/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180704.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, July 4, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 133
Headlines
88 ST PIZZA: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA
ACTION COLLECTION: Suarez Sues over Unlawful Collection Letters
AKERS BIOSCIENCES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit
AKERS BIOSCIENCES: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
ALL WEB LEADS: Court Certifies TCPA Class in "Karpilovsky" Suit
ALTICE USA: Warner Sues over June 2017 IPO
AMBISCO INC: Fails to Pay Tips and Minimum Wages, Kerivan Says
AMP: Judge Won't Halt Quinn Emanuel Class Action Over Venue Fight
APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Allegedly Defective Screens
APPLE INC: Faces "Krueger" Suit in California Superior Court
AUSTRALIA: DoD Faces 3rd Army Base Contamination Suit
AVANTE USA: Faces "Underwood" Suit in Middle District of Florida
AVENUE STORES: Faces "Wu" Suit in Southern District of New York
B.W. HOTEL: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime, "Arteaga" Suit Says
BFT LP: AMP Automotive Moves to Certify Class of Subscribers
BURLINGTON COUNTY, NY: Settles Strip Search Class Action
CALDWELL TRANSPORT: Faces "Madrid" Suit in California State Court
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS: Faces "Babb" Suit in C.D. California
CHEMIX ENERGY: Tarango Seeks to Certify Salaried Operators Class
CHINA AGRITECH: SCOTUS Limits Potential for Repeat Class Actions
CHINA AGRITECH: SCOTUS Limits Successive Class Action Filings
CHINA AUTO: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action Suit
COX COMMUNICATIONS: "Ehrman" Suit Moved to C.D. California
CREDIT SERVICE: Garcia Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CS VENTILATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Madden Says
CYS INVESTMENTS: Rosenblatt Balks at Two Harbors Merger Deal
DANROS LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Ruiz Says
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Castronovo Sues over Securities Act Violation
DEVILLE ASSET: Uribe Sues over Debt Collection Practices
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "Springer" Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
FAT BRANDS: Rojany Sues over October IPO
FIFTH THIRD: "Sampson" Suit Moved to District of Minnesota
FORTUNE BUILDERS: Williams Sues over Unsolicited Calls
FUYAO GLASS: Nearly 550 People Join OT Pay Class-Action Suit
G4S SECURE: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Baselyos Says
GENIES INC: Tabiei Sues over Unsolicited Text Message
GLENDALE, AZ: Stinson Leonard Files Class Action Lawsuit
GOLDEN STATE FOODS: Contreras-Teo Seeks Unpaid Wages
GOLDEN STATE LUMBER: Vasquez Sues over Inaccurate Wage Statements
GOOSE ISLAND: Wins Lawsuit Over Infected Bourbon County
GRIDSUM HOLDING: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Action Suit
GRILL ON 2ND: Lora Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
HANDIT2 NETWORK: Thomas MD Sues over Unwanted Fax Ads
HERTZ TRANSPORTING: Dawson Moves to Certify Class of Employees
HERTZ CORP: Plaintiff Told to Arbitrate Toll Fee Claims
HOME POINT: Stevenson Sues over Background Checks
IBA PROTON: Murray Moves to Certify Class of Workers Under FLSA
IFCO SYSTEMS: Sykes Sues over Gender Discrimination
IBA PROTON: Murray Moves to Certify Class of Workers Under FLSA
JAE RESTAURANT: Doesn't Pay OT to Kitchen Staff, Person Claims
JAYONE FOODS: Fails to Provide Wage Statements, Torrez Says
KNM CONSTRUCTIONS: Urbina Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA
KRONOS FOODS: Torres Sues over Use Sensitive Biometric Data
LATIUM NETWORK: Flint Law Firm, Calcagni & Kanefsky Files Suit
LOS ANGELES, CA: 2 Landlords Sue Over Recycling Program
LUNDEQUAM DEVELOPMENT: Emerson Park Suit Moved to M.D. Florida
M & G PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Robertson Claims
MAPLE BEAR: Instacart Driver Sues Over Labor Code Violations
MASSIVE TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Overtime, Fobbs Says
MDL 2804: Valley Hope's Opiate Suit Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
MDL 2836: FWK Holdings Suit Consolidated in E.D. Virginia
MERCY PHYSICIAN: Class Certification Sought in "Bertroche" Suit
MERRYMEETING INC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Burbon Says
MIAMI, FL: Court Certifies Class of Somalis in "Ibrahim" Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Gomes Sues over Debt Collection Practices
MISSOURI, USA: Court Certifies Class of Prisoners in "Brown" Suit
MONAT HAIR: "Hoffpauir" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
MONSANTO COMPANY: Tipton Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Missouri
MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Facing Class Lawsuit Over Contaminated Water
MULBERRY COMPANY: Faces "Wu" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
NATIONAL DRIVER: Faces "Martell" in California Superior Court
NATROL LLC: Vitello Sues over Dietary Supplement's False Claims
NCB MANAGEMENT: Fleenor & Bartz Sue over Debt Collection
NELNET: Sued Over Improperly Canceled Income-Based Repayment Plan
NEW YORK: MTA Expected to File Defense Over Cashless Tolling Suit
NEW YORK: Teachers File Suit Over Forced Union Dues
NJ EDUCATION ASSOCIATION: Faces "Smith" Class Suit
NOVARTIS PHARMA: Rochester Drug Sues over Exforge Drug Monopoly
OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Franklin" Suit in N.D. California
OPTIMA TAX: Rivera Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
ORANGE, CA: Underpays Senior Social Workers, Cole Claims
ORION MARINE: "Kelly" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action Lawsuit
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Robbins Arroyo LLP Files Class Action
PALM BEACH, FL: HC Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses of Children
PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE: Rallo Sues over Unsolicited Phone Calls
PALO ALTO: Gallagher Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
PAR ENGINEERING: Fails to Pay Unpaid Wages, Lopez Says
PG&E CORP: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
PG&E CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Sued over Debt Collections Practices
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: O'Brien Moves for Final Nod of Settlement
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: "Eaton" Suit Moved to D. Massachusetts
RALPH LAUREN: Faces TCPA Class Action Lawsuit
RANDSTAD INHOUSE: "Velasco" Suit Moved to N.D. California
REGULUS GROUP: Faces "Sarceno" Suit in California State Court
RICH'S CAR: Certification of Class Sought in "Rosales" Suit
RIPPLE LABS: Zakinov Sues over Issued and Sold Ripple Tokens
ROSS STORES: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Martinez Says
SALVATION ARMY: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Jones Says
SAMMY'S YE: "Montes" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
SAUCEY INC: Fails to Pay Wage & Overtime, Cole Says
SCI DIRECT: Romano Seeks to Certify Sales Representatives Class
SEARS PROTECTION: Loses Bid to Reject Expert Opinions in "Greene"
SHANGHAI CUISINE: "Ting" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under FLSA
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Direct Purchasers Seeks Class Certification
SPEARS MANUFACTURING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Delgado Says
STROUD ENTERPRISES: Gaines seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
SUNOCO LP: Fails to Pay Earned Vacation Pay, Vernot Says
SYNETRA INC: Heady Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
TBS PROPERTIES: Fails to Repair Property Damages, Suit Claims
TERRI HURNI: Rabin Sues over Tip Pooling Scheme
TOUCHSTONE GOLF: "Kirshner" Suit Seeks OT Wages under Labor Code
TURIN HOUSING: Faces "Scher" Suit in New York Supreme Court
UNITED CARD: Certification of Classes Sought in "Fabricant" Suit
UNITED STATES: Settlement Reached for Special Ed Students vs. DOE
UNUM GROUP: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
UNUM GROUP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action Lawsuit
UNUM GROUP: Kaskela Law Files Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
VALLEY PALLET: Faces "Cervantez" Suit in California State Court
WEBCOLLEX LLC: Murray Sues over Debt Collection Practices
WELLS FARGO: Gets Court Approval for Class-Action Settlement
WILCO LIFE: Faces "Couch" Suit in Southern District of Indiana
WISENBAKER BUILDER: Reta and Marrujo Seek OT Pay under FLSA
YELLOW PAGES: Calex Legal Files Class Action in Quebec
ZENITH EDUCATION: Clipps Sues over Family and Medical Leave Act
*********
88 ST PIZZA: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERNESTO PEREZ-RAMIREZ, GILBERTO RAMIREZ-RAMOS, and ROMEO ROJAS-
PEREZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. 88 ST PIZZA CORP. d/b/a ROMA PIZZA KHALI, ABU ALI,
and DIANA ABU ALI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05043-PGG
(S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiffs as
a non-exempt food preparer/kitchen worker, dishwasher, porter,
stock person, and food delivery worker. The work performed by
Plaintiffs was directly essential to the business operated by
Defendants. The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay
Plaintiffs their lawfully earned minimum wages in direct
contravention of the FLSA and New York Labor Law.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & DOPER PLLC
708 Third Avenue 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 209 3933
Facsimile: (212) 209 7102
E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com
ACTION COLLECTION: Suarez Sues over Unlawful Collection Letters
---------------------------------------------------------------
SOGUI SUAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACTION COLLECTION AGENCIES, INC.
d/b/a ACTION COLLECTION AGENCY OF BOSTON, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-22337-RNS (S.D. Fla., June 12, 2018), alleges that
Defendant has dispatched thousands unlawful collection letters to
Florida consumers, whereby each such letter contains identical
violations of multiple provisions of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
According to the complaint, on or about March 22, 2018, the
Defendant sent a collection letter to Plaintiff in an attempt to
collect a consumer debt. The collection letter was Defendant's
first and/or initial communication with Plaintiff in connection
with the Consumer Debt. The Plaintiff and members of the putative
class are not legally subjected to the purported "Notice of
Important Rights" depicted in the Letter. Defendant falsely and
deceptively made Plaintiff and members of the putative class
believe that they were subjected to the "Notice of Important
Rights" notwithstanding that no such law applies to members of
the class.
Action Collection Agencies, Inc. offers collection agency
services for the healthcare industry. The company offers pre
collection programs, receivable management programs, and third
party billing and management consulting services. Action
Collection Agencies, Inc.[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
AKERS BIOSCIENCES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP disclosed that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who purchased or
acquired the securities of Akers Biosciences, Inc., between May
15, 2017 and June 5, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover Akers shareholders'
investment losses.
According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Akers was improperly recognizing revenue for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017; (2) Akers had downplayed weaknesses
in its internal controls over financial reporting and failed to
disclose the true extent of those weaknesses; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' statements about Akers' business, operations
and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
On May 21, 2018, during aftermarket hours, Akers revealed that
its ongoing review of the characterization of certain revenue
recognition items for the quarter ended March 31, 2018 "now
includes certain transactions in previous quarters." As a result,
Akers stated that "the Company is unable to file its 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2018." On this news, Akers' stock fell
$0.058 per share, or over 8%, from its previous closing price to
close at $0.599 per share on May 22, 2018.
On May 29, 2018, Akers revealed "that Raymond F. Akers Jr., Ph.D
has resigned as a director of the Company with immediate effect."
On this news, Akers' stock fell $0.263 per share, or over 44%,
over two consecutive trading days to close at $0.326 per share on
May 30, 2018.
Then, on June 1, 2018, Akers filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
attaching a letter from Raymond Akers to the Company. In the
letter, Mr. Akers stated that "I have resigned from the Board of
Directors due to significant differences regarding the policies
and practices of the Board of Directors, accounting and business
practices of Management, and new Counsel. I believe this to be in
the best interests of the Company, shareholders, and me."
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than August 13, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose
to take no action, you may remain an absent class member.
Contact:
Daniel Sadeh,Esq.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
Website: http://www.bernlieb.com
Telephone: (877) 779-1414
Email: dsadeh@bernlieb.com [GN]
AKERS BIOSCIENCES: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Akers Biosciences, Inc.
(NASDAQ:AKER) securities between May 15, 2017 and June 5, 2018.
Investors have until August 13, 2018 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) Akers
was improperly recognizing revenue for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017; (2) Akers downplayed weaknesses in its
internal controls over financial reporting and failed to disclose
the true extent of those weaknesses; and (3) as a result,
defendants' statements about Akers' business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. The complaint claims that
when the truth was revealed to the market, investors suffered
damages.
If you purchased Akers Biosciences securities during the Class
Period or continue to hold shares purchased before the Class
Period, have information, would like to learn more about these
claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or
your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at
investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Telephone: (212) 355-4648
Website: www.bespc.com
Email: fortunato@bespc.com
walker@bespc.com [GN]
ALL WEB LEADS: Court Certifies TCPA Class in "Karpilovsky" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber entered a memorandum opinion and
order in the lawsuit entitled JOHN KARPILOVSKY and JIMMIE
CRIOLLO, JR., Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. ALL WEB LEADS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
1:17-cv-01307 (N.D. Ill.):
-- denying AWL's Daubert motion to exclude the Plaintiffs'
expert report and testimony; and
-- granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class.
Plaintiff William Sullivan originally brought this lawsuit under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleging deceptive
marketing practices by the Defendant. Plaintiffs John
Karpilovsky and Jimmie Criollo, Jr. have since stepped into
Sullivan's shoes, and they now move for certification of the
proposed class.
The class is defined as:
All persons within the United States who filled out and
submitted an insurance quote form on Defendant's website
www.affordable-health-insurance-plans.org and then received
a non-emergency telephone call from All Web Leads, or any
party acting on its behalf, to a cellular telephone through
the use of an automated telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice.
A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8j7cbjkS
ALTICE USA: Warner Sues over June 2017 IPO
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit, Case No. 709097/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June
12, 2018), asserts strict-liability, non-fraud claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 against Altice USA, its former controlling
parent Altice N.V., certain current and former officers and
directors of Altice USA and the former Altice N.V., and the
underwriters of initial public offering provider.
The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Altice USA common stock
pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with Altice USA's June 2017 IPO.
According to the complaint, in June 2017, Defendants commenced
the Altice USA IPO, issuing over 71 million shares of Altice USA
common stock to the investing public at $30 per share, all
pursuant to the Registration Statement. The Offering Documents
contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state
material facts both required by governing regulations and
necessary to make the statements made not misleading
As a direct and proximate result of such violations, Plaintiff
and the members of the Class, who purchased Altice USA shares
pursuant to the Prospectus, sustained substantial damages in
connection with their purchases of the stock. Accordingly,
Plaintiff and the members of the Class, who hold the common stock
issued pursuant to the Prospectus, have the right to rescind and
recover the consideration paid for their shares and hereby tender
their common stock to Defendants sued herein. Class members who
have sold their common stock seek damages to the extent permitted
by law.
Altice USA, or Optimum by Altice, is an American cable television
provider/multiple system operator with headquarters in New York
City, with broadband, pay television, telephone services, and Wi-
Fi hotspot.[BN]
The case is captioned as PAUL WARNER, Individually and on Behalf
of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ALTICE USA, INC., ALTICE EUROPE N.V. (f/k/a ALTICE N.V.), PATRICK
DRAHI, JêRêMIE JEAN BONNIN, ABDELHAKIM BOUBAZINE, MICHEL COMBES,
DAVID P. CONNOLLY, DEXTER G. GOEI, VICTORIA M. MINK, MARK
CHRISTOPHER MULLEN, DENNIS OKHUIJSEN, LISA ROSENBLUM, CHARLES F.
STEWART, RAYMOND SVIDER, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS INC., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC.,
BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP., CREDIT
AGRICOLE SECURITIES (USA) INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.,
RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, SCOTIA CAPITAL (USA) LLC, SG AMERICAS
SECURITIES LLC, and TD SECURITIES (USA) LLC, the Defendants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas L. Laughlin, IV., Esq.
Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 233 6444
Facsimile: (212) 233 6334
E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
rswartz@scott-scott.com
- and -
Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
Francis A. Bottini, Jr.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 914 2001
Facsimile: (858) 914 2002
E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
achang@bottinilaw.com
ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com
AMBISCO INC: Fails to Pay Tips and Minimum Wages, Kerivan Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHANE KERIVAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AMBISCO, INC., ROBERT GREGORY, and
NICHOLAS GREGORY, collectively d/b/a REDBONES BARBECUE, the
Defendants, Case No. 18-1688 (Mass. Super. Ct., June 11, 2018),
alleges that Defendants have violated the Massachusetts laws
relating to wages and tips because wait staff employees have
shared tips with individuals who are not entitled to share in
tips and because wait staff employees have performed non-tipped
work for which they have been paid the tipped minimum wage.
Ambisco, Inc. was founded in 1987. The company's line of business
includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for on-
premise consumption.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
Rachel J. Smit, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607 3260
Facsimile: (617) 488 2261
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
rachel@fairworklaw.com
AMP: Judge Won't Halt Quinn Emanuel Class Action Over Venue Fight
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miklos Bolza, writing for Lawyerly, reports that a NSW Supreme
Court judge refused on June 15 to pause one of five class actions
against AMP despite an impending battle over where the cases
should be heard.
In response to calls by four class action law firms -- and a
Federal Court judge -- to wait until the venue stoush is resolved
before proceeding further with the Quinn Emanuel-led action in
the state court -- Justice David Hammerschlag said standing over
the case was "immediately unattractive".
"I'm not in any competition nor is the Federal Court in any
competition with me," Justice Hammerschlag said.
"This list operates on the basis that matters are dealt with
justly, swiftly and cheaply. The case has to be dealt with one
way or another."
The barrister representing the Quinn Emanuel class action, Adam
Hochroth, Esq., agreed the case should move forward despite a
push to centralize the proceedings in Federal Court, saying the
suit had already made "substantial progress".
"The conduct of the proceedings in the Federal Court is now
interfering with the progress of the hearing in this court,"
Hochroth told the court on June 15 hearing.
Quinn Emanuel, whose case is the only one of five shareholder
class actions against AMP not lodged with the Federal Court, has
filed a motion seeking to have the Federal Court cases restrained
from proceeding.
AMP is fighting to move all of the actions to the NSW Supreme
Court, but lawyers from Maurice Blackburn, Slater & Gordon, Shine
and Phi Finney McDonald -- say their suits, and Quinn Emanuel's,
should be heard in the federal jurisdiction.
At a June 8 hearing in the Federal Court, Justice John Middleton
indicated his preference for keeping the four Federal Court cases
in the Federal Court. He twice pressed AMP barrister Elizabeth
Collins, SC, to provide reasons for seeking to transfer the
cases, given that "at least four applicants want to be here in
the Federal Court".
The judge also told her to notify the NSW Supreme Court of the
venue battle.
"It should be brought to the judge's attention what is happening
in this court," he said.
AMP's bid to move the cases to NSW will be argued at a hearing
before Judge Middleton on August 14.
The cases are being billed as among the largest shareholder class
actions ever in Australia.
Testimony at the Banking Royal Commission revealed AMP had
charged customers fees for no service and misled the Australian
Securities & Investments Commission about the practice.
The revelations sent AMP's share price plummeting by more than 10
percent, wiping $2 billion off the company's market valuation.
The company's CEO and chairwoman resigned, as did three AMP board
members, and its group general counsel was terminated.
ASIC's investigation is ongoing.
AMP is represented by Herbert Smith Freehills,Esq.
The Quinn Emanuel case is Marion Antoinette Wigmans v AMP
Limited. The Phi Finney case is Wileypark Pty Ltd v AMP Limited;
the Shine Lawyers case is Andrew Georgiou v AMP Limited; the
Slater & Gordon case is Fernbrook (Aust) Investments Pty Ltd v
AMP Limited; and the Maurice Blackburn case is Komlotex
Proprietary Limited as Trustee for Breda Sinclair Industries
Superannuation Fund v AMP Limited. [GN]
APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Allegedly Defective Screens
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Maslow, writing for Legal Scoops, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Apple over allegedly
defective screens on Apple Watches. Plaintiffs claim that the
watch models have a defect that causes the display to "crack,
shatter or detach from the body of the watch." The claimants say
the cracking and shattering is of no fault of the wearer.
The lawsuit, which was filed in the United States District court
for the Northern District of California, is seeking $5 million in
damages.
The suit alleges that Apple is aware of the problem, but has
failed to acknowledge them publicly and refuses to service
affected customers. Apple says the issue is the result of
accidental damage caused by the user.
Apple previously addressed some Watch issues, including swollen
batteries and issues with back covers on Series 0 units.
The complaint states that Apple's policy is to "deny the
existence of the defect, claim the defect is the result of
accidental damage caused by consumers, and then refuse to honor
its limited warranty on those grounds."
Apple charges out-of-warranty service fees that range from $229
to $329 in the U.S., and that is excluding high-end Edition
models.
The lawsuit accuses Apple of unlawful business practices and
acts, violating California's Business and Professions Code, the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the state's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act. It also claims that Apple breached express and
implied warranties and accuses the company of unjust enrichment.
The suit is seeking damages to compensate Apple Watch owners for
losses and damages as a result of the alleged defect. The
complaint is demanding a jury trial.
The $5 million in damages appears to be on the low-end. It is
speculated that very few customers would enjoy any restitution
after court costs and attorney fees.
Apple has not commented on the lawsuit, which was brought on by
Colorado resident Kenneth Sciacca.[GN]
APPLE INC: Faces "Krueger" Suit in California Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple Inc. The case
is captioned as Connie Krueger, Lisa Langlands, Patricia Vega,
Andrew Yeganeh, the Plaintiffs, v Apple Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 18CV329447 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 5, 2018).
Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops,
and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Jeffrey Louis Fazio, Esq.
Fazio | Micheletti LLP
2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315
San Ramon, CA 94583
Telephone: (925) 543 2555
Facsimile: (925) 369 0344
E-mail: info@fazmiclaw.com
AUSTRALIA: DoD Faces 3rd Army Base Contamination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Cat Fredenburgh, writing for Lawyerly, reports that Shine Lawyers
has received unconditional funding from IMF Bentham to bring
another class action against the Department of Defence over
alleged land contamination near an army base, this time in the
Northern Territory.
IMF said on June 15 that enough individuals with valid claims had
entered into funding agreements and that it would now
unconditionally fund the class action. The lawsuit will be
brought on behalf of property and business owners who say they
suffered harm from the spread of contamination caused by
firefighting foams containing perfluorooctane sulfonate and
perfluorooctanoic acid at the Royal Australian Air Force Tindal
base outside of Katherine in the Northern Territory.
Shine said it was finalising proceedings and would bring the case
as soon as possible.
"The financial backing of an international funder, IMF, bolsters
our case and confidence in the outcome for Katherine residents,"
said Shine Lawyers Special Counsel, Josh Aylward, Esq.
"This agreement enables us to carry a case of this scale through
the courts, and empowers us to deliver justice to residents as
soon as is practicable."
The first IMF-backed class action was filed by Dentons in the
Federal Court in Sydney in November 2016 over alleged
contamination at the Williamtown air force base in New South
Wales. That case has entered mediation and a trial date has been
set for August 12, 2019.
Another Shine-led, IMF-backed class action over alleged PFOS and
PFOA contamination was brought in Federal Court in Sydney in July
on behalf of property owners near the Army Aviation Centre in
Oakey, Queensland. The lawsuit claims the DoD allowed the
contamination to leak and cause damage to nearby properties and
that DoD should be on the hook for compensating those harmed by
the contamination.
Shine says other communities affected by potential PFOS and PFOA
contamination at military bases have reached out to it regarding
possible legal action. Over 18 bases across Australia have been
contaminated from the use of the firefighting foam.
The other army bases being investigated for contamination are the
Jervis Bay Range Facility in the Australian Capital Territory;
the RAAF Base Richmond, Holsworthy Barracks, HMAS Albatross and
the RAAF Base Wagga in New South Wales; the RAAF Base Darwin and
Robertson Barracks in the Northern Territory; RAAF Base
Townsville and RAAF Base Amberley in Queensland; RAAF Base
Edinburgh in South Australia; RAAF Base East Sale, Bandiana
Military Area and HMAS Cerberus in Victoria; HMAS Stirling, Fleet
Base West and RAAF Base Pearce in Western Australia.[GN]
AVANTE USA: Faces "Underwood" Suit in Middle District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avante USA. The
lawsuit is captioned as Brittani Underwood, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Avante
USA, Pendrick Capital Partners LLC, and John Does 1-25, Case No.
8:18-cv-01379-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla., June 7, 2018).
Avante USA is an accounts receivable management firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Zeig, Esq.
ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
Hollywood, FL 33024
Telephone: (754) 217 3084
Facsimile: (754) 217 3084
E-mail: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
AVENUE STORES: Faces "Wu" Suit in Southern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avenue Stores LLC.
The lawsuit is captioned as Kathy Wu and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Avenue Stores LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05107-VEC (S.D.N.Y., June 7,
2018).
Avenue Stores LLC is a specialty retailer in the United States
offering plus-size clothing. The company serves a target audience
of women aged between 25 and 55 years of age, wearing apparel
sized 14 or larger.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (917) 796 7437
Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com
B.W. HOTEL: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime, "Arteaga" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS ARTEAGA and FELISA MARTINEZ, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. B.W. HOTEL,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC708551 (Cal. Super.
Ct., June 11, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to provide
meal periods, provide required rest breaks, pay minimum and
straight time wages, and pay overtime compensation pursuant to
the California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, Defendants' illegal policies and
practices were applied consistently to the Plaintiffs. These
policies and practices were designed for the sole and exclusive
benefit of the Defendants.
B.W. Hotel, LLC was founded in 1996. The Company's line of
business includes operating public hotels and motels.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
Amir Seyedfarshi, 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
amir@rastegarlawgroup.com
BFT LP: AMP Automotive Moves to Certify Class of Subscribers
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled AMP AUTOMOTIVE, LLC v. B F T,
LP d/b/a GREAT AMERICAN BUSINESS PRODUCTS, Case No. 2:17-cv-
05667-JCZ-MBN (E.D. La.), asks the Court to certify this class of
similarly situated persons:
All persons and entities that are subscribers of telephone
numbers to which within four years of the filing of this
Complaint, Defendant sent facsimile transmissions with
content that discusses, describes, promotes products and/or
services offered by Defendant, and does not contain the
opt-out notice required by 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(2)(D)
and by 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(a)(4)(iii).
AMP Automotive also asks the Court to appoint it as class
representative, and to appoint Chehardy, Sherman, Williams,
Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLP, as class counsel.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=S1nVxwPY
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George B. Recile, Esq.
Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
Ryan P. Monsour, Esq.
Matthew A. Sherman, Esq.
Patrick R. Follette, Esq.
CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY, RECILE, STAKELUM
& HAYES, L.L.P.
One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
Metairie, LA 70001
Telephone: (504) 833-5600
Facsimile: (504) 613-4528
E-mail: gbr@chehardy.com
plh@chehardy.com
rpm@chehardy.com
mas@chehardy.com
prf@chehardy.com
BURLINGTON COUNTY, NY: Settles Strip Search Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Carl D. Poplar, Esq., and David J. Novack, Esq., disclosed that
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
has approved the following announcement of a proposed class
action lawsuit that would benefit individuals who were admitted
into the Burlington County Correctional Facility for a non-
indictable offense and strip searched upon arrival:
Court Ordered Legal Notice
If You Were Admitted Into The Burlington County Correctional
Facility From Between February 26, 2006 through February 28, 2013
for A Non-Indictable Offense And Were Strip Searched Upon
Arrival, You Could Get A Payment From A Class Action Settlement.
A $2,700,000.00 (two million seven hundred thousand dollars)
settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit about the
strip search policies of the Burlington County Correctional
Facility (the "Jail"). If you meet the criteria explained below,
you can share in this settlement.
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
authorized this notice. The Court will have a hearing to decide
whether to approve the settlement, so that the benefits may be
paid.
Who's Included?
You are a class member and could get benefits if (1) you were
admitted into the Jail from between, February 26, 2006 and until
February 28, 2013, (2) you were charged solely with a non-
indictable offense(s), such as a disorderly persons offense,
traffic violation, or held on a civil matter, and (3) you were
strip searched upon entry into the Jail without reasonable cause
to believe that you were concealing a weapon or other contraband.
What's This About?
The lawsuit claims that Defendant Burlington County and its
Correction Officers' booking procedures constitute an unlawful
strip search of individuals admitted into the Jail without
reasonable suspicion to believe the individuals were concealing
contraband. The County of Burlington has denied those claims.
The Court did not decide which side was right, but both sides
agreed to a settlement to ensure a resolution and to provide
benefits to the people who were affected.
What Does the Settlement Provide?
Defendants agreed to pay a total of $1,395,000.00 (one million
three hundred ninety five thousand dollars) for claims, plus an
amount no greater than $80,000 (eighty thousand dollar) total as
an incentive award fee in the court's discretion to the Class
Representatives, with a proposed allocation of fifty thousand
dollars ($50,000) payable to Plaintiff Tammy Marie Haas, and
thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) to Plaintiff Conrad Szczpaniak
in the Court's discretion plus $300,000.00 (three hundred
thousand dollars) for costs of administration, plus reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, not to exceed $925,000.00 (nine
hundred twenty-five thousand dollars) to be applied for upon the
motion for Final Approval to settle the case. There are
potentially 14,015 Class Members who can make claims. You may
make only one claim regardless of the number of admissions and/or
strip searches you were subjected to during the Class Period.
Each class member who makes a claim will receive up to $400 (four
hundred dollars). There are potentially 14,015 of individuals in
the Settlement Class. To the extent that in excess of 3,487
(three thousand four hundred eighty-seven) Class Members make
claims your claim amount will be reduced pro rata for each valid
claim made in excess of 3,487 (three thousand four hundred
eighty-seven). If there is a 90% claims rate, the amount due to
each person would be $110. Claims rates have historically
approximated 18% which would provide each claimant with the
capped amount of $400 (four hundred dollars).
If any money is left over after each claimant has received their
share of the settlement fund, the Defendants and/or their insurer
will receive all unclaimed funds from the settlement fund.
How Do You Ask For A Payment?
A detailed Notice and Claim Form package contains everything you
need. Just call 1-866-274-4004 or visit the settlement website,
www.burlingtoncountystripsearch.com, to get one. To qualify for
a payment, you must send in a Claim Form. Claim forms are due by
October 15, 2018.
What Are Your Other Options?
If you want to share in the settlement, all you need to do will
be to obtain a claim form, as just explained above, and return it
according to its directions. If you don't want the settlement
benefits or don't want to be legally bound by the settlement, you
must exclude yourself by September 15, 2018. If you exclude
yourself, you can't get any benefits from this settlement, but
you could bring a separate case against the Defendants, if you
want to. If you stay in the settlement, you may object to it by
September 15, 2018. The detailed notice, available by calling or
visiting the website below, explains how to exclude yourself or
object.
The Court will hold a hearing in this case, Haas, et al. v.
Burlington County, 08-cv1102-1102-NLH-JS, on January 16, 2019 at
11:00 a.m., to consider whether to approve the settlement and a
request by the lawyers representing all class members Carl D.
Poplar, Esquire and David Novack, Esquire for attorneys' fees and
costs. You may ask to appear at the hearing, but you don't have
to.
Carl D. Poplar, Esq.
David Novack, Esq.
Burlington County Settlement
c/o Strategic Claims Services
600 N Jackson St #205
Media, PA 19063
Toll free: 1-866-274-400
Email: David.Novack@newlinlaw.com [GN]
CALDWELL TRANSPORT: Faces "Madrid" Suit in California State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caldwell Transport
Company Inc. The lawsuit is captioned as Miller Madrid, on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. David Bemis,
Cal Reb LLC, Caldwell Transport Company Inc., Caldwell Transport
Company LLC, and Does 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-
00234594-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Sup. Ct., June 11, 2018).
Caldwell Transport is commercial transportation company in
Rothesay that delivery products across North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Galen T Shimoda, Esq.
SHIMODA LAW CORP.
9401 East Stockton Boulevard, Suite 200
Elk Grove, CA 95624
Telephone: (916) 525 0716
Facsimile: (916) 760 3733
E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS: Faces "Babb" Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Teachers
Association. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge James V. Selna.
The case is captioned as Georgia Babb, John J. Frangiamore, Jr.,
William Happ, Michelle Pecanic-Lee, David Schmus, and Abram van
der Fluit, as individuals, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. California Teachers Association;
United Teachers of Los Angeles, as representative of the class of
all chapters and affiliates of the California Teachers
Association; National Education Association; Edmund G. Brown, in
his official capacity of Governor of the State of California;
Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Attorney General of
the State of California; Mark Gregersen, in their official
capacities as chairman and members of the California Public
Employment Relations Board; Eric Banks, in their official
capacities as chairman and members of the California Public
Employment Relations Board; Priscilla Winslow, in their official
capacities as chairman and members of the California Public
Employment Relations Board; Erich Shiners, in their official
capacities as chairman and members of the California Public
Employment Relations Board; Arthur A. Krantz, in their official
capacities as chairman and members of the California Public
Employment Relations Board; R. Alexander Acosta, in his official
capacity as U.S. Secretary of Labor; John F. Ring, in their
official capacities as chairman and members of the National Labor
Relations Board; Mark Gaston Pearce, in their official capacities
as chairman and members of the National Labor Relations Board;
Lauren McFerran, in their official capacities as chairman and
members of the National Labor Relations Board; William Emanuel,
in their official capacities as chairman and members of the
National Labor Relations Board; Marvin Kaplan, in their official
capacities as chairman and members of the National Labor
Relations Board; the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00994-JVS-DFM
(C.D. Cal., June 5, 2018).[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bradley A Benbrook, Esq.
BENBROOK LAW GROUP PC
400 Capital Mall Suite 2530
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 447 4900
Facsimile: (916) 447 4904
E-mail: brad@benbrooklawgroup.com
CHEMIX ENERGY: Tarango Seeks to Certify Salaried Operators Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled RODRIGO TARANGO,
Individually and on behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. CHEMIX
ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-00370-XR (W.D. Tex.), file
with the Court his Motion for Conditional Certification and
Motion for Approval and Distribution of Notice and for Disclosure
of Contact Information.
The class consists of:
All persons employed by Defendant as salaried Operators at
any time since April 26, 2015.
Mr. Tarango brought this suit on behalf of certain former and
current oilfield employees of the Defendant to recover overtime
wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Copies of the Motions are available at no charge at:
* http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lpGCVWtz
* http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JAYAyGtR
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam Poncio, Esq.
PONCIO LAW OFFICES
5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 109
San Antonio, TX 78229-3550
Telephone: (210) 212-7979
Facsimile: (210) 212-5880
E-mail: salaw@msn.com
CHINA AGRITECH: SCOTUS Limits Potential for Repeat Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian E. Casey, Esq., Mark J. Crandley, Esq., L. Rachel Lerman,
Esq., and Peter J. Rusthoven, Esq., at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, in
an article for The National Law Review, wrote that in a unanimous
opinion handed down, the U.S. Supreme Court provided needed
protection against the specter of successive class action
lawsuits. In China Agritech v. Resh, the court held that the mere
filing of a case labeled as a class action does not "toll" or
pause the statute of limitations for future class actions
addressing the same claims. The court's opinion holds that if the
statute of limitations expires while a class action case is
pending, a member of the class may not assert a second class
action of the time-barred claim even if the court in the first
case denies class action status.
The court had previously held that the filing of a class action
lawsuit tolls the statute of limitations period for claims
brought by individuals in the event the court denies a motion to
certify a class action. This holding protected individuals from
the statute of limitations in the event an attempt at a class
action ultimately failed. It allowed individuals to hold off
suing on their own claims until it the courts could determine
whether there was going to be a class action
Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg refused
to extend that logic to future class actions (as opposed
individual claims.) The opinion concluded that "the 'efficiency
and economy of litigation' that support tolling of individual
claims . . . do not support maintenance of untimely successive
class actions." As the court explained, "there is little reason
to allow plaintiffs who passed up opportunities to participate in
the first (and second) round of class litigation to enter the
fray several years after class proceedings first commenced."
Under this holding, if the limitations period for a claim expires
while a case remains pending, the class members cannot bring a
second class action lawsuit asserting the claim even if the first
court refused to certify the case as a class action. Instead, the
limitations period forever bars hearing the claim as a class
action.
The facts of the China Agritech opinion illustrate the danger a
contrary result would pose. The lawsuit is the third separate
class action asserting the same allegation that a company's
misfeasance had injured its stock price. A federal court refused
to grant class certification after a group of plaintiffs sued in
2011. A second lawsuit followed in 2012, but the courts again
denied class certification. The same lawyers then filed a third
class action complaint in 2014. The Supreme Court held that
enough was enough and barred further class litigation of the
claim.
Justice Sotomayor wrote separately to suggest that the court's
holding should be limited to actions under federal securities
law. No other justice joined her opinion. [GN]
CHINA AGRITECH: SCOTUS Limits Successive Class Action Filings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis S. Wiener, Esq., Francis X. Nolan, IV, Esq., and Laura E.
Smithman, Esq., at Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, in an article
for Lexology, wrote that after years of uncertainty, the United
States Supreme Court has revisited one of its most important
class action opinions, and in doing so, set limits on the filing
of successive class actions. In China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, No.
17-432, 584 U.S. __ (June 11, 2018), the Supreme Court held that
plaintiffs cannot indefinitely toll claims on behalf of entire
putative classes. Under longstanding precedent, if the statute of
limitations runs on a class member's claim during the pendency of
a class action of which it is a part, the class member can bring
an individual claim if the class action is not certified. But,
according to the Supreme Court's new decision, the class member
cannot institute a new class action if the statute of limitations
has expired. China Agritech is the latest in the American Pipe
line of Supreme Court decisions to deal with tolling of claims
during pending class actions, and it comes as welcome news to
defendants in all kinds of class action litigation.
As discussed in a prior Eversheds Sutherland legal alert and
article, the beginning of this particular issue dates back
several decades. In 1974, the United States Supreme Court issued
its landmark ruling in American Pipe v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538
(1974), holding that the filing of a class action tolls the
limitations period for members of the proposed class.
Subsequently, in 1983, the Supreme Court decided Crown, Cork &
Seal v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983), which clarified that the
statute of limitations period begins to run for potential
plaintiffs with individual claims upon a denial of class
certification. Several ambiguities in the Crown, Cork decision
caused circuit courts to issue conflicting decisions on the
tolling issue, ultimately compelling the Supreme Court to grant
certiorari in China Agritech.
In the decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
held that the statute of limitations for the claims of a putative
class was tolled while the proposed class representative in one
action was an unnamed putative class member in two prior lawsuits
based on the same allegations against the same defendants. Unlike
in Crown, Cork, which only applied to individual claims, the
Ninth Circuit held that this tolling applied to any potential
putative class action claims the plaintiff wanted to later
assert. The consequences of the circuit court's holding were
dire: it effectively allowed plaintiffs' attorneys to prosecute
the same class action with different plaintiffs and under
different theories until a court certified the class.
In a unanimous 9-0 opinion, however, the Court reversed the Ninth
Circuit, holding that after class certification is denied, a
putative class member may not commence a new class action beyond
the time allowed by the statute of limitations.
In the China Agritech opinion, the Supreme Court explained that
American Pipe tolled the applicable statute of limitations only
with respect to a putative class member who wants to file an
individual suit following the denial of class certification. In
American Pipe, the Supreme Court found that tolling the
limitations period for individual claims of putative class
members until after class certification was denied promoted
"efficiency and economy of litigation." If a class was certified,
a class member's claim would be adjudicated along with the rest
of the class without overlapping and duplicative litigation. If a
court denied certification, the individual former putative class
member was free to pursue his or her individual claim. Tolling
potential future class claims, on the other hand, did not promote
"efficiency and economy of litigation." Quite the contrary.
Further, the Court in China Agritech found that a plaintiff who
opts out of one class should not be permitted to participate in a
subsequent but identical class action by arguing that the class
claims had been tolled. Such plaintiffs are not likely to qualify
as diligent in asserting claims and seeking relief, which is
typically required for equitable tolling.
Eversheds Sutherland Observation
China Agritech will impact parties involved in all kinds of class
action litigation. Most importantly, defendants no longer have to
view class action litigation as a potentially endless endeavor,
and it will affect negotiating strategy, litigation planning, and
budgeting during what is already highly expensive litigation.
While it remains to be seen how the lower courts will interpret
and apply China Agritech, this opinion should prove to be a
useful tool for defendants engaged in class action litigation.
[GN]
CHINA AUTO: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of China
Auto Logistics Inc. from March 28, 2017 through April 13, 2018,
both dates inclusive.
Investors who have incurred losses in shares of China Auto
Logistics Inc. are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You
may obtain additional information concerning the action on our
website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of China Auto
Logistics Inc. and would like to assist with the litigation
process as a lead plaintiff, you may, no later than August 6,
2018, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the
proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more
about your rights as an investor in China Auto Logistics Inc.
According to the filed complaint, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that:
China Auto failed to maintain adequate internal controls over
identifying and reporting certain relationships and related
transactions; and as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On April 2, 2018, China Auto Logistics Inc. reported that it was
unable to timely file its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
period ending December 31, 2017 because it needed extra time to
"identify certain related party transactions and the impact of
such transactions for the preparation of the financial statements
for the Form 10-K." They also identified a material weakness in
its internal controls over "identifying and reporting certain
relationships and related transactions."
On this news, shares of China Auto Logistics Inc. fell over 19%
to close at $2.79 on April 2, 2018.
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Gregory Stone
Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Telephone: (800) 575-0735
(212) 545-4774
Email: gstone@whafh.com
kcooper@whafh.com
classmember@whafh.com [GN]
COX COMMUNICATIONS: "Ehrman" Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled David Ehrman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cox
Communications, Inc., and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 30-02018-00992300-CU-MC-CXC, was removed
from the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa
Ana) on June 22, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:18-cv-01125-JVS-DFM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge James V. Selna.
Cox Communications is an American privately owned subsidiary of
Cox Enterprises providing digital cable television,
telecommunications and Home Automation services in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamin Samuel Soderstrom, Esq.
SODERSTROM LAW PC
3 Park Plaza, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 667 4700
Facsimile: (949) 424 8091
E-mail: jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Richard R. Patch, Esq.
Katharine T. Van Dusen, Esq.
COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY AND BASS LLP
One Montgomery Street Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94104-5500
Telephone: (415) 391 4800
Facsimile: (415) 989 0663
E-mail: rrp@cpdb.com
ef-ktv@cpdb.com
- and -
Philip D W Miller, Esq.
Scott C Hall, Esq.
One Montgomery Street Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 391 4800
Facsimile: (415) 989 1663
E-mail: ef-pdm@cpdb.com
ef-sch@cpdb.com
CREDIT SERVICE: Garcia Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
KEISA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. CREDIT SERVICE OF LOGAN, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00067-DBP (June 11, 2018), seeks
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant with regard to attempts by Defendant to unlawfully and
abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff, in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff allegedly fell behind
in the payments allegedly owed on the alleged debt. The Plaintiff
disputes the validity of the alleged debt. Subsequently, the
alleged debt was assigned, placed, or otherwise transferred, to
Defendant for collection. On or about April 5, 2018, the
Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection letter with regard to
Plaintiffs' alleged debt. This letter constitutes "debt
collection" and "communication" as that term is defined by
15 U.S.C. section 1692a(2). Defendant's April 5, 2018 written
communication failed to identify the original creditor(s) to whom
Plaintiffs owed the debt. In fact, in this April 5, 2018 letter
sent by Defendant, Defendant indicated the letter was regarding a
creditor named Statewide Collections". Statewide Collections
could not have been the original creditor on the account because
Statewide Collections is a third party debt collector.
The Plaintiff was confused and frustrated because they were not
able to identify where this debt originated. This conduct was a
material violation of the FDCPA because it potentially frustrates
the ability of the least sophisticated debtor to intelligently
choose an adequate response because the debtor cannot determine
which debt this letter is referencing. Defendant's failure to
identify the original creditor of the debt overshadowed the
protections of 15 U.S.C. section 1692e. Defendant's failure to
provide the name of the original creditor and Defendant's
statement that the letter was regarding Plaintiff's creditor
named "Statewide Collections" was misleading and deceptive.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Theron D. Morrison, Esq.
MORRISON LAW GROUP
290 25th Street, Suite #102
Ogden, Utah 84401
Telephone: (801) 392 9324
Facsimile: (801) 337 2087
E-mail: theron@morlg.com
- and -
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (800) 400 6808
Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com
CS VENTILATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Madden Says
--------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH MADDEN, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CS VENTILATION, INC., and DANIEL J.
O'BOYLE, the Defendants, Case No. 18-1637 (Mass. Super. Ct., June
6, 2018), alleges that Defendants have violated the Massachusetts
wage laws by failing to pay employees for all hours worked,
failing to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
week, and taking improper deductions from employees' wages.
Defendant CS Ventilation, Inc. is a Massachusetts corporation
that provides commercial kitchen exhaust cleaning services to
businesses in Massachusetts.
According to the complaint, employees are required to perform
work at Defendants' office both before and after leaving for the
commercial kitchens each shift, including but not limited to
receiving assignments, loading and unloading trucks, necessary
paperwork, etc. Employees are required to travel together to and
from each location in a company vehicle. The Defendants pay their
employees an hourly rate. However, Defendants do not pay
employees for all hours worked. For example, Defendants do not
pay employees for all travel time and/or for all work performed
at Defendants' office. The Defendants also do not pay employees
time-and-a-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week, as
they are required to do.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
Rachel Smit, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607 3260
Facsimile: (617) 488 2261
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
rachel@fairworklaw.com
- and -
Alan D. Meyerson, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALAN DAVID MEYERSON
100 State Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA (617) 444-9525
E-mail: alan@alandavidmeyerson.com
CYS INVESTMENTS: Rosenblatt Balks at Two Harbors Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CYS INVESTMENTS INC., KEVIN
E. GRANT, TANYA S. BEDER, KAREN HAMMOND, STEPHEN P. JONAS,
RAYMOND A. REDLINGSHAFER JR., DALE A. REISS, JAMES A. STERN,
DAVID A. TYSON, TWO HARBORS INVESTMENT CORP., and EIGER MERGER
SUBSIDIARY LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11220-DJC (D.
Mass., June 11, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating,
or closing a proposed merger transaction, and, in the event
Defendants consummate the proposed transaction, rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages.
The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on April
26, 2018, pursuant to which CYS Investments, Inc. will be
acquired by Two Harbors Investment Corp. and Eiger Merger
Subsidiary LLC. On April 25, 2018, CYS's Board of Directors
caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger
with Two Harbors. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
CYS stockholders will receive newly issued shares of Two Harbors
common stock as well as aggregate cash consideration of
$15,000,000, payable to CYS stockholders on a pro rata basis.
On May 25, 2018, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
The Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the
Registration Statement false and misleading. Accordingly,
plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
the Registration Statement.
CYS Investments, Inc., incorporated on January 3, 2006, is a
specialty finance company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295 5310
Facsimile: (302) 654 7530
- and -
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 324 6800
Facsimile: (484) 631 1305
- and -
Theodore M. Hess-Mahan
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295 5310
Facsimile: (302) 654 7530
- and -
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
DANROS LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Ruiz Says
-------------------------------------------------
JORGE A. RUIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DANROS, LLC d/b/a "Mega Daniel's
Home Center," a California corporation; DANIEL ROSENBERG, an
individual; REBECCA ROSENBERG, an individual; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC707894 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 4, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to pay state-
mandated minimum wages for all hours worked; failed to pay
straight time, minimum and/or overtime wages for all hours
worked; failed to pay the appropriate reporting time pay; failed
to provide all legally-requisite meal periods; failed to
authorize and permit all paid legally-requisite rest periods; and
failed to separately pay for all rest periods pursuant to the
California Labor Code.
Danros operates furniture stores in Southern California. It
offers bed sets, mirrors, night stands, mattresses, chairs,
sofas, tables, ottomans, recliners, sofa beds/futons, and dinning
room furniture.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
Gregg Lander, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
1635 Pontius Avenue, Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025-3361
Telephone: (323) 549 9100
Facsimile: (323) 549 0101
E-mail: Barnes@kbames.com
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Castronovo Sues over Securities Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN CASTRONOVO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DENTSPLY SIRONA, INC.,
JEFFREY SLOVIN, BRET W. WISE, CHRISTOPHER T. CLARK, DR. MICHAEL
C. ALFANO, ERIC K. BRANDT, PAULA H. CHOLMONDELEY, MICHAEL J.
COLEMAN, WILLIE A. DEESE, WILLIAM F. HECHT, FRANCIS J. LUNGER,
JOHN L. MICLOT, JOHN C. MILES II, the Defendants, Case No.
155393/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 7, 2018), asserts strict
liability claims under sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 against Dentsply, certain current and former Dentsply
officers and directors, and certain former Sirona officers and
directors.
The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of
all persons who acquired Dentsply common stock pursuant or
traceable to the Form S-4 registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with Dentsply International's February 2016
acquisition of and merger with Sirona, which created Dentsply.
Dentsply is a global producer of dental equipment and
consumables, incorporated under the laws of Delaware, and
headquartered in York, Pennsylvania. Dentsply's common stock
trades on the NASDAQ exchange under the ticker "XRAY." Prior to
the Acquisition, Sirona was a Delaware corporation, with
principal executive offices in Long Island City, New York, and
its common stock traded on the NASDAQ under the ticker "SIRO."
In February 2016, in connection with the Acquisition, Dentsply
issued approximately 104.2 million shares of Dentsply common
stock directly to former shareholders of Sirona common stock, as
follows: each former share of Sirona common stock issued and
outstanding immediately before February 29, 2016 was converted to
1.8142 shares of newly issued Dentsply common stock. Each of
these new shares of Dentsply common stock was issued pursuant to
the Registration Statement.
The Registration Statement contained untrue statements of
material fact and omitted material facts both required by
governing regulations and necessary to make the statements made
not misleading. The Registration Statement claimed that "the
dental and medical device supplies markets are highly
competitive," that Dentsply (International) "conducts its
operations under highly competitive market conditions," and
further claimed that its "distribution network" was a 'principal
strength."
Dentsply Sirona is an American dental equipment maker and dental
consumables producer that markets its products in over 120
countries. It has factories in 21 countries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
RHIANA L. SWARTZ, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 233 6444
Facsimile: (212) 233 6334
E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
rswartz@scott-scott.com
- and -
David W. Hall, Esq.
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 766 3534
Facsimile: (415) 402 0058
E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com
fhedin@hedinhall.com
DEVILLE ASSET: Uribe Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
MARISOL L. URIBE, individually, and on behalf of similarly
situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. DEVILLE ASSET MANAGEMENT,
LTD, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00562 (W.D. Tex., June 11,
2018), seeks to recover damages arising from Defendant's
violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and the
Texas Debt Collection Act.
According to the complaint, prior to 2015, the Plaintiff took a
car loan from Santander Bank. In October 2015, Plaintiff was
unable to meet her financial obligations and failed to make the
required payment on the automobile. After the delinquency, in
March of 2017, Defendant purchased the auto loan/retail
installment contract from Santander. On June 15, 2017, the
Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection letter offering a
settlement amount of $7,545.62. By sending this letter, the
Defendant implied that it was legally allowed to collect the
debt. The Defendant is acting as a holder under section 348.501
of the Texas Finance Code. However, the Texas Code specifically
requires holder's to obtain a license. Accordingly, the debt in
question is not in fact owed to Defendant, as Defendant is
prohibited from acting as a holder. By attempting to collect a
debt which it is prohibited from collecting, Defendant has
engaged in deceptive conduct.
DeVille Asset specializes in the acquisition of defaulted account
receivable portfolios from consumer credit originators such as
major banks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW, LLC
1373 Broad St. Suite 203C
Clifton, NJ 07013
Telephone: (862) 227 3106
Facsimile: (973) 282 8603
E-mail: DZ@zemellawllc.com
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "Springer" Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled BART SPRINGER, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
180501040, was removed from the U.S. District Court for Court of
Common Pleas Philadelphia County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on June 7,
2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-02390-
NIQA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro.
Equifax collects and reports consumer information to financial
institutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE PC
1622 Locust St
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875 4656
Facsimile: (215) 875 4674
E-mail: scarson@bm.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Jonathan D. Klein, Esq.
CLARK HILL PLC
2005 Market St Suite 1000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 640 8535
E-mail: jklein@clarkhill.com
FAT BRANDS: Rojany Sues over October IPO
----------------------------------------
ERIC ROJANY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FAT BRANDS INC., ANDREW A.
WIEDERFIORN, RON ROE, JAMES NEUHAUSER, EDWARD H. RENSI,
MARC L. FIOLTZMAN, SQUIRE JUNGER, SILVIA KESSEL, JEFF LOTMAN,
FOG CUTTER CAPITAL GROUP INC., TRIPOINT GLOBAL EQUITIES, LLC and
DOES 1-25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC708539 (Cal.
Super. Ct., June 7, 2018), alleges that Defendants omitted
material facts in connection with a public stock offering.
This is a securities class action on behalf of all those who
purchased FAT Brands common stock pursuant to FAT Brands' October
23, 2017 IPO, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act
of 1933.
According the complaint, the Defendants authorized or signed a
Registration Statement, including an Offering Circular that
formed part of the Registration Statement, and/or participated in
making false and misleading statements that omitted material
facts in connection with the IPO roadshow. The IPO was made under
Regulation A of the 1933 Act, and the Offering Circular was filed
purportedly pursuant to Rule 253(g)(2). This lawsuit asserts
claims under section 12(a)(2) of the 1933 Act, which provides
buyers of securities an express remedy for material misstatements
or omissions made by any seller or solicitor in connection with
the offer or sale of the issuer's securities involving a
prospectus or oral communications, and section 15 of the 1933
Act, which extends liability' for the section 12(a)(2) claims to
those who controlled the issuer, here FAT Brands.
FAT Brands Inc. is a global, multi-brand, restaurant franchising
company that strategically develops, markets, and acquires
restaurant concepts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James I. Jaconette, Esq.
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN FILED
& DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231 1058
Facsimile: (619) 231 7423
- and -
Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
Phong L. Tran, Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0063
Facsimile: (619) 255 1856
FIFTH THIRD: "Sampson" Suit Moved to District of Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Elizabeth A. Sampson and Tracey
A. Lane, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Fifth Third Bank, Defendant, was
removed from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota on June 11, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 0:18-cv-01622-PJS-DTS to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Patrick J. Schiltz.
Fifth Third Bank is a bank headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio at
Fifth Third Center. It is the principal subsidiary of Fifth Third
Bancorp, a bank holding company.[BN]
Attorneys for Tracey A. Lane:
Marisa C Katz, Esq.
Vildan A Teske, Esq.
TESKE, KATZ, KITZER & ROCHEL, PLLP
222 S Ninth Street, Suite 4050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 746 1558
E-mail: katz@tkkrlaw.com
teske@tkkrlaw.com
Attorneys for Fifth Third Bank:
David J Carrier, Esq.
C.J. Schoenwetter, Esq.
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3000
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 339 8682
Facsimile: (612) 672 3200
E-mail: david.carrier@bowmanandbrooke.com
cj.schoenwetter@msp.bowmanandbrooke.com
FORTUNE BUILDERS: Williams Sues over Unsolicited Calls
------------------------------------------------------
GLORIA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FORTUNEBUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01494-M (N.D. Tex., June 11, 2018),
seeks to stop Defendant's practice of making unsolicited
telemarketing calls to the telephones of consumers nationwide and
to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct.
According to the complaint, Fortune Builders, Inc. is a real
estate investing education company. In an effort to solicit
potential customers, FortuneBuilders, Inc. recruited, or employed
call centers, to place telephone calls, en masse, to consumers
across the country. Defendant and or its agents purchase phone
number databases of consumers' contact information and create
electronic databases from which Defendant or its agents makes
automated calls.
The Defendant conducted wide scale telemarketing campaigns and
repeatedly made unsolicited calls to consumers' telephones --
whose numbers appear on the National Do Not Call Registry --
without consent, all in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. By making the telephone calls at issue in this
Complaint, Defendant caused Plaintiff and the members of a
putative Class of consumers actual harm, including the
aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily
accompanies the receipt of unsolicited and harassing telephone
calls, as well as the monies paid to their carriers for the
receipt of such telephone calls.
FortuneBuilders is the premier real estate education company. We
offer real estate investment coaching programs and live training
events for investors.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:
Jarrett Ellzey, Esq.
W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
Galleria Tower I
2700 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1120
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 554 2377
Facsimile: (888) 995 3335
E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
jarrett@hughesellzey.com
FUYAO GLASS: Nearly 550 People Join OT Pay Class-Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Gnau, writing for WHIO TV 7, reports that so far 548
workers and former workers have joined a class-action lawsuit
over wages and scheduling against one of the Miami Valley's
fastest growing manufacturers, Fuyao Glass America.
The federal lawsuit has 548 class members and the deadline to
join the suit is June 6, said attorney Bob DeRose, Esq. --
bderose@barkanmeizlish.com -- who works with the Columbus law
firm suing Fuyao, a Moraine manufacturer of automobile and after-
market glass.
DeRose could not say how many of the participants are current
Fuyao employees, but he said the class does include current
workers.
The suit was first filed in Dayton's federal court last June by a
former Fuyao employee, Julia Staggs. Staggs alleged that she
worked overtime at Fuyao without being paid time-and-a-half
wages. She also contends she and others were not completely
relieved of duties during unpaid meal breaks and more.
The lawsuit also charged that during the Thanksgiving 2016
holiday weekend, Fuyao "promised" to pay Staggs and about 100
other employees time-and-one-half wages for all hours worked that
weekend, as an enticement to get those employees to work extra
hours.
Instead, the employees received $50 gift cards, the suit claimed.
In February, a federal judge granted class-action status to group
of plaintiffs gathering behind the lawsuit.
DeRose said that to his knowledge, Fuyao has done nothing to
discourage current workers from being involved.
"The company hasn't done anything negative to our knowledge but
they haven't assisted us," DeRose said. "An average response rate
(to class-action suits) is between 10-15 percent, and we are at
13.7 percent, with a couple of weeks remaining, so we are happy.
I would love to see 20 percent."
He added: "The response has been steady, the natural flow is that
it is at its highest at the beginning and toward the end."
Attorneys representing Fuyao did not respond to a message seeking
comment.
Fuyao has about 2,300 workers at its plant off West Stroop Road
and Ohio 741.[GN]
G4S SECURE: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Baselyos Says
--------------------------------------------------------
MARLIN BASELYOS on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA), INC. and DOES 1-100, the Defendants,
Case No. BC708909 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 4, 2018), alleges that
Defendants violated the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 for
failure to pay straight, regular rate wages, and overtime wages
for all work performed under the California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants knew and/or should
have known that Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees were
entitled to be provided legally compliant meal periods in a
timely manner or payment of one hour of pay as additional
compensation at Plaintiffs and the aggrieved employees' regular
rate of pay when they did not receive a timely, uninterrupted
meal period.
The Defendants own and operate a chain of hotels located within
Los Angeles County and throughout California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Turley, Esq.
David Mara, Esq.
Jill Vecchi, Esq.
Nikki Ousdahl, Esq.
THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
7428 Trade Street
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (619) 234 2833
Facsimile: (619) 234 4048
GENIES INC: Tabiei Sues over Unsolicited Text Message
-----------------------------------------------------
OMEED TABIEI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GENIES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-05146 (C.D. Cal., June
11, 2018), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal
actions of the Defendant, in negligently contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, in or about January of 2018, the
Plaintiff received an unsolicited text message from Defendant on
his cellular telephone, number ending in -4120. During this time,
Defendant began to use Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the
purpose of sending Plaintiff spam advertisements and/or
promotional offers, via text messages, including two text
messages sent to and received by Plaintiff on or about January
23, 2018 and February 8, 2018 respectfully, from Defendant's
phone number, (203) 533-8765 and (209) 251-0711 respectfully.
These text messages placed to Plaintiff's cellular telephone were
placed via Defendant's SMS Blasting Platform, i.e., an "automatic
telephone dialing system." The telephone number that Defendant,
or their agent, texted was assigned to a cellular telephone
service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming text
messages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227 (b)(1).
Genies, Inc. develops a social sharing application for college
students.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF
TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206 4741
Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
GLENDALE, AZ: Stinson Leonard Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Stinson Leonard Street LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit
was filed on April 27, 2018, in the Superior Court of Maricopa
County on behalf of a proposed Class of purchasers or holders of
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Revenue Bonds issued by the
Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix, Arizona
for the Vieste SPE, LLC -- Glendale, Arizona Project consisting
of $21,485,000 Tax-Exempt Series 2013A and $745,000 Taxable
Series 2013B bonds, sold through an Official Statement dated
April 17, 2013. These bonds bear CUSIP numbers 71884RAE2,
71884RAC6, 71884RAF9, 71884RAG7, 71884RAH5, 71884RAD4. The case
was removed to the United States District Court for the District
of Arizona on May 30, 2018, and is current pending as case number
2:18-cv-01637-ROS.
If you are a member of the Class described above, you may, no
later than 60 days from the date of this notice, move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff of the proposed Class. To serve as
lead plaintiff you must meet certain legal requirements.
The complaint alleges generally that the above-described Official
Statement contained material misrepresentations and omissions,
and the complaint seeks recovery from Vieste SPE, LLC; Vieste
Energy, LLC; Herbert J. Sims & Co.; and Lawson Financial
Corporation; as well as certain officers and other control-
persons of the foregoing entities. In addition to the companies,
the complaint also names as defendants Mark and Jane Doe
Branaman, Michael A. and Jane Doe Comparato, Joseph A. and Jane
Doe Cook, Donald W. and Jane Doe Currise, Joshua D. and Jane Doe
Rogers, Xan and Jane Doe Smith, and Robert and Pamela Lawson. The
complaint alleges claims for primary and secondary liability
under the Arizona Securities Act.
Jeffrey Goulder,Esq.
Stefan Palys,Esq.
Stinson Leonard Street LLP
Telephone: 602-586-5292
Email: jeffrey.goulder@stinson.com
stefan.palys@stinson.com [GN]
GOLDEN STATE FOODS: Contreras-Teo Seeks Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
ANGEL CONTRERAS-TEO, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN STATE FOODS CORP.,
an active Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, the
Defendants, Case No. BC708535 (Sal. Super. Ct., June 6, 2018),
alleges that Defendants failed to provide meal periods, failed to
provide paid rest periods, failed to pay wages, failed to timely
pay wages at termination/separation, failed timely pay vacation
wages at termination, failed to provide accurate wage statements,
pursuant to the California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, Golden State Foods Corp. is engaged
in the business of supplying food products to restaurant and
retail establishments throughout California. The Plaintiff was
hired in 2007, and was terminated on or about September 17, 2017.
The Plaintiff was employed a driver and had a non-exempt
classification. Plaintiff was working out of GSF's facility in
the city of La Puente in the County of Los Angeles. The Plaintiff
was not paid all his wages, including all vacation pay owed.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
Haik Hacopian, Esq.
Nanor C. Kamberian, Esq.
MOORADIAN LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
5023 N. Parkway Calabasas
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone: (818) 876 9627
Facsimile: (888) 783 1030
E-mail: zorik@mooradianlaw.com
haik@mooradianlaw.com
nanor@mooradianlaw.com
GOLDEN STATE LUMBER: Vasquez Sues over Inaccurate Wage Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN STATE LUMBER, INC.,
a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 18 1150, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. RG18908289 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 11,
2018), seeks to recover penalties and/or damages for Defendant's
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements pursuant to
the California Labor Code.
Golden State Lumber serves bay area homeowners and professional
contractors for six decades.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:
William L. Marder, Esq.
POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
11501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
Hollister, CA 95023
Telephone: (831) 531 4214
Facsimile: (831) 634 0333
- and -
Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
HYUN LEGAL, APC
11515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488 6555
Facsimile: (213) 488 6554
GOOSE ISLAND: Wins Lawsuit Over Infected Bourbon County
-------------------------------------------------------
Josh Noel, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that the long,
sour saga of Goose Island's infected Bourbon County beers has
taken another turn, with a judge dismissing the claims of two men
who rejected an $8,000 peace offering in the midst of arguing
that the brewery's refund process was insufficient for the
tainted brews.
A U.S. District Court judge ruled in May that two Massachusetts
men -- who between them had bought more than 50 bottles of
Bourbon County in late 2015 -- were unable to press their case
because Goose Island had attempted to refund them the maximum
amount possible.
The men returned the $8,000 in a bid to push forward on a class
action lawsuit. However, the judge ruled that Goose Island had
made a good faith effort to compensate them.
The ruling was first reported by Chicago lawyer Ashley Brandt,
who operates a blog about beverage industry legal issues.
Goose Island's long-simmering saga began the day after
Thanksgiving in 2015, when the brewery released its annual batch
of Bourbon County beers. Though the brand makes some of the most
heralded beers in the industry, drinkers quickly began
complaining of sour and rancid off flavors. The off flavors were
later linked to the presence of lactobacillus acetotolerans, a
bacteria that affects flavor but does not make a person ill.
The brewery offered two rounds of refunds to consumers: in
January 2016, when it became clear that Bourbon County Coffee
Stout and Bourbon County Barleywine were infected, and again in
July 2016, when Bourbon County Stout and Proprietor's Bourbon
County Stout were found to have off flavors.
Two Massachusetts residents, Jeff Roach and Scott Kaplan, sued
Goose Island in February 2017, claiming they were unable to get
refunds due to the process being "underpublicized and available
for an unreasonably short period of time."
Roach said he had spent about $600 on 32 bottles of Bourbon
County Stout, two bottles of Bourbon County Coffee Stout and six
bottles of Bourbon County Barleywine, according to the lawsuit.
Kaplan said he bought 12 bottles of Bourbon County Stout, two
bottles of Bourbon County Coffee Stout and one bottle of Bourbon
County Barleywine.
In April 2017, Goose Island responded to the men with checks for
$5,000 for Roach and $3,000 for Kaplan -- "the maximum amount
potentially available to them . . . plus additional funds to
cover court costs and attorneys' fees," the brewery's lawyers
said.
Three weeks later, the mens' lawyers returned the checks,
insisting they wanted to press forward with the class action
suit.
However, Goose Island lawyers argued that even though the
plaintiffs returned the checks, "Kaplan and Roach's claims are
moot because Goose Island has unconditionally offered all of the
relief that plaintiffs seek and there is no more relief that the
court could provide."
The judge agreed. [GN]
GRIDSUM HOLDING: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC alerts Gridsum Holding Inc. investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's securities between April 27, 2017 and April 20,
2018, inclusive (the 'Class Period').
DEADLINE ALERT: Investors who purchased Gridsum securities during
the Class Period may, no later than June 25, 2018, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the investor
class. Gridsum investors are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law
LLC (David Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258-1585 or (888) 715-
1740 to discuss their important legal rights and options with
respect to this action prior to June 25, 2018. Gridsum investors
may also submit their information to the firm at
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/gridsum/.
On April 23, 2018, the Company issued a press release entitled
'Gridsum Reports Suspension of Audit Report on Financial
Statements' and disclosed that the 'audit report for the
Company's financial statements for the year ended December 31,
2016 should no longer be relied upon.' The press release further
disclosed that Gridsum's auditor had identified certain 'issues'
while conducting its audit of the Company's financial results for
the year ended December 31, 2017, including issues relating to
'certain revenue recognition, cash flow, cost, expense items, and
their underlying documentation which [the auditor] had previously
raised' with the Company.
Following this news, Gridsum's shares declined $1.17, or over
16%, to close on April 23, 2018 at $6.12 per share.
The shareholder class action complaint alleges that Gridsum and
certain of its executive officers made false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (i)
Gridsum lacked effective internal control over financial
reporting; and (ii) Gridsum's financial statements were
inaccurate and misleading, and did not fairly present, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. The complaint further alleges that, as
a result of the foregoing, investors purchased Gridsum securities
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and
sustained significant investment losses following the Company's
April 23, 2018 disclosure.
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
201 King of Prussia Road
Suite 650
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone:(484) 258-1585
(888) 715-1740
Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]
GRILL ON 2ND: Lora Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSE A. LORA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class , the Plaintiffs, v. GRILL ON 2nd LLC d/b/a Tuttles
Bar & Grill and GARRETT DOYLE, in his individual capacity, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04949-JMF (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2018),
alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law, Plaintiff and others similarly situated are
entitled to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
busboy and food runner. Despite working more than forty hours per
week and often in excess of ten hours per day, the Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff overtime or spread of hours pay.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class:
Robert D. Salaman, Esq.
AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC
Robert D. Salaman
45 Broadway, Suite 1420
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 825 1400
E-mail: rob@akinlaws.com
HANDIT2 NETWORK: Thomas MD Sues over Unwanted Fax Ads
-----------------------------------------------------
KENNETH A. THOMAS MD, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability
company, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. HANDIT2 NETWORK, LLC, a Colorado
limited liability company, and TRADITIONAL MEDICINALS, INC., a
California corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-03436-
KAW (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2018), seeks to stop their practice of
sending unauthorized and unwanted fax advertisements, and to
obtain redress for all persons and entities similarly injured by
their conduct.
The case challenges Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited
fax advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. The faxes are part of an overall marketing
campaign to sell Mother's Milk (TM), a tea that purports "to help
nursing mothers with breast milk production" - a dubious claim
given that Traditional Medicinals disclaims that its "statements
have not been evaluated by the food and Drug Administration," and
that Mother's Milk (TM) is a dietary supplement that is "not
intended" to have any actual medicinal effect. The faxes directly
promote the commercial availability of the Mother's Milk (TM)
supplement to both lactating mothers, the product's end users,
and doctors, who serve as direct to consumer sales channels for
supplement sellers such as Traditional Medicinals. However,
Defendants sent the faxes at issue to Plaintiff and the Class
despite not having an established business relationship with
them, or their consent, causing Plaintiff and putative members of
the Class to suffer actual harm, including the aggravation and
nuisance of receiving such faxes, the loss of use of their fax
machines during the receipt of such faxes, and increased labor
expenses.
Handit2 Network offers product sampling programs to over 20
million consumers including moms.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:
David S. Ratner, Esq.
DAVID RATNER LAW FIRM, LLP
33 Julianne Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
Telephone: (917) 900 2868
Facsimile: (925) 891 3818
E-mail: david@davidratnerlawfirm.com
- and -
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Kaufman P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Stefan Coleman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (877) 333 9427
Facsimile: (888) 498 8946
E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com
HERTZ TRANSPORTING: Dawson Moves to Certify Class of Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janice Dawson moves the Court for an order certifying the action
titled JANICE DAWSON, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated employees v. HERTZ TRANSPORTING INC.; a
Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
2:17-cv-08766-GW-JEM (C.D. Cal.), as a class action pursuant to
Rules 23 (a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The class consists of all non-exempt employees of Defendant Hertz
Transporting, Inc. in California at any time since four years
before the filing of this legal action until such time as there
is a final disposition of this lawsuit.
Ms. Dawson also asks the Court to appoint her as Class
Representative and to appoint her counsel as Class Counsel.
The Court will commence a hearing on September 6, 2018, at 8:30
a.m., to consider the Motion.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZsUmjMqU
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patricio T.D. Barrera, Esq.
Ashley A. Davenport, Esq.
BARRERA & ASSOCIATES
2298 E. Maple Avenue
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 802-1500
Facsimile: (310) 802-0500
E-mail: barrera@baattorneys.com
davenport@baattorneys.com
- and -
Vincent Calderone, Esq.
CALDERONE LAW FIRM
2321 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 1265
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (424) 348-8290
E-mail: vcalderone@calemploymentattorney.com
HERTZ CORP: Plaintiff Told to Arbitrate Toll Fee Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Legal News Line reports that a California court has granted Hertz
Corp.'s motion to compel arbitration in a case over allegations
that Hertz overcharged for a toll violation fee, noting that the
plaintiff was bound by contract to arbitrate all claims.
The court order on March 18 by U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California Judge Cynthia Bashant stated, "A
reasonable person in plaintiff's position would believe that
renting a vehicle from Hertz -- as a Hertz Gold Member at a Hertz
location -- would bind him to a contract he received from Hertz
before leaving the company's lot with its vehicle."
The order stated New Jersey resident Moises Olivas signed up to
be a Gold Program member through Hertz's website in 2006, in
which he provided personal information and an electronic
signature. In 2014, Olivas rented a car online to be picked up at
the John Wayne Airport in California and clicked the "submit"
button, which Hertz's website states to mean the party has read
and understood the terms and provisions.
The order stated that Olivas alleged that he picked up the car
from the Hertz rental stall and was handed several folded
documents before he drove off the lot. Olivas alleged that there
was a line of cars behind him, and he drove out of the lot. The
folded documents were Hertz's Rental Record.
Olivas claimed after returning the car he received an email from
Hertz notifying him that he would be charged a $30 toll violation
fee for not paying a FasTrak toll on his drive to San Diego and
his credit card on file was then charged. Olivas states that the
fee Hertz charges is not to pay the toll violation but is a fee
simply to transfer the violation into Olivas' name.
Olivas filed suit, claiming the toll fee was inflated. Olivas
seeks to certify a putative class action, and filed claims for
breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, conversion, and violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code.
Hertz motioned to compel arbitration, arguing that every Rental
Record, which Olivas admits he was given, states in bold print
that by accepting the car, the party is bound to arbitrate any
claims in arbitration or small claims court, and that jury trials
or class actions are not allowed. Hertz claims that "the parties
expressly agreed in the Gold Agreement that their contractual
relationship would be supplemented for each future rental by the
terms contained in each future Rental Record."
Olivas claims he did not agree to the arbitration clause, arguing
that he should have been given the Rental Record before he got
the car, not when he was driving off the lot with a line of cars
behind him.
The court agreed with Hertz, stating "The Rental Record invited
plaintiff's acceptance by conduct -- accepting and taking the
company's rental car."
The court order stated that "The parties have clearly and
unmistakably delegated arbitrability issues to the arbitrator,"
and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration, staying any
further judicial proceedings.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case
number No. 17-cv-01083-BAS-NLS [GN]
HOME POINT: Stevenson Sues over Background Checks
-------------------------------------------------
JOHN STEVENSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HOME POINT FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-10233-KM-SCM
(D.N.J., June 6, 2018), alleges that Defendant violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.
The case is a nationwide class action against Defendant for
violation of the FCRA, due to Defendant's admittedly false
reports to credit bureaus that Plaintiff's mortgage payments, and
those of similarly situated class members were delinquent when in
fact those mortgages were not delinquent and were in good
standing. Defendant's report was made in contradiction of its own
records stating that Plaintiff and the Class's mortgages were not
delinquent, and thus it was made in violation of the FCRA's
requirement that a "person shall not furnish any information
relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the
person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the
information is inaccurate."
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's violation of the
FCRA, the credit score of Plaintiff and other Class members
dropped immediately and substantially and caused damages to
Plaintiff and the Class.
Home Point is a licensed mortgage lender.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff:
James S. Notis, Esq.
Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
560 Sylvan Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
Telephone: (201) 567 7377
Facsimile: (201) 567 7337
E-mail: jnotis@gardylaw.com
jsarnelli@gardylaw.com
IBA PROTON: Murray Moves to Certify Class of Workers Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled DENNIS MURRAY, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. IBA PROTON THERAPY,
INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-10681-JCO-MKM (E.D. Mich.), pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, moves for entry of an order
conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA collective, defined
as:
All individuals who worked for IBA Proton Therapy, Inc. in
the United States at any time within the three years
preceding the Court's order granting conditional
certification, and held any of the following positions: PT
Service Engineer - Cyclotron; PT System Engineer -
Cyclotron; PT Service Engineer - Electronics; PT System
Engineer - Electronics; PT System Engineer -
Electromechanical; and PT Service Engineer -
Electromechanical.
Mr. Murray also asks the Court to:
(1) approve the Plaintiff's proposed "Notice of Right to Join
Lawsuit" and "Consent to Join Lawsuit" forms and authorize
the Plaintiff's counsel to circulate the Proposed Notice
via first-class mail and e-mail to the proposed FLSA
collective;
(2) require the Defendant to identify all potential opt-in
plaintiffs by providing their names, last known addresses,
dates of employment, job titles, and e-mail addresses in
an electronic and importable format within 10 days of the
entry of the order; and
(3) allow putative FLSA collective members 60 days from
circulation of the notice to file written consent forms.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rFLPaQci
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
155 2nd Street, Suite 4
Jersey City, NJ 07302
Telephone: (201) 630-0000
E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
jtb@jtblawgroup.com
- and -
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: crash@sommerspc.com
IFCO SYSTEMS: Sykes Sues over Gender Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------
WHITNEY SYKES, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
female laborers, the Plaintiff, v. IFCO SYSTEMS US, INC. and
MTIL, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03903 (N.D. Ill.,
June 4, 2018), seeks to recover damages arising from Defendants'
discrimination against female laborers in Defendants' practices
of filling work assignments at the IFCO warehouse.
IFCO manufactures reusable plastic containers which it stores in
its warehouse and utilizes temporary staffing agencies to fill
positions such as production workers and forklift drivers. MTIL
is one of several staffing agencies with which IFCO has
contracted to provide laborers to fill those positions. MTIL and
other staffing agencies, including but not limited to Flexible
Staffing Inc., Clearstaff, Inc., and RCI US Corporation, utilized
by IFCO acted as the agent of IFCO and/or the joint employer with
IFCO of laborers assigned to work at IFCO.
The Plaintiff initially worked as a direct hire for IFCO between
approximately September 2012 and September 2013. The Plaintiff
continued to work at IFCO in 2014, 2015 and 2016 through staffing
agencies, including Flexible Staffing, Clearstaff, RCI and MTIL,
with some brief interruptions in her employment. Throughout
Plaintiff's employment at the IFCO warehouse, Plaintiff and other
similarly situated female laborers were restricted to certain
assignments at the IFCO warehouse because of their gender,
female. Some of the positions for which Plaintiff and other
similarly situated female laborers were not eligible were higher
paying than other positions for which women were eligible. For
example, throughout Plaintiff's employment at the IFCO warehouse,
Plaintiff and other similarly situated female employees were
denied the opportunity to work as forklift drivers at the IFCO
warehouse because of their gender, female. The forklift driver
position at IFCO paid higher wages and provided greater earning
potential than other positions for which female laborers were
eligible.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
Alvar Ayala, Esq.
WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 795 9121
IBA PROTON: Murray Moves to Certify Class of Workers Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled DENNIS MURRAY, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. IBA PROTON THERAPY,
INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-10681-JCO-MKM (E.D. Mich.), pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, moves for entry of an order
conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA collective, defined
as:
All individuals who worked for IBA Proton Therapy, Inc. in
the United States at any time within the three years
preceding the Court's order granting conditional
certification, and held any of the following positions: PT
Service Engineer - Cyclotron; PT System Engineer -
Cyclotron; PT Service Engineer - Electronics; PT System
Engineer - Electronics; PT System Engineer -
Electromechanical; and PT Service Engineer -
Electromechanical.
Mr. Murray also asks the Court to:
(1) approve the Plaintiff's proposed "Notice of Right to Join
Lawsuit" and "Consent to Join Lawsuit" forms and authorize
the Plaintiff's counsel to circulate the Proposed Notice
via first-class mail and e-mail to the proposed FLSA
collective;
(2) require the Defendant to identify all potential opt-in
plaintiffs by providing their names, last known addresses,
dates of employment, job titles, and e-mail addresses in
an electronic and importable format within 10 days of the
entry of the order; and
(3) allow putative FLSA collective members 60 days from
circulation of the notice to file written consent forms.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rFLPaQci
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
155 2nd Street, Suite 4
Jersey City, NJ 07302
Telephone: (201) 630-0000
E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
jtb@jtblawgroup.com
- and -
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: crash@sommerspc.com
JAE RESTAURANT: Doesn't Pay OT to Kitchen Staff, Person Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK PERSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. JAE RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-22331-KMW
(S.D. Fla., June 11, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Florida Whistleblower
Act
According to the complaint, the Defendant has owned and operated
more than 200 WENDY's fast food restaurants throughout Florida,
New Mexico, Tennessee, and Texas, including the WENDY's locations
at 7801 Biscayne Blvd., Miami, Florida 33138 and 3600 S. Dixie
Highway, Miami, Florida 33133 in Miami-Dade County. The Plaintiff
was an employee of JAE and brings this action on behalf of
himself and other current and former non-exempt restaurant and
kitchen employees.
The Plaintiff alleges that JAE failed to pay time and one-half
wages for all of the hours he worked in excess of 40 hours per
week for Defendant between approximately March 2017 and April
2017 because JAE altered the daily/weekly time records to reflect
fewer numbers of hours worked as part of Defendant's attempts to
avoid paying overtime compensation for all of the actual number
of hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
Keith M. Stern, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
One Flagler
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 901 1379
Facsimile: (561) 288 9031
E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
hsolis@workingforyou.com
JAYONE FOODS: Fails to Provide Wage Statements, Torrez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
GILBERT TORREZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JAYONE FOODS, INC.; and
DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC708541 (Cal.
Super. Ct., June 7, 2018), alleges that Jayone Foods failed to
provide proper wage statements pursuant to California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, for at least four year prior to the
filing of this action continuing to the present, the Defendant
has failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a) by failing to
include necessary and required information on wage statements
provided to Plaintiff and the Proposed Class. The Defendants
failed to include the total hours worked, all applicable hourly
rates in effect during the pay period, the corresponding number
of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee, and the name
and address of the legal entity that is the employer.
Jayone Foods provides soy products. The company was founded in
1999 and is based in Paramount, California.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:
Darren M. Cohen, Esq.
ICINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
16133 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1200
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 990 8300
Facsimile: (818) 990 2903
E-mail: dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com
KNM CONSTRUCTIONS: Urbina Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
CRUZ EDDEN VELAZQUEZ URBINA and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, v. KNM CONSTRUCTIONS
CORP., CONCRETE LABOR DEVELOPMENT INC., HECTOR GRANADOS, ORESTES
BOFFIL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-22330-KMM (S.D. Fla.,
June 11, 2018), alleges that Defendants have employed several
other similarly situated employees like Plaintiff who have not
been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing of this complaint back
three years, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a carpenter from on or
about October 17, 2016 through on or about June 5, 2018.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J.H. Zidell, Esq.
J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
300 71st Street, Suite 605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Telephone: (305) 865 6766
Facsimile: (305) 865 7167
E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
KRONOS FOODS: Torres Sues over Use Sensitive Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO MENDOZA TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KRONOS FOODS CORP., the
Defendant, Case No. 2018L000647 (Ill 18th Jud. Cir. Ct., Dupage
Cty., June 5, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's unlawful
collection, use, and storage of Plaintiffs and the proposed
Class' sensitive biometric data.
This is an action under the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
brought by Plaintiff on behalf of a putative class of similarly-
situated individuals, namely, all Illinois citizens who performed
work for Kronos in Illinois and who had their handprints and/or
fingerprints improperly collected, captured, received, otherwise
obtained or disclosed by Kronos.
Kronos Foods is a Chicago-based company which is a foodservice
manufacturer of Mediterranean food in the United States and the
largest manufacturer of gyros in the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq.
Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
224 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 763 6880
LATIUM NETWORK: Flint Law Firm, Calcagni & Kanefsky Files Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flint Law Firm, LLC and Calcagni & Kanefsky, LLP disclosed that
they have filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of
Joevannie Solis against Latium Network, Inc. ("Latium" or the
"Company") and certain of its senior executives. The action,
captioned Solis v. Latium Network, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-
cv-10255, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey and asserts claims under the Securities
Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") on behalf of investors in
Latium's LatiumX tokens (the "Class") during the period of July
25, 2017 through March 1, 2018 (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Latium
conducted an initial coin offering during which it received over
$17 million by selling LatiumX tokens to investors. Prior to
conducting the Latium initial coin offering, the Company did not
submit any registration statements to the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission and there were not any
available exemptions from registration. The action alleges that
the Latium initial coin offering constitutes the offer and sale
of unregistered securities without an exemption in direction
violation of the Securities Act. The Complaint also alleges that
Latium's senior executives, Defendants David Johnson and Matthew
Carden, are liable under federal securities laws as controlling
persons who had sufficient influence over and direct knowledge of
Latium's involvement in the initial coin offering.
If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than sixty (60) days from
June 14. Accordingly, the deadline for filing a motion for
appointment as Lead Plaintiff is August 13, 2018. Any member of
the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff
through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and
remain a member of the proposed Class. Your ability to share in
any recovery does not require that you serve as a Lead Plaintiff.
Aaron K. Dickey,Esq.
Flint Law Firm
Telephone: 877-700-6435
Email: adickey@flintlaw.com [GN]
LOS ANGELES, CA: 2 Landlords Sue Over Recycling Program
-------------------------------------------------------
David Zahniser, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that two
landlords filed a lawsuit on June 14 against the city of Los
Angeles, saying a key element of its new commercial trash pickup
system is an illegal tax under state law.
Malcolm Bennett and Frederick Leeds, both owners of rental
properties, contend in a lawsuit that the city's RecycLA program
violates Proposition 218, which prohibits local governments from
imposing taxes that have not received voter approval.
In their lawsuit, they described RecycLA, which serves roughly
70,000 customers, as an "unmitigated disaster" -- one that has
caused customer bills to go up and the quality of trash pickup to
decline. "Make no mistake, the financial harm has and will be
widespread," the lawsuit says.
The filing comes roughly a year after the Bureau of Sanitation
began implementing RecycLA, which covers such buildings as
offices, restaurants and any apartment complex with five or more
units.
Landlords and their advocacy groups have been longtime foes of
RecycLA, which was championed by Mayor Eric Garcetti and the City
Council. Two other lawsuits have already been filed over the
program.
Elena Stern, spokeswoman for the Bureau of Sanitation, said she
could not comment on the latest lawsuit. But she argued that the
program has seen major improvement in recent months, including
on-time pickup for more than 99% of its trash collections.
"Admittedly, RecycLA had a bumpy launch, but the past six months
have seen a stabilization of services and increase in positive
outcomes," she said.
Stern said RecycLA has resulted in the replacement of 450
privately owned diesel trash trucks with newer, cleaner burning
models. In addition, she said, the city has diverted 740 tons of
food waste away from landfills.
Labor leaders and environmental organizations spent nearly a
decade working to put RecycLA into effect for commercial
businesses. Under the program, seven trash hauling companies
received the exclusive right to operate in designated sections of
the city. The citywide recycling initiative includes new
regulations on workplace safety, hourly pay, diversion of food
waste and the types of trucks used to collect refuse.
RecycLA customers pay the city's designated trash haulers, who in
turn provide "franchise fees" to the city. City officials are
expecting roughly $35 million per year in franchise fees from the
program, which would go to the city's general fund budget to pay
for basic services.
In their lawsuit, Bennett and Leeds contend those franchise fees
are illegal taxes. RecycLA, they argue, offers "no reasonable
relationship" between the size of the fees and the cost of
operating the trash collection program.
"If anything, it appears that the increased fees are nothing more
than the price the waste haulers had to pay to purchase their
monopoly -- and not for the legitimate values that can comprise a
franchise fee," the lawsuit states.
Attorneys for the two landlords want the city to issue refunds to
RecycLA customers to cover the cost of what they say are illegal
taxes. They also want the case to be designated as a class-action
lawsuit, which would spare tens of thousands of potential
plaintiffs from the cost of waging a legal challenge against the
city.
Rob Wilcox, spokesman for City Atty. Mike Feuer, Esq. --
mike.n.feuer@lacity.org -- said his office is reviewing the
lawsuit and has no further comment.[GN]
LUNDEQUAM DEVELOPMENT: Emerson Park Suit Moved to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit, Case No. 2018-CA-3911-O, was removed from
the Orange County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida (Orlando) on June 11, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:18-cv-00913-RBD-DCI to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Roy B.
Dalton, Jr.
The lawsuit is captioned as Emerson Park Homeowners Association,
Inc., a Florida corporation; Ghazi Alrifai; Souha Kazma; Jovan
Brown; Audra Wood; Hector Duarte; Maritza Lopez; Rhea Edwards;
Wade Edwards; Lisseidy Garcia; Marcelo Garcia; Clare Lee;
Kathleen Garner; Adam Jackson; Danae Jackson; Justin Jackson;
Traci Davis; Anita Martin; Travis Martin; Johnathan McGriff;
David Mejias Villegas; Juliana Busch; Robert Naffziger; Deanna
Altilio; Edgard Ortiz; Rose Reyes; James Reyes; and Terra Simon,
Individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Brett Lundequam, doing business as:
Lundequam Development, LLC, an individual; Centex Real Estate
Corporation, a Foreign Profit Corporation; David Gude, an
individual; Nomas Corp., a Foreign Profit Corporation; Pulte Home
Corporation, a Foreign Profit Corporation; Pultie Purchasing
Corporation, a Foreign Profit Corporation; and PulteGroup, Inc.,
a Foreign Profit Corporation, the Defendants.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Evan Jonathan Small, Esq.
John Wilton Windle, Esq.
Phillip Edmund Joseph, Esq.
BALL JANIK, LLP
201 E Pine St., Suite 600
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 455 5664
Facsimile: (407) 902 2105
E-mail: esmall@balljanik.com
jwindle@balljanik.com
pjoseph@balljanik.com
Attorneys for Defendants:
James Parker Terpening, III, Esq.
John H. Dannecker, Esq.
SHUTTS & BOWEN, LLP
4301 W Boy Scout Blvd Ste 300
Tampa, FL 33607-5716
Telephone: (813) 227 8156
Facsimile: (813) 227 8256
E-mail: jterpening@shutts.com
jdannecker@shutts.com
M & G PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Robertson Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
JOEL ROBERTSON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. M & G PIZZA ENTERPRISES, LLC and
BRENT MEDDERS, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-
05106-TLB (W.D. Ark., June 11, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly
situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its Domino's
stores, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Wage-
Hour Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants operate numerous
Domino's franchise stores. Defendants employ delivery drivers who
use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items
to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery
drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use
of their vehicles, Defendants use a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate
beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur
that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall
below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Matthew Haynie, Esq.
J. Forester, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (214) 210 2100
Facsimile: (214) 346 5909
E-mail: www.foresterhaynie.com
MAPLE BEAR: Instacart Driver Sues Over Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that a delivery driver for a San Francisco-headquartered
grocery delivery service alleges that he was unlawfully not paid
a minimum wage.
Javiar Cortez filed a complaint on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated on May 16 in the San Francisco County
Superior Court against Maplebear Inc., doing business as
Instacart, citing California labor code.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he and
other similarly situated individuals working as drivers for the
defendant have suffered monetary injuries as a result of its
unlawful business practice of not compensating the class with at
least a minimum wage as mandated by the law. He also alleges the
defendant misclassified drivers as independent contractors and
refused to reimburse expenses incurred in the performance of
their drivers' duties.
The plaintiff holds Maplebear Inc. responsible because the
defendant allegedly misclassified plaintiffs in direct violation
of the labor code, failed to ensure that the class receives
minimum wage for all hours worked, and failed to provide
plaintiff with compliant and accurate itemized wage statements.
The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment against
defendant, for the court to certify the class action, award
compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, expenses
and other relief to which plaintiff may be entitled. He is
represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan,Esq. of Lichten & Liss-
Riordan PC in Boston.
San Francisco County Superior Court case number CGC-18-
566596.[GN]
MASSIVE TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Overtime, Fobbs Says
---------------------------------------------------------
JAMES FOBBS, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly-
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MASSIVE TRANSPORTATION, INC., d/b/a
BLACK SEA TRANSPORTATION, and DURVIJAI PERSAUD, the Defendants,
the Defendant, Case No. (, June 5, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York Labor Law, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.
The Defendants provide non-emergency medical transportation
services in the Bronx, parts of Westchester, and Manhattan. The
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a driver. During the
course of his employment, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of
40 hours per week without receiving overtime pay as required by
law. When Plaintiff voiced his concerns about Defendants' failure
to pay overtime as required by law, Defendants retaliated against
him and terminated his employment.
Mass Transportation is a licensed and bonded freight shipping
and trucking company running freight hauling business from
Framingham, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
225 Broadway, Suite 2700
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 227 5700
Facsimile: (212) 406 6890
MDL 2804: Valley Hope's Opiate Suit Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valley Hope Association, on behalf of itself and all other
entities similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
Purdue Pharma Inc.; Cephalon Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals
Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Noramco Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals
Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Allergan PLC, formerly known as: Actavis PLS; Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Actavis Inc.; Watson
Laboratories Inc.; Actavis Pharma, Inc., formerly known as:
Watson Pharma, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Mallinckrodt PLC; Mallinckrodt
LLC; McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.;
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company,
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02276, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland)
on June 15, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-op-45734-DAP to the proceeding.
The Valley case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re:
NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on December 5, 2017. These cases concern the alleged
improper marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various
prescription opiate medications into cities, states and towns
across the country. Responding plaintiffs' positions on
centralization vary considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions
or potential tag-along actions support centralization. Plaintiffs
in 15 actions or potential tag-along actions oppose
centralization altogether or oppose transfer of their action. In
addition to opposing transfer, the State of West Virginia
suggests that transferring its case be delayed until the Southern
District of West Virginia court decides its motion to remand to
state court. Third party payor plaintiffs in an Eastern District
of Pennsylvania potential tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers
Health and Welfare Fund) oppose centralization of third party
payor actions. The Western District of Washington plaintiff City
of Everett opposes centralization and, alternatively, requests
exclusion of its case. The Northern District of Illinois tag-
along Plaintiff City of Chicago asks the Panel to defer transfer
of its action until document discovery is completed. Presiding
Judge in the MDL is Sarah S. Vance, United States District Judge.
The lead case is 1:17-md-02804-DAP.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Rebein, Esq.
Aaron L. Kite, Esq.
REBEIN BANGERTER REBEIN PA
810 Frontview, PO Box 1147
Dodge City, KS 67801
Telephone: (620) 227 8126
Facsimile: (620) 227 8451
E-mail: aaron@rbr3.com
Dave@rbr3.com
- and -
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF REX A. SHARP
5301 West 75 Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 901 0505
Facsimile: (913) 901 0419
E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
MDL 2836: FWK Holdings Suit Consolidated in E.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit re: Zetia (Ezetimibe) Antitrust
Litigation, was transferred to U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk) on June 15, 2018. The
District Court assigned Case No. 2:18-md-02836-RBS-DEM to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Rebecca Beach
Smith.
The case is captioned as FWK Holdings, LLC, Fraternal Order of
Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, CESAR CASTILLO,
Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc., Sergeants Benevolent
Association Health & Welfare Fund, UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund,
Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund,
Self-Insured Schools of California, City of Providence, Rhode
Island, and Law Enforcement Health Benefits Inc., and on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Merck & Co., Inc. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Schering-Plough Corp.
Schering Corp. MSP Singapore Co. LLC Glenmark Pharmaceuticals,
Ltd. Glenmark Generics Inc., USA Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., the
Defendants.
The FWK Holdings case is being consolidated with MDL 2836 re:
Zetia (Ezetimibe) Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on June 6, 2018. The actions share factual issues
arising from allegations that defendants engaged in an unlawful
scheme to delay the introduction of generic competitors to
Merck's cholesterol drug Zetia. These issues, which include the
merits of a decade-old patent infringement action, appear
complex, and likely to require significant discovery.
Centralization would avoid duplication of that discovery, as well
as eliminate the potential for inconsistent rulings on class
certification and other pretrial matters. In its June 6, 2018
Order, the MDL Panel found these actions involve common questions
of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of
Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation.[BN]
Attorneys for FWK Holdings, LLC and CESAR CASTILLO, INC.:
Marc Christian Greco, Esq.
Michael Andrew Glasser, Esq.
William Hanes Monroe, Jr., Esq.
Joseph Michael Vanek, Esq.
Kip Andrew Harbison, Esq.
Richard Steven Glasser, Esq.
GLASSER & GLASSER PLC
580 E Main St., Suite 600
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 625 6787
E-mail: marcg@glasserlaw.com
michael@glasserlaw.com
bill@glasserlaw.com
- and -
David Paul Germaine, Esq.
Jeffrey Robert Moran
John Paul Bjork
VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI, P. C.
55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 224 1500
Facsimile: (312) 224 1510
E-mail: dgermaine@vaneklaw.com
jmoran@vaneklaw.com
jbjork@vaneklaw.com
jvanek@vaneklaw.com
- and -
Donald Sean Nation, Esq.
Matthew Charles Weiner, Esq.
Steve Shadowen, Esq.
HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
2407 S. Congress Ave., Suite E 122
Austin, TX 78704
Telephone: (855) 344 3298
E-mail: sean@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
- and -
Hannah Schwarzschild, Esq.
Kristen Anne Johnson, Esq.
Thomas Matthew Sobol, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
55 Cambridge Pkwy., Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
Telephone: (617) 482 3700
Facsimile: (617) 482 3003
E-mail: hannahs@hbsslaw.com
kristenj@hbsslaw.com
tom@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Joseph Howard Meltzer, Esq.
Terence Scott Ziegler, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
280 King of Prussia Rd
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667 7706
Facsimile: (610) 667 7056
E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
tziegler@ktmc.com
- and -
Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP P. C.
1211 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 40
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (917) 438 9205
Facsimile: (212) 681 0300
E-mail lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
Attorneys for Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20,
Insurance Trust Fund:
Christine A. Williams, Esq.
Wyatt B. Durrette , Jr. , Esq.
DURRETTECRUMP PLC
1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 775 6900
Facsimile: (804) 775 6911
E-mail: cwilliams@dagglaw.com
wdurrette@dagglaw.com
- and -
Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq.
Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP (FL-NC)
1625 North Commerce Pkwy., Suite 320
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
Telephone: (954) 515 0123
Facsimile: (866) 300 7367
E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com
nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com
Attorneys for Rochester Drug Cooperative:
Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
Barry Steven Taus, Esq.
Kevin Landau, Esq.
TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU LLP
80 Maiden Ln., Suite 1204
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 931 0704
Facsimile: (202) 931 0703
E-mail atamoshunas@tcllaw.com
btaus@tcllaw.com
klandau@tcllaw.com
- and -
Bradley Joseph Demuth, Esq.
Joseph Thomas Lukens, Esq.
Peter Russell Kohn, Esq.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (NA-NY)
685 Third Ave., 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983 9330
Facsimile: (212) 983 9331
E-mail: bdemuth@faruqilaw.com
jlukens@faruqilaw.com
pkohn@faruqilaw.com
- and -
David Francis Sorensen, Esq.
Zachary David Caplan
BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC
1622 Locust St
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875 3000
Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
zcaplan@bm.net
Attorneys for Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare
Fund:
Kevin Jermone Funk, Esq.
DURRETTECRUMP PLC
1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 343 4387
E-mail: kfunk@dagglaw.com
- and -
Adam Eric Polk, Esq.
Christina Hildegard Connolly Sharp, Esq.
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
601 California St., Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981 4800
Facsimile: (415) 981 4846
E-mail: aep@girardgibbs.com
chc@girardgibbs.com
Attorneys for Merck & Co., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Schering-
Plough Corp., Schering Corp., and MSP Singapore Co. LLC:
Stephen Edward Noona, Esq.
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
150 W Main St., Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 624 3239
Facsimile: (888) 360 9092
E-mail: senoona@kaufcan.com
- and -
Christopher Dean Dusseault, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP (CA-NA)
333 South Grand Avenue, 46th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 229 7000
Facsimile: (213) 229 6855
E-mail: cdusseault@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Jennifer Laura Greenblatt, Esq.
Tarek Ismail, Esq.
GOLDMAN ISMAIL TOMASELLI BREENAN & BAUM LLP
564 West Randolph Street, Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: (312) 681 6000
Facsimile: (312) 881 5191
E-mail: jgreenblatt@goldmanismail.com
tismail@goldmanismail.com
- and -
Samuel Grant Liversidge, Esq.
Veronica Smith Lewis, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP (CA-NA)
333 South Grand Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229 7000
Facsimile: (213) 229 7520
E-mail: sliversidge@gibsondunn.com
vlewis@gibsondunn.com
Attorneys for Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. And Glenmark
Generics Inc., USA:
James Kevin Fee, Esq.
Jessica Johnston Taticchi, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS BOCKIUS LLP (DC)
1111 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 739 3000
Facsimile: (202) 739 -3001
E-mail: jkfee@morganlewis.com
jessica.taticchi@morganlewis.com
- and -
Richard Brendan Fee, Esq.
Stacey Anne Mahoney, Esq.
Steven Andrew Reed, Esq.
Teri Josie Diaz, Esq
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP (PA-NA)
1701 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963 5000
Facsimile: (215) 963 5001
E-mail: brendan.fee@morganlewis.com
stacey.mahoney@morganlewis.com
steven.reed@morganlewis.com
tdiaz@morganlewis.com
MERCY PHYSICIAN: Class Certification Sought in "Bertroche" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled SHARON BERTROCHE, M.D. v.
MERCY PHYSICIAN ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-00059-CJW
(N.D. Iowa), files with the Court her Motion for Conditional
Class Certification and Court Authorized Notice.
Dr. Bertroche filed her Petition in the Iowa District Court for
Linn County on November 3, 2016, alleging claims of breach of
contract and violations of the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Act.
The Defendant subsequently removed the lawsuit to the District
Court.
As set forth in Count III of her Amended Petition, Dr. Bertroche
is a female physician and claims that the Defendant paid her less
than it paid male physicians for performing similar work. She
also alleges that the Defendant paid other female physicians less
than it paid male physicians for performing similar work.
By this Motion, Dr. Bertroche asks the Court to (1) grant her
Motion for Conditional Class Certification in full, (2) authorize
her to issue notice and opt-in consent forms to potential class
members, (3) allow her to state on the outside of the envelope
mailed to potential class members, "Court Authorized Notice of
Wage Discrimination Lawsuit - Deadline to Join," and (4) order
the Defendant to provide her counsel with a list of all female
physicians, who were employed by MPA at any time in the last
three years, with their last known addresses, phone numbers, and
dates of employment.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=E51RvdIP
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa C. Hasso, Esq.
Mark D. Sherinian, Esq.
SHERINIAN & HASSO LAW FIRM
521 E. Locust Street, Suite 300
Des Moines, IA 50309
Telephone (515) 224-2079
Facsimile (515) 224-2321
E-mail: mhasso@sherinianlaw.com
sherinianlaw@msn.com
- and -
Brad J. Brady, Esq.
Ann C. Gronlund, Esq.
BRADY PRESTON BROWN PC
2735 1st Avenue SE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
Telephone: (319) 866-9277
Facsimile: (319) 866-9280
E-mail: BBrady@bpglegal.com
AGronlund@bpglegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin Visser, Esq.
Abram Carls, Esq.
SIMMONS PERRINE MOYER BERGMAN PLC
115 Third St. SE, Suite 1200
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401-1266
Telephone: (319) 366-7641
Facsimile: (319) 366-1917
E-mail: kvisser@spmblaw.com
acarls@spmblaw.com
MERRYMEETING INC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Burbon Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUC BURBON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERRYMEETING, INC. D/B/A CPR - CELL
PHONE REPAIR, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05423-ER (S.D.N.Y.,
June 15, 2018), seeks permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
read website content using her computer. The Plaintiff uses the
terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with
visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in
that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or
equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition
have limited vision. Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the
American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately
400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against CPR for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's denial
of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of
its services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's website,
www.cellphonerepair.com, is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, the Plaintiff alleges it violates
the ADA.
Merrymeeting, Inc., an acquisition and business development
company, engages in the acquisition and development of
intellectual property driven businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201
Telephone: (929) 575 4175
Facsimile: (929) 575 4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
- and -
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Telephone: (212) 228 9795
Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
MIAMI, FL: Court Certifies Class of Somalis in "Ibrahim" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Darrin P. Gayles granted the motion for class
certification filed by the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned
Farah IBRAHIM, Ibrahim MUSA, Khalid Abdallah MOHMED, Ismail
JIMCALE ABDULLAH, Abdiwali Ahmed SIYAD, Ismael Abdirashed
MOHAMED, and Khadar Abdi IBRAHIM, on behalf of themselves and all
those similarly situated v. Juan ACOSTA, Assistant Field Officer
Director, Miami Field Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; David HARDIN, Sheriff of Glades County; Marc J.
MOORE, Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; Thomas HOMAN, Acting Director, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; Kirstjen NIELSEN, Secretary of Homeland
Security, Case No. 1:17-cv-24574-DPG (S.D. Fla.).
The Named Plaintiffs are Somali nationals with final orders of
removal, who were present during United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement's unsuccessful attempt to deport them on a
December 7, 2017 flight. The Plaintiffs allege they were
subjected to inhumane conditions and egregious abuse on the
December 7th flight. The Plaintiffs further contend that the
international news attention surrounding the botched deportation
flight has exacerbated circumstances that now make their return
to Somalia unsafe.
The Plaintiffs initially sought to represent and certify a class
defined as "All persons with final orders of removal and
currently facing removal to Somalia who are located within the
jurisdiction of the Miami ICE Field Office [], including all
persons whom ICE sought to deport to Somalia on the December 7,
2017 contract flight." The Plaintiffs have since filed a
supplemental brief narrowing the proposed class definition to the
"92 individuals with removal orders who were present on the
December 7, 2017, attempted flight to Somalia."
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Vdqe2QiD
MIDLAND CREDIT: Gomes Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
LEONARDO GOMES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and
MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-22423-KMM
(S. D. Fla., June 15, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, on July 5, 2017, MCM, itself and on
behalf of Midland, sent Plaintiff a letter in connection with the
collection of the Debt. The July 5, 2017 letter states that the
current balance of the Debt is $2,146.73. The letter offered
Plaintiff three type of payment plans in order to resolve the
Debt, a single payment, six monthly payments, and a monthly
payment plan for as low as $50 a month.
The July 5, 2017 letter encouraged Plaintiff to "[a]ct now to
maximize your savings and put this debt behind you" and
emphasized the "benefits of paying". The letter states that the
"law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the
age of your debt, we will not sue you for it. If you do not pay
the debt, we may continue to report it to the credit reporting
agencies as unpaid."
The complaint contends that the Debt is no longer enforceable by
judicial means. In Florida, any payment or written acknowledgment
on a time-barred debt constitutes a new promise to pay and renews
the statute of limitations. The July 5, 2017 letter does not
explain that a partial payment would renew the statute of
limitations on the Debt. Despite the fact that a partial payment
by Plaintiff could renew the statute of limitations on the entire
amount of the Debt owed, the letter makes no mention of the
substantial risks of a partial repayment. Therefore, Defendants'
letter is unfair and unconscionable where it fails to explain
that a partial payment or written acknowledgement of the time-
barred Debt could renew the statute of limitations.
MCM is a licensed debt collector who frequently services the debt
purchased by Midland Funding.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex D. Weisberg, Esq.
WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PA
5846 S. Flamingo Rd, Ste. 290
Cooper City, FL 33330
Telephone: (954) 212 2184
Facsimile: (866) 577 0963
E-mail: aweisberg@afclaw.com
MISSOURI, USA: Court Certifies Class of Prisoners in "Brown" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Nanette K. Laughrey granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the lawsuit captioned NORMAN BROWN, et al.
v. ANNE L. PRECYTHE, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-04082-NKL (W.D.
Mo.).
The Court certifies a class of plaintiffs consisting of:
Individuals in the custody of the Missouri Department of
Corrections who were sentenced to life without parole under
a mandatory sentencing scheme and who were under 18 years of
age at the time of the offense.
According to the order, Plaintiffs Norman Brown, Ralph McElroy,
Sidney Roberts, and Theron Roland are prisoners in the Missouri
Department of Corrections ("MDOC") who are serving mandatory life
without parole sentences for crimes committed when they were
under 18 years of age. Each originally received a sentence of
life without the possibility of parole. However, recent United
States Supreme Court cases have held that a mandatory sentence of
life without parole for a person who was under the age of 18 when
he committed the offense violates the Eighth Amendment's
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
In response, the Missouri legislature enacted a law permitting
those mandatorily convicted to life without the possibility of
parole for offenses they committed as juveniles to petition for
parole after serving 25 years in prison. Each of the Plaintiffs
had served more than 25 years in prison when he petitioned for,
and was denied, parole. Each was scheduled for reconsideration
of the parole determination in five years.
The Plaintiffs sue the Director of MDOC and members of the
Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs allege that Missouri's parole
policies and practices violate their rights to be free from cruel
and unusual punishment and their rights to due process under the
Constitutions of both the United States and Missouri and also
fail to satisfy Missouri Revised Statutes Sections 558.047.5 and
565.033.2.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xTL1GmAX
MONAT HAIR: "Hoffpauir" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of Florida (Miami) on June 6, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-md-02841-DPG to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Darrin P.
Gayles.
The case is captioned as Sue Hoffpauir, Jessica Row, Dana
Sohovich, Trisha Whitmire, Andrew McWhortor, Emily Yanes de
Flores, Deborah McWhortor, Amber Alabaster, Crystal Merritt, and
Heather Maur, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. Monat Global Corp. and Alcora Corporation also
known as: Alcora Group, the Defendants.[BN]
Attorneys for Sue Hoffpauir and Jessica Row:
Julie Braman Kane, Esq.
Colson Hicks Eidson, Esq.
255 Alhambra Circle
Coral Gables, FL 33134-2351
Telephone: (305) 476 7400
Facsimile: (305) 476 7444
E-mail: julie@colson.com
Attorneys for Dana Sohovich:
Adam David Warden, Esq.
Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
150 E Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 394 3399
Facsimile: (888) 532 5501
E-mail: awarden@saxenawhite.com
jwhite@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Dianne Marie Anderson, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE, P.A.
5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
Boca Raton, FL 33486
Telephone: (561) 394 3399
- and -
Jessica J. Sleater, Esq.
ANDERSEN SLEATER SIANNI LLC
1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (646) 599 9848
E-mail: jessica@andersensleater.com
Attorneys for Trisha Whitmire, Heather Maur, and Emily Yanes de
Flores:
Brian William Warwick, Esq.
Janet Robards Varnell, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
P.O. Box 1870
Lady Lake, FL 32158
Telephone: (352) 753 8600
Facsimile: (352) 753 8606
E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
- and -
Dara L. Damery, Esq.
Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
RHINE LAW FIRM
1612 Military Cutoff Rd, Suite 300
Wilmington, NC 28409
Telephone: (910) 772 9960
E-mail: DLD@rhinelawfirm.com
JRR@rhinelawfirm.com
- and -
John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223 5505
Facsimile: (813) 223 5402
E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
- and -
William H. Anderson, Esq.
HANDLEY & ANDERSON PLLC
4730 Table Mesa Drive, Suite G-200
Boulder, CO 80305
Telephone: (303) 800 9109
E-mail: wanderson@hajustice.com
Attorneys for Andrew McWhortor, Deborah McWhortor:
Barbara Cabrera Lewis, Esq.
HARKE CLASBY, BUSHMAN LLP
9699 NE 2nd Avenue
Miami Shores, FL 33138
Telephone: (305) 536 8220
Facsimile: (305) 536 8229
- and -
Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Telephone: (800) 493 2827
E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com
- and -
Lance August Harke, Esq.
HARKE LAW LLP
9699 NE Second Avenue
Miami Shores, FL 33138
Telephone: (305) 536 8222
Facsimile: (305) 536 8229
E-mail: lharke@harkelaw.com
Attorneys for Amber Alabaster and Crystal Merritt:
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235 1560
Facsimile: (405) 239 2112
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
Attorneys for Sue Hoffpauir:
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214 7900
E-mail: akeller@dlcfirm.com
- and -
Lindsey Lazopoulos Friedman, Esq.
COLSON HICKS EIDSON
255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 476 7400
Facsimile: (305) 476 7444
E-mail: lindsey@colson.com
Attorneys for Defendants:
Andrea Cox, Esq.
ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
200 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3600
Miami, FL 33131
E-mail: andie.cox@saul.com
- and -
Ann E. Zachritz, Esq.
Andrews Davis, Esq.
100 N Broadway Ave., Suite 3300
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 272 9241
E-mail: aezachritz@gmail.com
- and -
David J. Chizewer, Esq.
Goldberg Kohn Ltd.
55 East Monroe Street Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
E-mail: david.chizewer@goldbergkohn.com
- and -
Jeffrey Brian Shapiro, Esq.
ARNSTEIN & LEHR, LLP
200 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 713 7600
Facsimile: (305) 374 4744
E-mail: jbshapiro@arnstein.com
- and -
Joseph L. Hoolihan, Esq.
Julie F. Stewart, Esq.
William C. Meyers, Esq.
GOLDBERG KOHN LTD.
55 East Monroe Street, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
E-mail: joseph.Hoolihan@goldbergkohn.com
Julie.Stewart@goldbergkohn.com
william.meyers@goldbergkohn.com
- and -
Laura A. Frase, Esq.
CANTEY HANGER LLP
1999 Bryan Street Suite 3300
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 978 4134
E-mail: lfrase@canteyhanger.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Tipton Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JOHN TIPTON, Individually and as
Representative of TIPTON BROTHERS; CHARLES TIPTON, Individually
and as Representative of TIPTON BROTHERS; and TIPTON BROTHERS,
the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY; BASF SE; BASF CORPORATION;
BASF PLANT SCIENCE, LP; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and JOHN DOE COMPANIES A --
Z, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02348, was removed from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Cape
Girardeau) on June 11, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:18-cv-00140-SNLJ to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr.
The Plaintiffs brought this class action lawsuit for damages
against Defendants who jointly collaborated to develop and
release a defective and unreasonably dangerous "dicamba-tolerant
crop system," which has directly resulted in massive harm to
crops in Tennessee, Arkansas, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi,
and other states. The damages include, but are not limited to,
crop damage, yield loss, total failure of the crop, and financial
ruin to impacted farmers.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
W. Bryan Smith, Esq.
THE COCHRAN FIRM MEMPHIS, LLP
One Commerce Square, Suite 1700
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901) 523 1222
Facsimile: (901) 523 1999
E-mail: BryanS@forthepeople.com
MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Facing Class Lawsuit Over Contaminated Water
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Shaffer, writing for Meat + Poultry, reports that privately
owned Mountaire Farms, a poultry processor with facilities in
five states, said the company will "vigorously defend" against
allegations the company is polluting the drinking water of
residents.
The law firm of Baird Mandalas Brockstedt, LLC (BMB) in
association with the Maryland firm of Schochor, Federico &
Staton, P.A. (SFS), filed a class-action lawsuit against
Mountaire Farms alleging the "disposal of billions of gallons of
highly contaminated wastewater and liquefied sludge has seeped
into the groundwater throughout the area. . . " and contaminated
area drinking water wells that have caused some residents health
problems because of chronic exposure to elevated levels of
nitrates and other contaminants.
"The complaint seeks to force Mountaire to stop its wrongful
discharge, establish a clean drinking water source, overhaul and
update Mountaire's wastewater treatment plant to eliminate the
discharge of highly contaminated wastewater and liquefied sludge,
remediate the soils, and compensate affected residents for the
decrease in property values and the health effects caused by the
contamination," the law firm said in a statement.
Mountaire Farms said the company expects to be served a copy of
the lawsuit soon but could not comment in any detail until then.
"As we have stated many times previously, elevated levels of
nitrates in Sussex County is a very common widespread
environmental condition that has existed for many decades, way
before the arrival of Mountaire and certainly did not occur just
in the past 17 years," the company said.
BMB said consultants and experts hired by the to investigate
Mountaire Farms reached ". . . certain conclusions. . . " The
probe included the review of ". . . thousands of pages of
documents on Mountaire's conduct and permits from DNREC
[Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control], the
EPA, the Delaware Center for the Inland Bays, the Delaware
Geological Survey, and other sources; conducting well testing of
over a hundred Millsboro residents; communicating with hundreds
of Millsboro residents to monitor for health effects and other
damages; and interviewing Millsboro residents and former
Mountaire employees about Mountaire's wastewater practices."
Plaintiffs' lawyers announced the lawsuit during a press
conference on June 13.
". . . we fully anticipate that the complaint will assert claims
based on thinly researched and hastily prepared reports by paid
'experts' that will collapse under careful scrutiny," Mountaire
Farms countered.
"Today's press conference was a publicity stunt by a group of
opportunistic lawyers hoping to cash in on a problem that has
already been solved through a Consent Decree with the Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
(DNREC)," the company said. "The fact that there are two out of
state law firms, partnering with two local law firms, who are
attempting to block the remedies in this Consent Decree,
demonstrates the true nature of their motives."[GN]
MULBERRY COMPANY: Faces "Wu" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mulberry Company
USA Inc. The lawsuit is captioned as Kathy Wu, and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mulberry
Company USA, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05109-KPF
(S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2018).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (917) 796 7437
Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com
NATIONAL DRIVER: Faces "Martell" in California Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Driver
Solutions Corp. The case is captioned as Richard Martell, On
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Does 1
to 100, inclusive; LA Driver Corp a Wyoming Corporation; LA
Driver Corp., an Arizona Corporation; National Driver Solutions
Corp., a Wyoming corporation; National Driver Solutions Corp., an
Arizona Corporation; National Drivers Solutions an unknown
business association; and National Drivers Solutions West Corp.,
an Arizona Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-
00234252-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., June 5, 2018).
NDS is a logistics and transportation solutions company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Galen T Shimoda, Esq.
SHIMODA LAW CORP.
9401 East Stockton Boulevard, Suite 200
Elk Grove, CA 95624
E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com
NATROL LLC: Vitello Sues over Dietary Supplement's False Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE VITELLO, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATROL, LLC, a Delaware corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. Case: 4:18-cv-00915 (E.D. Mo., June 11,
2018), alleges unlawful merchandising practices and
representations concerning Defendant's product Cognium, a dietary
health supplement, pursuant to the Missouri Merchandising
Practices case, Chapter 407, and Unjust Enrichment claim.
According to the complaint, Defendant's product, Cognium
allegedly improves memory and concentration for the consumer who
ingests the product twice daily over a period of four weeks, with
Defendant advertising that nine clinical studies support such
claims when in fact two of such clinical studies were retracted
for fraud/fabrication and data manipulation. The Defendant offers
its product Cognium to consumers throughout the United States,
online and at various retail locations including Walgreens and
Walmart.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan E. Fortam, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN E. FORTMAN, LLC
250 St. Catherine Street
Florissant, MO 63031
Telephone: (314) 522 2312
Facsimile: (314) 524 1519
E-mail: jef@fortmanlaw.com
- and -
Steve A. Miller, Esq.
STEVE A. MILLER, PC
1625 Larimer Street, No. 2905
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 892 9933
Facsimile: (303) 892 8925
E-mail: sampc01@gmail.com
- and -
John C. Kress, Esq.
THE KRESS LAW FIRM, LLC
P.O. Box 6525
St. Louis, MO 63125
Telephone: (314) 631 3883
Facsimile: (314) 332 1534
E-mail: jckress@thekresslawfirm.com
NCB MANAGEMENT: Fleenor & Bartz Sue over Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT FLEENOR and CRYSTAL BARTZ, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NCB MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00882-JPS (E.D.
Wisc., June 11, 2018), seeks redress for Defendant's collection
debt practices that violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
According to the complaint, on or about July 7, 2017, the
Plaintiff Fleenor received a billing statement for his account
with World's Foremost Bank. The letter shows a "New Balance" of
$562.17, a "Minimum Payment Due" of $171.00, and a "Payment Due
Date" of August 2, 2017. The subsequent billing statement
received by Plaintiff Fleenor, sent on or about August 7, 2017,
showed his account with a 'New Balance" of $610.22, but still
sought a "Minimum Payment Due" with a due date on or about
September 2, 2018. By listing only the total balance of Plaintiff
Fleenor's account, falsely represents that the alleged debt had
been accelerated. By listing only the total balance of Plaintiff
Fleenor's account prior to the acceleration of his alleged debt
without listing the amount currently due is false, deceptive, and
misleading as to the amount of the debt currently due to the
creditor.
NCB is a national accounts receivable management company and debt
buyer.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
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
NELNET: Sued Over Improperly Canceled Income-Based Repayment Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dunker, writing for Lincoln Journal Star, reports that an
Oregon woman is suing Nelnet in federal court, saying the student
loan-servicing company canceled her income-based repayment plan
before the deadline to renew it, adding thousands of dollars to
her loan.
It's a "common and pervasive practice" by Nelnet employees to
boost revenues from income-strapped borrowers, and the U.S.
Department of Education, which backs the loans, said Omaha
attorney Dave Domina,Esq. who filed the class-action lawsuit June
8.
Domina said there are thousands, "if not millions," of borrowers
like Jessica Olsen, who applied for an income-based repayment
plan from Nelnet in 2014 and, because of her low income, was not
required to make monthly payments.
According to the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in
Lincoln, Nelnet notified Olsen she would be required to submit
the renewal application to continue on the income-based plan
within 10 days of Jan. 31, 2015.
But before Olsen could electronically submit the application on
Feb. 10, 2015 -- which the complaint noted is within 10 days of
the deadline and allowable under her contract with the company --
Nelnet capitalized her accrued interest, adding nearly $8,700 to
her loan.
The Nebraska-based student loan-servicing company also put Olsen
on a standard repayment plan, which required her to pay $968.10
each month for 10 years, the complaint alleged.
Nelnet still had not resumed Olsen's income-based repayment plan
by April 2017, when she called the company's customer service
line to ask about the status of her application.
She was advised by a Nelnet employee to place her account into
forbearance for three months, which allowed her to stop making
payments, but added the accrued interest to the capital of the
loan, according to the suit.
Olsen alleged Nelnet violated federal law by advising her to move
her account into forbearance to accommodate a delay in processing
her renewal application.
Student loan-servicing companies have a financial incentive to
maintain or increase the number of borrowers in their portfolios,
the complaint says, while also minimizing the number of borrowers
who successfully discharge their loans. [GN]
NEW YORK: MTA Expected to File Defense Over Cashless Tolling Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher J. Eberhart, writing for Lohud, reports that the
defendants in a federal class-action cashless-tolling lawsuit
were expected to pitch their case to a judge by June 15 about why
it should be dismissed, according to the plaintiffs' attorney.
Attorney Stephen Fearon, Esq. -- stephen@sfclasslaw.com ?-
filed the lawsuit in April against the state Thruway Authority,
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority; Conduent, a private
company that controls nearly half of the U.S. electronic-tolling
market; and debt collectors.
Fearon said one of their arguments will be that the plaintiffs
received fines for unpaid tolls and were repeatedly asked to pay
them, but didn't.
"We have sued the three major operators of cashless tolls in New
York, and we are seeing the same problems with each, including
enormous fines imposed without any prior notice," Fearon wrote in
an email to the Journal News/lohud. "The common thread is
Conduent, as well as the collections agencies who want to pretend
that the problem doesn't exist."
Reporters at The Journal News/lohud have spent seven months
investigating cashless tolls to find out why drivers are getting
fees and escalating fines for tolls for which many say they were
never billed, who's running the system and where the system is
breaking down.
"Instead of admitting the problems and dealing with people
fairly, these agencies and companies are aggressively pursuing
hard-working people for charges that they know are improper,"
Fearon said. "We are trying to expose the problem, understand why
it happened, when these defendants knew about it, and then force
them to correct it and pay for it."
After the defendants file their arguments, Fearon will have a few
weeks to respond.[GN]
NEW YORK: Teachers File Suit Over Forced Union Dues
---------------------------------------------------
Selim Algar, writing for New York Post, reports that teachers
across New York state are being illegally forced to cough up
union dues -- even if they're not members, according to a new
class-action federal lawsuit.
Gov. Cuomo signed a new state law in April mandating that all
teachers pay a New York State United Teachers "agency fee"
regardless of their membership status. Supporters say all
teachers benefit from pay hikes and perks secured by the union
and should subsidize those efforts.
But in a suit filed on June 14, Northport, LI teacher Scott
Pellegrino, says he and co-plaintiff Christine VanOstrand, oppose
"NYSUT's political advocacy and collective bargaining activities"
so they shouldn't have to fund them.
Also sued are Cuomo and state AG Barbara Underwood.[GN]
NJ EDUCATION ASSOCIATION: Faces "Smith" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Jersey
Education Association. The lawsuit is captioned as ANN SMITH, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. NEW JERSEY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; CLEARVIEW REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD OF EDUCATION, as representative of the class of all school
boards in New Jersey; PHIL MURPHY, in his official capacity as
Governor of New Jersey; GURBIR S. GREWAL, in his official
capacity as Attorney General of New Jersey ; JOEL M WEISBLATT;
PAUL BOUDREAU; PAULA B. VOOS; JOHN BONANNI; DAVID JONES, in their
official capacities as chairman and members of the New Jersey
Public Employment Relations Commission; JOHN F TESAURO; RAYMOND T
BOLANOWSKI; CHARLES DECICCO, in their official capacities as
chairman and members of the New Jersey Public Employment
Relations Commission Appeal Board; and CLEARVIEW EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION, as representative of the class of all chapters and
affiliates of the New Jersey Education Association, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10381-RMB-AMD (D.N.J., June 11,
2018).
New Jersey Education Association Inc. was founded in 1853. The
Company's line of business includes membership organization of
professional persons for the advancement of the interests of
their profession.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Walter Stephen Zimolong, Esq.
ZIMOLONG LLC
PO Box 552, Suite 1210
Villanova, PA 19085
Telephone: (215) 665 0842
Facsimile: (215) 689 3404
E-mail: wally@zimolonglaw.com
NOVARTIS PHARMA: Rochester Drug Sues over Exforge Drug Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NOVARTIS
PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, NOVARTIS AG, NOVARTIS CORPORATION,
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC, and PAR
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-03602
(N.D. Cal., June 15, 2018), seeks overcharge damages arising out
of Novartis's unlawful agreement with Par not to compete in the
market for Exforge and corresponding AB-rated generic drug
products.
This antitrust action challenges Defendants' anticompetitive
conduct that delayed generic competition in the United States and
its territories for Exforge (TM), an FDA-approved prescription
drug product for the treatment of hypertension comprising the
active ingredients amlodipine and valsartan. Prior to the market
entry of generic equivalents of Exforge, Novartis's U.S. sales of
branded Exforge exceeded $400 million annually. Generic
manufacturers Par and Synthon Pharmaceuticals Inc. recognized the
huge market potential for Exforge and, in or about October and
November, 2007, became the first generic drug makers to file
ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic amlodipine
and valsartan tablets, with Exforge as their Reference Listed
Drug. Par was the first to file an ANDA for the 10/160, 5/160 and
10/320 milligram strengths of amlodipine and valsartan,
respectively, while Synthon was the first to file an ANDA for the
5/320 milligram strength.
Novartis researches, develops, manufactures & markets innovative
prescription drug treatments for diseases and conditions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
Peter Kohn, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1470
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (424) 256 2884
Facsimile: (424) 256 2885
E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
- and -
David F. Sorensen, Esq.
Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
1622 Locust St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875 3000
OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Franklin" Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC. The case is captioned as Gregory Franklin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. OCWEN Loan Servicing, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-03333-SI (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2018). The case is assigned
to Hon. Judge Susan Illston.
Ocwen Financial is one of the leading mortgage servicing
companies in America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Emily C Beecham, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP
2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 900 1288
Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com
ak@kazlg.com
emily@kazlg.com
- and -
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
HYDE & SWIGART
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108-3551
Telephone: (619) 233 7770
Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
OPTIMA TAX: Rivera Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
TONY RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. OPTIMA TAX RELIEF, LLC.; DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendant(s), Case No. 2:18-cv-05155
(C.D. Cal., June 11, 2018), seeks to recover damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy.
According to the complaint, beginning in or around November of
2017, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on his cellular telephone
ending in -9045, in an effort to sell or solicit its services.
The Defendant called Plaintiff on his cellular telephone from
phone numbers confirmed to belong to Defendant, including without
limitation (562) 582-1230. The Plaintiff asked Defendant on at
least two separate occasions to cease calling him. However,
Plaintiff's repeated efforts to get Defendant to cease its
automated barrage of solicitations were to no avail, and
Defendant continued to harass and annoy him with calls. The
Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system", as
defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its calls to
Plaintiff seeking to sell or solicit its business services.
Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A).
Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a
cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge
for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1). The
Plaintiff is not a customer of Defendant's services and has never
provided any personal information, including his cellular
telephone number, to Defendant for any purpose whatsoever.
In addition, on at least two occasions, Plaintiff answered the
telephone and told Defendant to stop calling him. Accordingly,
Defendant never received Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to
receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A).[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206 4741
Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
ORANGE, CA: Underpays Senior Social Workers, Cole Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
LUIZA COLE, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE, the Defendant, Case
No. 8:18-cv-01020-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal., June 11, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the County fails to pay these
overtime hours even though the County knowingly assigns Senior
Social Workers more cases than can be completed in a 40-hour week
and expects and requires its Senior Social Workers to complete
those assignments. In fact, in many instances, the County
specifically instructs its Senior Social Workers not to record
their overtime.
Orange County is a region in Southern California. It's known for
Anaheim's Disneyland Resort, a huge complex of rides, restaurants
and shops.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason M. Frank, Esq.
Scott H. Sims, Esq.
FRANK SIMS & STOLPER LLP
Newport Gateway
19800 MacArthur, Blvd Suite 855
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 201 2400
Facsimile: (949) 201 2405
E-mail: jfrank@lawfss.com
ssims@lawfss.com
- and -
Kristopher P. Badame, Esq.
Joseph Hunter, Esq.
BADAME LAW GROUP, APC
9891 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 398 8217
E-mail: kbadame@badamelawgroup.com
jhunter@badamelawgroup.com
ORION MARINE: "Kelly" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jordan Kelly, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Orion Marine Construction, Inc. doing business as:
Orion Marine Group the Defendant, Case No. 18-CA-004568, was
removed/transferred from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit,
Hillsborough County, to the U.S. District Court for Middle
District of Florida (Tampa) on June 11, 2018. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 8:18-cv-01400-CEH-CPT to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards
Honeywell.
Orion Marine Group is a heavy civil marine contractor offering
services and turnkey solutions in marine construction, design,
and specialty services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Matthew K. Fenton
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
Tampa, FL 33602-3343
Telephone: (813) 224 0431
Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
mfenton@wfclaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Allison Rabelo Wallrapp, Esq.
Phillip J. Harris, Esq.
CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, LLP
100 N Tampa St-Ste 3350
PO Box 1840
Tampa, FL 33601-1840
Telephone: (813) 223 7133
Facsimile: (813) 223 2515
E-mail: awallrapp@constangy.com
pharris@constangy.com
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Ormat Technologies, Inc. ("Ormat Technologies")
(NYSE:ORA) between August 8, 2017 and May 15, 2018. You are
hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada. To get more information go to http://www.zlk.com/pslra-
d/ormat-technologies-inc?wire=3
The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) there were errors in the income tax
provision primarily relating to Ormat's valuation allowance based
on its ability to utilize foreign tax credits in the U.S. prior
to their expiration; (2) Ormat netted certain deferred income tax
assets and deferred income tax liabilities across different tax
jurisdictions that are not permitted to be netted pursuant to
United States generally accepted accounting principles; (3)
Ormat's internal controls over financial reporting were
ineffective; (4) Ormat would need to restate its second, third
and fourth quarter 2017 financial statements and its full-year
2017 financial statements; and (5) as a result, defendants'
statements about Ormat's business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable bases
at all relevant times.
If you suffered a loss in Ormat Technologies you have until
August 8, 2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
30 Broad Street - 24th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Robbins Arroyo LLP Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that
purchasers of Ormat Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: ORA) have filed a
class action complaint against the company's officers and
directors for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 between August 8, 2017 and May 15, 2018. Ormat engages in
the geothermal and recovered energy power business worldwide.
View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/ormat-technologies-inc-june-2018
Ormat Accused of Implementing Ineffective Internal Controls Over
Financial Reporting
According to the complaint, throughout the class period Ormat
repeatedly represented that its disclosure controls and
procedures were effective and attested to the accuracy of
financial reporting. It therefore came as a surprise to investors
when Ormat disclosed on May 11, 2018, that the company would
delay the filing of its Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2018, citing an error in the company's financial presentation of
deferred income tax assets and liabilities that affects the
company's balance sheet in previous reporting periods. Then, on
May 16, 2018, Ormat announced that it would restate its second,
third, and fourth quarter 2017 financial statements and its full-
year 2017 financial statements. Since news of Ormat's financial
reporting troubles were made public, Ormat's stock fell over 7%
to close at $52.35 per share on May 16, 2018.
Ormat Shareholders Have Legal Options
Concerned shareholders who would like more information about
their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid
Kandinov at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via
the shareholder information form on the firm's website.
Leonid Kandinov,Esq.
Robbins Arroyo LLP
Telephone: (619) 525-3990
Website: Leonid Kandinov
Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]
PALM BEACH, FL: HC Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses of Children
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled H.C., a minor, by and
through his parent and natural guardian, Jenny C.; M.F., a minor,
by and through his parent and natural guardian, Asisa Rolle;
T.M., by and through his parent and natural guardian, Jessica
Joiner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. RIC BRADSHAW, Palm Beach County Sheriff, in his individual and
official capacity; MICHAEL GAUGER, Chief Deputy of the Palm Beach
County Sheriff's Office, in his individual capacity; ALFONSO
STARLIN G, Corrections Operation Major for the Palm Beach County
Sheriff's Office, in his individual capacity; FRANK MILO,
Corrections Security Major for the Palm Beach County Sheriff's
Office, in his individual capacity; SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH
COUNTY, Case No. 9:18-cv-80810-WPD (S.D. Fla.), ask the Court to
certify this class:
all present and future children (i. e. children under the
age of eighteen and charged as adults) who are now or will
be incarcerated in solitary confinement at the Palm Beach
County Jail.
The Plaintiffs also seek certification of these subclasses:
a. all current and future children with disabilities, as
defined by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
who are or will be held in solitary confinement at the Palm
Beach County Jail and are in need of special education
evaluation, instruction, accommodations, and related
services ("IDEA Subclass"); and
b. all current and future children with disabilities, as
defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act, who are or will be held in
solitary confinement at the Palm Beach County Jail ("ADA
and 504 Subclass").
The Plaintiffs further move for appointment of Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, Inc., and
the Human Rights Defense Center as class counsel.
The Plaintiffs are juveniles held in solitary confinement at the
Main Detention Center of the Palm Beach County Jail, who are
being confined and denied educational services in violation of
the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and, in some cases, denied services under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, American with
Disabilities Act, or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cfj5l0Rv
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
Diana L. Martin, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Telephone: (561) 515-1400
Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com
dmartin@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Melissa Duncan, Esq.
LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF PALM BEACH CO., INC.
EDUCATION ADVOCACY PROJECT
423 Fern St., Suite 200
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 655-8944
Facsimile: (561) 655-5269
E-mail: mduncan@legalaidpbc.org
- and -
Sabarish P. Neelakanta, Esq.
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER
P.O. Box 1151
Lake Worth, FL 33460
Telephone: (561) 659-1873
E-mail: sneelakanta@hrdc-law.org
The Defendants are represented by:
Lisa Rubin, Esq.
PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE
3228 Gun Club Rd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33406-3001
Telephone: (561) 688-3170
Facsimile: (561) 688-3175
E-mail: rubinl@pbso.org
- and -
Julie Ann Rico, Esq.
GENERAL COUNSEL, PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
3316 Forest Hill Blvd., Suite C-331
West Palm Beach, FL 33406-5813
Telephone: (561) 434-8751
Facsimile: (561) 434-8105
E-mail: julieann.rico@palmbeachschools.org
PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE: Rallo Sues over Unsolicited Phone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER RALLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01510 (D. Colo., June 15, 2018),
seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently,
knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, beginning in or around August 7,
2017, the Defendant contacted Plaintiff on her cellular
telephone, number ending in -2025, in an effort to sell or
solicit its services. The Defendant called an average of five
times a day. Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not
for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section
227(b)(1)(A). Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number
assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff
incur a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section
227(b)(1). The Plaintiff is not a customer of Defendant's
services and has never provided any personal information,
including her cellular telephone numbers, to Defendant for any
purpose whatsoever. In addition, Plaintiff told Defendant at
least once to stop contacting her and Plaintiff has been
registered on the Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 30 days prior
to Defendant contacting her. Accordingly, Defendant never
received Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls
using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on their cellular telephone pursuant to 47
U.S.C.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206 4741
Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
PALO ALTO: Gallagher Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
JONATHON GALLAGHER, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. PALO ALTO, INC. and ROBERT
ALVARADO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00556 (D.N.M., June
15, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
hours under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New Mexico
Minimum Wage Act.
According to the complaint, Defendants operate numerous Pizza Hut
franchise stores. Defendants employ delivery drivers who use
their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to
their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers
for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their
vehicles, Defendants use a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate
beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur
that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall
below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Forester, Esq.
Matthew Haynie, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
www.foresterhaynie.com
1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (214) 210 2100
Facsimile: (214) 346 5909
PAR ENGINEERING: Fails to Pay Unpaid Wages, Lopez Says
------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO LOPEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PAR ENGINEERING, INC., a
California corporation dba COMMERCIAL COOLING; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC708532 (Cal. Super.
Ct., June 5, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to provide
meal periods, failed to authorize and permit all rest periods and
waiting time penalties, and failed to reimburse necessary
business expenses pursuant to the California Labor Code.[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
PG&E CORP: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against PG&E Corporation ("PG&E" or the "Company")
(NYSE:PCG) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Northern District of California,
and docketed under 18-cv-03545, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of PG&E between April 29, 2015 and
June 8, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
If you are a shareholder who purchased PG&E securities between
April 29, 2015, and June 8, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have
until August 13, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.
PG&E is a holding company that holds interests in energy based
businesses. The Company's leading operating subsidiary is Pacific
Gas and Electric Company, a public utility operating in northern
and central California that provides electricity and natural gas
distribution, electricity generation, procurement, and
transmission, and natural gas procurement, transportation, and
storage. The Company generates revenues mainly through the sale
and delivery of electricity and natural gas to customers.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) PG&E had failed to
maintain electricity transmission and distribution networks in
compliance with safety requirements and regulations promulgated
under state law; (ii) consequently, PG&E was in violation of
state laws and regulations; (iii) PG&E's noncompliant electricity
networks could foreseeably cause wildfires in California; and
(iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
the Company's business and operations were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On June 8, 2018, after the market close, the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection issued a press release
announcing the cause of twelve wildfires in Mendocino, Humboldt,
Butte, Sonoma, Lake, and Napa Counties involving equipment owned
by PG&E.
The press release stated that CAL FIRE Investigators had
determined "that 12 Northern California wildfires in the October
2017 Fire Siege were caused by electric power and distribution
lines, conductors and the failure of power poles," and referred
"eight of the 12 fires -- Sulphur, Blue, Norrbom, Partrick,
Pythian, Adobe, Pocket and Atlas" to the county District
Attorney's offices for review "due to evidence of alleged
violations of state law."
On June 9, 2018, Bloomberg published an article entitled "PG&E
May Face Criminal Charges After Probe of Deadly Wildfires." The
article reported, in part, that following an investigation into
the causes of wildfires "that altogether killed 44 people,
consumed thousands of homes and racked up an estimated $10
billion in damages" in October 2017, California's fire agency
"found evidence of alleged violations of law by PG&E in
connection with" the fires. Specifically, the state's
investigation found "that PG&E equipment caused at least 12 of
the wine country blazes."
Following this news, PG&E's share price fell $1.69, or 4.08%, to
close at $39.76 on June 11, 2018, the following trading day.
Robert S. Willoughby,Esq.
Pomerantz LLP
Telephone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]
PG&E CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of PG&E
Corporation (NYSE:PCG) from April 29, 2015 through June 8, 2018,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for PG&E investors under the federal securities
laws.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.
According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) PG&E had failed to maintain electricity transmission
and distribution networks in compliance with safety requirements
and regulations promulgated under state law; (2) consequently,
PG&E was in violation of state law regulation; (3) PG&E's
electricity networks would cause numerous wildfires in
California; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about
PG&E's business and operations were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
August 13, 2018.
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Zachary Halper, Esq.
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Sued over Debt Collections Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
VAILA SALINA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC,
the Defendant(s), Case No. 1:18-cv-03327-CBA-ST (E.D.N.Y., June
6, 2018), seeks redress for Defendant's actions of using an
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt, in violation
of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.
Portfolio Recovery manages past-due accounts. It serves customers
through account representatives. The company was incorporated in
1996 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Subhan Tariq, Esq.
THE TARIQ LAW FIRM, PLLC
68 Jay Street -- Suite 201
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (718) 674 1245
Facsimile: (516) 453 0490
E-mail: subhan@tariqlaw.com
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: O'Brien Moves for Final Nod of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MICHAEL O'BRIEN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 2:16-cv-04634-SCM
(D.N.J.), moves for entry of an order certifying his case to
proceed as a class action and granting final approval of the
parties' class settlement agreement.
A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HveINbUb
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Telephone: (973) 227-5900
Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: "Eaton" Suit Moved to D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Plaintiff Warren Eaton, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Progressive Direct Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No.
1877cv00258D, was removed from the Essex Superior Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) on
June 6, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-
11182-ADB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Allison D. Burroughs.
Progressive Direct operates as an insurance company. The Company
underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty insurance.
Progressive Direct Insurance Company conducts its business in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John R. Yasi, Esq.
YASI & YASI, P.C.
Two Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Telephone: (978) 741 0400
E-mail: john.yasi@yasiandyasi.com
- and -
Kevin J. McCullough, Esq.
MAZOW MCCULLOUGH PC
10 Derby Street, 4th Floor
Salem, MA 01970
Telephone: (978) 744 8000
Facsimile: (781) 593 8001
E-mail: kjm@helpinginjured.com
- and -
Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOE, MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI
Two Salem Green, Suite 2
Salem, MA 01970
Telephone: (877) 599 8890
E-mail: mforrest@forrestlamothe.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew R. Dennington, Esq.
CONN, KAVANAUGH, ROSENTHAL, PEISCH & FORD, LLP
One Federal Street, 15th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 482 8200
Facsimile: (617) 482 6444
E-mail: adennington@ckrpf.com
RALPH LAUREN: Faces TCPA Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
a man has filed a class action lawsuit against Ralph Lauren
Corp., Ralph Lauren Retail Inc. and Vibes Media LLC, citing
alleged violation of telephone harassment statutes.
Lead plaintiff Patrick Hudson filed a complaint May 31 in Cook
County Circuit Court, alleging the defendants violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Hudson and the other defendants
received more text messages from the defendants than they
consented to receive. In addition, Hudson alleges the messages
did not include the required opt-out instructions, resulting in
annoyance, loss of personal time and invasion of privacy.
The plaintiffs claim the defendants are responsible because they
allegedly used an automated telephone dialing system when sending
text messages that were generic and impersonal without opt-out
instructions.
The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek a judgment for
damages and all costs, attorney's fees and interest from the date
of the judicial demand until the judgment is paid. Hudson is
represented by William H. Beaumont,Esq. of Beaumont Costales LLC
in Chicago.
Cook County Circuit Court case number 18-CH-6906 [GN]
RANDSTAD INHOUSE: "Velasco" Suit Moved to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Yolanda Velasco, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Randstad
Inhouse Services, LLC, a limited liability company; Wal-Mart
Associates Inc., a corporation; and Wal-Mart, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. RG18902612, was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the Superior Court of California, County of
Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco) on June 7, 2018. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-03377-EDL to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte.
Randstad is an employment/recruitment agency for temporary and
permanent staffing.[BN]
Attorneys for Yolanda Velasco:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Andrea Leigh Rosenkranz, Esq.
LAVI AND EBRAHIMIAN LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432 0000
Facsimile: (310) 432 0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
arosenkranz@lelawfirm.com
Attorneys for Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC:
Daniel Chul Whang, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 277 7200
E-mail: dwhang@seyfarth.com
Attorneys for Wal-Mart Associates Inc., and Wal-Mart, Inc.:
Aaron Thomas Winn, Esq.
Jennifer Ann Kearns, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
750 B Street, Suite 2900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 744 2200
Facsimile: (619) 744 2201
E-mail: atwinn@duanemorris.com
jkearns@duanemorris.com
REGULUS GROUP: Faces "Sarceno" Suit in California State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regulus Group LLC.
The lawsuit is captioned as Librado Sarceno, On behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Does 1-100, Regulus Group LLC, and Transcentra, the
Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00234541-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 11, 2018).
Regulus Group is a leading integrator of national airspace
systems and services, providing expertise in surveillance,
program management, and air traffic.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Ave., Ste 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 265 1020
Facsimile: (818) 265 1021
E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com
RICH'S CAR: Certification of Class Sought in "Rosales" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled DIXON ROSALES, on behalf of
himself and other persons similarly situated v. RICH'S CAR WASH,
LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-03104-SSV-JCW (E.D. La.), moves for class
certification.
Mr. Rosales notes that the Motion is being submitted pursuant to
Local Rule 23.1(B) and reserves the right to supplement it after
conducting class-related discovery.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xLGNIZn9
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
William H. Beaumont, Esq.
Jonathan Mille Kirkland, Esq.
BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
New Orleans, LA 70119
Telephone: (504) 534-5005
Facsimile: (504) 272-2956
E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com
whbeaumont@gmail.com
jmk@beaumontcostales.com
RIPPLE LABS: Zakinov Sues over Issued and Sold Ripple Tokens
------------------------------------------------------------
VLADI ZAKINOV Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RIPPLE LABS, INC., XRP II LLC,
BRADLEY GARLINGHOUSE, and DOES 1-25 inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 18CIV02845 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 5, 2018), alleges that
Defendants did not register XRP when offering or selling it,
instead they made a series of improper statements which drove up
the price of XRP, allowing Defendants to obtain greater returns
on their XRP sales.
The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of all
California citizens who purchased or otherwise acquired Ripple
tokens ("XRP") issued and sold by Defendants.
According to the complaint, XRP, despite its name as a "token",
is actually a security under the California law. In particular:
(i) Ripple uses the funds it raised from the sale XRP to fund its
business ventures; (ii) the Company indiscriminately offers XRP
for sale to the public at large; (iii) Plaintiff and the Class
are effectively powerless to control the success of Ripple and
XRP; and (iv) Plaintiff and the Class members' investment is
substantially at risk and is without any security.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
Eric M. Carrino, Esq.
ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
600 B. Street, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 525 3990
Facsimile: (619) 525 3991
E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
eearrino@robbinsarroyo.com
- and -
David C. Walton, Esq.
Brian O. O'mara, Esq.
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288 4545
Facsimile: (415) 288 4534
E-mail: davew@rgrdlaw.com
bomara@rgrdlaw.com
lolts@rgrdlaw.com
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
ROSS STORES: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Martinez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
PABLO MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ROSS STORES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; DMSI STAFFING, LLC, a North Carolina limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. RG18909944 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 22, 2018),
seeks compensatory and punitive damages arising from Defendants'
systematic and willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.
This class action arises from Defendants' acquisition and use of
consumer reports or investigative consumer reports to conduct
background checks on Plaintiff and prospective employees. The
Defendants routinely obtain and use information from background
reports in connection with their hiring processes without
complying with state and federal mandates for doing so. The
Defendants allegedly violated the requirements under this statute
in at least two separate ways failure to provide proper pre-
authorization disclosures; and (2) failure to provide proper
adverse action disclosures.
Ross is an American chain of "off-price" department stores
headquartered in Dublin, California, officially operating under
the brandname, Ross Dress for Less. It is the largest off-priced
retailer in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq.
Alexandria R. Kachadoorian, Esq.
Justin Kachadoorian, Esq.
COUNSELONE, P.C.
9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 277 9945
Facsimile: (424) 277 3727
E-mail: anthony@counselonegroup.com
alexandria@counselonegroup.com
justin@counselonegroup.com
SALVATION ARMY: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Jones Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LASHANDA JONES, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE SALVATION ARMY, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00804-TJC-JRK (Ill. 4th Jud. Cir in
and for Duval Cty., June 22, 2018), seeks to recover damages
arising from Defendants' violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.
The Plaintiff brings this class claims against Defendant for its
violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) by procuring
consumer reports on Plaintiff and other putative class members
for employment purposes without first making proper disclosures
to them in the format required by the statute.
The Salvation Army is a Protestant Christian church and an
international charitable organization structured in a quasi-
military fashion.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Luis A. Cabasa, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224 0431
Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
bhill@wfclaw.com
twells@wfclaw.com
SAMMY'S YE: "Montes" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
KELLY MONTES and JENNIFER HELMER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SAMMY'S YE OLD
CIDER MILL LLC, SAMUEL FORNARO, MARYNN FORNARO, PHILIP FORNARO,
and GINA FORNARO, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-10684 (D.N.J.,
June 15, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages, misappropriated
tips and other wages for Plaintiffs and their similarly situated
co-workers -- all of whom worked as tipped hourly food service
workers at Defendants' restaurant located in Mendham, New Jersey,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Harrison, Esq.
HARRISON, HARRISON, & ASSOC., LTD
David Harrison, Esq.
110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (888) 239 4410
E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com
- and -
Glen Savits, Esq.
GREEN SAVITS, Esq.
25B Vreeland Road
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Telephone: (973) 695 7777
E-mail: gsavits@greensavits.com
SAUCEY INC: Fails to Pay Wage & Overtime, Cole Says
---------------------------------------------------
MERVYN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAUCEY INC., the Defendant, Case No.
BC707895 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 4, 2018), alleges that Defendant
failed to reimburse for business expenses, and failed to pay
minimum wage and overtime pursuant to the California Labor Code.
Saucey is a Los Angeles-based alcohol delivery service, which
engages delivery drivers across the state of California to
deliver alcohol to its customers.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff Mervyn Cole has driven
for Saucey from April 2016 until November 8 2017. Saucey
classifies its delivery drivers like Mr. Cole as "independent
contractors," but under the California law, they should be
classified as employees. Saucey delivery drivers perform services
within Saucey's usual course of business as an alcohol delivery
service.
The delivery drivers' services are fully integrated into
Saucey's business. Without delivery drivers to perform
deliveries, Saucey would not exist. Saucey delivery drivers are
not typically engaged in their own delivery business. When
delivering items for Saucey customers, they wear the "hat" of
Saucey. Saucey customers cannot request a particular delivery
driver for their orders. In addition, Saucey maintains the right
of control over the delivery drivers' perfonnance of their jobs
and exercises detailed control over them.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994 5800
Facsimile: (617) 994 5801
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
SCI DIRECT: Romano Seeks to Certify Sales Representatives Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Nicole Romano and Jonathan
Bono, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. SCI Direct, Inc., Case
No. 2:17-cv-03537-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal.), move the Court to certify
a class consisting of:
All persons who worked for Defendants in California, as an
Independent Sales Representative, who were, at any time
within four years of the filing of the Complaint, classified
as an independent contractor and earned any commissions
and/or other wages.
The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives, and to appoint their attorneys as Class Counsel.
The Court will commence a hearing on August 20, 2018, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UIzf80TU
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
SEARS PROTECTION: Loses Bid to Reject Expert Opinions in "Greene"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jorge L. Alonso entered a memorandum opinion and order
in the lawsuit captioned NINA GREENE and GERALD GREENE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SEARS PROTECTION COMPANY, SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., and SEARS
HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:15-cv-02546 (N.D. Ill.):
-- overruling the Defendants' Objections to the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge on Defendants'
motion to exclude the purported expert opinions of
Christopher Jackman;
-- sustaining in part and overruling in part the Defendants'
Objections to the Report and Recommendation on Plaintiffs'
class certification motion; and
-- adopting the Reports and Recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge.
The status hearing previously set for August 8, 2018, is stricken
and reset to August 29, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.
The Magistrate Judge issued two Report and Recommendations in
which he recommended granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify,
denying the Defendants' motion to exclude the purported expert
opinions of Christopher Jackman, and granting in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the purported expert opinions of
Mark Hosfield.
Plaintiffs Nina Greene and Gerald Greene complain that from 1994
to 2014, they entered into and paid for several appliance-service
agreements with the Sears, Roebuck & Company and Sears Protection
Company that did not actually cover their products. According to
the Plaintiffs, the Defendants breached their agreements, were
unjustly enriched, and engaged in a deceptive business practice
by selling "repair or replace" Master Protection Agreements
("MPAs") to the Plaintiffs and a purported class for appliances
the Defendants had no intention of repairing or replacing. The
Plaintiffs moved to certify a nationwide class on their breach of
contract and unjust enrichment claims, and a Pennsylvania class
on their claim under Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law.
A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LHbLRVlT
SHANGHAI CUISINE: "Ting" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
TING QIU QIU, JIAN WEI DENG, YU BO SU, ZHAOBANG BAI, and
SHAOHONG ZENG on their own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SHANGHAI CUISINE, INC. d/b/a
Shanghai Cuisine Bar & Restaurant; R & M CENTURY, INC. d/b/a
Shanghai Cuisine Bar & Restaurant; JOHN DOE CORPORATION JONATHAN
HO, NA SUN, JIJIE HONG, WING JING LAU, JOSEPHINE FENG, and
CHENWEN HO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05448 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 15, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid
overtime wages liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgement
interest; and or attorney's fees and cost under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, 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 Plaintiffs, minimum wage for each hour
worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40
each workweek.[BN]
Attorney for the Plaintiffs, 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
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Direct Purchasers Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned IN
RE: LAMICTAL DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No.
2:12-cv-00995-WHW-CLW (D.N.J.), seek an order certifying this
class:
All persons or entities in the United States and its
territories who purchased Lamictal Tablets directly from
GSK, or who purchased a generic version of lamotrigine
tablets directly from Teva, at any time during the Class
Period from February 17, 2008 until January 22, 2009 (the
"Class").
Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their officers,
directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, and
affiliates, and all federal governmental entities.
The Direct Purchasers -- Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc., King
Drug Company of Florence, Inc., and Rochester Drug Co-Operative,
Inc. -- also move for the Court to appoint them as
representatives of the Class, and to confirm Garwin Gerstein &
Fisher, LLP, as Lead Counsel for the Class.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZXW36JDc
The Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
Joseph Opper, Esq.
Noah Silverman, Esq.
Elena K. Chan, Esq.
GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER, LLP
88 Pine Street, Floor 10
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 398-0055
E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
jopper@garwingerstein.com
nsilverman@garwingerstein.com
echan@garwingerstein.com
- and -
Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
Matthew F. Gately, Esq.
COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
Park 80 West - Plaza One
250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
Telephone: (201) 845-9600
E-mail: psp@njlawfirm.com
mfg@njlawfirm.com
- and -
Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq.
Chris Letter, Esq.
Dan Chiorean, Esq.
ODOM & DES ROCHES, L.L.P.
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 522-0077
E-mail: stuart@odrlaw.com
cletter@odrlaw.com
dchiorean@odrlaw.com
- and -
Susan C. Segura, Esq.
David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq.
Erin R. Leger, Esq.
SMITH SEGURA & RAPHAEL, LLP
3600 Jackson Street, Suite 111
Alexandria, LA 71303
Telephone: (318) 445-4480
E-mail: ssegura@ssrllp.com
draphael@ssrllp.com
eleger@ssrllp.com
- and -
Peter R. Kohn, Esq.
Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
101 Greenwood Ave., Ste. 600
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Telephone: (215) 277-5770
E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
jlukens@faruqilaw.com
- and -
David F. Sorensen, Esq.
Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq.
Michaela L. Wallin, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
ccoslett@bm.net
mwallin@bm.net
- and -
Russell Chorush, Esq.
Allan Bullwinkel, Esq.
HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH LLP
1111 Bagby, Suite 2100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 221-2000
E-mail: rchorush@hpcllp.com
abullwinkel@hpcllp.com
SPEARS MANUFACTURING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Delgado Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO DELGADO, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SPEARS MANUFACTURING CO., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant,
Case No. BC709665 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 15, 2018), seeks to
recover all unpaid overtime wages and minimum wage under the
California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained no payroll
code or other mechanism for paying meal period premiums and/or
rest period premiums when Defendants failed to provide a legally
compliant meal period and/or rest period to Plaintiff and other
non-exempt employees. Due to the nature of Plaintiff and other
non-exempt employees' job duties, they were required to use
various tools in connection with the performance of their job
duties. The Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees paid for and
provided their own tools, but were not reimbursed by Defendants
for the costs of these necessary tools, despite not making at
least twice the minimum wage. As a result of Defendants' failure
to pay meal and rest period premium wages, the Defendants
maintained inaccurate payroll records and issued inaccurate wage
statements to Plaintiff in violation of Labor Code section 226.
Additionally, the wage statements provided to Plaintiff and other
non-exempt employees fail to identify the address of the legal
entity that is the employer.
Spears Manufacturing designs, manufactures, and distributes
thermoplastic pipe fittings, valves, and piping system components
in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
El Segundo, CA 90245
Tel: (424) 292 2350
Fax: (424) 292 2355
E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
mmoen@haineslawgroup.com
STROUD ENTERPRISES: Gaines seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA GAINES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. STROUD ENTERPRISES, INC.,
a Tennessee Corporation, ROY D. STROUD, an Individual, JONATHAN
BROWN, an Individual, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02411-JTF-
dkv (W.D. Tenn., June 15, 2018), the Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act for failing to
pay Plaintiff for all hours she worked by not compensating her at
the rate of time and one-half her regular rate of pay for all the
hours worked over 40 hours in one workweek.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Similarly Situated Putative Class
Members:
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER & HOLT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754 8001
Facsimile: (901) 754 8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
pjackson@jsyc.com
SUNOCO LP: Fails to Pay Earned Vacation Pay, Vernot Says
--------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO VERNOT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SUNOCO LP, the Defendant, Case No.
18-1816 (Mass. Super. Ct., June 11, 2018), seeks mandatory treble
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees pursuant to General Laws and
the Wage Act.
The Plaintiff brings this action as a class action on behalf of
himself and a class comprised of all current and former employees
of Defendant who did not receive full payment of rightfully
earned vacation pay from the period June 6, 2015 to January 23,
2018.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Fogelman, Esq.
Zinnia K. Khan, Esq.
FOGELMAN & FOGELMAN LLC
189 Wells Avenue, Suite 302
Newton, MA 02459
Telephone: (617) 559 1530
E-mail: mit@foKelmanlawtirm.com
zkk@foKelmanlawtlrm.com
SYNETRA INC: Heady Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------
CHARLES HEADY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SYNETRA, INC. and SYNETRA CAPITAL,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00104 (W.D. Tex., June 15,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages from Defendants
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, Synetra violated the FLSA by
employing Heady and other similarly situated nonexempt employees
"for a workweek longer than forty hours [but refusing to
compensate them] for [their] employment in excess of 40 hours at
a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at
which [they are or were] employed." Synetra violated the FLSA by
failing to maintain accurate time and pay records for Heady and
other similarly situated nonexempt employees as required by 29
U.S.C. section 211(c) and 29 C.F.R. pt. 516.
Synetra, Inc. offers information technology and communication
solutions. The company was founded in 1983 and is based in
Odessa, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
Bridget Davidson, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 222 6775
Facsimile: (713) 222 6739
TBS PROPERTIES: Fails to Repair Property Damages, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ATENA DANNER; CHRIS WHITE; JULIA SERES; CHRIS PEDERSEN; DONNA
HAGEMAN; and PATRICK HAGEMAN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TBS PROPERTIES,
LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case
No. 2018-CH-07317 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 11, 2018), alleges that
Defendant did not disclose unsafe, unsanitary, and uninhabitable
conditions to Plaintiffs prior moving into Judson property.
Those unsafe, unsanitary, and uninhabitable conditions included
one or more of the following: leaking roof so severe that light
fixtures in the Judson Property filled with water during
rainstorms, creating a severe electrocution hazard; electrical
damage to the Judson Property as a result of water infiltrating
electrical fixtures; and severe water damage to the ceiling,
walls, and drywall in the Judson Property.
According to the complaint, the Defendant took little or no
action to repair, ameliorate, or address any of these unsafe,
unsanitary, and uninhabitable conditions in the Judson property.
As a result of Defendant's failure to repair, ameliorate, or
address any of these unsafe, unsanitary, and uninhabitable
conditions, and the health hazards such conditions posed to their
children, Atena and Chris W. decided in or around April 2018 to
vacate the subject matter unit. TBS refused to allow Plaintiffs
to break their lease, despite the unsafe, unsanitary, and
uninhabitable conditions in the Judson property.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sheryl Ring, Esq.
OPEN COMMUNITIES LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
990 Grove Street, Suite 500
Evanston, IL 60201
Telephone: (847) 501 5760
E-mail: sheryl@opcn-communities.org
TERRI HURNI: Rabin Sues over Tip Pooling Scheme
-----------------------------------------------
Victoria S. Rabin, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated; and Maranda Mrdjenovich, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Terri Hurni and
Gianni's LLC dba Gianni's Steakhouse, the Defendant, Case No.
27-CV-18-9515 (Minn. 4th Jud. Dist. Ct., Hennepin Cty., June 7,
2018), asserts wages and labor case arising under the common law
and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendant offers its customers food, drinks (alcoholic
beverages), and private dining room / banquet room facilities for
private parties or special events. The Plaintiffs worked as
servers in Defendant's dining room and for private parties in the
Defendant's private dining room and for special events, e.g.
"2018 Super Bowl" event and the "Jeremiah Towers" chef event -
"direct service employees" waiting on customers, taking their
food and drink orders and collecting payment from their
customers.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's tip sharing and tip
pooling scheme operated for the benefit of Defendant because it
resulted in Defendant's bartenders and indirect service employees
receiving a higher effective wage than they would have received
had Defendant not disbursed a portion of the servers' tips and
gratuities that its direct service employees collected to its
bartenders and indirect service employees. The Plaintiff and
other members of the Rule 23 Class effectively bore the cost of
the bartenders and indirect service employees' supplemental
wages, while Defendant did not have to commit any additional
funds to the payroll.[BN]
Attorney for the Plaintiffs:
James Behrenbrinker, Esq.
JAMES R BEHRENBRINKER
Minneapolis Grain Exchange
412 South Fourth Street, Suite 1050
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Telephone: (612) 294 2605
Facsimile: (612) 294 2640
E-mail: Behrenbrinker.law.officc@gmail.com
TOUCHSTONE GOLF: "Kirshner" Suit Seeks OT Wages under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
DARIN KIRSHNER, GRANT JACOBS and MASON MATHIEU, individuals, on
behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TOUCHSTONE GOLF, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00028865-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 11, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages under the
California Labor Code.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves
and a California Class in order to fully compensate the
California Class for their losses incurred during the California
Class Period caused by Defendant's uniform policy and practice
which failed to lawfully compensate these employees for all their
overtime worked. Defendant's uniform policy and practice alleged
herein is an unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practice
whereby Defendant retained and continues to retain wages due
Plaintiffs and the other members of the California Class.
The Defendant provides golf course management and advisory
services. The Company offers payroll and accounting support,
marketing, people management, property valuation, encompasses
demographic analysis, golf course maintenance, and consulting
services to the golf course industry.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
Aparajir Bhowmik, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
Website: www.bamlawca.com
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 551 1223
Facsimile: (858) 551 1232
TURIN HOUSING: Faces "Scher" Suit in New York Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Turin Housing
Development Fund Company, Inc. The case is captioned as SCHER,
MARK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF SIMILARLY SITUATED
SHAREHOLDERS OF TURIN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CO., INC., the
Plaintiff, v. TURIN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND COMPANY, INC., MERCE
WILLIAMS, MAURINE BERLINGS-MINSKY, RONALD MISA, JAMES GOLDSTEIN,
EVELYN RIVERA AND LINDA BURSTION INDIVIDUALLY AND AS MEMBERS OF
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TURIN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CO.,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 155267/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June
5, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Arlene P. Bluth.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
BIERMAN & ASSOCIATES
17 Battery PL, Suite 204
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363 6960
UNITED CARD: Certification of Classes Sought in "Fabricant" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned TERRY FABRICANT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
UNITED CARD SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-01429-PA-FFM (C.D.
Cal.), asks the Court to certify two classes:
(1) pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, a class defined as:
"All persons to whom: (a) Voiceless Technologies made or
will in the future make one or more non-emergency
telephone calls; (b) promoting United Card Solutions
LLC's goods or services; (c) using a telephone number it
purchased from SalesGenie (d) to a cellular telephone
number; (e) through the use of an artificial or
prerecorded voice; (f) at any time in the period that
starts four years before the date of filing this
Complaint"; and
(2) pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, a class defined as:
"All persons to whom: (a) Voiceless Technologies made one
or more non-emergency telephone calls; (b) promoting
United Card Solutions LLC's goods or services; (c) to a
cellular telephone number; (d) through the use of an
artificial or prerecorded voice; (e) which calls United
Card's records reflect were transferred to United Card;
(f) at any time in the period that begins four years
before the date of filing this Complaint and ends on the
date of trial."
Mr. Fabricant also asks the Court to: (1) appoint him to serve as
class representative; (2) appoint his counsel to serve as class
counsel; and (3) direct him to submit a proposed notice plan and
form of notice within a reasonable time.
The Court will commence a hearing on July 30, 2018, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QSLOP8zU
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon B. Fougner, Esq.
600 California Street, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (434) 623-2843
Facsimile: (206) 338-0783
E-mail: Jon@FougnerLaw.com
- and -
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
99 High Street, Suite 304
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (508) 221-1510
E-mail: anthony@broderick-law.com
- and -
Robert Stempler, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT STEMPLER, APC
8200 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA, 90211
Telephone: (323) 486-0102
E-mail: socalconsumerlawyer@gmail.com
- and -
Andrew W. Heidarpour, Esq.
HEIDARPOUR LAW FIRM, PPC
1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 190-318
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 234-2727
E-mail: AHeidarpour@HLFirm.com
UNITED STATES: Settlement Reached for Special Ed Students vs. DOE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KHON2 reports that there is a major payout from the Department of
Education to settle a class-action lawsuit.
There are 495 students who are part of the class action lawsuit.
The DOE has agreed to pay $8.5 million after the lawsuit claimed
it violated federal law by barring special needs students over
the age of 20 to enroll in public school.
Under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
"IDEA", special education students must be permitted to remain in
school and receive services until they either earn a regular high
school diploma or reach age 22.
The case was filed by the Hawaii Disability Rights Center and the
Honolulu law firm Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing.
Nonetheless, in 2010, Hawaii lawmakers approved legislation
barring enrollment of students who were aged 20 or older on the
first day of school in a given year.
"Once we identified that the State had taken this illegal action,
we went to court to protect the rights of these special education
students who deserved to be treated better by the DOE," said
Louis Erteschik, Executive Director of the Hawaii Disability
Rights Center.
This case forced the DOE to follow the IDEA, and the settlement
gets services to those students who were not allowed to stay in
school while the unlawful DOE policy was in effect.
In 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
ruled that the DOE's reliance on the Hawaii statute to dismiss
special education students from school was illegal under the
IDEA.
In 2014, the United States District Court for the District of
Hawaii ruled that the special education students who were not
provided continuing education and transition services through age
22 are entitled to free compensatory education and related
services.
In December 2017, the parties reached a settlement under which
the class members will receive the compensatory education or
education-related services to which they are entitled.
An $8,200,000 fund has been created by the State of Hawaii to pay
for the services.
The fund is being overseen by Hawaii Supreme Court Associate
Justice James E. Duffy, Jr. (Ret.), who has been named as the
Settlement Administrator.
He will work closely with attorneys at Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing
and the Hawaii Disability Rights Center to ensure that the goal
of making up for the services the class members should have
received from the DOE is met.
According to Paul Alston, Esq. -- PAlston@ahfi.com -- of Alston
of Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, "This class action settlement is a
wonderful opportunity for class members to receive free
supplementary educational opportunities and life-skills training
to enable them to lead more independent lives."
For more information regarding this settlement, including copies
of court filings and instructions for eligible class members to
participate in the settlement, please
visit http://hawaiiclassaction.com/erk/or call the settlement
hotline at (808) 441-6268. [GN]
UNUM GROUP: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on June 13, 2018, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee against Unum Group (NYSE:UNM).
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price during the
Class Period, which is January 31, 2018 through May 2, 2018.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Unum Group
shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period
and are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You
may move the Court no later than August 13, 2018 to serve as a
lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so,
you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information
and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or
should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice
or preservation of your rights:
Robin Hester,Esq.
Federman & Sherwood
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]
UNUM GROUP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notified investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Unum Group ("Unum" or
the "Company) (NYSE: UNM) and certain of its officers, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Unum
securities between January 31, 2018 and May 2, 2018, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to
join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/unm.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Unum was experiencing a higher claims incidence for its long-term
care business; (2) Unum was experiencing less favorable policy
terminations in connection with its long-term care business; (3)
as a result, the Company's long-term care business loss ratio
would reach the upper 90% range; and (4) consequently,
Defendants' statements about Unum's business, operations, and
prospects, including statements related to the Company's long-
term care reserves and capital management plans, were materially
false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On May 2, 2018, Unum revealed that its first quarter 2018 loss
ratio for its long-term care business was 96.6%, compared to
88.6% for the first quarter of the previous year. The first
quarter 2018 loss ratio also surpassed the Company's previous
projections of 85-90%. Following this news, Unum's stock dropped
$8.12 per share, or roughly 17%, to close at $39.78 per share on
May 2, 2018.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/unm or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss
in Unum you have until August 13, 2018 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Peretz Bronstein,Esq.
Yael Hurwitz,Esq.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Telephone: 212-697-6484
Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN]
UNUM GROUP: Kaskela Law Files Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against Unum Group (NYSE: UNM) ("Unum" or the
"Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between January 31, 2018 and May 2, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased Unum securities
during the Class Period may, no later than August 13, 2018, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
investor class. Unum investors are encouraged to contact Kaskela
Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258 - 1585 or (888)
715 - 1740 to discuss their important legal rights and options
with respect to this action. Investors may also sign up with the
firm and receive additional information at
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/unum-group/.
As detailed in the shareholder class action complaint, Unum and
certain of its executive officers are alleged to have made false
and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose the following
material adverse facts to investors during the Class Period: (1)
that the Company was experiencing a higher claims incidence for
its long-term care business; (2) that the Company was
experiencing less favorable policy terminations in connection
with its long-term care business; and (3) that the Company's
long-term care business loss ratio would reach the upper 90%
range.
After the Company reported its Fiscal 2018 First Quarter
financial and operational results, on May 2, 2018, Unum's CFO
disclosed that "[b]enefits experience this quarter was driven by
new claim incidence that ran much higher than expected," and that
"the higher loss ratio this quarter was negatively impacted by a
lower level of policy terminations." Following this news, shares
of the Company's stock declined $8.12 per share, or nearly 17%,
to close on May 2, 2018 at $39.78.
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
Kaskela Law LLC
201 King of Prussia Road ,Suite 650
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: 484-258-1585
888-715-1740
Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com GN]
VALLEY PALLET: Faces "Cervantez" Suit in California State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valley Pallet Inc.
The case is captioned as Angel Cervantez, On behalf of himself
all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general
public, the Plaintiff, v. Does 1-100 and Valley Pallet Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00234334-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 6, 2018).
Valley Pallet is doing business in wood products sector.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Turley, Esq.
THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
7428 Trade St. San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (619) 234-2833
E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com
WEBCOLLEX LLC: Murray Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
MORGAN MURRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. WEBCOLLEX, LLC dba CKS FINANCIAL,
CUZCO CAPITAL INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00425 (E.D. Tex., June 15, 2018),
seeks to recover damages and declaratory relief under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, some time prior to August 24, 2017,
an obligation was allegedly incurred to Celtic Bank. The Celtic
Bank obligation arose out of transactions in which money,
property, insurance or services were the subject of the
transactions. Specifically, Plaintiff used the funds received
from a Celtic Bank- Surge credit card to purchase primarily
personal, family or household items. The alleged Celtic Bank
obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5).
Celtic Bank or Defendant Cuzco, a debt collector, and the
subsequent owner of the Celtic Bank debt, contracted the
Defendant CKS to collect the alleged debt. Defendants CKS and
Cuzco collect and attempt to collect debts incurred or alleged to
have been incurred for personal, family or household purposes on
behalf of creditors using the United States Postal Services,
telephone and internet.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282 6500
E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
WELLS FARGO: Gets Court Approval for Class-Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Riquier, writing for Market Watch, reports that Wells
Fargo & Company on June 15 announced it had received final
approval for a class-action settlement over customer account
improprieties.
The bank said that the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California had approved a $142 million settlement
agreement, and called it a "significant step forward in making
things right for our customers and further restoring trust with
all of Wells Fargo's stakeholders."
The settlement money will go to anyone who claims "Wells Fargo
opened, without their consent, a consumer or small business
checking or savings account or an unsecured credit card or line
of credit or enrolled them, under certain circumstances, in
Identity Theft Protection services, in each case between May 1,
2002, and April 20, 2017."
Anyone who is a member of that class may register at
www.WFSettlement.com [GN]
WILCO LIFE: Faces "Couch" Suit in Southern District of Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wilco Life
Insurance Co. The lawsuit is captioned as MELVIN COUCH, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
WILCO LIFE INSURANCE CO., formerly known as: CONSECO LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-
cv-01774-JMS-DLP (S.D. Ind., June 11, 2018).
Wilco Life provides supplemental health insurance, life
insurance, and annuity products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kathleen A. Musgrave Farinas, Esq.
Todd Christopher Barnes, Esq.
GEORGE & FARINAS, LLP
151 North Delaware Street, Suite 1700
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 637 6071
Facsimile: (317) 685 6505
E-mail: kf@lgkflaw.com
tb@georgeandfarinas.com
WISENBAKER BUILDER: Reta and Marrujo Seek OT Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
VALERIA RETA and ALEXANDRIA MARRUJO, Individually and
On Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons, the Plaintiffs,
v. WISENBAKER BUILDER SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-01975 (S.D. Tex., June 15, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
According to the complaint, during their tenure with the
Defendant, the Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours
per week on a regular basis. During their employment, Reta and
Marrujo were paid on a salary basis, but were still required to
clock in and out on Defendant's timekeeping system. In addition,
despite the fact that they were ostensibly exempt employees,
Plaintiffs were required to clock out for lunch, despite not
taking a break for lunch, and were regularly required to clock
out at the end of the day and then continue working. In addition,
Plaintiffs regularly worked from home on weekends.
Wisenbaker Builder provides interior finish solutions to builders
and the residential new construction market in Texas. It offers
cabinets; countertops; carpet, tile, hardwood, and vinyl flooring
products; window coverings; and stainless-steel, cast-iron,
granite, farm-house, and stone sinks, as well as vitreous-China
and glass vessels.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
Houston, TX
Telephone: 713 868 3388
Facsimile: 713 683 9940
E-mail: vijay@buenkerlaw.com
jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
YELLOW PAGES: Calex Legal Files Class Action in Quebec
------------------------------------------------------
A petition to authorize the institution of a class action against
Yellow Pages Digital & Media Solutions Limited (TSX: Y) (Yellow
Pages Limited) was filed on June 6, 2018 by Me Jean-Philippe
Caron of the legal firm of Calex Legal Inc., in collaboration
with Me Johanna Sarfati.
The purpose of this class action is to penalize a business
practice and a billing policy that infringe upon a client's right
to unilaterally terminate a service contract.
The action involves individuals and businesses that meet the
following criteria:
They are a natural or legal person;
They are or were domiciled in Quebec;
They were bound by a service contract with Yellow Pages;
They were billed an amount for services by Yellow Pages on or
after June 8, 2015, following a unilateral application for
termination of their contract.
Me Jean-Philipe Caron,Esq.
Telephone: 514-548-3023
Website: www.collectifpj.ca/
Email: info@collectifpj.ca [GN]
ZENITH EDUCATION: Clipps Sues over Family and Medical Leave Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERICA CLIPPS, the Plaintiff, v. ZENITH EDUCATION GROUP, INC.
D/B/A EVEREST UNIVERSITY, the Defendant, Case No. 73228366 (Fla.
13th Jud. Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, June 7, 2018),
seeks to recover compensatory damages including back pay, front
pay (or reinstatement), liquidated damages and damages for
emotional distress, pain and suffering and mental anguish, pre-
and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs and such
other relief as this Court deems proper under the Family and
Medical Leave Act of 1993.
According to the complaint, Everest eventually gave Plaintiff
FMLA, however, when Plaintiff actually tried to use her
intermittent FMLA, Plaintiff's boss and campus president Michelle
Lawrence became angry and hostile and often refused and
interfered with Plaintiff's needed leave time. While Everest's
policy was to go through Hartford Insurance for FMLA approval and
leave, Plaintiff's supervisor Sam Lynn and campus president
Michelle Lawrence nonetheless would get angry and hostile when
Plaintiff took days off, would demand further justifications for
already approved leave and would counsel and discipline Plaintiff
for using her leave.
While other similarly-situated employees were permitted to make
their own schedules and while Plaintiff as well had been allowed
to do so prior, after Plaintiff took FMLA leave, this benefit was
taken from Plaintiff and campus president Michelle Lawrence began
making Plaintiff's schedule. After Everest learned of Plaintiff's
disability and after Plaintiff put in for FMLA, Everest began to
pretextually counsel and discipline Plaintiff. On or around June
of 2016, Plaintiff was fired by Everest for pretextual reasons.
The above discriminatory and retaliatory acts were only a small
portion of the unlawful treatment Defendant subjected to
Plaintiff.
Zenith Education Group, Inc. was founded in 2014. The company's
line of business includes vocational schools offering specialized
vocational courses.[BN]
Counselors for Plaintiff Clipps:
James M. Thompson, Esq.
Kathryn C. Hopkinson, Esq.
THOMPSON LEGAL CENTER, LLC
777 South Harbour Island Drive, Ste. 245
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 769 3900
Facsimile: (813) 425 3999
E-mail: jmthompsonlegal@gmail.com
khthompsonlegal@gmail.com
mkthompsonlegal@gmail.com
clerk.thomsonlegal@gmail.com
agthompsonlegal@gmail.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.
* * * End of Transmission * * *