/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180924.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, September 24, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 191 Headlines 296 SOUTHLAKE: Improperly Classified Staff, Swearingen Claims 42-44 EAST: Zhang Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime under FLSA ADIDAS AMERICA: Duke Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California AFSCME CALIFORNIA: Hernandez Sues over Union Dues AIR CANADA: Mary Dukes Sues over Background Checks ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Order in Peterson Suit to 9th Cir. ALIBABA.COM INC: Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Keck Denied APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Court Modifies Case Schedule in Shasta AQUA ELITE: Rodriguez Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts ARIEY NUSSBAUM: Neri Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages AUSTRALIA: Light Rail Class Action Filed in NSW Supreme Court BEALL'S INC: Court Certifies Area Managers Class BISHOP REHABILITATION: Residents May Get $640 Settlement Payout BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Robocall Class Action in Massachusetts CALIFORNIA: Bryan Blue Files Suit vs. CDCR in Calif. Super. Court CANADA: Ontario Sued Over Cancellation of Basic Income Pilot CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Saraci Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations CARMAR TRANSPORTATION: Pfeffer et al. Seek Unpaid Wages CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Natadze Files Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Breach CBS CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Les Moonves Claims CBS CORP: Oct. 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Illegally Collects Debts, Servin Suit Claims CHOICE HOTELS: DiFlavis Suit Asserts FLSA Violation CIGNA CORP: Lead Plaintiff Opposes Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit COMPASS GROUP: Oliver Suit Moved to Northern District of Illinois CORECIVIC INC: Dew Suit Moved to Middle District of Tennessee D & A SERVICES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Pulla Suit Says DHM MARBLE: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA & AMWA, O'Shaughnessy Says DIRECTV LLC: Womble Bond Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Becerra Suit DUANE READE: Pryce et al. Seek Overtime Pay under FLSA ELECTRONIC ARTS: Ex-NFL Players' Class Certification Bid Denied EQUIFAX INC: Fond du Lac Band Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia EROS: 2d Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal ESPARZA ENTERPRISES: Court Grants Casildo Leave to File TAC ESPN: Wigdor Takes Over Adrienne Lawrence's Sex Harassment Suit ESURANCE INSURANCE: Morrison Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington EYE DOCTORS: Faces Grant Suit in Middle District of Florida FAT BRANDS: Kaskela Law Files Shareholder Class Action Over IPO FINANCIAL ASSET: Loveday Seeks to Certify Class FLAGSHIP RESORT: Wins Summary Judgment in TCCWNA Suit FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Reidt ERISA Suit in Conn. GENERAL MILLS: Fails to Disclose Glyphosate Content, Paracha Says GEORGIOS OF GREENSPOINT: Handy Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA H.H. FRANCHISING: Holley Seeks to Certify Caregivers Class HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Crowley Webb Alleges Inflated TV Ad Rates HELEN CHAITMAN: Faces Shulman & Ross Class Suit over Madoff Gig HIGH TECH: Ramirez-Abarca Sues for FLSA, Wage and Hour Law Breach HUTCHINSON TREE: 4th Circuit Appeal Filed in Berber Suit HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hid Powertrain Defect in Santa Fe Models, Suit Says IMPINJ INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action in Wash. J E H ENTERPRISES: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Talc Powder Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: India Must Overhaul Regulatory Process LACI TRANSPORT: Stingley FLSA Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay LANNETT CO: Faces Class Action, Oct. 26 Lead Plaintiff Deadline LEVY PREMIUM: Unlawfully Retained Employee Gratuities, Padder Says MDL 2274: Whiting Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa. MDL 2504: Amazon Wins Summary Judgment in PMWA Suit MDL 2742: ERISA Plaintiffs Appeal Decisions in Securities Suit MDL 2804: Brand vs Purdue Pharma et al. Consolidated in N.D. Ohio MDL 2804: Hopkins v Purdue Pharma et al. Consolidated in N.D. Ohio MDL 2804: Konig vs Purdue Pharma et al. Consolidated in N.D. Ohio MDL 2804: Medina vs Purdue Pharma et al. Consolidated in N.D. Ohio MDL 2804: Norwood Selectmen Split on Joining Opioid Suit MDL 2804: Streiter v Purdue Pharma et al. Consolidated in N.D. Ohio MDL 390: Court Opens MDL to Retain Jurisdiction Over Plaisance Suit MONSANTO: Agent Orange Class Action Still Faces Challenges MONTGOMERY, NY: Appeals Hill Suit Class Cert. Ruling to 2nd Cir. MOORE LANDSCAPES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Valerio et al. Claim MUNICIPIO DE SAN JUAN: Certification of Law Enforcers Class Sought NETFLIX INC: Suit by City of Creve Coeur Moved to E.D. Missouri NFL: Hernandez Daughter's Quest for Justice Continues ONE KEY: Class Action Law Firm Challenges CFMMEU Deal OPCOM INC: Accused by DiCarlo Suit of Violating Disabilities Act PALM BEACH, CA: Nov. 13 Hearing Set in Kosberg-Scharf Case PARKWAY VILLAGE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Kertis Suit Says PATENAUDE & FELIX: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Rosales Seeks to Certify Class POWERCOR: Australian Premier Calls for Help for Bushfire Victims PRECISION CONCEPTS: Lewis Seeks to Certify Class PRESSLER & PRESSLER: Settlement of Watkins Suit Has Final Approval PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY: Brinson Appeals Ruling to Eleventh Circuit PURDUE PHARMA: Lopez Brings RICO Class Suit in Utah SETERUS INC: Adams Sues over Debt Collection Practices SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Court Dismisses Toxic Chemical Class Action SLAKEY BROTHERS: Faces Verdina Suit in California State Court SMITH & NEPHEW: Bottenus Sues over BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing Cup SMITH & NEPHEW: Ravitz Sues over BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing Cup SONY CORP: Awaits Decision in Fake Michael Jackson Songs Case TD BANK: Court Compels Production of Wrong Number Call Data TEMP-TATIONS LLC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Slade Says TENNANT COMPANY: Watson Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of California TESLA INC: Faces Chamberlain Suit over Musk's Go-Private Tweet TESLA INC: Won't Pursue $72-Bil. Take-Private Deal Amid Suits TIME INC: Court OKs Voluntary Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suits TRADER JOE'S: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Brumfield MMWA Suit TURNER OIL: Court Approves Class Settlement in Stanley Suit UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Set to Decide on Dulberg Case on Oct. 29 UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Seeks Court Nod on Settlement UNIKRN: ICO Class Action May Have Implications for Token Issuers UNITED STATES: 19 Kentucky Counties Sign Up for PILT Settlement UNITED STATES: Hughes County Joins PILT Class Action USG CORPORATION: Lowinger Balks at Merger Deal with Knauf KG UTAH: Suit vs Spencer Cox Moved to Federal District Court UTHERA: Must Face Fraud Class Action Over Cosmetic Procedure VALLEY NATIONAL: Ct. Overrules Conditional Certification Objection VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Velez Says VISIONPRO CONNECTIONS: Faces Fearon, et al. in New York Sup. Ct. VISIONPRO CONNECTIONS: Underpays Cable Technicians, Fearon Says WALMART: Faces Fraud Class Action Over Hacked Gift Cards XIAMEN AIR: Airport Incident Ripe Test for Passenger Class Suit YOGA JOINT: Mittelmark Files Suit in Fla. Over TCPA Breach ZHEJIANG HUAHAI: Faces Jones Suit Over Adulterated Valsartan ********* 296 SOUTHLAKE: Improperly Classified Staff, Swearingen Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, WILLIS SWEARINGEN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 296 SOUTHLAKE, LTD, 296 SOUTHLAKE GP, LLC, JAMES CHARNQUIST and ALTON SCAVO, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00276 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 6, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of Sections 207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all current and former employees who worked for 296 Southlake, LTD, 296 Southlake GP, LLC, James Charnquist or Alton Scavo at any time from three years preceding the filing of the Original Complaint through the final disposition of this matter. According to the complaint, the Defendants improperly classified Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members as independent contractors. The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members routinely work (and worked) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, however, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. George Schimmel, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452 1279 Facsimile: (361) 452 1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com geordie@a2xlaw.com 42-44 EAST: Zhang Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- Ming Zhang, individually and on behalf of All Other Employees Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. 42-44 EAST BROADWAY RESTAURANT INC d/b/a HWA YUAN SZECHUAN, Chen Lieh Tang, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08178 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2018), alleges that Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, spread of hours, as well as failing to provide their employees, including Plaintiff, with wage notice at the time of hiring and wage statements. According to the complaint, throughout her employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff was not required to punch time cards or otherwise track her work hours. Nevertheless, for the last three weeks of Plaintiff's employment, she was required by Defendants to sign on her receipt of wage payment. The workhours, if any, on the wage receipts did not reflect the actual hours that Plaintiff worked. Throughout her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was not compensated for all hours worked above 40 in each workweek according to state and federal laws. Throughout her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was not overtime-exempt under federal and state laws.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed FLSA Collective: Xiaoxi Liu, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Ave. Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353 8588 Facsimile: (718) 353 6288 E-mail: xliu@hanglaw.com ADIDAS AMERICA: Duke Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Christian Duke, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Adidas America, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 37-02018-00033037-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Sept. 7, 2018. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-02081-LAB-NLS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Larry Alan Burns. Adidas America manufactures and supplies sport shoes, apparel, and accessories for men, women, boys, girls, and infants and toddlers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R Krinsk, Esq. FINKELSTEIN AND KRINSK 550 W. C Street, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101-3593 Telephone: (619) 238 1333 Facsimile: (619) 238 5425 E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: David F McDowell, Esq. MORRISON AND FOERSTER 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024 Telephone: (213) 892 5200 Facsimile: (323) 210 1316 E-mail: dmcdowell@mofo.com AFSCME CALIFORNIA: Hernandez Sues over Union Dues ------------------------------------------------- Liliana Hernandez, a former member of AFSCME Local 3299, commenced a class action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, alleging that the union and other defendants violated her rights by establishing an "agency shop," where employees were compelled to pay money to AFSCME Local 3299 and its affiliates as a condition of employment. The lawsuit claims the defendants are continuing to violate Ms. Hernandez's rights by deducting union dues from her paycheck -- even after she clearly and unequivocally communicated to both the union and her employer that she wants to terminate her union membership and halt the payroll deductions of union related fees. Ms. Hernandez sues on behalf of two separate classes: 1. One class consists of current or former members of AFSCME California or its affiliates who chose to remain in the union and pay full membership dues, but who never would have joined the union had they not been compelled to work in an unconstitutional agency shop. 2. The other class consists of all employees in bargaining units represented by AFSCME California or its affiliates who: (1) want to resign their union membership and terminate financial support of the union; (2) would choose to leave the union and 10 terminate financial support if they were fully informed of their constitutional right to do so; or (3) would decline to opt in to union membership by providing "clear and affirmative assent" if they were fully informed of their constitutional rights. The case is captioned, Liliana Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AFSCME California; AFSCME Local 3299, as representative of the class of all chapters and affiliates of AFSCME California; The Regents of the University of California; 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, Eric Banks, Priscilla Winslow, Erich Shiners, and Arthur A. Krantz, in their official capacities as chair and members of the California Public Employment Relations Board, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02419-WBS-EFB (E.D. Cal., Aug. 31, 2018).[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and Proposed Class: Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq. MITCHELL LAW PLLC 106 East Sixth Street, Suite 900 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 686 3940 - and - Bradley Benbrook, Esq. BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2530 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 447 4900 AIR CANADA: Mary Dukes Sues over Background Checks -------------------------------------------------- MARY DUKES, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AIR CANADA, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02176-EAK-JSS (Fla. Cir. Ct., 13th Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough Cty., Aug. 31, 2018), seeks to recover statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees, equitable relief, and other appropriate relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. As part of its hiring processes, the Defendant uses consumer reports to make employment decisions. According to the complaint, while the use of consumer report information for employment purposes is not per se unlawful, it is subject to strict disclosure and authorization requirements under the FCRA. The Defendant willfully violated these requirements in multiple ways, thereby systematically violating Plaintiff's rights and the rights of other Putative Class members. The complaint alleges that Defendant violated 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 the statutorily mandated disclosures to them in the format required by the statute. Under this subsection of the FCRA, Defendant is required to disclose to its employees -- in a document that consists solely of the disclosure -- that it may obtain a consumer report on them for employment purposes. This disclosure must be made by employers prior to obtaining copies of employees' or prospective employees' consumers reports. The Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and other Putative Class members with a separate document consisting solely of Defendant's disclosure, stating that Defendant may obtain a consumer report on any person for employment purposes. The Defendant also violated this requirement by failing to provide this disclosure to Plaintiff and other Putative Class members prior to obtaining a copy of the person's consumer report. Air Canada is the flag carrier and the largest airline of Canada by fleet size and passengers carried. The airline, founded in 1937, provides scheduled and charter air transport for passengers and cargo to 207 destinations worldwide.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Main Number: (813) 224 0431 Direct Dial: (813) 379 2565 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com twells@wfclaw.com ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Order in Peterson Suit to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Alaska Communications Systems, Group, Inc., and Alaska Communications Systems Holdings, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Laura Peterson, et al. v. Alaska Communications Systems, et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-00090-TMB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, Anchorage. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit arose from the Defendants' alleged serious and longstanding violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Alaska Wage and Hour Act. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants have systematically denied their sales and marketing employees basic overtime pay required under federal and state law. The appellate case is captioned as Laura Peterson, et al. v. Alaska Communications Systems, et al., Case No. 18-80111, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents LAURA LEE PETERSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, MATTHEW SMITH, HILARY FISHER and JENNIFER CARGILE are represented by: Michael Douglas Palmer, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER, LLP 1350 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 402-5653 E-mail: mpalmer@sanfordheisler.com Defendants-Petitioners ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, GROUP, INC., and ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC., DBA Alaska Communications, are represented by: Douglas S. Parker, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 900 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (502) 221-0309 E-mail: dparker@littler.com ALIBABA.COM INC: Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Keck Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for Northern District of California, San Jose Division issued an Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Strike Class Allegations in the case captioned MICHEL KECK, Plaintiff, v. ALIBABA.COM, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 17-cv-05672-BLF. (N.D. Cal.) Before the Court is the Defendants motion to strike class allegations or deny class certification. This action arises out of the Plaintiff's allegations that Alibaba Defendants operated online marketplaces where Chinese merchants sold the Plaintiff's copyrighted artwork without authorization. The Plaintiff seeks to represent class members pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3). She alleges a general class defined as: A class consisting of owners of U.S. copyrights to pictorial, graphic, or visual works who own the copyright to at least one such work that has been or is being reproduced or displayed on Alibaba.com, AliExpress, or Taobao and offered for sale without the permission of the owner. LEGAL STANDARD Even courts that have been willing to entertain such a motion early in the proceedings have applied a very strict standard to motions to strike class allegations on the pleadings. Only if the court is convinced that any questions of law are clear and not in dispute, and that under no set of circumstances could the claim or defense succeed may the allegations be stricken. The Defendants first argue that the typicality and commonality requirements of Rule 23(a) cannot be met. They contend that Plaintiff cannot show typicality because her copyright infringement claims are different from the claims of putative class members and that Plaintiff's claims based on contributory and vicarious liability require detailed factual investigations. As to commonality, Alibaba Defendants assert that Plaintiff cannot show questions of law or fact common to the class. Typicality does not require that the Plaintiff's claims to be factually identical to the claims of the proposed class members and the requirement may be satisfied by showing that the claims arise from the same course of conduct and are based on the same legal theory. Upon reviewing the Complaint and the parties' briefing, the Court is unconvinced that any questions of law are clear and not in dispute such that under no set of circumstances could Plaintiff would be able to meet Rule 23(a)'s typicality requirement. Moreover, as Plaintiff argues, discovery may reveal that Alibaba Defendants had a practice, for example, allowing merchants to violate copyrights and ignoring take down notices, that may expose them to liability. Accordingly, the Court finds that it is premature to address at the pleading stage whether Plaintiff can satisfy the typicality requirement. The Court reaches the same conclusion as to the commonality requirement under Rule 23(a) as well as predominance and superiority requirements under Rule 23(b)(3). The Alibaba Defendants' arguments with respect to certification under Rule 23(b)(1) and Rule 23(b)(2) are also unpersuasive. Alibaba Defendants claim that there is no risk under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) of inconsistent or varying adjudications which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class. They further contend that Plaintiff cannot establish that separate adjudications would impair the rights of class members to protect their interests under Rule 23(b)(1)(B). The Court does not find these arguments to be persuasive. At this stage of the proceedings, without the benefit of a developed record, the Court simply cannot conclude that Plaintiff will be unable to meet her burden under Rule 23. The Alibaba Defendants' motion to strike class allegations or deny class certification is denied without prejudice to their ability to raise the arguments presented in this motion at a later stage of the proceedings. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycafnf2u from Leagle.com. Michel Keck, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Doris Cheng -- dcheng@walkuplawoffice.com -- Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger, Jason W. Earley, Hare Wynn Newell and Newton LLP, Bruce Jones McKee, Hare Wynn Newell and Newton, pro hac vice, Christopher Scott Randolph, Jr., Hare Wynn Newell and Newton, pro hac vice, David Glenn Hymer -- vrobertson@bradley.com -- Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, pro hac vice, Ellen S. Presley -- eblake@bradley.com -- Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, pro hac vice, Linda Anne Friedman -- eblake@bradley.com -- Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Albert Kelly, Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger, Michael Richard Pennington -- lstewart@bradley.com -- Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, pro hac vice, Scott Ashley Powell, Hare Wynn Newell and Newton, pro hac vice & Tempe Dorinda Smith, Hare Wynn Newell and Newton, pro hac vice. Alibaba.com, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Ramraj Singh -- david.singh@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Jared R. Friedmann -- jared.friedman@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac vice, R. Bruce Rich -- bruce.rich@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Jonathan Bloom -- jonathan.bloom@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, pro hac vice. Alibaba Group (U.S.) Inc., Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. & Alibaba.com Hong Kong Ltd., Defendants, represented by David Ramraj Singh , Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Jared R. Friedmann , Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP & Jonathan Bloom , Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, pro hac vice. Taobao China Holding Ltd., Defendant, represented by David Ramraj Singh , Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Jared R. Friedmann , Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP & Jonathan Bloom , Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP. APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Court Modifies Case Schedule in Shasta ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an Order modifying the Case Schedule in the cases captioned SHASTA LINEN SUPPLY, INC., a California corporation and all those similarly situated, and ALPHA POLISHING, INC. d/b/a GENERAL PLATING CO., Plaintiffs, v. APPLIED UNDERWRITERS INC., APPLIED UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and APPLIED RISK SERVICES, INC., Defendants, PET FOOD EXPRESS LTD., a California corporation and all those similarly situated and ALPHA POLISHING, INC. d/b/a GENERAL PLATING CO., Plaintiffs, v. APPLIED UNDERWRITERS INC., APPLIED UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and APPLIED RISK SERVICES, INC. Defendants. Case Nos. 2:16-CV-00158-WBS-AC, 2:16-CV-01211-WBS-AC (E.D. Cal.). The Parties, through their counsel of record, that the following deadlines in the scheduling order dated February 6, 2018, as modified on July 17, 2018, will be extended as follows: Event Old Date New Date Opposition to class certification motion: October 12, 2018 Reply to opposition: December 7, 2018 Hearing: January 14, 2019 A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yammcawv from Leagle.com. Shasta Linen Supply, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Craig E. Farmer -- cfarmer@farmersmithlaw.com -- Farmer Smith & Lane LLP, Glen L. Abramson -- gabramson@bm.net -- Berger Montague PC, pro hac vice & John L. Hall -- jhall@farmersmithlaw.com -- Farmer Smith & Lane LLP. Applied Underwriters, Inc., a Nebraska Corporation, Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., a British Virgin Islands Company, California Insurance Company, a Registered California Insurance Company & Applied Risk Services, Inc., a Nebraska Corporation, Defendants, represented by Jeanette Barzelay -- jeanette.barzelay@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, Spencer Y. Kook -- skook@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Shand Scott Stephens -- shand.stephens@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Travis R. Wall -- twall@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Applied Underwriters, Inc., a Nebraska Corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by Shand Scott Stephens, DLA Piper LLP & Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Shasta Linen Supply, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Craig E. Farmer, Farmer Smith & Lane LLP, Glen L. Abramson, Berger Montague PC, pro hac vice, John Douglas Moore, Law Office of John Douglas Moore & John L. Hall , Farmer Smith & Lane LLP. AQUA ELITE: Rodriguez Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSE GLEN RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AQUA ELITE EVENTS, INC. d/b/a PRIME LUXURY RENTALS, a Florida Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-23707-MGC (S.D. Fla., September 11, 2018), seeks to secure redress for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's alleged illegal conduct of sending unsolicited marketing texts, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Aqua Elite Events, Inc., doing business as Prime Luxury Rentals, is a charter company that rents luxury vehicles to clients. The Defendant is a Florida corporation whose principal office is located in Hallandale Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd., #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com ARIEY NUSSBAUM: Neri Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ariey Nussbaum, et al. The case is styled as Marcelo Rivera Neri, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Ariey Nussbaum, Islam Abbas, also known as: Sammy, Haim Wysoki and Dov Moshe, Case No. 1:18-cv-08321 (S.D.N.Y., September 12, 2018). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying overtime compensation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com AUSTRALIA: Light Rail Class Action Filed in NSW Supreme Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Parris, writing for Newcastle Herald, reports that the team behind a Newcastle light rail class action filed a similar suit on behalf of Sydney traders in the NSW Supreme Court on Aug 28. Mitry Lawyers and cafe owner and politician Angela Vithoulkas lodged the lawsuit on behalf of more than 60 Sydney business owners. The move is an indication the law firm has secured third-party litigation funding for the action, something it also will need for the Newcastle action to progress. Class action expert Dr Peter Cashman, the director of the University of Sydney's Social Justice Program, told the Newcastle Herald that litigation funders were "not in the business of wasting money on losing cases". "No litigation funder would touch this without independent advice from pretty experienced counsel," Dr Cashman said. "If a funder is going to support it, and they do quite extensive due diligence, that always sends an interesting message both to the court and the other side. "They know that this has legs, because the funders are prepared to finance it. They really are hard-nosed. They're very risk-averse." Mitry Lawyers will argue that Transport for NSW "undertook the project in a manner which caused severe consequences and in a manner that could have been avoided", according to a media statement. "Those consequences caused undue nuisance upon business owners and landlords in the affected zones." Lawyer Richard Mitry said the loss and damage suffered by the businesses was "substantial and appreciably greater in degree than that suffered by the general public". Dr Cashman said the litigants would need to show that the government owed the traders a duty of care. "It will certainly be of interest, but whether it has legal merit is the acid test," he said. "The problem is there's a constraint on the extent to which the common law extends liability, because … there's a question of whether they owe a duty of care. "And, even if they did, there's a question of whether they breached it . . . I'm not sure of the facts as to whether or not they did in the sort of way that was unduly disruptive. "There's also these various statutory provisions that give some degree of, I wouldn't say immunity from suit, but sometimes it's often much harder to sue government entities and their subsidiary bodies than it is people who aren't governed by particular legislation. "I think it just raises some very interesting and possibly difficult questions." Dr Cashman, who has acted in several high-profile class actions throughout Australia, said he was not aware of a similar class suit over a government infrastructure project. Ms Vithoulkas and Mr Mitry were in Newcastle in August signing up businesses for a separate class action. They garnered 39 signatures in a day and expect to have more than 50. Ms Vithoulkas, a City of Sydney councillor who is running for the Upper House in next year's state election, closed the doors on her 16-year-old George Street cafe, Vivo, on Aug. 24 after almost three years of light rail works. She said businesses had begun to feel substantial downturn and difficulty from the moment the Sydney construction started. "One business owner told us that it was as if a tap had been turned off, and I experienced that in my business, too," she said. "As small businesses we are absolutely committed to progress across the nation, but we should not have to pay for this progress with our livelihood and that of our families. "I guarantee the premier or the prime minister wouldn't like to close up shop in their business for a light rail that many believe doesn't need to even be installed." [GN] BEALL'S INC: Court Certifies Area Managers Class ------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DONNA CIOMCIA, individually and on behalf of a11 others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BEALL'S, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-14444-JEM (S.D. Fla), the Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiffs' Motion to conditionally certify action and to authorize notice; 2. certifying collective action consisting of: "all of Defendant's Area Manager employees at Florida locations since December 20, 2014"; 3. directing Defendant to produce to Plaintiffs, to the extent not already provided, by September 21. 2018, the full names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of every employee classified as an Area Manager at a Florida store since December 20, 2014; and 4. directing parties to submit a joint proposed notice to the Court by September 21, 2018. BISHOP REHABILITATION: Residents May Get $640 Settlement Payout --------------------------------------------------------------- James T. Mulder, writing for syracuse.com, reports that about 450 people who lived in Bishop Rehabilitation and Nursing Center between Dec. 15, 2017 and June 13, 2018 could get payments averaging $640 under the terms of a settlement that has received preliminary approval in Onondaga County Supreme Court. The class action lawsuit settlement requires the owner of the nursing home, formerly known as James Square, to pay $495,000, about $300,000 of which will go to residents and former residents. The size of payments will be based on how long a person lived in the nursing home. Someone who lived there six months would get more than someone who stayed there a few days. The suit against the nursing home claims short staffing at the facility harmed residents, some of whom were left lying in their own feces and urine for hours. Clinton Square Operations, which bought the nursing home in December and is upgrading it, agreed to settle with Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, a lawyer who filed the suit on behalf of residents and former residents. The owner also agreed to increase staffing and take other steps to improve the facility. A class action suit is one in which a group of people who have suffered similar harm sue as a group and potentially share in any settlement. Also named as defendants in the suit are former owners River Meadows LLC, James Square Nursing Home Inc. and 918 James Receiver LLC. They have not settled. The class action case against them is expected to go to trial next year. Mr. Frei-Pearson said he expects to collect more money from them for residents and former residents. "The prior owners made a profit on the backs of the most vulnerable people in our society and we want that profit back," Mr. Frei-Pearson said. Residents and former residents of the nursing home will receive notices explaining the settlement and giving them the chance to opt out of the settlement or object to it. Mr. Frei-Pearson said those notices should go out soon once the nursing home provides a final list of residents and former residents. Payments will be issued if the settlement gets final approval from the court after a hearing late this year or in early 2019, Mr. Frei-Pearson said. The state Attorney General's Office raided the nursing home at 918 James St. last summer and seized records as part of an investigation of patient care. That investigation is still pending.[GN] BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Robocall Class Action in Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Noon, writing for Law360, reports that a Texas man who believes Boston Scientific Corp. has been blowing up his phone with automated invitations to sales events filed a class action in Massachusetts federal court over the weekend claiming he's far from the only person the medical device manufacturer has been robocalling this year. Steven Sandoe claimed Boston Scientific violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act with unsolicited calls asking people to attend "Control Your Pain educational seminars." The events allegedly market the Marlborough, Massachusetts-based company's branded spinal cord stimulator. The case is styled Sandoe v. Boston Scientific Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-11826. The case was filed August 26, 2018. [GN] CALIFORNIA: Bryan Blue Files Suit vs. CDCR in Calif. Super. Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al. The case is styled as BRYAN BLUE, DAVID A. BROWN, MICHAEL R. LARKIN and JOHN K. MOONEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DOES AND DOE ENTITIES 1-10, INCLUSIVE, and STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. CGC18569670 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., September 12, 2018). The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is responsible for the operation of the California state prison and parole systems. The California Department of Human Resources is the California government agency responsible for human resource management of state employees, including issues related to salaries and benefits, job classifications, training, and recruitment.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg McLean Adam, Esq. MESSING ADAM & JASMINE LLP 235 Montgomery St., Suite 828 San Francisco, CA 94104-2913 Telephone: (415) 845-6517 Facsimile: (415) 266-1128 E-mail: gregg@majlabor.com CANADA: Ontario Sued Over Cancellation of Basic Income Pilot ------------------------------------------------------------ Mary Riley, writing for Kawartha Lakes, reports that four Lindsay residents have launched a proposed class-action lawsuit for breach of contract against the province in the wake of the Progressive Conservative government's cancellation of the basic income pilot project. Dana Bowman and Tracey Mechefske said at an event to launch the suit on Aug. 27 that they had made plans to improve their lives when they signed up for the pilot in April 2017, providing the government with detailed personal information to be approved and expecting the pilot to run its three-year term. Mike Perry, a social advocate for the program who is also a lawyer, is representing the plaintiffs in the action, which he filed in court on Aug. 27. He is handling the case pro bono. The two other plaintiffs are Susan Lindsay and Grace Marie Doyle Hillion. Roderick Benns, publisher of the social advocacy magazine The Lindsay Advocate, organized the event, saying the pilot program "was a chance to change the channel on how we look at poverty." Under the program launched by the Liberals to run in the test communities of Lindsay, Thunder Bay and Hamilton-Brant, more than 4,000 people were given a basic income of up to $17,000 a year. Couples received up to $24,000. About 2,000 people in Lindsay enrolled. Those on the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) or Ontario Works were transferred to the program's payments. [GN] CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Saraci Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management Services, L.P. The case is titled as Sunaj Saraci, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Capital Management Services, L.P., Case No. 1:18-cv-05149 (E.D.N.Y., September 12, 2018). The Plaintiff brings the lawsuit over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Capital Management Services L.P. operates as a collections agency, providing delinquent receivables resolutions. The Company monitors and tracks debt collection laws, state licensing, company profile, and client contractual expectations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com CARMAR TRANSPORTATION: Pfeffer et al. Seek Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- MARK PFEFFER, VLADIMIR TSITLIDZE, SERGIO DOMINGUEZ, TIMOTHY OSTROM, GEORGE VALDEZ, and LAURA MARZANO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CARMAR TRANSPORTATION, INC., d/b/a KEY LIME TAXI, a Florida Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-10150-KMM (S.D. Fla., Sept. 1, 2018), alleges that Key Lime failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class Members they hired any compensation whatsoever in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class Members were compensated exclusively by Key Lime's customers. Key Lime misclassified Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class Members as independent contractors when they were, in fact, employees as that term is defined by the FLSA. Carmar Company is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Oak Grove, Minnesota. Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Chad E. Levy, Esq. David M. Cozad, Esq. LEVY & LEVY, P.A. 1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, No. 518 Sunrise, FL 33323 Telephone: (954) 763 5722 Facsimile: (954) 763 5723 E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Natadze Files Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC. The case is titled as David Natadze, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-05147 (E.D.N.Y., September 12, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, provides financial resolution services. Its services cover various areas, such as collection account and debt control. The Company was founded in 1991 and is based in Valhalla, New York. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Cavalry Investments, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com CBS CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Les Moonves Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that Les Moonves won't be charged by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, and the independent investigations CBS Corp's board has instigated over allegations of sexual misconduct against the CEO are ongoing, but an angry shareholder wants to take the company and its top execs to court. "Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies," says Gene Samit in a filing on Aug. 27 seeking to kick off a class action suit against Mr. Moonves, CBS COO Joseph Ianniello and CBS Corp itself over the response to claims leveled by a half a dozen women against Mr. Moonves in a damning July 27 New Yorker piece. "On this new, CBS's stock price fell $3.52, or 6.12%, to close at $54.01 on July 27, 2018," the paperwork prepared by the NYC and Chicago offices of Pomerantz LLP states. "As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages." CBS Corp declined comment when contacted by Deadline today about the federal complaint that seeks a jury trial. Almost a month after the Moonves allegations went public and as the company continues to lock legal horns with Shari Redstone and National Amusements over who controls the media organization and a possible re-merger with Viacom, the stock today stands at around $53.64. Such shareholder suits as this usually come one after another when a company and its boss face the unsteady footing CBS appears to be on. While a few result in actual settlements, they usually go nowhere fast or get piled under paperwork. In this case, Mr. Samit and his attorneys are putting their shoulder into the idea that the CEO and COO "made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) CBS executives, including the Company's CEO, Defendant Moonves, had engaged in widespread workplace sexual harassment at CBS; (ii) CBS's enforcement of its own purported policies was inadequate to prevent the foregoing conduct; (iii) the foregoing conduct, when revealed, would foreseeably subject CBS to heightened legal liability and impede the ability of key CBS personnel to execute the Company's business strategy." As Deadline said, nothing from CBS so far, but don't be surprised if when it does say something it will be a variation of what Mr. Moonves said in July. "I recognize that there were times decades ago when I may have made some women uncomfortable by making advances," the still CBS chief was quoted as saying in the New Yorker's July 27 story in a statement. "Those were mistakes, and I regret them immensely. But I always understood and respected -- and abided by the principle -- that 'no' means 'no,' and I have never misused my position to harm or hinder anyone's career." [GN] CBS CORP: Oct. 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 27 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against CBS Corporation ("CBS" or the "Company") (NYSE: CBS; CBS.A) and certain of its officers and directors. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under index 18-cv-07796, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired CBS securities between February 14, 2014, through July 27, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased or acquired common shares of CBS between February 14, 2014, and July 27, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have until October 26, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. CBS is a mass media company with operations in the entertainment, cable networks, publishing, and local media segments. 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) CBS executives, including the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Leslie "Les" Moonves, had engaged in widespread workplace sexual harassment at CBS; (ii) CBS's enforcement of its own purported policies was inadequate to prevent the foregoing conduct; (iii) the foregoing conduct, when revealed, would foreseeably subject CBS to heightened legal liability and impede the ability of key CBS personnel to execute the Company's business strategy; and (iv) as a result, CBS's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 27, 2018, various media outlets reported that The New Yorker would shortly publish an article, discussing an investigative report detailing allegations of sexual misconduct by Moonves and other executives at the Company. On this news, CBS's stock price fell $3.52, or 6.12%, to close at $54.01 on July 27, 2018. With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.[GN] CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Illegally Collects Debts, Servin Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- EMMANUEL SERVIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CENTRAL PORTFOLIO CONTROL, INC., a Minnesota Corporation; and, JOHN AND JANES DOES 1 THROUGH 25, Case No. 1:18-cv-01421-WCG (E.D. Wisc., September 11, 2018), arises from the Defendants' alleged illegal practices in attempting to collect an alleged debt, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. CPCI is a for-profit corporation formed under the laws of the state of Minnesota. CPCI maintains its principal place of business in the City of Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are presently unknown to the Plaintiff. CPCI regularly collects or attempts to collect debts alleged to be owed others. CPCI is a business the principal purpose of which is the collection of debts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip D. Stern, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. Francis R. Greene, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081 Telephone (973) 379-7500 E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com Andrew@SternThomasson.com Francis@SternThomasson.com CHOICE HOTELS: DiFlavis Suit Asserts FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Choice Hotels International, Inc. The case is captioned as GINA DIFLAVIS, FOR HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-03914-GEKP (E.D. Pa., September 12, 2018). The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Choice Hotels International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a hotel franchisor worldwide. The Company operates through Hotel Franchising and SkyTouch Technology segments. The Company franchises lodging properties under the brand names of Comfort Inn, Comfort Suites, Quality, Clarion, Sleep Inn, Econo Lodge, Rodeway Inn, MainStay Suites, Suburban Extended Stay Hotel, Cambria hotels & suites, and Ascend Hotel Collection.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Cohen, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP 604 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 873-4836 E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com CIGNA CORP: Lead Plaintiff Opposes Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Nichole Smith, writing for Law360, reports that a former Macy's employee on Aug. 27 urged a Pennsylvania federal judge not to toss her proposed class action accusing Cigna and American Specialty Health of wrongly shifting administrative costs to plan participants, arguing that she made plausible allegations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Lead plaintiff Kathleen Kilroy opposed the motions to dismiss from Cigna Corp., Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co., American Specialty Health Inc. and American Specialty Health Group Inc. The case is styled KILROY v. CIGNA CORPORATION et al, Case No. 2:18-cv-01557 (E.D. Pa.). The case is assigned to Judge Nitza I Quinones Alejandr. The case was filed April 13, 2018. [GN] COMPASS GROUP: Oliver Suit Moved to Northern District of Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Anthony Oliver, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Compass Group USA, Inc. doing business as: Canteen a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-09355, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Aug. 31, 2018. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-05998 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. Compass Group provides foodservice management and support services in the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893 7002 E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Joseph Clark Wylie, II, Esq. Alexandria Dea Bond, Esq. Paul W. Sweeney, Jr., Esq. K&L GATES LLP 70 West Madison, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372 1121 E-mail: joseph.wylie@klgates.com lexi.bond@klgates.com paul.sweeney@klgates.com CORECIVIC INC: Dew Suit Moved to Middle District of Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Joshua Dew, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CoreCivic, Inc., A Maryland Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01500, was removed/transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville) on Sept. 7, 2018. The Middle District of Tennessee Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00847 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger. The suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violation. CoreCivic, formerly the Corrections Corporation of America, is a company that owns and manages private prisons and detention centers and operates others on a concession basis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelly E Cook, Esq. WYLY & COOK, PLLC 4101 Washington Ave Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 236 8330 Facsimile: (713) 863 8502 E-mail: kcook@wylycooklaw.com - and - Don J Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd. Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523 0001 Facsimile: (713) 523 1116 E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com Attorneys for CoreCivic, Inc.: Eunju Park, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 815 Connecticut Ave, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 842 3400 E-mail: EPark@littler.com D & A SERVICES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Pulla Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against D & A Services, LLC, and JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC. The case is captioned as Ruth Pulla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. D & A Services, LLC, and JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-05143 (E.D.N.Y., September 12, 2018). The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. D & A Services is a collection agency. JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC, provides private equity investment services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. SANDERS LAW, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 281-7601 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com DHM MARBLE: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA & AMWA, O'Shaughnessy Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SERGIO O'SHAUGHNESSY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DHM MARBLE GRANITE & TILE, LLC; DENNIS DUNLAP and MICHELLE DUNLAP, Case No. 1:18-cv-01057-SOH (W.D. Ark., September 11, 2018), alleges that the Defendants fail to pay the Plaintiff and others overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. DHM Marble Granite & Tile, LLC, is a domestic limited liability company created and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Arkansas. Dennis Dunlap and Michelle Dunlap are principal members and/or officers of DHM Marble. DHM Marble, which operates from a centralized office in Smackover, Arkansas, provides on-site construction services and employs installers/fabricators/laborers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Ford, Esq. Chris Burks, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com chris@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com DIRECTV LLC: Womble Bond Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Troutman, Esq. -- eric.troutman@wbd-us.com -- of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, in an article for the National Law Review, wrote that business lines are always looking to expand their pool of leads through cross-marketing efforts, especially following a corporate merger. But as a new decision out of the Northern District of California proves, it is sometimes best to not rush in with telemarketing campaigns, even if consumer contract terms with new corporate affiliates appear secure. In Revtich v. DirecTV, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-01127, 2018 WL 4030550 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2018) the Court denied DirecTV's bid to compel arbitration of a putative TCPA class action leveraging an arbitration provision within a class representative's mobile services agreement with corporate sibling AT&T Mobility ("AT&T"). The class representative sued DirecTV for marketing calls it apparently made to AT&T customers following a corporate merger in a bid to leverage those new leads. Plaintiff sued in a class action contending that he did not consent to those calls. Although the Court agreed that corporate siblings can enforce arbitration provisions, it ultimately denied the motion finding that the consumer could not have anticipated arbitrating claims against corporate entities that would become affiliated with AT&T in the future. The result means that business lines seeking to leverage new markets following corporate mergers cannot count on courts to faithfully enforce arbitration provisions to defeat class actions in TCPA cases arising out of such calls. Here's the background: The Plaintiff in Revtich entered into a contract with AT&T for cell phone service back in 2006. The wireless agreement covered all claims and disputes that might arise with AT&T, and any corporate sibling. It was not limited to disputes arising out of the wireless relationship. And it required arbitration of all claims including claims against "affiliates" of AT&T. The wireless agreement also afforded AT&T the right send information regarding "other matters we believe may be of interest to you." You see where this is headed. As mentioned, the wireless agreement is from 2006. Apparently in 2011 DirecTV and AT&T both ended up owned by the same parent company–AT&T, Inc. This–DirecTV argues–means that AT&T and DirecTV are now "affiliates" under the arbitration agreement in the AT&T wireless services agreement. And since the arbitration agreement between Plaintiff and AT&T is not limited to claims arising out of the wireless agreement surely DirecTV can leverage the arbitration agreement in its favor. But not so fast. True, reasoned the court, that the agreement might reasonably be read to encompass claims arising in the future, unrelated to the wireless agreement, and against a corporate sibling, but it cannot be reasonably read to afford cover to an entity that "fortuitously" became affiliated with AT&T years after the agreement was signed. On that basis the Court denied DirecTV's motion and required it to stand in fight the class action in federal court. Notably Chief Magistrate Judge Spero is known as a thoughtful and independent voice on a court that does tend to lean a bit liberal, so this is not just the Northern District of California behaving badly. Rather, Revtich demonstrates the corproate entities should not be bullish about expanding existing contractual arbitration terms–and perhaps other contractual terms–to include and protect corporate siblings added in the future. Further, although Revtich does not (yet) address contractual consent clause, you can rest assured that the Plaintiff will try to expand the reasoning the court applied in denying arbitration when it comes time to test the contours of consent granted by the class in the AT&T wireless agreement. While denial of the arbitration motion will surely result in costly litigation for DirecTV, a substantive finding that consent was invalid across the class might work "destruction" on a Proverbial scale.[GN] DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Becerra Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Shana Becerra filed an appeal from a court ruling in her lawsuit entitled Shana Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-05921-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge William H. Orrick denied Dr Pepper's motion to transfer venue but granted its motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Ms. Becerra alleges that she is a consumer of the soft drink product Diet Dr Pepper. She believed that Diet Dr Pepper would assist in weight loss or healthy weight management due to the use of the term "diet" in the name of the product and on its label, but has since learned that studies and articles suggest that artificial sweeteners, including those used in Diet Dr Pepper, may instead cause weight gain. She brings the putative class action on behalf of herself and a California class of similarly- situated consumers for damages and equitable relief, including an injunction to stop Dr Pepper from marketing its Diet Dr Pepper product as "diet." The Plaintiff brings suit on behalf of herself and a California class alleging false and misleading advertising, in violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), as well as breach of both express and implied warranty. The appellate case is captioned as Shana Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., Case No. 18-16721, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by October 11, 2018; -- Transcript is due on November 13, 2018; -- Appellant Shana Becerra's opening brief is due on December 20, 2018; -- Appellee Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc.'s answering brief is due on January 22, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SHANA BECERRA, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Trevor Flynn, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC 3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 692-3840 E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com - and - Melanie Persinger, Esq. THE WESTON FIRM 1405 Morena Boulevard, Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 798-2006 E-mail: melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com - and - John Weston, Esq. SACKS WESTON DIAMOND LLC 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 925-8200 E-mail: jweston@sackslaw.com Defendant-Appellee DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP, INC., is represented by: Ariel D. House, Esq. BAKER BOTTS LLP 101 California Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-6200 E-mail: ariel.house@bakerbotts.com - and - Van Beckwith, Esq. BAKER BOTTS LLP 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75201-2980 Telephone: (214) 953-6505 E-mail: van.beckwith@bakerbotts.com - and - Evan Young, Esq. BAKER BOTTS LLP 98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1500 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 322-2554 E-mail: evan.young@bakerbotts.com - and - Stuart Christopher Plunkett, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 E-mail: stuart.plunkett@bakerbotts.com DUANE READE: Pryce et al. Seek Overtime Pay under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ CARMEN OHOTENCO and CHANTE PRYCE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DUANE READE INC. and WALGREEN CO., the Defendants, Case No. 518143/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept. 7, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiffs and their similarly situated co-workers, salaried Look Boutique Managers who work or have worked at any Duane Reade location in New York. According to the complaint, Duane Reade is a wholly owned subsidiary of Walgreens. Duane Reade is the leading retail drugstore chain in New York, with over 100 locations in the New York metropolitan area. 1 3. As part of its operations, Duane Reade employed LBMs and, until on or about September 21, 2016, and paid them on a salaried basis. However, despite their titles and their salaried pay, LBMs spent the vast majority of their time performing non-exempt duties. Regardless of the number of hours worked, LBMs did not receive overtime compensation. As a result, Duane Reade misclassified LBMs as exempt employees under the New York Labor Law, Article 6, sections 190 et seq. and Fair Labor Standards Act. [BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Arsenio Rodriguez, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300 0375 - and - James P. Walsh, Jr. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 502 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 919 6647 E-mail: james.walsh@morganlewis.com ELECTRONIC ARTS: Ex-NFL Players' Class Certification Bid Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Katz, writing for Law360, reports that the video game manufacturer Electronic Arts Inc., in addition to portraying current National Football League teams in its highly successful "Madden" video games, used to portray what EA referred to as "historic" teams. Retired NFL players filed a class action complaint in the Northern District of California against EA for misappropriating their rights of publicity. On Aug. 17, the district court judge denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the grounds.[GN] EQUIFAX INC: Fond du Lac Band Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, individually and on behalf of Its Members and as Class Representative for similarly situated federally recognized Indian Tribes and Nations, the Plaintiff, vs Equifax Inc. and Apache Systems, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-02381, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on Sept. 7, 2018. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-04257-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lawsuit alleges breach of contract. The Lead case is Case No. 1:17-md-02800-TWT. Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide. Founded in 1899 and based in Atlanta, Georgia, it is one of the three largest credit agencies along with Experian and TransUnion.[BN] Attorneys for Equifax, Inc.: Christopher J. Haugen, Esq. Joseph W. Lawver, Esq. MESSERLI & KRAMER, P.A. 100 South Fifth Street 1400 Fifth Street Towers Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 672 3730 Facsimile: (612) 672 3777 EROS: 2d Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------- RAPIDTV News reports that the two-year lawsuit alleging malpractice by Indian film and VOD service provider Eros International has finally ended. In a filing dated 21 August 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a Summary Order affirming the US District Court's earlier dismissal, with prejudice, of the putative securities class action that was originally filed in November 2015. In the original case, complaint alleged that Eros and certain individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On 26 September 2017, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed, with prejudice, the putative securities class action. Eros previously disclosed that, on 23 October 2017, lead plaintiffs had filed a Notice of Appeal, individually and on behalf of the putative class, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On 21 August 21 2018, the Court of Appeals issued a Summary Order affirming the District Court's dismissal with prejudice. The dismissal of the action comes only days after Eros International announced its first quarter 2019 results and its likely strategy for the rest of the financial year. [GN] ESPARZA ENTERPRISES: Court Grants Casildo Leave to File TAC ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an Order approving a stipulation granting Plaintiff's Leave to File Third Amended Complaint in the case captioned OLGA CASILDO; JAIME CHINO SEVERIANO, as individuals, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 1:17-cv-00601-LJO-JLT. (E.D. Cal.). The Defendant will have 30 days from the date of the filing of the Third Amended Complaint to file a responsive pleading. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yblkyjnc from Leagle.com. Olga Casildo, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Bryce Kingsley -- eric@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley & Kingsley APC, Kelsey M. Peterson-More, Kingsley & Kingsley, Mario Martinez -- mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch, APLC & Ariel J. Stillershulman, Kingsley & Kingsley APC. Jaime Chino Severiano, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Bryce Kingsley , Kingsley & Kingsley APC,Kelsey M. Peterson-More , Kingsley & Kingsley & Mario Martinez , Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch, APLC. Esparza Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel K. Klingenberger -- dklingenberger@lebeauthelen.com -- LeBeau-Thelen, LLP. ESPN: Wigdor Takes Over Adrienne Lawrence's Sex Harassment Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Storace, writing for Law.com, reports that a new law firm has taken over Adrienne Lawrence's sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit against mega-sports network ESPN. Wigdor LLP took over the case earlier in August. The new attorneys representing former ESPN anchor and legal analyst Adrienne Lawrence in her federal sexual harassment lawsuit against the sports network hope to make the case a class action lawsuit. In an Aug. 24 interview with the Connecticut Law Tribune, Wigdor LLP partners Michael Willemin -- mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com -- and Jeanne Christensen -- jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com -- said there are many past and current female employees of the Bristol-based network who were allegedly sexually harassed like Ms. Lawrence. The attorneys said they will seek class action status as soon as they are officially admitted on the case by a judge. That procedural matter, Ms. Christensen said, should be done soon. "We are not going to delay. Once we are admitted into the case (pro hac vice) and can appear, our intention is to 100 percent proceed with the case on a class basis," Mr. Willemin said. "ESPN has promoted a systematic culture and policy and practice to permit males in a position of power to discriminate against women." Mr. Willemin, whose firm took over the case from Lachtman Cohen and Yankwitt LLP Aug. 15, said the class would take into consideration the statute of limitations period. "Depending on what the causes of action are, it (statute of limitations) can be anywhere from three to four years." Mr. Willemin would not say how many women would be listed in the class, but said, "it will be a significant number." Wigdor was founded in 2003 and is based in New York City. The firm has 12 attorneys, including seven partners and five associates. Employment litigation and the handling of sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuits are among the firm's special areas of litigation, according to its website. Lawrence, a former attorney herself, has accused ESPN of failing to address her highly publicized complaints of harassment and abuse against SportsCenter anchor John Buccigross. Lawrence claims that, soon after she arrived at ESPN in August 2015, she was merely "fresh meat" and was soon being harassed by Mr. Buccigross. Lawrence clams she was fired in August 2017 for complaining about the alleged abuse. Lawrence, who according to her Twitter account, is a Madden NFL 18 sideline reporter based in her native California, claims ESPN personalities have a "long history of sexually harassing and mistreating women that is well documented and incontrovertible." The lawsuit cites nine causes of action including sexual discrimination and harassment, negligent supervision, creating a hostile work environment, and aiding abetting and retaliation. While the lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, Mr. Willemin said it's more than just money for Ms. Lawrence. "She wants to take this through to the end," said Mr. Willemin, who has been representing victims of sexual harassment for seven years. "She is committed to cleaning up what is a very, very toxic and inappropriate workplace at ESPN. She is hoping this lawsuit will assist in accomplishing that goal and also to make it easier for other women who have been subjected to similar treatment to come forward and not be alone." Mr. Willemin said he is proud to represent Ms. Lawrence. "This is an important case," he said. "We take pride in representing an individual who has been subjected to retaliation and harassment and discrimination. We also take pride in representing someone who is going up against one of the most powerful companies in the world." ESPN is owned by the Walt Disney Co. Said Ms. Christensen: "This kind of behavior is hard to shock us, because we've been doing this (representing victims of alleged sexual harassment) for so long. It's (sexual harassment and misconduct) built into the culture there (at ESPN)." ESPN is represented by Raymond Bertrand and Patrick Shea, both partners with Paul Hastings. Neither attorney responded to a request for comment on Aug. 27. In court papers filed in April, ESPN claimed the suit has no merit. "Lawrence claimed that ESPN employee John Buccigross sent her unsolicited and inappropriate text messages. ESPN responded by publishing the relevant text messages, refuting Lawrence's mischaracterization of her relationship and communications with Buccigross," ESPN wrote in its motion to dismiss. "Now, in the face of public criticism that she misrepresented facts to the Boston Globe, Lawrence is attempting to use this court to silence ESPN. But, Connecticut law does not allow her to punish the company for exercising its constitutionally protected rights to free expression and to petition the government." The court papers filed by ESPN continue: "Her claim is deficient as a matter of law because the excerpted text messages published by ESPN are accurate and no reasonable person would find them highly offensive. In the face of this undeniable fact, Ms. Lawrence attempts to bolster her claim and seize more headlines with an untethered conspiracy theory ESPN deployed bot armies and fake Twitter accounts to condemn her." Prior to joining ESPN, Ms. Lawrence was employed at McGuireWoods in Washington, D.C. and Greenberg Traurig in New York City. She had previously clerked for Judge Eric Washington at the D.C. Court of Appeals and as litigation associate at Arent Fox. She also taught criminal and tort law at Strayer University. In 2008, at age 24, Lawrence received her law degree from the George Washington University Law School. [GN] ESURANCE INSURANCE: Morrison Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Mikeshia Morrison, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Esurance Insurance Company, a foreign automobile insurance company, the Defendant, Case No. 18-00002-19723-6, was removed from the King County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle) on Sept. 6, 2018. The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01316 to the proceeding. The suit alleges violations over the parties' insurance policy agreement. Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. is an American insurance company. It sells auto, home, motorcycle, and renters insurance direct to consumers online and by phone. Its primary competitors are other direct personal insurance writers, mainly GEICO and Progressive.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Duncan Calvert Turner, Esq. BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC 19929 Ballinger Way NE, Ste 200 Seattle, WA 98155 Telephone: (206) 621 6566 E-mail: dturner@badgleymullins.com - and - Randall C Johnson, Jr, Esq. MYERS & COMPANY 1530 Eastlake Avenue East Seattle, WA 98102 Telephone: (206) 890 0616 E-mail: rcjj.law@gmail.com - and - Ryan C. Nute, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RYAN C NUTE 19929 Ballinger Way NE Ste 200 Shoreline, WA 98155 Telephone: (206) 330 0482 Facsimile: (206) 774 6036 E-mail: ryan@rcnutelaw.com Attorneys for Defendant: Gavin William Skok, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP (SEATTLE) 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4500 Seattle, WA 98154 Telephone: (206) 624 3600 Facsimile: (206) 389 1708 E-mail: gskok@foxrothschild.com EYE DOCTORS: Faces Grant Suit in Middle District of Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eye Doctors Optical Outlet, P.A. The lawsuit is captioned as Ditmar Grant, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Eye Doctors Optical Outlet, P.A., the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02178-SDM-CPT (M.D. Fla., Aug. 31, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Steven D. Merryday. The suit alleges restrictions on use of telephone equipment. Eye Doctors Optical Outlet, P.A. was founded in 1986. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of eyeglasses and contact lenses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907 1136 Facsimile: (855) 529 9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com FAT BRANDS: Kaskela Law Files Shareholder Class Action Over IPO --------------------------------------------------------------- Kaskela Law LLC has filed a shareholder class action lawsuit against FAT Brands Inc. (NASDAQ: FAT) ("FAT Brands" or the "Company") on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock pursuant and/or traceable to FAT Brand's initial public offering ("IPO") of common stock on or around October 23, 2017. IMPORTANT DEADLINE ALERT: Investors who purchased FAT Brands' common stock may, no later than October 23, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the investor class. FAT Brands investors are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258–1585 or (888) 715–1740, or skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to discuss their important legal rights and options. Investors may also submit their information online at http://kaskelalaw.com/case/fat-brands-inc/. On or about October 23, 2017, FAT Brands completed its initial public offering ("IPO") of common stock, selling shares to investors at $12.00 per share. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose, in connection with the IPO, that: (1) FAT Brands' sales growth had significantly declined; (2) sales growth at Ponderosa & Bonanza was significantly below the level which FAT Brands had believed when it agreed to acquire those brands in March 2017; (3) the fast-casual dining sector was saturated and facing significant headwinds and a slowdown in growth, largely caused by customers fleeing to lower cost and quicker options; (4) FAT Brands' free cash flow was less than its annual $5 million dividend obligations; (5) the Wiederhorn family planned to merge Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. into FAT Brands following the IPO; and (6) Fog Cutter Capital and the Wiederhorn family that owned it had already once run Fog Cutter Capital/Fatburger into bankruptcy, resulting in its stock being delisted after attempting to go on an acquisition spree, much like the spree they were undertaking at FAT Brands at the time of the IPO. The value of FAT Brands' common stock significantly declined as the market learned the truth about the Company's business metrics and financial prospects, which existed at the time of the IPO. FAT Brands' common stock currently trades at approximately $8.00 per share, or approximately 25% lower than the price that the common stock was sold to investors less than one-year earlier in the IPO. FAT Brands investors who purchased the Company's common stock and suffered an investment loss are encouraged to immediately contact Kaskela Law LLC. Kaskela Law LLC -- http://www.kaskelalaw.com-- exclusively prosecutes shareholder actions in state and federal courts throughout the country on behalf of investors. [GN] FINANCIAL ASSET: Loveday Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned MELISSA LOVEDAY, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-10218-GAD-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class of: "all persons with a Michigan address, whom from January 18, 2017, through January 18, 2018, were sent a form letter from FAMS, attempting to collect a debt in which the last date of payment or date of default was more than six years prior to the sending of the letter, that did not disclosing that the consumer could not be sued on the debt, and/or that did not disclose that a payment on the debt would restart the statute of limitations. Excluded from this request are persons whom Defendant attempted to collect a federally backed student loan." Attorneys for Plaintiff: Curtis C. Warner, Esq. WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC 350 S. Northwest Hwy., Ste. 300 Park Ridge, IL 60068 Telephone: (847) 701 5290 E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal FLAGSHIP RESORT: Wins Summary Judgment in TCCWNA Suit ----------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for District of New Jersey granted Defendant Flagship Resort Development Corporation d/b/a FantaSea Resorts (Flagship), La Sammana Ventures, LLC (La Sammana), and Atlantic Palace Development Corp.'s (Atlantic Palace) Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned GAETANO TIRRI, BRIAN KALMUS, and KELLY TAYLOR, on behalf of themselves and the putative class, Plaintiffs, v. FLAGSHIP RESORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION d/b/a FANTASEA RESORTS, LA SAMMANA VENTURES, LLC d/b/a FANTASEA RESORTS, and ATLANTIC PALACE DEVELOPMENT CORP. d/b/a FANTASEA RESORTS, Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-1771-BRM-TJB. (D.N.J.). This lawsuit arises out of the Plaintiffs' purchase of timeshare ownership interests in a condominium in Atlantic City, New Jersey from the Defendants. The Amended Complaint asserts claims for (1) violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, (Count One); (2-3) violations of the Truth-in-Consumer Contact, Warranty, and Notice Act (TCCWNA) (Counts Two and Four); (4) violations of the New Jersey Fair Foreclosure At. (Fair Foreclosure Act) (Count Three); and (5) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing (Count Five). LEGAL STANDARD Summary Judgment Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. There can be no genuine issue as to any material fact, however, if a party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. A complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), [i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may:(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;(2) allow time to obtain affidavits to take discovery; or(3) issue any other appropriate order. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Defendants' Alleged Failure to Provide a Notice of Foreclosure The Fair Foreclosure Act states, in relevant part, "Before any residential mortgage lender may commence any foreclosure the residential mortgage lender shall give the residential mortgage debtor notice of such intention at least 30 days in advance of such action." The Defendants argue they never commenced foreclosure actions against the Plaintiffs and therefore were never subject to the Fair Foreclosure Act's requirement to send a NOI. The Plaintiffs' argument that the Defendants' offered proof does not comply with 28 U.S.C. Section 1746(2) is without merit. Passarella's affidavit is sworn and notarized. Further, Plaintiffs' mere denial of Defendants' assertion that there has been no foreclosure is inadequate. Defendants adequately support their motion pursuant to Rule 56(c); therefore, the burden shifts to Plaintiffs to go beyond the pleadings and by [their] own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Plaintiffs cite no evidence to support the contention that Defendants have commenced foreclosure actions. The Court finds the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Count Four, because the Defendants had no obligation to serve NOIs. Under New Jersey law, a foreclosure plaintiff must send a NOI to a defendant before commencing a foreclosure action, but if there is no foreclosure action there is no need for a NOI. The Court finds there is no dispute of fact as to whether the Defendants were required to serve Plaintiffs with NOIs, and therefore Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Count Four. Defendants alleged deprivation of plaintiffs' right to redeem their ownership interest by requiring DILs to be escrowed Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:50-61, waivers by the debtor of rights provide pursuant to the Fair Foreclosure Act are against public policy, unlawful, and void unless given after default pursuant to a work agreement in a separate written document signed by the debtor New Jersey courts have held, a mortgagor may not deprive himself of a right to redeem even by an express agreement for that purpose if such agreement is a part of, or may contemporaneously with, the conveyance. The Defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment as to Counts One, Two, and Five, which are based on the Defendants' alleged transfer of the Plaintiffs' property interest back to the Defendants by way of the DILs. The Defendants contend the Plaintiffs were not deprived of their right to redeem because the DILs have never left escrow. The Defendants maintain the Plaintiffs have not been deprived of their right to redeem their ownership interest because title reports show the Plaintiffs still own the property they purchased. The Court finds the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Counts One, Two, and Five, because the plain language of the Escrow Agreement states the Plaintiffs could rescind the DILs at any time. The Court finds significance in the Plaintiffs' lack of a response to Defendants' arguments about the Plaintiffs' right to rescind. The Plaintiffs do not attempt to explain how the DIL deprived them of their right to redeem when they retained the right to rescind the DIL without penalty. The Plaintiffs rely on Mallozzi, which they argue stands for the proposition that New Jersey law prohibits the practice of requiring a borrower to execute a DIL contemporaneously with the conveyance of the property. Even if the Court were to accept the Plaintiffs' interpretation of Mallozzi, the fact the Plaintiffs could rescind the DILs distinguishes this case from the facts in Mallozzi, where there was no mention of a right to rescind. The Court finds DILs did not constitute a waiver of rights in violation of N.J.S.A. Section 2A:50-61, because the Escrow Agreement granted Plaintiffs the right to rescind the DILs without penalty. Because the DILs did not deprive the Plaintiffs of their right to redeem, the Court finds Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law as to Counts One, Two, and Five. Therefore, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaz7vk4h from Leagle.com. GAETANO TIRRI, on behalf of themselves and the putative class, BRIAN KALMUS, on behalf of themselves and the putative class & KELLY TAYLOR, on behalf of themselves and the putative class, Plaintiffs, represented by DAVID J. DISABATO , DISABATO & BOUCKENOOGHE LLC & LISA R. BOUCKENOOGHE , DISABATO & BOUCKENOOGHE LLC. FLAGSHIP RESORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, doing business as FANTASEA RESORTS, LA SAMMANA VENTURES, L.L.C., doing business as FANTASEA RESORTS & ATLANTIC PALACE DEVELOPMENT CORP., doing business as FANTASEA RESORTS, Defendants, represented by EDWIN JOSEPH JACOBS, Jr., JACOBS & BARBONE & LOUIS M. BARBONE , JACOBS & BARBONE, ESQS. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Reidt ERISA Suit in Conn. -------------------------------------------------------- MARY REIDT, on behalf of the Frontier Communications 401(k) Savings Plan and all others similarly situated v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORP., THE RETIREMENT INVESTMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE AND JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:18-cv-01538 (D. Conn., September 11, 2018), alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The action concerns the Plan's alleged excessive concentration in Verizon Communications, Inc. common stock. The Defendants, which are fiduciaries of the Plan, breached their fiduciary duty under the ERISA by failing to timely liquidate the Plan's significant holdings in Verizon common stock, and by deciding to concentrate Plan investments in Verizon common stock, the Plaintiff contends. Frontier is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Norwalk, Connecticut. The Committee is an unincorporated association with a principal place of business in Norwalk. The Committee's members are appointed by the Retirement Plan Committee of the Frontier Communications Board of Directors. The names and identities of the Doe Defendants are not currently known.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Izard, Esq. Mark P. Kindall, Esq. Douglas P. Needham, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com mkindall@ikrlaw.com dneedham@ikrlaw.com - and - Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Mark G. Boyko, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com mboyko@baileyglasser.com GENERAL MILLS: Fails to Disclose Glyphosate Content, Paracha Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NATASHA PARACHA, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MILLS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-07659-CJC-JEM (C.D. Cal., Aug. 31, 2018), alleges that the Defendant failed to disclose the fact that its food products contain or likely contain glyphosate and continuing to sell the Products in packages omitting this information. The Defendant manufactures, markets, sells, and distributes various food products. This lawsuit concerns four of those products: Cheerios Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal, Nature Valley Granola Protein Oats n' Honey, Nature Valley Crunchy Granola Bars - Oat's n' Honey, and Lucky Charms. In marketing its Products, Defendant seeks to appeal to the consuming public's ever-growing health consciousness and increasing appetite for nutritious, wholesome foods that will benefit their health and avoidance of highly-processed foods with non-healthy attributes such as GMOs, artificial additives, gluten, added sugars, and hydrogenated oils, the lawsuit says. According to the complaint, the Defendant had a duty to disclose the fact that its Products contain or likely contain glyphosate and that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen -- which was known to the Defendant and unknown and/or not reasonably accessible to Plaintiff and consumers -- on its Product labels where the disclosure could be viewed by Plaintiff and consumers at the point-of-sale. The Defendant has and continues to deceive and mislead consumers, including Plaintiff. As a result of the Defendant's misleading half-truths and material nondisclosures, consumers will continue to purchase the Defendant's Products that, unbeknownst to them, contain or likely contain glyphosate. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated consumers who purchased the Products to halt the dissemination of this misleading and deceptive advertising message, correct the misleading perception it has created in the minds of consumers, and obtain redress for those who have purchased the Products. Based on violations of California unfair competition laws, the Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and restitutionary relief for consumers who purchased the Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. Manfred P. Muecke, Esq. Elaine A. Ryan, Esq. Carrie A. Laliberte, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 600 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 798-4593 E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com mmuecke@bffb.com eryan@bffb.com claliberte@bffb.com - and - Stewart M. Weltman, Esq. Todd L. McLawhorn, Esq. Michael Chang, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 North State Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236 0000 E-mail: sweltman@siprut.com tmclawhorn@siprut.com mchang@siprut.com GEORGIOS OF GREENSPOINT: Handy Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHAN HANDY, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. GEORGIOS OF GREENSPOINT MALL, INC., GEORGIOS OF SHARPSTOWN CENTER, INC. and EMAN SROUR, Case No. 4:18-cv-03229 (S.D. Tex., September 11, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, including overtime, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Georgios of Greenspoint Mall, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of Texas. Georgios of Sharpstown Center, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of Texas. Emad Srour is an officer, employee, manager or agent of the Corporate Defendants. The Defendants operate a chain of clothing stores under the trade name Georgios.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (281) 885-8844 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com - and - John Neuman, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (281) 885-8630 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 E-mail: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com H.H. FRANCHISING: Holley Seeks to Certify Caregivers Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ROSEANN GEIGER and SHERRI HOLLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. H.H. FRANCHISING SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a HOME HELPERS, a foreign corporation; GLENKAT, INC.; KATHLEEN HOLDEN, an individual; and GLENN HOLDEN, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00738-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.), Plaintiff Sherri Holley asks the Court to conditionally certify a collective action and facilitate notice. Holley filed a revised motion to clarify the identity of the moving party. The lawsuit has been stayed as to Roseann Geiger, the other named plaintiff who, along with Holley, filed the original motion to conditionally certify a collective action. Holley's claims have not been stayed. Holley seeks payment of unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages owed to her and other similarly situated in-home caregiver employees due to violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Attorney for Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members: L. Michelle Gessner, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHELLE GESSNER, PLLC 435 East Morehead Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 234 7442 E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant: Kimberly Sullivan, Esq. HORACK, TALLEY, PHARR & LOWNDES, P.A. 301 South College Street, Suite 2600 Charlotte, NC 28202-6006 E-mail: ksullivan@HorackTalley.com - and - William S. Cherry, III,. Esq. MANNING, FULTON & SKINNER, P.A. 3605 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 500 Raleigh, NC 27619 E-mail: cherry@manningfulton.com - and - Fredric A. Cohen, Esq. CHENG COHEN, LLC 311 North Aberdeen Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60607 E-mail: marlen.cortez@chengcohen.com HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Crowley Webb Alleges Inflated TV Ad Rates ---------------------------------------------------------------- CROWLEY WEBB AND ASSOCIATES, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; GRAY TELEVISION, INC.; NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC.; TEGNA INC.; TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY; and SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07976 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2018), alleges that the Defendants engaged in unlawful collusion and conspired to artificially inflate the price of local television advertisements in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Defendants sell television advertising to local advertisers in multiple Designated Market Areas throughout the U.S. New York City is the Defendants' largest DMA, reaching more than 7.3 million households. A DMA is a geographic area for which A.C. Nielsen Company furnishes broadcast television stations, and others with data to aid in evaluating audience size and composition. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a Class consisting of all persons and entities in the U.S. who paid for all or a portion of advertisement time on local TV provided by the Defendants from at least January 1, 2012, until the effects of their unlawful conduct cease. According to the complaint, the Defendants unlawfully shared information and coordinated efforts to artificially inflate prices for TV commercials. Specifically, instead of competing with each other on prices for advertising sales, as competitors normally do, the Defendants and their co-conspirators shared proprietary information and conspired to fix prices and reduce competition in the market. On July 26, 2018, The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets reported that Sinclair, Tribune, and certain independent local television stations are the subjects of an ongoing U.S. Department of Justice investigation regarding whether communication between the stations' ad sales teams led to higher rates for TV commercials. Later that day, Newsmax.com, an online news journal, reported that Defendants Hearst, Nexstar, and Tegna are also subjects in the DOJ probe. The impact of the Defendants' unlawful and anticompetitive conduct is ongoing and continues to this day, and requires injunctive relief to prevent future harm to Plaintiff and members of the Class, the complaint says. Until the publication of reports regarding the DOJ investigation on July 26, 2018, the Defendants fraudulently concealed their unlawful conduct from Plaintiff and members of the Class, and Plaintiff and members of the Class had no way of knowing the advertising rates they were paying were the result of unlawful collusion.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687 1980 Facsimile: (212) 687 7714 E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com jcampisi@kaplanfox.com - and - Arthur N. Bailey, Esq. Marco Cercone, Esq. RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM, LLC 1600 Liberty Building 424 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 664 2967 E-mail: bailey@ruppbaase.com Cercone@ruppbaase.com HELEN CHAITMAN: Faces Shulman & Ross Class Suit over Madoff Gig --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, KEVIN SHULMAN and CARAN ROSS, in their capacities as co-trustees of the FLORENCE SHULMAN POUROVER TRUST; and ESTELLE HARWOOD, individually and in her capacity as trustee of the ESTELLE HARWOOD REVOCABLE TRUST; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs HELEN DAVIS CHAITMAN, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-08125 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2018), alleges that Ms. Chaitman actively concealed basic information from her net winner clients, including her hourly rate (as well as the hourly rates of other, unidentified persons charging time to the file), what specific work she was performing, and how much time she spent on those unknown tasks. Instead, Ms. Chaitman simply forwarded her net winner clients invoices stating the total amount allegedly due, without any backup or description. According to the complaint, on or about December 11, 2008, when Bernard Madoff was arrested, thousands of people learned that they had fallen victim to the largest Ponzi scheme in American history. Many had lost their life savings and were desperate to find someone to help them recover. Although many lawyers offered their services, Ms. Chaitman stood apart from the rest because she vowed to stand up to Irving Picard, who was responsible for clawing back funds received by "net winners" and distributing those funds to "net losers." Ms. Chaitman's self-promotion as a savior for other Madoff victims paid off. Within a short amount of time, she had signed up hundreds of clients who agreed to pay her hourly fees to defend them against Mr. Picard's clawback lawsuits. Ms. Chaitman's clients, however, had been swindled twice. First by Madoff, and again by Ms. Chaitman. Ms. Chaitman's greed, the lawsuit claims, caused her to violate the first rule of professional ethics: an attorney cannot simultaneously represent clients with directly adverse interests. Ms. Chaitman represented both net winners and net losers in a zero-sum game; the more money collected from some of her clients (the net winners), the more available to be distributed to her other clients (the net losers). Ms. Chaitman's clients, therefore, were in direct conflict with each other. To make matters worse, Ms. Chaitman herself is a net loser, which means she personally stands to receive money taken from her net winner clients. This conflict cannot be waived. At the same time, Ms. Chaitman represented a third group of Madoff investors who sought to keep assets out of Mr. Picard's liquidation proceedings altogether: the so-called "early investors." These clients claim that some of their Madoff profits are not subject to clawbacks because they allegedly were booked before Madoff turned his "legitimate" operation into a fraud. "Early investors" are thus in conflict with both net losers and net winners: Net losers miss out on contribution from early investors to defray their losses, and net winners find themselves responsible for a larger shortfall. Beyond the irreconcilable conflict, Ms. Chaitman bilked hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not more) from each of her net winner clients by actively discouraging them from settling Mr. Picard’s clawback actions. When asked, Ms. Chaitman mispresented to her net winner clients that Mr. Picard never would settle for less than 100% of what he claimed he was owed. In reality, Mr. Picard imposed no such all-or-nothing condition on settlements. This misrepresentation allowed Ms. Chaitman to continue billing these clients hourly for unnecessary -- and often unproductive -- work. This lawsuit is brought to vindicate the rights of Ms. Chaitman's clients, who trusted that she would protect their best interests but have now discovered her misconduct. This action is related to an action pending in this jurisdiction against Becker & Poliakoff, LLP and Chaitman LLP brought by the same plaintiffs and proposed class representatives. Those defendants have moved the Court to dismiss that action on grounds that there is a lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The Plaintiffs in that action have moved the Court to amend their complaint to add Ms. Chaitman as a defendant, which plaintiffs contend will cure any jurisdictional defect (should one exist). The present complaint filed against Ms. Chaitman is brought to protect any statute of limitations, and will be dismissed if leave to amend is granted in the related action.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Representatives: Dylan Ruga, Esq. STALWART LAW GROUP 41 East 11th Street, 11th Fl. New York, NY 0003 Telephone: (212) 651 9070 E-mail: dylan@stalwartlaw.com - and - Paul A. Traina, Esq. Ian P. Samson, Esq. STALWART LAW GROUP 1100 Glendon Ave., Ste. 1840 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 954-2000 E-mail: paul@stalwartlaw.com ian@stalwartlaw.com HIGH TECH: Ramirez-Abarca Sues for FLSA, Wage and Hour Law Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE RAMIREZ-ABARCA v. HIGH TECH LANDSCAPES, INC., and PAUL CERNUTO, Individually, Case No. 3:18-cv-13778 (D.N.J., September 11, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. The Defendants engaged in a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and members of the putative collective to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing overtime compensation as required by applicable federal and New Jersey state law, the Plaintiff alleges. High Tech is a New Jersey corporation, with its principal office located in Branchburg, Somerset County, New Jersey. Paul Cernuto has been an owner, partner, officer or manager of High Tech. The Defendants own, operate, and manage a landscape and construction business, which services the tri state area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: Aglenn@jaffeglenn.com jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com HUTCHINSON TREE: 4th Circuit Appeal Filed in Berber Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Adrian Berber filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Adrian Berber v. Hutchinson Tree Service, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00143-D, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Raleigh. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 23, 2018, the Hon. James C. Dever III granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification and court-authorized notice concerning the Plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards Act claim and for class certification concerning his North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, on behalf of: "individuals who performed work on Piedmont's gas pipelines and right-of-way throughout, at a minimum, various parts of North Carolina, whose duties included, but were not limited to, tree pruning, tree removal, tree trimming, land clearing, and stump grinding for Hutchison Tree Service, Craig Hutchison, Northstar Energy Services, Inc., and Piedmont Natural Gas, Inc., (collectively "Defendants") whom named Plaintiff alleges jointly employed him and all of those similarly situated employees, whom paid named Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees as lump-sum or hourly paid laborers, and whom were suffered or permitted to work while not being paid their appropriate regular-rate, straight-time, promised rate(s), and overtime compensation for all hours worked, at any time from April 3, 2012, until the termination of the contract, or until approximately January, 2015." The appellate case is captioned as Adrian Berber v. Hutchinson Tree Service, et al., Case No. 18-2061, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ADRIAN BERBER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Gilda Adriana Hernandez, Esq. Emma Jean Smiley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ 1020 Southhill Drive Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Facsimile: (919) 869-1853 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com esmiley@gildahernandezlaw.com Defendants-Appellees HUTCHINSON TREE SERVICE and CRAIG HUTCHINSON are represented by: Zebulon Dyer Anderson, Esq. SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, LLP P. O. Box 2611 Raleigh, NC 27602-2611 Telephone: (919) 821-6735 Facsimile: (919) 821-6800 E-mail: zanderson@smithlaw.com Defendant-Appellee PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC., is represented by: William J. McMahon, IV, Esq. Kristine Marie Sims, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, LLC Century Plaza 100 North Cherry Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101-0000 Telephone: (336) 721-1001 Facsimile: (336) 748-9112 E-mail: bmcmahon@constangy.com ksims@constangy.com Defendant-Appellee NORTHSTAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC., is represented by: Robert George Lian, Jr., Esq. AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, LLP 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-1564 Telephone: (202) 887-4000 Facsimile: (202) 887-4288 E-mail: blian@akingump.com - and - Christopher Andrew Page, Esq. YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, PA P. O. Box 31627 Raleigh, NC 27622 Telephone: (919) 782-6860 Facsimile: (919) 782-6753 E-mail: chris.page@youngmoorelaw.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hid Powertrain Defect in Santa Fe Models, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAN SCHECHTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA and HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-13634 (D.N.J., Sep. 6, 2018), alleges that Defendants wrongfully and intentionally concealed one or more defects that cause, among other issues, significantly delayed acceleration -- including but not limited to delayed acceleration when turning or merging onto a road or highway -- loss of power, and rough shifting of 2017-2018 Hyundai Santa Fe or 2017-2018 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport vehicles. According to the complaint, the Powertrain Defect has forced members of the Classes to incur out of pocket costs to remediate the defect. In the case of Plaintiff, Hyundai refused to provide him with a meaningful resolution to this dangerous issue, despite numerous attempts by Plaintiff to have the Powertrain Defect remedied by Hyundai. Hyundai has also failed to provide members of the Classes with any fix or remedy for the Powertrain Defect, despite voluminous customer complaints. The Powertrain Defect has been documented to occur without warning during vehicle operation, thereby posing an extreme and unreasonable safety hazard to drivers, passengers, other motorists and pedestrians. Many Class Vehicle owners have reported a significant delay in the Class Vehicle's response while attempting to accelerate from a stop and/or while cruising in situations that require the ability to accelerate rapidly (e.g., merging on to the highway, changing lanes, etc.). Other Class Vehicle owners have reported jerking, lurching, and/or engine revving associated with the delayed acceleration. Hyundai Motor America, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells vehicles in the United States. The company provides sedans, crossovers/SUVs.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. Andrew Obergfell, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300 4455 Facsimile: (925) 407 2700 E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com jsmith@bursor.com aobergfell@bursor.com IMPINJ INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action in Wash. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 27 announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Impinj, Inc. (NASDAQ:PI) publicly traded securities during the period between May 4, 2017 and August 2, 2018 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the Western District of Washington and is captioned Montemarano v. Impinj, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-1264. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Impinj publicly traded securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from August 7, 2018. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/impinj/. The complaint charges Impinj and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Impinj sells integrated circuit ("IC") tags ("tag ICs"), which, when connected to an item, are called endpoints. These endpoints function as a tag system that provides wireless information about tagged items. Impinj also sells reader ICs that enable wireless communication with the tag ICs. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Impinj's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges defendants failed to disclose that the addition of large customers in 2016 had driven a contraction in Impinj's ability to fulfill its production obligations, which resulted in lead times between 10 and 12 weeks instead of the normal baseline time range of 4 to 6 weeks; that increased sales of IC endpoints were not indicative of strong demand being driven by increased product adoption, but rather, they were the result of customers purchasing increased inventory to account for extended production lead times; and that Impinj lacked adequate accounting and reporting controls. As a result of this information being withheld from the market, Impinj securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, with its stock price reaching a high of more than $59 per share. On February 1, 2018, Impinj announced it was reducing its revenue guidance and that its long-time CFO had resigned. On this news, the price of Impinj common stock declined more than $10 per share, or nearly 47%, to close at $12.16 per share on February 2, 2018. Then on August 2, 2018, Impinj announced that it was delaying the release of its second quarter 2018 results. The Company also disclosed that in response to having received a complaint from a former employee, the Audit Committee of its Board of Directors had commenced an independent investigation and had retained independent counsel to assist in the investigation. Impinj stated that it could not "predict the duration or outcome of the investigation, and [would] not be in a position to file [its] Form 10-Q until the Audit Committee complete[d] its investigation." Impinj also announced preliminary second quarter 2018 financial results that day, disclosing that it had reduced its inventory balance by $1.4 million. On this news, Impinj's share price fell $3.02 per share, or nearly 14%, on August 3, 2018. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Impinj publicly traded securities during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a law firm representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For five consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. [GN] J E H ENTERPRISES: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The San Francisco Labor law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against J E H Enterprises, Inc., alleging that the company failed to lawfully provide meal and rest periods and pay minimum wages to their California employees working for the company. The class action lawsuit against J E H Enterprises, Inc., is currently pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-18-568768. The lawsuit filed against J E H Enterprises, Inc., alleges the DEFENDANT'S meal period policies and practices were unlawful because PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were far too over-booked and overworked to take a timely off-duty thirty (30) minute meal period. The lawsuit further alleges that the failure of J E H Enterprises, Inc., to provide the legally required meal and rest period is evidenced by the company's business records. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members as a business expense, were required by DEFENDANT to use their own personal cellular phones as a result of and in furtherance of their job duties as employees for DEFENDANT but were not reimbursed or indemnified by DEFENDANT for the cost associated with the use of their personal cellular phones for DEFENDANT's benefit. For more information about the class action lawsuit against J E H Enterprises, Inc., call (858) 952-0354 to speak to Attorney Nicholas De Blouw. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw, LLP is a labor law firm with law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los Angeles County, Sacramento County, and San Francisco County. The firm has a statewide practice of representing employees on a contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct. [GN] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Talc Powder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, affirmed the District Court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned IN RE: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND LIABILITY LITIGATION, Mona Estrada, Appellant. No. 17-2980. (3rd Cir.). This is an appeal from the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiff Mona Estrada alleges that a woman's perineal use of Defendant Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder can lead to an increased risk of developing ovarian cancer. The District Court dismissed Estrada's complaint without prejudice for lack of Article III standing, and granted her leave to amend. After Estrada informed the District Court that she chose not to amend and would stand on her complaint, the District Court dismissed the case. In concluding that Estrada did not have Article III standing, the District Court explicitly considered whether Estrada's allegations fell within any one of three different theories of economic injury: (1) alternative product; (2) premium price; and (3) benefit of the bargain. The District Court concluded that Estrada's allegations also failed to fit within this theory of harm because she purchased and received Baby Powder that successfully did what the parties had bargained for and expected it to do: eliminate friction on the skin, absorb excess moisture, and maintain freshness. On appeal, Estrada rejects the significance of the Baby Powder performing these functions. She contends that although she received Baby Powder that eliminated friction on the skin, absorbed excess moisture, and maintained freshness, she was also promised that the Baby Powder would be safe. Instead, Estrada contends, the product was unsafe. STANDING JURISPRUDENCE To establish standing, a plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. First, the party must show that he or she suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest. Second, the party must show that the injury is both concrete and particularized. Finally, the party must show that his or her injury is actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. To start, Estrada's promise to provide us with a means to conceptualize her injury at some future time does nothing to assist us in determining whether Estrada has standing at this stage. In order to allege that she has suffered an economic injury as a result of simply purchasing Baby Powder, Estrada must allege that she purchased Baby Powder that was worth less than what she paid for. This is not to say that a plaintiff is required to allege the exact value of her economic injury at the pleading stage. Calculating and proving damages is indeed one of the major phases of a civil trial, and a plaintiff need not develop detailed economic models at the pleading stage to establish that she has standing. But even at the pleading stage, a plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual allegations that, if proven true, would permit a factfinder to determine that she suffered at least some economic injury. Although injury-in-fact is not Mount Everest, it is more than a desert mirage. While the evidentiary burdens placed on a plaintiff at the pleading stage are minimal, our precedent requires the plaintiff to do more than simply pair a conclusory assertion of money lost with a request that a defendant pay up. Estrada fails to allege even that the Baby Powder provided her with an economic benefit worth one penny less than what she paid. The Court must, therefore, conclude that she received the benefit of her bargain and has suffered no economic injury. First, such presumptions would turn the standing question on its head. It is well-settled law that the Court presume that federal courts lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. The Court cannot conclude that we have jurisdiction by presuming that Estrada would pay less for unsafe powder when she fails to even plead as much. And our refusal to leap to such a conclusion is supported by Estrada's apparent desire to continue purchasing Baby Powder in the future despite being aware of its alleged health risks. It is worthy of note that Estrada's desire to continue purchasing Baby Powder is not conditioned on the powder being sold at a discounted price. In the absence of that condition, we would be hard-pressed to presume that Estrada wishes to continue to buy Baby Powder at anything other than its current market price, i.e., the very price she has repeatedly paid for the product over the last six decades. The second reason we cannot presume that Estrada suffered an economic injury by failing to receive safe powder is factual. Although Estrada contends that Baby Powder is unsafe, her own allegations require us to conclude that the powder she received was, in fact, safe as to her.As we described early in this opinion, Estrada did not allege that she developed ovarian cancer, nor did she allege she is at risk of developing ovarian cancer in the future as a result of her Baby Powder use. Estrada's references to Baby Powder being unsafe as to others are not relevant to determining whether Estrada has standing herself. The Court could not conclude that Estrada has standing even if she were to contend that, by unsafe powder, she meant not only powder that would cause her to develop ovarian cancer but also powder that would put her at risk of developing ovarian cancer. To be sure, had Estrada alleged that she was at risk of developing ovarian cancer, she may have established standing based on a theory of future physical injury. Because litigants and jurists cannot predict the future, the law will sometimes permit plaintiffs to establish standing based on injuries that are likely to occur later in time. But Estrada chose not to allege any risk of developing ovarian cancer in the future. Given the absence of such an allegation, Estrada cannot now claim that she was ever at risk of developing ovarian cancer. In sum, although Estrada characterizes her Baby Powder purchases as economic injuries for which she is entitled to relief, she has failed to allege that the economic benefit she received from that powder was anything less than the price she paid. In short, she received the benefit of her bargain. Today, the Court therefore explicitly hold what might heretofore have been obvious: a plaintiff does not have Article III standing when she pleads economic injury from the purchase of a product, but fails to allege that the purchase provided her with an economic benefit worth less than the economic benefit for which she bargained. RESTITUTION In addition to seeking monetary damages, Estrada seeks disgorgement of revenues and profit pursuant to the law of restitution. An examination of Estrada's complaint reveals that her restitution claims are supported by only two conclusory assertions. First, Estrada alleges that Johnson & Johnson has been able to sell the product for more than it otherwise would have had it properly informed consumers about the safety risks. Second, Estrada contends that Johnson & Johnson reaped and continues to reap enormous profits from [its] deceptive marketing. These two statements are nothing more than conclusory assertions and are therefore inadequate to provide Estrada with Article III standing. Estrada must do more than simply characterize her purchases as economic injuries. The same rationale holds true as to her restitution claims, Estrada cannot invoke the federal judicial power simply by asserting that Johnson & Johnson has earned unlawful profits. Estrada's conclusory assertions are further weakened by her alleged desire to purchase Baby Powder in the future despite knowing of its alleged health risks. If Estrada herself wishes to purchase Baby Powder whether or not she knows of those health risks, why would the same not hold true for other consumers? And if other consumers were to purchase Baby Powder whether or not they were warned of the alleged health risks, how did Johnson & Johnson earn unlawful profits by failing to offer such warnings? Estrada's two conclusory assertions provide us not even a hint as to how we might answer these basic questions. In sum, Estrada's restitution claims are based on nothing more than mere conjecture. She pleads no facts upon which a factfinder could conclude that Johnson & Johnson has been able to sell more Baby Powder than it could have had it informed consumers of the alleged health risks. We therefore conclude that Estrada lacks standing to seek relief in the form of restitution. The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed. A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's September 6, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydxfzd2e from Leagle.com. Timothy G. Blood [ARGUED], Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490, San Diego, CA 92101. Charles L. Gould , Alison D. Hawthorne , W. Daniel Miles, III , Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, 218 Commerce Street, Montgomery, AL 36104, Counsel for Appellant. Adam M. Kaplan , Matthew D. Powers [ARGUED], James K. Rothstein , O'Melveny & Myers, Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111, Counsel for Appellee. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: India Must Overhaul Regulatory Process --------------------------------------------------------- The Economic Times reports that the faulty hip implant made by Johnson & Johnson that were put inside some 4,700 patients, four of whom died and 3,600 of whom cannot be traced, hold up a mirror to India's healthcare regulation, and the picture is not pretty. India needs comprehensive healthcare data storage and management, globally conversant regulation of implants and drugs and strict codes of conduct for medical companies that penalise unethical conduct. The prosthetic, manufactured by a subsidiary of J&J, got clearance from America's Food and Drug Administration in 2005. It secured approval for sale in India in 2006 for three years and renewed its application in April 2009, fortifying it with a declaration of no product complaints in September. It obtained a renewed licence in December 2009, and began the process of importing them in September. But in December 2009, the product had already been recalled in Australia. And the recall became global in August 2010. The company misbehaved by denying product complaints and going ahead with licensing and import after it had already recalled the product in Australia. The company agreed to a settlement of $2.47 billion to around 8,000 claimants in the US by end-2013. Yet, India waited till 2017 to set up a committee to investigate, which submitted its report in February 2018, recommending at least Rs 20 lakh compensation for patients, and reimbursement by the company for revision surgeries till August 2025. The government must implement these recommendations. The Companies Act allows those who suffer from these faulty implants to move a class-action suit against J&J. More to the point, the government must draw the right lessons and overhaul its regulatory process and apparatus. Healthcare data storage and management must become mandatory. [GN] LACI TRANSPORT: Stingley FLSA Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- RENEE STINGLEY, on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. LACI TRANSPORT INC. AND VLADETA MARKOVITC, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 1:18-cv-06221 (N.D. Ill., September 11, 2018), seeks to recover wages, including overtime pay, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal-to-Portal Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Laci Transport Inc. owns and operates an automobile assembly plant and repair service yard in South Holland, Illinois. Vladeta Markovitc is the owner of the Corporate Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com LANNETT CO: Faces Class Action, Oct. 26 Lead Plaintiff Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 27 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Lannett Company, Inc. (NYSE:LCI) from February 7, 2018 through August 17, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Lannett investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Lannett class action, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1404.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. 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 RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Lannett faced a substantial risk of the loss of its exclusivity agreement with Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals; (2) accordingly, Lannett's reported revenues were unsustainable; and (3) as a result, Lannett's public statements 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 October 26, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1404.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. [GN] LEVY PREMIUM: Unlawfully Retained Employee Gratuities, Padder Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DIPON PADDER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LEVY PREMIUM FOODSERVICE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; BROOKLYN EVENTS CENTER, LLC; and any other related entities, the Defendant, Case No. 518187/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept. 7, 2018), seeks unpaid compensation, including gratuities and wages, interest, attorney's fees, and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, beginning in approximately September 2012 and continuing through the present, the Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of unlawfully retaining employees' gratuities at all of Defendants' catered events held in the State of New York. A reasonable customer would believe that the mandatory charge was in fact a gratuity for Plaintiff and similarly situated service employees. However, the Defendants have failed to distribute the proceeds collected from the assessment of the mandatory charge to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, and instead retained the money for their own benefit.[BN] Attorneys for the Named Plaintiff & Putative Class: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873 9550 MDL 2274: Whiting Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa. ---------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as WILLIAM T. WHITING v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Case No. 2:11-cv-08327, was transferred on September 12, 2018, from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The Pennsylvania District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-03894-ER to the proceeding. The lawsuit is part of the multidistrict litigation titled In Re: Citimortgage, Inc. Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP") Litigation, MDL No. 2:11-ml-02274-DSF-PLA. Each of the Plaintiffs in the litigation is a borrower, who sought loan modification from CitiMortgage governed by the form contract. They allege on behalf of a proposed class of tens of thousands CitiMortgage of borrowers that CitiMortgage breached its contractual obligation to make any decision by the applicable date certain regarding their eligibility for loan modification.[BN] Plaintiff WILLIAM T. WHITING, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by: Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3038 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: elechtzin@bm.net ssavett@bm.net Defendant CITIMORTGAGE INC. is represented by: Marc C. Singer, Esq. SAIBER LLC 18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 200 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 622-3333 E-mail: msinger@saiber.com - and - Lucia Nale, Esq. Stephen J. Kane, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 701-7074 E-mail: lnale@mayerbrown.com skane@mayerbrown.com - and - Martin C. Bryce, Jr., Esq. Maura Ellen McKenna, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS AND INGERSOLL, L.L.P. 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 864-8238 Facsimile: (215) 864-9511 E-mail: Bryce@ballardspahr.com mckennam@ballardspahr.com MDL 2504: Amazon Wins Summary Judgment in PMWA Suit --------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned IN RE: AMAZON.COM, INC., FULFILLMENT CENTER FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO Heimbach, et al., v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., MDL Docket No. 2504 (W.D. Ky.). Plaintiffs Neal Heimbach and Karen Salasky bring this class-action lawsuit against Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com.DEDC, LLC (Amazon), and Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. (Integrity) seeking compensation under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) for time spent undergoing security screenings at the Amazon facility where they worked. Motion for Summary Judgment Summary judgment is required when the moving party shows, using evidence in the record, that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In Busk, the Supreme Court held that time spent undergoing and waiting to undergo security screenings was not compensable under the FLSA. 135 S. Ct. at 519. The Busk Court's decision rested upon its interpretation of the Portal-to-Portal Act, which amended the FLSA to exempt employers from liability for activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to the principal activity or activities. Because time spent undergoing security screenings was not a principal activity, the Court reasoned that such time was not compensable under the FLSA. The Plaintiffs argue that Busk has no bearing on this case because the Portal-to-Portal Act amendments do not apply to the PMWA. In support, they cite Bonds v. GMS Mine Repair & Maintenance, Inc. But in Bonds, the court merely observed that the Pennsylvania General Assembly had not adopted the Portal-to-Portal Act. No. 2:13-cv-1217, 2015 WL 5602607, at *11 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 2015). The Plaintiffs also cite In re Cargill Meat Solutions Wage & Hour Litigation, where the court noted, in the context of a preemption analysis, that the Portal-to-Portal Act did not supplant the traditional power of the state to more generously regulate wage[s] and hours via [its] own state regulations. Thus, neither case supports Plaintiffs' argument that this Court is foreclosed from considering federal law, including the Portal-to-Portal Act amendments, in interpreting the PMWA. The Portal-to-Portal Act amended the FLSA. As this Court explained in Vance, Vance v. Amazon.com, Inc.,No. 3:14-md-2504, 2016 WL 1268296, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2016), aff'd, 852 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2017), those amendments are not separate and distinct from the FLSA. Rather, the Portal-to-Portal Act is simply a clarifying amendment that carves out preliminary and postliminary' activities from the aegis of compensable work. It does not alter the FLSA's construct or make substantive changes to the FLSA's concepts about work, overtime, or the like. It simply clarifies that some activities do not count as `work. The Court concludes that it is proper to consider the Portal-to-Portal Act amendments, and the Supreme Court's interpretation thereof, in construing and applying the PMWA. The Supreme Court has held that post-shift security screenings are not compensable work under the FLSA as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act. The Court therefore finds that time spent undergoing or waiting to undergo security screenings is not compensable under the PMWA. As a result, the Plaintiffs no longer have a viable claim under Pennsylvania law, and the Court will grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybrja25y from Leagle.com. Neal Heimbach & Karen Salasky, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, represented by J. Chris Sanders, Jacob R. Rusch, Johnson Becker, PLLC, Jason J. Thompson -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Jesse L. Young -- jyoung@KreisEnderle.com -- Kreis, Enderle, Hudgins & Borsos, P.C., Mark J. Gottesfeld -- mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, Peter D. Winebrake -- pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, R. Andrew Santillo -- asantillo@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake & Santillo, LLC & Timothy J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC. Amazon.com, Inc. & Amazon.com.DEDC, LLC, Defendants, represented by Joseph A. Nuccio, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael J. Puma -- michael.puma@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Richard G. Rosenblatt -- richard.rosenblatt@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & William O. Mandycz -- wmandycz@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Martha J. Keon -- mkeon@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, J. Andrew Inman -- jinman@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.S.C. & Sarah B. Fask -- sfask@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC. MDL 2742: ERISA Plaintiffs Appeal Decisions in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The ERISA Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: SunEdison, Inc., Securities Litigation, MDL No. 16-md-2742, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City), filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order, and Judgment both dated August 6, 2018. The appellate case is captioned as In re: SunEdison, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 18-2621, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge P. Kecin Castel excluded Balyasny Asset Management L.P. and Luxor Capital Group, LP, from the proposed settlement class in the litigation. The order relates to: In Re: Terraform Global, Inc. Securities Litigation. On December 19, 2017, the Court granted the lead Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, and approved the class-wide notice of settlement. Paragraph 11 of the Court-approved Notice sets forth the manner for requesting exclusion.[BN] Appellants ERISA Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Ira Harwood, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 712 5th Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 935-7400 E-mail: rharwood@glancylaw.com Defendants-Appellees Ahmad Chatila, Brian Wuebbels and SunEdison, Inc., are represented by: Charles N. Insler, Esq. HEPLERBROOM LLC 211 North Broadway St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 241-6160 E-mail: cinsler@heplerbroom.com Defendants-Appellees Antonio R. Alvarez, Emmanuel Hernandez, Clayton Daley, Jr., James B. Williams, Georganne Proctor and Randy H. Zwirn are represented by: James H.R. Windels, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4978 E-mail: james.windels@davispolk.com Defendant-Appellee Steven Tesoriere is represented by: Richard Rosen, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 E-mail: rrosen@paulweiss.com Defendant-Appellee Peter Blackmore is represented by: Gregory Peter Boden, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 350 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-5411 E-mail: gregory.boden@wilmerhale.com Defendants-Appellees Jeremy Avenier and Martin Truong are represented by: Norman J. Blears, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 565-7000 E-mail: nblears@sidley.com Defendants-Appellees BTG Pactual US Capital LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, MCS Capital Markets, LLC, Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Itau BBA USA Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., SG Americas Securities, LLC, Kotak Mahindra, Inc., Credit Agricole CIB, Credit Suisse Group AG, Societe Generale and Santander Bank, N.A., are represented by: Adam Selim Hakki, Esq. SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 848-4924 E-mail: ahakki@shearman.com Defendant-Appellee Alejandro Hernandez is represented by: Daniel H. Bookin, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 2 Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8786 E-mail: dbookin@omm.com Defendant-Appellee KPMG LLP is represented by: Charles William McIntyre, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 857-1742 E-mail: cmcintyre@mcguirewoods.com Defendants-Appellees Board of Directors of SunEdison, Inc., SunEdison, Inc., Investment Committee and Matthew Herzberg are represented by: Glenn E. Davis, Esq. HEPLERBROOM LLC 211 North Broadway St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 241-6160 E-mail: gdavis@heplerbroom.com Defendant-Appellee Terraform Global, Inc., is represented by: Jessica L. Lewis, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 E-mail: jessica.lewis@wilmerhale.com Defendants-Appellees TerraForm Power, Inc. Howard Morris Shapiro, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 663-6606 E-mail: howard.shapiro@wilmerhale.com Defendants-Appellees Phelps Morris, Matthew Martin and James Welsh are represented by: Mark B. Blocker, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 E-mail: mblocker@sidley.com MDL 2804: Brand vs Purdue Pharma et al. Consolidated in N.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Kimberly Brand, individually and on behalf of all others 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 Pharmaceutical 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.; merisourceBergen Drug Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00653, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on Sept. 6, 2018. The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-op-46047-DAP to the proceeding. The Brand 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 the MDL Panel delay transferring its case 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 partypayor actions. Western District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case. 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: Robert L Kinsman, Esq. KRAUSE & KINSMAN LLC 4717 Grand Ave., Suite 250 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 760 2700 Facsimile: (816) 760 2800 E-mail: robert@krauseandkinsman.com MDL 2804: Hopkins v Purdue Pharma et al. Consolidated in N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, F. Kirk Hopkins, individually and on behalf of all others 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 Pharmaceutical 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.; merisourceBergen Drug Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02646, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on Sept. 6, 2018. The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-op-46044-DAP to the proceeding. The Hopkins 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 the MDL Panel delay transferring its case 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 partypayor actions. Western District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case. 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] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Todd Feltus, Esq. Sean J. O'Hara, Esq. Julia A. Wagner, Esq. KERCSMAR & FELTUS PLLC 7150 East Camelback Road, Suite 285 Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Telephone: (480) 421 1001 Facsimile: (480) 421 1002 E-mail: tfeltus@kflawaz.com sjo@kflawaz.com jaw@kflawaz.com MDL 2804: Konig vs Purdue Pharma et al. Consolidated in N.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Michael Konig individually and on behalf of all others 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 Pharmaceutical 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.; merisourceBergen Drug Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-61960, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on Sept. 6, 2018. The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-op-46041-DAP to the proceeding. The Konig 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 the MDL Panel delay transferring its case 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 partypayor actions. Western District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case. 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] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Kimberly A. Slaven, Esq. Jordan Alexander Shaw, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE LLP. 110 SE 6 Street, Suite 2150 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 595 6063 Facsimile: (954) 595 6063 E-mail: kslaven@zpllp.com jshaw@zpllp.com MDL 2804: Medina vs Purdue Pharma et al. Consolidated in N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------------ ELI MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others 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 Pharmaceutical 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.; merisourceBergen Drug Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00369, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on Sept. 6, 2018. The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-op-46048-DAP to the proceeding. The Medina 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 the MDL Panel delay transferring its case 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. Western District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case. 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] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Steven Wieland, Esq. MOONEY WIELAND SMITH & ROSE PLLC 405 South 8th Street, Suite 295 Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 401 9219 Facsimile: (208) 401 9218 E-mail: steven.wieland@mwsrose.com MDL 2804: Norwood Selectmen Split on Joining Opioid Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Libon, writing for Patch, reports that whatever way the board of selectmen decides to go when it comes to joining the national lawsuit against the makers and distributors of opioids, there's a good chance it will be a 3-2 vote. The board was scheduled to vote on the lawsuit agreement, but an apparent 2-2 tie forced the board to table their decision until they have perfect attendance. Selectman Paul Bishop was not present at the Aug. 21 meeting. If a vote was taken, it would have been selectmen Allan Howard and Helen Abdallah Donohue voting against joining the lawsuit with William Plasko and Chairman Thomas Maloney voting in support of joining the lawsuit. Mr. Howard said he didn't want to be apart of the class action lawsuit because of the possibility that the town could get nothing, despite their efforts. "Just too many ifs in my opinion," Mr. Howard said. "What disturbed me is how many different items they put down that were negative against the Town of Norwood. It's supposed to be professionals doing this." The lawsuit, which many towns have joined, seeks damages that resulted from the opioid crisis. The attorneys are working on contingency, meaning that they only get paid if the lawsuit is successful or results in a settlement. "Towns are doing this, states are doing this. I don't want to be the only one left out of the possible good that may come to the community," Mr. Plasko said. "This is one of those things I'd hate to see Walpole get $2 million and Norwood gets nothing," Mr. Maloney added. [GN] MDL 2804: Streiter v Purdue Pharma et al. Consolidated in N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case, NADJA STREITER, individually and on behalf of all others 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 Pharmaceutical 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.; merisourceBergen Drug Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01425, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on Aug. 22, 2018. The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-op-46045-DAP to the proceeding. The Streiter 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 the MDL Panel delay transferring its case 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 partypayor actions. Western District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case. 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] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Brendan J. O'Rourke, Esq. Heather Spaide, Esq. ZELDES, NEEDLE &COOPER, PC 263 Tresser Blvd, 14th Floor Stamford, Connecticut 06901 Telephone: (203) 332 5797 Facsimile: (203) 333 1489 E-mail: borourke@znclaw.com hspaide@znclaw.com - and - William S. Consovoy, Esq. Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq. Michael H. Park, Esq. CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: 703 243 9423 E-mail: will@consovoymccarthy.com tom@consovoymccarthy.com park@consovoymccarthy.com - and - Ashley Keller, Esq. Travis Lenkner, Esq. Seth Meyer, Esq. KELLER LENKNER LLC 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2570 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741 5220 E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com tdl@kellerlenkner.com sam@kellerlenkner.com MDL 390: Court Opens MDL to Retain Jurisdiction Over Plaisance Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order granting Parties' Joint Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration in the case captioned KEITH PLAISANCE, Plaintiff, v. AVID LIFE MEDIA, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 4:16-cv-01940-JAR, MDL No. 2669. (E.D. Mo.). The Court also grants in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of its July 18, 2018 Order, for the limited purpose of compelling arbitration in this case and staying proceedings pending judgment on the arbitration award or ruling on any motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award. Accordingly, the Court modifies its July 18, 2018 order closing the MDL proceedings [MDL Doc. No. 390] for the limited purpose of retaining jurisdiction over this case (or any other individual case the Court may identify in a separate order involving plaintiffs who have properly opted-out of the class action settlement) pursuant to the other provisions of this Order. In all other respects, the MDL proceedings, including all proceedings related to the Class Action Settlement, remain closed. The parties will arbitrate this case pursuant to the terms of the applicable arbitration agreement contained in the Ashley Madison Terms and Conditions of Use; 2) the arbitration hearing shall take place in New Orleans, Louisiana on a date to be determined by the parties and the arbitrator; 3) the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of this Court to enter judgment on the arbitration award or to rule on any motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award; and 4) this case is STAYED pending the arbitration award and the entry by this Court of judgment on the arbitration award or a ruling by this Court on any motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y975vxz5 from Leagle.com. Keith Plaisance, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Hicks Carbine , Martzell & Bickford,Lawrence J. Centola, III, MARTZELL AND BICKFORD & Scott R. Bickford , Martzell & Bickford. Avid Life Media, Inc. & Avid Dating Life, Inc., doing business as Ashley Madison, Defendants, represented by Richard P. Cassetta -- Richard.Cassetta@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP & Peter William Bay -- Peter.Bay@bclplaw.com -- Bryan Cave LLP. MONSANTO: Agent Orange Class Action Still Faces Challenges ---------------------------------------------------------- Viet Nam News reports that Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange have once again had their hopes for justice rekindled. But despite the recent landmark ruling against Monsanto in a San Francisco court, major obstacles remain on the path towards justice. On August 11, the US court ruled that the multinational agrochemical corporation was liable for the health issues of a former groundskeeper, Dewayne Johnson, who claims that Monsato's weed-killer product (Roundup) contains carcinogens that cause his cancers. The company was ordered to pay US$289 million as compensation for past and future economic losses and punitive damages to the American citizen, in a closely watched case that bears many similarities to the legal battle waged on behalf of Vietnamese victims. The US chemical group Monsanto has long been associated with the Agent Orange devastation in Viet Nam. It was one of the main suppliers of more than 80 million litres of herbicides which contain Agent Orange that US troops sprayed over southern Viet Nam in the period from 1961-71, to clear out the dense tracts of tropical jungles that served as the hideouts of the Vietnamese military forces. Of the total volume, 44 million litres were Agent Orange, containing nearly 370 kilograms of dioxin. Studies have showed that only 80 grams of dioxin in the water supply system of a city of 8 million could kill off the entire population, still, Monsanto and other chemical groups insist that their products were not harmful to humans' health. The Government of Viet Nam estimates that around 4.8 million Vietnamese were exposed to the toxic substance. Three million people have grappled with debilitating diseases including various types of cancers, neural damage and reproductive failures. Birth deformities and mental impairments continue to haunt even the third and fourth generation of descendants of those originally exposed to dioxin, fourty years after the war ended. Legal fight Quách Thành Vinh, Chief of Office and Director of Liaison Lawyers Office for the Hà Nội-based Viet Nam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin (VAVA), said that the court ruling set a fortuitous legal precedent that will help settle similar cases in which victims of chemical toxins seek compensation, including the association's own case. The association filed its first class-action suit in 2004, which pinned the blame on a total of 37 US chemical manufacturers – including Dow Chemical and Monsanto. However, the case was rejected three times by American courts, which claimed that there was no legal basis for the plaintiff's claims. The courts said that since the chemical companies produced these herbicides on request by the federal Government, they could not be held liable for their effects. The court also ruled that at that time, there was little concrete evidence establishing a causal relation between the herbicide Agent Orange and the health issues of the victims. Fortunately, recent scientific achievements have made it much easier to identify whether the illnesses were caused by the dioxin. In the US, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences has identified 13 diseases related to Agent Orange occurring in American veterans after their service in Viet Nam. Vietnamese-based researchers established a list of 17 diseases caused by exposure to dioxin, signed by Minister of Health Nguyễn Thị Kim Tiến in 2008. In addition, as their immune systems were debilitated by the toxin, the Vietnamese victims also easily fell ill to a siege of other diseases that a healthy person could easily overcome. The association is gearing up for the next legal endeavours on behalf of nearly 3 million Vietnamese victims. But numerous American lawyers sympathetic to the cause and persistent in their pursuit of justice have urged Vietnamese plaintiffs to wait for a second lawsuit, Vinh from VAVA said. The enlisting of American lawyers was critical as the case involves complaints against US-based companies, according to US laws and US judges will be presiding, according to Vinh. "Their expertise with the US legal system and their support for us will certainly help tip the scales in our favour." Next steps The association, aside from litigation attempts, is still tirelessly working to bring justice to the Vietnamese victims by seeking support from influential politicians, scientists and progressive-minded people across the world, and lobbying sympathetic lawmakers in the US to draft bills asking the US Government to accept responsibility for the devastation in Viet Nam as well as to take part in clean-up efforts and help the victims. Merle Ratner, the American co-ordinator of the US-based Viet Nam Agent Orange Relief & Responsibility Campaign, agreed that the ruling given by the US court holds "historical significance" and important implications. Frequently hailed by Vietnamese media as a faithful friend of the Vietnamese people, Ratner has been a constant presence in the years-long legal battles against chemical manufacturers. However, the fight against Monsanto still has a long way to go, at least until the final verdict of the appellate court is handed down, as Monsanto has already announced its intention to appeal the decision, she said in an interview. In 2009, an international court opened in France to deal with the AO matter and Vietnamese victims. However, both the US Government and sued companies refused to appear. On April 18, 2017, the Monsanto Tribunal in The Hague, the Netherlands, after six months of investigation and two days of testimony, decided that Monsanto was guilty of ecocide, causing long-term consequences on the ecosystem of various nations, including Viet Nam. But Monsanto rejected the ruling. The multinational giant, no stranger to controversy and legal suits, has always denied that it is to blame for the consequences of Agent Orange, saying that the weapon "was only produced for, and used by, the government," and pointing out that it was just one of nine manufacturers of the same toxin supplied to the army during the period of 1965-69. Despite claiming blamelessness, the chemical giant still agreed to settle out of court to compensate American war veterans who filed a class-action suit against the company with $180 million. Meanwhile, Vietnamese suffering continues to be disregarded. The Vietnamese Government each year spends more than VNĐ10 trillion ($431.1 million) to provide monthly allowance and cover health care and physical rehabilitation expenses for victims of Agent Orange. Currently, the US has organised several clean-up operations at some of their former military bases such as the Đà Nẵng airport or Biên Hoà airport, provide humanitarian assistance for people with disabilities in Viet Nam, including victims of Agent Orange, but these efforts still cannot fully make up for the devastation, pain and loss that Agent Orange causes in Viet Nam. The Government of Viet Nam, in an official response, said it welcomed the $289 million verdict against Monsanto and asked that Monsanto, along with other suppliers of herbicides for the US Army during the bloody war in Viet Nam, offer proper redress for the Vietnamese victims. "No matter how difficult and prolonged this case might be, we won't ever give up on it, for the sake of the millions of Vietnamese victims," said Vinh of the Agent Orange Victims' Association said. [GN] MONTGOMERY, NY: Appeals Hill Suit Class Cert. Ruling to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants County of Montgomery, Michael Amato and Michael Franko filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled as Hill, et al. v. County of Montgomery, et al., Case No. 14-cv-933, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (Syracuse). As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 6, 2018, the Hon. Judge Brenda K. Sannes granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to a liability class, and certified these Primary Class and Sub-Classes: * Primary Class: "all detainees who have been or will be placed into the custody of the Montgomery County Jail and were detained for at least two consecutive weeks. The class period commences on July 24, 2011, and extends to the date on which Montgomery County is enjoined from, or otherwise ceases, enforcing its policy, practice and custom of refusing to provide an appropriate amount of nutritional sustenance to all detainees admitted to the Montgomery County Jail. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendant and any and all of its respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees. * Pre-Trial Detainee Sub-Class: "all members of the Primary Class but who were housed as a Pre-Trial Detainee, in that they had not yet been convicted of their charges"; and * Post-Trial Detainee Sub-Class: "all members of the Primary Class, but who were housed as a Post-Trial Detainee, in that they had been convicted of their charges, either by a plea or jury trial"; The appellate case is captioned as Hill, et al. v. County of Montgomery, et al., Case No. 18-2605, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners County of Montgomery, Michael Amato and Michael Franko are represented by: Jonathan M. Bernstein, Esq. GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP 80 Southwoods Boulevard Albany, NY 12211 Telephone: (518) 463-5400 E-mail: jbernstein@goldbergsegalla.com Plaintiffs-Respondents Perry Hill and James Rogers, both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, are represented by: Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III 1 Pine West Plaza Albany, NY 12205 Telephone: (518) 434-1718 E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com MOORE LANDSCAPES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Valerio et al. Claim ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, SAMUEL VALERIO, JOSE PAZ, RUBEN GARCIA, BARDOMIANO PAZ, EVARISTO VALERIO, LUIS MONDRAGON, SERGIO APARICIO, RAUL BERMUDEZ, RODRIGO VALERIO, JAVIER MORA, MARCOS HUERTA, JAIME MORA, the Plaintiffs, vs MOORE LANDSCAPES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2018L009656 (Ill., Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Sept. 6, 2018), alleges that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs prevailing wage for laborers, in violation of Defendant's Contract with the Chicago Park District and other Public Bodies, pursuant to the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act. According to the complaint, Mr. Jose Paz was entitled to be paid a prevailing wage, pursuant to the contracts, and Statute of $ S41.20 per hour. The Defendant violated the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act, and the contract by refusing to pay Plaintiff the prevailing wages, and paying him $18.00 per hour. The Plaintiff has been affected by Defendant's practices, specifically their failure to properly pay prevailing wages. Pursuant to 820 ILCS 130/11 Plaintiff is entitled to recover unpaid wages for five years prior to the filing of this suit, plus punitive damages in the amount of 2% per month of the amount of underpayments.[BN] Moore provides exterior and interior landscape maintenance, construction, holiday decor, snow removal, and interior plantscapes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Habib, Esq. 77 W. Washington Street Suite 1506 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 201 1421 MUNICIPIO DE SAN JUAN: Certification of Law Enforcers Class Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled MINERVA SANCHEZ ROSA, MOISES DIAZ DIAZ, AND EDGARDO ALICEA, and their conjugal partnerships, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MUNICIPIO DE SAN JUAN, CARMEN YULIN CRUZ, in her official capacity, JOSE CALDERO, in his official capacity, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01558-FAB (D.P.R.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order conditionally certifying a collective action and facilitate notice to: "all law enforcement officers employed by Defendant Municipio de San Juan as hourly paid, non-exempt, law enforcement officers, or other similarly titled positions at any time during the relevant statute of limitations period." Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Jane Becker Whitaker, Esq. BECKER & VISSEPO, PSC San Juan, Puerto Rico 00902-3914 Telephone: (787) 585 3824 E-mail: janebeckerwhitaker@gmail.com - and - Jean Paul Vissepo Garriga, Esq. VISSEPO LAW E-mail: jp@vissepolaw.com - and - J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brandon M. Bohlman, Esq. SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IO 50265-5749 Telephone: (515) 223 4567 Facsimile: (515) 223 8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com bohlman@sagwlaw.com NETFLIX INC: Suit by City of Creve Coeur Moved to E.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled City of Creve Coeur, Missouri, the on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Netflix, Inc. and Hulu LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 18SL-CC02819, was removed from the Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis) on Sept. 6, 2018. The Missouri Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-01495-SNLJ to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. The suit alleges violations related to cable/satellite TV services. Netflix, Inc. is an American over-the-top media services provider, headquartered in Los Gatos, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl J. Lumley, Esq. CURTIS AND HEINZ, P.C. 130 S. Bemiston Ave., Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63105-1951 Telephone: (314) 725 8788 Facsimile: (314) 725 8789 E-mail: clumley@lawfirmemail.com - and - Elkin L. Kistner, Esq. BICK AND KISTNER, PC 101 S. Hanley Road, Suite 1280 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 571 6823 Facsimile: (314) 727 9071 E-mail: elkinkis@bick-kistner.com - and - John W. Hoffman, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC 505 N. Seventh Street One U.S. Bank Plaza, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241 4844 Facsimile: (314) 588 7036 - and - John F. Mulligan , Jr. 101 S. Hanley, Suite 1280 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725 1135 Facsimile: (314) 727 9071 E-mail: jfmulliganjr@aol.com - and - Joseph Holland Neill, Esq. BICK AND KISTNER, PC 101 S. Hanley Road, Suite 1280 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 727 7765 Facsimile: (314) 727 9071 E-mail: joey@bick-kistner.com Attorneys for Netflix, Inc.: Robert P. Berry, Esq. BERRY AND SILBERBERG PC 16150 Main Circle Drive, Suite 120 St. Louis, MO 63017 Telephone: (314) 480 5881 Facsimile: (314) 480 5884 E-mail: rberry@berrysilberberg.com - and - David C. Baxter, Esq. BERRY AND SILBERBERG PC 16150 Main Circle Drive, Suite 120 St. Louis, MO 63017 Telephone: (314) 480 5881 Facsimile: (314) 480 5884 E-mail: dbaxter@berrysilberberg.com NFL: Hernandez Daughter's Quest for Justice Continues ----------------------------------------------------- Boston Sports Extra reports that on October 16, 2017 Shayanna Jenkins Hernandez filed a loss of parental consortium lawsuit in Massachusetts Superior Court against three NFL entities and helmet maker Riddell on behalf of her daughter, Avielle regarding Aaron Hernandez's diagnosis of CTE. Two potentially important recent court filings the case back into focus. These photos probably represent the last time young Avielle saw her father. They were taken near the conclusion of a double murder trial in which Aaron Hernandez was found not guilty in the murders of Safiro Furtado and Daniel de Abreu, though he remained in prison for his 2015 conviction in the death of Odin Lloyd. Five days later, in the early morning hours of April 19, 2017, he committed suicide by hanging himself in his prison cell. Hernandez's life was a study in contradictions. He was a star tight end for the NFL's longest running dynasty, New England Patriots, and by all accounts was a loving father. But Hernandez had a long history of emotionally-charged erratic behavior stemming back to his college football days and possibly even high school. Eventually this led to credible charges of homicide. Because of a Massachusetts law based on a legal principle known as "abatement ab initio". This requires a judge to vacate convictions of a person whose appeal had not been heard at the time of his death his conviction for the death of Odin Lloyd was vacated. The life and death of Aaron Hernandez prompted much public discussion as to how an intelligent and talented young man who "had it all," could so callously disregard human life and in doing so, destroy his own future. A likely answer to the question came on September 21, 2017 when the findings of Boston University CTE researcher Ann McKee were announced by Jose Baez, one of the attorneys representing Hernandez. Hernandez suffered from "the most severe case they had ever seen in someone of Aaron's age," Baez told the press. There are four levels of classification for CTE, with level four representing the most severe stage. Hernandez pathology was of level four severity. McKee likened the damage to Hernandez's brain to that of players well into their 60s, but Hernandez was only 27. Avielle (referred to in some court filings as "AH") seeks to hold the NFL and helmet maker Riddell responsible for the brain damage that her father sustained, ultimately ended his life and robbed her of a relationship with him. Unlike many other brain injury related claims against the NFL, however, Avielle doesn't blame the Patriots team or anyone in the league for that matter, for their treatment of her father when he played, because CTE is a progressive disease that takes years to develop. Hernandez was affected with CTE long before he was drafted. Aaron started playing tackle football when he was only five years old (ironically Avielle's current age). Early symptoms of CTE began to manifest while he was in high school. By the time he entered the NFL he had already received twenty years of football exposure, and this is what she seeks to hold the NFL accountable for. Because of the NFL's intentional deceptive representations to the public regarding football induced brain injury, that persisted through the entirety of her father's life, Aaron's parents unknowingly placed him in danger at a tender age based on the NFL's misrepresentations, which ultimately cost Aaron his life and robbed a child of her father and his love. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts Superior Court, the NFL sought to have the case removed to federal court based on arguments of Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) § 301 preemption. In response, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation moved the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (EDPA) which presides over the NFL's massive concussion settlement as well as opt-out cases from that settlement. Once the case landed in EDPA, the NFL sought to have the case dismissed on preemption grounds. Two questions are utilized by the courts to make this determination. In it, he pointed out the obvious -- that only state law causes of action were pled by the plaintiff. "Defendants' entire position rests on impermissibly contorting Plaintiff's allegations and then applying them to a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") extrinsic to the removal record in an attempt to force square pegs into the round hole of § 301 preemption. This is precisely the type of jurisdictional manipulation that the Supreme Court has admonished. His argument recaps decades of deception and misrepresentation to the public, which the plaintiff believes led to her father's brain damage and ultimately his death. This excerpt references the defendants' financing of sham "science" that was then distributed through legitimate medical journals to confound the public and protect their profits. Many other examples were included in the response, derived from the eighty-six-page lawsuit, the bulk of which described in detail the defendants' cover-ups and disinformation campaign. He also noted that of the four defendants, only one, the NFL Management Counsel is a party to collective bargaining, and certainly the five-year-old plaintiff has never been. Though court rulings have been uneven as to their interpretation of § 301, and the NFL has had much success with preemption based on this statute, the facts clearly do not favor the NFL in this instance. Another motion to dismiss filed by the NFL may, however, prove to be more challenging. In this motion the NFL seeks dismissal of the lawsuit on grounds that Aaron Hernandez, and by extension, Avielle is a class member to the settlement and as such has no standing to sue the league. The settlement definition of a class member was included in the filing. The lawsuit asserts that Hernandez is not a class member due to the fact he never officially retired. When Hernandez was arrested for the murder of Odin Lloyd, the Patriots voided his contract and placed him on waivers. He went unclaimed, and after he cleared waivers, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell announced that, while charges against Hernandez were pending, the NFL would not approve any contract signed by Hernandez until he held a hearing to determine whether Hernandez should face suspension or other action under the league's Personal Conduct Policy. This was how Aaron Hernandez's career ended. Had the ruling in which he was convicted of Odin Lloyd's murder been overturned on appeal, it is likely that Hernandez would have sought employment with an NFL team. The NFL points out in their brief, however, that in order to be exempted from the "retired NFL player" status as defined in the settlement agreement, a player must actively be seeking work with a team, which Hernandez was unable to do because of his incarceration. It appears that Hernandez's best defense against this could be regarding notice to the class. It seems reasonable that Hernandez could be located, since his incarceration at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center was widely known. If no individual notice was issued to him or members of his family, due to restrictions in accessing internet and television, it could possibly be argued that Avielle's claim should be exempted. If notice was issued and the definition of class member was so vague as not to indicate that he would automatically be included in the class, this could be a potential argument. Another argument might stem from the fact that Avielle's claim is not similarly sufficient to other claims made against the NFL because unlike settlement claims arising from the retired players' NFL careers, her claim is based not on the fact that he played NFL football, but that he played youth football due to the NFL's deceptive and misleading information that was applied at the youth level, which the NFL also funded. Advocacy for Fairness in Sports did not receive an immediate response from Attorney Brad Sohn, when comment was requested, although it's completely reasonable that an attorney would not wish to prematurely reveal his litigation strategy, therefore the above arguments are this writer's speculation. If the court rules that Hernandez was a class member, and Avielle by default, and that he did receive proper notice (or fail to find exemption through some other avenue), then she would be "entitled" to file a claim, but according to settlement terms, the claim would be quickly denied because the settlement only compensates Death with CTE if it occurred between January 1, 2006 and July 7, 2014. Thus far in the settlement, no exceptions to this rule have been granted, including the claim filed by the family of Mike Webster, the first NFL player diagnosed with CTE after his death in 2002, and Dr. Bennet Omalu's eye-opening publication of his findings in 2005. It's important to remember as this case unfolds that at the center of it is an innocent child. While if Hernandez is guilty of the crimes he is accused of, they can't be justified by CTE, but they can be better understood in this context. A Sports Illustrated longform article in which Aaron's brother Jonathan shares his recollections, he noted that he began noticing behavioral changes in Aaron after the death of their father in 2006. Perhaps he wasn't able to bounce back since he'd already sustained twelve years of football damage to his brain. One of the primary symptoms of CTE is emotional volatility. "He had a very big heart. That's what's craziest about all this. There is a disconnect. He would open up his arms to anyone," Jonathan Hernandez recalled through the SI article, "I don't know. I just know he cared about people." Now, the person that Aaron Hernandez cared most about, his daughter, will grow up with only phantom memories of her father, along with all the news bits that profiled his fall from grace. The child deserves better. [GN] ONE KEY: Class Action Law Firm Challenges CFMMEU Deal ----------------------------------------------------- David Marin-Guzman, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that a class action law firm has intervened against the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union over concerns the mining union's settlement of $3.5 million in alleged underpayments robs its clients of potential claims. ACT firm Adero Law was seeking to be heard in the Federal Court over a CFMMEU deal with global labour hire firm Fircroft to not overturn its mining subsidiary's invalid enterprise agreement on grounds it could be contrary to non-union members' interests. One Key Workforce had been facing collapse due to a CFMMEU court win last year that held the company's EA was invalid, potentially throwing 1100 casuals onto the black coal industry award. The award bans casuals and would entitle the employees to years of annual and sick leave pay. However, the CFMMEU has now agreed not to get final orders quashing One Key's agreement in return for Fircroft paying its members a confidential settlement and negotiating a new "industry leading" agreement with the union. Adero Law, which this year launched class actions against BHP Billiton and labour hire company Chandler McLeod over their engagement of casuals, is understood to represent about 45 former One Key workers who are not members of the CFMMEU. The firm is understood to have raised concerns that One Key and the CFMMEU did not consult non-union members over the deal and that the settlement could be contrary to their clients' interests. A full bench of the Federal Court was set to hear the parties' objections on Aug. 28 after judges raised their own concerns that the CFMMEU-One Key settlement may breach criminal anti-phoenixing laws designed to prevent companies from blocking workers recovering their entitlements. Law firm 'riding our back': CFMMEU However, CFMMEU president Tony Maher insisted the union's position "did nothing to cut across the rights of others" and that non-union workers could still apply to quash the agreement and pursue underpayments. He said the union had advertised across work sites for One Key workers to join the union if they wanted to be part of its litigation. "If you don't get on the train, you don't get the benefit," he told The Australian Financial Review. "They [Adero] should bring their own case . . . they're riding on our back, a bit like a jockey." Part of the deal involved the CFMMEU negotiating an agreement with FES Coal, a new labour hire entity that Fircroft set up in June. The "greenfields" agreement, which does not require an employee vote and was approved by the Fair Work Commission in August, includes casual conversion clauses, time limits on fixed-term employment, arbitration access, and annual wage rises of 2.5 per cent a year. In documents submitted to the commission, Mr Maher said the agreement was "part of a broader agreement between the parties aimed at establishing a co-operative and mutually beneficial relationship and ending extensive litigation that has involved both parties". "The agreement attempts to provide increased job security for labour hire employees in the coal mining industry while maintaining the commercial viability of the employer." The agreement is a victory for the CFMMEU, which has targeted One Key since it rose from obscurity to become one of the major suppliers of labour in the coal industry in just a few years. The union claimed the company had done so by securing "rock bottom" enterprise agreements that avoided collective bargaining and gave it a huge tendering advantage over other labour hire operators that provided higher wages. Mr Maher told the Financial Review that the deal, together with a recent ruling that "regular" casuals are entitled to leave entitlements, had put an "end to the permanent casual" in the mining industry. [GN] OPCOM INC: Accused by DiCarlo Suit of Violating Disabilities Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Opcom, Inc. The case is titled as David DiCarlo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Opcom, Inc., doing business as: Steve Player, Case No. 1:18-cv-08294 (S.D.N.Y., September 12, 2018). The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in New Taipei City, Taiwan, Opcom, Inc., is a global digital imaging and lighting solution innovator.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com PALM BEACH, CA: Nov. 13 Hearing Set in Kosberg-Scharf Case ---------------------------------------------------------- William Kelly, writing for Palm Beach Daily News, reports that with two lawsuits resolved and a $22.6 million loan nearly spent, Palm Beach is moving forward and will soon issue bonds to finance a bulk of the cost of burying all overhead utility lines on the island. Earlier in August, the Town Council unanimously approved up to $60 million in bonds to be issued for 30 years. The town can expect to "lock in" an interest rate of around 3.8 percent in mid-September, and the money will be available in early October, said Jay Glover, managing director with PFM Financial Advisors, a town consultant. By waiting longer, the town would have risked having to borrow at a higher rate, increasing the cost of the debt, he said. "Locking this in today . . . really takes a lot of risk off the table," Mr. Glover said. The plan is to use special assessments of private property owners to pay the bond debt. The town began collecting the assessments on tax bills last November. Property owners have been allowed to prepay their assessments in full to avoid paying interest costs. Construction began last year on the first of eight phases to bury all overhead power, cable television and phone lines on the island. The project is scheduled to be completed in 2026. Officials have estimated the construction cost at around $100 million. The town is using a variety of means to cover the cost. It has relied on $22.6 million in short term, low-interest bank loans, known as "commercial paper," to finance the early stages. But the $22.6 million is almost entirely spent, and more money will soon be needed to move forward, according to Finance Director Jane Le Clainche. The council also decided to help finance the undergrounding project using half of the town's proceeds from the county's 1 cent sales surtax, which amounts to an estimated $550,000 a year over a period of 10 years, beginning last year. Mr. Glover said Palm Beach can expect to do a separate bond issue of about $10 million to $15 million in about three years to continue financing the project. IRS rules require the bond money to be spent within three years of being issued, so the amount of bonds issued cannot far exceed the pace of construction. "That is what constrains us to the $60 million," Mr. Glover said. Voters narrowly approved a $90 million bond issue to finance the project in a March 2016 referendum. But the council postponed issuing the bonds until after a resident's lawsuit challenging the referendum could be resolved. In March, Florida's 4th District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach upheld a lower court's dismissal of South End resident Arthur Goldmacher's lawsuit. He alleged in the suit that the referendum ballot language was misleading because it didn't specify that property taxes would be used to pay for the project only if it wasn't covered by the special assessments. The town's attorney, Robert Wilkins, countered that the ballot language did not say or imply that property taxes would be used as the primary method of paying the bonds. Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Cymonie Rowe found that the referendum ballot language was neither misleading nor inconsistent and didn't violate any town laws. Rowe said the town could issue the bonds. Two other lawsuits were filed challenging financing plans for the undergrounding project. Only one is still active. But Rick Miller, a lawyer with Locke Lord, Palm Beach's bond counsel, said on Aug. 24 that the remaining suit does not challenge the bond issue but rather the town's ability to assess property owners to pay for the project. In 2017 in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, North End resident Michael Scharf and South End resident Carol Kosberg filed a class-action suit alleging the assessments are invalid because officials relied on a consultant's "arbitrary assessment methodology" to determine the benefits of the undergrounding on individual properties. The town has said it's using assessment methodology that has been upheld by the courts in other cases. The Kosberg-Scharf case is scheduled for a Nov. 13 hearing so a judge can decide whether to certify it as a class-action suit. If the case goes to trial and if the judge were to find that the assessment methodology used by the town was arbitrary, the town would have an opportunity to use a different assessment methodology for the project, Miller said. Moreover, the bonds are ultimately supported by the "full faith and credit of the town," meaning the full taxing power of the town, Miller said. So if assessments aren't used to repay the bonds, property taxes could be used for that purpose, he said. The third lawsuit, filed by a Palm Beach Towers property owner, also did not challenge the bonds or referendum language. In June, a judge ruled for the town in its legal battle with PBT Real Estate LLC, which contended that owners of the 273 units at the Towers should not be assessed to pay for the undergrounding because their utilities already are buried. U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks, for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, granted the town's motion that he rule on the matter without allowing it to go to trial. Judge Middlebrooks said the town demonstrated that, when setting the assessments, that it had considered factors other than whether a parcel already had undergrounded its utilities. The Palm Beach Towers' board of directors said it was not involved with the lawsuit. As of early June, the town said it spent more than $400,000 in legal costs defending against the three suits. [GN] PARKWAY VILLAGE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Kertis Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LAKENDRA KERTIS v. PARKWAY VILLAGE, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-00650-KGB (E.D. Ark., September 11, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act as a result of the Defendant's alleged failure to pay them overtime compensation. Parkway Village, Inc., is a domestic nonprofit corporation, which operates Parkway Village, an assisted living facility for senior citizens. The Facility is located at 14300 Chenal Parkway in Little Rock, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. Chris Burks, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com PATENAUDE & FELIX: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MEGAN VOEKS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C., TD BANK USA, N.A., and TARGET CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01393 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying classes, appointing Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Plaintiff cites these cases: Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). One defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). Attorneys for Plaintiff: 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 PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Rosales Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned IRIS ROSALES, the Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00997 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: a. certifying a class of: "all persons with Illinois addresses to whom Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C. sent, from February 7, 2017 through February 7, 2018, a letter containing the following statement: "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 and we will not restart the statute of limitations on the debt if you make a payment"; b. appointing herself as Class Representative; c. appointing James C. Vlahakis as Class Counsel; and d. directing Defendant to identify the total number of class members who received the subject collection letter(s) as framed by the above proposed class definition. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Vlahakis, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 581 5456 E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com POWERCOR: Australian Premier Calls for Help for Bushfire Victims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Katrina Lovel, writing for The Standard, reports that Premier Daniel Andrews has called on Powercor to work with victims of the St Patrick's Day bushfires to resolve a tangled legal muddle that is leaving many of them without money to rebuild their lives almost six months after the blazes devastated the region. "Given the hardship suffered by many of those affected by the St Patrick's Day fires, we would encourage Powercor to work with the community to resolve this matter as quickly as possible," Mr Andrews said. Member for Polwarth Richard Riordan, who met with Powercor, called for the government to act when he raised the plight of farmers and families who were still reeling after the devastating fires in parliament. "It is becoming apparent by the day that immediate government intervention is required to help steer the progress of recovery," he said. "Recent developments in law have seen the 'class action' legal option take over at times of disaster." However, Mr Riordan said that it was causing more problems than it solved. "The rush for a legal field day has come at the expense of the financial, emotional and mental well being of many of the fire victims," he said. "The business model of law firms should be a secondary consideration at these traumatic times. "We now know farmers that just want to be compensated for loss and move on with their lives are being prevented by the process." He said the legal system as it is playing out in Western Victoria is preventing individual farmers and communities from dealing directly with power companies who Energy Safe Victoria have already found to be either responsible or partially responsible for some of the fires. "In the aftermath of such devastation it is in everyone's best interest for issues of liability and responsibility to be resolved immediately," he said. "Ten-year legal battles that consume millions, and make millions for the lawyers involved cannot be allowed to continue, while hard working farmers and communities are left to wait and bare the ongoing cost and loss of disasters such as fire." Jack Kenna is one of those farmers who has been lobbying government ministers to enforce change after a snapped powerpole on his property sparked the Garvoc blaze. "The politicians have got to own up to privatisation not working and we shouldn't have to go through this pain when it wasn't our fault," he said. "We shouldn't have to pay for legal fees. This model is well and truly broken, they have to fix it. "By the time both lots of lawyers go at it, the cost and length of time, at the finish of it all you'd be lucky to have enough left over for a slab of beer." He wants power companies to be more accountable. "I don't dislike anyone enough to want anyone else to go through what we're going through," he said. He said he was speaking up for future generations who were unlucky enough to get burnt out. Mr Andrews said the network businesses had a duty to minimise bushfire danger and risks to safety and property. While Energy Safe Victoria's technical investigators identified the cause of the fire, the government said legal investigations were still under way to determine if there had been any breaches of the Act or regulations. [GN] PRECISION CONCEPTS: Lewis Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled JONATHAN LEWIS on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PRECISION CONCEPTS GROUP LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00064-LCB-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying this action and for court- authorized notice pursuant to section 216(B) of the Fair Labor Standards Act; 2. approving proposed FLSA notice of this action and the consent form; 3. producing names, last known mailing addresses, last-known cell phone numbers, email addresses, work locations, and dates of employment of all putative plaintiffs within 15 days of the Order; and 4. distributing Notice and Opt-in Form via first class mail, email, and text message to all putative plaintiffs of the conditionally certified collective, with a reminder mailing to be sent 45-days after the initial mailing to all non- responding putative plaintiffs. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Gilda Adriana Hernandez, Esq. Emma J. Smiley, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130 Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (919) 741 8693 Facsimile: (919) 869 1853 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com esmiley@gildahernandezlaw.com PRESSLER & PRESSLER: Settlement of Watkins Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned TREMAINE WATKINS, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. PRESSLER & PRESSLER, LLP aka Pressler and Pressler, LLP: JOHN DOE 1-10: and XYZ SETTLEMENT CORPORATION 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00119-MCA-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Madeline C. Arleo entered an order: 1. granting final approval of proposed settlement and directing parties to consummate settlement according to terms of the Settlement Agreement; 2. directing Defendant to fund the bank account to be established by the Settlement Administrator in the amount of $30,590.00 within 14 days from the date this Order is entered; 3. within 21 days of the date of this Order, directing Settlement Administrator to mail each Settlement Class member their check according to the formula and process set forth in the Settlement Agreement; 4. directing that funds from uncashed checks shall be paid as a cy pres award to the Civil Justice Clinic at Rutgers School of Law; 5. directing Defendant to pay $3,000.00 to Tremaine Watkins within seven days of the date of this Order; and 6. directing Defendant to pay Class Counsel's fees and costs in the amount of $65,000, which payment includes costs, time already spent and time to be spent attending hearings, and the monitoring of the settlement. PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY: Brinson Appeals Ruling to Eleventh Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Christina Brinson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Christina Brinson v. Providence Community Corrections, Case No. 2:15-cv-00099-LGW-RSB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Christina Brinson pled guilty in Georgia's Wayne County State Court to several misdemeanor offenses. The State Court imposed fines on Brinson and sentenced her to four one-year terms of confinement, but the court allowed her to serve the sentences on probation. The Wayne County State Court, along with Wayne County itself, contracted with Defendant Providence for the private provision of probation services. So the State Court in Brinson's case referred Ms. Brinson to Providence for probation. Ms. Brinson filed suit in federal court, attacking Georgia's private-probation system and seeking relief on behalf of a class of individuals, who have paid probation-related fees to Providence in Georgia. In Count I of her complaint, she seeks an order declaring the statute authorizing Georgia's private-probation system, unconstitutional on a number of grounds under the U.S. and Georgia Constitutions. Count I also seeks a declaration that the Services Agreement is void for not having been properly approved or re-approved by Wayne County and the Wayne County State Court. In Count II, Ms. Brinson seeks damages under the Georgia-law theory of "money had and received" based on the fees she paid pursuant to the allegedly void Services Agreement. The appellate case is captioned as Christina Brinson v. Providence Community Corrections, Case No. 18-13699, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before September 28, 2018, as to Appellee Providence Community Corrections.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTINA BRINSON, and all other persons similarly situated, is represented by: John C. Bell, Jr., Esq. BELL & BRIGHAM 457 Greene St. PO Box 1547 Augusta, GA 30903-1547 Telephone: (706) 722-2014 E-mail: john@bellbrigham.com - and - Jason Randall Clark, Esq. JASON CLARK, PC 2225 Gloucester St. Brunswick, GA 31520 Telephone: (912) 230-1423 E-mail: jason@jasonclarkpc.com - and - John B. Long, Esq. TUCKERLONG, PC PO Box 2426 Augusta, GA 30903 Telephone: (706) 722-0771 E-mail: jlong@tuckerlong.com - and - John Ryd Bush Long, Esq. JOHN R. B. LONG PC 411 Telfair St. Augusta, GA 30901-2451 Telephone: (706) 722-7573 E-mail: jlongattorney@aol.com Defendant-Appellee PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS is represented by: Glenn S. Bass, Esq. William Welsh Horlock, Jr., Esq. SCRUDDER BASS QUILLIAN HORLOCK TAYLOR & LAZARUS, LLP 900 Cir 75 Pkwy., Suite 850 Atlanta, GA 30339-3053 Telephone: (770) 612-9200 E-mail: gbass@scrudderbass.com bhorlock@scrudderbass.com - and - Michael Rosen Baumrind, Esq. Tiana S. Mykkeltvedt, Esq. BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 1201 W Peachtree St. NW, Suite 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-4128 E-mail: baumrind@bmelaw.com mykkeltvedt@bmelaw.com PURDUE PHARMA: Lopez Brings RICO Class Suit in Utah --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma LP, et al. The case is styled as Michael Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Purdue Pharma LP, Purdue Pharma Inc., The Purdue Frederick Company, Insys Therapeutics, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Cephalon, Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Endo Health Solutions, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Actavis PLC, Actavis, Watson Pharmaceuticals, Watson Laboratories, McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health and Amerisourcebergen, Case No. 2:18-cv-00719-DB (D. Utah, September 12, 2018). The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Purdue Pharma L.P. manufactures pharmaceutical products. The Company researches, develops, produces, and markets prescription and over-the-counter medicines and healthcare products such as pain medication, laxatives, first aid products, and dietary supplements. The Defendants are pharmaceutical companies that discover, develop, produce, market and sell drugs and other pharmaceutical products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Eric Shelton, Esq. DEWSNUP KING OLSEN WOREL HAVAS MORTENSEN 36 S State St., Suite 2400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-0024 Telephone: (801) 257-1554 E-mail: rshelton@dkowlaw.com SETERUS INC: Adams Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------ The case, TRACY ADAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SETERUS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-12731-DPH-EAS (E.D. Mich., Sept. 4, 2018), seeks to recover damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act. This class action is filed pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons who are members of the Class to whom Seterus has sent or will send a Michigan Final Letter during the applicable Class Period. The Plaintiff, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, seeks redress from Seterus' systematic use of misleading, deceptive, unfair and unlawful debt collection practices to collect upon residential consumer mortgage loans. Specifically, Seterus allegedly sends homeowners form letters (Michigan Final Letter) stating that the borrowers are in default of their mortgages and that their failure immediately to make a full and complete payment of all arrearages will result in acceleration of their loan, and commencement of foreclosure proceedings. In truth, however, it has been Seterus' policy and practice not to accelerate loans, or to initiate foreclosure proceedings, in instances where there is an arrearage, so long as the borrower makes a partial payment sufficient to bring the arrearage within a set parameter. According, each of the Michigan Final Letters sent by Seterus falsely and misleadingly suggests that Seterus will accelerate the loan or commence foreclosure proceedings absent full payment, in contradiction to Seterus' actual policy not to accelerate a loan or commence foreclosure proceedings so long as any payment sufficient to bring the loan less than 45 days delinquent is made prior to the expiration date set forth in the Michigan Final Letter. The Michigan Final Letter sent by Seterus to Plaintiff and others similarly situated is a false and misleading threat of acceleration and foreclosure designed to intimidate borrowers into making payments to Seterus that are beyond their means and beyond what is necessary to avoid acceleration and save their homes from foreclosure. Seterus is a specialty loan servicing company.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Andrew J. McGuinness, Esq. 122 S Main St, Suite 118 P O Box 7711 Ann Arbor, MI 48107 Telephone: (734) 274 9374 E-mail: drewmcg@topclasslaw.com - and - Scott C. Harris, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP 900 W Morgan St Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600 5000 E-mail: scott@wbmllp.com - and - Edward H. Maginnis, Esq. Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq. Asa C. Edwards, Esq. MAGINNIS LAW PLLC 4801 Glenwood Ave, Suite 310 Raleigh, NC 27612 Telephone: (919) 526 0450 E-mail: emaginnis@maginnislaw.com kgwaltney@maginnislaw.com aedwards@maginnislaw.com SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Court Dismisses Toxic Chemical Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin reports that a New Jersey federal court has dismissed a toxic chemical class action suit, opining that the plaintiffs were "essentially asking this court to greenlight a Class Area defined as anywhere there is contamination." In the Aug. 21 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey declined to do so, saying that individual issues of exposure, causation, and damages preclude class certification. In the class action complaint, the plaintiffs argued that The Sherwin-Williams Co. manufactured products a plant in Gibbsboro, N.J., using hazardous substances that were released into the surrounding area. [GN] SLAKEY BROTHERS: Faces Verdina Suit in California State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Slakey Brothers Inc. The case is captioned as Robert Verdina, on behalf of himself all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. Does 1-100 and Slakey Brothers Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00239945-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 31, 2018). The suit alleges employment related violation. Slakey Brothers operates as a wholesale distributor of plumbing, heating and air conditioning equipment, and parts in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. The Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC 7428 Trade St, San Diego, CA 92121-2410 Telephone: (619) 234 2833 Facsimile: (619) 234 4048 E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com SMITH & NEPHEW: Bottenus Sues over BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing Cup ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, VALERIE H. Q. BOTTENUS, the Plaintiff, v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. AND SMITH & NEPHEW, PLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02764 (D. Md., Sept. 7, 2018), seeks judgment against the Defendants in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, together with pre-judgment and post judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs of this action as may be recoverable, punitive or exemplary damages, treble damages as may be recoverable, and for such further relief as this Court deems just and reasonable, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' improper training and marketing to U.S. surgeons on the implantation of the BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing cup with its modular femoral head and modular head sleeve and femoral stem in violation of one or more of these federal statutory and regular standards, an unreasonably dangerous (BHR) acetabular cup and an unreasonably dangerous combination of Smith & Nephew products in a THA system which were not approved for use with one another, were implanted in Plaintiff and failed, and such failure directly caused and/or contributed to the severe and permanent injuries sustained and endured by Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff had a Smith & Nephew total hip arthroplasty system implanted, including BHR acetabular cup, modular femoral head, emperion stem and sleeve in her left hip on February 4, 2011, by Dr. Friedrich Boettner at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, New York. On or about April 5, 2018, Plaintiff underwent a revision of her left hip due to hip pain, elevated levels of cobalt and chromium, metallosis, adverse tissue reaction, osteolysis, and other complications caused by the failure of the Defendant's BHR metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty system (THA). Plaintiff's revision surgery was performed by Dr. Michael B. Cross at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, New York. In his operative note, Dr. Cross describes metallic debris, metallosis and osteolysis as a result of the premature failure of the device. In addition to her surgery, the Plaintiff underwent many other medical treatments and procedures to treat her ongoing left hip injuries. At the time of the initial implant procedure, neither Plaintiff or Plaintiff's surgeon was aware of the myriad problems associated with the BHR when used in a THA operation. In fact, Smith & Nephew continued to promote the THA total hip system as a safe alternative to other metal-on-metal hip devices despite the THA not being a safer alternative and not being approved for sale in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert K. Jenner, Esq. 1829 Reisterstown Road, Suite 350 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: (410) 413 2155 Facsimile: (410) 982 0122 E-mail: RJenner@jennerlawfirm.com SMITH & NEPHEW: Ravitz Sues over BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing Cup --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, JOYCE D. RAVITZ AND ELLEN GARVEY, the Plaintiffs, v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. AND SMITH & NEPHEW, PLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02767 (D. Md., Sept. 7, 2018), seeks judgment against the Defendants in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, together with pre-judgment and post judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs of this action as may be recoverable, punitive or exemplary damages, treble damages as may be recoverable, and for such further relief as this Court deems just and reasonable, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' improper training and marketing to U.S. surgeons on the implantation of the BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing cup with its modular femoral head and modular head sleeve and femoral stem in violation of one or more of these federal statutory and regular standards. The lawsuit claims that an unreasonably dangerous (BHR) acetabular cup and an unreasonably dangerous combination of Smith & Nephew products in a THA system, which were not approved for use with one another, were implanted in Plaintiff and failed. That failure directly caused and/or contributed to the severe and permanent injuries sustained and endured by Plaintiff. Specifically, Ms. Ravitz had a Smith & Nephew total hip arthroplasty system implanted, including an BHR acetabular cup, modular femoral head, echelon stem and sleeve in her left and right hip on July 10, 2007, by Dr. Steven Stuchin at the NYU Hospital for Joint Disease in New York, New York. On May 30, 2018, Plaintiff underwent a revision of her left hip due to hip pain, elevated levels of cobalt and chromium, metallosis, adverse tissue reaction, osteolysis, pseudo tumors, cobalt toxicity, severe bone loss, and other complications caused by the failure of the Defendant's Birmingham Hip Resurfacing metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty system ("THA"). Plaintiff's revision surgery was performed by Dr. Alejandro Gonzalez Della Valle at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, New York. Dr. Gonzalez Della Valle found evidence of severe bone loss, metallosis, and three pseudo tumors on Plaintiff's left femur, among other injuries, as a result of the premature failure of the device. In addition to her surgery, the Plaintiff underwent many other medical treatments and procedures to treat her ongoing left hip injuries. At the time of the initial implant procedure, neither Plaintiff or her surgeon was aware of the myriad problems associated with the BHR when used in a THA operation. In fact, Smith & Nephew continued to promote the THA total hip system as a safe alternative to other metal-on-metal hip devices despite the THA not being a safer alternative and not being approved for sale in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert K. Jenner, Esq. 1829 Reisterstown Road, Suite 350 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: (410) 413 2155 Facsimile: (410) 982 0122 E-mail: RJenner@jennerlawfirm.com SONY CORP: Awaits Decision in Fake Michael Jackson Songs Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Sputnik International reports that Sony Corporation's music division is not exactly denying reports accusing the entertainment behemoth of manufacturing fake Michael Jackson performances and selling them to an unwitting pubic. Sony, in responding to reports in the press that it has admitted to selling recordings it claimed were sung by Michael Jackson but are in fact fakes, instead directed all questions to a lawyer associated with the deceased King of Pop's estate. According to widespread accusations, the songs "Breaking News," "Keep Your Head Up" and "Monster," on the 2010 Sony release "Michael" attributed to Jackson are not him at all, but either a sound-alike singer or some very careful audio software manipulation. Several fans who purchased the release sued the album's producers -- a long list that includes Lenny Kravitz and Neff-U -- in a 2014 class-action case, claiming that the three songs in question were not sung by Jackson prior to his death in 2009. The class-action suit is winding its way through the judicial system and Sony, in a statement, now does not quite deny the charges. "No one has conceded that Michael Jackson did not sing on the songs," noted Zia Modabber, a lawyer representing Jackson's estate, in a carefully worded statement. Ms. Modabber added that, "The hearing Aug. 27 was about whether the First Amendment protects Sony Music and the estate," cited by Rolling Stone. "There has been no ruling on the issue of whose voice is on the recordings," the lawyer claimed. Industry watchers note that in December 2017, both defendants agreed that "it might be possible" that the performances by Michael Jackson had been faked, but asserted at the time that the label could not be held responsible for fraud, as the album producers claimed that the singing voice was legitimate. A judgment on whether the label and the estate can be tried is due within three months, according to Bloomberg. Michael Jackson is arguably the most successful musical act in history, with an estimated minimum 750 million albums sold as of 2009 -- including 'Thriller,' the highest-selling record of all time -- and 13 Grammy Awards, prior to his untimely death at the age of 50, attributed to the misuse of freely-available opioid painkillers and anaesthetics. [GN] TD BANK: Court Compels Production of Wrong Number Call Data ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted in part and denied in the part Plaintiff's motion to compel "wrong number" call data in the case alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) captioned Sara Diaz-Lebel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TD Bank USA, N.A.; and Target Corporation, Defendants. No. 17-5110 (MJD/BRT). (D. Minn.). The Plaintiff moves to compel a full response to the following document request: For each telephone number coded by YOU with a wrong party, third party, and/or other code, abbreviation, designation, or other marking showing that the telephone number is a wrong number or otherwise belongs to a person who does not have a Target REDcard contract with YOU or TD BANK, ESI showing: (a) the telephone number called, (b) the date, time, and duration of each call, (c) the DIALER used to place the call, (d) whether the call included a prerecorded and/or artificial voice, and (e) the TSYS account notes for that number. The Plaintiff wants all records from both Buckets that were tagged with the WP code. The Defendants estimated that the hits in Bucket One would be around 300,000. The collection of Bucket One is not burdensome. However, some type of cross-reference to Bucket Two is necessary to analyze the ratio of WP hits related to the class as compared to unrelated WP codes. The sheer burden and proportionality concerns prevent this Court from ordering that all documents responsive to this request be produced. Plaintiff's alternative proposals did not end the inquiry, because Plaintiff wanted Target to collect and process a significant number of documents now, reserving the right to demand all of the documents later. . At the hearing, this Court discussed a number of compromise positions, which Defendants' counsel agreed to consider, potentially using a subset of records from 2016 from both Buckets as an appropriate sampling. During the course of the hearing, Defendants represented that numerosity would not be challenged in class certification proceedings. Plaintiff, however, insisted that she should still have access to all documents after class certification. In other words, a compromise now would not alter Plaintiff's demand for potentially all of the documents later. Despite the appropriateness of the nothing option, this Court, in the interests of justice, will order something and will require Target to produce all of the Bucket One records and at least 1,000 corresponding account records in 2016 from Bucket Two. Target must collect and preserve, but not produce, all account records in 2016 in the event it is necessary to cross-reference additional 2016 records, via a showing of sufficient good cause. While this Court understands that this is a burden to Target, the balance of the burden with the benefit warrants this approach. Target's confidentiality concerns regarding mass production of hundreds of thousands or even tens of thousands of account records is also addressed. The parties must work to confirm protective order protocol for the production. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of wrong number call data is granted in part and denied in part; and the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel documents relating to willful or knowing TCPA violations is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yan6nvgu from Leagle.com. Sara Diaz-Lebel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Siri, Siri & Glimstad LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Richard Kaufman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel M. Hutchinson, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Jarrett L. Ellzey, Hughes Ellzey, pro hac vice, Robert K. Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP & W. Craft Hughes, Hughes Ellzey, LLP, pro hac vice. TD Bank USA, N.A. & Target Corporation, Defendants, represented by Brian Melendez -- brian.melendez.com -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP. TEMP-TATIONS LLC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Slade Says ------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA SLADE, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. TEMP-TATIONS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08130 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2018), alleges that Temp-tations failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website -- http://www.Temp-tations.com/-- to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. 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 Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (917) 373 9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com TENNANT COMPANY: Watson Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Edward Watson, an Individual, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. Tennant Company, a Minnesota Corporation and Does, the Defendants, Case No. FCS051313, was removed from the Solano Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno) on Sept. 7, 2018. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-at-00660 to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of state labor laws. The Tennant Company is a company with about 3000 employees that provides cleaning products and solutions. It is a company that is listed in the New York Stock Exchange. Tennant's products are used to clean and coat surfaces.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Attorneys for Tennant Company: Jeffrey C. Bils, Esq. CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER, LLP 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 5150 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612 6300 Facsimile: (213) 612 6301 E-mail: jbils@cdflaborlaw.com TESLA INC: Faces Chamberlain Suit over Musk's Go-Private Tweet -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, WILLIAM CHAMBERLAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TESLA INC.; and ELON MUSK, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-04876-JSW (N.D. Cal., Aug. 10, 2018) seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants materially misled investors as to the following material facts: (i) contrary to Tesla CEO Elon R. Musk's statements that funding had been "secured" to take Tesla private at $420 per share, no such funding had been secured; (ii) contrary to Musk's statement that investor support to take Tesla private "is confirmed", there was no such confirmation. As a result, the public statements by the Defendants herein were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Tesla, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells electric vehicles, and energy generation and storage systems in the United States, China, Norway, and internationally. The company was formerly known as Tesla Motors, Inc. and changed its name to Tesla, Inc. in February 2017. Tesla, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Michael W. Stocker, Esq. Danielle Smith, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com mikes@hbsslaw.com danielles@hbsslaw.com TESLA INC: Won't Pursue $72-Bil. Take-Private Deal Amid Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandria Sage and Jessica DiNapoli, writing for Reuters, report that Tesla Inc Chief Executive Elon Musk said late on Aug. 24 he would heed shareholder concerns and no longer pursue a $72 billion deal to take the luxury electric car maker private, abandoning an idea that stunned investors and drew regulatory scrutiny. The decision to leave Tesla as a publicly listed company raises new questions about its future. Tesla shares have been trading well below their Aug. 7 levels, when Mr. Musk announced on Twitter that he was considering taking Tesla private for $420 per share, as investors wondered what this meant for Mr. Musk's ability to steer the company to profitability. Mr. Musk and Tesla also face a series of investor lawsuits and a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into the factual accuracy of Musk's tweet that funding for the deal was "secured." Mr. Musk said on Aug. 24 that his belief that there is more than enough funding to take the company private was reinforced during the process, but said he abandoned the bid based on feedback from shareholders and because the effort was proving to be more time-consuming and distracting than anticipated. "Although the majority of shareholders I spoke to said they would remain with Tesla if we went private, the sentiment, in a nutshell, was 'please don't do this,'" Mr. Musk wrote in a blog post. Mr. Musk, who owns about a fifth of Tesla, said previously that he envisioned taking the company private without the standard method of a leveraged buyout, in which all the other shareholders would cash out and the deal would be funded primarily with new debt. Mr. Musk estimated that two-thirds of Tesla shareholders would have chosen an option of "rolling" their stakes into a private company. That would significantly reduce the amount of money needed for the deal and avoid further burdening Tesla, which has a debt pile of $11 billion and negative cash flow. However, Mr. Musk said on Aug. 24 that a number of institutional shareholders explained that they have internal compliance issues that limit how much they can invest in a private company. He also said there was no proven path for most retail investors to own shares were Tesla to go private. That contrasts sharply with an Aug. 7 tweet, when Mr. Musk said: "investor support is confirmed." T. Rowe Price Group, Fidelity Investments and Scotland's Baillie Gifford, which are top Tesla shareholders, declined to comment. Mr. Musk also said previously that Saudi Arabia's PIF, which bought a stake in Tesla earlier this year of just under 5 percent, could help fund the cash portion of the deal, though sources close to the sovereign wealth fund had played down that prospect. PIF is in talks to invest in aspiring Tesla rival Lucid Motors Inc, Reuters reported on Aug. 26. Six members of Tesla's board of directors said in a separate statement that they were informed on Aug. 23 by Mr. Musk that he was abandoning his take-private bid. The board then disbanded a special committee of three directors it had set up to evaluate any offer that Musk submitted. "We fully support Elon as he continues to lead the company moving forward," the board said. However, some corporate governance experts said Mr. Musk's handling of the take-private bid could pressure the board to assert its independence and consider ways to rein him in by, for example, bringing in a chief operating officer. "They have someone in charge who has raised serious doubts in the financial and public community about his ability to take the company forward. This will make it harder to invest" in Tesla, said Charles Elson, director of the corporate governance center at the University of Delaware. SHORT SELLERS EMBOLDENED In explaining his reasons to take Tesla private earlier this month, Mr. Musk cited pressure from short sellers -- investors who look to profit on bets that a company's stock will decline. Some short sellers were emboldened by his U-turn. Christopher Irons, founder of investigative research website quoththeravenresearch.com, said it showed Musk was nowhere near as close to taking the company private as he had claimed. "Personally, I'm going to look to see how the stock opens on Monday, Aug. 27. If it does not drop precipitously based on this, I will personally view it as an opportunity to add to my short position," said Mr. Irons, whose out-of-the money put options make money if Tesla's stock declines. Jim Chanos of Kynikos Associates, which has been shorting Tesla, said on Aug. 25: "The corporate governance disaster that is Tesla continues. Keep in mind that Musk informed the board on Aug. 24, according to his Aug. 24 night post." Tesla shares closed at $322.82 on Friday, Aug. 24. One of Tesla's biggest challenges is ramping up production of its latest vehicle, the Model 3, which is critical to its profitability goals. Mr. Musk has said repeatedly since April that Tesla has no need to raise new capital and has promised the company will be profitable and cash-flow positive in the third and fourth quarters. However, Citigroup Inc analysts said earlier in August that if a go-private transaction is looking less likely, "It would be wise for Tesla to at least try to raise significant new equity capital sooner rather than later," so it can inspire investor confidence. [GN] TIME INC: Court OKs Voluntary Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal in the cases captioned JOEL ROSENFELD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TIME INC., RICHARD BATTISTA, DAVID A. BELL, JOHN M. FAHEY, MANUEL A. FERNANDEZ, DENNIS J. FITZSIMONS, BETSY D. HOLDEN, KAY KOPLOVITZ, RONALD S. ROLFE, DANIEL L. ROSENWEIG, KATIE J. STANTON, and MICHAEL P. ZEISSER, Defendants, DAVID PILL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TIME INC., RICHARD BATTISTA, DAVID A. BELL, JOHN M. FAHEY, MANUEL A. FERNANDEZ, DENNIS J. FITZSIMONS, BETSY D. HOLDEN, KAY KOPLOVITZ, RONALD S. ROLFE, DANIEL L. ROSENWEIG, KATIE J. STANTON, and MICHAEL P. ZEISSER, Defendants. Nos. 17cv9886 (DLC), 17cv9971 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.). The Plaintiffs sought equitable relief on behalf of a putative class of shareholders for federal securities law violations, but were quickly dismissed by the named plaintiffs before a lead plaintiff could be appointed pursuant to the procedures set out in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). Voluntary Dismissals with Prejudice and the PSLRA 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(c)(1) requires that: "in any private action arising under the Exchange Act, upon final adjudication of the action, the court shall include in the record specific findings regarding compliance by each party and each attorney representing any party with each requirement of Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to any complaint, responsive pleading, or dispositive motion." This provision, unlike certain other provisions of the PSLRA, is not limited to putative class action litigation. For the reasons previously explained by this Court, however, a voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not a final adjudication that triggers a compelled review by the court of compliance with the dictates of Rule 11. Other courts in this district have since adopted the same analysis. Blaser and the cases that have followed do not address the situation in this case: whether a voluntary dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication within the meaning of the PSLRA. The principles outlined in Blaser, however, compel the conclusion that it is not. Accordingly, the PSLRA does not require a review of the plaintiffs' complaints under Rule 11. The Court therefore will not review them for that purpose. The Clerk of Court shall close these cases as voluntarily dismissed. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya79sw4h from Leagle.com. Joel Rosenfeld, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Adam Acocelli, Jr. -- racocelli@weisslawllp.com -- WeissLaw LLP. TRADER JOE'S: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Brumfield MMWA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned TYOKA BRUMFIELD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, DOTTA FOODS LP, and F.J. SANCHEZ SUCESORES, S.A.U., Defendants. No. 17 Civ. 3239 (LGS). (S.D.N.Y.). The Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and Rule 9(b) for failure to state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. The Plaintiffs bring this purported class action against the Defendants seeking to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased Trader Joe's Black Truffle Flavored Extra Virgin Olive Oil. The Second Amended Complaint raises eleven causes of action: (1) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, (MMWA); (2) breach of express warranty; (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) deceptive acts or practices under New York Gen. Bus. Law Section 349; (6) false advertising under New York Gen. Bus. Law Section 350; (7) negligent misrepresentation; (8) fraud; (9) violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (10) violation of the California False Advertising Law and (11) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. STANDARD To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. State Consumer Protection Statutory Claims To prevail on their consumer fraud claims under New York and California law, Plaintiffs must establish that allegedly deceptive advertisements were likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances. The Plaintiffs raise two arguments as to why the Complaint's statutory claims should survive. First, the Plaintiff notes that Trader Joe's sells numerous products labeled X-flavored' that actually contain the referenced flavor as an ingredient, providing seven examples. The Plaintiffs further state that they are not aware of a single product that Trader Joe's sells as X-flavored' where the referenced flavor is not included as an actual ingredient. This argument lacks merit. Obviously, one way for Trader Joe's to ensure that their X-flavored products taste like X is to include actual X in the product; however, reasonable consumers are not so naïve as to believe that including actual X in the product is the only way to make the product X-flavored. The fact that Trader Joe's Mango Black Tea contains mango does not mean that a reasonable consumer would assume that Black Truffle Flavored Olive Oil necessarily contains black truffles. Second, the Plaintiff argues that reasonable consumers are likely to be deceived because Trader Joe's is renowned for selling gourmet products at relatively low prices and consumers are unlikely to know how expensive truffles are or how much truffle is required to make real truffle oil. This argument also lacks merit. A hypothetical reasonable consumer of truffle flavored oil would know something about the expense and rarity of truffles, signaling that the $4.99 price for Trader Joe's truffle flavored oil is too good to be true for actual truffle infused oil. The causes of action under NYGBL Section 349, NYGBL Section 350, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law and the California Unfair Competition Law are dismissed. Breach of Warranty Claims Express Warranty In order to establish a breach of express warranty under New York law, a plaintiff must show (1) a material statement constituting a warranty, (2) the buyer's reliance on this warranty as a basis for their purchase, (3) breach of the warranty and (4) injury to the buyer caused by the breach. Here, the Complaint does not pleaded facts sufficient to show a breach of express warranty. The Complaint identifies only one express warranty: Trader Joe's expressly warranted that Trader Joe's Truffle Oil was, in fact, flavored by black truffle. However, that is not what the Product label warrants; it states that the olive oil is Black Truffle Flavored. That is what Plaintiffs received when they purchased the Product olive oil that tasted like black truffle. As a result, the fact that the Product did not contain actual black truffle did not constitute a breach of express warranty, and that claim is dismissed. Implied Warranty Similarly, under California law, to maintain a claim for breach of implied warranty, a plaintiff must allege (1) that he intended to use the product for a particular purpose; (2) that the defendant had reason to know of this purpose; (3) that the plaintiff relied on defendant's skill or judgment to provide a product suitable for this purpose; (4) that the defendant had reason to know that buyers relied on its skill or judgment; (5) that the product was unfit for the purpose for which it was purchased; and (6) that it subsequently damaged the plaintiff. Here, the Complaint fails to state a claim for breach of implied warranty because the Complaint pleads nothing to suggest that the Product was unfit for its intended purpose making food taste like black truffle. As discussed above, Plaintiffs received what Trader Joe's advertises, Black Truffle Flavored Olive Oil that tastes like truffles. Although the Complaint lists negative physical side effects of ingesting 2,4-dithiapentane, these allegations do not assert that the Product was unfit to be consumed. Accordingly, the claim for breach of implied warranty is also dismissed. The MMWA The MMWA is a remedial statute designed to improve the adequacy of information available to consumers, prevent deception, and improve competition in the marketing of consumer products. Accordingly, the MMWA creates no additional bases for liability, but allows a consumer to recover damages under existing state law, and attorneys' fees. As a result, claims under the Act stand or fall with the express and implied warranty claims under state law. Because Plaintiff's claims for express and implied warranty are dismissed, the MMWA claim is also dismissed. Additional Tort Claims The Complaint asserts claims for unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation and fraud. For the following reasons, these claims are also dismissed. Unjust Enrichment The basic elements of an unjust enrichment claim in New York require proof that (1) defendant was enriched, (2) at plaintiff's expense, and (3) equity and good conscience militate against permitting defendant to retain what plaintiff is seeking to recover. The Plaintiff asserts both statutory and tort claims. All of the claims in the Complaint including unjust enrichment are premised on the same alleged misrepresentation by Trader Joe's. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim is dismissed as duplicative of their other claims under both New York and California law. Negligent Misrepresentation and Fraud Under both New York and California law, a claim for negligent misrepresentation or fraud must plead facts sufficient to show that a defendant made a false representation. The Complaint does not plead a false representation. The Product's label truthfully states that the product is black truffle flavored, because its synthetic ingredients taste like black truffle. The claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation are dismissed under both New York and California law. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yahpfwog from Leagle.com. Tyoka Brumfield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Cynthia Torocsik, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua David Arisohn -- jarisohn@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher P.A. Trader Joe's Company, Defendant, represented by Dawn Sestito -- dsestito@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Hannah Yael Shay Chanoine -- hchanoine@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Raymond Collins Kilgore -- ckilgore@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Dotta Foods LP, Defendant, represented by Leonard Frederick Lesser -- llesser@simonlesser.com -- Simon Lesser P.C., George Salmas -- George.Salmas@TheFoodLawyers.com -- The Food Lawyers & Michael Hambly -- mhambly@salmas-law.com -- The Food Lawyers. F.J. Sanchez Sucesores, S.A.U., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey H. Warshafsky -- jwarshafsky@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose & Lawrence I. Weinstein -- lweinstein@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP. TURNER OIL: Court Approves Class Settlement in Stanley Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an Order adopting Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in the case captioned JONATHAN STANLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TURNER OIL & GAS PROPERTIES, INC., Defendant. Case No. 2:16-cv-386. (S.D. Ohio). This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Deavers's Report and Recommendation. The R&R recommends granting two motions: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees, and (2) the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Class Action Settlement. Counsel has provided the additional information requested in the R&R, including a calculation breakdown showing how counsel determined the proportionate reduction to the settlement fund, a total list of anticipated payouts to the class members, and a clarification of the amount of the cy pres fund and the name of the recipient charities. No objections to the R&R were filed. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya7w7kvx from Leagle.com. Jonathan Stanley, Mary Elliott, Mark C. Ramach, Joshua Foote, Sean Barber, Jason Wiemann, Michael W. Babin, Robert Stovall, Patti Stovall, Sarabeth Yoder, Derek Dierkes, Maria Rizkall-Gerguis, Shaun Weidman, Diana Carman, Catherine Sakla, Jason Bigley, Emily Sullivan, Christina Hanna, Caroline Chesher & Heather Atkinson, Plaintiffs, represented by Edward Reilley Forman -- eforman@marshallforman.com -- Marshall and Forman LLC, John Spenceley Marshall -- jmarshall@marshallforman.com -- Marshall and Forman, LLC, Louis Abraham Jacobs -- info@marshallforman.com -- Marshall and Morrow LLC, Samuel Micah Schlein -- sschlein@marshallforman.com -- Marshall and Forman LLC & Matthew A. Schwartz -- schwartzmatthew@sullcrom.com -- Law Office of Matthew A. Schwartz. Turner Oil & Gas Properties, Inc, Defendant, represented by Jonathan Rea Secrest -- JSecrest@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC & Sara H. Jodka -- SJodka@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Set to Decide on Dulberg Case on Oct. 29 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Murphy, writing for Taxi Point, reports that in February of last year a class action lawsuit was filed in a San Francisco federal court alleging that Uber were consistently under-paying drivers based on the company's own formula. The suit named; Dulberg V. Uber, represented over 4,500 uber drivers looks to now be settled, with an overall payment of $345,622 being agreed. If a federal judge approves the agreement it will see each driver receive a sum of $75 before attorneys' fees are calculated. Lead plaintiff Martin Dulberg had claimed that due to the company's own formula to calculate fares, drivers were receiving between 70 and 80 percent of any given trip rather than the 80 percent they would've expected when they first started working for the ride-hailing firm. According to a report in arstechnica, the issue with the fare calculations started when Uber began to offer upfront pricing. Mr. Dulberg claimed that before upfront pricing was introduced, the fare was calculated based on a single formula: the fare determined by the fare calculation. It ties both the driver's payment and Uber's fee into that single formula. When Uber introduced upfront pricing it changed the way it calculated fares, this time it used a formula that would calculate payments using a "Two-Fare" calculation: one upfront to charge passengers and another after the journey with actual accurate inputs for time/distance. This is where the plaintiffs claim the discrepancies occurred. Uber has claimed that with the introduction of upfront pricing, most drivers have in fact "benefited" financially from the the new formula. Judge Alsup is said to meet with both sides on October 29 to announce the decision. [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Seeks Court Nod on Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, reports that the man representing a class of more than 9,000 Uber drivers asked a California federal judge to bless a deal that would end claims that the ride-hailing company's so-called upfront pricing model denies drivers their fair share of riders' payments. On Aug. 24, lead plaintiff Martin Dulberg asked U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup to preliminarily approve a $345,622 settlement ending claims that Uber Technologies Inc. breached its own services agreement by paying drivers based on the actual distance they drove. The case is styled Dulberg v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al, Case No. 3:17-cv-00850 (N.D. Calif.). The case is assigned to Judge William Alsup. The case was filed February 21, 2017 [GN] UNIKRN: ICO Class Action May Have Implications for Token Issuers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crowdfund Insider reported that a class action lawsuit was filed against Unikrn and their initial coin offering (ICO). The company raised approximately $30 million in an ICO in late 2017. Unikrn was founded by Rahood Sahul, who is no neophyte when it comes to tech and venture capital. He has worked for big name firms like Microsoft and Hewlett Packard, in fact, his bio indicates he was the founder of Micrsoft Ventures. Not a small accomplishment. Unikrn is a venture backed firm that captured the attention of some high profile investors early on in its existence. In many ways, Mr. Sahul was on a great trajectory until this most recent hurdle. In doing the ICO for Unikrn, the company did file for a Reg D exemption -- something every US issuer of a digital asset is doing to remain compliant within the law. So why the lawsuit? Did Unikrn actually do something wrong? The copy of the Form D is available here. The issuer indicates it was offering a SAFT or Simple Agreement for Future Tokens. Again, fairly common in the crypto world. Mr. Sahul has not spoken much publicly about the lawsuit -- legal counsel has most certainly suggested its best to be quiet about any legal proceedings. He is on the record calling the lawsuit meritless and saying his company has great lawyers. But legal proceedings in the US can be a tricky thing. Even more so in an emerging area of securities law. So CI reached out to Securities Attorney and CI Contributor Sam Guzik for his point of View. Mr. Guzik explains; "The principal allegations of the Complaint are that Unikrn and its affiliates sold a "'security" (UKG Tokens) without registering these securities under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933. Assuming the Token is a security, unless the defendants can show the availability of an exemption from registration, investors in this offering would be entitled to rescind their investment (receive their money back). Based upon the allegations in the Complaint, yet unproven, the Token certainly appears to have the earmarks of a security, given allegations of an expectation of profit based primarily upon the efforts of others (the so called Howey test). And likely, the defendants have already admitted that the Tokens were securities -- by reason of filing a Form D with the SEC stating that the Tokens are securities." So so far, so good. The company did what it is expected to do. Mr. Guzik continues; "So this case will likely turn on whether the Tokens were sold under a valid exemption from registration, and one can expect that the defendants will assert that the requirements of the exemption from registration under SEC Regulation D, the SEC's "safe harbor" rule for private placements, were met -- or if not, the statutory private placement exemption under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act." According to Mr. Guzik, this is where things may get dicey. He posits that filing the appropriate form with the SEC may not be enough; "Whether or not an exemption from registration is available will turn on the facts of the case, which, even as allegations in the Complaint, are far from clear. But some things are certain. For starters, the defendants will have the burden of proof to show that the issuer complied with all of the terms of an exemption. Filing a Form D alone will not cut it, and the Complaint does provide some red flags which portend that this offering may very well not have a valid exemption from registration." Mr. Guzik says a section of the complaint could be crucial to the case. He points to the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint: 42. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendants have continuously sold UKG to the general public through cryptocurrency exchanges following the end of the Official ICO in October 2017. [emphasis added] At this point, we are not certain exactly when the token began trading but it shows up on CoinMarketCap at commencing around November 2017. Mr. Guzik explains part of the problem associated with trading on a crypto exchange; "The sale of Tokens by or for the account of the issuer in a public cryptocurrency exchange would most likely indicate that neither Regulation D nor the statutory private placement exemption would be available. Furthermore, Regulation D (and Section 4(a)(2)) require that the issuer take reasonable precautions to ensure that the original investors in the offering do not resell the securities to the public absent a separate exemption for the resale. If reasonable precautions were not taken by the issuer, there goes the safe harbor exemption of Regulation D, even if all of the original investors were verified accredited investors (the Complaint is silent on this) and the other requirements of Regulation D were met." To make the waters even murkier is the fact the SEC has not been exceptionally clear about the status of these crypto exchanges. Guzik adds there is absolutely no allegations of fraud by the plaintiff attorneys -- something that has accompanied every other class action filed against an ICO. If this one happens to go to trial, for whatever reason, every single crypto active attorney will be analyzing how the courts handle this case. "I expect that if the Plaintiffs are able to get past the usual procedural hurdles (class certification and meeting technical pleading requirements) the defendants will have a strong incentive to settle. In this regard the Plaintiffs have not (yet) alleged that the defendants committed fraud," states Mr. Guzik. "The fraud area is another Pandora's Box that could be revisited by the Plaintiffs once discovery commences -- followed by an amended Complaint and perhaps inviting a closer look by the SEC -- if the discovered facts are sufficient to allege fraud. Sometimes it is better to cut a deal (and potential losses) sooner rather than later, rather than to face the uncertainty and expense of protracted litigation. Securities class actions which survive attacks on the pleadings usually fit this paradigm and settle sooner rather than later. This case is unlikely to be the exception to the rule." This is all speculation right now, and this case will take some time to meander through the legal process, but what is clear is that everyone in the crypto industry will be watching it. [GN] UNITED STATES: 19 Kentucky Counties Sign Up for PILT Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Forward Kentucky reports that about half the counties in Kentucky are eligible for settlement payments from a class-action lawsuit -- but only 19 have signed up to actually get the money. Why? The details are pretty straight-forward. * Fifty-nine counties in Kentucky are eligible for payments from the federal government because the feds are using land in the county, thus keeping the county from including the land in its property taxes. * These payments are called Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT). * The payments are based on the number of acres in the county that are used by the federal government. For some counties, the payments can be substantial. For example, in 2018, McCreary County is scheduled to receive $461,095. * A certain county in another part of the country realized that they had been underpaid in their PILT payments, and filed suit to recover the difference. Other counties joined in, and eventually a class-action lawsuit was filed and won. The government had to pay all 1,952 counties the back pay they were owed. * Some counties were owed as much as $150,000 and some as little as $100. * The big difference with this class action suit is that the counties affected are not automatically added to the payout – they have to opt in. And that's where this story starts. Out of the 59 counties in Kentucky that are eligible to receive money from the PILT lawsuit, only 19 have opted in. It's a pretty simple procedure: you fill out a form and send it in. But even so, 40 counties have ignored the communications from the law firm handling the suit. And the deadline is September 14. Now granted, the amounts are not that large. And, if the judge agrees, the law firm keeps 1/3 of the payments for itself. Still, if someone is going to send you money, and all you have to do to get it is fill out a form, why wouldn't you do that? Here are the 59 counties eligible for back PILT payments, the amount they are eligible for, and whether or not they have opted in. If you live in one of the not-yet-in counties, especially ones with a few thousand dollars on the table, perhaps you could bring this to the attention of your county executive. County Amount Opted In? McCreary County $8,869 Yes Trigg County $8,132 Yes Lyon County $5,486 Yes Pulaski County $5,093 Yes Edmonson County $4,867 Yes Clay County $4,601 Laurel County $4,247 Russell County $3,938 Yes Leslie County $3,708 Rowan County $3,469 Wayne County $2,951 Whitley County $2,933 Yes Lawrence County $1,983 Menifee County $1,889 Yes Taylor County $1,683 Adair County $1,647 Yes Pike County $1,635 Morgan County $1,506 Yes Barren County $1,414 Clinton County $1,380 Jackson County $1,376 Spencer County $1,293 Yes Bath County $1,275 Floyd County $1,264 Johnson County $1,206 Rockcastle County $1,017 Carter County $997 Grayson County $981 Powell County $960 Owsley County $883 Yes Hart County $869 Yes Wolfe County $811 Yes Allen County $766 Elliott County $760 Breckinridge County $527 Yes Bell County $522 Yes Union County $462 Knott County $455 Lee County $421 Cumberland County $417 Yes Perry County $384 Livingston County $347 Harlan County $333 Estill County $296 Anderson County $238 Ballard County $219 Jefferson County $120 Henderson County $97 Letcher County $43 Yes Larue County $36 Nelson County $31 Gallatin County $24 Greenup County $23 Calloway County $19 Hancock County $17 Hardin County $12 Yes Bracken County $10 Knox County $4 Warren County $4 [GN] UNITED STATES: Hughes County Joins PILT Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Stephen Lee and Dave Askins, writing for Capital Journal, report that Hughes County Commissioners voted 5-0 on Aug. 20 to join in a class-action lawsuit against the federal government that says the feds underpaid counties for the "payments in lieu of taxes" (PILT) due to the counties for three years. The county commission has to decide by mid-September whether to opt-in on the lawsuit to receive money already decided on by a court. The court decision in Kane County, Utah, vs. the U.S. government, found that the feds underpaid counties across the nation for the fiscal years 2015, 2016 and 2017 in PILT funding. It amounts to about $18 million total in underpayments now owed to hundreds of counties. Several counties in South Dakota have already opted to join in the class action lawsuit, including Stanley County. Hughes County is due to receive $89,226 this year in PILT funding from the federal government, aimed to make up for the lack of property taxes assessed on 32,951 acres of federally owned land. The shortage over the three previous years in PILT funding to Hughes County amounts to $3,421. The attorneys who brought the class-action lawsuit in Utah are expected to be awarded perhaps a third of the money nationwide. That would mean Hughes County's share of the underpaid would be more like $2,292. County Manager Kevin Hipple told the commissioners that the case "already has been litigated," so the county doesn't have to hire an attorney or fight the case in court. Signing up to join in will result in the underpaid amount coming to the county. "It's money," said Commissioner Roger Inman. It seems a good chance, as long as "there is no cost to us," he said. Commissioner Tom Tveit made the motion to opt in to the lawsuit, with the proviso the county will not spend any money from its budget to take part in the class-action. The Stanley County Commission in Fort Pierre voted to join in the class-action earlier in August. [GN] USG CORPORATION: Lowinger Balks at Merger Deal with Knauf KG ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, ROBERT LOWINGER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. USG CORPORATION, JOSE ARMARIO, THOMAS A. BURKE, MATTHEW CARTER, JR., GRETCHEN R. HAGGERTY, WILLIAM H. HERNANDEZ, BRIAN A. KENNEY, RICHARD P. LAVIN, STEVEN F. LEER, and JENNIFER F. SCANLON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01362-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 2, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 11, 2018, pursuant to which USG Corporation will be acquired by Gebr. Knauf KG and its indirect wholly owned subsidiary, World Cup Acquisition Corporation. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On June 10, 2018, USG's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Knauf. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, if the Proposed Transaction is approved by USG's shareholders and completed, USG's stockholders will receive $43.50 in cash for each share of USG common stock they own, plus a conditional special cash dividend of $0.50 per share if the Proposed Transaction is approved by USG's stockholders at the special stockholder meeting, which is scheduled to take place on September 26, 2018. On August 23, 2018, Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. USG Corporation, also known as United States Gypsum Corporation, is an American company which manufactures construction materials, most notably drywall and joint compound. The company is the largest distributor of wallboard in the United States and the largest manufacturer of gypsum products in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295 5310 Facsimile: (302) 654 7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Aaron Brody, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 687 7230 Facsimile: (212) 490 2022 E-mail: abrody@ssbny.com UTAH: Suit vs Spencer Cox Moved to Federal District Court --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned TRUTH ABOUT PROPOSITION no. 2, a Utah non-profit corporation, DR. BRUCE H. WOOLEY, an individual, WALTER J. PLUMB III, an individual, ARTHUR BROWN, an individual, and BRUCE F. RIGBY, an individual, on behalf of those similarly-situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SPENCER J. COX, in his official capacity as Lieutenant Governor of Utah; Curtis Koch, in his official capacity as the County Clerk of Davis County, Utah; the STATE OF UTAH; and DOES 1-20 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 180905858 (3rd Jud. Dist. Ct. and for Salt Lake Cty.), the Defendant gives Notice of Removal of the civil action to the United States District Court in and for the District Of Utah, Central Division. The District Of Utah Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-00702-BCW (D. Utah, Sept. 6, 2018) to the proceeding.[BN] Counsel for Spencer J. Cox: David N. Wolf, Esq. Andrew Dymek, Esq. OFFICE OF THE UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL 160 East 300 South, Sixth Floor P.O. Box 140856 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0856 Telephone: (801) 366 0100 Facsimile: (801) 366 0101 E-mail: dnwolf@agutah.gov adymek@agutah.gov UTHERA: Must Face Fraud Class Action Over Cosmetic Procedure ------------------------------------------------------------ HarrisMartin Publishing reports that a California federal judge has refused to dismiss a purported class action alleging the manufacturer of the Ulthera cosmetic skin-tightening device misled consumers into believing it was FDA approved, ruling that the state consumer law claims are not preempted because they parallel federal regulations. On Aug. 16, Judge Morrison C. England of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California further found the fraud-based claims were pled with the requisite particularity. "Ultherapy" is a non-surgical cosmetic procedure that involves the use of ultrasound procedures to tighten skin tissue and reduce the appearance of wrinkling. [GN] VALLEY NATIONAL: Ct. Overrules Conditional Certification Objection ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York overruled Defendant's Objection on Order granting Conditional Class Certification in the case captioned MARITZA GASTON and GEORGE GALLART, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VALLEY NATIONAL BANCORP and VALLEY NATIONAL BANK, Defendants. Case No. 17-CV-1886 (FB) (SMG). (E.D.N.Y.). The Plaintiffs brought a class action and a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law against Defendants Valley National Bancorp and Valley National Bank (VNB), alleging that they are or were employed as Bank Service Managers (BSMs) at VNB and were underpaid due to being misclassified as exempt employees under FLSA. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may serve and file objections to non-dispositive pretrial orders issued by a magistrate judge. When a party files a timely objection, the district judge must modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. In its objection, VNB makes two principal arguments. First, it argues that the Magistrate Judge misapplied the modest-plus standard, contending that substantial discovery has already taken place. Second, it claims that the Magistrate Judge improperly shifted the burden to it to produce evidence to disprove conditional certification. Neither argument is persuasive. On the record before the Court, there is no indication that the order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. In fact, very little discovery has taken place, with only the three witnesses deposed. As the Magistrate Judge found, there is nothing in the depositions inconsistent with the assertions in the affidavits that non-exempt work was a tiny percentage of their time. VNB's second argument is unavailing as well. First, VNB cites a comment from the oral argument in which the Magistrate Judge said he saw nothing in Plaintiffs' depositions contradicting their affidavits. VNB argues that this amounts to a standard in which employers can only defeat conditional certification motions by establishing that such testimony is perjurious. But the fact that such testimony is often sufficient is not a result of improper burden-shifting, but rather a consequence of the low evidentiary threshold the modest showing called for at the first step of the conditional certification motion. VNB's objection is overruled. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 30, 2018 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7q38gc3 from Leagle.com. Maritza Gaston, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg I. Shavitz, Shavitz Law Group, P.A., Michael Joseph Scimone -- mscimone@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP, Paolo C. Meireles, Shavitz Law Group, P.A., Sally J. Abrahamson -- sabrahamson@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP & Justin Mitchell Swartz -- jms@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP. George Gallart, Plaintiff, represented by Sally J. Abrahamson , Outten & Golden LLP & Justin Mitchell Swartz , Outten & Golden LLP. Valley National Bancorp & Valley National Bank, Defendants, represented by James Lemonedes -- jlemonedes@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP, Glenn Sklaire Grindlinger -- ggrindlinger@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP & Keith Andrew Reinfeld -- kreinfeld@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP. VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Velez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vengroff Williams, Inc. The case is captioned as Aida Velez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vengroff Williams, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-23747-MGC (S.D. Fla., September 12, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Vengroff Williams, Inc., provides receivables management and business process outsourcing services. The Company offers third party recovery, insurance services, medical subrogation, revenue cycle management, medical collections, invoice and statement processing, payment monitoring, and legal solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. SANDERS LAW, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 281-7601 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com VISIONPRO CONNECTIONS: Faces Fearon, et al. in New York Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Visionpro Connections, Inc. The lawsuit is captioned as ROHAN FEARON, ET AL vs. VISIONPRO CONNECTIONS, INC., D/B/A VISIONPRO ET AL., Case No. 508064/2018 (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, Sept. 7, 2018). Visionpro is doing business in the staffing industry.[BN] VISIONPRO CONNECTIONS: Underpays Cable Technicians, Fearon Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ROHAN FEARON, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. VISIONPRO CONNECTIONS, INC., d/b/a VISIONRPRO, VISIONPRO CORP. d/b/a VISIONPRO, VISIONPRO NETWORKS d/b/a VISIONPRO, and any other affiliated entities that employed Plaintiff and members of the Putative Class, the Defendants, Case No. 508064/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept. 7, 2018), seeks to recover wages and benefits under the New York Labor Law. The Defendants provide installation services to customers of Cablevision Systems Corp. and other regional cable providers. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime and time and one-half their regular rate of pay; failed to reimburse Plaintiffs for business expenses borne for the benefit and convenience of the Defendants; and unlawfully deducted wages from Plaintiffs' paychecks. The Defendants paid Plaintiffs a piece rate for each job performed. The Defendants failed to ensure that Plaintiff and the Putative Class members were paid the appropriate overtime wage required under the NYLL and NYCRR. The Plaintiffs were required to use Defendants' company trucks when performing jobs for customers. From approximately April 2012 continuing through the present, the Plaintiffs were required to purchase their own equipment and tools, and pay the cost for parking incurred in furtherance of Defendants' business. Until approximately 2015, Plaintiffs were also required to purchase their own gas, in furtherance of Defendants' business. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of deducting monies from its cable technicians' wages for, inter alia, missing cable boxes. The reduction of wages imposed by these deductions was not agreed upon in writing with the technicians in violation of the NYLL.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Class: Lloyd Ambinder, Esq. Michele Moreno, Esq. Joel Goldenberg, Esq. Virginia & Ambinder, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 Facsimile: (212) 943 9082 E-mail: mmoreno@vandallp.com WALMART: Faces Fraud Class Action Over Hacked Gift Cards -------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Serino, writing for WKYC, reports that sales of gift cards are predicted to hit $160 billion dollars this year. So, you would think stores would work hard to make sure shoppers keep buying them. But one of the biggest retailers in the world has run into a problem with the cards it sells in its own name. Walmart, was just hit with a class action lawsuit, over fraud connected with its cards. And it seems some customers who purchased them are doing anything but "Saving Money and Living Better" like Walmart's slogan promises. "They should have taken care of this a long time ago," says long-time customer Charlie Pettit. Mr. Pettit, who called us from Colorado said, when he returned a laptop from Walmart to the store, they would only credit him with a $550 gift card. When he tried to sell that card to someone on Craigslist, he says the would-be buyer told him, "There was no money on the card. I said, 'I just got $550 dollars on it'. And he said, someone got to you then." Pettit says he called Walmart, but claims they told him it wasn't their problem. And on Walmart's website it says, customers are responsible for keeping their gift card password safe. Problem is, the company is accused of not keeping the cards safe before they're sold. Attorney Craig Heidemann, who filed a class action lawsuit against the company in Missouri, where his client lost $50 dollars, explains how the fraud happens. "While the gift cards are on the shelves, somebody would come in, scrape off the tamper strip on the back and record the secret information. So that before the gift cards are sold, the numbers are obtained by hackers. And when the money is put on card they're able to be the first ones to suck off money on the card online, by making fraudulent purchases." Thieves can also simply snap a photo of the card number, and once the card is activated, go online and take out the money. The lawsuit alleges that: -- The fraudulent practice is common and known to Walmart. -- Associates are not properly trained to inspect gift cards for tampering. -- The company refused to replenish the balance on cards or refund money. That's despite the fact, Heidemann says, other companies protect their customers. "Visa, Mastercard, American Express, when they sell their prepaid gift cards at Walmart, you'll notice they're inside a wrapped packaging that would have to be ripped opened and the card would have to be taken out in order to steal the secret data from it." As angry as Pettit is with Walmart, the bigger problem is the financial hardship that he's now dealing with. "My wife and I are livingon her $700 dollar disability check. $700 dollars doesn't go far," he tells us. Statement from Walmart: "We take any fraud in connection with our gift cards seriously and have measures designed to help guard against these types of crimes. Like many retailers, we are continuing to look at this issue, the controls we have in place and how we can enhance our gift card program to better protect customers. We are reviewing the complaint and will respond appropriately with the court." [GN] XIAMEN AIR: Airport Incident Ripe Test for Passenger Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan, writing for Business Mirror, reports that Republic Act 776, otherwise known as the Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines, mandates that the Department of Transportation and Communications (now the Department of Transportation (DOTr), through the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), "regulate the economic aspect of aviation and develop and promote the air potential of the Philippines, with due regard to public interest and convenience." Furthermore, Republic Act 7394, otherwise known as the Consumer Act of the Philippines, mandates that the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) "protect the consumers against deceptive, unfair and unconscionable sales acts or practices and from misleading advertisements and fraudulent sales promotions." Pursuant to such mandates, DOTC-DTI Joint Administrative Order 1, Series of 2012 "Providing for a Bill of Rights for Air Passengers and Carrier Obligations" was promulgated in December 2012. This little known Administrative Order came to light because of the recent Xiamen Air fiasco. The Regulations provided thereunder "apply to all aspects of contracts of carriage for flights or portions of a flight into, from, and within the territory of the Philippines operated by Philippine air carriers, and flights or portions of a flight from the territory of the Philippines operated by foreign air carriers" (Section 3). On August 19, 2018, a Xiamen Air Boeing aircraft skidded off a runway at Ninoy Aquino International Airport. This caused 300 flights to be canceled, delayed or redirected, which affected at least 45,000 passengers who were stuck in the three Naia terminals, some without food, beverages and hotel accommodations. Many overseas Filipino workers had given their last money to their families who bid them good-bye at the Airport and had no money to spend during their long, uncertain wait. Some OFWs feared they had lost their employment contracts as they were a no-show with their prospective employers abroad. Clearly, under these circumstances, someone has to be held responsible and liable criminally, administratively and civilly for damages to those affected passengers. Obviously, Xiamen Air is the principal culprit. Manila International Airport Authority says Xiamen Air will need to pay at least P15 million. This is a paltry amount not commensurate to the chaos and furor they caused, which Miaa said cover only the cost of manpower and rental of crane and equipment used to lift the jet off the field. The entire crew should be detained pending further investigation. Domestic carriers Philippine Airlines, Cebu Pacific, Philippine Air Asia, Cathay Pacific and Singapore Airlines had apologies for the inconvenience their passengers suffered. But providing food, beverages and in few instances hotel accommodations do not excuse these carriers from failing to respond immediately with replacement flights, rescheduling of canceled flights, rescheduling of planes, crew and operational resources. Naia personnel, from sheer volume of affected passengers and pressure of work, were reportedly outright discourteous. Where was the government while this crisis was ongoing at the Naia? Clearly, the Department of Transportation should have weighed in as the Miaa, the Civil Aeronautics Board and the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines -- agencies directly involved with airport operations, air carriers and airline passengers are under the supervision of the DOTr. The agency's bleak response was a statement of Secretary Arthur P. Tugade that this Naia mayhem is an "eye-opener" and cause for "the review of emergency protocols and a revisiting of the Air Passenger Bill of Rights." Attorney Kapunan said "Fortunately, my family decided to go to Montemar Beach Resort in Bataan instead of flying out during that fatal long weekend. Otherwise, I would have immediately gathered signatures of the affected passengers to protest the incompetence, inefficiency and discourtesy of airport personnel. I would have demanded the immediate detention and full investigation of Xiamen Air pilots and crew for their blatant disregard and disrespect for our Philippine aviation regulations." "This is ripe for a class action suit to test whether the Air Passengers Bill of Rights truly protects the ordinary air passengers -- not the powers that be. And certainly, our government must be petrified with the reality that a single aircraft stuck on a runway can cripple the operations of the entire airport for several days. This elevates the issue from protection of air passengers to the bigger issue of national security and defense." That must be the lesson the government learned from this "eye-opener"! [GN] YOGA JOINT: Mittelmark Files Suit in Fla. Over TCPA Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL MITTELMARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE YOGA JOINT SOUTH, LLC, and YOGA JOINT- DEERFIELD, LLC, Case No. 0:18-cv-62138-WPD (S.D. Fla., September 11, 2018), arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants use text messages as a means to market their business and promote their business to former customers and potential future customers, according to the complaint. As a result of Defendants' actions, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendants caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent to his and Class Members' cellular telephones, causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Yoga South owns and operates a yoga studio in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Yoga Deerfield owns and operates a yoga studio in Deerfield Beach, Florida. The Defendants are part of a larger five-location group of yoga studios operating under the Yoga Joint name.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com ZHEJIANG HUAHAI: Faces Jones Suit Over Adulterated Valsartan ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZHEJIANG HUAHAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., a Chinese corporation; PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., a Delaware corporation; SOLCO HEALTHCARE U.S., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and HUAHAI US, INC., a New Jersey corporation, Case No. 4:18-cv-01525-RLW (E.D. Mo., September 11, 2018), arises from the Defendants' respective manufacturing, distribution and sale of valsartan generic prescription medications adulterated with N-nitrosodimethylamine, a carcinogenic substance. Valsartan is a prescription medication mainly used for the treatment of high blood pressure and congestive heart failure. The Plaintiffs allege that due to manufacturing defects originating in Defendant Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.'s facility in China, certain generic formulations of valsartan have become adulterated with an organic chemical known as N-nitrosodimethylamine. Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the People's Republic of China, and maintains its principal place of business in Zhejiang, China. Zhejiang touts on its Web site that it is a large scaled modern pharmaceutical group that integrates formulations, APIs (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients) and intermediates. Huahai US, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey, and maintains its principal place of business in Cranbury, New Jersey. Huahai manufactures, markets and distributes valsartan for use in generic drugs. Huahai is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zhejiang focusing on the sales and marketing of APIs and Intermediates, and lists valsartan as one of its products. Prinston Pharmaceutical, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, and maintains its principal place of business in Cranbury, New Jersey. Prinston manufactures, markets and distributes generic drugs, including the prescription drug valsartan. Solco Healthcare U.S., LLC, is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of Delaware, and maintains its principal place of business in Cranbury. Prinston is the sole member of Solco. Solco is the U.S. sales and marketing "division" of Prinston.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lanny Darr, Esq. DARR LAW OFFICES, LTD. 307 Henry Street, Suite 406 Alton, IL 62002 Telephone: (618)208-6828 Facsimile: (618)433-8519 E-mail: darr@darrfirm.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. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, 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 ***