/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180613.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 13, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 118 Headlines 24 HOUR FITNESS: Faces "O'Brien" Suit in Calif. Superior Court 3M COMPANY: "Py" Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York 8POINT3 ENERGY: Clem Seeks to Halt Sale to Capital Dynamics AFTER-SCHOOL ALL-STARS: Carloss Sues over OT & Minimum Wages AJI SUSHI: Fails to Pay OT to Delivery Workers, Rosas Claims ALCON LABORATORIES: "Green" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri ALLIED POWER: Fails to Slow Down Class Certification Bid ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Kohl" Suit in E.D. New York APACHE CORPORATION: Pierce Seeks OT Pay for Oilfield Personnel APOLLO RETAIL: George Sues over Inaccurate Wage Statements APPLE INC: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Defective Keyboards ARENA PHARMA: $24MM Class Settlement in "Scheuneman" Has Final OK ARKANSAS: Darrough's Suit vs. Sheriff Can't Proceed as Class ARMO BIOSCIENCES: Faces Class Action on Merger with Eli Lilly ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Gutman" Suit in E.D. New York ATLANTA, GA: "Jones" Suit Moved to Northern District of Georgia AUSTRALIA: Shine Lawyers Optimistic on Wodonga Council Case AUSTRALIA: Waste Levy Class Action Mulled Against Wodonga Council AVIAGEN TURKEYS: "Myers" Suit Moved to S.D. West Virginia B.B.W. HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay OT to Delivery Drivers, Tatum Says BARCLAYS BANK: Voeks Sues over Robocalls BAS OF FLORIDA: "Kott" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime BAY RIDGE: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York C&F FINANCE: "Miller" Suit Moved to District of Maryland CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Alvarado & Garland Sue over Biometric Info CALIFORNIA: Caron Files Suits v. Herold CAPITAL GROWTH: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Fox Says CAPTEK SOFTGEL: Baole Sues over Inaccurate Wage Statements CASSANO'S INC: Lee Asks Court to Approve Notice to Drivers Class CHRYSLER-DODGE: Certification of Two Classes Sought CONGREGATION LUBAVITCH: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ramirez Says CRAFTWORKS RESTAURANTS: "Mitchell" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime CREATIVEXTERIORS INC: Sept. 5 Fairness Hearing of "Vallejo" Deal CYS INVESTMENTS: Stone Balks at Merger Deal with Two Harbors DACM INC: Mejia Sues over Motor Vehicle Financing Terms DCH CALABASAS-A: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Karapetian Says DEALERS' CHOICE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Morin Says DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Reitans Claim Pinnacle Device Not Safe DIGNITY HEALTH: Fails to Pay Wages & OT to Nurses, Allison Says DNATA AVIATION: Faces "Bennett" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. DR PEPPER: Drivers File Lawsuit Over COBRA Health Care Coverage DR SMOOD: Brown Alleges Skimming of Credit Card Tips DUNBAR ARMORED: "Hernandez" Suit Moved to S.D. California EDWARD JONES: Faces Class Action from Black Employees ENCORE HEALTH: Pierce Seeks OT Pay for Go-Live Support Staff EPIC SYSTEMS: Judge May Toss Quality Assurance Workers' Suit FACEBOOK INC: Grants Petition to Stay $30-Bil. Privacy Lawsuit FANTASY ACTIVEWEAR: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Bautista Says FANTASY DYEING: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Garcia Says FGNY 296: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Shomo Claims FINANCIAL CREDIT: Rigo Sues over Debt Collection Practices FIVE WEST HUBBARD CORP: "Nesbitt" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime FORSTER & GARBUS: "Loiseau" Suit Moved to E.D. New York FOUR M: Underpays Waiters and Bartenders, Dawkins et al. Say FOUR SEASONS: "Nova" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages FRESENIUS USA: "Cota" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California FRONTIER AIRLINES: Faces "Ridgell" Suit in C.D. California FULFILLMENT LAB: Class Certification Bid Dismissed as Premature GAME INFORMER: Faces Class Action Over Invasion of Privacy GAME SHOW: Faces Class Action Over Social-Casino Online Games GEORGE WASH. UNIV.: Stanley Sues Over Mismanaged Retirement Plan GETSWIFT: Federal Court Approves Shareholders' Class Action GETSWIFT: Phi Finney McDonald to Lead Shareholder Class Action GILBERT ROZON: Sexual Harassment Class Action Can Proceed GLOBE-CON FREIGHT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Esquivel Says GREATER HUME: Class Action Over 2009 Fire Dismissed HIPO MANAGEMENT: Suarez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA HOLLYWOOD BEAUTY: Faces "Reyes" Suit in E.D. New York HOME DEPOT: Mismanaged 401(k) Plan, "Pizarro" Suit Says HOUSTON TEXANS: Former Cheerleader Sues Over Unpaid Wages HOUSTON TEXANS: Faces 2nd Suit from Former Cheerleaders INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS: Court Won't Declare Offer Ineffective J. CREW: Posts Bogus "Sale Prices", Class Action Claims JEFFREY W. FELDMAN: Seeks to Claw Back Legal Defense Costs JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Canadian Talcum Powder Class Action OK'd JUST ENERGY: "Evangelista" Suit Remains in Calif. District Court KARP SCARSDALE: Faces "Mendez" Suit in S.D. New York KOHLS DEPARTMENT: Faces "Andrews" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. LA ABUNDANCIA: "Mogollan" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages LAS VEGAS: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Securities Suit LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS: Faces "Gregory" Suit in N.D. Texas LAZ PARKING: Barone Seeks to Certify Class of Employees LIGHTHOUSE FISHMARKET: Faces "Basurto" Suit in S.D. New York LOGITECH INC: Faces "Porath" Suit in N.D. California MACONE INVESTMENTS: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA MAGIC HOME: "Teshabaeva" Suit Brought Before NY Supreme Court MANDARIN GLEN: Wang Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA MANHATTAN WINES: Faces "Maldonado" Suit in S.D. New York MAPLEWOOD, MO: 8th Cir. Affirms Denial of Immunity in "Webb" MASGAD CORP: Gonzalez Sues over Minimum Wages & Tip Skimming MATHERNE HOLDINGS: Faces "Gerstenhaber" Suit in S.D. Florida MAX EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages to Drivers, Escobar Says MDL 2047: MDL Court Won't Enjoin State Court Proceeding MDL 2828: "Nathan" Suit over Intel CPU Defects Moved to Oregon METROPOLE SECURITY: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Speck Says MICRO FOCUS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over $8.8-Bil. Tech Merger MIDDLE GEORGIA: Bid to Certify Questions to Ga. High Ct. Denied MONSANTO COMPANY: Killmeiers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Nelsons Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: O'Brien Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Adams Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MORNING STAR: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Lawrence Says MOVE INC: "Wilson" Suit Moved to Central District of California MYLIFE.COM: Violates Right of Publicity Act, Deyerler Says NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Retirement Sys. Sues over Share Distribution NAVY FEDERAL: Court Narrows Claims in Overdraft Fees Suit NETGEAR INC: Fischer Sues over WiFi Range Extenders NEW SCHOOL FOR CHILD: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Martinez Says NIU OF FLORIDA: Faces "Wuest" Suit in E.D. California NOIR TRADING: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Rivas Says NU IMAGE: Rivero Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls NVR INC: Court Narrows Class Claims in Smith et al. Suit OCLARO INC: Faces Class Action Over $1.8-Bil. Tech Merger OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: $12.5MM Fund Distribution OK'd OVERTON SECURITY: Faces "Butler" Suit in Cal. Superior Court PAY CAR: Court Certifies Full-time Employees Class PRISTINE DENTAL: Ryoo Dental Sues Over Illegal Fax Advertisements PROENZA SCHOULER: Kiler Suit Says Website not Blind-accessible PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Chiropractors' Suit Remains in Federal Court RALPH LAUREN: Sends Spam Text Messages, Hudson Claims RCW INC: Faces "Olsen" Suit in E.D. New York ROCK SOLID: "Hernandez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime ROSEWOOD ON THE SOUND: Faces "Mendez" Suit in S.D. New York SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: No Ascertainable Class in "Romero" SISYPHIAN LLC: Unlawfully Misclassifies Dancers, Nutt Claims SITEONE LANDSCAPE: "Alvarez" Suit Moved to S.D. California SNC-LAVALIN: Settles Shareholder Class Actions for $110-Mil. SOLVERE LLC: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York STARBUCKS CORP: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Disableds' Class Cert STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Faces "Baker" Suit in C.D. California STONEBRIDGE LIFE: 2nd Cir. Vacates Dismissal of "Dubuisson" STUART WEITZMAN: Quinones Sues over Fair Credit Reporting Act SUPERDRY RETAIL: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York SUTTON GARDENS: Faces "Mendez" Suit in S.D. New York SUUNTO OY: Huntzinger and Bush Sue over Defective Dive Computers THERANOS INC: Judge Declines to Certify Class of Investors TJX COMPANIES: Denied OT Pay, Sick Day Off, "Findlay" Suit Says TRADER JOE: "Jamison" Suit Says Fruit Bar Packaging Misleading TRANS UNION: "Miller" Suit Transferred to N.D. California TRULIFE HEALTH: Court Conditionally Certifies "Aytch" Class TZ MANOR: Faces "Mendez" Suit in S.D. New York ULTA SALON: "Zepeda" Suit Transferred to E.D. California UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Schaechter" Suit in E.D. New York UNITED COMMUNITY: Faces Overdraft Fee Class Action UNITED STATES: Judge Hears Rhode Island Immigration Class Action UNITED STATES: Judge Lashes Out at ICE at Class Action Hearing UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Police Investigates 52 Abuse Complaints UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: "Lieberman" Suit Moved to N.D. Cal. VERO BEACH: Hopson Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation VILLA ENTERPRISES: Faces "Olsen" Suit in E.D. New York VILLAGE OF FOX LAKE: Willoughby Case Can't Proceed as Class Suit VIP HEALTH: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Ruda Says WELLS FARGO: Faces "Wyman" Suit in N.D. California WESTLAKE SERVICES: Iniguez Sues Over Illegal Call Recording WILLIAM C. GROSSMAN LAW: Gluck Disputes Vague Collection Letter WIRELESS VISION: Faces "Carrington" Wage-and-Hour Suit WORLDPAY US: Faces Acebedo & Johnson Suit in N.D. Georgia XEROX CORP: Faces Class Action from Shareholder XTO ENERGY: "Anderson" Suit Moved to District of New Mexico XUNLEI LIMITED: Court Consolidates "Dookeran," "Li" Suits * City of Oahu Sues Over Service Members' Abandoned Cars ********* 24 HOUR FITNESS: Faces "O'Brien" Suit in Calif. Superior Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 24 Hour Fitness. The case is captioned as Melissa O'Brien, on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 24 Hour Fitness, 24 Hour Fitness Holdings LLC, 24 Hour Fitness USA Inc., 24 Hour Fitness Worldwide Inc., and Does 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 34-2018- 00233556 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23, 2018). 24 Hour Fitness is a privately owned and operated fitness center chain headquartered in San Ramon, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William L. Marder, Esq. 560 S Winchester Blvd, San Jose, CA 95128 3M COMPANY: "Py" Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Brandon Py, Aimee Py, and Crystal Benavides, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. The 3M Company, formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.; Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; Chemguard, Inc.; National Foam; Buckeye Fire Protection Co.; and County of Suffolk, the Defendants, Case No. 608013/2018, was removed from the New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York (Central Islip) on June 1, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-03225- SJF-SIL to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein. 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation based in Maplewood, Minnesota, a suburb of St. Paul.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sean Patrick Kelly, Esq. GRUENBERG KELLY DELLA 700 Koehler Avenue Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 Telephone: (631) 737 4110 Facsimile: (631) 737 4155 E-mail: seanesq@msn.com Attorneys for Tyco Fire Products L.P. and Chemguard, Inc.: David S. Weinraub, Esq. Katherine A. Armstrong, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849 7000 Facsimile: (212) 849 7100 E-mail: davidweinraub@quinnemanuel.com katherinearmstrong@quinnemanuel.com 8POINT3 ENERGY: Clem Seeks to Halt Sale to Capital Dynamics ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert Clem, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 8point3 Energy Partners LP, 8Point3 General Partner, LLC, Charles D. Boynton, Mark R. Widmar, Natalie F. Jackson, Alexander R. Bradley, Thomas C. O'Connor, Norman J. Szydlowski and Michael W. Yackira, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv- 02195, (N.D. Cal., April 12, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of 8point3 Energy Partners LP by affiliates of Capital Dynamics, Inc., rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger. The Plaintiff further seeks costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, the Partnership's Class A shareholders will receive $12.35 per share in cash. 8point3 is a limited partnership that owns, operates and acquires solar energy generation projects. According to the complaint, Defendants filed a proxy statement that failed to disclose revenues from unconsolidated affiliates, principal repayments related to refinancing activities, all line items used to calculate unlevered free cash flow, all line items used to calculate adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization and reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Fax: (310) 201-9160 Email: lglancy@glancylaw.com AFTER-SCHOOL ALL-STARS: Carloss Sues over OT & Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ JAIMIE CARLOSS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AFTER- SCHOOL ALL-STARS, LOS ANGELES, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC708589 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 4, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants, jointly and severally, employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, nonexempt employee, from approximately January 2011 to approximately July 2015, in the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other class members, classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and failed to compensate them for all hours worked and missed meal periods and/or rest breaks. The Defendants had the authority to hire and terminate Plaintiff and the other class members, to set work rules and conditions governing Plaintiffs and the other class members' employment, and to supervise their daily employment activities. ASAS is a national non-profit organization that partners with schools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265 1020 Facsimile: (818) 265 1021 AJI SUSHI: Fails to Pay OT to Delivery Workers, Rosas Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Amado Rosas individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Aji Sushi Greenpoint Inc., (d/b/a Wasabi) and Guo Kang Huang, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv- 03103 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, unlawful deductions and breach-of-contract and quantum meruit damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and his similarly situated co-workers who have been employed by Defendants as delivery workers for some or all of the time period relevant to this action. However, the daily work performed by Plaintiff entailed additional responsibilities that were not related to deliveries. The Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiff as a delivery worker, but in actuality his duties included greater or equal time spent in non -delivery, non-tipped functions such as dishwashing, sweeping and mopping, cleaning the counters, bathroom, basement and sidewalk, among others. Regardless of duties, the Defendants paid delivery workers at the lowered tip credit rate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Franco, Esq. LINA FRANCO LAW, P.C. 42 Broadway New York, NY 10004 ALCON LABORATORIES: "Green" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Christine Green and Jordan Pitler, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Alcon Research, Ltd., Allergan, Inc., Allergan USA, Inc., and Allergan Sales, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 18SL-CC01587, was removed from the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis) on May 25, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18- cv-00796 to the proceeding.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian Wolfman, Esq. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Suite 312 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 661 6582 - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C. 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241 2929 Facsimile: (314) 241 2029 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com - and - Kevin M. Carnie, Esq. SIMON LAW FIRM, PC 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241 2929 Facsimile: (314) 241 2029 E-mail: kcarnie@simonlawpc.com - and - Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq. LAW OFFICE RICHARD S. CORNFELD 1010 Market Street, Suite 1645 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241 5799 Facsimile: (314) 241 5788 E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com Attorneys for Defendant: James Muehlberger, Esq. SHOOK AND HARDY, LLP 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 474 6550 Facsimile: (816) 421 5547 E-mail: jmuehlberger@shb.com ALLIED POWER: Fails to Slow Down Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Jeffrey Blackburn Jr., the Plaintiff, v. Allied Power Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00347 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jorge L. Alonso entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to stay briefing on the bid for conditional class certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on June 6, 2018, the Defendant's motion to stay conditional certification briefing is denied. The Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is taken under advisement. The Defendant's response shall be filed by July 6. The Plaintiff's reply in support shall be filed by July 20. Status hearing previously set for June 12 is stricken and reset to September 12 at 9:30 a.m. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GuJIQpvo ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Kohl" Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial, LP. The case is styled as Yehuda Kohl, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Alltran Financial, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03235 (E.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018). Alltran Financial, LP specializes in revenue cycle, accounts receivable, and contact center solutions within healthcare, financial services, higher education, and government industries in the Unites States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. Maxim Maximov, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Tel: (718) 395-3459 Fax: (718) 408-9570 Email: m@maximovlaw.com APACHE CORPORATION: Pierce Seeks OT Pay for Oilfield Personnel -------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN PIERCE, individually and for all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. APACHE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:18- cv-01803 (S.D. Tex., June 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Apache employs oilfield personnel, like Pierce, to carry out its work. Pierce, and other workers like him, were typically scheduled for 12+ hour shifts, 7 days a week, for weeks at a time. But Apache did not pay Pierce or the other workers like him overtime. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Apache paid these workers a day-rate and improperly classified them as independent contractors. Apache Corporation is an American petroleum and natural gas exploration and production company incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Houston. The company is on the Fortune 500.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877 8788 Telecopier: (713) 877 8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352 1100 Telecopier: (713) 352 3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com APOLLO RETAIL: George Sues over Inaccurate Wage Statements ---------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN GEORGE, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. APOLLO RETAIL SPECIALISTS, LLC, a North Carolina corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC707893 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 1, 2018), alleges that throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees with accurate, itemized wage statements, in violation of California Labor Code section 226. By way of example, the wage statements Defendants provided to their employees failed to include all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period. The Defendants provide full-service retail support services such as merchandising, fixturing, remodeling, and new store build outs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Lidman, Esq. Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq. LIDMAN LAW, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, California 90245 Telephone: (424) 322 4772 Facsimile: (424) 322 4775 E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com enguyen@lidmanlaw.com - and - HAINES LAW GROUP, APC Susan George, Esq. Paul K. Haines, Esq. 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292 2350 Facsimile: (424) 292 2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com APPLE INC: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Defective Keyboards ---------------------------------------------------------- Mikey Campbell, writing for Apple Insider, reports that customer complaints over Apple's butterfly keyboard have again turned into legal action, with a class action lawsuit filed in California court on May 22 claiming the company sold, and continues to sell, a product known to be defective. Filed in the Northern District Court of California, the complaint echoes many of the claims made in a first class action lawsuit regarding the same issue earlier in May. In the immediate action, three named plaintiffs allege the butterfly mechanism introduced with the 2015 MacBook, and later applied to the MacBook Pro line in 2016, is prone to failure. Though Apple advertises the ultra low-profile switch as being more responsive and robust than traditional scissor-type mechanisms, butterfly keyboards are easily defeated when dust or other particles builds up beneath the keys, the lawsuit claims. In some cases, the key switch completely fails, forcing owners to take their laptop in for repairs. Due to its design, a single broken key necessitates the replacement of an afflicted MacBook's upper casing, which includes the keyboard and battery. For machines no longer covered by Apple's warranty, the repair can cost hundreds of dollars, and for those that are, the process can leave users without their computer for a week or more. According to the suit, Remy Turner bought his 2016 MacBook Pro in April 2017 and shortly thereafter began to experience problems with a sticky space bar. He attempted to fix the issue using Apple's recommended method of spraying the area with a can of compressed air, but was unable to rectify the issue. Turner ultimately returned the malfunctioning unit to Best Buy for a replacement, though the same problem manifested. He repeated the replacement process a second time with identical results. A second named plaintiff, Christopher Martin, purchased a 15-inch MacBook Pro in December 2016 and used the device without incident until August 2017. It was around that time that the unit's space bar began to stick "roughly once every 1 to 2 weeks," a situation that was remedied by a hard press on the key. The failures began to occur more frequently over time, but the air can cleaning process functioned as a temporary fix. In January 2017, however, Mr. Martin's space bar ceased to respond to cleaning techniques and became stuck in the depressed position every couple days, where it would remain for about a week. As Mr. Martin's gratis warranty period is over, he is reluctant to fork out money for the high-priced repair. Instead, the plaintiff has resorted to shaking the laptop until the key becomes unstuck. Finally, Joey Baruch purchased a 13-inch MacBook Pro in July 2017. Shortly after taking the unit home, he encountered issues with the "R", "T" and "Enter" keys. Like the suit's other plaintiffs, Baruch found spraying beneath the key with a can of compressed air alleviated the problem for a short time, but the issue became progressively worse. Mr. Baruch took his laptop in for warranty repairs in March 2018. Apple replaced the keyboard, but the problem reoccured on the new unit, this time extending to the space bar. Aside from plaintiff testimonials, the suit cites numerous online forum posts, blog accounts and reports detailing consumer complaints with Apple's butterfly key mechanism. Beyond sticking keys, users describe troubles relating to the design including broken key caps, among other flaws. Apple introduced the butterfly mechanism in 2015 with the debut of the 12-inch MacBook. At the time, SVP of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller touted the keyboard as "much more precise, and accurate. In fact it is four times more stable than that scissor mechanism." Those claims are echoed in Apple's marketing for current-generation MacBook and MacBook Pro models, the latter of which feature a second-generation butterfly mechanism that offers "four times more key stability than a traditional scissor mechanism." AppleInsider investigated the issue in April, and after collecting data from Genius Bar locations and authorized third- party shops found the 2016 MacBook Pro's keyboard failed roughly twice as often in its first year of use as 2014 and 2015 MacBook Pro models with scissor-type switches. Within a week of the report's publication, a Change.org petition called on Apple to recall all MacBooks with butterfly switch keyboards. The petition, which is cited in the May 22 suit, has garnered nearly 27,000 signatures in under three weeks. Though Apple has not acknowledged a widespread problem, it has recognized customer complaints, as evidenced by a support document detailing the aforementioned method of cleaning butterfly keyboards with a can of compressed air. Plaintiffs assert breach of express warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Acts, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The suit seeks class certification, restitution, damages and legal fees. [GN] ARENA PHARMA: $24MM Class Settlement in "Scheuneman" Has Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned TODD SCHUENEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:10-CV-01959-CAB-(BLM) (S.D. Cal.). This putative class action lawsuit began when a complaint was filed alleging various violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act). The Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for violations of the federal securities laws that was subsequently amended The settlement envisions certification of a class of all Persons who purchased Arena common stock between March 17, 2008 and January 27, 2011, inclusive, and were damaged thereby. The numerosity requirement is satisfied if the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Here, notice packets were mailed to 139,542 potential class members. Joinder of all these potential plaintiffs would be impracticable. Accordingly, this requirement has been met. This commonality requirement is satisfied if "there are questions of law or fact common to the class. Here, the commonality requirement is satisfied because all of the class claims involve common questions of law and fact surrounding Defendants' purported violations of the federal securities laws as evidenced by their alleged failure to disclose material facts regarding the development of the weight loss drug Lorcaserin to investors and by the making of false and misleading statements about the drug. The test of typicality is whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same course of conduct. Here, the typicality requirement is satisfied because the claims of lead Plaintiff and the class are the same. The wrongful conduct alleged in the complaint is not unique to the class representative, and the damages to the class members, if any, are similar insofar as they relate to violations of the federal securities laws. Here, there is no obvious conflict between Schwartz's interests and those of the class members. Similarly, the Court is unaware of any reason that would warrant altering its earlier determination that Lead Counsel can adequately represent the interest of the class. Furthermore, no Class Member has filed an objection challenging the adequacy of the representative parties. Accordingly, the Court finds this element satisfied for the purposes of certification of the settlement class. The predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. It requires an examination into whether there are legal or factual questions that qualify each class member's case as a genuine controversy. The superiority inquiry requires determination of whether the objectives of the particular class action procedure will be achieved in the particular case. Here, all of the class members were allegedly subject to Defendants' purported federal securities laws violations. The legal and factual questions common to each class member's claim predominate over any questions affecting individual class members. The relatively limited potential recovery for the class members as compared with the costs litigating the claims also support the conclusion that a class action is superior to other methods for adjudicating this controversy. Accordingly, the Court finds that the predominance and superiority inquiries have been satisfied. In light of this, the Court conditionally certifies the Rule 23 class for the purposes of settlement. Where, as here, a settlement is reached prior to formal class certification, there is an even greater potential for a breach of fiduciary duty owed the class, therefore such agreements must withstand an even higher level of scrutiny for evidence of collusion or other conflicts of interest than is ordinarily required under Rule 23(e) before securing the court's approval as fair. The Notice advised the Class of the terms of the Settlement, of their rights: (1) to receive their share of the Settlement by submitting a claim form; (2) to object to the Settlement and to appear at the Final Approval Hearing, (3) to request exclusion from the Settlement; (4) the manner and timing for doing any of these acts; (5) the date and time set for the final approval hearing; and (6) the binding effect of the judgment if they chose to do nothing. Adequate periods of time were provided for each of these procedures. No class members objected to the settlement or the adequacy of the Notice, and only two class member requested exclusion from the class. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Class received adequate notice. The Settlement has been reached after over seven years of pending litigation, including an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiff's claims at issue in the settlement involve disputed legal issues. The inherent risk of further litigation in this matter is known to all involved with the case. Proceeding with this case presents very real risks regarding class certification, summary judgment, Daubert and in limine motions, proving the necessary scienter, reliance and damages if the case proceeded to trial, and a possible unfavorable decision on the merits. While the Plaintiff believes in the merits of his case, the Defendants have strong defenses to class liability, reliance and damages determinations, and there is no guarantee that the Plaintiff will prevail. The Court finds these risks weigh in favor of settlement. Basic to the process of deciding whether a proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate is the need to compare the terms of the compromise with the likely rewards of litigation. Here, the Settlement authorizes a recovery of $24,000,000, less Court-awarded fees and expenses and the costs of administering the Settlement. The average distribution is estimated to be $0.13 per damaged share before deduction of Court-approved fees and expenses. Furthermore, the Company is currently experiencing a financial downturn and has limited insurance coverage, meaning that continued litigation could result in there being little to no money being available down the road to satisfy any later judgment. In light of the risks associated with continuing this litigation, the Court finds that a payout in this amount appears reasonable and weighs in favor of approval of the settlement. Here, the Settlement has been negotiated after years of pending litigation and meaningful discovery has occurred. Counsel has litigated this action through three rounds of motions to dismiss and a successful appeal, engaged in investigation, research and analysis of the class claims, participated in an arm's-length mediation session, and obtained ample discovery. This history evidences the parties' significant knowledge regarding the relevant facts, law, and strengths and weaknesses of their claims and defenses. Consequently, the Court finds this factor weighs in favor of approval of the settlement. The recommendations of the plaintiffs' counsel should be given a presumption of reasonableness. Here, Lead Counsel has provided a declaration detailing their experience in litigating federal class action securities cases. Lead Counsel declares that their support of the Settlement is based on an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the case, their extensive experience in litigating class and securities actions, and an assessment of the risks of proceeding with the litigation compared to the certain value of settlement at this time. In light of the foregoing, and according the appropriate weight to the judgment of counsel, the Court finds this factor weighs in favor of the settlement. It is established that the absence of a large number of objections to a proposed class action settlement raises a strong presumption that the terms of a proposed class settlement are favorable to the class members. Here, only two class members have opted out of the class and no objections to the settlement have been received. Accordingly, the Court finds this weighs in favor of settlement. A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd4x9y9v from Leagle.com. Todd Schueneman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence D. King -- lking@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer. William Sutliff & Jean Sutliff, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel J. Mogin -- dmogin@moginrubin.com -- The Mogin Law Firm. Arena Investors Group, Plaintiff, represented by Richard M. Heimann -- rheimann@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP. Anthony Caravella, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron M. Sheanin -- ams@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP. Carl Schwartz, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold -- manifold@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz & Laurence D. King, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer. Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Jack Lief, Dominic P. Behan, William R. Shanahan & Christy Anderson, Defendants, represented by John C. Dwyer -- dwyerjc@cooley.com -- Cooley, LLP, Koji F. Fukumura - - kfukumura@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish, Mary Kathryn Kelley -- mkkelley@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish, Michael A. Attanasio -- mattanasio@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish, Peter M. Adams -- padams@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish, Ryan E. Blair -rblair@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish & Craig Edward TenBroeck -- ctenbroeck@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP. Chris Georgakopoulos & Larry Sprowl, Movants, represented by Blake M. Harper, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP & Sarah Weber, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, Maxat Amankossov & David Prince, Movants, represented by Daniel J. Mogin, The Mogin Law Firm. ARKANSAS: Darrough's Suit vs. Sheriff Can't Proceed as Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned PAUL DARROUGH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARK GOBER, individually and in his official capacity; and JOHN DOES 1-10, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:18-cv-00113-JLH (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge J. Leon Holmes entered an order denying motion for class certification. The Court said, "In response to the motion for class certification, Gober has submitted the uncontested affidavit of Susan Potts, along with records of Darrough's arrest and first appearance. Pursuant to a bench warrant, Darrough was arrested on May 10, 2017, at 12:30 p.m. He appeared before a judge for his first appearance on May 12, 2017. Thus, he was provided a timely first appearance. Cf. Hayes v. Faulkner County, Ark., 388 F.3d 669 (8th Cir. 2004), and Ark. R. Crim. P. 8.1. Based upon the facts in the Potts' affidavit, Darrough is not a member of the class that he seeks to represent and his claims are, therefore, not typical of the class. In Re Milk Products Litigation, 195 F.3d 430, 436 (8th Cir. 1998). A copy of the Order dated June 1, 2018, is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jvowaJnA ARMO BIOSCIENCES: Faces Class Action on Merger with Eli Lilly ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Khan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that shareholders claim in a federal class action that the $1.6 billion merger of Armo Biosciences and Eli Lilly, for $50 a share, is insufficient. Counsel for Plaintiff: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Tel: (424) 256-2884 Fax: (424) 256.2885 Email: bheikali@faruqilaw.com -- and -- James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. 685 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 983-9330 Fax: (212) 983-9331 Email: jwilson@faruqilaw.com ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Gutman" Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services, Inc. The case is styled as Brana Gutman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. ARS National Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03236 (E.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018). ARS National Services, Inc. offers accounts receivable management services. It caters to financial services organizations; banks; and credit card companies. The company is based in Escondido, California.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. ATLANTA, GA: "Jones" Suit Moved to Northern District of Georgia --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled A. Thomas Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. City of Atlanta, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CV304044, was removed from the Superior Court of Fulton County, to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on May 23, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv- 02472-LMM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May. Atlanta is the capital of the U.S. state of Georgia. It played an important part in both the Civil War and the 1960s Civil Rights Movement.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Irwin W. Stolz, Jr., Esq. James W. Hurt, Jr. , Esq. HURT STOLZ, P.C. 1551 Jennings Mill Road, Suite 3100-B Watkinsville, GA 30677 Telephone: (706) 395 2750 Facsimile: (706) 354 1785 E-mail: istolz@hurtstolz.com jhurt@hurtstolz.com - and - John Floyd Woodham, Esq. WOODHAM LAW, LLC 2625 Piedmont Road, Suite 56-295 Atlanta, GA 30324 Telephone: (404) 862 2480 E-mail: jfwoodham@gmail.com - and - Robert D. Feagin, III, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT D. FEAGIN III, LLC 3379 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 909 8100 Facsimile: (404) 909 8120 E-mail: rfeagin@martensonlaw.com Attorneys for City of Atlanta: Jeffrey Allen Zachman, Esq. Dentons US, LLP - ATL, Suite 5300 303 Peachtree St., N.E. Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (404) 527 4671 E-mail: jeffrey.zachman@dentons.com - and - Joshua Benjamin Portnoy, Esq. Mark Gerald Trigg, Esq. Peter J. Andrews, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP - ATL Terminus 200, Suite 2500 3333 Piedmont Road, NE Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (678) 553 7381 Facsimile: (678) 553 7382 E-mail: portnoyj@gtlaw.com mark.trigg@dentons.com andrewsp@gtlaw.com AUSTRALIA: Shine Lawyers Optimistic on Wodonga Council Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Sophie Boyd, writing for Border Mail, reports that lawyers investigating a class action against Wodonga Council say they will be moving quickly to determine whether the legal suit will go forward, after more than 120 people attended a town hall meeting. Shine Lawyers were unable to reveal the number of people who had signed up for the class action but before the meeting, Jan Saddler said she was confident the case would go ahead. "I think it's a fairly strong possibility that even with modest numbers we would proceed," she said. Before and during the meeting, Ms Saddler defended Shine Lawyers against accusations they, not ratepayers, were the ones who benefit from the class action. "We're here to support people who want to have an opportunity to recover this money, we are not here as just a money grab from us," she said. "It's not the council's right to take money and decide it's for the benefit of ratepayers. "That money should be returned to people for them to use in the way they want to use it, not how council thinks they should use it on their behalf." The sentiment was welcomed by Michael James, who believes the issue of the waste service levy is just the tip of the iceberg. "It's not rocket science, it's a matter of standing up for what is right," he said. "I'm not here for money, I'm here to get something wrong fixed or else where is it going to stop -- the government had ripped us off something fierce." However other attendees disagreed with the proposed class action, one saying he was proud of the city and council. Others expressed the view the amount of money on offer after lawyers and funders took commission, was not worth the effort. Ms Saddler said under the law, clients must receive at least 50 per cent of the settlement, and she estimated each ratepayer was overcharged $150 per year. Wodonga Ratepayers' Association secretary Bob Cousins said even if the insurance did cover the claim, council's premium would increase. However, Ms Saddler said they had been contacted by many people in the city who not only wanted a refund, but 'justice'. "What is important for most people is that those people who are charged with responsibility under legislation for raising tax and levies and government charges do so in a way that is consistent with the legislation, if they don't do it they should be held to account," Ms Saddler said. "It may not be the sentiment of the ratepayers' association but that is the sentiment I am hearing from others. "At the moment they don't seem to think those laws and those rules and those obligations apply to them because next year they are going to raise the same levy again in excess of the waste cost." Lawyer John Suta was pleased with the turn out, saying from here they would get advice from a Queen's Counsel and present that to the class action members. "There were some differing views, but I think the consensus was they want to make a stand on this," he said. Mr Suta said they were keen to move quickly as it was obvious Wodonga Council had not learnt its lesson, citing the continuing waste management levy overcharge in the draft 2018-19 budget. "They don't appear to have learnt their lesson from the Ombudsman's report 00 I'd invite them to read it properly rather than just placing it in the recycling bin," he said. Ms Saddler also questioned why the condemned overcharge was slated to occur again. "It does make you question really what the intentions are of the council, what do they want to achieve out of this," she said. "Do they want to continue to raise revenue in a way that's clearly contrary to the terms of the legislation and certainly contrary to the intentions of the legislation and what do they treat the people of Wodonga as -- fools?" Ms Saddler said in her experience class action, not community negotiation, is often the only successful way to make an organisation change or repay funds. "In 28 years of being a solicitor I don't think I've ever seen anyone who is a defendant come to the table and be prepared to take action unless you actually take proceedings against them," she said. "It never occurs." [GN] AUSTRALIA: Waste Levy Class Action Mulled Against Wodonga Council ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sophie Body, writing for The Border Mail, reports that Wodonga Council would not be sending representatives to a town hall meeting discussing potential legal action against them for their use of the waste services levy. Shine Lawyers and Wangaratta lawyer John Suta teamed up to propose the action, which has gained initial funding from a backer, after Victorian Ombudsman Deborah Glass found Wodonga Council was 'wrong' to collect $18 million in extra revenue from its waste management levy, to fund other services. A council spokeswoman said whether the mayor, senior staff, legal or council representatives attend the May 23 meeting, was a decision for each individual. She would not answer questions on whether council had insurance to cover the potential class action. Shine Lawyers were unable to provide details on how many people had registered to, or were predicted to, attend Albury Entertainment Centre, only saying registrations were increasing. Senior lawyer Tristan Gaven said there would be both formal and informal parts of the meeting to allow residents to share their stories publicly and also speak directly to lawyers. "The purpose of the information session is to provide ratepayers with information about their legal rights in relation to the overcharging by council," he said. "As we are in the preliminary stages of our investigation we would like to gauge community interest in the action as well as to hear ratepayers' stories." Mr Suta said representatives from ratepayers associations from as far away as Melbourne and Mildura were trekking to the Border to attend the session, because they believe they might have been subjected to similar overcharges. Mr Suta said in Wodonga there was little ambiguity, as the Ombudsman found council was wrong to use the waste levy charge on things beyond its intended scope and the practice in-part avoided increases to general rates. He said the scope of the proposed legal action is from 2007 to 2018, with Shine stating about 40,000 were overcharged by council and could seek reimbursement through the class action. [GN] AVIAGEN TURKEYS: "Myers" Suit Moved to S.D. West Virginia --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Ronald D. Myers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Aviagen Turkeys, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 18-C-30, was removed from the Circuit Court of Greenbrier County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (Beckley) on May 25, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00967 to the proceeding.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Adrian Hoosier, II, Esq. LORD HOOSIER 225 Hale Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345 8030 Facsimile: (304) 553 7227 E-mail: adrian@lordhoosier.com Attorneys for Aviagen Turkeys, Inc.: Chip E. Williams, Esq. Jared C. Underwood, Esq. PULLIN FOWLER FLANAGAN BROWN & POE 600 Neville Street, Suite 201 Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: (304) 254 9300 Facsimile: (304) 255 5519 E-mail: cwilliams@pffwv.com junderwood@pffwv.com B.B.W. HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay OT to Delivery Drivers, Tatum Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- GABRIEL TATUM, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. B.B.W. HOLDINGS, INC. and AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv- 11661-GCS-EAS (E.D. Mich., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked for Defendants as drivers delivering items purchased from Amazon to customers who purchased the items. During their employment, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in individual workweeks. During his employment, the Plaintiff routinely worked between 50 and 60 hours in individual workweeks, and sometimes even in excess of 60 hours in an individual workweek. The Defendants paid Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees a flat rate, per day. They did not pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees any overtime premium for their hours worked over 40 in individual workweeks. BBWH is a Michigan Corporation that operates a carrier and logistics business and, among other activities, provides trucks and/or drivers to deliver goods for its client companies' customers in Michigan, including customers of Amazon in Michigan.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Amy E. Keller, Esq. Laura E. Reasons, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214 7900 Facsimile: (312) 253 1443 E-mail: akeller@dlcfirm.com lreasons@dlcfirm.com - and - Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq. Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY 7556 Mentor Ave. Mentor, Ohio 44060 Telephone: (440) 953 8888 Facsimile: (440) 953 9138 E-mail: kabbarno@dlcfirm.com mabramowitz@dlcfirm.com BARCLAYS BANK: Voeks Sues over Robocalls ---------------------------------------- MEGAN VOEKS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00808-NJ (E.D. Wisc., May 25, 2018), seeks redress for the Defendant's collection practices that violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, each call to Plaintiff's cellular telephone from Barclays was placed via an "automatic telephone dialing system and/or used "an artificial or prerecorded voice" as described in 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Neither Plaintiff, nor her mother, nor any other person known to Plaintiff ever provided Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 3583 to Barclays or Barnes & Noble or any agent or employee of either at any time. Defendant's telephone calls to Plaintiff's cellular phone were not "for emergency purposes". Defendant's telephone calls to Plaintiff's cellular phone utilizing an "artificial or prerecorded voice" or placed by an "automatic telephone dialing system" for non-emergency purposes and in the absence of Plaintiff's prior express consent violated 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). As a result of Defendant's knowing and/or willful violations, the Plaintiff and each member of the Class are entitled to treble damages of up to $1,500.00 for each and every call in violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(3). Barclays Bank is a state-chartered, commercial bank with its principal offices located at 125 South West Street, Wilmington, DE 19801.[BN] 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 BAS OF FLORIDA: "Kott" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------ Ronald Kott and Michael Kott, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BAS of Florida, LLC and Bryson Raver, individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00900 (M.D. Fla., April 13, 2018), seeks to recover overtime, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. BAS operates a window washing company where Plaintiffs worked as window washers. They claim to be denied payment of time and one- half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty within a work week. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, #600 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Fax: (813) 257-0572 Email: Medelman@forthepeople.com BAY RIDGE: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bay Ridge Medical Imaging, P.C. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bay Ridge Medical Imaging, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04870 (S.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018). Bay Ridge Medical Imaging, P.C. provides diagnostic imaging services in the New York region.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Tel: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com C&F FINANCE: "Miller" Suit Moved to District of Maryland -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Denise Miller and Donald Miller on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. C&F Finance Company, the Defendant, Case No. CAL18-12432, was removed from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for District of Maryland (Greenbelt) on June 1, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:18-cv-01594-CCB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Catherine C. Blake.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cory L Zajdel, Esq. Z Law LLC 2345 York Road, Suite B-13 Timonium, MD 21093 Telephone: (443) 213 1977 E-mail: clz@zlawmaryland.com Attorneys for C&F Finance Company: Brian L Moffet, Esq. Michael Benjamin Brown, Esq. MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C. 100 Light Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 385 3656 E-mail: bmoffet@milesstockbridge.com mbbrown@milesstockbridge.com CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Alvarado & Garland Sue over Biometric Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- CESAR ALVARADO, and JAMES GARLAND, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., May 31, 2018), seeks to recover damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in capturing, collecting, storing, and using Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information without informed written consent, in direct violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The case is about a casino capturing, collecting, storing, and using Plaintiffs and other patrons' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information without regard to BIPA and the concrete privacy rights and pecuniary interests Illinois' BIPA protects. Defendant accomplishes this in the form of facial recognition scans which capture on its premises an image of a person's face and uses that to identify such person in the future. Following the 2007 bankruptcy of a company specializing in the collection and use of biometric information, which risked the sale or transfer of millions of fingerprint records to the highest bidder, the Illinois legislature passed detailed regulations addressing the collection, use and retention of biometric information by private entities, such as Defendant. Choosing to shun more traditional security methods, Defendant has instead implemented an invasive program that relies on the capture, collection, storage, and use of individuals' facial scans, while disregarding the applicable Illinois statute and the privacy interests it protects. Caesars Entertainment is an American gaming corporation based in Paradise, Nevada that owns and operates over 50 casinos and hotels, and seven golf courses under several brands.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class: William P .N. Kingston, Esq. Myles McGuire, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893 7002 Facsimile: (312) 275 7895 E-mail1: wkingston@mcgpc.com mmcguire@mcgpc.com CALIFORNIA: Caron Files Suits v. Herold ---------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Virginia Herold, inclusively. The case is styled as Craya C. Caron, individually; and All California Licensed Pharmacists similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Virginia Herold, inclusively and Does 1 - 20 inclusively, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-01194-R-KK (C.D. Cal., June 1, 2018). Virginia Herold is the executive officer of the California State Board of Pharmacy.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. CAPITAL GROWTH: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Fox Says --------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON FOX, Individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated employees of Defendants in the State of California, the Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL GROWTH PROPERTIES, INC., a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2018- 00026734-CU-0E-CTL (Cal Super. Ct., May 31, 2018), seeks to recover minimum and regular wages and overtime wages under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants decreased their employment- related costs in order to increase their level of productivity and profits by systematically violating both state wage and hour laws and IWC Wage Orders including, but not limited to: failing to pay for minimum, regular and overtime wages for all hours worked; failing to provide compliant meal and rest breaks; failing to provide and maintain accurate records and itemized wage statements; unlawfully deducting wages and/or rent in amounts exceeding that permitted by law; and failing to timely pay wages due during and upon termination of employment. Capital Growth is a full service property management and real estate brokerage firm, specializing in the management, sale and leasing of income.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian R. Short, Esq. Kristina De La Rosa, Esq. 350 10th Ave., Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619 272 0720 Facsimile: 619 839 3129 E-mail: Brian@ShortLegal.com Kristina@shortlcgal.com CAPTEK SOFTGEL: Baole Sues over Inaccurate Wage Statements ---------------------------------------------------------- BAOLE, as an individual and on behalf of Case all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAPTEK SOFTGEL INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC707675 (Cal. Super. Ct.) seeks to recover damages and penalties caused by the Defendant's illegal and unfair retention of compensation pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Captek Softgel manufactures custom dietary supplement formulations. It offers vitamins and minerals, carotenoids, herbals and botanicals, oil softgel capsules, specialty softgel products, and vegetarian capsules.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward W. Choi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 381 1515 Facsimile: (213) 465 4885 E-mail: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com - and - Larry W. Lee, Esq. SBN 228175 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488 6555 Facsimile: (213) 488 6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitvlaw.com - and - David Lee, Esq. DAVID LEE LAW 515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: {213) 236 3536 Facsimile: (866) 658 4722 E-mail: David@DavidJLeeLaw.com CASSANO'S INC: Lee Asks Court to Approve Notice to Drivers Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Zachery Lee, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cassano's Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00083-WHR (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order allowing him to send notice of this action to these similarly situated employees: "all non-owner, non-employer delivery drivers who worked for Defendants at any of their Cassano's Pizza locations from March 20, 2015 to present." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7bmkfKK6 Attorneys for Plaintiff: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC www.msdlegal.com 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513) 651 3700 Facsimile: (513) 665 0219 E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com akimble@msdlegal.com pkrzeski@msdlegal.com CHRYSLER-DODGE: Certification of Two Classes Sought --------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit RE: CHRYSLER-DODGE-JEEP ECODIESEL MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 3:17-md- 02777-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order on September 17, 2018: 1. granting certification of a Nationwide Class and State Classes: Nationwide Class: "all persons or entities in the United States (including its territories and the District of Columbia) that purchased or leased a Class Vehicle"; and State Class: "all persons or entities that purchased or leased a Class Vehicle within [the state or jurisdiction] or that purchased or leased a Class Vehicle and reside in [the state or jurisdiction"; and 2. appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vS3tIo5Q Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956 1000 Facsimile: (415) 956 1008 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com - and - Roland K. Tellis, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 839 2320 Facsimile: (818) 986 9698 E-mail: trellis@baronbudd.com - and - Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD, LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 670 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 445 4003 Facsimile: (415) 445 4020 E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN 1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623 7292 Facsimile: (206) 623 0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Joseph F. Rice, Esq. MOTLEY RICE, LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216 9000 Facsimile: (843) 216 9450 E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com - and - W. Daniel ("Dee") Miles, III BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (800) 898 2034 Facsimile: (334) 954 7555 E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com - and - David S. Casey, Jr., Esq. CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101-1486 Telephone: (619) 238 1811 Facsimile: (619) 544 9232 E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com - and - Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623 1900 Facsimile: (206) 623 3384 E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com - and - Rachel L. Jensen, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 98101 Telephone: (619) 231 1058 Facsimile: (619) 231 7423 E-mail: rachelj@rgrdlaw.com - and - Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349 8500 Facsimile: (612) 339 4181 E-mail: sslaughter@robinskaplan.com CONGREGATION LUBAVITCH: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ramirez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE CRUZ HERNANDEZ RAMIREZ, Individually and on BEHALF OF ALL OTHER COLLECTIVE PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. CONGREGATION LUBAVITCH, INC., YEHUDA BLESOFSKY, AVROHOM HOLTZBERG, ZALMAN - LIPSKIER and JOHN DOES No. 1-10, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No. 508569/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 4, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing them with appropriate overtime compensation required by State and Federal law and regulations.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs: Perer Sim, Esq. PARK & SIM GLOBAL LAW GROUP, LLP 39-01 Main Street, Suite 608 Flushing, New York 11354 Telephone: (718) 445 1300 CRAFTWORKS RESTAURANTS: "Mitchell" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Vasiliki Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Craftworks Restaurants & Breweries, Inc. (d/b/a Gordon Biersch Brewery Restaurant), Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00879 (N.D. Ga., April 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Washington D.C. Minimum Wage Revision Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately November 2016 through June 2017 as an assistant manager at Defendant's Gordon Biersch restaurant located at 100 M St., SE, Washington, DC 20003. Mitchell regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, without receiving overtime compensation, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St. NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Tel: (202) 470-3520 Fax: (202) 800-2730 Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com - and - Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Christopher M. Timmel, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Facsimile: (914) 934-9220 Email: fran@klafterolsen.com seth@klafterolsen.com christopher.timmel@klafterolsen.com - and - C. Andrew Head, Esq. Bethany Hilbert, Esq. HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC 4422 N. Ravenswood Ave. Chicago, IL 60640 Tel: (404) 924-4151 Fax: (404) 796-7338 Email: ahead@headlawfirm.com CREATIVEXTERIORS INC: Sept. 5 Fairness Hearing of "Vallejo" Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted Parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement in the case captioned VENANCIO TORRES VALLEJO, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CREATIVEXTERIORS, INC., and JEFFREY MILLER, Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-cv-2832-WJM- CBS (D. Colo.). In this action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, Colorado Revised Statutes Sections 8-6-101 et seq., and also raising related contract claims, the Court entered an Order on November 23, 2016 certifying both a collective action under FLSA and a Rule 23 class for claims brought by lead Plaintiff, Venancio Torres Vallejo, on behalf of a class of similarly-situated landscape laborers who are Mexican nationals and who worked seasonally for Defendants under terms of the H-2B visa program between 2010 and 2015. The Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved as fair and reasonable. A fairness hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 9:30 a.m., at the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, located at 901 19th St., Denver, CO 80294, in Courtroom A801, on the 8th floor, to determine whether the Court will give final approval to the Settlement Agreement. The Parties' motion seeking final approval of the settlement, including counsel's final request for attorneys' fees and costs, and any incorporated responses to objections received, shall by filed with the Court and served on any timely objectors no later than August 15, 2018. Any written responses to this motion shall be filed with the Court no later than August, 29, 2018. These deadlines for Court filings do not alter the obligation to comply with the 100-day period for submitting any written objections. A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7o97fen from Leagle.com. Venancio Torres-Vallejo, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Hess Turner, Kelman Buescher Firm, Edward John Tuddenham, Edward Tuddenham Law Office & Chris G. Hoffman -- choffman@hsshlaw.com - - Hoffman Sheffield Sauseda and Hoffman, PLLC. CreativExteriors, Inc. & Jeffrey Miller, Defendants, represented by Christopher J.W. Forrest, Hamilton Faatz, PC, Gregory Alan Eurich, Miller & Steiert, P.C. & Mollie B. Hawes, Miller & Steiert, P.C. CYS INVESTMENTS: Stone Balks at Merger Deal with Two Harbors ------------------------------------------------------------ FRAN STONE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CYS INVESTMENTS, INC., KEVIN E. GRANT, TANYA S. BEDER, KAREN HAMMOND, RAYMOND A. REDLINGSHAFER, JR., DALE A. REISS, JAMES A. STERN, EIGER MERGER SUBSIDIARY LLC, and TWO HARBORS INVESTMENT CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18- cv-11156 (D. Mass., June 1, 2018), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a proposed merger transaction unless and until the material information is included in an amendment to the S-4 or otherwise disseminated to CYS's stockholders. In the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated without the material omissions being remedied, Plaintiff seeks to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of the public stockholders of CYS Investments, Inc. against CYS's Board of Directors for their violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the Board's attempt to sell the Company to Two Harbors Investment Corp. through its wholly-owned subsidiary Eiger Merger Subsidiary LLC. According to the lawsuit, the Defendants have violated the Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and misleading registration statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2018. The S-4 recommends that CYS stockholders vote in favor of a proposed transaction whereby CYS is acquired by Two Harbors. The Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on April 26, 2018, when CYS and Two Harbors announced that they had entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Two Harbors will acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of CYS for approximately $7.79 per share in a mix of cash and Two Harbors stock. The Proposed Transaction is the product of an opportune decline in the Company's stock price. Circumstances outside of the control of the Company depressed its stock price, and almost immediately other companies began their attempts to acquire CYS. A quick sales process led to the Merger Agreement, with a Merger Consideration that undervalues the Company. Indeed, the Company's own financial advisors conducted analyses that found implied per share equity values of the Company as high as $8.98. Furthermore, the S-4 is materially incomplete and contains misleading representations and information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. CYS Investments, incorporated on January 3, 2006, is a specialty finance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN, LLP 110 Cedar Street, Suite 250 Wellesley Hills, MA 02481 Telephone: (781) 431 2231 Facsimile: (781) 431 8726 E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com - and - Shane T. Rowley, Esq. Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq. ROWLEY LAW PLLC 50 Main Street, Suite 1000 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 400 1920 Facsimile: (914) 301 3514 DACM INC: Mejia Sues over Motor Vehicle Financing Terms ------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH MEJIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DACM INC dba DEL AMO AUTOMOBILE SALES FINANCE MOTORSPORTS OF ORANGE; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC705674 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendant's violations of the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, DEL AMO has violated and continues to violate the Rees-Levering Act in connection with the sale and financing of motor vehicles to California consumers. The Rees- Levering Act governs the sale and financing of motor vehicles in California. A "motor vehicle" is defined as a vehicle required to be registered under the Vehicle Code, and thus includes street legal motorcycles. The Rees-Levering Act imposes specific disclosure requirements in conditional sale contracts between motor vehicle sellers and their customers. These requirements are intended to enable consumers to make informed decisions with respect to the cost of credit. Specifically, the Rees-Levering Act requires that all agreements between the seller and buyer of a motor vehicle be contained within a single document, signed by both parties, and delivered to the buyer at or prior to delivery of the vehicle. The Rees-Levering Act also mandates that this single document contain statutorily mandated disclosures relating to the purchase and financing of any motor vehicle. DEL AMO has and is continuing to systematically violate these requirements by failing to provide buyers with a single document setting forth terms of closed-end financing for retail installment sales of motorcycles.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff Joseph Mejia and the Proposed Class: Bryan Kemnitzer, Esq. Mark A. Chavez, Esq. Adam J. Mcneile, Esq. KEMNITZER, BARRON & KRIEG, LLP 445 Bush St., 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 632 1900 Facsimile: (415) 632 1901 DCH CALABASAS-A: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Karapetian Says ----------------------------------------------------------- EDIS KARAPETIAN, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DCH CALABASAS-A, LLC, a California limited liability company; DCH SIMI VALLEY, INC., a California corporation; LITHIA MOTORS, INC., an Oregon corporation; DCH AUTO GROUP (USA) INC., a Delaware corporation; DCH DEL NORTE, INC., a California corporation; DCH (OXNARD) INC., a California corporation; DCH OXNARD 1521 IMPORTS, INC., a California corporation; DCH CALIFORNIA MOTORS, INC., a California corporation; DCH INVESTMENTS LLC, a California limited liability company; DCH TORRANCE IMPORTS, INC., a California corporation; TUSTIN MOTORS; INC., a California corporation; DCH THOUSAND OAKS- F, INC., a California corporation; DCH RIVERSIDE-S, INC., a California corporation; DCH TEMECULA IMPORTS LLC, a California limited liability company; DCH CA LLC, a California limited liability company; DCH KOREAN IMPORTS LLC, a California limited liability company; DCH MISSION VALLEY LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC706923 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23, 2018), seeks to recover statutory minimum wage for all hours worked under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, as a result of Defendants' failure to pay all minimum wages and meal and rest period premium wages, Defendants maintained inaccurate payroll records and issued inaccurate wage statements to Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees. As a further result of Defendants' failure to pay all minimum wages and meal and rest period premium wages, Defendants failed to pay all wages owed to Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees upon their separation of employment with Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Lidman, Esq. Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq. LIDMAN LAW, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 322 4772 Facsimile: (424) 322 4775 E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com enguyen@lidmanlaw.com - and - Paul K. Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N, Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292 2350 Facsimile: (424) 292 2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com DEALERS' CHOICE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Morin Says ------------------------------------------------------ THOMAS A MORIN on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DEALERS' CHOICE TRUCKAWAY SYSTEM, INC. dba TRUCKMOVERS, a Kansas corporation, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC706918 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants have retained the right to exercise ail necessary control over Plaintiff and other Class Members; such that the Truck Drivers are in fact Defendants' employees under California Jaw. Plaintiff challenges Defendants' policy of willfully and unlawfully misclassifying their Truck Drivers as "independent contractors" and thereby failing to indemnify them for employment-related expenses and losses; taking unlawful deductions from their wages; failing to provide off-duty meal periods; failing to permit and authorize paid, off-duty rest periods; failing to provide pay minimum wage; unlawfully charging a fee for each transaction/debit made from wages paid by Defendants using Comdata cards; failing to provide a negotiable paycheck; Failing to provide accurate wage statements; and failing to pay all wages due upon termination of employment, all in violation of California Labor Code and California's Industrial-Welfare Commission Wage Order. Dealer's Choice Truckaway System, Inc. provides transportation services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yoonis Han, Esq. Sam Kin, Esq. VERUM LAW GROUP, APC 841 Apollo Street, Suite 340 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 320 2000 Facsimile: (424) 221 5010 E-mail: yhan@gmail.com skim@verumlg.com DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Reitans Claim Pinnacle Device Not Safe ---------------------------------------------------------- JEAN M. REITAN AND FREDRICK A. REITAN, the Plaintiff, v. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC.; DEPUY PRODUCTS, INC.; DEPUY INTERNATIONAL, LIMITED; and JOHNSON & JOHNSON SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01415-K (N.D. Tex., June 1, 2018), seeks to recover compensation for both economic and non-economic losses, including but not limited to medical expenses, loss of earnings, disfigurement, pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress, in such amounts as may be proven at trial, for their use of the Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System. The Defendants manufactured the Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System and launched it in 2001. The Pinnacle Device was designed, developed, and sold for human hip joints damaged or diseased due to fracture, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and avascular necrosis. The Pinnacle Device is designed to be fastened to human bone with surgical screws. The Pinnacle Device was designed and sold to provide pain relief and consistent and smooth range of motion. Defendants marketed and described the Pinnacle Device as "[u]niquely designed to meet the demands of active patients like you -- and reduce pain" and advertised it with pictures of a young woman trying on sneakers in an athletic shoe store. Defendants advertised the Pinnacle Device as a superior device featuring TrueGlide technology, allowing the body to create a thin film of lubrication between surfaces, which enables "a more fluid range of natural motion." The Defendants also advertised and sold the Pinnacle Device as the best surgical option that "[r]ecreates the natural ball-and- socket joint of your hip, increasing stability and range of motion." The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants sold approximately 150,000 Pinnacle Devices. Defendants have stated in promotional materials that "99.9% of Pinnacle Hip components are still in use today." The Plaintiffs allege that over 1,300 adverse reports have been submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding failures or complications of the Pinnacle Device. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are aware that the use of the Pinnacle Device may result in metallosis, biologic toxicity, and a high failure rate. The Plaintiffs further allege that use of the Pinnacle Device results in unsafe release of toxic metal ions into hip implant recipients' tissue and bloodstream. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants are aware that metal particles from the Pinnacle Device results in metallosis, tissue death, bone erosion, and development of tumors. DePuy Synthes is a franchise of orthopaedic and neurosurgery companies. Acquired by Johnson & Johnson in 1998, its companies form part of the Johnson & Johnson Medical Devices group.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: David J. Diamond, Esq. GOLDBERG & OSBORNE LLP 698 E. Wetmore Road, Suite 200 Tucson, AZ 85705 Telephone: (520) 620 3975 Facsimile: (520) 620 3991 E-mail: ddiamond@goldbergandosborne.com DIGNITY HEALTH: Fails to Pay Wages & OT to Nurses, Allison Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JOANNE ALLISON, an individual on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly, the Plaintiff, v. DIGNITY HEALTH, a California corporation, and DOES 1 to 10, the Defendant, Case No. CGC-18-566922 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a Registered Nurse at Defendant's hospital in Oxnard, California. As part of her job, Plaintiff was required to participate in online continuing education training to maintain her certification. The Plaintiff would log 26 in to a computer program during her shift and participate in the online training. Although the time spent participating in continuing education courses is considered time worked, and Plaintiff was owed wages for all such training time, Defendant only agreed to compensate Plaintiff and class members for a portion of the CET. Thus, as a result of Defendant's policy of failing to pay wages for all time spent participating in continuing education courses, Plaintiff and class members were forced to work off the clock. In addition, the Plaintiff was forced by Defendant not to record more work hours than 12 in a day, to avoid paying Plaintiff and class members double time wages. Thus, Plaintiff and class members were required to clock out, but had to continue working. The Plaintiff and class members were not paid for such off-the-clock work. Dignity Health is a California-based not-for-profit public- benefit corporation that operates hospitals and ancillary care facilities in three states. As such, it is exempt from federal and state income taxes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Markham, Esq. Maggie Realin, Esq. Michael Morphew, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 750 B Street, Suite 1950 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619 399 3995 Facsimile: 619 615 2067 E-mail: drnarkham@rnarkham-law.com mrealin@rnarkharn-law.com mmorphew@markharn-law.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: 888 474 7242 Facsimile: 562 256 1006 E-mail: walterhaines@yahoo.com DNATA AVIATION: Faces "Bennett" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dnata Aviation USA, Inc. The case is styled as Davion Bennett, an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dnata Aviation USA, Inc. a corporation, Ground Services International Incorporated a corporation, Defendants, Case No. CGC18566911 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 31, 2018). Dnata Aviation USA, Inc. is a holding company, through its subsidiary, provides aviation ground handling services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Tel: (858) 551-1223 Fax: (858) 551-1232 Email: norm@bamlawca.com DR PEPPER: Drivers File Lawsuit Over COBRA Health Care Coverage --------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Eleven Dr Pepper Snapple drivers filed a class action against their employer on May 29 claiming the company illegally forces workers into expensive COBRA health care coverage to break strikes. Jeremey Yancey and 10 other plaintiffs are among 165 workers represented by Teamster Local Union 727 who began a strike at The American Bottling Co. facilities in Northlake and Harvey, Ill., on May 22. Among other grievances, the drivers say that the Dr Pepper Snapple subsidiary does not pay them as much as drivers for its competitors, including Coca-Cola and Pepsi. According to their class action filed on May 29 in Chicago federal court, while it is legitimate for employers to terminate health care plans during a strike, Dr Pepper Snapple is not permitted to automatically enroll workers in coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act, or COBRA, for the duration of a strike. The workers say that Dr Pepper Snapple, through The American Bottling Co., sent a letter on the day the strike began informing them that it would suspend their medical benefits until they return to work and that it had automatically enrolled the drivers in COBRA coverage. Family coverage is more than $350 a week, according to the letter cited in the lawsuit. The workers and their families have 65 days to decide whether to elect COBRA coverage and another 45 days to make their first payment. Dr Pepper, however, allegedly ignored that grace period and "unilaterally usurped" plaintiffs' rights by electing coverage for them in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA. Federal law "allows an employer to terminate health coverage during a strike, but it does not permit the employer to use COBRA as a cudgel to win the strike," according to the 16-page complaint filed by attorney Linda Martin in Philadelphia. Teamsters Local 727 said in a news release on May 29 that The American Bottling Co. had filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the union to stop members from picketing and handbilling. A judge was set to hear the motion on May 29 but the company has asked the court to reassign the case to a different judge, according to the union. "Instead of spending time and money working to bargain in good faith, and coming back to the bargaining table, this multi- billion dollar corporate bully is choosing to spend money on expensive lawyers, unnecessary security, and baseless legal actions," union executive John Coli Jr. said in a prepared statement. On May 20, the drivers declined the company's final contract offer which would have raised wages but would have fallen short of the hourly rate offered by competitors, according to the Chicago Tribune. The workers have been driving without contracts since May 1, the paper reported. The 150 drivers in the proposed class each seek statutory penalties of $110 per day and a court order that prevents Dr Pepper Snapple from using a "defective" COBRA notice against striking workers. Neither Dr Pepper Snapple nor Martin immediately responded on May 29 to requests for comment. DR SMOOD: Brown Alleges Skimming of Credit Card Tips ---------------------------------------------------- EQUAN BROWN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DR SMOOD 1151 BROADWAY LLC, DR SMOOD 285 MADISON LLC, DR SMOOD 485 LEX LLC, DR SMOOD SOHO LLC, DR SMOOD ORCHARD LLC, DR SMOOD NEW YORK PRODUCTION LLC, RENE SINDLEV, individually, and PATRICIA MANICI SINDLEZ, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 155146/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 1, 2018), contends that the Class are entitled to the full amount of tips paid through credit cards. However, Defendants did not distribute the full measure of credit card tips to employees who had earned them, and instead unlawfully retained those tips. As of October 11, 2018, the Defendant's Broadway Location alone had unlawfully retainer $22,655 in credit card tips from the previous six months. The Defendants' unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and consistent among all locations. The Defendants are employers in the hospitality industry. They operate restaurants that prepare and offer food and beverage for customer consumption.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Gaylord, Esq. BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP 400 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 226 Jericho, NY 11753 Telephone: (516) 742 4949 Facsimile: (516) 742 1977 DUNBAR ARMORED: "Hernandez" Suit Moved to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Paul Hernandez, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. Dunbar Armored, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 37-02018-00010780-CLI-0E-CTL, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of California (San Diego) on May 25, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01046-JLS-JMA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Janis L. Sammartino.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William D. Turley, Esq. THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234 2833 Facsimile: (619) 234 4048 E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com Attorneys for Defendant: Guillermo A. Escobedo, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 573 4900 Facsimile: (619) 573 4901 E-mail: guillermo.escobedo@jacksonlewis.com EDWARD JONES: Faces Class Action from Black Employees ----------------------------------------------------- Robert Khan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that black employees of Edward D. Jones Co. claim in a federal class action that the investment firm discriminates against them in pay, opportunities and promotion. Plaintiff's counsel: Linda D. Friedman, Esq. Suzanne E. Bish, Esq. George S. Robot, Esq. STOWELL & FRIEDMAN LTD. 303 W. Madison Street, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: (312) 431-0888 Email: lfriedman@sfltd.com sbish@sfltd.com grobot@sfltd.com ENCORE HEALTH: Pierce Seeks OT Pay for Go-Live Support Staff ------------------------------------------------------------ NANCY PIERCE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public and all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ENCORE HEALTH RESOURCES, LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18906387 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2018), contends that despite the fact that the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated Go-Live Support Consultants did not meet any test for exemption, Encore failed to pay them the requisite overtime rate of 1.5 times or 2 times their regular rate for all hour worked more than 8 hours in a day, more than 12 hours in a day, more than 40 hours per week, 8 hours worked on the seventh consecutive day in a workweek, and more than 8 hours on the seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek. Encore, a healthcare information technology firm, provides training and support to medical facilities in connection with the implementation and administration of integrated health computer systems, specifically, new electronic recordkeeping systems.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff, the general public, and all others similarly situated: Mark R. Thierman, Esq. Joshua D. Buck, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK LLP 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, NE 89511 Telephone: (775) 284 1500 E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com josh@thiermanbuck.com - and - Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312 233 1550 Facsimile: 312 233 1560 E-mail: RStephan@stephanzouras.com AFiczko@stephanzouras.com EPIC SYSTEMS: Judge May Toss Quality Assurance Workers' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Ed Treleven, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that another class-action lawsuit brought against Verona health care software maker Epic Systems is on the ropes after a federal judge said on May 22 that unless convinced otherwise, he would dismiss the suit in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision on May 21 that compels a different group of Epic workers to arbitration to resolve wage disputes. The lawsuit was brought in December 2016 on behalf of Epic quality assurance workers who say they were illegally denied overtime pay. In January 2017, the case was put on hold while the Supreme Court decided a similar case involving Epic technical writers, which also involved a wage dispute. Epic's lawyers had also filed a motion to dismiss the case on essentially the same grounds as in the case involving the technical writers -- that quality assurance workers are bound by arbitration agreements under which they have waived their right to pursue wage disputes in court. On May 21, a split Supreme Court sided 5-4 with Epic, ruling that because of the arbitration agreements, the technical writers cannot pursue a class action lawsuit. On May 22, U.S. District Judge William Conley noted the ruling, and in an order, he lifted the hold on the lawsuit brought by the quality assurance workers. He also said that lawyers for the quality assurance workers, who are the same lawyers who represent the technical writers, have until June 12 to explain why he shouldn't grant Epic's motion to dismiss the case and compel individual arbitration. Judge Conley also wrote that if the quality assurance workers in their response continue to oppose arbitration, Epic would have two weeks to respond. Caitlin Madden, one of the lawyers who represent both the quality assurance workers and the technical writers at Epic, said on May 22 that she could not comment on the pending case. In their lawsuit, the quality assurance workers claim that they were misclassified by Epic as being exempt from overtime pay rules, despite performing low-level computer work that requires little training or education in computer programming or engineering. Analysts, programmers and software engineers, for example, are exempt by law from overtime pay rules. While the case hasn't progressed far enough to gain class certification, the lawsuit states that as many as 1,000 people were potential class members. In 2014, Epic settled a class action lawsuit over wages brought by past quality assurance workers for $5.4 million. Another lawsuit brought by former technical writers was settled in January 2017 for an undisclosed sum. [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Grants Petition to Stay $30-Bil. Privacy Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the Ninth Circuit on May 29 granted Facebook's emergency petition to stay a $30 billion privacy suit pending appeal just hours after a lower court refused to delay an upcoming trial. Two Ninth Circuit judges issued their ruling just after 3:00 p.m. on May 29, mere hours after U.S. District Judge James Donato denied Facebook's motion to stay the case. In an emergency petition filed on May 25, Facebook argued it was being forced to spend money and risk reputational harm notifying users about an upcoming trial, which could become moot if the Ninth Circuit overturns a prior ruling in the case. "The reputational and economic costs to Facebook will be irreparable, particularly because the court has ordered Facebook to use its own service to notify people about a lawsuit against it," Facebook wrote in its emergency petition. Judge Donato ordered Facebook to use emails, newsfeed posts and jewel notices, or Facebook alerts, to notify millions of Illinois Facebook users about the lawsuit by May 31. Facebook is accused of harvesting users' facial data for its "Photo Tag Suggest" function without consent and in violation of a 2008 Illinois privacy law. A jury trial was set for July 9. The social network claims Judge Donato erroneously interpreted Illinois law when he granted class certification in April and denied Facebook's motion for summary judgment in May. Facebook also argued that Judge Donato was "prioritizing the July 9 trial date above the due process rights of Facebook and millions of absent class members." In his May 28 ruling, Judge Donato said Facebook "goes too far" in claiming that alerting users about the suit through its own network would cause "untoward embarrassment." "Many cases have held that a defendant's online channels constitute the best practicable notice to individual class members," Judge Donato wrote. Judge Donato also disagreed with Facebook's argument that the case should be postponed pending the outcome of its appeal challenging his decision to certify the class. "Facebook has not proffered any evidence indicating that class members would be left in a state of disarray and befuddlement, as it suggests, if developments during trial or post-trial appellate review resulted in a change to or decertification of the class," Judge Donato wrote. Judge Donato noted in his conclusion that this case, which started in 2015, has already been heavily litigated with major pre-trial disputes resolved and discovery closed. "The case is ripe for trial, and Facebook's last-minute request to derail that is denied," Judge Donato wrote. But the Ninth Circuit later granted Facebook's petition to stay the case. That means the company no longer has to use its own network to alert millions of users about the lawsuit by May 31, and the trial is delayed indefinitely. Ninth Circuit Judges William Fletcher and Consuelo Callahan issued the one-page ruling granting Facebook's emergency petition to stay the case. The two judges also granted an unopposed motion by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to file an amicus brief in the case. Earlier on May 29, class attorney Paul Geller, of Robbins Geller Rudman & Down in Boca Raton, Florida criticized Facebook for its "wasteful, repetitive efforts to stay the case or delay the trial." After the Ninth Circuit handed down its order, Geller said in an email: "We remain confident that our clients will get their day in court. This is just one more hurdle we have to clear." Facebook did not immediately return follow-up emails seeking comment on the Ninth Circuit's decision on May 29. FANTASY ACTIVEWEAR: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Bautista Says ---------------------------------------------------------- SAUL G. BAUTISTA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FANTASY ACTIVEWEAR, INC., a California corporation; ANWAR GAJIANI, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC707891 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, for at least four years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present, the Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages, including overtime wages and minimum wages, to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in the State of California in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, including but not limited to, unevenly rounding time worked and failing to pay overtime to employees who worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Fantasy Activewear, Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes apparel for adults, juniors, and youth.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOURLAW GROUP, P.C. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 975 1493 Facsimile: (310) 300 1705 - and - Farzin Hatanian, Esq. HATAN LAW, INC. 1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 853 0147 Facsimile: (310) 300 1582 FANTASY DYEING: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Garcia Says ---------------------------------------------------------- APOLINAR LUZ GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FANTASY DYEING & FINISHING, INC., a California corporation; ANWAR GAJIANI, an individual, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC 707890 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, for at least four years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present, the Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages, including overtime wages and minimum wages, to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in the State of California in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, including but not limited to, unevenly rounding time worked and failing to pay overtime to employees who worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Fantasy Dyeing was founded in 2003. The Company's line of business includes knitting outerwear from yarn or in manufacturing outerwear from knit fabrics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOURLAW GROUP, P.C. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 975 1493 Facsimile: (310) 300 1705 - and - Farzin Hatanian, Esq. HATAN LAW, INC. 1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 853 0147 Facsimile: (310) 300 1582 FGNY 296: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Shomo Claims -------------------------------------------------- KENNETH SHOMO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FGNY 296 BLEECKER LLC d/b/a FIVE GUYS, and FGNY W48 LLC d/b/a FIVE GUYS, the Defendants, Case No. 511341/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 1, 2018), contends that the Plaintiff was throughout his entire employment with Defendants, a covered, nonexempt employee, and as such, Plaintiff was, and is, entitled to be paid in full for all hours worked. The Defendants employed Plaintiff at their restaurants in New York City, and maintained control, oversight, and direction over Plaintiff in regard to timekeeping, payroll, and other employment practices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Gaylord, Esq. BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP 400 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 226 Jericho, NY 11753 Telephone: (516) 742 4949 Facsimile: (516) 742 1977 FINANCIAL CREDIT: Rigo Sues over Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- SANDRO RIGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL CREDIT SERVICE, INC. D/B/A/ ARA, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-22198-MGC (S.D. Fla., June 1, 2018), seeks redress for the Defendant's unlawful conduct in dispatching thousands of unlawful collection letters to Florida consumers in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the original creditor of the Consumer Debt was American General Finance. The current creditor of the Consumer Debt is ARA, Inc. The Consumer Debt is a "debt" governed by the FDCPA and FCCPA. On or about May 15, 2018, the Defendant sent a collection letter to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the Consumer Debt. The Collection Letter does not advise Plaintiff that Consumer Debt is in fact time-barred or that making a payment towards the Consumer Debt will revive the statute of limitations. The Collection Letter does not advise Plaintiff that if Plaintiff were to agree to any "payment arrangements" or enter any repayment agreement as Defendant urges, the current-creditor could then sue Plaintiff for the full amount of the Consumer Debt that was previously time-barred. Defendant's false, misleading and abusive tactics to collect on time-barred debts violate several provisions of the FDCPA and FCCPA. Financial Credit is a debt buyer and debt collector and purchases outstanding debt from major banks and credit card companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907 1136 Facsimile: (855) 529 9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com FIVE WEST HUBBARD CORP: "Nesbitt" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dwayne Nesbitt and Roy Ballesteros on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. 5 West Hubbard Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02644 (N.D. Ill., April 12, 2018), seeks to recover all back wages owed, prejudgment interest on the back wages owed, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the filing and prosecution of this action and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Five West Hubbard Corporation -- http://www.motherhubbardschicago.com/-- operates as "Mother Hubbard's Sports Pub" located at Chicago, Illinois where Plaintiffs are current/former employees. They claim to have worked more than forty hours per work week without being paid overtime. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 419-1008 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com FORSTER & GARBUS: "Loiseau" Suit Moved to E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Daphne Loiseau, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Forster & Garbus, LLP and Midland Funding, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 600162/2018, was removed from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York (Central Islip) on June 1, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-03232-JMA-AKT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joan M. Azrack. Forster & Garbus is a debt collection law firm that engages in very high volume debt collection, particularly, the filing of lawsuits against alleged debtors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq. 775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255 Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (631) 629 7709 E-mail: mpash@verizon.net Attorneys for Midland Funding, LLC: Dana Brett Briganti, Esq. Ellen Beth Silverman, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 471 6200 Facsimile: (212) 935 1166 E-mail: dbriganti@hinshawlaw.com esilverman@hinshawlaw.com FOUR M: Underpays Waiters and Bartenders, Dawkins et al. Say ------------------------------------------------------------ TIARA DAWKINS, SHARIVIA ALFORD, ZEENATH RASHID, and YINEIRY GUZMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FOUR M FOOD SERVICE OF GATEWAY LLC d/b/a BUFFALO WILD WINGS, the Defendant, Case No. 708531/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 1, 2018), seeks to recover damages and other legal and equitable relief against the Defendant for violations of the New York State Labor Law, the New York Code of Rules, and Regulations, the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiffs as waiters and bartenders at their restaurant in Brooklyn, New York, and maintained control, oversight, and direction over Plaintiffs in regard to timekeeping, payroll, and other employment practices, and functioned as employers pursuant to the NYLL. Buffalo Wild Wings is an American casual dining restaurant and sports bar franchise in the United States, Canada, India, Mexico, Oman, Panama, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates & Vietnam, specialising in Buffalo wings & sauces.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Gaylord, Esq. BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP 400 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 226 Jericho, NY 11753 Telephone: (516) 742 4949 Facsimile: (516) 742 1977 FOUR SEASONS: "Nova" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Luz Edith Roque Nova, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Four Seasons Packaging Corp. (d/b/a Four Seasons Packaging), Michael Marcarian, John Chen, Jimmy Doe, Jenny Doe and Ling Wang, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv- 02171 (E.D. N.Y., April 12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law. Defendants own, operate, or control a distribution center, located at 70 Onderdonk Avenue, Ridgewood, New York 11385 under the name "Four Seasons Packaging" where Roque was employed as a supply packer. She worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime. Defendants allegedly failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of her hours worked. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com FRESENIUS USA: "Cota" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Sergio Cota, individually; and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Fresenius USA, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, Fresenius USA Manufacturing, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-02018-00021158-CU-OE- CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of California (San Diego) on June 4, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01163-LAB-AGS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Larry Alan Burns. Fresenius manufactures and distributes equipment and disposable products for the treatment of kidney failure by hemodialysis and by peritoneal.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Farzad Rastegar, Esq. RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC 22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200 Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (310) 961 9600 Facsimile: (310) 961 9094 E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: David H. Stern, Esq. DECHERT LLP 633 W 5th Street, Suite 4900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2032 Telephone: (213) 808 5736 Facsimile: (213) 808 5760 E-mail: david.stern@dechert.com FRONTIER AIRLINES: Faces "Ridgell" Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontier Airlines, Inc. The case is styled as Andrea Ridgell, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., a Colorado corporation, Airbus S.A.S., a foreign corporation doing business in the State of California, Airbus Group HQ, Inc., a corporation doing business in the State of California, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04916 (C.D. Cal., June 1, 2018). Frontier Airlines is an American ultra low cost carrier headquartered in Denver, Colorado. The 8th largest commercial airline in the US, Frontier Airlines operates flights to over 80 destinations throughout the United States and 6 international destinations, with ambitious expansion plans. The carrier is a subsidiary and operating brand of Indigo Partners, LLC, and maintains a hub at Denver International Airport with numerous focus cities across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. Bradley Grombacher LLP 2815 Townsgate Road Suite 130 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Tel: (805) 270-7100 Fax: (805) 270-7589 Email: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com FULFILLMENT LAB: Class Certification Bid Dismissed as Premature --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled EMILY MALET-JOWETT, On behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE FULFILLMENT LAB, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00064- ILRL-MBN (E.D. La.), the Court entered an order dated June 5, 2018: 1. dismissing Plaintiff's motion for class certification as premature, to be reurged no later than December 1, 2018; and 2. granting reurged joint motion to continue/stay submission date for class certification The Court said, "The parties shall have six months to conduct discovery on the question of whether entities that are not currently parties to the instant lawsuit should be named as additional defendants. The deadline for a plaintiff to move for class certification can be continued for good cause." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jvowaJnA GAME INFORMER: Faces Class Action Over Invasion of Privacy ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a Michigan man filed a federal class action claiming Game Informer magazine, without permission, shared demographic and lifestyle information about thousands of its subscribers with third parties. Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Wedad Ibrahim, Esq. LYNGKLIP & ASSOCIATES CONSUMER LAW CENTER, PLC 24500 Northwestern Highway, Ste. 206 Southfield, MI 48075 Tel: (248) 208-8864 Email: WedadI@MichiganConsumerLaw.Com -- and -- Frank S. Hedin, Esq. David W. Hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 357-2107 Fax: (305) 200-8801 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com dhall@hedinhall.com GAME SHOW: Faces Class Action Over Social-Casino Online Games ------------------------------------------------------------- Haley Hintze, writing for Flush Draw, reports that Washington State-based class-action law firm Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC has filed another complaint targeting the providers of "free play" social-casino online games available to residents of Washington. This time, the firm has filed a claim for unspecified damages against California's Game Show Network (GSN) and its online "GSN Casino" offerings. The complaint lists a Washington State resident, Elise Bell, as the official plaintiff and as the initial member of a class that may include "tens of thousands" of potential litigants. The action alleges that the games served up within the GSN Casino are in violation of Washington gambling laws, because they offer the sale of coin packages that allow for additional play on GSN Casino games (mostly free-play slots), if and when a player's free allotments of chips are used up. Attorneys for Tousley Brain Stephens allege that the sale of the coin packages represent a "thing of value" under Washington law, even though the coins cannot be redeemed for anything else, once purchased. It's the same argument the class-action firm has employed in five other recent cases filed against social-casino providers. The lawsuit against California-based GSN was filed in Tacoma, WA, in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington. As with the previous lawsuits filed by Tousley Brain Stephens, it includes a nominal presentation of facts associated with the case while including a demand for a jury trial. Per the complaint, Bell signed up to play at GSN Casino and eventually purchased numerous coin bundles for extra play. "Starting in September 2016, Plaintiff Bell wagered and lost (and Defendant therefore won) over $700 at Defendant's games of chance." Despite the language used, whether the defendant "won" in a gambling sense or whether the sale of the coins represents a usage or entertainment fee is one of the key factors this and the other Washington state cases will have to examine. About five weeks ago, Tousley Brain Stephens filed actions against four providers of free-to-play online casino games that were available to Washington State residents. The companies named as defendants in those earlier actions are Huuuge Games, High 5 Games, DoubleDown Interactive and Playtika. All of the class-action filings came in the wake of an early- April appellate court decision in Washington that went against a different social-casino operator, Churchill Downs, the parent company of the Big Fish Casino family of online games. Though the Churchill Downs ruling included other aspects that may make it inapplicable to other games, such as Big Fish charging a transaction fee allowing players to transfer chips to one another, Tousley Brain Stephens may have taken the ruling as green light to go after social-casino operators in general. It's also not the first such delving into online-gaming matters for the firm. Back in 2016, Tousley Brain Stephens was one of several legal firms involved in class actions brought against esports provider Valve Corp. (the parent company of CounterStrike: Global Offensive), and numerous third parties involved in the sale of skins, a medium through which illicit gambling on CS:GO and other esports occurred. Valve Corp. successfully defended itself in that matter, though the recent spate of social-gaming targets suggest the firm has simply looked for another family of corporate targets in the same general online-business sphere. In this latest action, Bell's "losses" (if not truly a cost of entertainment) are listed at about $700, yet the action claims the federal court has jurisdiction because the expected claim is over $5 million. Since discovery has yet to occur, that figure appears derived from GSN's purchase of UK social-games developer Bash Gaming back in 2014, in a deal valued at more than $160 million. The action lists three separate claims against GSN: -- Violations of Washington gambling codes; -- Violations of Washington's Consumer Protection Act; -- Unjust enrichment. The action seeks trebled damages on the actual purchase amounts by Bell and other, later members of the class, plus interest, court costs, and what appears to be the real moneymaker in the action, attorneys' fees. [GN] GEORGE WASH. UNIV.: Stanley Sues Over Mismanaged Retirement Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Stanley, individually and as representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of The George Washington University Retirement Plan for Faculty and Staff and The George Washington University Supplemental Retirement Plan, Plaintiff, v. The George Washington University, The George Washington University Board Of Trustees and The George Washington University Plan Administration Committee, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00878 (D.C., April 13, 2018) seeks to recover plan losses, removal of fiduciaries who have breached their fiduciary duties, surcharges on all amounts involved in any transactions which such accounting reveals were improper or excessive, attorney's fees and costs, payment of interest and equitable or remedial relief pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The George Washington University is a private university located at 2121 Eye Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20052. The George Washington University Retirement Plan for Faculty and Staff is a defined contribution, individual account, money purchase employee benefit pension plan. Stanley is a participant in the said plans and has a vested account balance. Plaintiff alleges that the Plans' funds were placed into duplicative, expensive and underperforming proprietary annuity products. Defendants continuously retained share classes of Plans investment options that charged higher fees than other less expensive share classes that were available for the same funds. Plan member pay an asset-based fee for administrative services that continued to increase with the increase in the value of a participant's account even though no additional services were being provided. Defendants also failed to regularly monitor the investment choices in the Plans to determine whether the Plans provided an appropriate range of investment choices into which participants could direct the investment of their retirement dollars, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Tel: (202) 470-3520 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com - and - Steve Schwartz, Esq. Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP 361 W. Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 Email: steveschwartz@chimicles.com awf@chimicles.com - and - Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1100 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 656-2500 Fax: (302) 656-9053 Email: rjk@chimicles.com - and - Franklin D. Azar, Esq. Paul R. Wood, Esq. Keith R. Scranton, Esq. FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 14426 E. Evans Ave. Aurora, CO 80014 Tel: (303) 757-3300 Fax: (303) 757-3206 Email: azarf@fdazar.com woodp@fdzar.com scrantonk@fdazar.com GETSWIFT: Federal Court Approves Shareholders' Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Ben Hall, writing for Business News Australia, reports that the filing of a class action law suit against logistics software company GetSwift has been approved by the Federal Court with the aggrieved shareholders now ordered to file a statement of claim against the company. The Federal Court considered three separate class actions against GetSwift and ruled that the claim by law firm Phi Finney McDonald should proceed while the two other class actions should be permanently stayed. GetSwift, which is run by CEO Bane Hunter and former AFL player and entrepreneur Joel McDonald, was facing up to three separate class action law suits over allegations it has engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct relating to continuous disclosure breaches to the market. The successful class action from Phi Finney McDonald does not disclose an amount of compensation being sought, but in an announcement to the ASX, GetSwift says the other claims were for approximately $75 to $100 million and $120 to $140 million. GetSwift says this is a reduction of between 50 to 75 per cent on the previously reported claim size. "The company strongly disputes the allegations made, including any alleged loss, and will vigorously defend the proceedings," the ASX statement says. In February, law firm Squire Patton Boggs applied to commence the class action against GetSwift in the Federal Court, while litigation funder Vannin Capital together with law firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth along with MC Lawyers indicated they were also investigating the possibility of launching a class action. It's been alleged GetSwift breached its obligations to the market in announcing deals with The Fruitbox Company, the Commonwealth Bank and Fantastic Furniture, with those deals subsequently either cancelled or subject to ongoing review. The company confirmed in February it received notice from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) that it is "under investigation" as the company revealed a blowout in losses of nearly 1,000 per cent. In its half yearly update released to the market shortly after the ASIC investigation was announced, the company revealed its net loss after tax had blown out by 964 per cent to $5.5 million from $516,000 in the prior corresponding period. Ahead of the ASIC investigation and the class action being lodged, GetSwift spent nearly a month in a trading halt as it worked through its disclosure issues with the ASX. In April, the company announced a board shakeup which included Bane Hunter taking over as CEO from Joel McDonald along with a promise to address its governance practices. In December, GSW shares were trading at $4.30 and on May 23 they were $0.44. [GN] GETSWIFT: Phi Finney McDonald to Lead Shareholder Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Bailey, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that boutique Melbourne law firm Phi Finney McDonald will lead the sole class action on behalf of aggrieved investors in logistics business GetSwift, after a Federal Court judge on May 23 permanently stayed two other competing class actions. The class actions and an Australian Securities and Investments Commission investigation of GetSwift were triggered by an investigation in The Australian Financial Review into the company's market announcements and failure to disclose contract losses, which saw its share price plummet. The stock has lost 90 per cent from its high in December 2017 to trade at 43õ on May 23. Phi Finney McDonald's victory is understood to be the first time that an Australian court has responded to multiple class actions by allowing only one to proceed. Previously, courts have preferred to consolidate multiple claims into a single action, or to allow multiple claims to go forward after having eliminated overlaps in group membership. In a judgment that could set a precedent for the five law firms currently fighting over which will run a class action against AMP, Justice Michael Lee found that Phi Finney McDonald -- run by three former Slater & Gordon lawyers and partnered in this class action by funder Therium Australia -- had a "clearly preferable" funding model over actions brought by Squire Patton Boggs and Corrs Chambers Westgarth. "It has the advantage of producing a more direct correlation between the amount ventured and the likely return," Justice Lee wrote in his 139-page judgment. Instead of the simple percentage commission payable to funders in most class actions, Phi Finney McDonald's proposal entitled its funder to the lesser of a multiple of expenses it had paid in the proceeding (2.2 times for a settlement with GetSwift before April 12, 2019, 2.8 times for a successful resolution after that) or 20 per cent of the litigation proceeds less fees and disbursements. "Our model has a number of advantages, including tying the funder's return to the risk that they have taken in a proceeding and preventing windfalls to the funder", Phi Finney McDonald partner Ben Phi told The Australian Financial Review. Justice Lee noted its proposal also included a "novel suggestion" for a court-appointed referee to periodically review the reasonableness of legal costs being incurred. Not wavering in his declaration in April that only one of the competing class actions should go ahead, as the case was likely to be settled and multiple actions would reduce the amount payable to GetSwift investors, the judge noted there was little difference in the competence and state of preparation of the three class actions. However, he commended Phi Finney McDonald's openness to the appointment of court-appointed experts in relation to questions of liability and loss causation as a means of "significantly" reducing costs, and avoiding selection bias. "At the very least, [Phi Finney McDonald's] non-opposition to such a course will potentially reduce the scope for disputation about whether or not such a course is appropriate," Justice Lee wrote. The judgment potentially contained a warning for class action applicants who spend time on "bookbuilds" -- signing up members and creating funding agreements with them -- before they know whether a "common fund order" will be made. Since the Federal Court's first making of a "common fund order" in Australian legal history in 2016, they have become an increasingly prominent part of the class action landscape. They provide the funder of a class action with certainty that all of the claimants in a class -- in this case, all of the investors who bought GetSwift shares before its continuous disclosure breaches were revealed -- will be liable to pay the funder a commission out of any proceeds from litigation or settlement, rather than only those who signed up to funding arrangements with the funder. So while Corrs Chambers Westgarth made much in earlier hearings of the 208 investors it had signed with funder Vannin Capital, and Squire Patton Boggs its 103 with International Litigation Partners, Justice Lee said this had proved a "waste of costs" as a common fund order was agreed relatively early in proceedings. Not even the GetSwift investor named as the applicant in Phi Finney McDonald's action, Raffaele Webb, had actually signed a funding agreement with its funder Therium Australia. Mr Phi said he would not comment on the potential size of the claim against GetSwift. His competitor applicants had earlier tendered estimates between $75 million and $140 million. Phi Finney McDonald has been ordered to serve a statement of claim by May 28, 2018, and GetSwift to serve a defence by June 6, 2018. [GN] GILBERT ROZON: Sexual Harassment Class Action Can Proceed --------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that a Quebec judge has authorized a class-action lawsuit against former Just For Laughs head Gilbert Rozon for the alleged harassment and sexual assault of several women. The women sought permission last fall to file the suit against the co-founder of the popular Montreal comedy festival, seeking $10 million in punitive damages as well as additional compensation. They created a group called "Les Courageuses" ("The Courageous Ones") and alleged Rozon abused at least 20 women between 1982 and 2016. Quebec Superior Court Justice Donald Bisson ruled in their favour on May 22, saying they have the right to have their case heard. The judge noted that class-actions have proven an effective way to ensure victims have access to justice in sexual assault cases. "If the plaintiff was not authorized to bring this class action, it is highly likely that many victims would be deprived of the ability to exercise their rights in court," Judge Bisson wrote. The case is unusual, the judge noted, because most other class actions related to sexual assault are directed at religious or educational institutions. "The peculiarity of this case is that the claim does not concern an institution in which the abuser was working, but only the alleged perpetrator alone," he wrote. Mr. Rozon can appeal, but only with the permission of a judge. His lawyers had challenged the authorization, arguing a lawsuit was not the appropriate vehicle and that each woman should have pursued her own case. Mr. Rozon also argued the lead plaintiff, actress Patricia Tulasne, who alleged an assault took place in 1994, did not file within the prescribed time limit and didn't demonstrate she couldn't do so before last year. His legal team said Tulasne, the only identified member of the group, contradicted herself while recounting the alleged assault. The judge noted Rozon didn't try to deny the events but only questioned their interpretation. Mr. Rozon's lawyers said being "charming while using his power was not a fault in itself." The judge said, however, that Tulasne's allegations "do not correspond to the crude and distorted trivialization put forth by Mr. Rozon." Mr. Rozon was previously unsuccessful in having the words "rape" and "sexual predator" removed from the women's court filing in a separate motion. He stepped down as president of Just For Laughs last year and an investor group including Canadian-born entertainer Howie Mandel and U.S. talent agency ICM Partners bought the company in March. [GN] GLOBE-CON FREIGHT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Esquivel Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ROSA N. ESQUIVEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the general public of California, the Plaintiff, v. GLOBE-CON FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation; KENNETH R. DEVINE; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC707654 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaints, the Defendants made unlawful deductions from Plaintiff and the class members' remuneration and failed to reimburse them for business expenses including, but not limited to, liability insurance, using the truck, fuel, mileage, travel, parking, plates, permits, registration, repairs and maintenance; failed to pay Plaintiff and the rest of the class compensation for rest periods separate from their piece rate compensation; failed to pay Plaintiff and the rest of the class at least the minimum wage. GlobeCon has been providing port logistics, trucking, drayage and warehousing services at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.[BN] Attorney for Rosa N. Esquivel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the general public of California: Stephen Glick, Esq. M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK 1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 387 3400 Facsimile: (213) 387 7872 GREATER HUME: Class Action Over 2009 Fire Dismissed --------------------------------------------------- The Border Mail reports that a class action following a major fire that destroyed homes and livestock at Walla and Gerogery in 2009 has been dismissed. Greater Hume Shire was sued following the blaze, which started at the Walla tip on December 17, 2009, and spread through an abandoned golf course and farmland. Five houses were destroyed, four damaged and 17 outbuildings burnt down, along with stock and crop losses. About 5200 acres were burnt out and 57 people affected by the fire joined the class action. Both sides are reviewing their positions after the claim was recently dismissed in the NSW Supreme Court. Gerogery woman Sharon Patricia Weber led the legal action after losing her home, which was in the direct path of the fire. It had been argued that the shire breached a duty of care to the residents. The group had been seeking costs, damages and interest from the shire. The blaze reached Gerogery about an hour after escaping the tip, with about 40 fire brigades and four aircraft used to extinguish the blaze. It was argued the shire should have had a fire management plan, fire breaks, waste separated into appropriate areas and firefighting equipment on site. It had also been argued that the shire should have removed fuel such as leaves, grass and trees, and monitored the facility during periods of extreme bushfire risk. Ms Weber and her legal team alleged the fire was started by management failures at the tip, leading to "substantial loss and damage". The shire, it was argued, should have foreseen that the tip waste could ignite, with risk it would spread. Six possible causes of the fire had been identified, including spontaneous combustion, the materials dumped at the tip, or deliberate ignition, but experts said the cause could not be determined. Justice Michael Walton said that meant " [Ms Weber] cannot, therefore, prove that the fire was caused in breach of any duty owed by the [the shire] to her (or the other group members)." "I find that the plaintiff has failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, causation namely, that any negligence of the defendant caused the harm suffered by the plaintiff," he said. An appeal against the decision would need to be lodged by June 11. [GN] HIPO MANAGEMENT: Suarez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRES ESTEBAN SUAREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HIPO MANAGEMENT INC. (D/B/A HIPO MANAGEMENT) and STELLA TAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18- cv-03113 (E.D.N.Y., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff Suarez appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff Suarez to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Suarez and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. The Defendants own, operate, or control seven buildings, located at 64-86 Wetherole Street, Rego Park, New York, 11374, at 64-63 Austin Street, Rego Park, New York, 11374, at 64-73 Austin Street, Rego Park, New York, 11374, at 64-75 Austin Street, Rego Park, New York, 11374, at 94-11 65th Road, Rego Park, New York, 11374, at 95-08 65th Road, Rego Park, NY 11374, and at 97-40 64th Ave, Rego Park, New York, 11374., under the name "Hipo Management".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 Facsimile: (212) 317 1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com HOLLYWOOD BEAUTY: Faces "Reyes" Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against John Doe Corp. doing business as: Hollywood Beauty Salon. The case is styled as Yohandry Reyes and Carolina Sierra, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. John Doe Corp. doing business as: Hollywood Beauty Salon, Raymond Salcedo, Hormedo Pena, Carmen Salcedo and Carolina Pena Salcedo, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03210 (E.D. N.Y., May 31, 2018). Hollywood Beauty Salon is engaged in the salon business.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE. HOME DEPOT: Mismanaged 401(k) Plan, "Pizarro" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- Jaime H. Pizarro and Craig Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Home Depot, Inc., The Administrative Committee of The Home Depot Futurebuilder 401(K) Plan, The Investment Committee of The Home Depot Futurebuilder 401(K) Plan, Financial Engines Advisors, LLC, Alight Financial Advisors, LLC, and Does 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01566 (N.D. Ga., April 12, 2018), seeks to reform the Plan to include only prudent investments, order the Plan to obtain bids for investment advisors and to pay only reasonable investment advisory fees, attorney's fees and costs, and payment of interest, other equitable or remedial relief pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Plaintiffs represent participants and beneficiaries of The Home Depot FutureBuilder 401(k) Plan. The Home Depot, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, is a home retailer and is the Employees' Plan sponsor and one of the Plan's fiduciaries. Defendants allegedly paid unreasonable fees to Financial Engines Advisors, LLC and Alight Financial Advisors, LLC to manage the said plan that contained too many layers of fees suspect to a kickback scheme between Financial Engines and the Plan record-keeper Aon Hewitt. Home Depot also retained too many poor-performing investment advisory options on the Plan, notes the complaint. Financial Engines Advisors, LLC was an investment advisor to the Plan from the beginning of the class period until June 30, 2017. As of July 1, 2017, Financial Engines continued providing sub- advisory services to Plan Participants through its relationship with Aon Hewitt Financial Advisors, LLC and its successor Company Alight Financial Advisors, LLC. Alight Financial Advisors, LLC operating under the name Aon Hewitt Financial Advisors, LLC, began providing investment advisory services to the Plan beginning July 1, 2017. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Jay Pontrelli, Esq. BYRNE, DAVIS AND HICKS, PC 3565 Piedmont Road, Suite 380 Four Piedmont Center Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 266-7284 Facsimile: (404)266-7272 Email: pjp1460@gmail.com - and - Charles H. Field, Esq. Edward Chapin, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 577-4253 Fax: (619) 577-4250 Email: cfield@sanfordheisler.com - and - Kevin H. Sharp, Esq. Leigh Anne St, Charles, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 37203 Tel: (615) 434-7000 Fax: (615) 434-7020 Email: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com lstcharles@sanfordheisler.com - and - David Hahn Tracey, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10019 Tel: (646) 402-5667 Fax: (646) 402-5651 Email: dtracey@sanfordheisler.com - and - Norman Blumenthal, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Nicho1as De Blouw, Esq. Molly DeSario, Esq. Jeffrey Herman, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara San Diego, CA 92037 Phone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Email: norm@bamlawca.eom aj@bamlawca.com nick@bamlawca.com molly@bamlawca.com jeff@bamlawca.com HOUSTON TEXANS: Former Cheerleader Sues Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Barshop, writing for ESPN, reports that a former Texans cheerleader has filed a class-action lawsuit against the team as well as director of cheerleader programs and coach Altovise Gary. In the lawsuit, the woman alleges that she was not compensated fairly for her time and was subject to harassment from fans and from Gary. Only one cheerleader, who is identified by the initials PGG, is a named plaintiff on the case. The plaintiff worked for the Texans as a cheerleader from April 12, 2017, to April 13, 2018. According to the lawsuit, PGG seeks to "recover compensation for hours worked but not recorded or paid ('off-the-clock work'), failure to pay minimum wage and failure to pay overtime compensation." The lawsuit alleges that PGG was paid for some of her work for the Texans but was not compensated for being "on call 24/7," for requirements the team had for social media, for her time spent in the gym and getting spray tans, for signing Texans calendars or for other events that were unpaid. According to the lawsuit, when the plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in a week, she was not compensated with overtime pay, as required by law. According to the lawsuit, several cheerleaders reported being physically assaulted by fans during the 2017 season, but even after they reported the assaults to Mr. Gary, she "to their knowledge" did not take "steps to report the assaults or take steps to insure the cheerleaders' safety." The lawsuit also claims that Mr. Gary made comments about the weight and bodies of several cheerleaders. Last season, according the lawsuit, Mr. Gary told a cheerleader that "she had "belly jelly" and she was a "chunky cheek." "Before one game during the 2017 football season, Coach Alto took a cheerleader to a secluded area of the stadium and duct taped her stomach skin underneath her shorts," the lawsuit alleges. "Coach Alto then brought that cheerleader in front of the rest of the squad and showed them how much 'better it looks.' At the next practice, Coach Alto pulled out a roll of duct tape and asked said cheerleader if she needed it." The Texans released a statement about the lawsuit to The Washington Post saying, "We are proud of the cheerleader program and have had hundreds of women participate and enjoy their experience while making a positive impact in the local community. We are constantly evaluating our procedures and will continue to make adjustments as needed to make the program enjoyable for everyone." The Texans are not the first NFL team to have a lawsuit filed against them for their cheerleading practices. Earlier in May, The New York Times reported that in 2013, Washington Redskins cheerleaders were required to pose topless in a photo shoot in front of people who had been invited to the event by the team. In March, a former New Orleans Saints cheerleader filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that she was fired over "blatantly discriminatory" social media and fraternization policies that are different for cheerleaders and players. [GN] HOUSTON TEXANS: Faces 2nd Suit from Former Cheerleaders ------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey Jukam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that five former Houston Texans cheerleaders claim in a lawsuit filed on June 1 that they were subjected to a hostile workplace and not protected from mental and physical abuses perpetrated by fans and their own coach. The women reiterated many of the claims made in a federal class action brought against the National Football League team last week, alleging they were not fairly compensated or paid overtime. On June 1 press conference in Houston to announce the lawsuit, the cheerleaders said the team did nothing to protect them from being exploited and discriminated against. "We were harassed, we were bullied and we were body-shamed for $7.25 an hour," former Texans cheerleader Ainsley Parish said. Parish and the other plaintiffs -- Hannah Turnbow, Morgan Wiederhold, Ashley Rodriguez, and Kelly Neuner -- are represented by Houston-based attorney Kimberley Spurlock, Esq., and high- profile women's rights lawyer Gloria Allred, Esq., who is based in Los Angeles. Allred recently represented 33 women who accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault and other misconduct. "When each hour of the practices, games, appearances, travel time, preparation, and required social media marketing is accounted, the Houston Texans cheerleaders earn pennies for each hour worked," according to the 20-page lawsuit filed in Houston federal court. Apart from the Texans' alleged failure to fairly compensate cheerleaders for the hours they worked -- or for the use of their pictures on promotional materials -- the lawsuit also claims that the team did not provide the cheerleaders with adequate security despite the fact that they were subjected to physical assaults by fans on an ongoing basis. According to the suit, the cheerleaders who are paraded through the stadium during games have a "safe word." "'Toro' means more than the Texans mascot," the complaint states. "It means a woman does not feel safe." After one plaintiff was physically assaulted at a game, the suit claims, her coach told her to "deal with it and move on," even though she had visible physical injuries and was deeply shaken by the experience. As in last week's class action, the plaintiffs June 1 complaint claim that their cheerleading coach, Altovise Gary, cyberbullied and body-shamed the women, and assaulted one woman by duct-taping down the sides of her stomach under her uniform. "Plaintiffs were in a constant state of fear around [Gary], anxiously anticipating whether they would be the next one subjected to her physical assaults," the cheerleaders said in the complaint. Gary is not named as a defendant on June 1 lawsuit, but was named in the class action. The cheerleaders allege they were often reminded that they were "replaceable" and were reprimanded for speaking up. "The Houston Texans should not have given us a uniform if they did not want us to become an army," Parish said at the press conference. The former cheerleaders are asking a federal judge to declare that the Texans violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and order the team to pay the plaintiffs for unpaid overtime hours and other damages. "Their main goal is to seek change for the women that will come after them so that the Houston Texans will treat all their employees fairly and with respect," Allred said. The proposed class in the May 22 complaint is represented by Bruse Loyd, Esq. -- bruse@jgl-law.com -- with Jones, Gillaspia and Loyd. INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS: Court Won't Declare Offer Ineffective ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, denied Plaintiff's Motion to Declare Ineffective Defendant's Offer of Judgment in the case captioned JOHN NORTHRUP, Plaintiff, v. INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS GROUP, INC., DAVID E. LINDSEY, INNOVATIVE HEALTH INSURANCE PARTNERS, LLC and CYBERX GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-1890-T-36JSS (M.D. Fla.). Plaintiff John Northrup, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges that the Defendants sent him text messages marketing trucking services in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). There are three approaches taken by district courts: (1) strike the offer of judgment to prevent an improper conflict of interest between a putative class representative and the putative class; (2) prohibit the application of Rule 68(d) but decline to strike the offer of judgment because there is no procedural mechanism to support striking it; or (3) decline to strike the offer of judgment for lack of a supporting procedural mechanism and decline to declare the offer ineffective because such a determination would be advisory until the defendant moves for relief under Rule 68. Here, the Offer is not included in the record before the Court and, thus, there is nothing to strike. Also, because CyberX has not moved for relief under Rule 68, the Court's determination of the effectiveness of the Offer would constitute an improper advisory decision. Accordingly, because there is no binding precedent supporting the Plaintiff's request and the Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion, it is ordered that Plaintiff's Motion to Declare Ineffective Defendant's Offer of Judgment Dated March 1, 2018 is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y88mgmqt from Leagle.com. John Northrup, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Cory S. Fein -- cory@coryfeinlaw.com -- Cory Fein Law Firm, pro hac vice & Seth Lehrman -- seth@pathtojustice.com -- Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL. Independent Truckers Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by David J. De Piano, Shapiro, Blasi, Wasserman & Hermann, PA, & William S. Richmond, Platt Cheema Richmond LLC, pro hac vice. David E Lindsey, Defendant, represented by David J. De Piano, Shapiro, Blasi, Wasserman & Hermann, PA & William S. Richmond, Platt Cheema Richmond LLC. Innovative Health Insurance Partners, LLC & CyberX Group, LLC, Defendants, represented byWilliam S. Richmond, Platt Cheema Richmond LLC. J. CREW: Posts Bogus "Sale Prices", Class Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that J. Crew Group posts bogus "sale prices," and has for six years, a class claims in Ventura County Court. Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class: Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq. Richard D. Lambert, Esq. STONEBARGER LAW A Professional Corporation 75 Iron Point Circle, St. 145 Folsom, CA 95630 Tel: (916) 235-7140 Fax: (916) 235-7141 Email: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com JEFFREY W. FELDMAN: Seeks to Claw Back Legal Defense Costs ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled "Amy", et al., the Plaintiffs, v. Jeffrey W. Feldman, the Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-00721-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Defendant asks the Court for certification of a class action clawback counterclaim. Feldman asserts a counterclaim due to attorney's fees and cost associated with Amy et al.'s excessive litigation. Feldman has spent $35,861 in attorney fees plus additional costs defending himself from this lawsuit. According to Feldman, it is likely that Amy et al. have been overcompensated. As of April 1, 2017, Amy had been rewarded $13,025,165 in restitution. Discovery should reveal how much Amy et al. have been compensated, Feldman asserts. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZJtaZfgw Attorneys for Plaintiffs: James Marsh, Esq. Robert Lewis, Esq. Carol Hepburn, Esq. MARSH LAW FIRM PLLC PO Box 4668 New York, NY 10163 The Defendant appears pro se. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Canadian Talcum Powder Class Action OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- Kristin Compton, writing for Drugwatch, reports that a Canadian class action lawsuit against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson has been given the go ahead to proceed. Meanwhile, talcum powder lawsuits continue in the U.S. The class action in Canada involves patients who say they were injured by Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Valeant's Shower to Shower products. The Quebec Superior Court authorized the class action in early May 2018. The collective litigation is titled the Baby Powder Ovarian Cancer class action. Plaintiffs claim regular use of the common household powder products can lead to a higher risk of ovarian cancer. The lawsuits allege this link is medically confirmed. People involved in the class action used these products in their genital area and were later diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Women most often use these talc-based retail products as part of their normal feminine hygiene routine. The lawsuit is intended to recover compensation for those injured by the products. U.S. Talcum Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuits Johnson & Johnson faces talcum powder lawsuits from nearly 7,000 U.S. women and their families. These lawsuits only pertain to talc-based baby powder products and not those that use cornstarch as the main ingredient. Many lawsuits ask for a warning label to be added to the product. Other companies that manufacture talcum powder products have already taken this step. J&J has not. Instead, the company maintains its product is safe. Ovarian cancer ranks fifth in cancer deaths among women. It also accounts for more deaths than any other cancer of the female reproductive system, according to the American Cancer Society. It mainly affects older women. It is often difficult to detect in its early stages. "I don't wish this on anyone else," Deborah Giannecchini, 62, told CNN. She is one of the thousands of women diagnosed with a terminal form of the cancer after using J&J's product for many years. Can Talcum Powder Cause Ovarian Cancer? The legal and scientific communities have come head-to-head in the ongoing talcum-powder debate. Some studies show an increased risk of ovarian cancer when these talc products are used in the genital area. Others do not. Most argue more research is needed before coming to a conclusion one way or the other. What U.S. Courts Say About J&J's Talcum Powder and Ovarian Cancer Despite J&J's cry for non-liability, juries more often than not have sided with women who developed ovarian cancer. Jurors have ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay more than $600 million to women and their families. Two of the verdicts were overturned. Those decisions are on appeal. The largest talcum powder ovarian cancer verdict to date involved Eva Echeverria of California. In August 2017, a Los Angeles jury ordered J&J to pay a whopping $417 million to Ms. Echeverria. Her lawsuit alleged she developed ovarian cancer after using the company's baby powder product. Ms. Echeverria died after a long-term battle with the cancer. A superior court judge reversed the verdict in October 2017. The judge decided Ms. Echeverria did not establish a strong enough link between the talc powder and her subsequent development of cancer. U.S. women who used J&J talcum powder products and later developed ovarian cancer continue to file lawsuits. Talcum Powder Mesothelioma Lawsuits Other talcum powder lawsuits claim exposure to J&J's talc products may also cause mesothelioma. This is another rare but aggressive cancer that affects the lining of the heart, lungs and abdomen. In April 2018, a New Jersey court ordered J&J to pay a portion of a $117 million award to a man who developed this deadly injury. An appeal was still pending in May 2018. [GN] JUST ENERGY: "Evangelista" Suit Remains in Calif. District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Central District California, Southern Division, denied Plaintiffs' renewed motion to remand the case captioned DANIEL EVANGELISTA, Plaintiff, v. JUST ENERGY MARKETING CORP., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. SACV 17-02270-CJC (SSx) (C.D. Cal.) to Orange County Superior Court. The Plaintiff Daniel Evangelista filed this action in Orange County Superior Court alleging various violations of California labor law and asserting seven claims on behalf of a putative class against Defendants Just Energy Marketing Corp. (JEMC), Just Energy Solutions Inc. (JES), Just Energy Limited (JEL), Just Energy Group Inc. (JEG), and various Doe defendants. Just Energy hired the Plaintiff to sell natural gas and electricity to residential customers as a door-to-door salesman. The Plaintiff was required to sign documents acknowledging his agreement to abide by JEG's policies as part of his application and hire process. The Plaintiff alleges various violations of the California Labor Code occurred during his employment, such as failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and failure to reimburse employees for necessary expenditures. The Defendants removed the action to this Court. The Plaintiff moved to remand this action to Orange County Superior Court, arguing that the local controversy exception to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) applied. The Court held that the Plaintiff had not sufficiently pled that the conduct of the one local defendant, JES, formed a significant basis for the claims asserted, but granted Plaintiff fourteen days' leave to amend to clarify issues pertaining to the Court's jurisdiction under CAFA. The Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled these theories of liability merely by stating, in a conclusory fashion, the elements of these theories of liability. Additionally, the mere fact that the Plaintiff seeks relief from all the Defendants jointly and severally, without any factual allegations specific to JES, is insufficient to meet the Plaintiff's burden to prove the narrow local controversy exception applies. A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc7p2dog from Leagle.com. Daniel Evangelista, Plaintiff, represented by Asha Dhillon -- adhillon@jonesbell.com -- Jones Bell Abbott Fleming and Fitzgerald LLP, Francisco Cabada -- cisco@cabadahameed.com -- Cabada and Hameed LLP, Sayema Javed Hameed -- sayema@cabadahameed.com -- Cabada and Hameed LLP & William M. Turner -- wmturner@jonesbell.com -- Jones Bell Abbott Fleming & Fitzgerald. Just Energy Marketing Corp., a Delaware corporation, Just Energy Solutions, Inc., a California corporation, Just Energy Limited, a Delaware corporation & Just Energy Group Inc., a Canadian corporation, Defendants, represented by Edward H. Chyun -- echyun@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, pro hac vice, Timothy S. Anderson -- tanderson@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, pro hac vice & Rachael Sarah Lavi -- rlavi@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC. KARP SCARSDALE: Faces "Mendez" Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against KARP Scarsdale LLC. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KARP Scarsdale LLC, doing business as: The Ambassador at Scarsdale, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04860 (S.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018). The Ambassador of Scarsdale provides senior living solutions in White Plains, NY. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal KOHLS DEPARTMENT: Faces "Andrews" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kohls Department Stores Inc. The case is styled as LaCresha Andrews, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kohls Department Stores Inc, Kory Korp, and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00234007-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., May 31, 2018). Kohl's Department Stores Inc. retails merchandise. The Company focuses on apparel, shoes, accessories, decorations, electronic, pet accessories, and house wares targeting middle income customers. The Company operates primarily in the Midwest and the Mid-Atlantic areas of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: GARY R. BASHAM, Esq. Basham Law Group 8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 177 Sacramento, CA 95826 Tel: (916) 282-0841 Fax: (916) 266-7478 Email: gary@bashamlawgroup.com LA ABUNDANCIA: "Mogollan" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Angel Mogollan, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members, Plaintiff, v. La Abundancia Bakery & Restaurant Inc., 63-12 La Abundancia Inc., 75-02 La Abundancia Bakery And Restaurant Corp. 81-16 La Abundancia Inc., 37-01 La Abundancia Inc., 88-26 La Abundancia Inc., Monica Ferrerosa and Ruben Rojas, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03202, (S.D. N.Y., April 12, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate a restaurant enterprise under the name "La Abundancia Bakery & Restaurant" where Mongollan worked as a cook. Plaintiff was discharged in or around October 2017 because he asked for a raise. Mogollan never received any paystubs and worked a total of 47-57 hours per week without overtime compensation, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 LAS VEGAS: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the judgment of the District Court granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned POMPANO BEACH POLICE & FIREFIGHTERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM and ALASKA ELECTRICAL PENSION FUND, Lead Plaintiffs, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LAS VEGAS SANDS CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 17-15216 (9th Cir.). The Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System and Alaska Electrical Pension Fund (Plaintiffs) appeal an adverse summary judgment in their securities fraud class action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against Las Vegas Sands Corporation (LVS), Sheldon Adelson, LVS's majority stockholder and controller, and William Weidner, the Chief Operating Officer. In the securities suit, the Plaintiffs challenge sets of statements, inter alia: (1) Senior VP Henry's reassurances to investors that LVS had sufficient liquidity and access to credit markets; (2) Adelson's statements during the July 30, 2008, conference call. The Plaintiffs allege an August 2008 report in the South China Post, other statements in September, October, and November, and the Bank of America Equity Research Report were corrective disclosures. While these may provide some evidence that the financing options may not have been as ample as Henry had made it seem, the South China Post article blames LVS's problems on the global credit crunch and banks' reluctance to lend in the current credit market climate, not on Henry's previous statement. When looking at the disclosures identified by the Plaintiffs, there is no evidence to establish a "causal connection between the fraud and the loss." Therefore, the Ninth Circuit finds, the Plaintiffs cannot establish a genuine issue of material fact as to loss causation resulting from Henry's April 30 statements. Further, the Plaintiffs cannot establish a triable issue regarding Adelson's July, 30, 2008, earnings call statements. Adelson's statements that the company would not seek equity financing, was considering various financing alternatives, had flexibility in financing, the fundamentals of LVS had not changed, and the pipeline was still continuing were not misleading. In fact, they were true. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's April 12, 2018 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8uvdpbd from Leagle.com. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS: Faces "Gregory" Suit in N.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Law Offices of Thomas E. Nelson, P.C. The case is styled as Tunga Gregory, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Law Offices of Thomas E. Nelson, P.C., Westhill Exchange, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv- 00403-A (N.D. Texas, May 31, 2018). Law Offices of Thomas E. Nelson, P.C. is a Law firm in Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan David Kandelshein, Esq. The Law Offices of Jonathan Kandelshein 18208 Preston Rd, Suite D-9 #256 Dallas, TX 75252 Tel: (469) 677-7863 Fax: (972) 380-8118 Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com LAZ PARKING: Barone Seeks to Certify Class of Employees ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ANTHONY BARONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LAZ PARKING LTD, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01545-VLB (D. Conn.), Mr. Barone, together with Opt-In Benjamin Lhota, moves the Court for an order granting notice and conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act collective action on behalf of: "all current and former employees working at Laz Parking Ltd., LLC in similar, though differently titled, salary-paid, assistant manager positions (including but not limited to Assistant Manager, Assistant Garage Manager, Assistant Facility Manager, Assistant Property Manager, Assistant Project Manager, etc.)." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZcqylHmB Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Alexis H. Castillo, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934 9200 Facsimile: (914) 934 9220 E-mail: Seth@klafterolsen.com Fran@klafterolsen.com alexis.castillo@klafterolsen.com - and - C. Andrew Head, Esq. Donna L. Johnson, Esq. Bethany A. Hilbert, Esq. HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC White Provision, Suite 305 1170 Howell Mill Road NW Atlanta, GA 30318 Telephone: (404) 924 4151 Facsimile: (404) 796 7338 E-mail: ahead@headlawfirm.com djohnson@headlawfirm.com bhilbert@headlawfirm.com LIGHTHOUSE FISHMARKET: Faces "Basurto" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lighthouse Fishmarket Inc. The case is styled as Gonzalo Cornelio Basurto, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lighthouse Fishmarket Inc., doing business as: Lighthouse Fish Market & Restaurant and Michael Clopton, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv- 04889 (S.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018). Lighthouse Fishmarket Inc. is a restaurant serving fresh seafood, fried fish & homestyle Southern fare.[BN] Plaintiff appears PRO SE. LOGITECH INC: Faces "Porath" Suit in N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action suit has been filed against Logitech Inc. The lawsuit is captioned as James Porath, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Logitech Inc., a California corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv- 03091-WHA (N.D. Cal., May 23, 2018). Logitech is a Swiss provider of personal computer and mobile accessories, with its headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland and administrative headquarters in Newark, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Logan, Esq. Rafey Sarkis Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212 9300 Facsimile: (415) 3739435 E-mail: tlogan@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MACONE INVESTMENTS: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- DIANABEL RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. MACONE INVESTMENTS USA LLC d/b/a SPOTLESS CLEAN USA, a Florida corporation; JEAN PHILLIPE MACONE, an individual; and STEPHANIE MACONE, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-61186-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This case is brought as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). It is believed that Defendants have employed other similarly-situated persons like Plaintiff that have not been properly compensated for their minimum and overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week from the filing of this Complaint back three years. The Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel to represent her in this action, and pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the Plaintiff and the opt- in similarly-situated persons are entitled to recover all reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in this action.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and all other similarly-situated persons: Ena T. Diaz, Esq. ENA T. DIAZ, P.A. 999 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 720 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 377 8828 Facsimile: (305) 356 1311 E-mail: ediaz@enadiazlaw.com MAGIC HOME: "Teshabaeva" Suit Brought Before NY Supreme Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action styled as Maktumma Teshabaeva, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by MAGIC HOME CARE LLC, ALO, Plaintiff v. Magic Home Care LLC and and/or any other related entities, Defendant, Case No. 510320/2018 was brought before the New York Supreme Court on May 31, 2018. Magic Home Care LLC is a Home health care service in New York City, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Virginia & Ambinder, LLP 40 Broad St, New York, NY 10004, USA Tel: (212) 943-9080 The Defendant is represented by: HODGSON RUSS, LLP 140 PEARL STREET STE 100 BUFFALO, NY 14202 Tel: (716) 856-4000 MANDARIN GLEN: Wang Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA --------------------------------------------------- YONG YUAN WANG, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MANDARIN GLEN COVE, INC. d/b/a Sweet Mandarin; and MANDARIN SAYVILLE, INC. d/b/a Sweet Mandarin and; SHING LING YEUNG, SHU PING LIN,"ANDY" DOE, and JOHN DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03266-JMA-AKT (E.D.N.Y., June 4, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgement interest, and attorney's fees and cost under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and potential Rule 23 Class: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762 1324 MANHATTAN WINES: Faces "Maldonado" Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manhattan Wines and Spirits Merchants, Inc. The case is styled as Eduardo Maldonado, Trinidad Maldonado and Edgar Gonzales, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Manhattan Wines and Spirits Merchants, Inc. Jointly and Severally, Navin Patel Jointly and Severally and Parita Patel Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04838 (S.D. N.Y., May 31, 2018). Manhattan Wines and Spirits Merchants, Inc. is a liquor store.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE. MAPLEWOOD, MO: 8th Cir. Affirms Denial of Immunity in "Webb" ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, affirmed the District Court's judgment denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned Cecelia Roberts Webb; Darron Yates; Robert Eutz; Anthony Lemicy; Krystal Banks; Frank Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. City of Maplewood, Defendant-Appellant, No. 17- 2381. (8TH Cir.). Cecelia Webb and five other motorists have filed a putative class action against the City of Maplewood, Missouri, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, claiming its policy or custom violates their constitutional rights. They assert the City automatically issues an arrest warrant whenever someone ticketed for violating its traffic and vehicle laws fails to pay a fine or appear in court. The City moved the district court1 to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, including that the City is immune from suit and that the complaint fails to state a claim against the City. The district court dismissed a single count from the complaint on the consent of both parties but otherwise denied the motion, ruling that the City is not immune from suit and that the complaint sufficiently states a claim of municipal liability. The City appeals from the order denying it immunity. The Eighth Circuit holds that whether the challenged acts occurred, whether they were unlawful, and whether the City is liable for them under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), would still be open questions. The Eighth Circuit has long held for that reason that a municipality may be held liable for its unconstitutional policy or custom even when no official has been found personally liable for his conduct under the policy or custom. At oral argument, the City raised for the first time its concern that if the City is not granted immunity, the plaintiffs may use this suit to obtain discovery from the State of Missouri and its officials. The circuit said that it normally does not consider issues raised for the first time at oral argument, but will observe that any State official or entity the plaintiffs subpoena for discovery may raise a claim of sovereign immunity at that time. The district court may address in the first instance whether the subpoena can be quashed on that ground. The City maintains finally that the circuit court may exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the district court's order declining to dismiss the complaint on the basis of the insufficiency of its allegations of municipal liability. Unlike the district court's denial of the City's defense of immunity, the question of whether the complaint states a claim of municipal liability cannot normally be reviewed on interlocutory appeal. The Court may review that issue only if it is coterminous with, or subsumed in, the issue of the City's immunity from suit. The issues are not inextricably intertwined here, however, since the Eighth Circuit has determined that the district court correctly denied the City immunity without having found it necessary to decide whether the complaint sufficiently pleads the City's Monell liability. Since the issues are separate, the circuit court does not have jurisdiction to review whether the complaint states a claim of municipal liability, and we express no view on that question. A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's April 12, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydbtvk8j from Leagle.com. Gary Phillip Paul -- gpaul@got.net -- for Defendant-Appellant. Thomas B. Harvey, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Jeffrey Joseph Brinker -- jbrinker@brinkerfinancial.com -- for Defendant-Appellant. Nathaniel R. Carroll, for Plaintiff-Appellee. John M. Reeves -- jreeves@brinkerdoyen.com -- for Defendant- Appellant. Jonathan E. Taylor -- jon@guptawessler.com -- for Plaintiff- Appellee. Blake A. Strode, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Jeffrey D. Kaliel -- jkaliel@tzlegal.com -- for Plaintiff- Appellee. Michael-John Voss, for Plaintiff-Appellee. MASGAD CORP: Gonzalez Sues over Minimum Wages & Tip Skimming ------------------------------------------------------------ RALPH GONZALEZ and JUSTINE GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MASGAD CORP.; ALBION VENUE, LLC; MIKHAIL ZAVOLUNOV; ILYA ZAVOLUNOV; and any other related entities, the Defendant, Case No. 607031/2018 (New York Sup. Ct., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover compensation, including unpaid minimum wages and unpaid tips and gratuities under the New York Labor Law. The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of failing to distribute the proceeds collected from the assessment of the mandatory charge to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees and instead retained the money for their own benefit. Moreover, throughout the Relevant Period, Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of unlawfully compensating its service employees an hourly rate lower than the applicable minimum wage.[BN] Attorneys for the Named Plaintiffs & Putative Class: Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873 9550 MATHERNE HOLDINGS: Faces "Gerstenhaber" Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matherne Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Sharone Gerstenhaber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Matherne Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:18- cv-61213-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 31, 2018). Matherne Holdings, Inc. operates as a provider of business formation services. The Company offers services such as domestic and international business filings, certificate of good standing, name change, and changing of resident agent, and provides stock amendments, foreign qualification, and mail forwarding services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ignacio Javier Hiraldo, Esq. 14 NE First Ave 10th Floor Miami, FL 33132 Tel: (786) 351-8709 Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com - and - Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. Hiraldo P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Tel: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com MAX EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages to Drivers, Escobar Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMELIO ESCOBAR, on behalf of himself and the general public of California, the Plaintiff, v. MARCUS MO; CATHERINE MO; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC707878 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, Max Express, Inc. employed Plaintiff and the rest of the class as employee truck drivers compensated on a piece-rate basis. At all times relevant to this complaint, Max Express, Inc. made unlawful deductions from Plaintiff and the rest of the class members' remuneration and failed to reimburse them for business expenses including, but not limited to, liability insurance, using the truck, fuel, mileage, travel, parking, plates, pennits, registration, repairs, maintenance, etc; failed to pay Plaintiff and the rest of the class compensation for rest periods separate from their piece rate compensation; failed to pay Plaintiff and the rest of the class at least the minimum wage for all hours they were employed. The Defendants are the owner, director, officer, managing agent and/or person acting on behalf of Max Express, Inc.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the general public of California: Stephen Glick, Esq. M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK 1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 387 3400 Facsimile: (213) 387 7872 MDL 2047: MDL Court Won't Enjoin State Court Proceeding ------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied Defendant Livers Construction's Motion for Reconsideration of the February 9, 2018 opinion, denying its request to enjoin a state court proceeding in the case captioned IN RE: CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, SECTION L (5). THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: WINSTON BURNS, JR. AND WENDY BURNS, Civil Action MDL No. 09-2047 (E.D. La.). From 2004 through 2006, the housing boom in Florida and rebuilding efforts necessitated by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina led to a shortage of construction materials, including drywall. As a result, drywall manufactured in China was brought into the United States and used to construct and refurbish homes in coastal areas of the country, notably the Gulf Coast and East Coast. Sometime after the installation of the Chinese drywall, homeowners began to complain of emissions of smelly gasses, the corrosion and blackening of metal wiring, surfaces, and objects, and the breaking down of appliances and electrical devices in their homes. The Knauf Defendant The Knauf Entities are German-based, international manufacturers of building products, including drywall, whose Chinese subsidiary, Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (KPT), advertised and sold its Chinese drywall in the United States. The Knauf Entities are named defendants in numerous cases consolidated with the MDL litigation and litigation in state courts. Interior Exterior Building Supply As a result of its role in purchasing and supplying allegedly defective Chinese drywall, InEx is among the defendants in the Knauf Entities' chain-of-commerce litigation. Following Hurricane Katrina, InEx, a major supplier of construction materials in the Gulf Coast area, distributed Chinese drywall manufactured both by various Knauf entities and by certain Taishan entities. InEx sold drywall to suppliers, developers, homebuilders, and installers in a number of states, predominantly Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. The InEx-related Chinese drywall eventually ended up in the homes of numerous individuals who filed claims against InEx, seeking relief for the property damage and personal injuries they have sustained as a result of the presence of drywall in their homes. Additionally, homebuilders who repaired these homes at their own cost have filed claims against InEx. Knauf and InEx Settlement Agreements InEx was one of the named Settling Defendants in the Order and Judgment, and Livers was named as one of the downstream releasees. InEx entered into a settlement agreement that provided for the tendering of all of InEx's primary insurance proceeds in the amount of $8,000,000 for the benefit of a national class with claims against InEx involving Chinese drywall (InEx Settlement Class). The InEx Settlement Class consists of all persons or entities with claims, known and unknown, against the Settling Defendants arising from, or otherwise related in any way to Chinese Drywall sold, marketed, distributed, and/or supplied by InEx. The Knauf and InEx Settlement Class and Subclasses were certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(3) & (e). Livers' Res Judicata and Pre-emption Arguments Under the InEx Settlement, Installers are Downstream InEx Releasees, who are considered Settling Defendants released from all future claims pertaining to Chinese drywall in affected properties, to the extent that such property contains Chinese drywall supplied by InEx. Thus, Livers is expressly named as a Downstream InEx Releasee in the Settlement Agreement and is also a Released Party. Livers further argued that because Burns failed to opt out of the InEx Settlement, they qualified as InEx Class Members, and thus their pending state court claims for damages had already been addressed and adjudicated in this Court in MDL 2047. State Court Decisions On October 28, 2016, the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans heard Livers' res judicata arguments. Subsequently, on November 7, 2016, the state court denied Livers' motion to dismiss. Livers appealed the decision to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, which denied Livers' writ on December 12, 2016. Undeterred, Livers, once again, appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which, to Livers' dismay, also denied the writ on February 17, 2017. The state courts did not issue written opinions detailing their reasons for denial. Third-Party Demand Against InEx After exhausting its peremptory argument in state court, on June 26, 2017, Livers filed a third-party demand against InEx, claiming that InEx sold Livers allegedly defective Chinese drywall responsible for the Burns' damages, and for failing to provide notice to Livers of any potential issues regarding the drywall. Additionally, Livers alleged that InEx failed to provide Livers or its counsel with notice of the InEx Settlement. This Court's February 9, 2018 Order and Reasons In response to the state court action, InEx filed a motion for injunctive relief pursuant to the All Writs Act, asking this Court to enjoin the state court action against it. InEx argued that exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act applied: the injunction is (1) necessary in aid of" this Court's jurisdiction, and (2) necessary to protect and effectuate this Court's Settlement Judgment. InEx asserted that the claims in state court are precluded from litigation as a result of this Court's Order and Judgment related to the InEx Settlement because Livers and the Burns are members of the settlement class. In this case, based on the terms of the settlement agreement, the parties only intended to resolve claims related to the sale, supply, marketing, distribution, or use of Chinese Drywall. Indeed, those claims could and does include fraud, but that only pertains to fraudulent sale, fraudulent supply, fraudulent marketing, fraudulent distribution, and fraudulent use, inter alia. At the time of defining the settlement, fraudulent activity in preventing a party to realize the benefits of the InEx or Knauf settlements, purposefully concealing the Chinese- Manufactured Drywall MDL -- was not an existing claim; the settlement had not even been perfected. Therefore, even if the Court accepts Livers' forced, expansive interpretation of the settlement agreement, the Court cannot, in equity and good conscious, bar the Burns from pursuing an action against Livers for allegedly preventing them from filing a claim in the settlement program. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Livers has not satisfied its burden under Rule 59(e) to grant reconsideration. A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Order and Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/yblddlmu from Leagle.com. Lynn C. Greer, Special Master, pro se. Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Russ M. Herman -- rherman@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC & Leonard A. Davis -- ldavis@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC. Homebuilders and Installers Steering Committee, Defendant, represented by Phillip A. Wittmann -- pwittman@stonepigman.com -- Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC. Insurer Steering Committee, Defendant, represented by Judy Y. Barrasso, Barrasso,Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC. Defendant, Defendant, represented by Kerry J. Miller -- kjmiller@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & Andrew J. Brien -- brien@carverdarden.com -- Carver, Darden, Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman & Areaux. MDL 2828: "Nathan" Suit over Intel CPU Defects Moved to Oregon -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Joshua Nathan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Intel Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02754, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in Portland on June 1, 2018. The Oregon District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00965-SI to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon. The Nathan case is being consolidated with MDL 2828 in re: Intel Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 5, 2018. All responding parties agree that the actions share factual issues arising out of allegations that Intel manufactured its computer processors to use "speculative execution" technology, which left the processors exposed to security vulnerabilities known as "Spectre" and "Meltdown," and that the fix for this problem can considerably slow the processors' speed. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. In its April 5, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that centralization in the District of Oregon is appropriate. The Defendant Intel and the Plaintiffs in at least nine related actions support centralization in that district. Intel has extensive operations there, including its employees who evaluated the security vulnerabilities and developed patches to mitigate them, as well as the team that led the development of the first Intel processor to use speculative execution. It is likely, therefore, that relevant evidence and witnesses will be located in this district. The Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon, located in Portland, is an experienced transferee judge who can steer this litigation on a prudent course. The lead case is 3:18-md-02828-SI. Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in the Silicon Valley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq. QUANTUM LEGAL LLC 513 Central Avenue, Suite 300 Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone: (847) 433 4500 E-mail: jeff@Qulegal.com METROPOLE SECURITY: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Speck Says ------------------------------------------------------------- COREY SPECK, an individual, and MOES 1 through 1000, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. METROPOLE SECURITY SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; ARAM SUK1ASYAN, an individual; DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC708530 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 4, 2018), seeks to recover all earned hourly and minimum wages and overtime wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the similarly-situated employees include, without limitation, all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants who were employed and worked as security guards within the County of Los Angeles and who, within the four years prior to the commencement of this action, were: (1) not paid all earned straight time and minimum wages; (2) not paid all earned overtime wages; (3) not permitted timely and uninterrupted paid or unpaid 30 consecutive minute meal periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and the provisions of the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders; (4) not permitted timely and uninterrupted 10 consecutive minute rest periods in compliance with the provisions of the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders; (5) not timely paid all owed straight time wages, minimum wages, and overtime wages, and/or California Labor Code section 226.7 compensation earned as of the time of the cessation of employment with Defendants; and (6) not provided accurate and lawful wage statements in compliance with California Labor Code section 226. All such persons are referred to herein collectively as the "Putative Class."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Jones, Esq. Alex V. Vo, Esq. SANTIAGO & JONES 21300 Victory Blvd., Suite 810 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 657 5600 Facsimile: (818) 657 5605 E-mail: Djones@santiagojoneslaw.com Avo@santiagoioneslaw.com MICRO FOCUS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over $8.8-Bil. Tech Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Micro Focus International shareholders claim in a federal class action that the software company filed a misleading registration statement before its $8.8 billion merger with a spinoff of Hewlett-Packard, after which its share price dropped by more than half. HP is not a party to the complaint. Counsel for Plaintiff: Mark C. Gardy, Esq. Meagan A. Farmer, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP Tower 56 126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 950-0509 Fax: (212) 905-0508 Email: mgardy@gardylaw.com mfarmer@gardylaw.com -- and -- Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Jacob A. Walker, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 398-5600 Fax: (617) 507-6020 Email: jeff@blockesq.com jake@blockesq.com MIDDLE GEORGIA: Bid to Certify Questions to Ga. High Ct. Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Dublin Division, denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Issues to the Supreme Court of Georgia in the case captioned RANDY EUGENE COLEMAN, STAR LATOSHA YOUNG, and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MIDDLE GEORGIA PROBATION, LLC, Defendant, No. CV 315-035 (S.D. Ga.). The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action alleging that the Private Probation Agreement and O.C.G.A. 42-8-100(g) violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Georgia law. The Plaintiffs contend that these violations void the Private Probation Agreement and that the Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover all probation supervision fees paid to the Defendant. The Plaintiffs move the Court to certify the following questions to the Georgia Supreme Court, inter alia: 1. Under the Constitution of the State of Georgia, is the establishment of the amount of fees a misdemeanor probationer can be sentenced to pay for probation supervision a matter for legislative action by the Georgia legislature? 2. Does the application of the Georgia Private Probation Statute, O.C.G.A. Section 42-8-100, et sag., under the Defendant's contracts offend the due process clause of the Georgia Constitution? 3. Is imprisonment of misdemeanor probationers for failure to pay debts allegedly owed to a private, for-profit corporation imprisonment for debt forbidden by Art. 1, Sec. 1, Par 23 of the Constitution of the State of Georgia? 4. Is a contract with a private company to provide probation supervision services to a court void under Georgia law if it has not been approved by the current local government and the current chief judge of that court? 5. Is a contract with a private company to provide probation supervision services to a Georgia court void if it has not been filed with the County and Municipal Probation Advisory Council of Georgia in accord with the requirements of Rule 503-1-.22 of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia? 6. Does the Georgia Private Probation Statute, codified at O.C.G.A. Sec 42-8-100, et seg., authorize courts to enter into contracts with a private company under which the private company is compensated solely by fees paid by probationers? 7. Does it offend the due process clause of the Georgia Constitution for officers of a Georgia court, including probation officers, to have systemic conflicts of interest, including conflicting financial interests? Federal courts may certify novel, unsettled questions of state law to a state's highest court for resolution. Indeed, a federal court should certify the question to the state supreme court to avoid making unnecessary Erie guesses and to offer the state court the opportunity to interpret or change existing law. The Court, however, finds that the Plaintiffs' briefing contains a bare assertion that the questions they propose address unresolved issues of state law that implicate important state interests. Nevertheless, many of the Plaintiffs' questions are broad and are unsupported by facts in the record. For example, Plaintiffs' third question is presumably an as-applied challenge addressing the possibility that the Private Probation Agreement may lead to the imprisonment of offenders who fail to pay probation supervision fees. An as-applied challenge is, of course, a fact-intensive inquiry. Yet the Plaintiffs fail to identify the circumstances under which their failure to pay supervision fees resulted in their incarceration. Because the Georgia Supreme Court would refuse to consider such a question, certification would needlessly waste the parties' resources. The Plaintiffs have failed to provide narrow, well-defined questions of state law that could be certified to the Georgia Supreme Court. Certifying the Plaintiffs' questions before developing the record in this case would further delay an already protracted lawsuit. Accordingly, under the current record, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Issues to the Supreme Court of Georgia is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybogxskw from Leagle.com. Randy Eugene Coleman & Star LaTosha Young, and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by John C. Bell, Jr. -- John@bellbrigham.com -- Bell & Brigham, John J. Czura, John J. Czura, PC, John B. Long -- jlong@tuckerlong.com -- Tucker, Long, PC & John Ryd Bush Long, John R.B. Long, PC. Middle Georgia Probation LLC, Defendant, represented by J. Stanley Smith, Jr., Smith, Garner & Rowland, LLC & James C. Garner, Smith, Garner & Rowland, LLC. MONSANTO COMPANY: Killmeiers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE KILLMEIER and LINDA KILLMEIER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00801 (E.D. Mo., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. "Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, and Roundup Herbicide. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Nelsons Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ WAYNE NELSON and ARLENE NELSON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00794-HEA (E.D. Mo., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. "Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, and Roundup Herbicide. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: O'Brien Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- AIDA O'BRIEN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00795-JAR (E.D. Mo., May 25, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. "Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, and Roundup Herbicide. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Adams Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL ADAMS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00139-JM (E.D. Ark., May 31, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. "Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant Roundup products that contain the active ingredient glyphosate, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Prodry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] Monsanto Company was a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Sean T. Keith, Esq. Mason L. Boling, Esq. KEITH, MILLER, BUTLER, SCHNEIDER & 224 S. 2nd Street Rogers, AR 72756 Telephone: (479) 621 0006 Facsimile: (479) 631 6890 E-mail: skeith@arkattorneys.com mboling@arkattorneys.com MORNING STAR: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Lawrence Says ----------------------------------------------------------- EVELYN A. LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by MORNING STAR HOME HEALTH AGENCY, INC., MORNING STAR HEALTH INCORPORATED, along with other entities affiliated or controlled by MORNING STAR HOME HEALTH AGENCY, INC., MORNING STAR HEALTH INCORPORATED, the Plaintiffs, v. MORNING STAR HOME HEALTH AGENCY, INC., MORNING STAR HEALTH INCORPORATED, and/or any other related entities, the Defendants, Case No. 155093/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 1, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime pay under New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, beginning in May 2012 and, continuing through the present, the Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of ten hours per day, without providing the proper hourly compensation for all hours worked, including failing to pay the lawful minimum wage rate, overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, "spread of hours" compensation, and uniform maintenance allowances. Morning Star is a home care provider that services Nesconset, New York.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Putative Class: LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 Facsimile: (212) 943 9082 E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com MOVE INC: "Wilson" Suit Moved to Central District of California --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN HERKENRATH and TINA WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MOVE, INC., a Delaware Corporation; MOVE SALES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50; inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18- cv-04438-MWF-KS, has been removed from the Superior Court of the State of California to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and the putative classes, recovery of damages for agreements allegedly breached in connection with their purchase of leads from Move, full restitution of all monies wrongfully obtained from plaintiffs and the putative classes during the applicable statutory periods, and attorneys' fees. Move, Inc. is a real estate listing company based in Santa Clara, California. The company operates the Move Network of real estate websites, the largest of which is Realtor.com.[BN] Attorneys for Defendants: Richard L. Stone, Esq. David R. Singer, Esq. Amy M. Gallegos, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239 5100 Facsimile: (213) 239 5199 E-mail: rstone@jenner.com dsinger@jenner.com agallegos@jenner.com MYLIFE.COM: Violates Right of Publicity Act, Deyerler Says ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, Maribel Deyerler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MyLife.com Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-07030 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., June 4, 2018), arises from MyLife's business practice of acquiring identifying information about Illinois residents with the specific intent of selling that information to its customers. According to the complaint, the problem with MyLife's service, and the essence of this lawsuit, is that the reckless display of people's identities in the advertisements for Defendant's services violates Illinois law. Neither Plaintiff nor class members provided Defendant with written consent to use their identities in Defendant's advertisements. Thus, Defendant violates the Illinois Right of Publicity Act. It would be extremely easy for MyLife to maintain their business model while still complying with state law. For example, My Life could merely display the names of the searched individuals -- without more identifying information -- in their advertisements for their services. The Defendant -- http://www.mylife.com/-- is in the internet business of selling "reputation reports" about American citizens to the general public. Defendant sells its reports on its website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William H. Beaumont, Esq. Emily A. Westermeier, Esq. BEAUMONT COST ALES LLC 3151 W. 26th Street, Second Floor Chicago, IL 60623 Telephone: (773) 831-8000 E-mail: whb@beaumontcostales.com eaw@beaumontcostales.com NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Retirement Sys. Sues over Share Distribution ----------------------------------------------------------------- WESTMORELAND COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS, INC., NAI ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS LLC, DAVID R. ANDELMAN, ROBERT N. KLIEGER AND SHARI REDSTONE, the Defendant, Case No. 62081366 (Del. Ch., May 31, 2018), contends that the Defendants are in breach of their fiduciary duties to the Class B stockholders by putting NAI's and Shari Redstone's interests ahead of the Class B stockholders. The Defendants breached and continue to breach contractual, implied obligations, and fiduciary duties that they owe to CBS's Class B stockholders. Plaintiff's allegations are based upon knowledge as to itself, the investigation of counsel, and sworn pleadings of each member of a special committee of CBS's Board of Directors, CBS and Viacom Inc. are companies controlled by NAI, which is dominated by Ms. Redstone. In January 2018, Ms. Redstone proposed a combination of CBS and Viacom. The CBS Board established a special committee consisting of independent directors to consider the Proposed Transaction. The Special Committee determined that the Proposed Transaction was not in CBS's best interests and that Ms. Redstone posed a "significant threat" to CBS and its stockholders. The Special Committee also recommended that the Board convene a May 17, 2018 special meeting to consider a pro rata dividend of 0.5687 shares of Class A Common Stock for each outstanding share of Class A and Class B Common Stock. On May 14, 2018, the CBS Board noticed the Special Meeting for May 17 and CBS, with the Special Committee, moved for a temporary restraining order against Ms. Redstone, NAI and related parties to bar them from taking any action to interfere with the composition of the Board or the Special Dividend. On May 17, 2018, the Board then proceeded with the Special Meeting, and, with a unanimous vote of directors not affiliated with NAI, declared the Special Dividend. The Special Dividend complies with the unambiguous terms of Article IV, Section (2)(b) of CBS's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, which specifies that "[t]he Board of Directors may, at its discretion, declare a dividend of any securities of the corporation to the holders of shares of Class A and Class B Common Stock". The Class B stockholders are, therefore, contractually entitled to share in the Special Dividend. Adopting an erroneous interpretation of Article IV, Section (2)(b), Ms. Redstone and NAI claimed in their opposition to the TRO and, more recently, in a separate action filed against CBS and directors unaffiliated with NAI, that the Special Dividend does not comply with the Certificate because holders of Class A Common Stock must receive Class A shares and holders of Class B Common Stock must receive Class B shares in any dividend. NAI's own conduct contradicts its flawed reading of the Certificate. National Amusements, Inc. is an American privately owned theater company and mass media holding company based in Dedham, Massachusetts and incorporated in Maryland.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Michael Hanrahan, Esq. Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq. Corinne Elise Amato, Esq. Eric J. Juray, Esq. PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A. 1310 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 888 6500 NAVY FEDERAL: Court Narrows Claims in Overdraft Fees Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the case captioned JENNA LLOYD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-1280-BAS-RBB (S.D. Cal.). The debit cards allow Navy Federal's customers to have electronic access to their checking accounts for purchases, payments, withdrawals, and other electronic debit transactions. Plaintiffs Lloyd and Plemons are citizens of California who have accounts and debit cards with Navy Federal and patronized its banking centers located in southern California. They seek to represent a national class of Navy Federal customers charged overdraft fees on transactions authorized into a positive account balance and a sub-class of Navy Federal customers in California. The Court finds that, here both parties agree that Virginia law applies to the Plaintiffs' common law claims. The Court agrees because it is evident that the legal relationship between the parties emanates from the Account Agreements, the interpretation of which is central to this case. The Court similarly concludes that California has a stronger interest in the adjudication of the Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and the California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Here, the fact that both the Plaintiffs are California citizens who seek to represent a sub-class of California residents with respect to their CLRA and UCL claims certainly increases California's interest in the litigation. Moreover, the Plaintiffs allege that at all relevant times, they patronized Navy Federal banking centers located in California. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Account Agreements' choice of Virginia law is unenforceable as to the Plaintiffs' CLRA and UCL claims. Based on a review of the Account Agreements, the Court finds that the term "to cover" is ambiguous. The Account Agreements do not clearly identify how funds sequestered for a transaction authorized with positive funds are to be used when the transaction is paid. If the term "to cover" means that funds sequestered from a positive account balance will be used to pay for the transaction when it settles, then it cannot be said that Navy Federal actually pays for the transaction and, under the Account Agreements, no overdraft fee could be charged. However, if the term "to cover" does not mean that sequestered funds are to be used to pay for the transaction when it settles, then Navy Federal presumably does pay for the transaction, which triggers its contractual authority to assess an overdraft fee on the transaction. The Court cannot say that the Account Agreements clearly foreclose either interpretation. Navy Federal argues that dismissal of Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim is warranted based on the decision in Roberts v. Capital One, N.A., 16 Civ. 4841 (LGS), 2017 WL 1750445 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2017). In Roberts, the plaintiffs alleged that their account agreements with the defendant bank foreclosed the defendant from charging overdraft fees if a customer's balance was positive at the time a merchant requested purchase authorization, but negative when the merchant was paid. The Court is persuaded that the ambiguities in the Account Agreements prevent dismissal of Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims at this stage of the litigation. At this juncture, Plaintiffs have alleged a reasonable interpretation of that Account Agreements and conduct that would violate that interpretation. The meaning of the Account Agreements is best ascertained through the discovery process. Accordingly, the Court denies Navy Federal's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim. The FAC alleges a claim under the UCL on behalf of a California sub-class on the ground that Navy Federal falsely indicated in account documents that overdraft fees will not be charged when sufficient funds exist to cover transactions. The UCL prohibits any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice. Any of these prongs may support a UCL cause of action. Navy Federal seeks dismissal of the UCL claim on the ground that Plaintiffs fail to identify a single alleged misrepresentation in any Account Agreements. The Court says it cannot conclude as a matter of law, that no reasonable consumer would be likely to be misled or deceived by the defendants' representations in the Account Agreements. The FAC specifically alleges that a reasonable consumer would believe that funds immediately debited for a transaction would be applied to the transaction for which they are debited, that overdraft fees would not be assessed a transaction authorized into sufficient funds, and that debit transactions reduce an available balance based on the order transactions are initiated. Considering the Account Agreements and the facts alleged, the Court is persuaded that a reasonable consumer could have interpreted Navy Federal's Account Agreements to mean that a debit card transaction that was authorized and approved by Navy Federal into positive funds, with corresponding funds held until the transaction posted, would not incur an overdraft fee when the transaction settled. Accordingly, the Court denies Navy Federal's motion to dismiss the UCL fraudulent claim on the ground that Plaintiffs have failed to allege any misrepresentations. Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part Navy Federal's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint as follows: -- The Court denies the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim (claim 1) and conversion claim (claim 3). -- The Court grants with prejudice the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim (claim 4) and CLRA claim (claim 6). -- The Court grants without prejudice the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim (claim 2) and UCL claim (claim 5). A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd4x9y9v from Leagle.com. Jenna Lloyd, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated & Jamie Plemons, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrea Gold, Tycko & Zavareei LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Silver -- asilver@tzlegal.com -- Tycko and Zavareei LLP, pro hac vice, Hassan Ali Zavareei -- hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel- jkaliel@kalielpllc.com -- Kaliel PLLC, Chiharu Sekino -- csekino@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP & James C. Shah -- shah@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP. Navy Federal Credit Union, Defendant, represented by Jason J. Kim -- kimj@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP & Neil K. Gilman -- ngilman@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams, pro hac vice. NETGEAR INC: Fischer Sues over WiFi Range Extenders --------------------------------------------------- ROB FISCHER, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NETGEAR, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-07034 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty, June 4, 2018), contends that Netgear falsely represents that its wireless network range extenders extend WiFi networks by close to 200%. According to the lawsuit, Range Extenders do not, and cannot, extend the range of a WiFi network by 100%. Typically, Range Extenders, including the Defendant's, extend the range of an existing WiFi network by less than 50%. As a leading manufacturer and seller of Range Extenders, no one knows the limitations of Range Extenders better than Netgear. Despite this knowledge, Netgear prominently represents its Range Extenders as extending WiFi networks by close to 200%. These prominent representations are conspicuously located on the packaging of all Netgear's Range Extenders, as well as in various forms of internet advertising. These representations constitute knowingly false promises by Netgear, made for the purpose of selling more of its Range Extenders. These false promises are made at the expense of consumers, because consumers purchase Range Extenders expecting them to conform to Netgear's representations. Additionally, because each Range Extender fails to conform to the representations made on its packaging, Defendant's Range Extenders violate the terms of the express warranty that Netgear makes to consumers. Netgear is a manufacturer and seller of wireless internet connectivity devices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William H. Beaumont, Esq. Emily A. Westermeier, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC 3151 W. 26th Street, Second Floor Chicago, IL 60623 Telephone: (773) 831 8000 E-mail: whb@beaumontcostales.com eaw@beaumontcostales.com NEW SCHOOL FOR CHILD: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Martinez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- EMELYNE MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. NEW SCHOOL FOR CHILD DEVELOPMENT, a California Corporation and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC70694 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, for at least 4 years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present, the Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay all final wages due at termination or within 72 hours after separation to all employees in California, and failing to provide employees with accurately itemized wage statements. Defendant further failed to provide Plaintiff and the class with the wage statements in compliance with Labor Code. New School for Child Development provides elementary and secondary education services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. Nidah Farishta, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM. A LAW CORPORATION 28632 Roadside Dr., Suite 203 Agoura Iiills, CA, 91301 Telephone: (818) 293 5623 Facsimile: (888) 850 1310 E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com Nidah@OLFLA.com NIU OF FLORIDA: Faces "Wuest" Suit in E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NIU of Florida, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Wuest, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NIU of Florida, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-at-00980 (E.D. Cal., May 31, 2018). NIU of Florida, Inc. is an insurance business in Boca Raton, FL.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric A Grover, Esq. Keller Grover Llp 1965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 543-1305 Email: eagrover@kellergrover.com The Defendants are represented by: John T. Madden, Esq. Klinedinst P.C. 801 K Street, Suite 2100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Tel: (916) 444-7573 Fax: (916) 444-7544 Email: jmadden@klinedinstlaw.com - and - Natalie P. Vance, Esq. Klinedinst PC 801 K Street, Suite 2100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Tel: (916) 444-7573 Fax: (916) 444-7544 Email: nvance@klinedinstlaw.com NOIR TRADING: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Rivas Says --------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTO RIVAS, an Individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NOIR TRADING, INC., a California corporation; and DOES I through 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC708831 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 4, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages and minimum wages under the California Labor Code. The Defendants require Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class to work off the clock on a daily basis. Further, Defendants have established a rounding policy which does not compensate said employees for the time they actually worked and as a result Defendants have failed to pay all wages due including overtime wages for all hours worked and failed to pay the required minimum wage for all hours worked. Noir Trading Inc. was founded in 2004. The company's line of business includes distributing furniture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce Kokozian, Esq. KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC 9440 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 510 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone (323) 857-5900 NU IMAGE: Rivero Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------ MARIO RIVERO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NU IMAGE BODYSCULPTING LLC d/b/a NU IMAGE MEDSPA, a New Jersey corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-10144 (D.N.J., June 4, 2018), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently and/or willfully using an automatic telephone dialing system to call Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, without Plaintiff's express consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. Defendant owns and operates a medical spa in Bergen County, New Jersey. To remain competitive and increase sales of its goods and services, Defendant has resorted to unlawful telemarketing campaigns to the detriment of unsuspecting consumers like Plaintiff. Specifically, on May 2 and 16, 2018, Defendant or its agents, used an automated text messaging platform to transmit the following marketing text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone ending in 7663 ("7663 Number"): Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 7663 Number. At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express consent to be contacted by text message on his cellular phone using an automatic telephone dialing system. Nu Image operates medical spas that offer rejuvenating skin care procedures for women and men. It offers procedures, such as laser hair removal.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross H. Schmierer, Esq. DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 797 9951 E-mail: rschmierer@denittislaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO, P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400 4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com NVR INC: Court Narrows Class Claims in Smith et al. Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Paul Smith, et al., the Plaintiff, v. NVR, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08328 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to dismiss class certification. According to the Docket Entry made by the Clerk on June 6, 2018, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs may proceed with their contract claim as it pertains to the 25-year shingles and the wood veneer cabinets. The remainder of the contract claim is dismissed without prejudice, as is the ICFA claim. The Plaintiffs have until June 27, 2018 to file an amended complaint; if they fail to do so, the dismissal of those claims will convert automatically to a dismissal with prejudice. Because (as Plaintiffs stated at the May 2, 2018 hearing) Plaintiffs' class certification motion seeks certification only as to the ICFA claim, that motion is denied as moot, without prejudice to renewal if Plaintiffs file an amended complaint with an ICFA claim or if Plaintiffs decide to seek class certification of the contract claim. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lxIcphkD OCLARO INC: Faces Class Action Over $1.8-Bil. Tech Merger --------------------------------------------------------- Robert Khan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that in a federal class action, shareholders say Oclaro, Inc.'s proposed $1.8 billion sale to Lumentum, for $5.60 a share plus 0.06 shares of Lumentum for each Oclaro share, is insufficient. Both are optical-tech companies, according to Courthouse News Service. Attorneys for Plaintiff Nicholas Neinast: Evan J. Smith, Esq. Ryan P. Cardona, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Tel: (877) 534-2590 Fax: (610) 667-9029 Email: esmith@brodsky-smith.com OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: $12.5MM Fund Distribution OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, issued an Order regarding the distribution of the net settlement fund in the case captioned In re OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS. Case No. 5:11-cv-05235-RMW. (N.D. Cal.). The parties agreed to a full and complete settlement of all class claims in exchange for the payment of $12,500,000.00 in cash (Settlement). The Court approves the decisions and activities of the Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel and Heffler in connection with the administration of the Settlement and all decisions described in the Sincavage Affidavit relating to claims being payable or non- payable are approved. The Court directs that payment, if necessary, be made from the Settlement Fund to the Internal Revenue Service for the proper amount of taxes due and owing on the interest earned on the Settlement Fund while in escrow. The Court also directs payment in the amount of $261,972.27 to be made to Heffler for its final invoice for services rendered and expenses incurred in connection with the administration of the Settlement. A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycx2c3eo from Leagle.com. Woburn Retirement System, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Sutuated, Plaintiff, represented by Carol C. Villegas -- cvillegas@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, James Gerard Stranch, IV -- gerards@bsjfirm.com -- Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jonathan Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Mark S. Goldman -- goldman@lawgsp.com -- Goldman Scarlato & Penny, P.C., pro hac vice, Nancy Tompkins -- tompkins@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Christopher J. Keller -- ckeller@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Walter Stocker -- mstocker@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Rachel A. Avan -- ravan@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel M. Ward -- SWard@barrack.com - - Barrack Rodos & Bacine & Stephen R. Basser -- sbasser@barrack.com -- Barrack, Rodos & Bacine. Omnivision Technologies, Inc., Shaw Hong, Anson Chan & Aurelio "Ray" Cisneros, Defendants, represented by Cynthia A. Dy -- cdy@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati A Professional Corporation, Douglas John Clark -- DClark@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation, Kelley Moohr Kinney -- kkinney@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati A Professional Corporation & Nicholas R. Miller -- nmiller@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati. OVERTON SECURITY: Faces "Butler" Suit in Cal. Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Overton Security Services Inc. The lawsuit is captioned as William Butler on behalf of himself and all similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Does 1-100 and Overton Security Services Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 34-2018-00233546-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23, 2018). Overton Security Services, Inc. provides security services. The Company offers patrol, building maintenance, guards, and executive protection security services.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Adam M Rose, Esq. STARR LAW 23901 Calabasas Rd No. 2072 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 225 9040 Facsimile: (818) 225 9042 E-mail: adam@starrlaw.com PAY CAR: Court Certifies Full-time Employees Class -------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned DOUGIE LESTER, the Plaintiff, v. PAY CAR MINING, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00740 (S.D W.Va.), the Court entered an order: 1. granting a motion to certify class of: "all full-time employees of Bluestone Industries, Inc. ("Bluestone") who were terminated from employment, or Subject to a reduction in force, at the Burke Mountain Mine Complex, including at the Pay Car Mine, from September 2, 2012 through December 1, 2012"; 2. appointing Dougie Lester as Class Representative; 3. appointing jointly as Class counsel: Bren L. Pomponio and Samuel B. Petsonk of Mountain State Justice, Inc. 4. permitting discovery as to possible modification of the class definition as well as to the merits of the case, and allowing future motions for modification of the class definition. 5. directing Plaintiff to submit to the Court a proposed Class notice document after conferring with opposing counsel. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KcC0CNmI PRISTINE DENTAL: Ryoo Dental Sues Over Illegal Fax Advertisements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ryoo Dental, Inc., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pristine Dental Supplies, Inc., Pristine Dental Supply, Mosammat Parvin Akhter and Mohamed Salahuddin, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00606 (C.D. Cal., April 12, 2018) seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unsolicited telephone calling activities and an award of statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendants operate as "Pristine Dental Supply." They placed unsolicited fax advertisements, including that of Plaintiff's, without obtaining their prior express consent, notes the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 PROENZA SCHOULER: Kiler Suit Says Website not Blind-accessible -------------------------------------------------------------- Marion Kiler, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Proenza Schouler, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02205 (E.D. N.Y., April 13, 2018), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post- judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans With Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Proenza Schouler stores sell womenswear, shoes, handbags and accessories. Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a dress on Proenzaschouler.com. Kiler is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 44 Court St., Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel. (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Chiropractors' Suit Remains in Federal Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, issued a Report and Recommendation denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the case captioned HANDS ON CHIROPRACTIC PL, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 6:18- cv-192-Orl-37DCI (M.D. Fla.). On February 1, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against the Defendant in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida. Therein, the Plaintiff asserted a class action claim against the Defendant for declaratory relief and damages. Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks, in part, a declaration that Florida law and the Defendant's Policy require the Defendant to pay the class members the full amount of charges submitted or 80% of the "Schedule of Maximum Charges" when the charges submitted to the Defendant by the class members are for less than the amounts allowed pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 627.736(5)(a)1. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant paid the class members 80% of the amount submitted regardless of whether the amount submitted was for less than the amount allowed pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 627.736(5)(a)1. On February 7, 2018, Defendant filed a notice of removal seeking to remove the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1441, 1446, 1453. Doc. 1. On March 9, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a motion for remand. There, the Plaintiff conceded that "there are over 100 persons in the class and that diversity exists among the parties." But the Plaintiff objected to the Defendant's "conclusory allegation" that the amount-in-controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00. The Plaintiff argued that the affidavit that the Defendant attached to the Notice is insufficient to carry the Defendant's burden of establishing the amount-in-controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. Specifically, the Plaintiff argued that "there is no explanation of the number of 'Bills' referenced or a calculation of how these estimates were made." Upon review, the Magistrate finds that the Defendant carried its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount-in-controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount. The Defendant, with the assistance of a data analyst, identified the putative class members, identified the bills at issue, identified the face value of those bills, and demonstrated to the Court that 20% of the face value of the Bills exceeds the jurisdictional amount by more than double. And the Plaintiff provided no evidence to rebut the Supplemental Affidavit or the Defendant's calculations. Under these facts, the Defendant carried its burden. A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Report and Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaswmt28 from Leagle.com. Hands On Chiropractic PL, A/A/O Samantha Schurr, Plaintiff, represented by Alyson M. Laderman -- aladerman@theorlandolawgroup.com -- The Orlando Law Group & Lawrence M. Kopelman, Lawrence M. Kopelman, Esq. Progressive Select Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Allison Paige Gallagher -- allison.gallagher@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Marcy Levine Aldrich -- marcy.aldrich@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP & Megan Costa DeVault -- megan.devault@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP. RALPH LAUREN: Sends Spam Text Messages, Hudson Claims ----------------------------------------------------- PATRICK HUDSON, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, RALPH LAUREN RETAIL, INC., and VIBES MEDIA, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-06906 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., May 31, 2018), seeks statutory damages, including treble, available under the law under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, in the month of January 2018, the Defendant sent a total of 10 text messages to Plaintiffs "0928" cellular number. The Plaintiff never expressly consented, in writing or otherwise, to receive more than 6 messages per month from Defendants. Although the May 17, 2015 text message included opt-out instructions, none of the text messages Defendants sent to Plaintiff in the months alleged included instructions on how to stop receiving text messages. In fact, the clear majority of text messages Defendants sent to Plaintiff failed to include such instructions. Ralph Lauren is an American corporation. They are known for the clothing, marketing and distribution of products in four categories: apparel, home, accessories, and fragrances.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiff: William H. Beaumont, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC 315 l W. 26111 Street, Second Floor Chicago, IL 60623 Telephone: (773) 831 8000 Facsimile: (504) 272 2956 E-mail: whb@beaumontcostales.com RCW INC: Faces "Olsen" Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RCW, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RCW, Inc. doing business as: M.Gemi, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03247 (E.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018). RCW, Inc., doing business as M. Gemi, manufactures and sells women's footwear. The company offers shoes, flats, pumps, moccasins, and boots. It sells its products directly to clients, as well as online. The company was incorporated in 2014 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with an additional office in Florence, Italy.[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 ROCK SOLID: "Hernandez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------- Reyes Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rock Solid Countertops and More, Inc. and Hugo Vargas, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00244, (M.D. Fla., April 12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant hired Plaintiff to work as an hourly-paid installer, for Defendant's residential and commercial countertop business. Hernandez claims to have worked in excess of forty hours within a workweek, without overtime pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd. Plantation, FL 33324 Tel: (954) 967-5377 Fax: (954) 327-3016 Email: amurthy@forthepeople.com ROSEWOOD ON THE SOUND: Faces "Mendez" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rosewood On The Sound LLC. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rosewood On The Sound LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04855-VEC (S.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018). Rosewood On The Sound is a Retirement & Assisted Living Facility in Bayville, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: No Ascertainable Class in "Romero" -------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District California denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned JUAN ROMERO, FRANK TISCARENO, and KENNETH ELLIOT, Plaintiffs, v. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16cv1283 JM (MDD) (S.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Juan Romero and Frank Tiscareno, two former inmates in the custody of the San Diego County Sheriff, and Kenneth Elliot, a criminal defense attorney, allege that Securus surreptitiously recorded privileged attorney/client telephonic communications. Securus is an alleged corporation incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. The Third Amended Complaint (TAC) alleges six causes of action: (1) invasion of privacy, violation of Cal. Penal Code Section 636; (2) unfair competition, violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq.; (3) concealment; (4) fraud; (5), negligence; and (6) unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs assert jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d); and seek to bring these claims on behalf of the following class: Every person who was a party to any portion of a conversation between a person who was in the physical custody of a law enforcement officer or other public officer in California, and that person's attorney, on a telephone number designated or requested not to be recorded, any portion of which was eavesdropped on or recorded by means of an electronic device during the period from July 10, 2008 to the applicable opt-out date, inclusive (the Class Period). The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs fail to present sufficient evidence to show that there is an administratively feasible manner to determine whether a class action is the superior method for prosecuting the Plaintiffs' claims. For the County of San Diego, the Plaintiffs identify examples of 128 Private Attorney Calls involving 123 Class Members which should not have been recorded. The Plaintiffs also submit a summary list of recorded telephone calls potentially identifying 116 telephone calls between attorneys, or public defender entities, and detainees. Other evidence submitted by Plaintiffs appear to show that 22 telephone calls were recorded. The Plaintiffs have actively engaged in class and merits discovery, but fail to set forth a cogent method for determining who is a Class Member. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs shows that there may be about 22 to 123 Class Members in San Diego County. However, it is unknown how many Class Members exist state-wide. The Plaintiffs represent that Securus operates in 20 California counties, thus suggesting that there are hundreds, if not potentially thousands of additional Class Members. Thus, it is unclear whether the class consists of perhaps 22 class members, at the low end, or potentially thousands, at the upper limit. Without an ascertainable class, this action cannot proceed as a class action. In sum, the court denies the motion for class certification without prejudice because the Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently identify an ascertainable and manageable class. A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y84mnpju from Leagle.com. Juan Romero, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Houchin -- mike@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, Robert L. Teel -- lawoffice@rlteel.com -- Law Office of Robert L. Teel, Ronald Marron -- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Office of Ronald Marron & Adam Belsey -- adam@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron. Frank Tiscareno, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated & Kenneth Elliott, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Houchin, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, Robert L. Teel, Law Office of Robert L. Teel & Ronald Marron, Law Office of Ronald Marron. Securus Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam R. Fox, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP. SISYPHIAN LLC: Unlawfully Misclassifies Dancers, Nutt Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ STEVIE NUTT, an individual, for herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SISYPHIAN, LLC, a California limited liability company; BRAD BARNES, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC707888, (Cal. Super. Ct., May 31, 2018), seeks to enforce Plaintiff's and Putative Class' privileges and rights under the California Labor Code and to hold Defendants liable for the results of their unlawful misclassification of Plaintiff and the Putative Class as independent contractors. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are (or were within the last four years) dancers at the club known as Xposed Gentlemen's Club (Xposed) in Canoga Park, California. Defendants -- as owners, operators, and managing agents of Xposed -- treated Plaintiff and the Putative Class as independent contractors, failing to comply with a host of California labor laws, including without limitation the failure to pay minimum wage, the failure to reimburse for all job-related expenses, and the failure to provide paycheck stubs.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Michael A. Strauss, Esq. Andrew C. Ellison, Esq. STRAUSS & STRAUSS, APC 121 North Fir Street, Suite F Ventura, CA 93001 Telephone: (805) 641 6600 Facsimile: (805) 641 6607 E-mail: mike@strausslawyers.com andrew@strausslawyers.com SITEONE LANDSCAPE: "Alvarez" Suit Moved to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled David Alvarez and Enrique Herrera, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SiteOne Landscape Supply LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-02018-00016452-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on May 31, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01116-DMS-NLS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw. SiteOne Landscape provides landscape architectural services. The Company offers irrigation, outdoor lighting, nursery, and landscape supplies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Farzad Rastegar, Esq. RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC 22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200 Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (310) 961 9600 Facsimile: (310) 961 9094 E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com Attorneys for SiteOne Landscape Supply LLC: Hardy Ray Murphy, III, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & SMART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239 9800 Facsimile: (213) 239 9045 E-mail: hardy.murphy@ogletreedeakins.com SNC-LAVALIN: Settles Shareholder Class Actions for $110-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------ Ross Marowits, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. has moved further from its troubled past by settling two class action lawsuits worth a total of $110 million over allegations of misleading investors about its activities in Libya. The company said it will contribute $88 million to the settlement of the cases in Ontario and Quebec. The rest will come from its insurance, said Michael Robb, Esq. -- michael.robb@siskinds.com - - of Siskinds LLP, the lead lawyer of the claim. The agreement is subject to court approval. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. says it has agreed to settle two class action lawsuits filed by investors in 2012. The company says it has contributed $88 million to a settlement of both class actions. The settlement amount is far from the $1.25 billion initially claimed by investors who bought SNC-Lavalin shares before they plunged in 2012 after the company announced an investigation into millions in undocumented payments and said its 2011 earnings would be less than expected. "The reason $110 [million] is the number in the settlement is that having gone through litigating the case vigorously for six years and gone through a lot of evidence and procedure, that's the amount the parties negotiated as a fair and reasonable compromise of this case," Mr. Robb said in an interview from London, Ont. The net amount to be distributed will be calculated after legal fees are deducted, which Robb said would be "significantly less than half" the total settlement. The court will determine the appropriate amount and set up a distribution procedure at hearings expected to take place this fall in Ontario and Quebec. The proceeds will be distributed to investors from anywhere in the world who provide proof that they purchased SNC-Lavalin shares between November 2009 and February 2012. The lawsuits were among the consequences of alleged payments made by SNC-Lavalin to members, associates and agents of the regime of late Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi to secure contracts for infrastructure projects in Libya. The company said it has since initiated a series of significant changes and enhancements to reinforce its ethics and compliance procedures. "The class-action lawsuit settlement is another step in resolving our legacy issues and de-risking the future of SNC-Lavalin," the Montreal-based firm said in a news release. [GN] SOLVERE LLC: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solvere LLC. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon, on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Solvere LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04868 (S.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018). Solvere, L.L.C. provides engineering, software, fabrication, and integration services. The Company offers initial design and consultation, custom programming, system development, commissioning, and ongoing support services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Tel: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com STARBUCKS CORP: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Disableds' Class Cert ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the District Court's judgment denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned TIMOTHY VONDERSAAR, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; ORLANDIS HARDY, Jr., individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; JAAROME WILSON, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; BERNARD TARUC, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Defendant-Appellee, No. 16-56555 (9th Cir.). The Plaintiffs are California residents who allege that beverage handoff counters in Starbucks coffee shops exceed 36 inches in height in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines. Starbucks had already lowered all its beverage handoff counters in California to be within the 36 inch maximum. The district court denied class certification on the Plaintiffs' Unruh Act claim, declined supplemental jurisdiction over that claim, and dismissed it without prejudice. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and must therefore show, inter alia, that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Here, however, class-wide issues do not predominate over the numerous individual questions posed by the Plaintiffs' Unruh Act claims, including whether a class member is disabled, which Starbucks store or stores he visited, how many visits he made, how high the handoff counter was at the time he visited, whether he presented himself with the intent of purchasing a product, what that product was and whether it would normally have been served via the handoff counter, and whether the class member was actually denied full and equal access. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's April 12, 2018 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7dgymdr from Leagle.com. STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Faces "Baker" Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The State of California. The case is styled as Alexander Baker, an individual; on behalf of himself, those similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v. The State of California in their official capacities, Xavier Becerra in their official capacities, Hon. Michael J. Convey in their official capacities, Hon. Alicia Y. Blanco in their official capacities, Hon. Brian M. Hoffstadt, in their official capacities, Hon. Alan J. Goodman in their official capacities and Hon. Victoria M. Chavez in their official capacities, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04886-CAS-AS (C.D. Cal., June 1, 2018). California, a western U.S. state, stretches from the Mexican border along the Pacific for nearly 900 miles. Its terrain includes cliff-lined beaches, redwood forest, the Sierra Nevada Mountains, Central Valley farmland and the Mojave Desert.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. STONEBRIDGE LIFE: 2nd Cir. Vacates Dismissal of "Dubuisson" ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, vacated the District Court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned MANETTE DUBUISSON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, ALICE LACKS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and GEORGE GONZALES, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, FKA J.C. PENNEY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, TRANSAMERICA FINANCIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A MEMBER OF THE CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES, Defendants-Appellees, No. 16- 3526 (2nd Cir.). At issue in this suit is the validity of a group policy that the defendants, a collection of insurance providers and marketing companies, advertised and sold to the plaintiffs, allegedly in violation of New York Insurance Laws. Under a group insurance program, a central entity, the group, enters into a contract with an insurance provider and acts as the policyholder. Members of the group are the third-party beneficiaries of that contract. Typically, state law defines what entities may issue group insurance policies, and group members are almost always employees of a company or members of an organization formed for purposes other than obtaining insurance coverage. The HealthExtras Program In 1997, HealthExtras, Inc., created a group insurance program that offered $1,000,000 or $1,500,000 accidental permanent and total disability coverage, plus $2500 emergency accident and sickness medical expense coverage (HealthExtras Program). HealthExtras advertised and sold policies to consumers through marketing agreements with banks and companies that issued credit cards, including American Express, Citibank, Capital One, J.C. Penney, Sears, and Conoco Phillips. The Defendants issued the policies to HealthExtras, the policyholder, as group and blanket accident disability and medical expense insurance, and the enrolled card holders became group members. The Complaint and Motion to Dismiss The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges quasi-contract claims based on violations of New York Insurance Law, claims based on violations of New York consumer protection laws, and common-law fraud claims. First, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants sold them insurance coverage that was void ab initio because the policies (1) were not issued to eligible entities as that term is defined in New York Insurance Law Sections 4235 and 4237; (2) were not filed with and approved by the Superintendent of New York's Department of Insurance, violating N.Y. Ins. Law Section 3201(b)(1); and (3) did not contain certain provisions required by Section 3221 of New York Insurance Law. Second, the plaintiffs allege violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, which prohibit unfair or deceptive trade practices and false advertising, respectively. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants sent marketing materials discussing the nature and benefits of the HealthExtras Program and written certificates of insurance that falsely represented that the Policies were legal under New York law and provided real and valuable insurance coverage. Third, the plaintiffs allege that defendants committed common-law fraud, fraud in the inducement, or aiding and abetting fraud. The complaint alleges that the defendants knew statements in their marketing materials were false because defendants in general are charged with knowing the terms of New York Insurance Law and these defendants knew that the subject policies did not comply. The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing; it did not reach any other grounds for dismissal. The court noted that each of the plaintiffs' claims is premised on their allegation that the policies were illegal, but under New York Insurance Law, New York courts enforce the policy as if it did include the required provision. Section 3103, the court concluded, plainly and unambiguously makes illegal policies valid and binding upon the insured, and plaintiffs were therefore not entitled to recover any premiums or fees. The Second Circuit finds that it is axiomatic that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements: the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact (1) that is concrete and particularized, (2) that is causally linked to the defendant's challenged conduct, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff need only show that he or she suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The Plaintiffs have standing. First, with respect to their quasi- contract claims, they argue they paid premiums for disability and medical expense insurance policies that are illegal under New York law and are therefore void ab initio or, in the alternative, voidable. The Plaintiffs, however, have met that burden by alleging harm in the form of premium payments on illegal policies, and they have standing to pursue their quasi-contract claims irrespective of the fact that the defendants propose a reading of a statute that would, if accepted, undermine the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. Second, the plaintiffs have standing to pursue their statutory and common-law fraud claims. Both categories of claims allege that defendants misrepresented the nature of the HealthExtras policies by failing to disclose that they were not issued in compliance with New York law and in so doing, induced plaintiffs to purchase the policies at an inflated price. The Second Circuit rules that the District Court erred when it dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing. For these reasons, the opinion and order of the District Court granting the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's April 12, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8t38u6f from Leagle.com. ROGER L. MANDEL -- rlm@lhlaw.net -- Lackey Hershman, L.L.P, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. H. CHRISTOPHER BOEHNING ( Shane Avidan -- savidan@paulweiss.com - - Jessica S. Carey -- jcarey@paulweiss.com -- on the brief), Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee Federal Insurance Company. STEPHEN R. CLARK -- sclarke@winstead.com -- Winstead PC, Dallas, TX (J. David Brown -- dbrown@winstead.com -- Winstead PC, Dallas, TX; Steven B. Getzoff, Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP, on the brief), for Defendant-Appellee Stonebridge Life Insurance Company, FKA J.C. Penney Life Insurance Company. STUART WEITZMAN: Quinones Sues over Fair Credit Reporting Act ------------------------------------------------------------- JULIAN QUINONES, on behalf of himself: all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. STUART WEITZMAN, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; STUART WEITZMAN RETAIL STORES, LLC, Delaware limited liability company; STUART WEITZMAN HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES l through l0, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18907349 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 4, 2018), seeks compensatory and punitive damages due to Defendants' systematic and willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants routinely acquire consumer, investigative consumer and/or consumer credit reports to conduct background checks on Plaintiff and other prospective, current and former employees and use information from credit and background reports in connection with their hiring process without providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in compliance with the law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. William M. Pao, Esq. SETAREHLAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly HiHs, CA 90212 Telephone (310) 888 7771 Facsimile (310) 888 0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarchlaw.com william@setarehlaw.com SUPERDRY RETAIL: Faces "Picon" Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Superdry Retail LLC. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Superdry Retail LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04865 (S.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018). Superdry Retail LLC is a privately held company in New York, categorized under Clothing Stores. It was established in 2015 and incorporated in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Tel: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com SUTTON GARDENS: Faces "Mendez" Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sutton Gardens LLC. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sutton Gardens LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04856 (S.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018). Sutton Gardens, a memory care facility in Flushing, New York that cares for seniors with Alzheimer's and dementia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal SUUNTO OY: Huntzinger and Bush Sue over Defective Dive Computers ---------------------------------------------------------------- RALPH A. HUNTZINGER and ERIC BUSH, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SUUNTO OY and AQUA LUNG AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 37-2018- 00027159-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., June 1, 2018), contends that the Suunto-branded dive computers -- including the Suunto Cobra, Suunto Cobra 2, Suunto Cobra 3, Suunto Cobra 3 Black, Suunto Vyper, Suunto Vyper 2, Suunto Vyper Air, Suunto Hel02, Suunto Gekko, Suunto Vytec, Suunto Vytec DS, Suunto D9tx, Suunto D9, Suunto D6, Suunto D6i, Suunto D6i Novo, Suunto D4i, Suunto D4, Suunto D4i Novo, Suunto Zoop, Suunto Zoop Novo, Suunto DX, and Suunto Mosquito, that were marketed, distributed, and sold in the United States from January 1, 2006 through the date notice is provided to the class -- are defective, resulting in inaccurate dive-related information, which can cause serious injury and death. The Dive Computers are devices used by scuba divers to provide information critical to the diver's safety, including information about the depth of the dive, the dive time, water temperature, safety stops, stop depths and time for required decompression, air tank pressure, and estimated remaining air time. An inaccurate display of this information can result in serious injury or death to the diver. Plaintiffs and other consumers purchased the Dive Computers expecting them to function properly as a dive computer and display accurate information. Each of the Dive Computers designed, manufactured, marketed, and distributed by defendants contains materially the same software and hardware that operates the Dive Computer's critical functions. However, the software and/or hardware in the Dive Computers is defective because it can malfunction, causing the Dive Computers to provide inaccurate information about a dive. Suunto Oy is a company that manufactures and markets sports watches, dive computers, compasses and precision instruments.[BN] The Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Paula R. Brown, Esq. Jennifer L. Macpherson, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP 501 West Broadway. Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338 1100 Facsimile: (619) 338 1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com proach@bholaw.com jmacpherson@bholaw.com - and - William M. Berman, Esq. BERMAN & RIEDEL, LLP 12264 El Camino Real, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 350 8855 Facsimile: (858) 350 9855 E-mail: wberman@bermaniawyers.com - and - John A. Knox, Esq. Douglas A. Hofmann, Esq. WILLIAMS. KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC Two Union Square 601 Union Street. Suite 4100 Seattle, WA 98101-238C Telephone: (206) 628 6600 Facsimile: (206) 628 6611 E-mail: jknox@williamskastner.com dhofmann@williamskastner.com THERANOS INC: Judge Declines to Certify Class of Investors ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge on May 31 declined to certify a class of Theranos investors who claim they were misled by promises of a breakthrough in blood testing, finding their claims need to be handled individually rather than as a class action. TJX COMPANIES: Denied OT Pay, Sick Day Off, "Findlay" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Findlay, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. The TJX Companies, Inc. Defendant, Case No. 18-cv- 00481, (M.D. Fla., April 12, 2018), seeks unpaid wages, actual damages in the amount shown to be due for unpaid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty weekly with interest, double/liquidated damages, costs of this action, together with reasonable attorneys' fees and such additional relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant -- www.tjx.com -- is an off-price retailer of apparel and home fashion where Findlay worked as an assistant manager at their Clay County FL location. She claims to have worked between 50-60 hours per week without overtime and worked through her lunch breaks. She also claims to have accumulated 86 hours of paid sick time which she intended to use to take care of her autistic son. She was denied availing of such and was forced to use personal unpaid time. She was eventually terminated. Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 Email: agp@rgpattorneys.com TRADER JOE: "Jamison" Suit Says Fruit Bar Packaging Misleading -------------------------------------------------------------- Freddie Jamison individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Trader Joe's Company and Trader Joe's East, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02216 (E.D. N.Y., April 14, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Trader Joe's Company and Trader Joe's East, Inc. sells formed fruit bar products under the "Trader Joe's" brand. Their ingredients contain processed derivatives, including fruit purees and juices, corn syrups, various forms of added sugars, pectins, artificial colors and flavors, instead of actual fruits as indicated on their packaging, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1 Penn Plaza # 2527 New York, NY 10119 Tel: (212) 792-0046 Fax: (212) 563-7108 TRANS UNION: "Miller" Suit Transferred to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled RONALD J. MILLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:12-cv-01715, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on June 1, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-03280-EDL to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. The case is a consumer class action based upon the Defendant's violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The rights of consumers to inspect and correct consumer information sold about them are at the heart of the FCRA. The Defendant deprives consumers of these rights by willfully failing to provide consumers with complete and truthful "OFAC alert" information it sells about them to third parties.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class: Andrew J. Ogilvie, Esq. OGILVIE & BREWER, LLP 4200 California Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94118 Telephone: (415) 651 1952 E-mail: andy@aoblawyers.com - and - David A. Searles, Esq. James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN Land Title Bldg., 19th Floor 100 S. Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 735 8600 Facsimile: (215) 940 8000 E-mail: dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com Attorneys for Trans Union L.L.C.: Arsen Kourinian, Esq. Brian C. Frontino, Esq. Jeffrey Bell, Esq. Stephen J Newman, Esq. Jason S Yoo, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086 Telephone: (310) 556 5800 Facsimile: (310) 556 5959 E-mail: akourinian@mcguirewoods.com bfrontino@stroock.com jbell@stroock.com snewman@stroock.com jsyoo@stroock.com - and - Bruce S. Luckman, Esq. SHERMAN SILVERSTEIN 308 Harper Drive, Suite 200 Moorestown, NJ 08057 Telephone: (856) 662 0700 Facsimile: (856) 488 4744 E-mail: bluckman@shermansilverstein.com - and - Donna A. Walsh, Esq. MYERS BRIER & KELLY, LLP 425 Spruce Street, Suite 200 Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570) 342-6100 E-mail: dwalsh@mbklaw.com TRULIFE HEALTH: Court Conditionally Certifies "Aytch" Class ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Condtional Class Certification in the case captioned TOI AYTCH et al., Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. TRULIFE HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a TRULIFE HEALTH SERVICES et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. ELH-17-2769 (D. Md.). The Plaintiffs allege willful refusal by the defendants to pay their wages, including overtime and travel-time wages. They characterize the suit as both a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs have also lodged claims under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law of the Labor & Employment Article (L.E.) and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. The defendants do not argue that the plaintiffs are not similarly situated. Instead, the defendants oppose conditional certification on the ground that the Plaintiffs have put forth no evidence of any intention of other opt-in plaintiffs to join in this action. The Defendants assert that none of the other potential class members have expressed any desire to join this suit, which hardly creates a need for collective action. The Court finds that the Defendants have offered no authority to suggest that this Court has ever applied such a burden at the conditional certification stage. The Defendants' argument is unavailing. Because the defendants raise no other arguments in opposition to the conditional certification of the plaintiffs' putative class, the Court will grant the Motion as to conditional certification. The only remaining questions pertain to the form and substance of the notice to the class. A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7csmm35 from Leagle.com. Toi Aytch, Sharnette Morris, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly stuated & Aiesha Beaty, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly stuated, Plaintiffs, represented by David J. Rodwin, Public Justice Center & Sally Jean Dworak Fisher, Public Justice Center Inc. Isa Reaves, Plaintiff, pro se. Trulife Health Services, LLC, doing business as Trulife Health Services & Ijeaku Ezekwesili, also known as Jane Ijeaku Ezekwesili, Defendants, represented by Justin M. Reiner -- jmr@awbflaw.com -- Axelson, Williamowsky, Bender & Fishman, PC. TZ MANOR: Faces "Mendez" Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TZ Manor, LLC. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TZ Manor, LLC doing business as: Tappan Zee Manor, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04858 (S.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018). Tappan Zee Manor is an assisted living community licensed by the New York State Department of Health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal ULTA SALON: "Zepeda" Suit Transferred to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Julie Zepeda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics and Fragrance, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 8:17-cv-02184, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno) on June 4, 2018. The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv- 00750-DAD-BAM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Judge Dale A. Drozd. Ulta Beauty is a chain of beauty stores in the United States, headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois. Ulta Beauty carries cosmetics and skincare brands, men's and women's fragrances, and haircare products.[BN] Attorneys for Julie Zepeda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated: Edward W Choi, Esq. CHOI AND ASSOCIATES APC 515 South Figueroa Street Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 381 1515 Facsimile: (213) 465 4885 E-mail: edward.choi@calaw.biz - and - Dennis S. Hyun, Esq. HYUN LEGAL, APC 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488 6555 Facsimile: (213) 488 6554 E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com - and - William Lucas Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531 4211 Facsimile: (831) 634 0333 E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com Attorneys for Ulta Salon, Cosmetics and Fragrance, Inc.: John C. Kloosterman, Esq. Kai-Ching Cha, Esq. Courtney Marguerite Osborn, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 677 3128 Facsimile: (415) 399 8490 E-mail: jkloosterman@littler.com kcha@littler.com cosborn@littler.com UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Schaechter" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Shaindy Schaechter, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv- 03237 (E.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018). United Collection Bureau, Inc. provides debt collection services for companies (government, healthcare, utility, financial service, communication, and student markets) and individuals in the United States. United Collection Bureau, Inc. was formerly known as UCB, Inc. and changed its name to United Collection Bureau, Inc. in August 1979. The company was founded in 1959 and is based in Toledo, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. Maxim Maximov, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Tel: (718) 395-3459 Fax: (718) 408-9570 Email: m@maximovlaw.com UNITED COMMUNITY: Faces Overdraft Fee Class Action -------------------------------------------------- The Chattanoogan.com reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against United Community Bank, a regional bank headquartered in Georgia with locations in three additional states, including Tennessee. United Community Bank has offices in Cleveland, Tn., and Murphy, N.C., as well as Blue Ridge, Summerville, Trion and Blairsville, Ga. The suit was filed on May 23 in Federal Court in Knoxville. Plaintiff Dennis A. Jones, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated throughout the U.S., filed the suit "seeking redress for UCB's alleged routine practice of assessing overdraft fees on debit card transactions that did not overdraw checking account available balances, along with multiple insufficient funds fees on a single transaction." The lawsuit was filed by Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC (BS&J) of Nashville and Cohen & Malad, LLP (C&M) of Indianapolis. Gerard Stranch, managing partner of BS&J, said, "United Community Bank's improper debit card fee practices are costing Dennis Jones, and many others like him, exorbitant sums and taking away a substantial percentage of income. Their practice of conducting authorized-positive, settled-negative transactions is deceptive and bears potential impact on all of UCB's clients. UCB's customers should be aware of the bank's practices and the frequency with which they result in significant, unforeseen, personal cost to customers." The lawsuit alleges that: -- UCB breached the terms of its account documents by charging overdraft fees on transactions that were authorized into a sufficient available balance, but whose balances were allegedly insufficient at the time the transactions were settled; -- UCB breached the terms of its account documents by charging multiple insufficient funds fees on a single transaction; -- UCB breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing through its overdraft policies and procedures; and -- UCB engaged in deceptive acts or practices relating to the imposition of overdraft fees on consumers in violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act. Lynn Toops, a partner at C&M, said, "It is our hope that Mr. Jones, representing the class on behalf of which this lawsuit was filed, can put a stop to UCB's unfair and improper fee practices. UCB's customers put their trust in the bank to comply with its own promises. Those customers who have been victimized by UCB's improper practices, in direct violation of the bank's promises, have suffered considerable financial losses. It is our goal to not only be granted restoration of these improper fees, but to hold UCB accountable for their wrongful actions." The plaintiff and fellow class members demand a jury trial and judgments that include: -- Declaring UCB's overdraft fee policies and practices to be wrongful; -- Ordering UCB to cease its conduct regarding overdraft fees; -- Restitution of all overdraft fees paid to UCB by the plaintiff and classes as a result of the alleged wrongful practices; and -- Actual and punitive damages. [GN] UNITED STATES: Judge Hears Rhode Island Immigration Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- WJAR reports that Lilian Calderon, a Rhode Island woman detained by immigration officials for several weeks, appeared in federal court in Boston on May 22 as the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf questioned a field director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement about the protocols and procedures the agency follows for arresting immigrants who are complying with government orders to verify their marriages. ICE arrested Calderon in January at an immigration office in Johnston where she was trying to verify her marriage to an American citizen. The class-action suit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, covers four other men and women were also arrested while trying to verify their marriages. Calderon was 3 years old when her family came to the United States from Guatemala. She has no relatives in that country. [GN] UNITED STATES: Judge Lashes Out at ICE at Class Action Hearing -------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Rappleye, writing for NBC 10 NEWS, reports that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of Homeland Security, or ICE, is under fire in federal court. The director of field operations for the region was called a lawbreaker in court on May 23 by District Court Judge Mark Wolf. He told Tom Brophy "I have found that you and others acting in concert with you have also violated the law," while detaining women who were had gone to a federal office as part of the process of legalizing their status. The comments came during a class-action lawsuit filed by the American civil Liberties Union on behalf of women who were detained while they were interviewing with agents to verify their marriages to American citizens. The lead plaintiff in the class-action is Lilian Calderon, a Rhode Island woman who was brought to the U.S. from Guatamala when she was 3 years old. She is now a mother of two, and her husband is a naturalized citizen. Her lawyer, Martin Harris, is not part of the lawsuit, but says it's an important step. "I think it's extremely important because you're looking at a potential, you're looking at this issue where the judge wants to determine whether there's a pattern or practice being employed by DHS or ICE, whether they're violating specific rules and regulations," he tells NBC10. "She has a clear path to adjustment of her status and that's what she was pursuing. Like all the other individuals that were detained and grabbed by ICE unexpectedly when they went in for their marriage interview. " The suit is being heard in Boston, and there's no specific timetable for the resolution. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Police Investigates 52 Abuse Complaints ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Solis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that police say they are investigating 52 complaints from former patients of a University of Southern California gynecologist who has been accused of inappropriate exams and behavior while examining female students at a university clinic. Allegations against Dr. George Tyndall, 71, extend over a 26-year period, said the Los Angeles Police Department at a May 29 press conference. Former patients described conduct that went beyond the extent of a normal medical examination. According to a lawsuit filed by four former patients in May, Dr. Tyndall used "his position of trust and authority to sexually abuse plaintiffs on multiple occasions, by engaging in acts that include but are not limited to: forcing plaintiffs to strip naked; groping plaintiffs' breasts, digitally penetrating plaintiffs' vaginas, and spread open their anal crevice so he could leer at the crevice and anus, for no legitimate medical purpose and for no other reason than to satisfy his own prurient sexual desires." Several former patients are suing USC and Dr. Tyndall in Los Angeles County, claiming the university ignored the doctor's "sexually abusive behavior dating back to at least the year 2000" according to one of the civil complaints. Police are asking for other former patients to come forward as they conduct their investigation. USC President C.L. Max Nikias stepped down, amid an outcry from students and alumni over the lack of response from the administration. The allegations against Dr. Tyndall were first reported by the Los Angeles Times earlier this month, including complaints dating back several years that were either ignored or not reported to the medical board. Since those allegations were first reported, USC has set up a hotline for other former patients to contact the school who are coordinating with police. Police are also asking former international students to be notified if they were former students of Dr. Tyndall. Police say the number of former patients who have come forward is likely not accurate of the potential victims, said Capt. Billy Hayes with the LAPD. "Dr. Tyndall saw some ten thousand students, probably over the course of his career that expanded from 1990 to 2016. We believe that with only 52 people coming forward at this point in time, that's probably not an accurate representation of the people who saw him and the potential individuals that might have been victims," Capt. Hayes said. LAPD officials said 39 former patients contacted USC and 13 more reached out to the LAPD through a hotline setup as part of the investigation. While the current allegations date back to 1990 police said they are still in the process of determining whether the allegations will result in criminal charges. Capt. Hayes said some of the patients could have been minors when they were seen by Dr. Tyndall but could not provide an accurate estimate. Dr. Tyndall retired last year, according to media reports. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: "Lieberman" Suit Moved to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled David Lieberman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Regents of the University of California and Blue Shield of California, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-564930, was removed from the San Francisco County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland) on June 1, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18- cv-03282-DMR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. The Regents of the University of California is the governing board of the University of California system. The board has 26 voting members. The California Constitution grants broad institutional autonomy, with limited exceptions, to the Regents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald Mitchell de Camara, Esq. LAW OFC DONALD M DE CAMARA 1241 Carlsbad Village Dr. Ste. E Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 730 7404 Facsimile: (760) 730 7409 E-mail: decamlaw@sbcglobal.net - and - Michael Dario Padilla, Esq. Jeffrey Michael Padilla, Esq. O'MARA & PADILLA 12770 High Bluff Dr No. 200 San Diego, CA 92130 - and - Thomas David Haklar, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS D. HAKLAR 2550 Fifth Avenue, Ste 617 San Diego, Ca 92103 Telephone: (619) 952 8777 Facsimile: (619) 232 7317 E-mail: thaklar@haklarlaw.com Attorneys for Regents of the University of California: Joshua Seth Goodman, Esq. Patricia L. Bonheyo, Esq. GOODMAN NEUMAN HAMILTON LLP 417 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 705 0400 Facsimile: (415) 705 0411 E-mail: jgoodman@gnhllp.com pbonheyo@gnhllp.com Attorneys for Blue Shield of California: Gregory Neil Pimstone, Esq. Sarah E. Gettings, Esq. Joseph Edward Laska, Esq. MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 11355 West Olympic Coulevard Los Angels, CA 90064-1614 Telephone: (310) 312 4000 Facsimile: (310) 312 4224 E-mail: gpimstone@manatt.com sgettings@manatt.com JLaska@Manatt.com VERO BEACH: Hopson Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------ Ashley Hopson, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Vero Beach Inn, LLC and Sean Murphy, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-14134 (S.D. Fla., April 13, 2018), seeks to recover wages, front pay, compensatory damages, an additional equal amount in liquidated damages as well as costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act including redress for violations of the tip credit provisions and unlawful retaliation. Vero Beach Inn, LLC is a restaurant in Indian River County, Florida where Plaintiff was employed as part of the wait staff from November 23, 2016 until November 11, 2017. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff for all her credit card tips. Hopson was terminated for complaining, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Beth Coke, Esq. COKE EMPLOYMENT LAW 131 N. 2nd Street, Suite 204 Fort Pierce, FL 34950 Telephone: (772) 252-4230 Facsimile: (772) 252-4575 Email: beth@cokeemploymentlaw.com VILLA ENTERPRISES: Faces "Olsen" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Villa Enterprises II, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Villa Enterprises II, Inc. doing business as: Greenleafs & Bananas, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03226 (E.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018). Villa Restaurant Group, Inc. owns, operates, and franchises restaurants in the United States, Puerto Rico, and internationally. The company offers food court business opportunities to various venues; and franchise opportunities in malls, airports, casinos, and other venues.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. VILLAGE OF FOX LAKE: Willoughby Case Can't Proceed as Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned RAYMOND WILLOUGHBY, DAMIEN WARD, and DAN COOPER, the Plaintiffs, v. VILLAGE OF FOX LAKE, COMMANDER GEORGE FILENKO, JOHN DOE POLICE OFFICERS, JOHN DOE DEPUTY SHERIFFS, JOHN DOE STATE POLICE AGENTS, and JOHN DOE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AGENTS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02800 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Ronald A. Guzman entered an order: 1. granting George Filenko's motion to dismiss third amended complaint without prejudice; and 2. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A status hearing is set for June 14, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cdAPhG8i VIP HEALTH: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Ruda Says ------------------------------------------------------ LYUDMYLA RUDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. VIP HEALTH CARE SERVICES INC., the Defendant, Case No. 511268/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime wages, pursuant to New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant, by failing to pay Plaintiffs and the Class Members the New York state mandated minimum, overtime, and spread of hours wages for work performed on 24 hour shifts, violated the NYLL.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Rozger, Esq. BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP 80 Bine Street 33rd floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 509 1616 Facsimile: (212) 509 8088 WELLS FARGO: Faces "Wyman" Suit in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The case is styled as Joseph Wyman, an individual, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Lisa Wyman, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-03236 (N.D. Cal., May 31, 2018). Wells Fargo Bank, National Association provides personal, small business, and commercial banking services.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE. WESTLAKE SERVICES: Iniguez Sues Over Illegal Call Recording ----------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Iniguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Westlake Services, LLC, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 18-cv-02239, (M.D. Fla., April 13, 2018), seeks general damages, costs of suit, prejudgment interest, attorney's fees and costs and such further relief resulting from invasion of privacy under the California Penal Code. In August of 2017, Westlake contacted Iniguez by telephone in an attempt to collect on an alleged debt for a vehicle they financed. Their conversation was recorded without her consent. Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., #780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com WILLIAM C. GROSSMAN LAW: Gluck Disputes Vague Collection Letter --------------------------------------------------------------- Esther Gluck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. William C. Grossman Law, PLLC, Cavalry SPV I, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv- 03206 (S.D. N.Y., April 12, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. William C. F Grossman Law, PLLC is a debt collector with address at 5965 Transit Road, Suite 500, East Amherst, New York 14051. Cavalry SPV I, LLC is a debt collector located at 500 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 400, Valhalla, New York 10595. Some time prior to January 30, 2018, Gluck allegedly incurred an obligation to Citibank N.A./AAdvantage over a personal credit card and was transferred the Defendants. The complaint says Defendants sent the Plaintiff a collection letter containing contradictory statements and documents including misleading statements as to who is currently trying to collect a debt from her. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Kohn, Esq. RC LAW GROUP, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: dkohn@rclawgroup.com WIRELESS VISION: Faces "Carrington" Wage-and-Hour Suit ------------------------------------------------------ GIOVANNI CARRINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WIRELESS VISION, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 155094/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, and to recover uniform maintenance allowance compensation under the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, beginning in approximately May 2012, continuing to the present, Defendant did not pay Plaintiffs all their wages or overtime compensation. Additionally, the Defendant required Plaintiffs to wear uniforms but did not offer to launder them or provide the uniform maintenance pay. Wireless Vision owns and operates T-Mobile retail stores in Michigan, Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Georgia, New York, Maryland, Virginia, and Ohio. Its stores sells and services wireless telecommunications solutions.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative class: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Jack L. Newhouse, Esq. Joel Goldenberg, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 E-mail: jnewhouse@vandallp.com WORLDPAY US: Faces Acebedo & Johnson Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Worldpay US, Inc. The case is styled as Acebedo & Johnson, LLC, IDL Quad Group, LLC and Medical Legal Consultants of Greater Atlanta, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Worldpay US, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02688-MLB (N.D. Ga., May 31, 2018). WorldPay US, Inc. provides local in-store, online, and mobile payment acceptance solutions for U.S.-based merchants. Its solutions include card terminals, MOTO/virtual terminal, mobile payments, and integrated cash register systems; and card payments over the telephone or by mail order; and mid-market ecommerce and small business online solutions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward Adam Webb, Esq. Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC 1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Tel: (770) 444-0773 Email: Adam@WebbLLC.com - and - Matthew C. Klase, Esq. Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC 1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Tel: (770) 444-0998 Fax: (770) 444-0271 Email: matt@webbllc.com XEROX CORP: Faces Class Action from Shareholder ----------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a Xerox stockholder filed a class action claiming the photocopy giant's directors and former CEO caved to pressure from top shareholder Carl Icahn when they reached a settlement essentially ceding control of the board to him. Attorneys for Plaintiff Carmen Ribbe: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Amy Miller, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. William J. Fields, Esq. Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 XTO ENERGY: "Anderson" Suit Moved to District of New Mexico ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Rondale Anderson, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. XTO Energy Inc., a Delaware corporation and Michael Wayne Marriott, the Defendants, the Defendant, Case No. 18-CV- 00642, was removed from the Eleventh Judicial District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico (Albuquerque) on June 4, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00518-SMV-JHR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Stephan M. Vidmar. XTO Energy Inc. is an American energy company, principally operating in America, specializing in the drilling and production of unconventional oil and natural gas assets, typically from shale rock through a process known as hydraulic fracturing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel M. Faber, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL FABER 4620C Jefferson Lane NE Albuquerque, NM 87109 Telephone: (505) 830 0405 Facsimile: (505) 830 3641 E-mail: dan@danielfaber.com Attorneys for XTO Energy Inc.: Little West, Esq. Bradford C. Berge, Esq. HOLLAND & HART LLP 110 North Guadalupe St., Suite 1 Santa Fe, NM 87501 Telephone: (505) 988 4421 Facsimile: (505) 983 6043 E-mail: lvwest@hollandhart.com bberge@hollandhart.com XUNLEI LIMITED: Court Consolidates "Dookeran," "Li" Suits --------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the motion to consolidate the cases captioned RUNCIE DOOKERAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. XUNLEI LIMITED et al., Defendants; and PENG LI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. XUNLEI LIMITED et al., Defendants, Nos. 18-cv-467 (RJS), 18-cv-646 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y.). The motion was filed by Tongyan Wang and Yuyan Jia (Wang and Jia). The Plaintiffs Runcie Dookeran and Peng Li, respectively, filed suits under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Securities 78j(b) and 78t(a), on behalf of a putative class of all individuals or entities that acquired Xunlei American Depository Shares (Xunlei ADSs). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), a district court may consolidate two or more actions that involve a common question of law or fact. Accordingly, courts must determine: whether the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion are overborne by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues, the burden on parties, witnesses, and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits, the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one, and the relative expense to all concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives. After considering these factors, the Court finds consolidation to be appropriate here. It is obvious, upon review of the operative complaints, that there are common factual and legal issues in both cases. In fact, the complaints are nearly identical. In addition, the Court fails to discern how any party would be prejudiced by consolidation. Furthermore, it is clear that consolidation would prevent waste and duplication in the various cases. Accordingly, the Court consolidates the cases under the caption In re Xunlei Limited Securities Litigation, No. 18-cv-467 (RJS), and closes the case numbered 18-cv-646 (RJS). A full-text copy of the District Court's April 12, 2018 Opinion and is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc548fwn from Leagle.com. Peng Li, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP. Xunlei Limited, Defendant, represented by Jonathan Rosenberg -- jrosenberg@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP. * City of Oahu Sues Over Service Members' Abandoned Cars -------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Y.K. Pang, writing for Star Advertiser, reports that in an effort to speed up its ability to dispose of current and future vehicles abandoned by military service members, the city filed a class-action lawsuit on May 22 seeking to consolidate required hearings for the owners into one case. Abandoned vehicles have been a growing problem on Oahu streets and those belonging to service members make up a good share of them. City officials say the city is now storing more than 200 vehicles whose owners cannot be located. With the city's lots already at capacity, Oahu is still averaging one abandoned vehicle a day, the lawsuit said. City officials say the lawsuit is an attempt to make it easier for them to dispose of vehicles belonging to military members that they have been required to store. An agreement they reached with the Department of Justice in February still requires the city to auction or sell a vehicle only if it receives a written waiver by the owner, or through a court order. This lawsuit essentially seeks to satisfy that requirement by holding one hearing against all of them. The new system, however, benefits military members who've abandoned their vehicles because a class action will make it unnecessary to identify them, something that could affect their insurance premiums, City Corporation Counsel Donna Leong said. Until the city is successful and obtains a court order, service members still will be offered the opportunity for a hearing as stipulated in the agreement. [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 * * *