board of trustees of the village find that approval of the agreement and pursuit of the litigation best serve the public's health, safety and welfare," the resolution reads. [GN] MERCK & CO: Filing of Amended Suit in Mumps Vaccine Case Barred --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania remanded the case, IN RE: MERCK MUMPS VACCINE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Master File No. 12-3555 (CDJ)(E.D. Pa.), holding that the Defendant would be significantly prejudiced if the Plaintiffs were permitted to file a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint at this juncture. Magistrate Judge Sitarski cited the Plaintiffs' undue delay in seeking leave to amend coupled with the maturity of the case, the extensive discovery that has already taken place, and the fact that fact discovery is closed. The case is a consolidated putative antitrust and consumer protection class action. On June 25, 2012, Chatom Primary Care P.C., Andrew Klein, M.D., and John I. Sutter, M.D., filed the complaint against Defendant Merck alleging monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act, and various state consumer protection laws. The Plaintiffs are direct purchasers of a mumps containing vaccine from Merck. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on Sept. 20, 2012. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on Nov. 19, 2012. After a ruling on the Defendant's motion to dismiss, discovery commenced in October 2014. The parties engaged in extensive discovery over a protracted period of time. The Defendant began rolling productions on Oct. 31, 2014. The discovery included, inter alia, Merck's production of nearly 144,000 documents, depositions of 24 current and former Merck employees, and third party discovery. After multiple joint requests for extension of the scheduling deadlines, fact discovery closed on June 1, 2017. On Aug. 21, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the Consolidated Amended Complaint to add a claim for attempted monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The Defendant opposed the proposed amendment, arguing that the Plaintiff unduly delayed seeking leave to add a new cause of action after the close of fact discovery, thereby prejudicing Merck's ability to defend against the new claim. On Oct. 30, 2017, the Court agreed with the Defendant, and denied the Plaintiffs' motion. The Court's decision focused on the Plaintiff's undue delay in seeking leave to amend, which would prejudice Merck if a new claim was added after fact discovery closed. The Plaintiffs filed objections to the Oct. 30, 2017, Order. On March 13, 2018, Judge C. Darnell Jones, II issued an Order remanding the matter to the Magistrate Judge for an in-depth analysis of the extent to which the Defendant would be prejudiced by amendment, and the extent to which undue delay was the basis for the Court's ultimate decision not to grant the Plaintiffs' motion. Based on the unreasonably long time between "uncovering" the documents that form the factual basis of the attempted monopolization claim and seeking leave to file a second amended complaint, Magistrate Judge Sitarski finds that the Plaintiffs have acted with undue delay in attempting to assert a new theory of recovery after the close of discovery. While delay played a factor in the Court's decision to deny the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, delay was certainly not the sole basis for the Court's Oct. 27, 2017, ruling. The Magistrate Judge also considered other factors outlined by the Third Circuit in deciding whether to grant leave to amend, including whether any undue delay would cause prejudice to the Defendant. In so doing, she weighed the Plaintiffs' purported reason for their delay against the harm likely to be suffered by the Defendant, and concluded that the Defendant would face significant prejudice if the Plaintiffs were allowed to add a new theory of liability after the close of fact discovery. A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Memorandum is available at https://bit.ly/2HD3Sps from Leagle.com. CHATOM PRIMARY CARE, P.C., ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by ANDRA WANIEK -- AWaniek@herzfeld-rubin.com -- HERZFELD & RUBIN PC, BERNARD PERSKY -- BPersky@RobinsKaplan.com -- ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, EAMON O'KELLY -- EOKelly@RobinsKaplan.com -- ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, ELIZABETH L. FRIEDMAN -- efriedman@labaton.com -- ROBINS KAPLAN MILLER & CIRESI LLP, HOLLIS L. SALZMAN -- hsalzman@labaton.com -- ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, JAMES B. ZOURAS, STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, KELLIE LERNER -- klerner@labaton.com -- ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, LISA A. FURNALD, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, M. STEPHEN DAMPIER -- stevedampier@dampierlaw.com -- THE DAMPIER LAW FIR PC, RICHARD M. GOLOMB, GOLOMB & HONIK, RYAN F. STEPHAN, STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, AARON M. SHEANIN -- ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com -- ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, DAN DRACHLER -- ddrachler@zsz.com -- ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP, DAVID ROCHELSON -- DRochelson@RobinsKaplan.com -- ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, DIANA J. ZINSER -- dzinser@srkattorneys.com -- SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., FREDERICK A. BRAUNSTEIN -- FBraunstein@RobinsKaplan.com -- ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, JAYNE A. GOLDSTEIN , SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP, JEFFREY L. KODROFF -- jkodroff@srkattorneys.com -- SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC, JOHN A. MACORETTA -- jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com -- SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., LEE ALBERT -- lalbert@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT, SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLC, REENA JAIN -- RJain@RobinsKaplan.com -- ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, ROBERT S. KITCHENOFF -- kitchenoff@wka- law.com -- WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC & STEVEN D. RESNICK, GOLOMB & HONIK PC. DR. ANDREW KLEIN, Plaintiff, represented by EAMON O'KELLY, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, JAMES B. ZOURAS, STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, JEFFREY L. KODROFF, SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC, JOHN A. MACORETTA, SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., LISA A. FURNALD, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, MARY ANN GEPPERT , SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., RYAN F. STEPHAN, STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, WILLIAM G. CALDES, SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., AARON M. SHEANIN, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, BRIAN D. PENNY, GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY PC, DAN DRACHLER, ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP, DAVID ROCHELSON, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, DIANA J. ZINSER, SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., FREDERICK A. BRAUNSTEIN, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, HOLLIS L. SALZMAN, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, JAYNE A. GOLDSTEIN, SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP, KELLIE LERNER, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, LEE ALBERT, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT, SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLC & REENA JAIN, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP. JOHN I. SUTTER, M.D., Plaintiff, represented by EAMON O'KELLY, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, JAMES B. ZOURAS, STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, JEFFREY L. KODROFF, SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC, KEVIN PETER RODDY -- kroddy@wilentz.com -- WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER, PA, LISA A. FURNALD , ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, RYAN F. STEPHAN , STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, AARON M. SHEANIN, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, DAN DRACHLER, ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP, DAVID ROCHELSON, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, DIANA J. ZINSER, SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., FREDERICK A. BRAUNSTEIN, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, HOLLIS L. SALZMAN, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, JOHN A. MACORETTA, SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., KELLIE LERNER, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT, SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLC & REENA JAIN, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP. MERCK & CO., INC., Defendant, represented by DINO S. SANGIAMO -- dssangiamo@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP, ERIC W. SITARCHUK -- esitarchuk@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, EYITAYO ST. MATTHEW-DANIEL, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, KATHLEEN SULLIVAN HARDWAY -- kshardway@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP, LISA DYKSTRA -- ldykstra@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, SALLY W. BRYAN -- srbryan@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP, SCOTT A. STEMPEL -- scott.stempel@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, MARGARET E. RODGERS SCHMIDT -- margaret.rodgers-schmidt@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & R. BRENDAN FEE -- brendan.fee@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP. MERITER HEALTH: Morgan Lewis Didn't Admit to Mishandling Conflict ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lizzy McLellan, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that in a $30 million dispute over an alleged conflict of interest, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius contends it never admitted to allegations lodged by its former client, Towers Watson Delaware. Towers has alleged that Morgan Lewis represented another company, Meriter Health Services, and assisted Meriter's separate counsel in suing Towers. Towers moved for judgment on the pleadings in March, arguing that Morgan Lewis has admitted or "must be deemed to admit" that it knew there would be a conflict between Meriter's and Towers' interests, and that the firm never informed Towers of the conflict. But Morgan Lewis, in a brief in opposition to Towers' motion for judgment, said its denials in an answer to Towers' complaint preclude the judge from ruling on the case at its current stage. "Towers confuses the existence of evidence that it believes relates to its claims with the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact," Morgan Lewis said in the April 13 brief. Contrary to Towers' motion, Morgan Lewis argued, the firm in its answer to the complaint said it declined to participate in any litigation against Towers, and that Meriter hired another law firm to represent it in litigation against Towers. Morgan Lewis did not assist Meriter in the decision, the firm said in its brief, citing its answer. The firm also argued that while Towers has said it learned about the conflict through a source other than Morgan Lewis, the source of the information did not matter. "Towers cannot pretend that its consent was uninformed simply because its actual knowledge of the alleged conflict and surrounding circumstances was based on information that it learned from sources in addition to defendants," Morgan Lewis said in its filing. "The source of Towers' knowledge is immaterial to the question of whether it gave informed consent." Additionally, Morgan Lewis argued, Towers has not shown that it was harmed by Morgan Lewis' alleged conduct. According to Towers' complaint, Morgan Lewis represented Towers from 2009 to 2016. In 2010, the suit says, Morgan Lewis began defending Meriter in a retirement plan class action. After the class action settled in 2014, Meriter then sued a Towers entity that designed the retirement plan at issue, alleging that Towers was responsible for Meriter's liability in the class action. Towers has alleged that Morgan Lewis used its representation of Towers to assist another law firm, referred to in the complaint as "Law Firm 2," in developing Meriter's lawsuit. Morgan Lewis' filings identify Law Firm 2 as Nixon Peabody. William Trask of Sprague & Sprague, who is representing Towers, declined to comment on Morgan Lewis' filing. [GN] MYEXPERIAN INC: Vinsant Seeks to Certify Supervisors/CSRs Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned CHARLES VINSANT, TARA BEAL, CHELSEA DYER, ASHLEY HAMILTON, ANTWAN HENDRY, BELINDA MAXWELL, BRITTANY MORRIS, KIMBERLY ROLAND, and BETTY FULLER, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MYEXPERIAN, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-02056-PKH (W.D. Ark.), moves for conditional certification, for approval and distribution of notice and for disclosure of contact information. The class is defined as: Each hourly-paid supervisor and/or customer service representative who worked for Defendant since March 20, 2015. The Plaintiffs brought this suit on behalf of certain former and current hourly-paid call center employees of the Defendant to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, among other claims. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UMa5E4gV The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq. Chris Burks, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com chris@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Eric R. Magnus, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 1155 Peachtree Street, Suite 1000 Atlanta, GA 30309-3600 Telephone: (404) 525-8200 Facsimile: (404) 525-1173 E-mail: magnuse@jacksonlewis.com - and - Don A. Smith, Esq. SMITH, COHEN & HORAN, PLC 1206 Garrison Ave. Post Office Box 10205 Fort Smith, AR 72917-0205 Telephone: (479) 782-1001 Facsimile: (479) 782-1279 E-mail: das.smcrh@mac.com NESTLE: Faces SweeTARTs Candies False Advertising Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Nestle is facing a suit from a California woman who alleges its SweeTARTs candies are falsely advertised as having no artificial flavors. Jessica Littlejohn, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated and the general public, filed a complaint on April 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Nestle USA Inc. over alleged violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she and class members were deceived by defendant's alleged unlawful conduct when they purchased defendant's SweeTARTS candies. She alleges the candies all contain artificial flavors but this fact was not disclosed or labelled in the packaging. The plaintiff alleges the products all contain a synthetic flavoring chemical identified in the ingredient list as malic acid, which confers a "tart, fruit-like" flavor and simulates the flavor of an actual fruit. The plaintiff holds Nestle USA Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly concealed its use of artificial flavoring, deceived consumers, illegally cut costs and increased profits and competed unfairly and unlawfully in the marketplace. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks award of punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney fees, costs and such other and further relief as the court may deem just, equitable or proper. She is represented by Ronald A. Marron, Michael T. Houchin of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron in San Diego. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case number 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG [GN] NEW LONDON HOUSING: Judge Reardon Reopens Thames River Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Greg Smith, writing for theday, reports that with residents steadily moving out of the troubled Thames River Apartments, the New London Housing Authority has turned some of its attention to the security of the buildings and their remaining residents. There has been little in the way of security at the Crystal Avenue high rises historically -- there are no locking doors at the entrances to the three high rises, and a police substation remains unmanned. With fewer people around, the concern has focused on the possibility of increased crime and squatters. City police have increased patrols in the area as the number of families in the 124-unit outdated low-income complex dwindles, though more costly security measures are on hold until there is an identified need. New London Housing Authority Executive Director Kolisha Fiore said that 77 of the 114 families have moved out and more continue to leave every week. All of the families were issued housing choice, or Section 8, vouchers as part of the housing authority's disposition of the federally subsidized property. The goal is to have the entire complex vacated by the end of June, at which time the housing authority expects to sell the property to the city. New Haven-based Glendower Group, hired by the housing authority, is working with the residents to find homes and move. Betsy Gibson, the chairwoman of the Housing Authority's Board of Commissioners, said she expects that one by one the buildings will be closed and secured. "As the buildings empty we have to make sure the safety of the residents and security of the buildings is maintained," Ms. Gibson said. "We're not in a position now to start moving residents from building to building. That time will eventually come." Ms. Gibson expects that once the number of families in one building reaches a certain threshold -- that number is undetermined -- they will be moved and consolidated into another building. Police Chief Peter Reichard suggested as much during a meeting with the board at the end of February following a stabbing in the parking lot and the fatal drug overdose of a homeless man in one of the stairwells at the complex. Mr. Reichard's suggestion was to seal off floors as they are emptied and close buildings to allow them to be sealed off completely. He also suggested getting rid of abandoned cars in the parking lot, something that Ms. Gibson said is already underway. He suggested ensuring all outside lights are working and perhaps increasing their intensity. Ms. Gibson said that security cameras on the site are an added crime deterrent. Meanwhile, a Superior Court judge involved in a 2014 stipulated judgment is monitoring the progress of the move, at the behest of New London attorney Robert Reardon. It was Judge Reardon's pro bono work fighting the housing authority for more than a decade on behalf of Thames River residents that ultimately led to a court-stipulated judgment that ended the class-action lawsuit and mandated new housing for the tenants of Thames River by November 2017. When it became clear deadlines would not be met, Judge Reardon reopened the case and has been holding monthly status meetings with the Judge David M. Sheridan, the original judge in the case, along with housing authority and city officials. Representatives from both the Connecticut Fair Housing Center and Connecticut Legal Services have remained on site to monitor the progress and ensure residents are not being discriminated against. Fionnuala Darby-Hudgens, Community Education & Outreach at The Connecticut Fair Housing Center, had expressed concern last month about notices to vacate that were poised to be issued to remaining residents. The 90-day notices might have been a cause for angst, but thanks to a collaborative effort with Connecticut Legal Services and the housing authority, now run by Imagineers, explanatory letters were included with the notices. Connecticut Fair Housing is also providing remaining residents with help to fill out extension requests for the Section 8 vouchers. They have hosted three different forums with Connecticut Legal Services and plan another from 5 to 7 p.m. April 23 at Thames River Apartments to help residents fill out the second extension. Vouchers, the first batch issued on Dec. 28, expire after 90 days without an extension request. Residents can apply for two extensions if they are having trouble finding a place to live. "Connecticut Fair Housing will continue to do outreach to ensure everyone has found safe and affordable housing," Ms. Darby- Hudgens said. [GN] NEW YORK: Linden Plaza Tenants File Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Two years ago, City Limits wrote about an affordable housing preservation deal under Mayor Bloomberg that tenants and advocates say was disastrous and non-transparent, leading to skyrocketing rents and evictions for many tenants. Those tenants, with the support of Legal Services Corporation A and the Cypress Hills Local Development Corporation, have now filed a class-action federal lawsuit against the owner as well as the federal and city agencies who signed off on the deal. "We all have suffered in one way or another for 10 years, as a result of pure greed; a total disregard of the housing protection laws," wrote Pamela Lockley and Mary de Suze of the Linden Plaza Tenants Council in a press release in late March. "We are a large, close-knit, extended-family of American born and immigrants from the Caribbean, Latin America, South America, West Africa and the Ivory Coast. We owe it to the tax payers of New York, current and former tenants -- to make sure we all receive justice." Linden Plaza is a 1,525-unit apartment complex in East New York that was built in 1971 under the state's Mitchell-Lama program for middle-income housing creation. In 2008, the city's Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), with approval from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), signed off on deal that permitted the owner, an affiliate of the DeMatteis Organizations, to refinance its mortgage with the New York City Housing Development Corporation and acquire additional investment through the use of Low Income Housing Tax Credits. With the refinancing, the owner was also expected to fund about $50 million in renovations. To cover a number of new expenses, including larger loan repayments, the owner was permitted to raise rents by an average of 93 percent, phased in from 2008 through 2010. The deal was supposed to keep the complex affordable for the next 30 years, with tenants with lower incomes receiving vouchers to assist with some of the rent increase. But the Tenant Council says some low-income tenants didn't receive the vouchers and that middle-income tenants were crippled by the rent increases -- which, coupled with further rent hikes in later years, the Tenant Council says has increased rents by an average of 130 percent over the past decade. By the Tenant Council's estimates, which they say is also confirmed by voter registration records, about 60 percent of the building's longtime residents left or were evicted after the preservation deal. They also say that from 2008 through 2013, there was an average of 100 to 150 open cases in housing court emanating from Linden Plaza. DuBois Thomas, director of tenant organizing and counseling at Cypress Hills LDC, says he also noticed such unusually high levels of eviction cases emanating from the complex. But tenants argue that the deal was not only harmful, but also illegal, and have gone to court several times without legal representation to argue their case. While no judge so far has nullified the preservation deal, that process has helped to uncover numerous documents that Legal Services Corporation A is now using to bolster their case. They'll argue that there was "$140 million dollars of government funding that ownership was never awarded, but has been the justification for rent increases since 2008." They say their documents prove that the owners did not take on bond debt, or spend as much on renovations as claimed, in order to justify rent increases. They'll also argue that there were many other financial irregularities in the deal and that the rent increases were not permitted according to the rules of the Mitchell-Lama program. Neither HPD, the DeMatteis Organizations or HUD returned a request for comment, but the building's management company has in the past disputed the notion of a mass exodus of residents. City officials, meanwhile, have said most tenants received vouchers and that prior to 2008 there hadn't been significant rent increases, suggesting that the property needed large increases in order to catch up with costs, and that middle-income residents were paying less prior to the refinancing deal than they could afford. They've also insisted in the past that the renovations cost $50 million and that the rent increases were completely legal. Linden Plaza is one of 269 buildings with a total of 105,000 co- op and rental apartments that were built under the Mitchell-Lama program. Those buildings operated under time-limited restrictions on rent increases and owner profit, but many left the program when their restrictions expired. As earlier reported by City Limits, a 2013 report by the Community Service Society found that 30,622 Mitchell-Lama rental units had exited the Mitchell-Lama program between 1990 and 2008. Elected officials on multiple levels of government have been making efforts to prevent the loss of Mitchell Lama units: The De Blasio administration said in October it had preserved or extended the affordability of 11,000 Mitchell-Lama apartments in its first term and was allocating another $250 million to preserve another 15,000 Mitchell-Lama apartments for at least 20 more years. On April 15, Representative Adriano Espaillat and Senator Charles Schumer announced they'd secured support for an East Harlem Mitchell-Lama in the federal funding package. Governor Andrew Cuomo has also launched Mitchell-Lama specific initiatives aimed at preserving affordability and funding rehabilitation. But expiring affordability will continue to be an expensive problem throughout the city as affordability agreements tied to other forms of financing, like the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, the dominant form of affordable housing financing constructed since the late 1980s, come up for expiration -- including at Linden Plaza. The Linden Plaza Tenant Council further argues that they would have been better off if, instead of entering the city-approved preservation deal, the building had exited the program: Mitchell- Lamas built prior to 1974 are at least subject to rent stabilization rules if they leave the program, with rent increases set by the Rent Guidelines Board. The lawsuit has the support of several local elected officials, including Assemblyman Charles Barron and Councilmember Inez Barron. "Theirs is a just fight against unwarranted rent increases, ones that have been imposed upon struggling tenants who can hardly keep up with the volume of increases coming at them," wrote the Barrons in support. The battle at Linden Plaza comes as there are concerns in the neighborhood at large about the De Blasio administration's first neighborhood rezoning, which is playing out just a few blocks northwest of the complex. While so far all the large-sized development projects under planning in the rezoning area are slated to be 100 percent affordable housing, there is concern that the rezoning is hastening changes in the real-estate market and exacerbating speculation. [GN] NISSAN NORTH: Townsend Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- James F. Bogan III, Esq. -- jbogan@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that alleging a "price premium" or "benefit of the bargain" damages theory is one thing. Proving it is another. A recent decision by Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California shows the difficulty of establishing such a damages theory, where the evidence does not show that a challenged product is completely without value. Class action defendants should therefore pay close attention to the Supreme Court's decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) and its requirement of proving class-wide damages, as a potent tool to defeat predominance under Federal Rule 23(b)(3). In Nguyen v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 16-CV-05591- LHK, Slip op. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2018), the plaintiff (Mr. Nguyen) bought a brand-new Nissan 370Z for his son. Two years later, his son was driving on the freeway when the car's clutch pedal lost pressure and did not return from its depressed position. The son took the car to a Nissan dealership, which fixed the car at no charge, because it was still under warranty. Nearly two years later, he experienced a similar problem. Because the car was no longer under warranty, it cost $270 to fix it. Mr. Nguyen filed a putative class action against Nissan and later moved for class certification. At the time he moved for class certification, his claims against Nissan consisted of damages claims under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. In his class certification motion, he sought the certification of a class of all individuals in California who purchased or leased from an authorized Nissan dealer a new Nissan vehicle equipped with the specific manual transmission at issue (a FS6R31A manual transmission). Claiming that the class overpaid for their Nissan vehicles, because Nissan allegedly had failed to disclose that a transmission component (the concentric slave cylinder or CSC) was defective, Mr Nguyen submitted the opinion of a damages expert to prove class-wide damages. The expert's "benefit of the bargain" damages model assumed that class members had bargained for a Nissan vehicle with a working CSC, and that if Nissan had disclosed the alleged CSC defect, all class members would have paid less for their vehicles, or would not have purchased them at all. The model set each class member's damages as the full cost to replace the defective part with a functioning part. According to the expert, each class member was entitled to receive roughly $724 in damages (the cost for a functioning CSC, new hydraulic fluid, other necessary parts, and roughly four hours of labor). Judge Koh found this approach to be "problematic," because it essentially assumed that consumers had received no value from the allegedly defective CSC. Id. at 9. Indeed, the 370Z Mr. Nguyen bought for his son was driven over 26,000 miles before the original CSC malfunctioned, and Nissan replaced the part at no charge during the warranty period. The son then drove the car another 25,000 miles before the replacement CSC failed, and the repair cost that second time was only $270. According to Judge Koh, "[t]he extended use of the defective CSCs indicates that they hold at least some value." Id. at 10. For that reason, "[t]he damages model therefore errs in assuming that all consumers would discount the amount they would be willing to pay for the vehicle by the full replacement cost of a CSC even though the consumer received some value from the defective CSC." Id. Judge Koh noted "that it is certainly possible that the defective CSC is completely valueless, in which case the replacement cost may be an appropriate damages measure." Id. The damages expert, however, failed to address this issue, which was "all the more striking" in light of the evidence showing the CSC was not valueless. Id. Reviewing the caselaw, she explained that "this Court has rejected class action damages models because they assumed that a challenged product was valueless." Id. at 11. Quoting the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 35 (2013), she concluded: "In sum, the benefit of the bargain damages model fails to 'measure only those damages attributable to' Plaintiff's theory of liability because it awards damages equal to the value of a non-defective CSC (the benefit of the bargain) without deducting the value of the defective CSC." Id. at 12. Accordingly, she denied class certification on predominance grounds, for failure to establish class-wide damages: "Therefore, Plaintiff 'cannot show Rule 23(b)(3) predominance: Questions of individual damages calculations will inevitably overwhelm questions common to the class.'" Id. at 13 (quoting Comcast, 569 U.S. at 34). [GN] NORTHLAND GROUP: Wins Final OK of "Santiago" Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable Cathy L. Waldor grants final approval of the class action settlement in the lawsuit titled NORMA I. SANTIAGO, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. NORTHLAND GROUP INC.; and PINNACLE CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03608- CLW (D.N.J.). The Settlement Class previously certified by the Court was defined as: All consumers residing in the State of New Jersey, to whom Defendant Northland Group Inc. sent a collection letter; which letter (a) was dated May 28, 2014 through and including May 28, 2015, (b) was seeking to collect a consumer debt allegedly owed to Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC which arose out of a Verizon Wireless account, and (d) was sent in a windowed envelope such that the account number associated with the debt was visible from outside the envelope. The parties are ordered to consummate the settlement according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. As set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant shall fund the bank account to be established by the Settlement Administrator in the amount of $4,698 within 14 days from the date this Order is entered. Within 30 days of the date of this Order, the Settlement Administrator shall mail each Settlement Class member their check according to the formula and process set forth in the Settlement Agreement. For efforts on behalf of the Class and to settle individual claims, the Defendant shall pay $5,000 to Plaintiff Norma I. Santiago in the manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Defendant shall pay Class Counsel's fees and costs in the amount of $99,750, which payment includes costs and expenses, time already spent and time to be spent attending hearings, and the monitoring of the settlement. Judge Waldor also rules that the action against the Defendant is dismissed with prejudice, but the Court shall retain exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the action and all parties to interpret and enforce the terms, conditions and obligations of the Settlement Agreement. A copy of the Final Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xWAgkVRq OWL INC: Perez Renews Bid to Issue Notice to Supervisors, Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JOSE PEREZ, ALFREDO SANTOS, and DOUGLAS RICHEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. OWL, INC., Case No. 6:17-cv-01092-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla.), renewed their motion for issuance of notice pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act to these subclasses of Owl drivers: 1. Road Supervisors: Drivers employed by Owl since June 15, 2014, who have been labeled as "road supervisors" and paid on a salary basis; and 2. Hourly Drivers: Drivers employed by Owl since June 15, 2014, who have been paid on an hourly basis. The Plaintiffs brought this case on behalf of drivers employed by Owl at various locations throughout the United States to transport Veterans Administration patients pursuant to federal government service contracts. The Plaintiffs note that the Court have already found that Owl pays some drivers a salary and its other drivers on an hourly basis, but that it has a company-wide practice of failing to pay those drivers overtime when they work more than 40 hours in a week. A copy of the Renewed Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AjB7ihFE The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Benjamin J. Weber, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com bweber@llrlaw.com - and - Joseph Egan, Esq. Eric Lindstrom, Esq. EGAN, LEV, LINDSTROM & SIWICA, P.A. 231 E. Colonial Drive Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (352) 672-6901 E-mail: jegan@eganlev.com elindstrom@eganlev.com PAYPAL HOLDINGS: June 12 Deadline to Amend "Sgarlata" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RONALD SGARLATA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., DANIEL H. SCHULMAN, JOHN D. RAINEY JR., and HAMED SHAHBAZI, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-06956 (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered that (i) the Interim Co-Lead Plaintiffs must file an amended complaint on or before June 12, 2018; and (ii) Defendant Shahbazi must file his response to the amended complaint within 30 days after the filing of the amended complaint. The action is a proposed class action alleging violations of the federal securities laws against the Defendants. The action is subject to the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), which sets forth specialized procedures for the administration of securities class actions. On March 16, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing movants Michael Eckert and Edwin Bell as the Interim Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approving their choices of Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as the Interim Co-lead Counsel. On March 30, 2018, the Court entered an order regarding the timing of the filing of an amended complaint and Defendants Paypal, Schulman, and Rainey's response thereto. Shahbazi was not a party to the previously entered Scheduling Order and at the time of the filing of the previous stipulation, the Interim Co-Lead Counsel was negotiating the issue of service of process with Shahbazi's Canadian counsel. So that the schedule of Shahbazi's response to an amended complaint is consistent with the schedule for PayPal, Schulman, and Rainey's response, the parties, by and between their counsel, stipulated, and Judge Chen approved, that (i) pursuant to the Court's Order dated March 30, 2018, the Interim Co-Lead Plaintiffs will file an amended complaint on or before June 12, 2018; (ii) Defendant Shahbazi will file his response to the amended complaint within 30 days after the filing of the amended complaint; and (iii) if Defendant Shahbazi moves to dismiss the amended complaint, the Interim Co-Lead Plaintiffs' opposition will be due within 30 days after the filing of the motion(s) to dismiss, and any replies will be due within 20 days after the filing of the Interim Co-Lead Plaintiffs' opposition. A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Order is available at https://bit.ly/2raHCbs from Leagle.com. Ronald Sgarlata, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Louis C. Ludwig -- lcludwig@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice. PayPal Holdings, Inc., Daniel H. Schulman & John D. Rainey, Jr., Defendants, represented by James Neil Kramer -- jkramer@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Alexander K. Talarides -- atalarides@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP & Suzette Barnes -- sbarnes@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP. Hamed Shahbazi, Defendant, represented by Jay L. Pomerantz -- jpomerantz@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West. Michael Eckert, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Jonathan Stern -- jstern@rosenlegal.com -- Rosen Law Firm & Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice. Edwin K. Bell, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP, Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Jonathan Stern, Rosen Law Firm. PLATINUM CORRAL: Wins Approval of Settlement in "Johnson" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. George C. Smith grants the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Approval of Collective Action Settlement, Service Awards, and Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed in the lawsuit entitled SCOTT JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PLATINUM CORRAL LLC and PLATINUM CORRAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00399-GCS-EPD (S.D. Ohio). The Court finds that the parties' settlement in this action is fair, reasonable, and just. The parties' settlement is approved and the terms of the parties' agreement are incorporated in the Order. For settlement purposes alone, the case is certified as a collective action under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties' agreed form of Notice of Settlement and Opportunity to Join and the plan for its distribution are approved. The Service Awards for Scott Johnson and Robert Cooper are approved. The Plaintiff's Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and out-of- pocket costs and expenses is granted. American Legal Claim Services LLC is approved as the Settlement Administrator. Judge Smith also dismissed the action without prejudice, with leave to reinstate on or before 30 days after the Settlement is fully funded. The action shall be deemed dismissed with prejudice without further order of the Court if no such motion to reinstate is filed within that time. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NjJjsueu RACK ROOM: Wins Prelim. OK of $26,866 Settlement in "Stebbins" -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst granted the joint motion for conditional class certification, for appointment of class counsel, for preliminary approval of proposed class settlement, and for approval of the form and contents of the Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement Agreement filed by the parties in the lawsuit entitled TIFFINEY N. STEBBINS v. RACK ROOM SHOES, INC., Case No. 6:17-cv-00619-CBW (W.D. La.). Judge Whitehurst preliminarily approves the proposed remaining class recovery of $26,866, as provided in the Settlement Agreement. The Court also preliminarily approves the proposed award of attorneys' fees and expenses to Class Counsel in the amount of $7,000. The Court conditionally, and for purposes of settlement only, certifies this Settlement Class: All former employees of Defendant who worked at any of Defendant's Rack Room Shoes stores located in Louisiana, who separated from such employment during the period from March 17, 2014 through March 17, 2017, and who had a positive balance of unused "PTO" at the time of their separation from employment with Defendant as shown in the records of Defendant (the "Settlement Class"). Plaintiff Tiffiney N. Stebbins is certified as the Class Representative, and Kenneth D. St. Pe, APLC, is certified as Class Counsel, on the condition that this certification is for settlement purposes only and any related designations shall be automatically vacated if the Settlement Agreement is terminated or is disapproved in whole or in part by the Court, any appellate court, or any of the parties to the Settlement Agreement pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Defendant as claims administrator, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, shall serve the Notice by April 23, 2018. Settlement Class members must submit requests for exclusion by opting-out from the Settlement no later than May 20, 2018. Settlement Class members must submit a written notice to the Clerk of Court indicating the intent to appear to support or oppose the Settlement Agreement, including a statement as to why the member opposes or supports the Settlement Agreement no later than May 30, 2018. A Fairness Hearing on final approval of the Settlement Agreement shall commence on June 20, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WZilp63y RICHARDSON, TX: Bowman to Take Red Light Camera Suit to Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Texas Monitor reports that what began with a challenge to a red light camera ticket the city of Richardson issued to him six years ago, continues with Russell Bowman preparing to take a lawsuit to the Texas Supreme Court. Mr. Bowman, an Irving lawyer, has made getting rid of red light cameras in Texas a career. And with the help of a few equally committed people, his fight is gaining momentum. State Sen. Don Huffines, R-Dallas, who has carried bills to outlaw the cameras statewide in the last two legislative sessions, told The Texas Monitor on April 13 he is considering including language in a similar bill that would force cities to refund some or all of an estimated $537 million in fines collected over the last decade. "These cities were breaking the law when they were issuing these tickets," Sen. Huffines said in a phone interview from Israel. "We're looking for relief for those who were fined. I think they deserve a refund. It's very disheartening. If citizens are expected to obey the law, cities should be expected to obey the law, too." The law Sen. Huffines is referring to -- Senate Bill 1119, passed in 2007 -- is at the heart of all of the legal work Mr. Bowman has done over half of dozen years in dozens of Texas cities. The bill requires cities considering installing any kind of red light camera system to prepare and approve an engineering study to justify its implementation. Mr. Bowman argued successfully in a class action lawsuit on behalf of people who got red light camera tickets in Willis that the city had done no such study. Willis, about 50 miles north of Houston, won an appeal last August. Bowman told The Texas Monitor on April 13 he expected to file a brief for a hearing before the state Supreme Court. "These cases have been languishing but it's all delaying tactics," Mr. Bowman said. "These cities know they don't have a leg to stand on." A district judge in Richardson helped Mr. Bowman score the first big win for the anti-camera forces when the judge awarded him more than $27,000 in attorney's fees in a summary judgment in July of 2016. Mr. Bowman had been fighting his single ticket for three years. Richardson was forced to suspend its red light camera program, but as The Texas Monitor reported at the beginning of this year, Richardson is appealing the ruling. Mr. Bowman began targeting most of the five dozen Texas cities with red light camera systems, rolling them into a class action lawsuit contending the tickets they were issuing were illegal. Mr. Bowman has been forced to argue cases individually with judges ruling that the circumstances in each case are different, and stripping out all but a single city. Building from Mr. Bowman's case, Byron Schirmbeck, Texas coordinator for the national Campaign for Liberty, began pressing the city of Austin to produce an engineering study to validate its camera program. With the help of this reporter, Mr. Schirmbeck, who had led a petition drive in Baytown that led to the city removing its camera system, made a formal request of Joana Perez, spokeswoman for Austin's transportation department, to locate the study. No study was ever produced. Mr. Schirmbeck contended at the time nearly $6 million in red light camera citations -- an average of 9,800 valued at $735,000 a year for eight years -- were illegal. "They never had the authority from the state to issue them since they didn't meet the statutory requirements to impose the civil penalty," Mr. Schirmbeck said at the time. A year later, Mr. Schirmbeck's contention was confirmed when KXAN-TV in Austin filed requests under the Texas Public Information Act for the engineering studies from Austin and 49 other Texas cities with red light camera systems. Only Abilene, College Station and Southlake could provide one. Willis had provided a study, but it had been done after Bowman filed his lawsuit. Reporters for the station using Texas Comptroller data found the cities they studied had collected $537 million since 2008. In October, Helwig Van Der Grinten, founder of Houston Coalition Against Red Light Cameras, signed up Bowman to appeal a lower court dismissal of his class action lawsuit against the city of Sugar Land. And earlier, Mr. Bowman marked the third anniversary of fighting James Watson's red light camera ticket in Southlake. When the judge dropped 52 other cities from the lawsuit, Mr. Bowman vowed he would appeal. Mr. Bowman told The Texas Monitor he believed the appeal would be successful, but was prepared to fight the case as long as was necessary. Sen. Huffines is hoping to save Bowman a lot of trouble. Bills to get rid of red light cameras have made it through the Senate in the past two sessions, only to stall in the House. Sen. Huffines blames it on House leadership. With the choice of a new speaker at the beginning of the session in January to replace outgoing Joe Straus, he is optimistic a red light camera bill will pass. "The key here is that this has never been about public safety," Sen. Huffines said. "Police departments and city officials have provided no evidence that this is the case. It's about revenue. And I don't think cities should be balancing their books on the back of Texans." [GN] NTT DATA: Faces "Watkins" Suit in E.D. Virginia ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NTT Data Federal Services, Inc. The case is styled as Donny Watkins for himself and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NTT Data Federal Services, Inc. and NTT Data, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00517-AJT-TCB (E.D. Va., May 2, 2018). NTT DATA Federal Services, Inc. provides information technology services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Colt North, Esq. The Consumer & Employee Rights Law Firm PC 5629 George Washington Memorial Highway Suite D Yorktown, VA 23692 Tel: (757) 873-1010 Fax: (757) 873-8375 Email: cnorthlaw@aol.com PERSOLVE LEGAL: Faces "Johnson" Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Persolve Legal Group, LLP. The case is styled as Ericka Johnson, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Persolve Legal Group, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02605 (E.D. N.Y., May 2, 2018). Persolve Legal Group, LLP is a law firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com PURDUE PHARMA: Faces "Klodzinski" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P. The case is styled as Michael Klodzinski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc., Purdue Frederick Company, Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Actavis plc, Actavis, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc. and Amerisourcebergen Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03927 (S.D. N.Y., May 2, 2018). Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and Raymond Sackler.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. RED ROSE NAIL: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in "Fu" FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Wen Chen, Red Rose Nail Salon Inc. and Ying Zhou filed an appeal from the District Court's opinion and order, and judgment, both entered on March 26, 2018, in the lawsuit styled Fu, et al. v. Red Rose Nail Salon Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv- 7465, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Fu, et al. v. Red Rose Nail Salon Inc., et al., Case No. 18-965, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Xiao Dong Fu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Chau Lan Ng, individually, are represented by: William M. Brown, Esq. HANG AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: wbrown@hanglaw.com Defendants-Appellants Red Rose Nail Salon Inc., DBA Red Rose Nail & Spa, Wen Chen and Ying Zhou are represented by: Brian Patrick Fredericks, Esq. SCHILLER LAW GROUP, P.C. 675 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 768-8700 RODAN + FIELDS: Faces Class Action Over Lash Boost Product ---------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Wischhover, writing for Racked, reports that if you've spent any time on Facebook in the past few years, there's a good chance you've seen someone you know selling the skin care brand Rodan + Fields. The company is a multilevel marketer, which means its main sales strategy involves employing an army of 200,000 consultants, some of whom you probably went to high school with. Products are also sold on the brand's site. You might want to pause before letting her convince you to buy the brand's eyelash serum, Lash Boost, though. Rodan + Fields was just slapped with a potential class-action lawsuit. The suit was filed on April 13 on behalf of four plaintiffs, two in New York and two in California. It takes aim specifically at Lash Boost, an eyelash growth serum the company launched in 2016. The product has been a hit for the brand; a company representative told WWD it did more than $200 million in sales its first year. Lash Boost is marketed as an "eyelash-enhancing conditioner" and claims to provide "the appearance of lush, longer-looking lashes in as little as four weeks." It costs $150 for a tube. All those tubes have certainly helped the company's bottom line. Rodan + Fields just announced that it is now the No. 1 beauty brand in both the US and North America, according to Euromonitor, a market research provider. (Neutrogena and Olay are in second and third place, respectively.) The company claims it hit $1.5 billion in sales in 2017, up from $1.15 billion in 2016, according to WWD. Racked obtained a copy of the complaint from attorneys at Keller Rohrback LLP, who are representing the plaintiffs and have requested the court certify the complaint as a class action. It alleges that the four plaintiffs all suffered adverse eye reactions after using the product, which is meant to be applied to the upper eyelids. They said they experienced symptoms including bumps on the eyes, flaky patches, burning, swelling, crusting, and pain, among other things. The complaint alleges "deceptive labeling and unlawful marketing" of Lash Boost and that Rodan + Fields "failed to disclose the harmful side effects linked to an ingredient in their Lash Boost product." A representative for Rodan + Fields provided the following statement to Racked: The Company vigorously denies the allegations in the Complaint, and stands behind the safety and efficacy of Lash Boost. We are going to let the specifics of our legal defense play out in court. Lash Boost is intended for use as a cosmetic and as such, has been consistently advertised as improving the appearance of eyelashes. As with any cosmetic, Lash Boost may cause irritation in some users, especially if it is misused. R+F provides clear directions to users, including those who experience irritations. Many of the allegations involve unrelated products, including prescription products that have different ingredients and formulations. The ingredient in question is isopropyl cloprostenate, which is commonly used in lash growth products. It has a controversial history, both legally and in terms of its alleged side effects. Before you understand Lash Boost, though, you have to understand the OG lash growth product, Latisse. Latisse was released in 2008 as a prescription-only eyelash growth serum after Allergan, its parent company, discovered that a medicine it was using for glaucoma also gave patients long, lush lashes. It then developed the serum as a topical drug specifically for eyelash growth, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The active ingredient is bimatoprost, a prostaglandin analog. (A prostaglandin is a chemical in the body made of fatty acids that has hormone-like effects; an analog is a synthetic version that has similar qualities to the original.) Latisse was a hit, and celebs like Brooke Shields and Claire Danes shilled it. It became clear, though, that Latisse had some worrisome side effects, including causing eyelid discoloration and possibly even changing iris color permanently. In 2009, the FDA issued a warning to Latisse that some claims were misleading and safety warnings were not adequately stated, which the company later rectified. There were even rumors back in 2010 that Danes actually experienced some of these side effects. Then the copycats came. Allergan ended up suing several companies that were selling products as over-the-counter cosmetics that contained prostaglandin analogs. It won on the basis that they were unfair competitors. But these types of products have been popular ever since; you can find several at Sephora, including some that contain isopropyl cloprostenate, the prostaglandin analog at the center of this new Rodan + Fields lawsuit. Isopropyl cloprostenate has never been approved by the FDA as a drug. Because of the lax cosmetics oversight regulations in the US, brands can sell it as a cosmetic product, bypassing the rigorous testing that prescription drugs are subjected to. (It's banned in Canada, which is why Rodan + Fields can't sell Lash Boost there.) In 2011, the FDA issued a warning letter to the company that makes the lash serums RapidLash and Neulash. Based on the labeling the company was using at the time and the known side effects of prostaglandin analogs, the agency called the products "unapproved" and "misbranded" drugs. The FDA also noted that as prostaglandin analogs, they carried the risk of serious side effects like irritation, iris color change, inflammation, and eye pressure changes. RapidLash has been reformulated, but it appears that Neulash still contains isopropyl cloprostenate. The FDA has not appeared to issue this type of warning to any eyelash serum manufacturer since then. This brings us back to Rodan + Fields. The FDA is not involved in this situation at all. The lawsuit does reference the 2011 FDA warning letter in the complaint against the company, though, and alleges that Rodan + Fields "failed to disclose the harmful side effects linked to an ingredient in their Lash Boost product." Lash Boost notes on its warnings page: "For external use only. Avoid getting in the eye; in the event of direct contact rinse with cool water. If you develop irritation or swelling, discontinue product usage. If irritation is significant or in the first instance of any swelling, consult your physician. If you're pregnant or nursing, being treated for any eye-related disorder, undergoing cancer treatment, prone to dry eyes or styes, consult your physician before use. If you notice irregularities in appearance of lashes, discontinue use. Keep out of reach of children." Wording definitely matters, both in the warnings section and in descriptions of product claims, and Rodan + Fields addresses that on its website. Part of the reason those older companies attracted the attention of the FDA is that they made claims that their product can actually grow lashes. Lash Boost is careful to say things like "improves the appearance of lash volume and length." By focusing on appearance and making no specific claims about changing function or structure of the lashes, Lash Boost seems to adhere to the letter of the law for cosmetic versus drug product labeling. As far as side effects, this is not the first time users have reportedly experienced unpleasant reactions from Lash Boost -- product users online and on YouTube allege various side effects. Obviously, the plaintiffs (and any others that come on board if this lawsuit gets certified as a class action) will have to convince the court their arguments have merit. Isopropyl cloprostanate is not technically a drug, but should it be? That's the crux of this lawsuit. It's a complex issue that the courts and ultimately the FDA will have to address. [GN] ROSICKI ROSICKI: "Reizes" Suit Disputes Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------- Mendel Reizes on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers Plaintiff, v. Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., Uwanyne A. Mitchell, Esq. and Megan Suttell, Esq., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01567, (E.D. N.Y., March 14, 2018), seeks treble damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Defendants are debt collection agencies who attempted to collect an alleged consumer debt from the Reizes arising from a home loan with HSBC Bank. It fell into default status sometime in 2009 and HSBC Bank filed for foreclosure on June 1, 2010. On or about November 10, 2017, Rosicki sent the Plaintiff a collection letter seeking to collect the balance. The accelerated mortgage debt became time-barred on March 6, 2016 and was deemed unenforceable and lost its legal attachment to the real estate. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Telephone: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com SELECT COMFORT: TCCWNA Class Action Returns to 3d Cir. ------------------------------------------------------ Jeffrey S. Jacobson, writing for Ad Law Access, reports that on April 16, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated decision construing New Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act ("TCCWNA"). The decision affirmed that one who has not suffered actual harm from an allegedly unlawful provision in a contract or notice is not "aggrieved" and therefore cannot sue under the TCCWNA. Importantly, the Court held that the harm need not necessarily be monetary, but it does have to exist. This unanimous decision should bring an end to the recent wave of speculative class action lawsuits asserting TCCWNA claims based, for example, on standard provisions in online Terms of Service. The TCCWNA imposes a steep $100-per-violation penalty whenever a "contract" or "notice" contains a term that violates "clearly established" New Jersey or federal law. If a contract or notice says that some of its terms may not apply in "some states," without specifically identifying provisions that are unlawful and thus inapplicable in New Jersey, the same $100 penalty attaches. In a landmark decision last October, the New Jersey Supreme Court curtailed the circumstances in which TCCWNA claims can be pursued on behalf of a class by holding that the statute's requirement that a consumer must be "aggrieved" requires proof that every putative class member at least was "presented with" the offending notice (in that case a restaurant menu). The court also put real teeth in the requirement that the "right" a notice supposedly violates must be "clearly established." The October decision did not address other important TCCWNA issues, including whether one can be an "aggrieved consumer" without having suffered any actual harm. Just after oral argument in the October-decided case, however the Supreme Court accepted a certified question from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as to whether one without damages can sue under the TCCWNA. In Spade v. Select Comfort Corp., the plaintiffs purchased an allegedly faulty adjustable bed and received a refund after the defendant could not fix it. The plaintiffs nevertheless sued the seller under the TCCWNA, contending that its contract failed to conform to New Jersey regulations for selling household furniture regarding delivery timing. A district judge dismissed those claims, finding the consumers were not "aggrieved" because they received their refund and because their claim against the seller had nothing to do with delivery timing. In Wenger v. Bob's Discount Furniture LLC, the plaintiffs ordered goods from the defendant and received them without complaint, but still sued under the TCCWNA based on allegedly unlawful aspects of the customer agreement, including font size, the company's refund policy, and several of the contract's other provisions. The same district judge dismissed those claims, too, on essentially the same basis, and both cases found their way to the Third Circuit. On November 23, 2016, the Third Circuit asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to decide whether (1) a consumer who receives a non-conforming contract, but who has not suffered any adverse consequences, is "aggrieved" and therefore can sue under the TCCWNA; and (2) a contract provision that violates the state's Furniture Delivery Regulations satisfies the "clearly established right" provision of the TCCWNA. That is what led to the April 16 decision. The Supreme Court answered the first question by holding that contracts containing provisions at odds with regulations do violate the TCCWNA. That aspect of the April 16 ruling cannot be ignored. Among other things, it means that the New Jersey Attorney General's Office absolutely can pursue businesses for TCCWNA violations if they include such unlawful provisions. The Court very clearly and strongly held, however, that consumers cannot sue unless they are "aggrieved." The plaintiffs tried to define "aggrieved" to mean anyone who is offered or enters into a contract containing an offending term, but the Court held that such an expansive interpretation would effectively write the word "aggrieved" out of the statute. The term "aggrieved consumer," the Court held, must "denote[] a consumer who has suffered some form of harm as a result of the defendant's conduct." Although there is much for the business community to celebrate in the April 16 decision, attention must be paid to the last section of the Court's opinion, beginning with "[w]e do not, however, view [cognizable] harm to be limited to injury compensable by monetary damages." TCCWNA, the Court held, "contemplates that a consumer may be entitled to a remedy notwithstanding the absence of proof of monetary damages." This might include, for example, someone who received a late delivery and was dissuaded from seeking a refund because an unlawful provision told her she could not do so. Allegations like this would seem to be highly individualized, however, and therefore not proper subjects for class actions. Wenger and Spade now return to the Third Circuit, which presumably will uphold the district court's dismissals. A cascade of dismissals of other suits then should follow. [GN] SIMM ASSOCIATES: Gustafson Nicolaic Files FDCPA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Gustafson Nicolai pc, a full-service law firm based in Los Angeles, California and specializing in civil and business litigation, recently filed a Class Action Complaint against debt collection agency Simm Associates, Inc., for violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The lawsuit, entitled Leah Roscoe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Simm Associates, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, was filed on March 15, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 8:18-cv-00417. The class action lawsuit alleges that Ms. Roscoe and other putative class members were contacted directly by Simm Associates after their attorneys had informed Simm Associates in writing to cease and desist all direct communications with the class members, a clear violation of the FDCPA. If found liable, Simm Associates could be responsible for paying $500,000 to the class, plus attorneys' fees and costs. Gustafson Nicolai pc -- http://www.gnlawpc.com-- can be reached through its principals, Adam C. Nicolai or Ryan Gustafon: 310.361.0787; acn@gnlawpc.com; jrg@gnlawpc.com. Messrs. Nicolai and Gustafson are investigating this matter further and are interested in speaking to anyone adversely impacted by Simm Associates or who otherwise have knowledge of the matter. [GN] SONAM'S STONEWALLS: Bids to Dismiss "Gonpo" Suit Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Mark G. Mastroianni entered a memorandum and order in the lawsuit styled JAMPA GONPO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SONAM'S STONEWALLS & ART LLC, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-40138-MGM (D. Mass.), regarding the report and recommendation on the Defendants' motions to dismiss, the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification, and the Plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling. The Court adopts the recommendations in the R&R in part and rejects the recommendation to deny certification. Therefore, the Court orders as follows: (i) Defendants' motions to dismiss are denied in part and granted in part; (ii) Plaintiff's "Motion to Certify Class Conditional FLSA Collective" is granted except to the extent it seeks an advisory order on equitable tolling; (iii) Plaintiff's "Motion for Order for Equitable Tolling" is denied without prejudice; (iv) Plaintiff's motion to supplement his objections is dismissed as moot; and (v) because the Plaintiff has been in part granted leave to file an amended complaint, he is directed to file an amended pleading consistent with the order within two weeks of the order's issuance. Plaintiff Jampa Gonpo filed a six-count wage and hour complaint against his former employer, Sonam's Stonewalls & Art, LLC, and Sonam Rinchem Lama, Stonewall's owner-operator, in September 2016. The claims are brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Internal Revenue Code, and state statutory and common law, all stemming from alleged failure to pay mandatory minimum and overtime wages and failure to maintain proper bookkeeping and reporting practices relating to payroll. A copy of the Memorandum and Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KYQbnYZi SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Class Action Over Quake Insurance Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ RNZ reports that a Christchurch homeowner with an unresolved earthquake insurance claim said he would begin a hunger strike outside Southern Response's office in the city on April 17. Peter Glasson said his 1920s home with rubble foundation was badly damaged in the 2011 quake and needs new foundations, but he's still fighting with the government owned insurer to have his policy honoured. Mr Glasson said after delays in assessments and court hearings, increasing financial costs and the emotional toll of never making meaningful progress, he's run out of options. "We're at the end of our tether," he said, speaking on Checkpoint tonight. "We've had enough." He said he weighed up the decision in his mind for a long time. His wife and kids support his decision to go on a hunger strike. "If you went through seven and a half years of it, you'd know that continuous stress, the bullying and the intimidation, the dirty tricks that the lawyers play, after a while have quite an affect on you psychologically. "I'm one of those people that say enough's enough." Mr Glasson said he was one of the people spied upon by Southern Response. "Back in 2014 I was one of the small group of people who organised class action against Southern response and it's now been confirmed to me that Thompson and Clark in Auckland were hired by Southern Response to spy on me." He said there was never any behaviour of his that would be considered as threatening and that he was simply organising meetings. "We've spent a massive amount of money fighting Southern Response, they know that," he said. Mr Glasson said he will continue the hunger strike until he's achieved a resolution for his claim. Southern Response was not able to provide a comment at the time this article was published. [GN] SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Out-of-Court Class Action Settlement Likely -------------------------------------------------------------- Liz McDonald, writing for Stuff, reports that Southern Response could be approaching an out-of-court settlement with insurance claimants who have battled for nearly three years for their day in court. The 27 Canterbury property owners filed a court class action over their earthquake claims in 2015, and received the legal go-ahead in October. They say Southern Response, a Government-owned claims management company, committed both a breach of contract and a breach of good faith. The company is now understood to have been in facilitated mediation with the group. The move follows Greater Christchurch Regeneration Minister Megan Woods' urging of both sides to settle the claims. In a letter to Southern Response chairman Ross Butler obtained by Stuff under the Official Information Act, Ms. Woods said she was concerned at the time being taken to resolve the matter. She encouraged the board to seek an agreement with the class action group through a facilitator acceptable to both sides. "I am concerned that policyholder claims are progressed in a manner that allows all claimants to move on with their lives as soon as reasonably practicable." In a letter to the action group at the same time, Woods asked them to consider "a facilitated agreement between the parties of the rules that are to govern any settlement process to be undertaken outside the court setting". "I trust that a timely resolution to your claims can be found," the minister's letter said. The group's lawyer, Grant Cameron -- grant@gcalawyers.com -- of GCA Lawyers, said he was unable to say much about the resulting discussions, except to confirm them. "The facilitations have been helpful," he said. Southern Response chief executive Anthony Honeybone confirmed the company was "in discussions and we are entering the last part of that process". "Southern Response will release a statement when the negotiations conclude. Southern Response is appreciative of the efforts and encouragement of Minister Woods in this matter." The group first lodged court action with 47 members in 2015, but faced opposition from Southern Response. The Court of Appeal ruled in October that the case could be heard in the High Court. The claimants are alleging, according to court documents, that Southern Response had a deliberate strategy designed to minimise its financial claims liability, including relying on builders' quotes in preference to Quantity Surveyors' reports. Southern Response was set up to settle insurance claims for customers of failed insurer AMI after the Canterbury earthquakes. It hit the headlines earlier this year when it was revealed to have hired Auckland security firm Thompson and Clark Investigations to spy on customers with outstanding Canterbury insurance claims. [GN] SPECIALIZED LOAN: Discovery Bid in "Kimble" Suit Okayed ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ZARAH KIMBLE, SEHER BASAK, SARAH SAKINAH GROZA O'LOUGHLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16cv2519-GPC (BLM)(S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (i) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Responses to Interrogatories; and (ii) denied the Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order. Smith filed a purported first amended class action complaint against the Defendant for alleged violations of Regulation X of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"); and California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Prior to the filing of the FAC, Smith died on April 18, 2017. On Sept. 13, 2017, the Court granted movants Kimble, Basak, and O'Loughlin's motion to substitute in as the Plaintiffs. A second amended class action complaint was filed on Sept. 21, 2017. The Plaintiffs seek to represent these classes: (1) Nationwide Class: All persons in the United States that submitted a loss mitigation application to SLS on or after Jan. 10, 2014; (2) California Class: All California residents that submitted a loss mitigation application to SLS on or after Jan. 10, 2014. On March 6, 2018 the parties called the Court regarding a discovery dispute. The Plaintiffs move to compel the Defendant to produce all documents and information in response to the Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production and First Set of Interrogatories. The Plaintiffs explain that the Defendant has refused to produce any of the documents or information that the Plaintiffs require in order to move for class certification. They state that SLS has not even responded to a single interrogatory and the only documents the Defendant has produced are the documents related to the named Plaintiffs and an incomplete set of policies and procedures. They contend that their requests seek information to determine, among other things, the size, scope, and membership of the class, as well as SLS's conduct towards the class and damages suffered by class members. Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek a Court order compelling the Defendant to: (1) provide electronic data in response to RFP Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 10, 13, 26 and Interrogatory No. 4: RFP Nos. 8 and 10 seek relevant documents and data stored in the electronic databases that SLS uses to service mortgages and process loss mitigation applications. RFP No. 9 seeks database dictionaries for all such databases. Interrogatory No. 4 requests that SLS describe each database, program, software or system used to process loan modification applications submitted to SLS from Oct. 7, 2012 through the present. RFP Nos. 1, 2, 3, 13 and 26 seek documents, including internal documents, related to SLS' compliance or non- compliance with RESPA's loss mitigation procedures, including but not limited to training materials and relevant communications with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (2) produce a witness for a 30(b)(6) deposition regarding its databases; (3) produce documents and data necessary for class-wide discovery; (4) describe how it processes loan modification applications in response to Interrogatory Nos. 5-8; (5) produce internal compliance documents in response to RFP No. 4; (6) produce training materials in response to RFP No. 28; and (7) produce communications with the CFPB in response to RFP No. 3. The Defendant responds that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to class discovery at this stage of the case. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' requests are disproportionate to the needs of the case, especially when considering that their standing to maintain their individual claims, much less their class claims, is untenable at best. It further argues that the Plaintiffs' discovery requests are objectionable on their face. Finally, it argues that the Plaintiffs' deposition notice, which seeks to depose an SLS employee on class-related issues, is disproportionate to the needs of this case to the same extent as the Discovery Requests. The Defendant also filed its Motion for a Protective Order Requesting a Stay of Discovery. It filed its Motion on the basis that good cause exists to stay class discovery in this case because of (1) the Plaintiffs' factual misrepresentations in the SAC; and (2) the possibility that they lack standing under Regulation X. The Plaintiffs further argue that the Defendant's positions on the merits of the individual Plaintiffs' claims have never warranted staying class discovery and that they're entitled to obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. On March 15, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to withdraw as the named Plaintiffs and substitute Nick Nikki as the named Plaintiff. On March 16, 2018, the District Judge issued a briefing schedule for the pending motion to withdraw and scheduled a hearing on April 20, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. As to RFP Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 13, 26 and Interrogatory No. 4, Magistrate Judge Major finds that the Defendant's objection to the Plaintiffs' discovery requests on the basis that they are not proportional due to the Plaintiffs' alleged lack of standing is without legal or factual support. Accordingly, she overruled this objection. The Defendant provides no legal authority for its position that a standing objection relieves it of its discovery obligations. Moreover, the Defendant continues to refuse to provide discovery even though it has not filed a motion challenging the Plaintiffs' standing, the Plaintiffs have filed a motion to substitute in a new named Plaintiff, and the Court has not bifurcated or stayed discovery. Because the Magistrate Judge has denied the Defendant's proportionality objection based on the standing issue, the only remaining dispute in connection with the Plaintiffs' request for a 30(b)(6) deposition regarding the Defendant's databases appears to be in connection with the timing and location of the deposition. Accordingly, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the testimony of a 30(b)(6) witness knowledgeable about the electronic databases, systems, and software used by the Defendant to service mortgages, including, but not limited to, any activities relating to RESPA, foreclosure, loss mitigation applications, or compliance. She ordered the noticed deposition to occur in Colorado on or before April 20, 2018 unless the parties agree on another time or place. The Magistrate Judge also granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 3-4, 6, 15-17, 19, 21-23, and 25-28 and Interrogatories 1-3 and 5-8. She ordered the Defendant to produce responsive information and documents to these requests on or before April 20, 2018. For electronically stored information ("ESI") responsive to these requests, she ordered the Defendant to meet and confer with the Plaintiffs and agree on search terms on or before April 13, 2018. For the disputed requests where the Plaintiffs seek a sampling, she ordered the Defendant to produce responsive information and documents consistent with the Plaintiffs' sampling proposal. Finally, turning to the Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order, the Magistrate Judge finds no basis to stay discovery. She says the Defendant has not established that the Plaintiff made material factual representations in the SAC which affect the validity of the claim(s) nor has it filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions, the two articulated bases for this motion. In addition, she finds that it is appropriate and important for discovery to continue. For these reasons, and in light of the upcoming hearing before the District Court Judge regarding the Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw as Named Plaintiffs and Substitute Nick Nikki as Named Plaintiff on April 20, 2018 and the quickly approaching class certification deadline on May 7, 2018, she denied the Defendant's Motion for Protective Order staying discovery. A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Order is available at https://bit.ly/2r9IahD from Leagle.com. Zarah Kimble, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Seher Basak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Sarah Sakinah Groza O'Loughlin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Annick Marie Persinger, Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Geoffrey Bestor -- gbesq@bestorlaw.com -- The Bestor Law Firm, pro hac vice, Jonathan K. Tycko -- jtycko@tzlegal.com -- pro hac vice & Katherine Marie Aizpuru -- kaizpuru@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, pro hac vice. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian Andrew Paino -- bpaino@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford & Dhruv Mohan Sharma -- dsharma@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford. STEARN'S PRODUCTS: Meyers Sues Over Product Mislabeling ------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Meyers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Stearn's Products, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00557 (S.D. Cal., March 14, 2018), seeks statutory, compensatory, treble and punitive damages, injunctive relief, prejudgment interest, restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses and costs of suit resulting from fraud, unjust enrichment and breach of express warranty and in violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code and California's False Advertising Law. Stearn's Products, Inc. focuses on personal care products and facial care. The front packaging of each one of the Products clearly states that it is "natural" despite containing synthetic ingredients, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 600 W. Broadway, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 272-7014 Facsimile: (619) 330-1819 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Joseph Lipari, Esq. Adam Gonnelli, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (854) 705-9460 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com TTC INVESTMENTS: Faces "Truglio" Suit in D. Connecticut ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TTC Investments I, LLC. The case is styled as David Truglio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Thomas P. Malnati and TTC Investments I, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv- 00746-SRU (D. Conn., May 2, 2018). TTC provides global clinical trial cost benchmarking.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. Marcus Zelman, LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Tel: (347) 526-4093 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@MarcusZelman.com TESLA MOTORS: Securities Suit Over Model 3 Production Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Sozzi, writing for TheStreet, reports that more details have emerged on a class action securities lawsuit originally filed in Oct. 2017 against Tesla CEO Elon Musk, current Chief Financial Officer Deepak Ahuja and former CFO Jason Wheeler that alleges the parties misled investors about Model 3 production. As a result, the two plaintiffs -- Kurt Friedman and Uppili Srinivasan -- had their investments in Tesla hurt by the negative market reaction to Tesla's missed Model 3 production goals. The amended complaint was filed on Mar. 23. Tesla shares have lost about 22% since hitting an intra-day high of over $385 in June 2017. While Musk has continued to refute the notion Tesla will need to raise capital this year, the market has increasingly called that into question as well as Musk's credibility. What's interesting here is not just the claims on team Tesla (and former in the case of Wheeler), but that former employees have started to speak out. A Tesla spokesman did not immediately return a request for comment by TheStreet. Below are several key areas of the lawsuit. Overview "Beginning on May 3, 2017 and continuing throughout the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented to investors the then-current state of affairs with respect to whether the Company was on track to mass produce the Model 3 in 2017, and whether progress had been made supporting Defendants claims that 5,000 Model 3s per week would be produced before the end of 2017. Defendants statements were false." "Serious supply chain and production problems existed by the beginning of the Class Period, including incomplete and/or non- existent automated production lines, causing unresolved bottlenecks at both the Company's Fremont, California assembly line and at Tesla's Gigafactory, its purportedly state of the art, Nevada battery manufacturing facility. These issues rendered mass producing the Model 3 in 2017 impossible. Defendants knowingly or recklessly misrepresented the then- existing facts on the ground, and misrepresented the Company's ability to mass produce the Model 3 by the end of 2017." "All of Defendants statements regarding progress that the Company had achieved in both Fremont and at the Gigafactory, and the statements they based on these affirmative declarations of actual progress in Model 3 mass production, were false." Background "As early as mid-2016, Tesla executives responsible for planning and building the Model 3 production line plainly told Defendant Musk and the other Defendants in person, providing specific support for their statements that the Company could never mass produce the Model 3 by the end of 2017. These Tesla executives told Musk and the other Defendants that it was an impossible goal." "In May 2017, when Defendants stated that the Company was on track to meet its mass production goal, as production on a fully automated production line was supposed to be ready to begin, and in August 2017, when production on a fully automated production line was supposed to have already been in place and Model 3s were supposed to be coming off the line, according to a number of former employees, the Company had not yet finished building its automated production lines in wither Fremont or Nevada. Tesla was neither ramping up mass production, nor on track to mass produce Model 3s at any time on or around the end of 2017." "Defendants Musk and Ahuja, who visited the Fremont facility on a regular basis, knew that the Model 3 production line was way behind the publicly announced schedule and that it would never mass produce the Model 3 in 2017." "As Defendants claimed to be on track for mass production in 217, the Fremont facility was assembling Model 3s, by hand, in the beta or pilot shop, a facility to assemble prototypes. The actual mass production line at Freemont was yet to be completed. Workers in the pilot shop were not even able to build enough Model 3s to carry out the necessary testing on the vehicles, and most Model 3 workers were being reassigned, or spending their days cleaning. It was evident to anyone who visited the Fremont facility and Musk himself visited the unbuilt production line area every Wednesday, known internally as Elon Day that the production line was not yet built, that parts for the necessary robots were not present, and that construction workers were spending most of their shifts sitting around with nothing to do. Multiple former employees corroborate the fact that there was no fully functioning automated production line when Tesla was telling the world that there was, and that the construction site where the line was being built was clearly and visibly far from completion." "Further, in May 2017, when Defendant Musk stated specifically that, based on what Tesla had already accomplished, the Company was on track to mass produce Model 3s in 2017, the Gigafactory did not have sufficient fully functioning production lines, batteries were being built by hand, and only a handful were being produced per week. As in Fremont, the facts on the ground at the Gigafactory, which Musk himself visited, belied Musk's on track comment, as well as all of the Company's subsequent statements during the Class Period." "Former employees state that there was no chance that the Gigafactory would produce 5,000 batteries per week at any time in 2017, and mass production of Model 3s required mass production of Model 3 batteries." "Multiple former employees, at both the Fremont facility and at the Gigafactory, have confirmed what was obvious to anybody walking through those facilities both before and during the Class Period. Tesla was never on track for mass production of the Model 3 before the end of 2017, much less on trackù to produce 5,000 Model 3s per week before the end of 2017, and the progressù which Defendants claimed had occurred and supported their mass production statements was illusory." "Without a mass production line and without batteries, it was impossible for Tesla to mass produce the Model 3 in 2017, and Defendants knew Tesla had neither." "On October 6, 2017, the Wall Street Journal published an article, based in part on eyewitness observations by workers at the Fremont plant, that very few Model 3s were being built, and the Model 3s that were completed were being built almost entirely by hand, and not on a finished production line. On this news, Tesla's stock dropped $13.94, or 3.91%, to close at $342.94 on October 9, 2017, damaging investors." "Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) contrary to Defendants representations that the Company was prepared for mass production of its Model 3 sedan by year-end 2017, in reality, the Company did not have working production lines, and could not possibly build the production lines in the promised timeframe, and was woefully unprepared to mass produce the Model 3 sedan and Model 3 battery as claimed; (ii) as a result, Defendants public statements about the state of affairs in Fremont and at the Gigafactory necessary to support mass production, and their statements about the scheduled date for commencement of mass production of the Model 3 were false and misleading at all relevant times." [GN] TIGER BRANDS: Listeriosis Death Toll Rises to 193, NICD Reveals --------------------------------------------------------------- IOL reports that the National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD) says the listeriosis death toll has risen by two to 193 nationally, with more than 1000 cases having been confirmed. The institute said 68% of the 1011 recorded cases were known. Of those who died 81 were infants younger than 28 days, while 10 were children aged between one and 14. Individuals at high risk of developing severe disease include newborn babies, the elderly, pregnant women, and people with weak immunity such as those with HIV, diabetes and cancer. The Western Cape accounts for the second-highest number of confirmed cases with 125, after Gauteng with 592 cases. Two class action lawsuits have been launched against Tiger Brands and Enterprise Foods in the South Gauteng High Court following the deaths and illness of people linked to the listeriosis outbreak. The NICD has reiterated that the source of the outbreak was the Tiger Brands Enterprise Foods ready-to-eat meat factory in Polokwane. It added that more cases could arise as the listeria bacteria could remain in the body for 70 days before signs of the illness show. The head of the NICD's Centre for Enteric Diseases, Dr Juno Thomas, said babies born with listeriosis have a high mortality rate. Thomas said women had to take extra precautions, and even if they were not feeling sick, if they showed some symptoms they should consult a doctor. "If pregnant women develop fever or flu-like symptoms, or a fever with diarrhoea, they must see a doctor even if they are feeling okay. "Even if they do not feel ill, it can be a sign of listeriosis." The SA Meat Processors Association said the pork industry had lost R800million since the minister of health announced the source of the listeriosis outbreak. The SA Pork Producers Organisation said 2000 employees in the pork industry had lost their jobs since the announcement in March. [GN] TOWNE PROPERTIES: Court Certifies Class in "Duggan" ERISA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Connie J. Duggan, Plaintiff, v. Towne Properties Group Health Plan, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15cv623 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Michael R. Barrett of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff filed a putative class action claiming Defendant Towne, plan administrator and an Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") fiduciary, failed to provide the plan documents to participants as required by ERISA and its regulations; and Defendant MedBen, also an ERISA fiduciary, failed to provide ERISA-compliant notice of its adverse benefit determinations to participants of plans it administers. The Plaintiff seeks an order under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(c) certifying two classes for equitable relief under ERISA Section 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3): a. Injunction Class (MedBen Only): All current and past participants in any ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plan for which MedBen serves as third-party administrator. b. Equitable Remedy Class: All participants in any ERISA- governed employee welfare benefit plan for which MedBen acted to adjudicate claims for benefits and issued at least one notification of an adverse benefit determination during the class period, September 25, 2009 to present. Towne Properties does not oppose certification of the Equitable Remedy Class; and has agreed in the future to distribute plan documents to plan participants as required by ERISA. MedBen argues the class certification is not proper because (1) MedBen is not a fiduciary under ERISA; and (2) the Plaintiff has not met the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Judge Barrett explains that in Briscoe v. Fine, the Sixth Circuit held that a third-party administrator does not act as a fiduciary merely by determining benefits eligibility and processing claims. The court noted that under its service agreement, the third-party administrator was responsible for determining eligibility for benefits, processing claims, and assisting plan administrator in producing reports required by law. However, the agreement provided that the employer retained final authority to determine whether a claim should be paid and was the entity to which dissatisfied employees were instructed to direct their appeal. The Judge finds little to distinguish the functions performed by MedBen from the third-party administrator in Briscoe. Accordingly, MedBen was not acting as an ERISA fiduciary when it allegedly failed to provide the Plaintiff with an ERISA-compliant adverse benefit determination notice. Because he has concluded that MedBen was not acting as fiduciary under ERISA, he says it is unnecessary for him to address the Plaintiff's arguments with regard to the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Based on the foregoing, Judge Barrett denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification as to MedBen; but granted as to Towne Properties. He certified the class f all current participants in the Towne Properties Group Health Plan who, as of the filing of the complaint in the action, had not received a copy of the Plan documents, as amended, in accordance with 29 C.F.R. Section 2520.104b-2(a). A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Amended Opinion and Order is available at https://bit.ly/2r89JbY from Leagle.com. Connie J. Duggan, Plaintiff, represented by William Henry Blessing -- bill@blessing-attorneys.com. Towne Properties Group Health Plan & Towne Properties Asset Management Co., Inc., Defendants, represented by Douglas R. Dennis -- ddennis@fbtlaw.com -- Frost Brown Todd LLC. Medical Benefits Administrators, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rodney Alan Holaday -- raholaday@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, Brent Darnell Craft -- bdcraft@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease LLP, Martha Brewer Motley -- mbmotley@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP & Steven A. Chang -- sachang@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease. TRIPLE J: $177,000 Counsel Fee Okayed in "Mateo-Evangelio" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MANUEL MATEO-EVANGELIO, JAIME TREJO-CARDONA, GILBERTO CERVANTES-VEGA, REYNALDO VILLALOBOS-MARTINEZ, EMILIO REYES, MARIA DE LOS ANGELES GONZALEZ-ROMAN, RAMIRO CERVANTES- VEGA, FRANCISCO CARMELO MATIAS-CASTRO, PABLO GONZALEZ-ROMAN, BENIGNO VILLA-GOMEZ, and SERGIO NARCISO LOPEZ-JUAREZ, Plaintiffs, v. TRIPLE J PRODUCE, INC.; HOCUTT BROTHERS, INC.; HOCUTT FARMS, INC., JUDY HOCUTT; JOEY M. HOCUTT; JAMES MICHAEL HOCUTT; and M. JAY HOCUTT, Defendants, Case No. 7:14-CV-302-FL (E.D.N.C.), Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Southern Division, granted the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for award of attorney's fees and costs. The first two named Plaintiffs in the action filed suit on Dec. 31, 2014, asserting violations of federal and state fair labor standards laws, based on alleged conduct by the Defendants in not paying properly wages for overtime work packaging sweet potatoes and other agricultural commodities. The Plaintiffs amended their complaint several times, most recently on Oct. 7, 2015, with a third amended complaint brought by all of the named Plaintiffs against the settling Defendants, asserting the following claims: (i) two class action claims for failure to pay the promised wage under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA"); (ii) one collective action claim for minimum wage and overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), (except Plaintiff Lopez-Juarez); (iii) one class action claim failure to pay sufficient wages in violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act ("AWPA"); and (iv) individual claims for wrongful discharge by Plaintiff Trejo-Cardona and for retaliation by nine of 11 named Plaintiffs. The complaint seeks declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief, including unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, and statutory damages in the full amount authorized by the AWPA ($500 per Plaintiff per violation, or up to $500,000 upon class certification). On Sept. 1, 2015, the parties executed a settlement agreement resolving all claims, which provides for settlement payments totaling $328,920, by the Defendants to the named Plaintiffs and to the class members based on the class action and collective action claims asserted in the complaint, divided as follows: (i) payments to the named Plaintiffs ranging from $9,000 to $20,800 each, totaling $159,400; (ii) payment of $20,480 to a class of former packing house employees who have overtime claims, corresponding to the FLSA collective action claim; (iii) payment of $20,400 to a class of former packing house employees who have corresponding employment claims, corresponding to one of the NCWHA class action claims; and (iv) payment of $128,640 into a settlement fund for the benefit of a class of the Plaintiffs including Plaintiff Lopez-Juarez ("Sergio Class"), corresponding to the AWPA class action claim. Upon proof of their work, each class member is eligible to a distribution of $350 per season, for a maximum of three seasons, or up to $1,050 per class member. On Jan. 14, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement of all claims, granted class and collective action certification, and approved settlement notices. It held a fairness hearing on June 6, 2016, at which no persons appeared with objections or comments concerning the settlement. It granted final approval of the settlement and the final class notice on Sept. 15, 2016. The parties then filed motions regarding cy pres and reversion of unpaid settlement funds on Oct. 17, 2016. Pursuant to supplemental briefing ordered Dec. 22, 2016, the parties submitted supplemental filings updating what further claims had been received, as well as the parties' positions on using Student Action With Farmworkers ("SAF") as a cy pres recipient. The Plaintiffs' counsel filed a report of the class counsel, as corrected, on June 8, 2017, which provided an update as to claims submitted and disputes then between the parties regarding the same. The Court entered a consent order on Aug. 1, 2017, set a schedule for submission of documentation to claims administrator Simpluris, Inc., for its review and analysis and final determination of valid settlement claims, and directed the parties to file joint report within 30 days of receipt of report by Simpluris of such claims. By text order entered Sept. 29, 2017, the Court denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' then-pending motion for attorney's fees, where further developments with final claims accounting could impact the Court's consideration of attorney's fees, and it directed them to refile an updated and final motion for attorney's fees and costs at the time of filing of the joint final report pursuant to the consent order. The parties filed their joint final report on Nov. 27, 2017, and the Plaintiffs filed the instant renewed motion for attorney's fees and costs that same date. Included with the final report is a report by Simpluris, in accordance with the consent order, listing the final accounting of individual members of the NCWHA and AWPA classes, and the FLSA collective action as follows: (i) NCWHA - 3 individuals (out of a fund of $20,400); (ii) AWPA - 19 individuals (out of a fund of $128,640); and (iii) FLSA - 5 individuals (out of a fund of $20,480). Although not specified in either the joint final report or the report by Simpluris, the parties are in accord that the amount due to be paid to such class and collective action members totals $14,476, to be divided between 19 individuals, where all members of the NCWHA and FLSA classes are also members of the AWPA class. In sum, out of settlement award totaling $328,920, $159,400 was awarded and has been paid already to the named Plaintiffs. This leaves for determination funds to be paid out of remaining $169,520 in settlement funds designated for members of the class and the collective actions. Based upon the report by Simpluris, the parties have agreed that $14,476 is due to be paid to the designated class members, meaning that a total of $173,876 has been paid or is due to be paid to farmworkers as a result of this action. This will leave $155,044 of settlement funds remaining for distribution as cy pres award. However, the parties have stipulated in their joint final report that the Simpluris, fees are allocated as follows: (i) $19,009.83 of Simpluris fees will be paid by the Defendants; and (ii) the remaining balance of $1,855.17 of Simpluris, fees will be paid out of the unpaid remainder of the NCWHA and FLSA funds. Based upon this information provided to the Vourt, this reduces the remainder available for cy pres award, after distribution to designated class members and fees to Simpluris, to $153,188.83. In sum, in the event Simpluris distributes funds to all claimants as specified, a balance of $155,044 remains from the aggregate $169,520 of the class settlement funds, of which $1,855.17 will be paid to Simpluris, and the remainder $153,188.83 will be paid as cy pres award to SAF. In support of the motion for attorney's fees and costs, the Plaintiffs rely upon a declaration of the class counsel and the declarations of four local practitioners. Following the Defendants' response in opposition, the Plaintiffs filed a reply, relying upon a supplemental declaration of the class counsel and the supplemental declaration of legal assistant Yoana Caceres. As adjusted in their reply, the Plaintiffs seek a maximum of $257,597.25 in attorney's fees, as well as $4,774.13 in unopposed costs. Judge Flanagan granted the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for award of attorney's fees and costs to the extent set forth in the Order, and she awarded the Plaintiffs $177,180 in attorney's fees and $4,774.13 in costs. In addition, in accordance with parties' joint final report, the Judge included in the Order a final distribution order setting forth directions for distributions to be made by Simpluris. Within 65 days of the date of the Order, Judge Flanagan directed the Defendants to file a notice confirming completion of the foregoing distributions by Simpluris; or, if not confirmed, the Plaintiffs or Defendants may file a motion, as appropriate, for further consideration by the Court. If the Defendants' notice is filed, without other motion, the Clerk will close the case without further order of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Order is available at https://bit.ly/2HIOMuj from Leagle.com. Manuel Mateo-Evangelio, Jaime Trejo-Cardona, Gilberto Cervantes- Vega, Reynaldo Villalobos-Martinez, Emilio Reyes, Maria de Los Angeles Gonzalez-Roman, Ramiro Cervantes-Vega, Francisco Carmelo Matias-Castro, Pablo Gonzalez-Roman, Benigno Villa-Gomez & Sergio Narciso Lopez-Juarez, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert J. Willis -- rwillis@ps-law.com. Triple J Produce, Inc., Hocutt Brothers, Inc., Joey M. Hocutt, M. Jay Hocutt, James Michael Hocutt & Hocutt Farms, Inc., Defendants, represented by R. Daniel Boyce -- dboyce@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC & William H. Floyd, III -- wfloyd@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, LLC. Judy Hocutt, Defendant, represented by L. Lamar Armstrong, Jr., Armstrong & Armstrong & L. Lamar Armstrong, III, The Armstrong Law Firm, P.A. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Must Defend Against Medical Society Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED HEALTH GROUP INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-CV- 5265 (JPO)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied United's motion to strike the class allegations from the Corrected First Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), alleging that the Defendants have systematically violated the terms of the Plaintiffs' health insurance plans. United serves as a claims administrator on all its health plans, meaning that United determines whether a given patient's claim is covered by that patient's health plan. Historically, United approved coverage for a category of charges known as "facility fees" for outpatient surgeries conducted in doctors' offices (also known as "office-based surgeries" or "OBS"). The Plaintiffs allege, however, that United recently adopted a uniform policy of refusing to cover facility fees charged by out- of-network OBS providers. The Complaint alleges that following this "Uniform Refusal to Pay" policy, United denied coverage to Plaintiffs without regard to the terms of -- and in violation of -- their plans. The Complaint asserts two claims: a claim for benefits under ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B), and a claim for injunctive and declaratory relief under Section 502(a)(1)(B) or (a)(3). The named Plaintiffs purport to bring their claims on behalf of themselves and a class defined as all persons who sought a health insurance benefit payment for an accredited OBS facility fee from a United health insurance plan governed by ERISA, for covered services rendered in the State of New York in an out-of-network OBS practice, and whose claim for payment was denied by United because it was not for a hospital or ambulatory surgical center, or for like or similar reasons. The Defendants have moved to strike those class allegations, arguing that class certification is impossible. Judge Oetken finds United's argument is unavailing. First, at this stage of the litigation, it would be premature to strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations. Second, the pleadings do not demonstrate that a class is uncertifiable. To the contrary, the Complaint alleges that all United plans contain substantively identical language regarding coverage for OBS facility fees, and that United adopted a policy uniformly denying coverage in violation of these terms. This is sufficient to allege that there are questions of law or fact common to the class, and there is at least a possibility that these common questions will "predominate" over individualized questions. The bottom line, he says, is that it is too early to guess. The Judge needs not continue to speculate about class certification; the appropriate time for such determinations will come later. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Oetken denied United's motion to strike the class allegations from the Complaint. He directed the Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Docket Number 75. A full-text copy of the Court's April 6, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://bit.ly/2Kl4f5z from Leagle.com. The Medical Society of the State of New York, on behalf of its members & Society of New York Office Based Surgery Facilities, on behalf of its members, Plaintiffs, represented by Anant Kumar -- akumar@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, Cyril V. Smith -- csmith@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Jason Samuel Cowart -- jcowart@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, John William Leardi -- jwleardi@buttacilaw.com -- Buttaci & Leardi, LLC, Nell Peyser -- npeyser@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP & Donn Brian Hufford -- dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. Columbia East Side Surgery, P.C., both directly and as the representative of PATIENTS C, D, E and F, Plaintiff, represented by Anant Kumar, Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, Cyril V. Smith, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Nell Peyser, Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP & Donn Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. UnitedHealth Group Inc., United HealthCare Services, Inc., United HealthCare Insurance Company, United HealthCare Service LLC, Optum Group, LLC, Optum, Inc. & Oxford Health Plans LLC, Defendants, represented by Anton Metlitsky -- ametlitsky@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Brian David Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Danielle Carim Gray, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Gregory Frederick Jacob -- gjacob@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Sloane Ackerman -- sackerman@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP. UNITED OF OMAHA: Awaits Order on Bentley's Bid to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Dolly M. Gee entered a civil minutes in the lawsuit entitled Jennifer Bentley v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-07870-DMG-AJW (C.D. Cal.), relating to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Jennifer Bentley as Class Representative and Joseph Vanek and Jason Zweig as Class Counsel. "The case is called and counsel state their appearances. A tentative order is circulated. The Court hears argument. This matter stands submitted and a separate order to issue," according to the Civil Minutes. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ppS4vbWY The Plaintiff is represented by: David Klevatt, Esq. KLEVATT & ASSOCIATES, LLC 33 N LaSalle St #2100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 782-9090 Facsimile: (312) 896-9298 E-mail: david@chicagolaw.biz - and - Joseph Vanek, Esq. John P. Bjork, Esq. VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI P.C. 55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 224-1502 Facsimile: (312) 224-1510 E-mail: jvanek@vaneklaw.com jbjork@vaneklaw.com - and - Christopher Pitun, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Ave., Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Larry M. Golub, Esq. Jenny H. Wang, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 633 West 5th Street, 47th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2043 Telephone: (213) 614-7312 E-mail: lgolub@hinshawlaw.com jwang@hinshawlaw.com UNITED STATES: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "D'Apuzzo" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Robert N. Scola, Jr., denies the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned Theodore D'Apuzzo, P.A. v. United States of America, Case No. 0:16-cv-62769-RNS (S.D. Fla.). The Court concludes that individual issues of fact will predominate over common issues of fact, and the proposed class of plaintiffs is not ascertainable. The Court finds that the difficulties in managing such a class action heavily weigh against class treatment in this case and far outweigh the remaining factors. "Ultimately, the underlying individualized inquiry required in order to identify opinions in this case renders it inherently unmanageable as a class action," Judge Scola opines. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cV6qUYhf UTI WORLDWIDE: Court Grants Angley's Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit styled Michael J. Angley v. UTI Worldwide Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02066-CBM-E (C.D. Cal.). A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dQJJlaVX The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart W. Emmons, Esq. William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: swe@federmanlaw.com wbf@federmanlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Isaac D. Chaput, Esq. Gary A. Bornstein, Esq. CRAVATH SWAINE AND MOORE LLP Worldwide Plaza 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019-7475 Telephone: (212) 474-1000 Facsimile: (212) 474-3700 E-mail: ichaput@cravath.com gbornstein@cravath.com - and - David I. Hurwitz, Esq. Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C. 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561 Telephone: (310) 201-2100 Facsimile: (310) 201-2110 E-mail: dhurwitz@birdmarella.com VENICE HMA: Briggs Moves to Certify Class of Nurse Case Managers ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned REBECCA BRIGGS and JOAN MIKLUSCAK, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VENICE HMA, LLC d/b/a VENICE REGIONAL BAYFRONT HEALTH, Case No. 8:18-cv-00478-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla.), move the Court to conditionally certify and authorize them to mail and e-mail notice of the lawsuit to: All "nurse case managers" who worked for Defendants within the last three years who believe they were not paid for all hours worked and the proper overtime compensation for any hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a work week. The lawsuit is a collective action to enforce the overtime and minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiffs contend. They allege that they were not paid overtime wages in accordance with the FLSA. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nhj66MN5 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donna V. Smith, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com rcooke@wfclaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Alysa J. Ward, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 2200 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 559-5500 Facsimile: (813) 229-5946 E-mail: award@bradley.com VITAL RECOVERY: Certification of Class Sought in "Johnson" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Johnson moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit styled SUSAN JOHNSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. VITAL RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC, and LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION, Case No. 2:18-cv- 00558-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). 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, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that 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). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff contends. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BNpPgZTS The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 WISE FOODS: Faces Chip Bags "Slack Fill" Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Mark Joseph Stern, writing for Slate.com, reports that in April 2017, two chip aficionados filed a class-action lawsuit against Wise Foods alleging that its chips -- subpar in my opinion, but sold in much of the United States nonetheless -- violate state and federal consumer protection laws. Their complaint argued that Wise had "tricked" customers "into paying for air," illegally giving them "less product than they bargained for." It exhaustively demonstrated that competing potato chip brands have significantly less "slack fill" (the extra air in the bag) than Wise's. On behalf of everyone in New York and D.C. "injured as a result" of Wise's "deceptive conduct," the litigants demanded monetary damages and attorneys' fees. Are Wise chips genuinely deceptive? The Food and Drug Administration merely requires that slack fill be "functional" in packaging -- that is, necessary to protect the product from damage during shipping and handling. It's quite difficult to prove that a company is adding "nonfunctional" slack fill when the measurement boils down to a judgment call about the best proportion of chips to air. (More air means fewer chips but also helps keep them intact; less air means more chips but risks shattering them into unsatisfying fragments.) Many states build upon that federal standard through their own consumer protection laws, asking whether reasonable consumers would expect more product than they get due to misleading packaging. The Wise lawsuit made headlines in major outlets last year, presumably because so many Americans have suffered the injustice of underfilled potato chip bags. But slack fill lawsuits are actually quite common. These suits have exploded in frequency over the past few years, with more than 65 filed in 2015 and 2016. While most of them fail, the rare victory can be extremely lucrative: In 2016, StarKist settled a class action for $12 million after consumers alleged that it was underfilling its tuna cans. More commonly, however, slack fill suits get tossed out at an early stage in litigation. Federal courts have dismissed lawsuits alleging that Pfizer put too few pills in its Advil containers and that Mondelez International put too few candies in its Sour Patch Kids Watermelon packages. Suits attacking Swedish Fish for underfilling its boxes and Pret a Manger for putting too much space between sandwich halves appear destined for the same fate. Dismissing the Advil lawsuit, a federal judge wrote that the consumers' complaint did "not pass the proverbial laugh test." The chief impediment for the plaintiffs is the fact that each of these companies does list the weight of the product on the packaging. A casual consumer might size up her purchase by eyeing the size of the bag, but she cannot plausibly claim that the company lied to her. That's exactly what tripped up the Wise chips lawsuit. In March, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald dismissed the suit, ruling, "as a matter of law, that the slack-fill enclosed in the Products would not mislead a reasonable consumer." In a caustic opinion, Judge Buchwald pointed out that "the weight of the chips enclosed is prominently displayed on the front of each Product, in large sized font, in a color differentiated from the package background, and there is no allegation that the full weight represented is not actually in the bag." This fact, combined with consumers' well-documented expectation of "significant slack fill in potato chips," sufficed to doom the suit. Don't pity the two chip lovers whose names are on the suit, though. This class action was filed by the same firm that targete d Advil, Sour Patch Kids, Swedish Fish, and Pret a Manger. Called the Lee Litigation Group, the firm files arguably frivolous lawsuits against a variety of companies in the hopes of landing a blow that sticks. C.K. Lee, who heads the firm, has unsuccessfully sued Kushyfoot for overstating the euphoric effect of its pantyhose, as well as an air freshener manufacturer for claiming that its products eliminate odor when in fact they only "mask" it. Mr. Lee has also filed a reported 140 suits against businesses whose websites are not fully accessible to blind people; these lawsuits have been called a "shakedown," as the named plaintiffs typically collect much less than their lawyers. The next time you recoil at an underfilled bag of chips, then, resist the urge to call a lawyer or run to the nearest courthouse. Americans' litigiousness has undoubtedly helped to make our society safer, but you can't sue your way to a fuller bag of chips. Wise will stop underfilling its bags when we all stop buying its underfilled bags. Until then, we'll have to live with the affront of slack fill -- a frustrating reminder that, in a free market, sometimes you'll wind up paying for air. [GN] YANG FAMILY: "Liu" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Late Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Melody Liu, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Yang Family Group, Inc. (d/b/a Teppanyaki), Xinfa Wu, Bin Yang, Lin Yang, and Ziqi Pang, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00441 (D. Conn., March 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime compensation, interests, damages for unreasonably delayed payment of wages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and disbursements of the action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Wage and Hour Law. Defendants operated Yang Family Group, Inc. which operated as "Teppanyaki," a restaurant located at 355 Huntington Turnpike, Bridgeport, CT 06610. Liu was employed from October 2016 to October 24, 2017, as a cashier for Defendants' buffet restaurant. She was required to work for Defendants well in excess of forty hours per week without overtime, notes the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave., Suite #1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Email: jhang@hanglaw.com ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Judge Has Yet to Rule on Motion to Dismiss ------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Kidd, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal judge has not yet issued an order promised more than two months ago on a motion to dismiss an amended putative class action lawsuit claiming a California company negligently misrepresents its weight-loss-by-freezing product. Following a hearing in early February in which counsel was given leave to respond to a tentative ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Dolly M. Gee announced she would issue a written order on a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant in the case, Zeltiq Aesthetics Inc. The putative class action against Zeltiq initially was filed last May in U.S. District Court for California's Central District by consumers Carmen Otero and Abbey Lerman. Ms. Otero and Ms. Lerman alleged in their initial and amended complaints that Zeltiq, based in Pleasanton and marketer and licenser of the cryolipolysis procedure CoolSculpting, negligently misrepresents and makes false claims about its medical treatment product. Specifically, the two plaintiffs allege the company falsely advertises its CoolSculpting to be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. CoolSculpting is a non-invasive fat reduction procedure that allegedly works by "freezing unwanted fat away," according to claims on the company's website. On Jan. 12, plaintiffs filed a 25-page opposition to Zeltiq's motion to dismiss, urging the motion "be denied in its entirety," claiming Zeltiq "knew or should have known that its representations could mislead customers." The plaintiffs' opposition cited a Zeltiq advertising campaign on television, radio, in print, social media and other outlets to drive demand for CoolSculpting. "Plaintiffs allege that defendant acknowledges that 'FDA Clearance' is material -- both implicitly by the prominent use of this in their advertising, and explicitly in a recent lawsuit filed against competitors whose products Zeltiq alleges are 'falsely touted as providing the same treatments as Zeltiq's CoolSculpting devise' and are described 'using explicit references to facts that apply exclusively to Zeltiq, such as 'patented', 'clinically proved' or 'FDA-approved'," the filed opposition said. In its motion to dismiss filed Jan. 2, Zeltiq said the Otero and Lerman case against it cannot "survive dismissal" because they don't claim "that any allegedly omitted information posed a safety concern to consumers and that Zeltiq was aware of the safety concern." "Here, plaintiffs do not even attempt to do so," Zeltiq said in its motion to dismiss. "While they contend that FDA-Approved devices go through more rigorous testing than FDA-Cleared devices, that cannot be a safety concern, as the FDA has determined that Class II devices like the CoolSculpting system need never undergo the FDA Approval process." Zeltiq's January motion to dismiss is not the first it has filed in Otero and Lerman's allegations against the company. In August, Zeltiq filed a motion to dismiss the initial case, saying the case must fail because CoolSculpting did receive FDA clearance. Counsel for the defense countered that the phrase Zeltiq uses in its advertisement is "FDA approved," rather than "FDA cleared" and argued "approved" is a far more difficult FDA standard to meet than "cleared." In that first motion to dismiss, Zeltiq claimed it "had no duty to educate consumers on parameters of the 510(k) process or clarify that FDA Cleared is not the same as FDA Approved." In early September, plaintiffs' counsel filed its opposition to Zeltiq's motion to dismiss the case, but Judge Gee took the motion under submission and in November granted the motion while also granting plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint, which they did on Dec. 12. Just after the New Year, Zeltiq filed its motion to dismiss the amended lawsuit and on Jan. 12 plaintiffs filed their opposition to that motion. Judge Gee's promise of a written order was issued Feb. 2. [GN] * Marshall University, WVU to Launch Consumer Assistance Project ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Marshall University is launching a joint project with West Virginia University College of Law to provide consumer-related information for people in West Virginia. Each school received $1 million to implement the programs. The Joint Consumer Assistance Project was established by lawyers involved in a consumer class action case from funds not claimed by class members. Clarksburg consumer attorney David J. Romano was a lead counsel in the case. He said in a news release from Marshall that the project will establish and maintain a website with consumer information and tips and references to laws and regulations to help West Virginia residents with consumer issues. Also planned is the development of an interactive website to help people who must represent themselves in consumer disputes, due to cost. [GN] * Three Legal Aid Groups Get Class Action Settlement Donations -------------------------------------------------------------- Max Marbut, writing for Daily Record, reports that Liggio Law partner Jeff Liggio -- jliggio@liggiolaw.com -- a West Palm Beach-based trial attorney, visited Jacksonville Area Legal Aid to deliver donations to three local pro bono legal service providers. He presented checks for $69,274.54 to JALA, $57,806.27 to Three Rivers Legal Services and $15,807.61 to Clay County Legal Services. The donations were derived from damage awards that were unclaimed after Mr. Liggio settled a class action lawsuit. Mr. Liggio said the litigation against a propane gas company went on for 12 years on behalf of about 65,000 plaintiffs. After $7.7 million was distributed to the plaintiffs, nearly $4 million remained. The court ordered that it be distributed to charitable organizations, including $2.2 million to help legal aid agencies provide representation for Florida residents who can't afford to hire an attorney. In addition, The Florida Bar Foundation received $500,000 earmarked for legal aid at its discretion, "so get get your money," Mr. Liggio said to the legal aid executives. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. * * * End of Transmission * * *