/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/181031.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, October 31, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 218
Headlines
1650 BROADWAY: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Kaskela Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
AFSCME COUNCIL 8: Smith et al. Sue over Collection of Union Dues
ALLBIRDS INC: Faces Dominguez ADA Class Action
ALLERGAN INC: Ct. OKs Bid to Compel Production in Restasis Suit
ALLIED COMMUNICATIONS: Brown Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
AMN HEALTHCARE: White Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Ca.
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Faces Pokoik Securities Suit in Texas
ARCADIA, FL: Police Officer Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
AUTO SERVICES: Euler Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BAXTER & ASSOCIATES: Court Dismisses Tyler FDCPA Suit
BEAUTY CORP: Zhou Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
BELSO INC: Shortchanges Workers Out of Overtime, Says Baker
BF ADVANCE: Abante Rooter Asserts TCPA Breach
BLUE LINE: Guerra Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Paystubs
BROOKLYN TAP HOUSE: Dia Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
BURGERVILLE: Credit Card Breach Results in Class Action Complaint
CHAMBERS HOTEL: Breeze Files Civil Rights Class Action
CHECK 'N GO: Gonzales Sues Over Illegal Account Debiting
CHRISTINE VALMY: Faces Dominguez Class Action New York Ct.
CONNEXION POINT: Violates FLSA, Doss Suit Asserts
COUNTY OF INYO, CA: Court Approves Wagner Class Settlement
CVS RX SERVICES: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Cabrera Suit
DIPTYQUE USA: Faces Nixon ADA Class Suit
EDA FOOD INC: Restaurant Staff Seek Unpaid Overtime
ENDOLOGIX INC: Nguyen Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
ESA MANAGEMENT: Beasley Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California
EVENTZILLA CORP: De Girolamo Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
FACEBOOK INC: Bass Sues Over Illegal Collection of Personal Data
FACEBOOK INC: Echavarria Hits Illegal Collection of Personal Data
FEDERAL INSURANCE: Ct. Grants $157K Post-Judgment Interest in Klein
FIRST CHOICE: Shortchanges Customers on Cable TV Deal, Says Carter
FMR LLC: Moitoso Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
FORD MOTOR: Faces Naasz Class Suit Over Defective Brake System
GENERAL MOTORS: Davis Suit Moved to Eastern District of Michigan
GLOBAL CREDIT & COLLECTION: Duncan Disputes Collection Letter
GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION: Ct. Denies Substituted Service in Denham
GRAND CHINESE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Under FLSA, Chan Says
HASBRO INC: Police Fund Hits Stock Price Drop from Retailer Loss
HATTIE B'S: Austin Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages, Paystubs
HOWROYD-WRIGHT: Becerra-South Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
IL PASTAIO: Almanza Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
INDIANA: Court OKs Summary Judgment in Telephone Policy Suit
INVUITY INC: Franchi Files Suit Over Sale to Stryker
JUSTIN'S NUT: Clark Files Slack Fill Class Action in Calif.
JUUL LABS: Sued for Deceptive Trade Practices of E-Cigarettes
KATCH TWENTY-TWO: Ferguson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
KEY INSURANCE: Morris Seeks to Enforce Privacy Provisions of TCPA
KRAFT HEINZ CO: Albion Suit Asserts Fruit Juice Mislabeling
LEAF COMMERCIAL: Alves Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
LEGACY COMPONENTS: Eleventh Cir. Appeal Filed in Wheeler Suit
LOAN PAYMENT: 9th Cir. Affirms Arbitration in BMO Third-Party Suit
LORO PIANA: Diaz Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Web Site
LOVED ONES: Shortchanges Health Workers on Wages, Says Suit
LTD FINANCIAL: Violates FDCPA, Vedernikov Suit Says
LYON COLLECTION: Faces Pomerantz FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
M ELLIOT: Chavers Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Illegal Deductions
MACMAHON HOLDINGS: Shareholder Class Action Settled for $6.7MM
MAPLE DONUTS: Sued by Keo for Not Paying Overtime Under FLSA
MATRIX WARRANTY: Bacon Sues Over Erroneous Unsolicited Calls
MCCARTHY BURGESS: Sandford Sues over Recording of Phone Calls
MIDLAND CREDIT: Huebner Has Until Dec. 17 to File Petition for Writ
MISSION CAPITAL: Fabricant Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
MISSION DRYWALL: Saldana Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
MOLLY PICON: Mejia Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
MONRO MUFFLER: Naskiewicz Seeks OT Pay for Service Technicians
NATIVE SUN LANDSCAPE: Del Valle Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Celino & Barnes Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Crowley Webb Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
NEXSTAR MEDIA: John O'Neil Suit Moved to Chicago
NEXSTAR MEDIA: ThoughtWorx Alleges Price-Fixing of TV Ad Rates
NFS INSURANCE: Dotson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
OC ELECTRICAL: Rojas Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages and Damages
OCEAN SPRAY: Court Directs Class Cert Supplement Briefs in Hilsley
PATRICK SUTTON: Doe K.G. Files Class Suit Over Sexual Abuse
PF HOMESTEAD: Gonzalez Files Suit Over Unsolicited Texts
PINECREST BAKERY: Vazquez Sues over Spam Text Messages
PINNACLE PROPERTY: Can Compel Arbitration in "Prasad" FLSA Suit
PROFLOWERS.COM: Appeals Court Strikes $8.7MM in Legal Fees
PRONTO PIZZA: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Lopez Claims
RSJ VENTURES: Conner Files ADA Class Action
SAN PIETRO RESTAURANT: Quarrato Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
SENOMYX INC: Link Suit Challenges Firmenich's Tender Offer
SETJO LLC: Willis Appeals N.D. Ohio Decision to 6th Circuit
SHRINERS HOSPITALS: Accused by Serra of Not Paying Overtime Wages
SLIDE FIRE: Court Extends Time to File Response in Prescott Suit
SMR 912: Flores Tapia Files FLSA Suit in New York
SOHO OCEAN: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
SOUTH BAY COLMA: Barrera & Marabuto Sue over Misleading Car Ads
SOUTH CAROLINA: Ct. Separates Claims for Initial Review in Wardell
SPIRIT HALLOWEEN: Website not Accessible to Blind, Figueroa Says
SPRINT CORP: Gober Files Suit Over Sale to T-Mobile
STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Faces Walker FCRA Suit in Georgia
SYNERGY MARKETING: Mittelmark Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
TG THERAPEUTICS: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
TG THERAPEUTICS: Kaskela Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
TG THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Suit
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Coulter Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
TRIBUNE MEDIA: Faces LM SAC Suit Over Antitrust Law Violations
TUOLUMNE COUNTY, CA: Court Dismisses Watkins Suit
UPPER STORY: Naula Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
VERB SURGICAL: Sullivan Files Suit in NY Under Disabilities Act
VITAL ONE: Unauthorized Calls Violate TCPA, Dickey Says
VIVIENNE HU: Nixon Suit Asserts ADA Breach
VIZIO: Gibbs Law Group Discloses $17MM Class Action Settlement
WAGLER CUSTOM HOMES: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime
WISCONSIN: Court Orders Amendment to Inmates' Pro Se Complaint
WOLFORD AMERICA: Nixon Sues Over ADA Violation
XIFU FOOD: Denied Kitchen Staff OT Pay, Wage Statements, says Suit
ZESTFINANCE INC: Court Won't Compel Arbitration in Titus Suit
[*] Aussie Class Actions Require 250% Return for Litigation Funder
*********
1650 BROADWAY: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1650 Broadway
Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1650
Broadway Associates, Inc. doing business as: Ellen's Stardust
Diner, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09819 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24,
2018).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Ellen's Stardust Diner was opened in 1987 after Ellen's Cafe was
closed down. It was the first 1950s theme restaurant in New York
City and had waitresses in poodle skirts. In the late 1990s, a
sister restaurant operated near Times Square under the name
StardustDine-O-Mat.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Kaskela Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC disclosed that an investor class action lawsuit has
been filed against Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACHC)
("Acadia" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between February 23, 2017 and October 24,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").
IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased Acadia's common stock
during the Class Period may, no later than December 3, 2018, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class.
Investors who purchased the Company's common stock during the Class
Period and suffered a financial loss in excess of $100,000 are
encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at
(888) 715-1740, or skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, for additional
information about this action and their legal rights and recovery
options. To learn how to participate in this action please visit
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/acadia/.
The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding Acadia's business and operations to
investors during the Class Period. Specifically, defendants
falsely stated that the quality of Acadia's U.K. operations gave it
a "competitive strength" that would drive future growth and
profitability. In addition, defendants caused Acadia to issue
false and misleading guidance regarding the Company's actual and
projected fiscal 2017 revenue, earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation and amortization ("EBITDA") and earnings per share
("EPS").
The complaint also alleges that defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) the quality of Acadia's U.K. operations did not
give the Company a "competitive strength" that would drive future
growth and profitability; and (ii) defendants had no reasonable
basis to believe and did not in fact believe their positive
statements about the Company's business and financial prospects
during the Class Period, including their guidance issued and
reaffirmed throughout the Class Period. The complaint further
alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, investors purchased
Acadia's common stock at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period and suffered investment losses as a result of
defendants' conduct.
On October 24, 2017, Acadia announced its financial results for the
third quarter of 2017. Contrary to defendants' prior
representations, the Company revealed a drastic shortfall in EBITDA
for its U.K. operations, purportedly resulting from "lower census
and higher operating costs." In addition, Acadia lowered its
financial guidance for 2017, including lowering its EPS guidance by
as much as $0.24 per share. Following this news, shares of the
Company's common stock fell $11.44 per share, or 26% in value, to
close on October 25, 2017 at $32.68, on heavy trading volume.
Investors who purchased the Company's common stock during the Class
Period and suffered a financial loss in excess of $100,000 are
encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC for additional information
about this action and their legal rights and recovery options.
Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in state and
federal courts throughout the country. For additional information
about Kaskela Law LLC please visit www.kaskelalaw.com.
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
201 King of Prussia Road
Suite 650
Radnor, PA 19087
E-mail: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]
AFSCME COUNCIL 8: Smith et al. Sue over Collection of Union Dues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jotham Smith, Adam Scheiner, Brian Parks, Annette Lipsky, Steven
Fletcher, Michael Cooper, Tracey Baird, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. American Federation of
State, County, and Municipal Employees, Ohio Council 8, the
Defendant, Case No.: 2:18-cv-01226-GCS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 15,
2018), seeks declaratory judgment that AFSCME Council 8's
revocation policy is unconstitutional and unenforceable. The
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief that prohibits the maintenance and
enforcement of the policy. The lawsuit also seeks nominal damages
and compensatory damages.
According to the complaint, Ohio Council 8 maintains and enforces a
policy under which it will collect union dues from the wages of
public employees, who have notified the union that they do not
consent to paying union dues, unless and until that notification is
provided to the union during a 15-day period prior to the
expiration of the collective bargaining agreement governing their
employment.
The Plaintiffs are public employees who notified AFSCME Council 8
that they do not consent to its collection of union dues from their
wages, and yet continue to have union dues seized from their wages
because of the union's revocation policy, the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Donald C. Brey, Esq.
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
65 E. State Street, Suite 1000
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 334-6105
E-mail: dbrey@taftlaw.com
- and -
William L. Messenger, Esq.
Aaron B. Solem, Esq.
Byron Andrus, Esq.
NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK
LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION
8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600
Springfield, VA 22160
Telephone: (703) 321-8510
E-mail: wlm@nrtw.org
abs@nrtw.org
bsa@nrtw.org
ALLBIRDS INC: Faces Dominguez ADA Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Allbirds, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit in New York under
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yovanny
Dominguez on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Allbirds, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09791
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2018).
Allbirds, Inc. manufactures shoes under the brand name allbirds.
Its products include wool runners, tree runners, tree loungers,
tree skippers, and wool loungers, and insoles for men and women;
and smallbirds wool runners for kids.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (917) 299-6612
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
ALLERGAN INC: Ct. OKs Bid to Compel Production in Restasis Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to
Compel Production in the case captioned IN RE RESTASIS
(CYCLOSPORINE OPHTHALMIC EMULSION) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, THIS
DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund et al. v.
Allergan, Inc., 17-cv-6755; American Federation of State, County &
Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan v.
Allergan, Inc., 17-cv-6684; Sergeants Benevolent Association Health
& Welfare Fund v. Allergan, Inc., 17-cv-7300; Philadelphia
Federation of Teachers Health & Welfare Fund v. Allergan, Inc., 1
7-cv-7377; St. Paul Electrical Workers' Health Plan v. Allergan,
Inc., 18-cv-41; FWK Holdings, LLC v. Allergan, Inc., 18-cv-677;
International Union of Operating Engineers Local Trust Fund v.
Allergan, Inc., 18-cv-749; United Food & Commercial Workers Unions
& Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund et al. v. Allergan, Inc.,
18-cv-816; Self Insured Schools of California v. Allergan, Inc.,
18-cv-968; Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance
Trust Fund v. Allergan, Inc., 18-cv-969; Rochester Drug
Co-Operative, Inc. v. Allergan, Inc., 18-cv-970; Plumbers &
Pipefitters Local Fund v. Allergan, Inc., 18-cv-972; and KPH
Healthcare Services, Inc., a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc., v. Allergan,
Inc., 18-cv-974. No. 18-MD-2819 (NG) (LB). (E.D.N.Y.).
THe Plaintiffs have filed 13 separate putative class action
complaints, which have been consolidated into two complaints one on
behalf of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs), who bought
Restasis(R) directly from Allergan, and one on behalf of the
End-Payor Plaintiffs (EPPs), who bought the drug at another point
in the chain of sale.
The Plaintiffs' Motion for the Inclusion of Brenton Saunders,
Robert Bailey, and Arnold Pinkston as Document Custodians
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to order Allergan to conduct specific
searches on the files of Brenton Saunders, Allergan's current Chief
Executive Officer; Robert Bailey, Allergan's current General
Counsel and Corporate Secretary; and Arnold Pinkston, Allergan's
General Counsel and Corporate Secretary. Plaintiffs ask that Mr.
Saunders' files be searched for documents relating to Allergan's
sale and transfer of its patents to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe as
well as documents relating to the inter partes review (IPR)
proceedings at issue in this case.
They request that Allergan conduct searches of Mr. Bailey's files
for documents relating to IPR.
The Defendant also argues that the burden of producing the
requested documents which would require creating extensive
privilege logs concerning the files of Mr. Bailey and Mr. Pinkston
and would involve searching the files of a current CEO, Mr.
Saunders outweighs any benefit they would provide to plaintiffs.
Allergan notes that it is already producing documents from 43
different custodians and that documents from plaintiffs' proposed
additional searches would thus be cumulative and of marginal
assistance.
The Court finds, however, that plaintiffs have established a
likelihood that a significant number of non-cumulative and
non-privileged documents will emerge from their request. Thus, even
though many privileged documents will have to be logged, the burden
on the defendant is justified and proportional to the needs of the
case.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 18, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya5nvq6m from
Leagle.com.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
District Council 37 Health & Security Plan, 1199SEIU National
Benefit Fund, 1199SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund, 1199SEIU
National Benefit Fund for Home Care Workers & 1199SEIU Licensed
Practical Nurses Welfare Fund, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam
Gitlin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, pro hac vice, Bruce
Leppla, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, pro hac vice, Dan
Drachler, Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, David Rudolph, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, pro hac vice, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan D. Selbin,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Kelly Kristine McNabb,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Robert S. Schachter,
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, pro hac vice, Sona R. Shah,
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP & Christina H.C. Sharp, Girard
Gibbs LLP.
Allergan, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jack Wesley Hill , Ward,
Smith & Hill, PLLC, Jason McKenney, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP,
pro hac vice, M. Sean Royall, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac
vice, Matthew Cameron Parrott, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Michael
S. Royall, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Richard Hale Cunningham, Gibson
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice & Eric J. Stock, Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP.
ALLIED COMMUNICATIONS: Brown Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Allied Communications Corp. and Sameh
Ayoub, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00689 (S.D. Ohio, September 28,
2018), seeks overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rates of pay for the hours they worked over 40
each workweek pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
Defendants are a Boost Mobile retailer with over 130 locations in
various states. Brown was employed by Defendants between October
2017 and June 2018 as a sales representative. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
920 Rockefeller Building
614 W. Superior Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
Tel: (216) 696-5000
Fax: (216) 696-7005
Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
AMN HEALTHCARE: White Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Ca.
-------------------------------------------------
AMN Healthcare, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit asserting a
Fair Credit Reporting Act breach. The case is styled as Katharine
L. White on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AMN Healthcare, Inc. a Nevada corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-06469 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2018).
AMN Healthcare, Inc. provides travel nurse staffing services in the
United States. The company provides locum temporary physician
staffing and permanent placement services for physicians and
clinicians. It recruits nurses, physicians, and allied healthcare
professionals at acute-care hospitals and healthcare
facilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Faces Pokoik Securities Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVIN POKOIK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS, INC., CHIH-HSIANG LIN, and
STEFAN J. MURRY, Case No. 4:18-cv-03722 (S.D. Tex., October 10,
2018), arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies, the Plaintiff alleges.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) certain of the
Company's lasers were susceptible to fail prematurely; (ii) certain
of the Company's transceivers utilizing these lasers would be
materially affected; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing,
Optoelectronics' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times, asserts the Plaintiff.
Founded in 1997, Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., is incorporated in
Delaware and is headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas. The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.
The Company develops and manufactures advanced optical products
which are the building blocks for broadband and fiber access
networks primarily for Internet data center, cable television
(CATV), and fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) networking endmarket.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 600
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (214) 643-6011
Facsimile: (281) 254-7789
E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
Ten South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
ARCADIA, FL: Police Officer Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Bierman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. City of Arcadia FL, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00641 (M.D. Fla., September 27, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys'
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Bierman worked for the City of Arcadia as a police officer for
three years in Desoto County. He claims to have regularly worked in
excess of forty hours per week without overtime pay. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin H. Yormak, Esq.
YORMAK DISABILITY LAW GROUP
Suite 206, 9990 Coconut Rd.
Bonita Springs, FL 34135
Tel: (239) 985-9691
Fax: (239) 288-2534
Email: byormak@yormaklaw.com
AUTO SERVICES: Euler Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Euler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Auto Services Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-03102, (W.D. Ark., September 28, 2018) seeks monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.
Auto Services provides vehicle protection plans where Euler worked
as territory manager. He claims to have regularly worked in excess
of forty hours per week without overtime pay. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
Chris Burks, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
BAXTER & ASSOCIATES: Court Dismisses Tyler FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting
Defendant's Motion for Judgment in the Pleadings in the case
captioned Aisha Tyler, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Timothy E. Baxter & Associates,
P.C., Defendant. Case No. 17-13740. (E.D. Mich.).
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent a collection letter
to the Plaintiff regarding an alleged debt originally owed to an
unknown creditor. The Plaintiff claims that this was a violation of
the FDCPA which requires the debt collector, in the initial
communication or within five days of the initial communication, to
identify the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed. The
Plaintiff alleges the Defendant failed to do so.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Defendant seeks a judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(c), arguing that the Plaintiff has failed to allege that
she sustained any actual harm and therefore does not have standing
under Article III.
Whether Plaintiff Has Standing to Bring This Cause of Action
The Plaintiff alleges that the FDCPA gives consumers a statutory
right to receive certain information, including the name of the
creditor to whom the debt collector is attempting to collect for,
which the Plaintiff was deprived of in this case and as a result of
Defendant's violations of the FDCPA, the Plaintiff was harmed.
The Plaintiff's sole allegations related to injury are that the
FDCPA gives consumers a statutory right to receive certain
information, including the name of the creditor to whom the debt
collector is attempting to collect for, which the Plaintiff was
deprived of in this case and as a result of the Defendant's
violations of the FDCPA, the Plaintiff was harmed.
The Plaintiff does not even attempt to show that the failure to
identify the creditor in the first correspondence caused any harm
beyond a procedural violation there is no allegation that it caused
additional worry or anxiety, risk of overpayment or any other
concrete harm.
The Plaintiff's allegations are a mere procedural violation. This
Court does not opine on what effect a longer delay or specific
allegations of injuries would have on this same analysis.
Here, the missing information appeared in a document that was
otherwise complete with respect to the debt information, no
misleading or incorrect creditor was listed and a correct letter
was sent within a few weeks. The procedural violation alleged by
Plaintiff did not entail a degree of risk sufficient to satisfy the
concreteness requirement of an injury-in-fact and the Plaintiff has
failed establish Article III standing.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's motion for judgment
on the pleadings and grants the Defendant's request to dismiss the
claims against it.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 18, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y88ybugh from
Leagle.com.
Aisha Tyler, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Hubbard --
jhubbard@hspplc.com -- Hubbard Snitchler & Parzianello PLC
&Yitzchak Zelman -- Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman
LLC.
Timothy E. Baxter & Associates, P.C., Defendant, represented by
Timothy E. Baxter, Timothy Baxter & Assoc.
BEAUTY CORP: Zhou Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
BING QING ZHOU, Individually and on behalf of All Other Employees
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. BEAUTY CORP. d/b/a Slim
Grass Beauty, JIN XIA, a/k/a Tracy Xia, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-05761 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 15, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each workweek.
The Defendants failed to record all of the time that Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees of Corporate Defendants work or
worked, including work done in excess of 40 hours each week, the
lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Daniel Tannenbaum, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 353.8588
E-mail: dtannenbaum@hanglaw.com
BELSO INC: Shortchanges Workers Out of Overtime, Says Baker
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Baker, each individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Belso Inc., Jackie LLC, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00722, (E.D. Ark., September 27, 2018) seeks monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendants' failure to
pay lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
forty hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
Belso operates seven retail stores specializing in apparel and
adult novelties. Baker was an hourly-paid salesperson at Belso's
retail location located at 6111 John Harden Drive, Cabot, Arkansas
72023. She claims to have regularly worked in excess of forty hours
per week without overtime pay. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
Chris Burks, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
BF ADVANCE: Abante Rooter Asserts TCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BF Advance LLC and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-06018 (N.D. Cal.,
October 1, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages,
treble damages and all other relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
BF Advance is a business loan financing company while Abante Rooter
and Plumbing is a rooting and plumbing business in Emeryville,
California. Abante claims to have received calls from the Defendant
using an automatic telephone dialing system offering its services.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (877) 206-4741
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
BLUE LINE: Guerra Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Paystubs
---------------------------------------------------
Adolfo Guerra, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Blue Line Transport, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-24026, (S.D. Fla., October 1, 2018), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Guerra worked as a dispatcher for Blue Line Transport, a trucking
company. He worked for a flat rate weekly salary without regard to
the number of hours worked. Blue Line allegedly does not keep
time-keeping records for hours worked by its employees, and did not
pay his salary or 3% commission when due or on the regularly
scheduled payday. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
Miami, FL 33143
Tel: (305) 665-9211
Fax: (305) 328-4842
E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com
BROOKLYN TAP HOUSE: Dia Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Aly Dia, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Brooklyn Tap House, Inc., Raymond Medina, Hugo
Salazar and Steve Escobar, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-05487, (E.D.
N.Y., October 1, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs and
attorneys' fees and prejudgment and post-judgment interest
associated with the bringing of this action, plus any additional
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants operate a bar and restaurant, "Tap House," in Brooklyn
NY where Dia worked as a dishwasher. Dia claims to have regularly
worked in excess of forty hours per week without overtime pay.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Darren P. B. Rumack, Esq.
THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
11 Broadway Suite 960
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 344-9022
Fax: (212) 344-0301
BURGERVILLE: Credit Card Breach Results in Class Action Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregonian reports that a Portland attorney has filed to seek
class-action status for Burgerville customers potentially impacted
by a credit card breach revealed by the company.
The complaint, filed by Michael Fuller, alleges Burgerville failed
to adequately protect credit card information and seeks "fair
compensation" for any losses. It says Burgerville could have
limited economic harm by promptly notifying customers once it
learned of the breach.
The complaint was filed October 3 in Multnomah County Circuit
Court.
Burgerville revealed earlier that thousands of customers' credit
and debit card information may have been compromised during a
cyberattack it learned of in late August.
Burgerville said it learned of the breach from the FBI the same
month. The chain didn't acknowledge the issue until October 3,
saying its first priority was to contain the breach and close off
cybercriminals' access to its systems.
"The operation had to be kept confidential until it was completed
in order to prevent the hackers from creating additional covert
pathways into the company's network," Burgerville said in a written
statement. It said it completed the operation to seal the breach on
October 7.
Burgerville said it doesn't know how many of its customers were
affected. It provided a phone number, 877-322-8228, that anyone can
call to get a free copy of their credit report. The same
information is available online at annualcreditreport.com.
The Vancouver-based fast-food chain says anyone who used plastic at
its restaurants should carefully watch their card statements for
unauthorized charges. In addition, the chain recommends customers
obtain a copy of their credit report to look for unauthorized
information and consider freezing their credit.
The named plaintiff in the class action filing is Cassandra
Nelson.[GN]
CHAMBERS HOTEL: Breeze Files Civil Rights Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
A civil rights class action suit has been filed against Chambers
Hotel Corporation.
The case is captioned Byron Breeze, Jr. on behalf of himself, and
all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Chambers Hotel
Corporation a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-09811 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2018).
Chambers Hotel Corporation is located in New York, New York. This
organization primarily operates in the Hotel, Franchised
business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nolan Keith Klein, Esq.
Law Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A.
Broadway, Ste. 2250
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (646) 560-3230
Fax: (877) 253-2691
Email: klein@nklegal.com
CHECK 'N GO: Gonzales Sues Over Illegal Account Debiting
--------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Check 'N Go of California, Inc.
and Does 1-10, Defendants, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-08412, (C.D.
Cal., September 28, 2018), seeks damages, restitution, and all
other relief resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act.
Sometime in September 2017, Plaintiff obtained a loan from Check 'N
Go and provided her debit account information for the purposes of
automatically debiting her account to make payments on the account
upon signing up for the loan.
After a month, Gonzales then requested to stop the automatic debit
facility, thereby revoking consent for such withdrawals. However,
despite her clear revocation of authorization, Check 'N Go
continued to deduct funds from her account, says the complaint.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (877) 206-4741
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
CHRISTINE VALMY: Faces Dominguez Class Action New York Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit asserting violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act has been filed against Christine Valmy
International School, Inc.
The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Christine Valmy
International School, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09815 (S.D.
N.Y., Oct. 24, 2018).
Christine Valmy International School, Inc. is a Skin Care product
manufacturer and an Esthetics school that, for over 60 years, has
provided knowledge, training and personal beauty to thousands of
students and customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (917) 299-6612
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
CONNEXION POINT: Violates FLSA, Doss Suit Asserts
-------------------------------------------------
Connexion Point, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit in Florida.
The case is styled as Karen Doss and all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Connexion Point, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-24380-RNS (S.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 2018).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Connexion Point, LLC operates as a tech-enabled healthcare services
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
1825 Ponce De Leon Blvd, #329
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (786) 708-7550
Email: r.edwardrosenberg@gmail.com
COUNTY OF INYO, CA: Court Approves Wagner Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Joint Motion for Approval of
the Settlement Agreement in the case captioned AMANDA WAGNER and
HEATHER LIND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF INYO, Defendant. No.
1:17-cv-00969-DAD-JLT. (E.D. Cal.).
The Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), based on defendant's use of an
illegal compensation computation method, which under-calculated the
plaintiffs' regular rate of pay and resulted in underpayment with
respect to overtime hours. In their complaint, the plaintiffs
allege that they and the putative class members were denied proper
compensation in violation of the FLSA when defendant failed to
include all statutorily required forms of compensation in the
regular rate of pay used to calculate plaintiffs' overtime
compensation.
LEGAL STANDARD
To determine whether the proposed FLSA settlement is fair,
adequate, and reasonable, courts in this circuit have balanced
factors such as: the strength of the plaintiffs' case; the risk,
expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the
risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; the
amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed and
the stage of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel;
the presence of a governmental participant; and the reaction of the
class members to the proposed settlement.
The Proposed Settlement is Fair and Reasonable
Courts in this circuit have considered the following factors when
determining whether a settlement is fair and reasonable under the
FLSA: (1) the plaintiff's range of possible recovery; (2) the stage
of proceedings and amount of discovery completed; (3) the
seriousness of the litigation risks faced by the parties; (4) the
scope of any release provision in the settlement agreement; (5) the
experience and views of counsel and the opinion of participating
plaintiffs; and (6) the possibility of fraud or collusion.
Plaintiffs' Range of Possible Recovery
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, defendant will pay
plaintiffs a total sum of $8,650.00.
Each plaintiff will then be awarded an additional $494.06, which
plaintiffs' counsel explains is to ensure that all Plaintiffs
received a substantial recovery. Because of this additional award,
plaintiffs' counsel avers that the total dollar amount awarded to
each plaintiff is greater than what each plaintiff could expect to
receive if this case were to proceed to trial and they prevailed.
Because each plaintiff will be compensated at more than twice their
maximum potential recovery under the FLSA, this factor weighs
heavily in favor of approving the Settlement Agreement.
The Stage of the Proceedings and the Amount of Discovery Completed
Here, the parties have sufficient information to make an informed
decision regarding settlement. The Ninth Circuit's decision in
Flores makes it likely that plaintiffs would prevail in some aspect
of their claim. The parties have engaged in informal discovery over
a period of months, which included an exchange of time and payroll
data to evaluate the potential range of recovery.
The Plaintiffs' counsel then analyzed these records and calculated
damages based upon various legal outcomes.
Under these circumstances, the court finds that the parties had
sufficient information to reach an appropriate settlement.
The Seriousness of the Litigation Risks Faced by the Parties
Courts favor settlement where there is a significant risk that
litigation might result in a lesser recovery for the class or no
recovery at all.
Here, the named plaintiffs believe their claims are meritorious but
concede that if this case were to proceed to trial, they would face
uncertainties about how to calculate damages due to the disputes
between the parties. In that event, plaintiffs might not ultimately
receive the $494.06 they will receive under the Settlement
Agreement, which compensates them above and beyond any recovery
they could receive under the FLSA. The court finds it likely that
further prolonging this litigation would generate needless
litigation expenses for both sides, and that both plaintiffs and
defendant will likely benefit financially by settling this action
now.
Accordingly, consideration of this factor weighs in favor of
approval of the parties' FLSA settlement.
The Scope of Any Release Provision in the Settlement Agreement
Expansive release of claims would allow employers to unfairly
extract valuable concessions from employees using wages that they
are guaranteed by statute.
Here, the release provision is limited to all grievances, disputes
or claims of every nature and kind, known or unknown, foreseen or
unforeseen, arising from or attributable to Plaintiffs' claims in
this Action up to and including the Effective Date of the
Agreement. At oral argument, counsel for both plaintiffs and
defendant confirmed their understanding that this release provision
releases only claims under the FLSA. With this understanding, the
court concludes that the release provision is appropriately
limited. Consideration of this factor therefore also weighs in
favor of approval of the FLSA settlement.
The Experience and Views of Counsel and the Opinion of
Participating Plaintiffs
In determining whether a settlement is fair and reasonable, the
opinions of counsel should be given considerable weight both
because of counsel's familiarity with the litigation and previous
experience with cases.
Here, plaintiffs' counsel, attorney David Mastagni, has
considerable experience in litigating and settling cases asserting
liability pursuant to the Flores decision and has represented to
the court that this settlement is fair, adequate, and in the best
interests of the class members. In addition, all plaintiffs had an
opportunity to review the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and
all have accepted its terms.
Accordingly, consideration of this factor weighs in favor of
approval of the FLSA settlement.
The Possibility of Fraud or Collusion
Here, the court finds that there is a low probability of fraud or
collusion because the parties used payroll record data to calculate
back overtime pay and liquidated damages, and provided all
plaintiffs the opportunity to review their settlement amounts, the
methodology used to calculate those amounts, and the amount of
attorneys' fees and costs. As noted, plaintiffs' counsel asserts
that the settlement amount is greater than the maximum amount that
plaintiffs could recover at trial. This approach, based on an
objective analysis of plaintiffs' time records, guards against the
arbitrariness that might suggest collusion.
In addition, there is nothing in the record to suggest plaintiffs'
counsel allowed the pursuit of their own self-interests to infect
the negotiation. The requested award for attorneys' fees and costs
does not detract from plaintiffs' recovery, since all plaintiffs
will receive more than the full amount of what they are allegedly
due. As such, this settlement lacks any evidence of more subtle
signs of collusion, such as, for example, when counsel receive a
disproportionate distribution of the settlement, or when the
plaintiff class receives no monetary distribution but counsel are
amply rewarded.
Upon considering the totality of the circumstances, the court finds
that the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 18, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybum623h from Leagle.com.
Amanda Wagner & Heather Lind, Plaintiffs, represented by David
Emilio Mastagni -- davidm@mastagni.com -- Mastagni Holstedt, APC,
Isaac Sean Stevens -- istevens@mastagni.com -- Mastagni Holstedt,
APC, Ace Thomas Tate -- atate@mastagni.com -- Mastagni Holstedt,
APC & Ian Barclay Sangster -- isangster@mastagni.com -- Mastagni
Holstedt, APC.
County of Inyo, Defendant, represented by Barbara S. Van Ligten --
bvanligten@aalrr.com -- Atkinson Andelson & Nate J. Kowalski --
nkowalski@aalrr.com -- Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo.
CVS RX SERVICES: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Cabrera Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Sigfredo Cabrera and Enko Telahun filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit titled Sigfredo Cabrera, et al. v.
CVS RX Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-05803-WHA, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge William
Alsup granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
compel arbitration and granted the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint.
The Defendants provide pharmacy services and operate retail stores.
CVS employed Telahun as a pharmacist and pharmacy manager and
Cabrera as a pharmacy service associate and pharmacy technician.
Mr. Cabrera initiated a wage-and-hour putative class action in
August 2017 in state court. He amended the complaint in September
to add Telahun as a Plaintiff and to include a claim pursuant to
California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"). The
amended complaint generally alleged that CVS required them to
complete ongoing training sessions outside of working hours or
during breaks without compensation and failed to reimburse them for
expenses incurred as a result of their employment. Based on these
allegations, the Plaintiffs brought claims under the California
Labor Code, an unfair competition claim, and a PAGA claim.
The appellate case is captioned as Sigfredo Cabrera, et al. v. CVS
RX Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-16946, 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 November 8, 2018;
-- Transcript is due on December 10, 2018;
-- Appellants Sigfredo Cabrera and Enko Telahun's opening
brief is due on January 17, 2019;
-- Appellees CVS Pharmacy, Inc., CVS RX Services, Inc. and
Garfield Beach CVS, LLC's answering brief is due on
February 19, 2019; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants SIGFREDO CABRERA and ENKO TELAHUN are
represented by:
R. Craig Clark, Esq.
Monique R. Rodriguez, Esq.
CLARK LAW GROUP
205 W Date Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 239-1321
E-mail: cclark@clarklawyers.com
mrodriguez@clarklawyers.com
- and -
Walter L. Haines, Esq.
UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
5500 Bolsa Ave.
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Telephone: (562) 256-1047
E-mail: walter@whaines.com
Defendants-Appellees CVS RX SERVICES, INC., a New York corporation;
CVS PHARMACY, INC., a Rhode Island corporation; and GARFIELD BEACH
CVS, LLC, a California limited liability company, are represented
by:
Tyler Ryan Andrews, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 732-6500
E-mail: andrewst@gtlaw.com
- and -
James N. Boudreau, Esq.
Christiana Signs, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
2700 Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 988-7833
E-mail: boudreauj@gtlaw.com
signsc@gtlaw.com
DIPTYQUE USA: Faces Nixon ADA Class Suit
----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diptyque USA, LLC
under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Diptyque USA, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05916-ENV-PK (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 23,
2018).
Diptyque USA is a French perfumer and maker of luxury scented
candles, home fragrances and body care collection.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
Shalom Law, PLLC
124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
Kew Gardens, NY 11374
Phone: (516) 807-1748
Email: jonathan.shalom25@gmail.com
EDA FOOD INC: Restaurant Staff Seek Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------
Jesus Angel Basurto, Rigoberto Sebastian Rivera, Mario Escobar
Sosa, Jose Jaime Reyes Patricio and Isidro Mendoza, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EDA
Food Inc., Karena Foods Inc. and Gary Tulsiani, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-08858 (S.D. N.Y., September 27, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum, overtime and spread-of-hours wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.
Defendants own, operate, or control a chain of Indian Restaurants
in New York, operating under the name "Mughlai Indian Cuisine."
Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers, but in actuality
their duties required a significant amount of time spent performing
the non-tipped duties working in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate overtime compensation. Defendants failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay
them for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or
for any additional overtime premium and the required "spread of
hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day,
assert the Plaintiffs.[BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 317-1200
Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com
ENDOLOGIX INC: Nguyen Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Vicky Nguyen filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Vicky Nguyen v. Endologix, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-00017-AB-PLA, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for materially false and misleading
statements in violation of federal Securities Law.
The Plaintiff brings this federal securities class action on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased the publicly traded securities of
Endologix between August 2, 2016 and November 16, 2016, both dates
inclusive. The complaint asserts that the statement were
materially false, misleading and failed to disclose information
pertaining to the Company's business, operational and financial
results which were known to the Defendants.
The appellate case is captioned as Vicky Nguyen v. Endologix, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 18-56322, 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 November 5, 2018;
-- Transcript is due on December 4, 2018;
-- Appellant Vicky Nguyen's opening brief is due on
January 14, 2019;
-- Appellees Endologix, Inc., Vaseem Mahboob and John
McDermott's answering brief is due on February 14, 2019;
and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant VICKY NGUYEN, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Sara Fuks , Esq.
Laurence Mathew Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
E-mail: sfuks@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
Defendants-Appellees ENDOLOGIX, INC., JOHN MCDERMOTT and VASEEM
MAHBOOB are represented by:
Aaron C. Humes, Esq.
STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH, P.C.
660 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660-6422
Telephone: (949) 725-4000
E-mail: ahumes@sycr.com
ESA MANAGEMENT: Beasley Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Franisha Beasley, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ESA Management LLC, a
Delaware Corporation and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No.: 2:18-cv-06340, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of the California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The Northern District of California assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-06304-EDL to the proceeding. The suit alleges labor related
violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elizabeth D.
Laporte.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
Amir Seyedfarshi, Esq.
RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
1010 Crenshaw Blvd., Suite 100
Torrance, CA 90501
Telephone: (310) 961-9600
Facsimile: (310) 961-9094
E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com
amir@rasterlawgroup.com
Attorneys for ESA Management LLC:
Ebunoluwa O. Olaleye, Esq.
Kurt R. Bockes, Esq.
Lindbergh Porter, Jr., Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
333 Bush Street 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (715) 439-6224
E-mail: dolaleye@littler.com
kbockes@littler.com
lporter@littler.com
EVENTZILLA CORP: De Girolamo Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gianfranco De Girolamo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Eventzilla Corporation and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-08378 (C.D. Cal.,
September 28, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages,
treble damages and all other relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Eventzilla Corporation maintains and operates a comprehensive event
registration software and management platform. De Girolamo received
calls from NFS using an automatic telephone dialing system offering
its services. De Girolamo is not a customer of Eventzilla has never
provided any personal information, including his cellular telephone
number, says the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (877) 206-4741
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
FACEBOOK INC: Bass Sues Over Illegal Collection of Personal Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Bass, Jr., individually, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Facebook, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv- 06022, (N.D. Cal., October 1, 2018), seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory damages
resulting from breach of contract, intrusion into private affairs
and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, California's Customer Records Act and the
California Penal Code.
Facebook Inc. is a publicly-traded social media company with its
headquarters and principal place of business in Menlo Park,
California. It has accumulated and stored information including
accessing users' call and text histories, metadata such as the
names and phone numbers of persons contacted, the times of such
contacts and the lengths of such contacts.
Facebook recently revealed that its users' personal information was
subject to a massive data security breach in September 2018,
affecting approximately 50 million Facebook users. Bass has been a
Facebook user for the last four years. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
Email: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com
FACEBOOK INC: Echavarria Hits Illegal Collection of Personal Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carla Echavarria and Derrick Walker, individually, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Facebook, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-
05982, (N.D. Cal., September 28, 2018), seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief and compensatory damages resulting from breach of
contract, intrusion into private affairs and violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
California's Customer Records Act and the California Penal Code.
Facebook Inc. is a publically-traded social media company with its
headquarters and principal place of business in Menlo Park,
California. It has accumulated and stored information including
accessing users' call and text histories, metadata such as the
names and phone numbers of persons contacted, the times of such
contacts and the lengths of such contacts, notes the complaint.
Plaintiffs owned and used Facebook accounts on their mobile device
for over five years. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Tel: (916) 777-7777
Fax: (916) 924-1829
Email: carnold@justice4you.com
jwatson@justice4you.com
- and -
John Yanchunis, Esq.
Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Tel: (813) 223-5505
Fax: (813) 223-5402
Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
rmcgee@ForThePeople.com
FEDERAL INSURANCE: Ct. Grants $157K Post-Judgment Interest in Klein
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Wichita Falls Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and
Order granting the Class Plaintiffs' Motion for a Declaration that
Federal Owes the Class Plaintiffs in the case captioned VICTORIA
KLEIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE CO., a/k/a CHUBB
GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No.
7:03-CV-102-D (Consolidated with Civil Action No. 7:09-CV-094-D).
(N.D. Tex.).
In this insurance coverage dispute between the plaintiffs in a
certified class action involving the administration of the vitamin
E supplement E-Ferol Aqueous Solution (E-Ferol) and defendant
Federal Insurance Co. (Federal), an excess liability carrier, the
class plaintiffs seek a declaration that Federal owes post-judgment
interest on the judgment.
The post-judgment interest rate for judgments in federal courts is
governed by federal statute. Post-judgment interest is not
discretionary but `shall be calculated from the date of the entry
of the judgment, at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year
constant maturity Treasury yield.
Under Fed. R. App. P. 37, if a money judgment in a civil case is
affirmed, whatever interest is allowed by law is payable from the
date when the district court's judgment was entered.
To determine whether the class plaintiffs and Federal clearly,
unambiguously, and unequivocally contracted around the statutory
rate of post-judgment interest, the court must examine the language
in the Non Waiver Agreement (NWA). Under Texas law, the court's
primary concern when interpreting a contract is to ascertain the
parties' intentions as expressed objectively in the contract.
Federal maintains that the NWA expressly and explicitly provides
the rate of interest that will accrue before and after judgment by
defining interest to mean the prevailing rate of interest earned on
funds deposited into escrow accounts maintained by the chosen bank
and not the legal rate of interest and by stating that the rate of
interest set forth in the NWA would apply up until the time the
funds were to be disbursed, which would be after any appeal of a
judgment.
Courts have found a clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal agreement
to use a different rate of interest from the mandatory rate under
Section 1961(a) when the parties expressly refer to post-judgment
interest. But there is no express reference to post-judgment
interest in the NWA, and the NWA does not otherwise clearly,
expressly, and unambiguously state that the prevailing party agrees
to waive the party's statutory right to recover post-judgment
interest or that the rate of post-judgment interest will differ
from the federal rate.
Federal argues in response that, because the Judgment ordered
Federal to comply with the terms of the NWA, and because the NWA
did not require disbursement of the funds held in escrow until a
future date (i.e., when all appeals are exhausted), the Judgment is
not a money judgment but is, instead, an order to pay Federal in
the future. Federal's argument is flawed for at least the following
reasons.
First, the Judgment does not, as Federal argues, order Federal to
comply with the NWA. Instead, it orders Federal to pay the class
plaintiffs a certain sum of money, stating, in unambiguous terms,
that the class plaintiffs are to have and recover the sum of
$15,000,000.00 deposited into an interest bearing account" plus all
accrued interest. The reference to the NWA is in the same clause
that identifies the money to which class plaintiffs are entitled,
the $15 million that Federal deposited into an interest bearing
escrow account under the terms of NWA. In other words, the court is
not stating that Federal must pay the Judgment under the terms of
the NWA it is stating that Federal must pay the Judgment and that
the place from which Federal is to obtain this sum is from the
escrow account into which it deposited the $15 million pursuant to
the NWA.
Second, Federal cites no authority for the proposition that the
ability to defer payment until after all appeals are exhausted can
somehow turn a money judgment into a non-money judgment for
purposes of post-judgment interest.
The court holds that because the Judgment is, in substance, a final
order to pay money, it is a money judgment as that term is used in
28 U.S.C. Section 1961(a) and Fed. R. App. 37.
The court grants the class plaintiffs' motion for a declaration
that Federal owes the class plaintiffs the sum of $157,217.50 as
post-judgment interest on the Judgment.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 18, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ya5nvq6m from Leagle.com.
Victoria Klein & Ashley Swadley, Plaintiffs, represented by Arthur
John Brender, The Brender Law Firm, Dwain Dent, Dent Law Firm &
Frederick L. Streck, III, Dent Law .
O'Neal Inc, a subsidiary of Dyson-Kissner-Moran Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Barry Alan Chasnoff, Chasnoff Mungia
Pepping & Stribling PLLC, David R. Nelson, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer
& Feld & Jeffrey M. Goldfarb -- jgoldfarb@goldfarbpllc.com --
Goldfarb PLLC.
CVS Pharmacy Inc, formerly known as CVS Revco DS Inc, Revco DS Inc,
Defendant, represented by Barry Alan Chasnoff --
bchasnoff@chasnoffmungia.com -- Chasnoff Mungia Pepping & Stribling
PLLC & Abby M. Goerig, Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons.
Federal Insurance Company, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel
F. Gourash -- dfgourash@sseg-law.com -- Seeley Savidge Ebert &
Gourash Co LPA, Robert D. Anderle -- rdanderle@sseg-law.com --
Seeley Savidge Ebert & Gourash LPA &Russell W. Schell, Schell
Cooley LLP.
FIRST CHOICE: Shortchanges Customers on Cable TV Deal, Says Carter
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlo Carter, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. First Choice
Communications LLC and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-02645 (E.D. Cal., September 27, 2018) seeks redress for
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law.
Carter signed up for a DirecTv television service, upon being
promised Visa Gift Cards in excess of $100 and two years of NFL
Sunday Ticket programming for free. However, he only got the $100
Visa Gift Card and nothing else, says the complaint.
First Choice Communications --
http://www.firstchoicecommunications.net/services.html-- is a
cable TV device manufacturer based in Columbus OH and provides a
DirecTV service under AT&T. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
324 S. Beverly Dr.
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: 877-206-4741
Fax: 866-633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
FMR LLC: Moitoso Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Moitoso, Tim Lewis, and Mary Lee Torline, individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of the Fidelity Retirement Savings Plan v. FMR LLC, the FMR
LLC Retirement Committee, Fidelity Management & Research Company,
FMR Co., Inc., Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations
Company, Inc., and John and Jane Does 1–20, Case No.
1:18-cv-12122 (D. Mass., October 10, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the
Plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, to the detriment of the Plan and its participants and
beneficiaries.
The Plaintiffs assert their class claims against the Plan's
fiduciaries -- FMR LLC, the FMR LLC Retirement Committee, and John
and Jane Does 1–20 (the "Fiduciary Defendants") -- who failed to
manage the Plan in a prudent and loyal manner, and against certain
Fidelity entities -- FMR LLC, Fidelity Management & Research
Company, FMR Co., Inc., and Fidelity Investments Institutional
Operations Company, Inc. (the "Entity Defendants") -- who profited
as a result of these fiduciary breaches, notes the complaint.
FMR LLC is a financial services conglomerate headquartered in
Boston, Massachusetts. FMR LLC is the "plan sponsor" of the Plan.
FMR LLC's Board of Directors is the governing body that oversees
the activities and discharges the legal obligations of FMR LLC.
The FMR LLC Retirement Committee is designated by the Plan Document
to assist FMR LLC with administration of the Plan. The identities
of the Doe Defendants are not currently known to the Plaintiffs.
Fidelity Management & Research Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of FMR LLC and a plan employer. At all relevant times, FMR served
as the investment advisor to hundreds of Fidelity mutual funds held
within the Plan. FMR Co., Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
FMR LLC and a plan employer. FMRC served as the investment
subadvisor to numerous Fidelity mutual funds held within the Plan,
and was paid fees calculated as a percentage of the assets it
subadvised.
Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Company, Inc., is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of FMR LLC. FIIOC acted as the transfer
agent for each fund in the Plan. FIIOC also provided recordkeeping
services to the Plan, a service it also provides to third-party
retirement plans.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
155 Federal Street, Suite 400
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
E-mail: jason@blockesq.com
jake@blockesq.com
- and -
Kai H. Richter, Esq.
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
Mark E. Thomson, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4600 IDS Center
80 S. 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: krichter@nka.com
lukas@nka.com
cengstrom@nka.com
mthomson@nka.com
FORD MOTOR: Faces Naasz Class Suit Over Defective Brake System
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROY NAASZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:18-cv-13165-AJT-RSW (E.D. Mich.,
October 10, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
persons, who purchased or leased in California certain vehicles
equipped with uniform and uniformly defective braking systems
designed, manufactured, distributed, and sold/leased by Ford or its
related subsidiaries or affiliates.
The vehicles at issue in this action include the 2013-2018 Ford
F-150 trucks. The Plaintiff alleges that the Class Vehicles' Brake
Systems have a serious defect that causes brake fluid to leak from
the master cylinder, resulting in a loss of hydraulic pressure and
sudden failure of brake function ("Brake System Defect").
Ford Motor Company is a Delaware corporation, which has its
principal place of business in the state of Michigan, and is a
citizen of the states of Delaware and Michigan. Ford is engaged in
the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing, warranting,
distributing, selling, and leasing automobiles, including the Class
Vehicles, in California and throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
222 2nd Avenue S, Suite 1640
Nashville, TN 37201-2379
Telephone: (615) 313-9000
Facsimile: (615) 313-9965
E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com
- and -
Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
Annika K. Martin, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
akmartin@lchb.com
- and -
Evan J. Ballan, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: eballan@lchb.com
- and -
Patrick Newsom, Esq.
BRUNO NEWSOM PLLC
40 Music Square E.
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 251-9500
Facsimile: (615) 345-4188
E-mail: patrick@brunonewsom.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Davis Suit Moved to Eastern District of Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. General Motors Company Inc., General
Motors Holdings LLC , and General Motors LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 5:18-cv-01239, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama, to U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan (Flint) on Oct 16, 2018. The Eastern
District of Michigan Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:18-cv-13200-MFL to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Matthew F. Leitman. The suit alleges Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act violation.
General Motors Company, commonly referred to as General Motors, is
an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that
designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and
vehicle parts, and sells financial services.[BN]
GLOBAL CREDIT & COLLECTION: Duncan Disputes Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------
Enoch Duncan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Global Credit & Collection Corp. and LVNV
Funding, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03022, (S.D. Ind., October
1, 2018), seeks actual and statutory damages, costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Defendants operate a nationwide debt collection business and
attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state,
including consumers in the State of Indiana. The Plaintiff says the
Defendant attempted to collect a defaulted consumer debt, which was
allegedly owed for a WebBank account. However, said letter failed
to state effectively the name of the creditor to whom the debt was
then owed. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Philipps, Esq.
Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
Carissa K. Rasch, Esq.
Angie K. Robertson, Esq
PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
Palos Hills, IL 60465
Tel: (708) 974-2900
Fax: (708) 974-2907
Email: davephilipps@aol.com
mephilipps@aol.com
carissa@philippslegal.com
angie@philippslegal.com
- and -
John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
Indianapolis, IN 46227
Tel: (317) 780-8300
Fax: (317) 217-1320
Email: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com
GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION: Ct. Denies Substituted Service in Denham
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for
Substituted Service in the case captioned RYAN GARY DENHAM, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC. d/b/a AMERICA'S
ALLIANCE d/b/a AMERICA'S CHOICE GARAGE DOOR SERVICE, Defendants.
Case No. 18cv1495-LAB (MDD). (S.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Ryan Denham has been unable to serve Defendant Global
Distribution Services, despite what he describes as extensive
efforts to do so. He now requests that this Court permit him to
serve the Defendant via its counsel, who represents the Defendant
in a related case. Because the Defendant has not appeared, the
Court does not anticipate any filed opposition to this motion and
therefore deems it suitable for disposition without oral argument.
The Plaintiff's motion is denied.
According to Denham, Global Distribution Services is a corporation,
but does not have a registered agent with the California Secretary
of State. He has attempted personal service three separate times at
different addresses, but has yet to effectuate service.
Although Defendant likely has notice of this action and may or may
not be evading service the Court lacks authority to pre-emptively
approve Plaintiff's service of a domestic defendant via its
counsel, unless there is waiver under FRCP 4(d). Plaintiff may
attempt substitute service under California law if he believes the
requirements are met, and he does not need the Court's permission
to do so.
The Plaintiff's Motion for Substitute Service is denied.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 18, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9qk2s33 from Leagle.com.
Ryan Gary Denham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Melinda Arbuckle, Baron & Budd,
PC.
GRAND CHINESE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Under FLSA, Chan Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WING-SING ("VINCENT") FRANCIS CHAN, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated persons v. GRAND CHINESE BUFFET RESTAURANT INC.,
ASIAN 1 RESTAURANT CORPRATION, SHERYL CHAN, OI FAI WONG and MAN FAI
WONG (CALVIN WONG), Case No. 3:18-cv-02692-B (N.D. Tex., October
10, 2018), alleges that the Defendants violate the Fair Labor
Standards Act by misclassifying the Plaintiff and failing to pay
him at time and one half his regular rate of pay for hours worked
in excess of 40.
Grand Chinese Buffet Restaurant Inc., doing business as Grand
Chinese Buffet Restaurant, is a domestic for-profit corporation and
does business in Texas. Asian 1 Restaurant Corporation, doing
business as Our Glass Restaurant and Sports Bar, does business in
Texas. The Individual Defendants are offices, directors, managers
or agents of the Defendant Corporations.
Grand Chinese Buffett is a restaurant chain featuring both menu and
buffet style Chinese cuisines.
Asian 1 Restaurant, doing business as Our Glass Restaurant and
Sports Bar, is a restaurant and sports bar featuring a diverse
chef-driven menu, as well as, a bar featuring, pool tables and
karaoke performances.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Forester, Esq.
D. Matthew Haynie, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com
matthew@foresterhaynie.com
- and -
M. Shane McGuire, Esq.
THE MCGUIRE FIRM, PC
102 N. College, Suite 301
Tyler, TX 75702
Telephone: (903) 630-7154
Facsimile: (903) 630-7173
E-mail: shane@mcguirefirm.com
HASBRO INC: Police Fund Hits Stock Price Drop from Retailer Loss
----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Hasbro,
Inc., Brian D. Goldner and Deborah M. Thomas, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-00543, (D. R.I., September 27, 2018) seeks remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Hasbro is a global play and entertainment company based in
Pawtucket, Rhode Island. Hasbro shares are traded on the NASDAQ.
Defendants failed to consider that Toys "R" Us, one of Hasbro's
biggest retailers, was in dire financial condition and had to
dramatically scale back its operations and file for bankruptcy and
liquidate. Hasbro was also experiencing significant undisclosed
adverse sales issues in the UK and Brazil. Hasbro CEO Goldner and
other Hasbro insiders collectively sold $147 million of their
personally held Hasbro stock to the unsuspecting public.
In response to the above revelations, the price of Hasbro common
stock declined from $92.69 per share to $89.75 per share, from a
high of $115.95. Plaintiff purchased Hasbro common stock and lost
substantially. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Vincent Greene, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE, LLC
55 Cedar Street, Suite 100
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 457-7700
Fax: (401) 457-7708
Email: vgreene@motleyrice.com
- and -
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Vicki M. Diamond, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Tel: (631) 367-7100
Fax: (631) 367-1173
Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
vdiamond@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Thomas Michaud, Esq.
VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY P.C
79 Alfred Street
Detroit, MI 48201
Office phone: (313) 578-1200
Email address: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com
HATTIE B'S: Austin Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages, Paystubs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Austin, Individually, and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hattie B's, LLC, Hattie B's of
Middle TN, LLC and Hattie B's of West TN, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-00980, (M.D. Tenn., September 28, 2018) seeks to recover
unpaid wages owed for unpaid straight time, and minimum wage and
overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act; and
redress for failure to maintain accurate time keeping records.
Defendants own and operate Hattie B's restaurants in Nashville and
Memphis, Tennessee where Austin was employed by Defendants as an
hourly-paid tipped server. She routinely spends more than twenty
percent of her shift performing non-tipped related, preparation and
maintenance work while only receiving a "tip credit" for such work,
says the complaint. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Tel: (901) 754-8001
Fax: (901) 759-1745
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
jholt@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
pjackson@jsyc.com
HOWROYD-WRIGHT: Becerra-South Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
April Becerra-South, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Howroyd-Wright Employment Agency, Inc., Apple One Services, Ltd.
and Does 1 through 25, Case No. CV18-08348 (Cal. Super., May 16,
2018), was removed to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on September 27, 2018, and assigned
Case No. 18-cv-08348.
Plaintiff seeks payment of vacation benefits, civil penalties and
restitution including redress for failure to provide correct
itemized wage statements and failure to pay discharged employee
under the California Labor Code.
Howroyd-Wright Employment Agency, Inc. -- http://www.appleone.com/
-- doing business as AppleOne, provides employment services. It
offers career assistance, direct hire, temporary and contingent,
project staffing, and managed services; and government, payroll
accommodation, education and training, and outplacement services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aarin A. Zeif, Esq.
Michael A. Gould, Esq.
GOULD AND ASSOCIATES APC
17822 E 17th Street, Suite 106
Tustin, CA 92780
Telephone: (714) 669-2850
Facsimile: (714) 544-0800
Email: aarin@wageandhourlaw.com
michael@wageandhourlaw.com
Howroyd-Wright is represented by:
Kevin Y. Kanooni, Esq.
K.P. ROBERTS &ASSOCIATES, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
6355 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 403
Woodland Hills CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 888-3553
IL PASTAIO: Almanza Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
------------------------------------------------------------
Loida Almanza, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff,
v. Il Pastaio & La Pasta Boutique, LLC, d/b/a La Pasta Boutique, La
Ciabatta Boutique, LLC, Jessica Oreamuno and Victor Munoz,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-24044, (S.D. Fla., October
2, 2018), seeks to recover regular wages, overtime compensation,
retaliatory damages, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Il Pastaio and La Pasta Boutique, LLC, and La Ciabatta Boutique,
LLC are retail businesses operating as an Italian restaurant and
Italian bakery and coffee shop. Defendants operate under the name
of La Pasta Boutique (restaurant) and La Ciabatta Boutique (bakery)
out of Miami, Florida where Almanza worked as a baker, cook,
waitress, busser, dishwasher, coffee shop attendant and cleaning
employee. She worked a minimum of 84 hours weekly regularly without
overtime or taking bona fide lunch breaks, says the complaint.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
INDIANA: Court OKs Summary Judgment in Telephone Policy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, South Bend Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting
Defendant and IDOC Commissioner, Robert Carter, Jr.'s Motion for
Summary Judgment in the case captioned JAMES HINES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. ROBERT CARTER, JR. in his official capacity and individual
capacity, Defendant. Case No. 3:17-CV-388-MGG. (N.D. Ind.).
The Plaintiffs' claims in this case arise as the result of the
Telephone Privileges Policy (Telephone Policy) of the Indiana
Department of Correction (IDOC) enforced at the Westville
Correctional Facility (WCF) where the Plaintiffs were incarcerated.
In applying the Policy, WCF effectively bars offenders from
receiving non-fee telephone calls from privately retained counsel
even though offenders with appointed or pro bono counsel may
receive such non-fee attorney-client phone calls. Both Plaintiffs1,
James Hines and Anthony Gant, claim that the Telephone Policy, as
implemented at WCF violated their constitutional rights by
discriminating on the basis of disability or economic status in
violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and by denying access
to the courts in violation of the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
The Plaintiffs also allege that the Telephone Policy discriminates
based upon disability in violation of Title II of the American with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act.
Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, the discovery
and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Constitutional Claims
Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment
Here, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant discriminated against
them through the implementation of the Telephone Policy, which
deprived them of the right to reasonably receive telephone
communication from private counsel. As clarified in their briefing
of the instant motion, the Plaintiffs also contend that the
Defendant's discrimination deprived them of access to the program
outlined in the Telephone Policy of allowing prisoners non-fee
attorney-client telephone communication under appropriate
circumstances when necessary to support their access to courts.
To prove discriminatory effect, the Plaintiffs must show that they
are members of a protected class and that they were treated
differently from a similarly situated member of an unprotected
class.
Discriminatory purpose means more than simple knowledge that a
particular outcome is the likely consequence of an action; rather,
discriminatory purpose requires a defendant to have selected a
particular course of action at least in part because of its adverse
effects upon an identifiable group.
The Defendant argues that the Policy does not discriminate on the
basis of disability or economic status and has no discriminatory
purpose. Defendant further argues that even if the Policy was found
to be discriminatory, it does not violate the Equal Protection
Clause because it is rationally related to legitimate penological
interests in institutional order and security.
The Defendant's arguments are compelling. Nothing in the policies
suggests that disabled or indigent offenders are to be treated
differently than any other offenders. Furthermore, the Defendant
has provided testimony in the form of a sworn declaration from
Betty Deutscher, Westville's GTL Coordinator with experience and
knowledge related to the Telephone Policy, showing that Policy is
implemented without regard to any offender's disability or ability
to pay.
Ms. Deutscher also testified that the purpose for refusing to allow
offenders to receive telephone calls is that verifying the identity
of incoming callers is not practicable, and unmonitored calls may
be used to further illicit or illegal activity and that
facilitating incoming calls would strain Westville's resources.
Plaintiffs have provided no evidence to refute Ms. Deutscher's
testimony. As such, the Court can only conclude that the Policy is
used to ensure institutional security and order while also
deterring further crime.
Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment
The Plaintiffs argue that the Telephone Policy, as enforced at WCF,
unreasonably burdens prisoners' access to courts. Indeed, prisoners
have constitutional rights of access to the courts requiring
prisons to permit lawyers access to the prisoner.
To prove a violation of this right of access to the courts, a
plaintiff must demonstrate that state action hindered his or her
efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim and that consequently
the plaintiff suffered some actual concrete injury.
WCF prohibited all offenders from receiving telephone calls from
anyone, including privately retained counsel, or making non-fee
calls under the auspices of the Policy. However, WCF did not
restrict when or how long offenders could call their attorneys
using the Offender Calling System at all. Offenders just had to
abide with the System's rules, which are not onerous and simply
require offenders to put their attorneys on an Offender Telephone
List, to tell WCF personnel that their legal representative is on
the other end of a call, and ask that the call not be monitored.
Even if offenders cannot make calls to their attorneys themselves
using the Offender Calling System for some reason, they still have
the option of calling their attorneys collect, receiving personal
visits from their attorney at the Facility, and engaging in written
correspondence with their attorneys. Plaintiffs put forth no
evidence to suggest that they were denied access to any of these
communications methods.
With nothing more in the record, the Plaintiffs' due process claim
is misplaced. Defendant has indeed facilitated Plaintiffs' and all
WCF offenders' access to the courts by allowing them to use a
variety of communication methods to contact their privately
retained counsel for assistance in prosecuting their lawsuits.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs' failure to produce any evidence of
particular instances where WCF prevented them from communicating
with their attorneys or to connect such instances to any negative
outcome in their underlying lawsuits dooms their due process claim.
Therefore, with no genuine dispute of material fact, Defendant is
also entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Plaintiffs' due
process claim.
ADA and Rehabilitation Act Claims
Under Title II of the ADA, no qualified individual with a
disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from
participation in or be denied the benefits of the services,
program, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to
discrimination by any such entity.
The Rehabilitation Act provides that no otherwise qualified
individual with a disability shall be excluded from the
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal
financial assistance by reason of his disability.
To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must
prove that he is qualified individual with a disability, that he
was denied `the benefits of the services, programs, or activities
of a public entity' or otherwise subjected to discrimination by
such an entity, and that the denial or discrimination was `by
reason of' his disability.
Here, Plaintiffs contend that they have presented evidence that
Defendant may be liable under both the ADA and Rehabilitation Act
for failure to provide disabled WCF prisoners access to the non-fee
attorney-client telephone services provided to nondisabled
prisoners.
Qualified Disabled Individuals
Plaintiffs have not cited any evidence showing their either of them
qualify as disabled individuals. Under the ADA, a qualified
individual is an individual with a disability, who, with or without
reasonable modification to rules meets the essential eligibility
requirements for the participation in program or activities
provided by a public entity. An otherwise qualified individual
under the Rehabilitation Act is someone who would have qualified
for a program to which he was denied were not for his alleged
disabilities.
In the operative amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Hines is
a qualified individual under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act because
he suffers from intellectual and learning disabilities and has
mental impairments substantially limiting major life activities
including learning, reading, concentrating, and thinking.
In support of their allegation that they are qualified disabled
individuals, Plaintiffs merely present their own responses to
Defendant's interrogatories without any supporting medical or other
documentation.
Yet the IDOC records presented to the Court suggest that Gant has
no disabilities. Specifically, Gant's Disability Classification
forms dated March 27, 2014, October 27, 2014 and September 5, 2016
report that he has no disability and is capable of performing
activities of daily living.
Additionally, Gant's Medical Status Classification form dated
September 5, 2016, is marked to describe him as free of illness or
injury; free of physical impairment; individuals with short term
self-limiting condition requiring minimal surgical, medical,
nursing or dental intervention limited to 30 days duration.
Therefore, Plaintiffs have not put up sufficient evidence to
convince a trier of fact that they even qualify as disabled
individuals entitled to the protections of the ADA and
Rehabilitation Act.
Reasonable Accommodation
Under Title II of the ADA, public entities are required to make
reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when
the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the
basis of disability.
Here, Plaintiffs argue that the Telephone Policy prohibiting
receipt of non-fee offender telephone calls to their retained
counsel does not guarantee meaningful access presumably to counsel
and therefore the courts for disabled prisoners who struggle to
communicate in writing because of lower levels of functioning or
those impaired in communication from the trauma underlying their
disabilities.
Yet Plaintiffs have provided no evidence to show that they were
deprived of receiving non-fee attorney-client telephone calls
because of their alleged disabilities. In fact, the record is
replete with evidence showing that the Policy dictates who can
receive non-fee attorney-client phone calls based solely on how the
attorney is or is not paid for representing the offender.
Even if disability had been a factor in determining which offenders
can receive non-fee attorney-client phone calls, Plaintiffs have
also failed to provide evidence that Defendant failed to provide a
reasonable accommodation for Plaintiffs' alleged disabilities.
Nothing in the record suggests that Plaintiffs had documented their
disabilities and any necessary accommodations for those
disabilities to Defendant.
Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to provide evidence to establish
that they are qualified individuals with disabilities under the ADA
or the Rehabilitation Act. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not proffered
evidence regarding Defendant's reasonable accommodation of their
disabilities.
Without evidence that the Policy's alternative methods of
communication with retained counsel could not reasonably
accommodate Plaintiffs' particular disabilities, Plaintiffs have
shown any genuine dispute of material fact that warrants
consideration by a trier of fact. Accordingly, Defendant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs' ADA and
Rehabilitation Act claims.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 18, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y98sftjf from
Leagle.com.
James Hines, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Anthony Gant, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher
C. Myers, Christopher C Myers & Associates & David W. Frank,
Christopher C Myers & Associates.
Robert Carter, Jr, in his official capacity and individual
capacity, Defendant, represented by Andrew C. Scheil, Indiana
Government Center South Indiana Attorney General's Office &
Benjamin C. Ellis, Indiana Government Center South Indiana Attorney
General's Office.
INVUITY INC: Franchi Files Suit Over Sale to Stryker
----------------------------------------------------
Adam Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, plaintiff, v. Invuity, Inc., Scott Flora, Eric Roberts,
Randall A. Lipps, Gregory T. Lucier, William W. Burke, Daniel
Wolterman, Stryker Corporation and Accipiter Corp., Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-01511 (D. Del., September 28, 2018), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of
Invuity, Inc. by Stryker Corporation and Accipiter Corp., or
rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger. The
Plaintiff further seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, Stryker will acquire
all of Invuity's outstanding common stock at $7.40 per share in
cash.
According to the Plaintiff, the solicitation statement filed
concerning the proposed transaction omits material information
regarding Invuity's financial projections and the analyses
performed by its financial advisor, Moelis & Company LLC. With
respect to their "Selected Publicly Traded Companies Analysis," the
solicitation statement fails to disclose the total enterprise
values of the companies observed by Moelis in the analysis, says
the complaint.
Invuity is a medical technology company focused on developing and
marketing advanced surgical devices.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
Berwyn, PA 19312
Tel: (484) 324-6800
Email: rm@maniskas.com
JUSTIN'S NUT: Clark Files Slack Fill Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD CLARK, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public v. JUSTIN'S NUT BUTTER, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-06193-JCS (N.D. Cal.,
October 10, 2018), accuses the Defendant of intentionally packaging
its Justin's Peanut Butter Cup product in opaque containers that
contain approximately 40% empty space.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product at a Target in San Francisco,
California. He asserts that he was surprised when he opened the
item and saw that the container had nearly 40% empty space, or
slack fill. He argues that the Defendant's conduct violates
consumer protection and labeling laws, including California's Fair
Packaging and Labeling Act and California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.
Justin's Nut Butter, LLC, is a Delaware corporation, which has its
principal place of business located in Boulder, Colorado. The
Company makes natural and organic nut butters and peanut butter
cups. The Company manufactures and markets jars and single-serve
squeeze packs of nut butter, along with various kinds of organic
peanut butter cups.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
mike@consumersadvocates.com
- and -
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
4100 Newport Place Drive, Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
JUUL LABS: Sued for Deceptive Trade Practices of E-Cigarettes
--------------------------------------------------------------
J.Y., a minor, by and with his mother and Natural Guardian BARBARA
YANNUCCI, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v.
JUUL LABS, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-14416-RLR (S.D. Fla., October 10,
2018), is brought for alleged violation of the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act on behalf of a class of all persons,
who purchased and used a JUUL e-cigarette and/or JUUL Pods in
Florida, including minors.
The case arises out of the Defendant's alleged false and deceptive
sale, marketing, labeling and advertising of JUUL e-cigarette
devices and JUUL pods, which came into the market in 2015.
Although the Defendant claims that the device is intended
exclusively for adult use, the devices appeals to youth because it
can be easily charged on a laptop, its decal covers come in
colorful designs, and the pods are available in flavors such as
mango, mint and creme brulee, the Plaintiff contends. The
Plaintiff adds that using e-cigarettes is more discreet and easier
to hide than traditional cigarettes, particularly for teens at
school or at home and young adults.
Juul Labs, Inc., is incorporated in Delaware, with its principal
place of business in San Francisco, California. The Defendant
manufactured, distributed and sold JUUL devices and JUUL pods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Jonathan Z. DeSantis, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE P.C.
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: ssavett@bm.net
bpodell@bm.net
rpaul@bm.net
jdesantis@bm.net
- and -
Aaron J. Freiwald, Esq.
FREIWALD LAW
1500 Walnut Street, 18th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 875-8000
E-mail: ajf@freiwaldlaw.com
KATCH TWENTY-TWO: Ferguson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------
Nicholas J. Ferguson, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Katch Twenty-Two, LLC and Richard Wiggins,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00505 (M.D. Fla., October 1, 2018), seeks
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees
and costs and other relief for violation of the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Katch Twenty-Two is a restaurant in Lecanto FL, where Ferguson
worked as a cook. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours
without overtime pay. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
William J. Sheslow, Esq.
WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
One Progress Plaza
200 Central Avenue, #400
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Telephone: (727) 822-1111
Facsimile: (727) 898-2001
Email: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
will@theFLlawfirm.com
KEY INSURANCE: Morris Seeks to Enforce Privacy Provisions of TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
George Morris v. Key Insurance Advisors LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00720
(E.D. Tex., October 10, 2018), is brought on behalf of a class of
all other persons or entities similarly situated seeking to enforce
the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
Because he had not given his consent to receive telemarketing calls
from the Defendant, the calls violate the TCPA and the Do Not Call
Registry laws and regulations, the Plaintiff alleges.
Key Insurance Advisors LLC is a corporation that solicits business
in the state of Texas. The Company sells insurance and related
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
Southlake, TX 76092
Telephone: (817) 416-5060
Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com
KRAFT HEINZ CO: Albion Suit Asserts Fruit Juice Mislabeling
-----------------------------------------------------------
William Albion, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. The Kraft Heinz
Company, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02101 (C.D. Cal., October 2,
2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages
and all other relief for breach of implied and express warranty and
for violation of California's False Advertising Law, Unfair
Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
The Kraft Heinz Company manufactures, packages, labels, advertises,
markets, distributes, and sells Defendant manufactures, packages,
distributes, advertises, markets, and sells fruit-flavored beverage
products under the trade name "Crystal Light" throughout the United
States.
Their products' labels contain pictures of fruits implying that
they are made of fruit juices despite consisting only of water,
malic acid and artificial flavoring, notes the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Fax: (619) 564-6665
Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
mike@consumersadvocates.com
- and -
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tel: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
LEAF COMMERCIAL: Alves Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Alves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Leaf Commercial Capital, Inc. and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-08383 (C.D. Cal.,
September 28, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages,
treble damages and all other relief under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
Leaf Commercial Capital, Inc. is realtor equipment financing
company. Alves received calls from Leaf using an automatic
telephone dialing system offering its services. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (877) 206-4741
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
LEGACY COMPONENTS: Eleventh Cir. Appeal Filed in Wheeler Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Kenneth Alverez and Legacy Components, LLC, filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Shane Wheeler v.
Legacy Components, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01983-EAK-TGW, in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Shane Wheeler v. Legacy
Components, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-14105, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee MICHAEL MCBRIDE, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Kelly Morgan Fisher, Esq.
Scott A. Fisher, Esq.
FISHER LAW GROUP, PA
PO Box 55153
St. Petersburg, FL 33732
Telephone: (727) 329-8625
E-mail: kfisher@fisherlawgroup.com
sfisher@fisherlawgroupfla.com
Defendants-Appellants KENNETH ALVEREZ and LEGACY COMPONENTS, LLC,
are represented by:
Jeffrey W. Gibson, Esq.
Ashley E. Taylor, Esq.
MACFARLANE FERGUSON & MCMULLEN, PA
201 N Franklin St., Suite 2000
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 273-4200
E-mail: jg@macfar.com
aet@macfar.com
LOAN PAYMENT: 9th Cir. Affirms Arbitration in BMO Third-Party Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued a
Memorandum affirming the District Court's judgment granting BMO
Harris Bank's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned
DEAN KROGSTAD, Plaintiff, v. LOAN PAYMENT ADMINISTRATION LLC,
Defendant, v. NATIONWIDE BIWEEKLY ADMINISTRATION, INC.,
Third-party-plaintiff-Appellant, v. BMO HARRIS BANK NA,
Third-party-defendant-Appellee. No. 17-15964. (9th Cir.).
After being named as a defendant in a putative class action,
Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. (NBA) filed a third-party
complaint against BMO Harris Bank (BMO), alleging that any
potential harm to the putative class was caused by BMO's breach of
a contract with NBA. BMO in turn sought to enforce an arbitration
clause in its contract with NBA.
The district court granted BMO's motion to compel arbitration and
dismissed the third-party complaint.
Arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,
save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the
revocation of any contract. NBA argued that the arbitration
provision in its agreement with BMO was invalid because it (1)
prohibited the parties from bringing class or representative
actions against each other and (2) also included a blow provision,
mandating that if a court decides that this paragraph's prohibition
of class or representative actions and/or consolidation is invalid
or unenforceable, then the entirety of this arbitration provision
will be null and void.
The district court correctly rejected these arguments.
The blow provision only applies if a court finds that this
paragraph's prohibition of class or representative actions is
invalid. No court has done so; indeed, albeit in different
contexts, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected arguments that
class action waivers are invalid.
Moreover, the arbitration clause in the NBA-BMO agreement provides
only that the parties will not bring class action or representative
claims against each other. NBA's third-party complaint against BMO,
although filed in a case initiated by the filing of a putative
class complaint, is not itself a class or representative action.
There was thus no warrant for the district court in this case to
consider the enforceability of the class action waiver.
A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's October 18, 2018 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y99ypq3z from Leagle.com.
LORO PIANA: Diaz Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Web Site
------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. LORO PIANA USA LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-09290-GHW (S.D.N.Y.,
October 10, 2018), alleges that the Defendant fails to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Web site --
http://www.loropiana.com/-- to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
Loro Piana USA LLC is a New York Limited Liability Company doing
business in New York. The Company is a clothing and accessories
retailer that operates LORO PIANA stores.
The Company also operates the LORO PIANA Web site that offers
features, which should allow all consumers to access the goods and
services that the Defendant offers in connection with their
physical locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
- and -
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003-2461
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
LOVED ONES: Shortchanges Health Workers on Wages, Says Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Betsy S. Farnsworth and Brittany E. Gamber on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Loved Ones in Home
Care, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-1334 (S.D. W.V., October 1,
2018), seeks to recover compensation for travel time between client
homes pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.
Defendant operates an in-home personal care and nursing services
company in Charleston, West Virginia. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Rodney A. Smith, Esq.
Todd S. Bailess, Esq.
BAILESS SMITH PLLC
120 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 342-0550
Facsimile: (304) 344-5529
Email: rsmith@bailesssmith.com
tbailess@bailesssmith.com
- and -
Mark A. Toor, Esq.
1210 Kanawha Blvd, East
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 380-2111
Email: mark@marktoor.com
LTD FINANCIAL: Violates FDCPA, Vedernikov Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LTD Financial
Services LP asserting violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
The case is styled as Igor Vedernikov individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LTD Financial Services
LP, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-15217 (D. N.J.,
Oct. 23, 2018).
LTD Financial Services, LP, a collection agency, provides
collection and custom call center solutions in the United States.
It offers customer care accounts services; collection services,
such as pre charge-off collection, pre charge-off system, and post
charge-off collection; and commercial collection services. The
company serves credit grantors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
Stein Saks, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
LYON COLLECTION: Faces Pomerantz FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lyon Collection
Services Inc., et al. The case is styled as Hindy Pomerantz
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Lyon Collection Services Inc., John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-15219 (D. N.J., Oct. 23, 2018).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Lyon Collection Services Inc. offers services in Commercial
Collections and Accounts Receivable Management across all business
industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
Stein Saks, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
M ELLIOT: Chavers Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Illegal Deductions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dushawn Chavers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. M. Elliot, Strong and Assoc., LLC and Marc
E. Singletary, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04589, (N.D. Ga., October
1, 2018, seeks to recover reimbursement of unauthorized deductions,
unpaid overtime compensation for work performed, liquidated damages
to compensate them for the delay in payment of money due, as well
as attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Defendant does business as "TPS Security LLC, GA" where Chavers was
employed by the Defendants as a security guard based in Defendants'
Atlanta, Georgia, location. Chaver worked no less than 58 hours of
overtime per week without being paid overtime compensation, notes
the complaint. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tyler B. Kaspers, Esq.
THE KASPER FIRM LLC
152 New Street, Suite 109B
Macon GA 31201
Tel: (404) 994-3128
Email: tyler@kaspersfirm.com
MACMAHON HOLDINGS: Shareholder Class Action Settled for $6.7MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Williams, writing for The West Austrailian, reports that
Macmahon Holdings has made a $6.7 million settlement over a class
action regarding a construction project blowout six years ago.
A number of shareholders launched the Federal Court action in 2015
alleging the contractor breached stock market rules by not telling
them about the financial impact of delays with the Pilbara rail and
bridge project.
Macmahon said the matter had been settled without admission of
liability and was subject to court approval. The settlement
included interest and the shareholders' legal costs.
Lawyers for the shareholders had claimed Macmahon should have
detailed the delays at Rio Tinto's Hope Downs 4 iron ore project
and the financial consequences at least four months before it did
in September 2012.
Macmahon suffered a loss of at least $40 million on the contract
and its share price halved. Nick Bowen quit as managing director
and the company soon after exited construction to focus on mining.
Chairman Jim Walker said the decision to settle was a purely
commercial matter, taken in the best interests of shareholders.
"Macmahon continues to deny any wrongdoing in this matter and it is
important to note that the settlement is not an admission of any
liability, nor a finding against the company or any individuals,"
Mr Walker said.
"Resolving this historical matter in this way permits management to
focus on the ongoing business of the company, without the risk,
distraction or expense of a lengthy trial."
Macmahon said the settlement would be recorded a one-off charge to
its income statement for fiscal 2019. The amount is excluded from
its underlying earnings before interest and tax guidance of $70
million to $80 million. [GN]
MAPLE DONUTS: Sued by Keo for Not Paying Overtime Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
LA'KEYA KEO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. MAPLE DONUTS, INC., and CHARLES BURNSIDE, Case No.
1:18-cv-01953-YK (M.D. Pa., October 9, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and those similarly situated
proper overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.
Maple Donuts, Inc., is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania, and
operates multiple facilities in Pennsylvania. Charles Burnside is
the owner and president of Maple Donuts.
Maple Donuts produces and sells donuts and pie shells. The Company
offers fritters, paczkis, cinnamon buns and honey buns, fresh and
frozen donuts, and unbaked pie shells. The Company also offers
various programs, such as thaw-and-sell pre-packed,
thaw-and-finish, thaw-and-serve, private label, individually
wrapped, and seasonal programs. The Company serves grocery chains,
in-store bakeries, vending companies, caterers, schools, dairies,
and various institutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
1101 Kings Hwy. N., Suite 402
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com
jswindler@swartz-legal.com
rswartz@swartz-legal.com
MATRIX WARRANTY: Bacon Sues Over Erroneous Unsolicited Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Bacon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Matrix Warranty Solutions, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-01784 (C.D. Cal., October 2, 2018), seeks statutory
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, treble damages and statutory
damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Defendants repeatedly made unsolicited calls to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone using an automated telephone dialing system or
pre-recorded voice asking about the warranty of a Cadillac that he
did not own. The call was made with a pre-recorded voice.
Defendants repeatedly called Plaintiff, even after Plaintiff
informed them that he did not own a Cadillac, says the complaint.
Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Fax: (310) 507-7906
Email: john@kristensenlaw.com
MCCARTHY BURGESS: Sandford Sues over Recording of Phone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
JASON SANDFORD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MCCARTHY, BURGESS, & WOLFF, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendants,
Case 2:18-cv-08862 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 15, 2018), alleges that the
Defendant violated and continues to violate the Penal Code by
secretly recording and/or monitoring their telephone conversations
with California residents using cellular and/or cordless
telephones.
According to the complaint, on or about September 5, 2018, the
Plaintiff called the Defendant to discuss a payment plan for a debt
alleged owned by his sister. The Plaintiff placed the call from
his cellular telephone. The Defendant recorded the call without
telling the Plaintiff that the call was being recorded. The
Plaintiff was shocked to discover that his communication was being
secretly recorded by the Defendant. At no time during the September
5, 2018 call did the Plaintiff gave consent for the telephone call
to be monitored, recorded and/or eavesdropped upon, the lawsuit
says.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., No. 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Huebner Has Until Dec. 17 to File Petition for Writ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg extended until December 17, 2018, the
time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the lawsuit
styled Levi Huebner, Applicant v. Midland Credit Management, et
al., Case No. 18A315, in the Supreme Court of United States.
Levi Huebner previously filed an application to extend the time to
file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 17, 2018, to
December 16, 2018.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 17, 2018, the
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed the
judgment of the District Court granting the Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment in the cases titled LEVI HUEBNER, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff-Appellant, POLTORAK PC, ELIE C. POLTORAK, Interested
Party-Appellants, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC., Defendants-Appellees, Nos. 16-2363-cv and
16-2367-cv(2d Cir.).
Plaintiff-Appellant Levi Huebner (Huebner) is an attorney, who has
litigated several cases under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, which, among other things, prohibits debt collectors from
using false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection
with the collection of any debt. Mr. Huebner called
Defendant-Appellee Midland Credit Management, Inc. (Midland) to
dispute a $131 debt that it had tried to collect from him. Mr.
Huebner surreptitiously recorded the call. Asked why he disputed
the debt, Mr. Huebner would say only that the debt was
nonexistent.
Mr. Huebner amended his complaint twice more. His third amended
complaint ultimately alleged that Midland had made multiple false
or misleading representations in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section
1692e. Concluding that Mr. Huebner had not raised a material issue
of fact as to any of his claims, the District Court granted summary
judgment for Midland.
Plaintiff-Petitioner Levi Huebner, of Brooklyn, New York, appears
pro se.[BN]
MISSION CAPITAL: Fabricant Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mission Capital LLC and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-08385 (C.D. Cal., September
28, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble
damages and all other relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Mission Capital is a national real estate and debt capital markets
solutions provider who attempted to contact Fabricant using an
automatic telephone dialing system offering its services, notes the
complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (877) 206-4741
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
MISSION DRYWALL: Saldana Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SALDANA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MISSION DRYWALL, INC., BOB MUTZ, and DAVID ERNST, Case
No. 5:18-cv-01060 (W.D. Tex., October 9, 2018), is brought pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover alleged unpaid overtime
wages and other applicable damages and penalties.
Mission Drywall, Inc., is a Texas for-profit corporation, having
its principal place of business in San Antonio, Texas. The
Individual Defendants are Owners/Directors of Mission Drywall.
The Defendants operate a drywall installation and repair business
that provides services to customers throughout Central Texas and
surrounding areas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, 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
lauren@a2xlaw.com
cgordon@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
geordie@a2xlaw.com
MOLLY PICON: Mejia Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO MEJIA and JUAN OSORIO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MOLLY PICON LLC D/B/A JACK'S WIFE
FREDA, and DEAN JANKELOWITZ and MAYA JANKELOWITZ, as individuals,
Case No. 1:18-cv-09263 (S.D.N.Y., October 10, 2018), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Molly Picon LLC, doing business as Jack's Wife Freda, is a
corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal
executive office in New York City. The Individual Defendants are
owners, operators, officers, managers or employees of the Company.
The Defendants operate restaurants in New York City known as Jack's
Wife Freda. Jack's Wife Freda is an all-day bistro executing
American-Mediterranean cooking & classic cocktails.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
69-12 Austin Street
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
E-mail: avshalumovr@yahoo.com
MONRO MUFFLER: Naskiewicz Seeks OT Pay for Service Technicians
--------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT NASZKIEWICZ, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONRO MUFFLER BRAKE, INC. d/b/a THE
TIRE CHOICE & TOTAL CAR CARE, the Defendant, Filing No. 79308192
(Fla. 13th Jud. Cir., Hillsborough Cty.), seeks to recover overtime
pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendant from October 2014 through October 1, 2017, as service
technician. The Plaintiff was paid on an hourly basis throughout
his employment routinely working over 40 hours in a work week. The
Plaintiff was not paid time and a one-half his regular hourly rate
for each and every hour that he worked in excess of 40 hours in a
work week for all weeks that he worked. The Plaintiff was required
to clock out at the end of his shift and stay to "close out
paperwork" and lock up the store, which amounted to approximately
15 to 20 minutes per day. The Plaintiff was required to perform
these off the clock duties on every shift that he worked and was
not compensated for this time, the lawsuit says.
Monro Muffler Brake is an American automotive service company
focusing on scheduled maintenance, undercar repairs, and retail
tire sales.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
FLORIN, GRAY, BOUZAS, OWENS, LLC
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Telephone (727) 254-5255
Facsimile (727) 483-7942
E-mail: wolfgang@fgbolaw.com
chris@fgbolaw.com
NATIVE SUN LANDSCAPE: Del Valle Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Del Valle, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. Native Sun Landscape Services, Inc. and
Mario Esposito, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-62324 (S.D. Fla.,
September 29, 2018), seeks to recover all overtime pay owed from
their employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Native Sun operated a landscaping business in Broward County,
Florida. Del Valle worked for Defendants as a landscaper from
approximately May of 2016 through May of 2017. He frequently worked
overtime hours over 40 per workweek without receiving proper
overtime compensation, notes the complaint. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven F. Grover, Esq.
STEVEN F. GROVER, PA
507 S.E. 11 Ct.
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Tel: (954) 290-8826
E-mail: stevenfgrover@gmail.com
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Celino & Barnes Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
CELLINO & BARNES, P.C., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GRAY TELEVISION, INC. 4370
Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30319; HEARST
COMMUNICATIONS INC. 300 West 57th Street New York, New York 10019;
NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC. 545 East John Carpenter Freeway, Suite
700 Irving, Texas 75062; SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC. 10706
Beaver Dam Road Hunt Valley, Maryland 21030; TEGNA, INC. 7950 Jones
Branch Drive McLean, Virginia, 22107; TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY 515
North State Street Chicago, Illinois 60654; and TRIBUNE
BROADCASTING COMPANY, LLC 435 N. Michigan Avenue Chicago, Illinois
60611, the Defendants, Case No.: 1:18-cv-06909, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago) on Oct. 16, 2018. The Northern District of Illinois Court
Clerk assigned Case No.: 1:18-cv-06886 to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Kendall.
This antitrust class action arises from a conspiracy among
Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices for commercials
to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout the United
States in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act, by
sharing competitively sensitive information through their
advertising sales teams. Defendants' and their co-conspirators'
unlawful collusion led to supracompetitive prices in the market for
the sale of television advertising.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:
Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
Scott V. Papp, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: 914-997-0500
E-mail: bhart@lowey.com
spapp@lowey.com
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Crowley Webb Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
CROWLEY WEBB AND ASSOCIATES, INC., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GRAY TELEVISION, INC.
4370 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30319; HEARST
COMMUNICATIONS INC. 300 West 57th Street New York, New York 10019;
NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC. 545 East John Carpenter Freeway, Suite
700 Irving, Texas 75062; SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC. 10706
Beaver Dam Road Hunt Valley, Maryland 21030; TEGNA, INC. 7950 Jones
Branch Drive McLean, Virginia, 22107; TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY 515
North State Street Chicago, Illinois 60654; and TRIBUNE
BROADCASTING COMPANY, LLC 435 N. Michigan Avenue Chicago, Illinois
60611, the Defendants, Case No.: 1:18-cv-07976, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago) on Oct. 16, 2018. The Northern District of Illinois Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-06924 to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Kendall.
This antitrust class action arises from a conspiracy among
Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices for commercials
to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout the United
States in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act, by
sharing competitively sensitive information through their
advertising sales teams. Defendants' and their co-conspirators'
unlawful collusion led to supracompetitive prices in the market for
the sale of television advertising.[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
Attorneys for Gray Television, Inc.:
Laura Grossfield Birger, Esq.
COOLEY LLP (NY)
1114 Avenue of the Americas, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 479-6000
Facsimile: (212) 479-6275
E-mail: lbirger@cooley.com
NEXSTAR MEDIA: John O'Neil Suit Moved to Chicago
------------------------------------------------
JOHN O'NEIL JOHNSON TOYOTA, LLC, 2900 Hwy. 39 North Meridian, MS
39301, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. GRAY TELEVISION, INC. 4370 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite
400 Atlanta, Georgia 30319; HEARST COMMUNICATIONS INC. 300 West
57th Street New York, New York 10019; NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC. 545
East John Carpenter Freeway, Suite 700 Irving, Texas 75062;
SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC. 10706 Beaver Dam Road Hunt Valley,
Maryland 21030; TEGNA, INC. 7950 Jones Branch Drive McLean,
Virginia, 22107; TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY 515 North State Street
Chicago, Illinois 60654; and TRIBUNE BROADCASTING COMPANY, LLC 435
N. Michigan Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-02913, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Oct. 15, 2018. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.:
1:18-cv-06909 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Virginia M. Kendall.
This antitrust class action arises from a conspiracy among the
Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices for commercials
to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout the United
States in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act, by
sharing competitively sensitive information through their
advertising sales teams. The Defendants' and their
co-conspirators' unlawful collusion led to supracompetitive prices
in the market for the sale of television advertising.[BN]
Attorneys for John O'Neil Johnson Toyota, LLC:
Paul Mark Sandler, Esq.
Eric R. Harlan, Esq.
SHAPIRO SHER GUINOT & SANDLER
250 West Pratt Street, Suite 2000
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 385-0202
Facsimile: (410) 539-7611
E-mail: pms@shapirosher.com
erh@shapirosher.com
- and -
Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP
507 C Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
vicky@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Don Barrett, Esq.
Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq.
Sarah Starns, Esq.
David McMullan, Esq.
BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
P.O. Box 927
404 Court Square
Lexington, MS 39095
Telephone: (662) 834-2488
E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
KBRiley@BarrettLawGroup.com
sstarns@barrettlawgroup.com
dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
- and -
Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
LARSON KING, LLP
2800 Wells Fargo Place
30 East Seventh Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 312-6500
E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com
Attorneys for Defendants:
John Augustine Bourgeois, Esq.
KRAMON AND GRAHAM PA
One South St Ste 2600
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 752-6030
E-mail: jbourgeois@kg-law.com
- and -
Daniel H. Levi, Esq.
Jay Cohen, Esq.
William B. Michael, Esq.
PAULO, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064
Telephone: (212) 373-3497
E-mail: dlevi@paulweiss.com
jaycohen@paulweiss.com
wmichael@paulweiss.com
NEXSTAR MEDIA: ThoughtWorx Alleges Price-Fixing of TV Ad Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOUGHTWORX, INC. D/B/A MCM SERVICES GROUP, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GRAY TELEVISION, INC.;
HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; HEARST TELEVISION, INC.; NEXSTAR MEDIA
GROUP, INC.; TEGNA INC.; TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY; and SINCLAIR
BROADCAST GROUP, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06914 (N.D.
Ill., Oct. 15, 2018), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and other
relief available resulting from the Defendants' conspiracy to
artificially inflate the prices of local television advertisements
in violation of the Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants unlawfully coordinated
efforts and shared information in order to artificially inflate
prices for television commercials during the Class Period. Rather
than compete for advertising sales on price, as competitors are
supposed to do, the Defendants and their co-conspirators shared
proprietary information and conspired to fix prices and reduce
competition in the market.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:
Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
Michael J. Freed, Esq.
Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
Bannockburn, IL 60015
Telephone: (224) 632-4500
E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
mfreed@fklmlaw.com
dmillen@fklmlaw.com
rwozniak@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Klint L. Bruno, Esq.
Michael L. Silverman, Esq.
THE BRUNO FIRM, LLC
500 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (312) 321-6481
E-mail: kb@brunolawus.com
msilverman@brunolawus.com
NFS INSURANCE: Dotson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dotson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NFS Insurance Agency, LLC and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-08381 (C.D. Cal.,
September 28, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages,
treble damages and all other relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
NFS is in the payday loan business. Dotson received calls from NFS
using an automatic telephone dialing system offering its services.
Dotson is not a customer of NFS, and has never provided any
personal information, including his cellular telephone number,
notes the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (877) 206-4741
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
OC ELECTRICAL: Rojas Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages and Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
YUNIEL ROJAS, JORGE BRAVO, and other similarly situated individuals
v. OC ELECTRICAL LLC, SUNTECH PLUMBING CORP, ROBERT MORGADO, and
ZAIRON ROSERO, Case No. 1:18-cv-24149-RNS (S.D. Fla., October 9,
2018), seeks to recover money damages for alleged unpaid overtime
wages and retaliatory discharge under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
OC Electrical LLC provides electrical services. Suntech Plumbing
Corp's line of business includes providing plumbing, heating,
air-conditioning, and similar work. The Corporate Defendants are
enterprises controlled and owned by the Individual Defendants.
The Corporate Defendants are entities engaged in related
activities, which perform through a unified operation, with a
common ownership, with a common business purpose, under the common
control and administration of the Individual Defendants.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
OCEAN SPRAY: Court Directs Class Cert Supplement Briefs in Hilsley
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order directing Parties to File Supplemental
Brief on Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
CRYSTAL HILSLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC.; ARNOLD
WORLDWIDE LLC; and DOES defendants 1 through 5, inclusive,
Defendants. Case No. 17cv2335-GPC(MDD). (S.D. Cal.).
Under Comcast, Plaintiff must present a damages model that is
consistent with her liability case, and the court must conduct a
rigorous analysis to determine whether that is so. Plaintiff must
be able to show that [his] damages stemmed from the defendant's
actions that created the legal liability.
Damages under the UCL, FAL, and the CLRA provide for restitution.
Restitution restores the status quo "by returning return to the
plaintiff funds he or she had an ownership interest. The proper
measure of restitution in a mislabeling case is the amount
necessary to compensate the purchaser for the difference between a
product as labeled and the product as received The difference
between what the plaintiff paid and the value of what the plaintiff
received is a proper measure of restitution.
Dr. George E. Belch, Plaintiff's expert, conducted a multi-part
consumer survey that focused on Defendants' misleading labels and
derived a damages model determining how much the allegedly
mislabeled Products would have been worth if they had been labeled
correctly.
In her brief, Plaintiff provides a simple and straightforward
analysis on her proposed damages model arguing that Dr. Belch's
survey controlled for other market variables and derived a damages
model addressing how much the allegedly mislabeled Products would
have been worth to consumers if they had been labeled accurately.
The Court directs the Plaintiff to file a supplemental brief and a
supplemental declaration as to whether the conjoint or any other
analyses applies to Dr. Belch's survey analysis on or before
October 26, 2018. The Defendants must file a response on or before
November 2, 2018.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 18, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybu2go8w from Leagle.com.
Crystal Hilsley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Elliot, The Elliott Law
Firm, Michael Houchin -- mike@consumeradvocates.com -- Law Offices
of Ronald A. Marron, Ronald Marron -- ron@consumersadvocates.com --
Law Office of Ronald Marron & Tania Babaie --
tania@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A Marron.
Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. & Arnold Worldwide LLC, Defendants,
represented by Ricky Lynn Shackelford -- shackelfordr@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
The Nielsen Company (U.S.), LLC, Miscellaneous Party, represented
by Heather Elizabeth Belville -- heatherbelville@quinnemanuel.com
-- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP & Robert James Slobig --
rslobig@torshen.com -- Torshen, Slobig & Axel, Ltd., pro hac vice.
PATRICK SUTTON: Doe K.G. Files Class Suit Over Sexual Abuse
-----------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE K.G., JANE DOE T.F., and JANE DOE B.S., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PASADENA HOSPITAL
ASSOCIATION, LTD., d/b/a HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, and PATRICK
SUTTON, M.D., Case No. 2:18-cv-08710 (C.D. Cal., October 10, 2018),
is brought on behalf of individuals, who were sexually abused,
harassed and molested by Dr. Patrick Sutton, while they were
patients in his care at Huntington Hospital.
Patrick Sutton, M.D., is a resident of Altadena, California, and a
citizen of the United States. In or about 1989, Dr. Sutton started
working at Huntington Hospital as an obstetrician/gynecologist and
carried on an obstetrics/gynecological medical practice in
Pasadena.
Pasadena Hospital Association, Ltd., doing business as Huntington
Memorial Hospital, is a California nonprofit corporation having its
principal place of business in California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
Annika K. Martin, Esq.
Valerie D. Comenencia Ortiz, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
akmartin@lchb.com
vcomenenciaortiz@lchb.com
- and -
Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
Lori G. Kier, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
555 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (888) 711-9975
Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
mds@sstriallawyers.com
lgk@sstriallawyers.com
- and -
Marc L. Godino, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: mgodino@glancylaw.com
PF HOMESTEAD: Gonzalez Files Suit Over Unsolicited Texts
--------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PF HOMESTEAD, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 1:18-cv-24180-JEM (S.D. Fla., October 10, 2018),
seeks to stop the Defendant's alleged practice of sending
unauthorized and unwanted text messages promoting gym memberships,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
PF Homestead, LLC, doing business as Planet Fitness, is a Delaware
limited liability company with a principal place of business in
Florida.
Planet Fitness is a gym in South Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
PINECREST BAKERY: Vazquez Sues over Spam Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------
Vince Vazquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Pinecrest Bakery, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case 1:18-cv-24229-DLG
(S.D. Fla., Oct. 15, 2018), seeks injunctive relief to halt the
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals, pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is a bakery shop. To
promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. The
Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because they
encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or
services, i.e., offering the Plaintiff a discount at the
restaurant. At no point in time did the Plaintiff provide the
Defendant with his express written consent to be contacted. The
Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 2845 Number. The
Plaintiff has been registered with the national do-not-call
registry since 2004, the lawsuit says.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1 st Avenue, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: 305-479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: 305 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
PINNACLE PROPERTY: Can Compel Arbitration in "Prasad" FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHANIE PRASAD, Plaintiff, v. PINNACLE PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02794-VKD (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division,
granted Pinnacle's motion to compel arbitration as to Ms. Prasad's
individual claims and stayed the proceedings pending completion of
the arbitration.
After submitting an online job application, Prasad was hired in May
2016 by Pinnacle as a property manager for the Domus on the
Boulevard apartment complex in Mountain View, California. Her
employment was terminated just under a year later. Ms. Prasad says
that she suffers from type I diabetes and generally was able to
perform her work duties, but occasionally required certain
accommodations, such as a modified work schedule. She claims that,
due in part to lengthy work hours, she began experiencing health
complications related to her diabetes. Ms. Prasad was placed on
medical leave for two weeks in October 2016. Upon her return, Ms.
Prasad says her position was filled by another employee, and that
she was given a new position as a "Roving Manager." Ms. Prasad
considered this reassignment a demotion because she says it was
temporary in nature and she earned less money than she did as a
property manager.
Claiming that Pinnacle misclassifies its property managers as
exempt from overtime pay, Ms. Prasad filed the putative class,
collective, and representative action against Pinnacle, asserting
eleven claims for relief, seven of which are
class/collective/representative claims for relief: (1) failure to
pay overtime; (2) failure to pay wages; (3) failure to provide meal
periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) failure to
provide itemized wage statements; (6) waiting time penalties; and
(7) unfair business practices. The remaining four claims are Ms.
Prasad's individual claims for relief: (8) disability
discrimination; (9) failure to accommodate disability; (10) failure
to engage in the interactive process; and (11) intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
Pinnacle moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an Issue
Resolution Agreement ("IRA" or "Agreement") it claims Ms. Prasad
assented to and signed when she applied for employment with the
company. Ms. Prasad opposes Pinnacle's motion, arguing that she
never signed the IRA and that the Agreement is unenforceable and
unconscionable for a number of reasons.
The Court previously ruled that Ms. Prasad entered into an
arbitration agreement with Pinnacle. Because Ms. Prasad's
arguments about the unenforceability and unconscionability of the
IRA depended, at least in part, on the Ninth Circuit's decision in
Morris v. Ernst & Young, which was then before the U.S. Supreme
Court for review, the Court deferred ruling on those issues and
granted Pinnacle's motion to stay the action pending the Supreme
Court's decision.
In Morris, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the class action waiver
in the arbitration agreement at issue was unenforceable under the
Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") because the waiver violated section
7 of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), which gives
employees the right to "concerted activities."
On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court reversed Morris and held that
the NLRA does not reflect a clearly expressed and manifest
congressional intention to displace the FAA and to outlaw class and
collective action waivers. Shortly afterward, the Court lifted the
stay of the present action and gave both sides an opportunity to
submit supplemental briefs regarding Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis. Ms.
Prasad filed a supplemental brief. Pinnacle did not.
In her supplemental brief, Ms. Prasad acknowledges that Epic is
dispositive with respect to her argument that the IRA's class
action waiver renders that agreement unenforceable. She therefore
cannot maintain the class, collective and representative claims
asserted in her original complaint. However, Ms. Prasad contends
that Epic does not impact her arguments that the IRA is
unconscionable for other reasons. Pinnacle maintains that the IRA
is neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable. To the
extent there are any improper provisions, Pinnacle contends that
they may be severed from the Agreement and that the remainder
properly may be enforced.
Meanwhile, Ms. Prasad moved for leave to file a First Amended
Complaint ("FAC") to add one additional claim under the California
Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). Her motion was
noticed for hearing on the Court's calendar, and the Court directed
the parties to be prepared at that hearing to also address the
remaining issues in Pinnacle's motion to compel arbitration.
Judge DeMarchi finds that Ms. Prasad has established some
procedural unconscionability, given that the IRA was a contract of
adhesion, with no meaningful opt-out, and that Ms. Prasad's
agreement to the IRA was not an informed decision to the extent
that the IRA does not explain the potential pitfalls and drawbacks
of proceeding with arbitration versus litigation. However, a
finding of procedural unconscionability does not mean that a
contract will not be enforced, but rather that courts will
scrutinize the substantive terms of the contract to ensure they are
not manifestly unfair or one-sided.
The IRA requires employees to commence arbitration by filing an
"Arbitration Request Form," and imposes a one-sided, one-year
limitations period only on employees. The Judge concludes that
this provision is unconscionable. The fact that Ms. Prasad filed
the action within the one-year contractual limitations period is
irrelevant. Pinnacle having offered no reason why a unilateral
reduction in the statute of limitations is required, the provision
is substantively unconscionable.
The Judge will, in her discretion, sever the unconscionable
provisions from the IRA and enforce the remainder. Ms. Prasad may
not maintain the class, collective and representative claims
asserted in her original complaint, and the Judge will grant
Pinnacle's motion to compel arbitration as to Ms. Prasad's
individual claims. Further, Ms. Prasad agreed at oral argument
that her PAGA claim should be stayed pending arbitration of her
individual claims.
Accordingly, Judge DeMarchi will stay the action pending completion
of arbitration of Ms. Prasad's individual claims. As noted in the
Court's separate order on Ms. Prasad's motion for leave to file an
FAC, during the stay, she will administratively close the case,
signifying only that the matter is being removed from the Court's
docket of active litigation. Any party may move to reopen the
matter should a change in circumstances warrant it. In any event,
the parties will provide the Court with a status report within 10
days of the completion of their arbitration.
Based on the foregoing, the portions of the IRA found
unconscionable are severed from the Agreement, Pinnacle's motion to
compel arbitration is granted as to Ms. Prasad's individual claims,
and the matter is stayed pending the completion of the arbitration.
The Clerk will administratively close the file.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Sj6Fob from Leagle.com.
Stephanie Prasad, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Shelton Lohr --
jason.lohr@lrllp.com -- Lohr Ripamonti & Segarich LLP & Alec
Llewellyn Segarich , Lohr Ripamonti & Segarich LLP.
Pinnacle Management Services Company, LLC, Defendant, represented
by Amelia Louise Sanchez-Moran -- asanchez@wikimedia.org -- Jackson
Lewis P.C., Angelito Remo Sevilla -- Angel.Sevilla@jacksonlewis.com
-- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Fraser Angus McAlpine --
Fraser.McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.
Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC, Defendant, represented
by Fraser Angus McAlpine, Jackson Lewis P.C., Amelia Louise
Sanchez-Moran, Jackson Lewis P.C., Angelito Remo Sevilla, Jackson
Lewis P.C. & Douglas G.A. Johnston, Jackson Lewis P.C..
PROFLOWERS.COM: Appeals Court Strikes $8.7MM in Legal Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Recorder, reports that the Class
Action Fairness Act may have curbed the use of coupons in class
action settlements, but a federal appeals court October 3 grappled
with another question: What exactly constitutes a coupon?
The ruling, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
vacated $8.7 million in attorney fees in a class action of 1.3
million consumers of ProFlowers.com and RedEnvelope.com who
unknowingly signed up to a rewards program that charged them a
$1.95 activation fee and a $14.95 monthly membership. The 2012
settlement of the case offered $3.5 million in refunds and a $20
credit for each class member toward a future online purchase on the
same sites. But just 3,000 class members submitted claims totaling
$225,000.
Ted Frank, of the Center for Class Action Fairness at the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, appealed the settlement on behalf
of an objector, insisting that U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant
of the Southern District of California included un-redeemed coupons
in violation of the Class Action Fairness Act when estimating the
settlement's value at $38 million, on which she based the fees.
The Ninth Circuit agreed.
"That brings us to the million—here, multimillion—dollar
question: whether defendants' credits are coupons," Circuit Judge
Michelle Friedland wrote. "We hold that, applying the correct legal
standard, the only logical conclusion is that they are."
But the panel didn't go so far as to reverse the settlement's
approval. It also upheld a cy pres portion of the deal in which $3
million is set to go to three San Diego universities. Frank had
challenged that part of the settlement, noting that one of the
plaintiffs attorneys, James Patterson, Esq. of the Patterson Law
Group in San Diego, was an alumnus of the University of San Diego
School of Law.
Frank made similar arguments in a separate case against Google,
Frank v. Gaos, which the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear on Oct.
31.
"We are gratified that the court rejected class counsel's attempt
to evade the Class Action Fairness Act's restrictions on coupon
settlements," Frank wrote in a statement, "but the fact that the
court was willing to countenance attorneys choosing to prefer their
alma mater and local San Diego schools to nationwide class
recovery, while collecting 15 to 40 times as much as their clients,
shows why the Supreme Court needs to reverse in Frank v. Gaos. We
are considering our options for further review."
Plaintiffs attorney Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. --
jennie@andrusanderson.com -- of Andrus Anderson in San Francisco
did not respond to a request for comment. The other lawyers in the
case were Patterson, Bruce Steckler, Esq. of the Steckler Gresham
Cochran in Dallas, who argued for the plaintiffs, and Michael
Singer, Esq. -- msinger@ckslaw.com -- of San Diego's Cohelan Khoury
& Singer.
Leo Norton, special counsel in Cooley's San Diego office, who
argued for the defendants, did not respond to a request for
comment. The defendants were Provide Commerce Inc. and Regent Group
Inc., which provided the rewards program.
The case, originally filed in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California, has made two trips to the
Ninth Circuit. Frank appealed after U.S. District Judge Anthony
Battaglia approved the deal in 2013.
But the Ninth Circuit sent the case back down to the district court
to address its 2015 holding in In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust
Litigation, which found that $12 gift cards to Walmart weren't
coupons.
The cases were transferred to Bashant, who approved the deal in
2016, concluding that the fee award was 23 percent of the
settlement's value and reasonable given a billing estimate of $4.3
million.
Frank appealed again. This time, attorneys general from 13 states,
including Arizona, Louisiana and Texas, wrote in an amicus brief
supporting Frank that the settlement "bears the hallmarks of a
coupon settlement."
The panel noted that, unlike the Online DVD case, the $20 credits
had several restrictions, such as an expiration date and blackouts
for Valentine's Day and Mother's Day, both popular holidays for
buying chocolates and flowers.
As to the cy pres recipients—San Diego State University, the
University of California at San Diego and the University of San
Diego School of Law—the panel found nothing improper.
"Objector's bare allegation that the institutions were selected for
an improper reason is insufficient to show that it was an abuse of
discretion for the district court to approve their selection,"
Friedland wrote. [GN]
PRONTO PIZZA: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Lopez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE DE JESUS ROQUE LOPEZ and BONIFACIO BARTOLO JUSTO, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PRONTO PIZZA 02 LLC
(D/B/A PRONTO PIZZA), PRONTO PIZZA 03 LLC (D/B/A PRONTO PIZZA),
KASH MIFTARI, DASHNOR DASH MIFTARI, and BESNIK STEVIE MIFTARI, Case
No. 1:18-cv-05639 (E.D.N.Y., October 9, 2018), alleges that the
Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they worked.
Pronto Pizza 02 LLC, doing business as Pronto Pizza, is a domestic
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
New York and maintains its principal place of business at 738
Forest Avenue, in Staten Island, New York.
Pronto Pizza 03 LLC, doing business as Pronto Pizza, is a domestic
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
New York and maintains its principal place of business at 329
Richmond Avenue, in Staten Island, New York. The Individual
Defendants serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or
agents of the Defendant Corporations.
The Defendants own, operate, or control two pizzerias located in
Staten Island both under the name "Pronto Pizza."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
RSJ VENTURES: Conner Files ADA Class Action
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RSJ Ventures, LLC.
The case is styled as Mary Conner individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. RSJ Ventures, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09733 (S.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 23, 2018).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
RSJ Ventures, LLC produces and sells steak and chicken jerkies. The
company produces steak, chicken, turkey, pork, bacon, snack sticks,
and snack packs in various flavors. Its products are available
online and through stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group P.C.
44 Court Street, Suite 1217
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Fax: (718) 504-7555
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
SAN PIETRO RESTAURANT: Quarrato Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Jean Charles Antoine Quarrato, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. San Pietro Restaurant
Inc., Sistina Restaurant Inc., Gerardo Bruno and Giuseppe Bruno,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-08898 (S.D. N.Y., September 28, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum, overtime and spread-of-hours wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor
Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.
Defendants own, operate, or control two Italian restaurants, one
located at 18 E. 54th St under the name "San Pietro Restaurant" and
the other located at 24 E. 81st Street, New York, under the name
"Sistina." Quarrato was employed as a waiter and captain at both
restaurants. Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping
of the hours worked, failed to pay them for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium and the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which
he had to work over 10 hours a day, the complaint asserts. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 317-1200
Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com
SENOMYX INC: Link Suit Challenges Firmenich's Tender Offer
----------------------------------------------------------
GORDON LINK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SENOMYX, INC., KENT SNYDER, JOHN POYHONEN, STEPHEN A.
BLOCK, TOM ERDMANN, MARY ANN GRAY, DAN STEBBINS, and CHRISTOPHER J.
TWOMEY, Case No. 3:18-cv-02336-BAS-WVG (S.D. Cal., October 10,
2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 in connection with the tender offer by Firmenich
Incorporated, through its subsidiary, to acquire all of the issued
and outstanding shares of Senomyx.
On September 16, 2018, Senomyx entered into a definitive agreement
and plan of merger, whereby shareholders of Senomyx common stock
will receive $1.50 in exchange for each share of Senomyx they own.
On October 4, 2018, in order to convince Senomyx shareholders to
tender their shares, the Company's Board of Directors authorized
the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14D-9
solicitation/recommendation statement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, according to the complaint. In particular,
the Recommendation Statement contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) the Company's financial
projections; (ii) the valuation analyses performed by the Company's
financial advisor, Needham & Company, LLC; (iii) potential
conflicts of interest faced by the Company's other financial
advisor Conexus Capital Advisors, Inc.
Senomyx is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive office in San Diego, California. The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.
Senomyx discovers and develops novel flavor ingredients and natural
high intensity sweeteners. Senomyx is focused on using taste
receptor technologies to discover, develop, and commercialize
flavor ingredients for the packaged food, beverage, and ingredient
supply industries.
Firmenich designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes flavors
and fragrances. Firmenich offers natural and artificial butter
flavorings. Firmenich was incorporated in 1950 and is based in
Plainsboro, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David E. Bower, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
Culver City, CA 90230
Telephone: (213) 446-6652
Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.com
- and -
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 971-1341
Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
SETJO LLC: Willis Appeals N.D. Ohio Decision to 6th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Miashonae T. Willis filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit styled Miashonae Willis v. Setjo, LLC, Case No.
1:17-cv-02446, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio at Cleveland.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges violations of the Truth in Lending Act.
Setjo primarily operates in the automobiles, new and used
business/industry within the automotive dealers and gasoline
service stations sector.
The appellate case is captioned as Miashonae Willis v. Setjo, LLC,
Case No. 18-3956, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant MIASHONAE T. WILLIS, On behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
GARY, NAEGELE & THEADO LLC
1220 W. Sixth Street, Suite 205
Cleveland, OH 44113-0000
Telephone: (216) 244-4809
E-mail: tdownie@GNTlaw.com
- and -
Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
NOVAK PAVLIK DELIBERATO LLP
1660 W. Second Street, Suite 950
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 781-8700
E-mail: wnovak@npd-law.com
Defendant-Appellee SETJO, LLC, In its own name and doing business
as Kia of Bedford, is represented by:
Richard C.O. Rezie, Esq.
GALLAGHER SHARP LLP
1501 Euclid Avenue, Sixth Floor
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 241-5310
E-mail: rrezie@gallaghersharp.com
SHRINERS HOSPITALS: Accused by Serra of Not Paying Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JERRI LYNN SERRA, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN, INC. (Fla. Cir.,
Hillsborough Cty., October 9, 2018), accuses the Defendant of
failing to pay proper overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Shriners Hospitals For Children, Inc., is a foreign corporation
licensed and authorized to conduct business in the state of Florida
and doing business within Hillsborough County.
The Defendant operates children's hospitals primarily in the United
States, Canada, and Mexico City. The Defendant provides pediatric
specialty care to children up to age of 18 with orthopedic
conditions, burns, spinal cord injuries, and cleft lip and palate.
The Defendant also provides research and teaching programs for
medical professionals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
FLORIN, GRAY, BOUZAS, OWENS, LLC
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Telephone (727) 254-5255
Facsimile (727) 483-7942
E-mail: wolfgang@fgbolaw.com
chris@fgbolaw.com
SLIDE FIRE: Court Extends Time to File Response in Prescott Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order extending time to File Response to Amended Complaint in
the case captioned DEVAN PRESCOTT, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated; BROOKE FREEMAN, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SLIDE FIRE
SOLUTIONS, LP, a Foreign Corporation; DOE MANUFACTURERS 1-100,
inclusive; and ROE RETAILERS 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.
2:18-cv-00296-GMN-GWF. (D. Nev.).
Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant by and
through the parties' respective counsel, pending the Court's
approval, being that the current date for the Defendant to file a
response to the Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint is
extended to on or before November 2, 2018.
This is the first extension requested in connection with this
pleading and the parties do not anticipate requesting another
extension as it relates to the Motion. The purpose of requesting
this extension is due to the complexities of the legal issues
unique to this case, which likely will involve issues of first
impression to our federal bench. An extension of time will assist
the parties to adequately brief these issues before this Court.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 18, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8nzewj9 from Leagle.com.
Devon Prescott & Brooke Freeman, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron
D. Ford, Eglet Prince, Erica D. Entsminger, Eglet Prince, Jonathan
Lowy, pro hac vice, Robert M. Adams, Eglet Prince,Robert T. Eglet,
Eglet Prince & Richard Hy.
Slide Fire Solutions, LP, Defendant, represented by Danny C. Lallis
-- dlallis@pmlegalfirm.com -- Pisciotti Malsch, F. Thomas Edwards
-- Tedwards@nevadafirm.com -- Holley Driggs Walch Fine Wray Puzey &
Thompson, James D. Boyle -- Jboyle@nevadafirm.com -- Holley Driggs
Walch Fine Wray Puzey & Thompson & Jeffrey Martin Malsch --
jmalsch@pmlegalfirm.com -- Pisciotti Malsch PC, pro hac vice.
SMR 912: Flores Tapia Files FLSA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SMR 912 Manhattan Ave
Corp., et al. The case is styled as Maricela Flores Tapia, Jiesi
Lopez Martinez, Francisco Perez, Leoncio Belendez individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SMR 912
Manhattan Ave Corp. d/b/a Bread Brothers Cafe; jointly and
severally, John Doe Corp. #1, David Rosen, Daniel Rosen, Jeremy
Rosen jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05912
(E.D. N.Y., Oct. 23, 2018).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Bread Brothers Café sells bagels, different types of bread and
coffee brews and it is located at 912 Manhattan Ave.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
SOHO OCEAN: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act has been brought against Soho Ocean Resort TRS
LLC.
The case is captioned Cheri Honeywell individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Soho Ocean Resort TRS
LLC a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
0:18-cv-62541-FAM (S.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 2018).
Soho Ocean Resort is a private members club, hotel and spa located
on Miami Beach, FL.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 282-1858
Fax: (844) 786-3694
Email: service@advocacypa.com
SOUTH BAY COLMA: Barrera & Marabuto Sue over Misleading Car Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lynne Barrera and Troy Marabuto individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs SOUTH BAY COLMA, an
active California limited liability company, dba NISSAN OF
SERRAMONTE; NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, an active
California corporation and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, Case No.
18—CIV—05565 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 15, 2018), alleges that
the Defendants engaged in false advertising with the intent to sell
and/or induce public to purchase automobiles in violation of
California Business Code and Professions.
According to the complaint, the case is an outrageous case of
repeated fraud perpetrated by a local car dealer on a physically
disabled couple who are on a fixed income; financially
unsophisticated and very trusting. The car dealer knows the tricks
to use as this latest purchase was the third in six years from the
same dealer. It started in 2011 when the Plaintiffs purchased a
used Nissan with undisclosed frame damage. The owner knew he was
going out of business so just prior to closing, he purchased one
hundred or so frame damaged vehicles at auction and sold them with
no disclosure to increase its profits.
The Plaintiffs could not find legal counsel to represent them and
did not wish to drive a dangerous vehicle, so they went to
Serramonte Nissan ("car dealer") to trade it in. That's when car
dealer "sunk into the Plaintiffs' wallet." The Plaintiff purchased
a new Nissan vehicle in 2012 and two more in 2015 and 2017, the
lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Louis A. Liberty, Esq.
LOUIS LIBERTY & ASSOCIATES, PLC
553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite
Foster City, CA 94404
Telephone: (650) 341-0300
E-mail: lou@carlawyer.com
SOUTH CAROLINA: Ct. Separates Claims for Initial Review in Wardell
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
issued an Order separating Claims for Initial Review in the case
captioned W. Robert Wardell, Jr.; Don Mitchell Wilborn, Plaintiff,
v. Renea Royster, Defendant. C/A No. 0:18-mc-255-DCN-PJG. (D.S.C.)
This is a motion filed by two federal prisoners, proceeding pro se.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has held
that pro se prisoners cannot bring a class action lawsuit.
While this Circuit has not ruled on the issue of whether multiple
prisoner plaintiffs are allowed to join under Rule 20 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the issue of fee payment in a
case filed by multiple prisoners, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed these issues in Hubbard
v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1198 (11th Cir. 2001), and found that
prisoners may not join in one action.
The Hubbard court reasoned that, because the plain language of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), requires each prisoner
proceeding in forma pauperis to pay the full filing fee, it was
appropriate to sever the claims and require each prisoner to file a
separate lawsuit. Even in light of more flexible holdings in other
circuits regarding permissive joinder of multiple prisoner
plaintiffs. In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, courts in this
district have found the analysis in Hubbardpersuasive and have
declined to permit prisoner plaintiffs to join in one civil action.
In addition to the requirement that indigent prisoners filing
lawsuits be held responsible for the full amount of filing fees,
the PLRA also requires each prisoner to exhaust his or her
administrative remedies prior to filing a civil lawsuit.
Accordingly, the court concludes that the claims of the Plaintiffs
in the instant action should be separated for initial review.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 18, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yaesuxsd from Leagle.com.
Don Mitchell Wilborn, Plaintiff, pro se.
SPIRIT HALLOWEEN: Website not Accessible to Blind, Figueroa Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SPIRIT HALLOWEEN SUPERSTORES LLC, the
Defendant, Case 1:18-cv-09427-GBD (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 15, 2018),
alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website -- www.spirithalloween.com -- to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full
and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods
and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under 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. The Plaintiff uses the
terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with
visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in
that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or
equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have
limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census
Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United
States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind,
and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015
report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the
State of New York.
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
- and -
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003-2461
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
SPRINT CORP: Gober Files Suit Over Sale to T-Mobile
---------------------------------------------------
Arthur Gober, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Sprint Corporation, Raul Marcelo Claure,
Michel Combes, Gordon M. Bethune, Patrick T. Doyle, Ronald D.
Fisher, Julius Genachowski, Stephen R. Kappas, Admiral Michael G.
Mullen, Masayoshi Son and Sara Martinez Tucker, Defendants,
Defendants, Case 18-cv-02523 (D. Kan., September 28, 2018) seeks to
enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of Sprint
Corporation by T-Mobile US, Inc., or rescinding it in the event
defendants consummate the merger. The Plaintiff also seeks
rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
Under the terms of the Proposed Transaction, T-Mobile will acquire
each issued and outstanding share of Sprint common stock in an
all-stock transaction at a fixed exchange ratio of 0.10256 T-Mobile
shares for each Sprint share or the equivalent of 9.75 Sprint
shares for each T-Mobile share. The implied offer price per share
of the merger is $6.62 per Sprint share. The transaction has an
implied enterprise value of approximately $59 billion.
The Plaintiff says the $6.62 per share all stock offer price has
only a 1.8% premium to Sprint's closing price of $6.50 per share on
April 27, 2018. The $6.62 per share all stock offer price is
significantly below Sprint's 52-week high stock price of $9.11 per
share on May 11, 2017; below Sprint's 52-week average stock price
of $6.84 per share and below the price target of $7.00 per share
for Sprint in April 2018 by at least three analysts: New Street
Research, Evercore ISI and Wells Fargo Securities.
Sprint is a wireless communications company offering wireless and
landline services to subscribers in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and
the U.S. Virgin Islands under the Sprint corporate brand which
includes its retail brands of Sprint, Boost Mobile, Virgin Mobile
and Assurance Wireless.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
John F. Edgar, Esq.
Brendan M. McNeal, Esq.
EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
1032 Pennsylvania Ave.
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 531-0033
Facsimile: (816) 531-3322
Email: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
bmm@edgarlawfirm.com
- and -
Carl L. Stine, Esq.
Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com
fqian@wolfpopper.com
STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Faces Walker FCRA Suit in Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sterling Infosystems,
Inc. The case is styled as Devonte Walker on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Sterling
Infosystems, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04888-TWT (N.D. Ga.,
Oct. 23, 2018).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Sterling Infosystems, Inc., doing business as Sterling Talent
Solutions, provides employment screening and background check
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Weiner, Esq.
Weiner & Sand, LLC
7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Flr
3525 Piedmont Rd.
Atlanta, GA 30305
Phone: (404) 254-0842
Email: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com
- and -
Jeffrey Sand, Esq.
Weiner & Sand, LLC
7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Flr
3525 Piedmont Rd.
Atlanta, GA 30305
Phone: (404) 205-5029
Fax: (866) 800-1482
Email: js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com
SYNERGY MARKETING: Mittelmark Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MITTELMARK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SYNERGY MARKETING ASSOCIATES INC. d/b/a
NATIONAL PLAN ADVISORS, Case No. 0:18-cv-62402-BB (S.D. Fla.,
October 9, 2018), accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited telemarketing
messages with no regard for consumers' privacy rights.
Synergy Marketing is a Florida corporation with a principal address
in Oakland Park, Florida. The Defendant claims to assist
independent insurance professionals across the nation find the
right product for their clients' needs, as well as assist insurance
carriers increase their distribution channels.[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
TG THERAPEUTICS: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired TG Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: TGTX) securities
from June 4, 2018 through September 25, 2018 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until December 3, 2018 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding TG's business and prospects.
Specifically, the complaint alleges defendants failed to disclose
that: (1) TG was involved in cleaning the data collected in the
UNITY-CLL Trial; and (2) as a result, was able to gain an
understanding as to the efficacy of the combination therapy; (3) as
a result of that data cleaning, TG knew the UNITY-CLL Trial had
failed to meet its stated goal; and (4) as a result, the company
would not be able to seek accelerated approval; and that, given
that the UNITY-CLL Trial had failed to meet its stated goal, it was
highly unlikely that the combination therapy would meet its primary
endpoint of increased progression free survival.
On September 25, 2018, TG Therapeutics issued a press release
announcing "that the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board
(DSMB) for the UNITY-CLL Phase 3 trial met to review ongoing data
from the study and advised the Company that the interim analysis of
Overall Response Rate (ORR) could not be conducted at this time as
the data were not sufficiently mature to conduct the analysis."
On this news, shares of TG Therapeutics fell more than 44%, closing
at $5.15 per share on September 25, 2018.
If you purchased TG Therapeutics securities during the Class Period
or continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon
Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com,
or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact
form. There is no cost or obligation to you.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm
concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For
additional information concerning the TG Therapeutics lawsuit,
please go to https://bespc.com/tgtx/. For additional information
about Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. please go to www.bespc.com.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Tel. No.: (212) 355-4648
Email: walker@bespc.com,
fortunato@bespc.com [GN]
TG THERAPEUTICS: Kaskela Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC disclosed that an investor class action lawsuit has
been filed against TG Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: TGTX) ("TG" or
the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between June 4, 2018 and September 25, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased TG's common stock
during the Class Period may, no later than December 3, 2018, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the investor
class.
Investors who suffered a financial loss in excess of $100,000 are
encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at
(888) 715-1740, or skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to discuss their legal
rights and options. For additional information, or to learn how to
participate in this action, please visit
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/tg-therapeutics/.
TG is a developmental biopharmaceutical company focused on the
acquisition, development and commercialization of novel treatments
for B-cell malignancies and autoimmune diseases. The Company is
developing two therapies targeting hematologic malignancies:
TG-1101 (ublituximab), a glycoengineered monoclonal antibody that
targets a unique epitope on the CD20 antigen found on mature
B-lymphocytes, and TGR-1202 (umbralisib), an orally available PI3K
delta inhibitor. During the Class Period, TG was engaged in a
randomized controlled Phase 3 trial to evaluate TG-1101 in
combination with TGR-1202 for patients with front-line and
previously treated Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ("CLL"), known as
the UNITY-CLL Trial.
On September 25, 2018, TG announced that it would not be releasing
the data from the UNITY-CLL Trial, and that it had failed to meet
the trial's stated goal. The Company also announced that the Data
Safety Monitoring Board had met to review ongoing data from the
UNITY-CLL Trial and had advised the Company that the interim
analysis of the study data could not be conducted at this time
because the data was not sufficiently mature to conduct the
analysis. Following this news, shares of TG's common stock declined
$4.10 per share, or over 44% in value, to close at $5.15 per share
on September 25, 2018.
Investors who purchased the Company's common stock during the Class
Period and suffered a financial loss in excess of $100,000 are
encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC to discuss their legal rights
and options. Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in
state and federal courts throughout the country. For additional
information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit www.kaskelalaw.com.
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
201 King of Prussia Road
Suite 650
Radnor, PA 19087
Email:skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]
TG THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action has
been commenced on behalf of purchasers of TG Therapeutics, Inc.
(NASDAQ: TGTX) common stock during the period between June 4, 2018
and September 25, 2018 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed
in the Southern District of New York and is captioned Reinmann v.
TG Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-09104.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased TG common stock 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
today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, David A. Rosenfeld 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/tgtherapeutics/.
The complaint charges TG and its Chief Executive Officer with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. TG is a
developmental biopharmaceutical company focused on the acquisition,
development and commercialization of novel treatments for B-cell
malignancies and autoimmune diseases. The Company is developing two
therapies targeting hematologic malignancies: TG-1101
(ublituximab), a glycoengineered monoclonal antibody that targets a
unique epitope on the CD20 antigen found on mature B-lymphocytes,
and TGR-1202 (umbralisib), an orally available PI3K delta
inhibitor. During the Class Period, TG was engaged in a randomized
controlled Phase 3 trial to evaluate TG-1101 in combination with
TGR-1202 for patients with front-line and previously treated
Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ("CLL"), known as the UNITY-CLL
Trial.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse
information regarding TG's business and prospects. Specifically,
the complaint alleges defendants failed to disclose that TG was
involved in cleaning the data collected in the UNITY-CLL Trial and,
as a result, was able to gain an understanding as to the efficacy
of the combination therapy; that, as a result of that data
cleaning, TG knew the UNITY-CLL Trial had failed to meet its stated
goal, and that, as a result, the Company would not be able to seek
accelerated approval; and that, given that the UNITY-CLL Trial had
failed to meet its stated goal, it was highly unlikely that the
combination therapy would meet its primary endpoint of increased
progression free survival – in other words, the drug therapy had
failed. As a result of defendants' false statements and/or
omissions, the price of TG common stock was artificially inflated
during the Class Period to as high as $14.70 per share.
Then, on September 25, 2018, TG announced that it would not be
releasing the data from the UNITY-CLL Trial and that it had failed
to meet the trial's stated goal. The Company issued a press release
announcing that the Data Safety Monitoring Board had met to review
ongoing data from the UNITY-CLL Trial and had advised the Company
that the interim analysis of the study data could not be conducted
at this time because the data was not sufficiently mature to
conduct the analysis. In response to the news that the UNITY-CLL
Trial had failed to meet its stated goal and that potential
commercialization would be greatly delayed, the price of TG stock
declined 44%, falling from $9.25 per share to $5.15 per share.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
TG common stock 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 is one of the world's leading law firms 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. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
800-449-4900
Email: djr@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Coulter Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc. The case is styled as Carissa Coulter on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Transworld
Systems Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04575-AB (E.D. Penn.,
Oct. 24, 2018).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt
recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical
companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500
companies, and small businesses in the United States and
internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. Linker, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
1373 Broad St., Suite 203-C
Clifton, NJ 07013
Phone: (862) 227-3106
Email: nl@zemellawllc.com
TRIBUNE MEDIA: Faces LM SAC Suit Over Antitrust Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
LM SAC, LLC, d/b/a JAGUAR LITTLE ROCK AND LAND ROVER LITTLE ROCK
AND OWENS MURPHY JAGUAR LAND ROVER VW, and SOUTHERN CHEVROLET
CADILLAC, INC. v. TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY and SINCLAIR BROADCAST
GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-06806 (N.D. Ill., October 10, 2018),
is a civil antitrust action, both individually and on behalf of a
class of all those similarly situated, for treble damages under the
antitrust laws of the United States.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have colluded to
artificially drive up the price of local television advertising in
defined television market areas (known as Defined Market Areas, or
DMAs) where the both have a presence throughout the country. The
Plaintiffs contend that this illegal conduct has taken money out of
the pockets of members of the proposed class, many if not most of
whom are small business owners like the Plaintiffs.
Tribune Media Company is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.
Through itself and its controlled subsidiaries, Tribune owns and
operates approximately 43 television stations in the United States
and sells air time for local television advertising.
Sinclair Broadcast Group., Inc., is headquartered in Hunt Valley,
Maryland. Sinclair operates as a national television broadcast
company. Through itself and its controlled subsidiaries, Sinclair
owns and operates 191 local television stations in the United
States and sells air time for local television advertising.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd L. McLawhorn, Esq.
Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
SIPRUT PC
17 North State Street, Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 236-0000
Facsimile: (312) 754-9616
E-mail: tmclawhorn@siprut.com
sweltman@siprut.com
- and -
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
Will Thompson, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (469) 904-4550
Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
wthompson@burnscharest.com
- and -
Christopher J. Cormier, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
5290 Denver Tech Center Parkway, Suite 150
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Telephone: (720) 630-2092
Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
E-mail: ccormier@burnscharest.com
- and -
Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 799-2845
Facsimile: (504) 881-1765
E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com
- and -
Howard J. Sedran, Esq.
Charles Schaffer, Esq.
Austin B. Cohen, Esq.
Keith J. Verrier, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: hsedran@lfsblaw.com
cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
acohen@lfsblaw.com
kverrier@lfsblaw.com
TUOLUMNE COUNTY, CA: Court Dismisses Watkins Suit
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued a Finding and Recommendation dismissing for
failure to state a cognizable claim the case captioned RAYMOND CHAD
WATKINS Plaintiff, v. TUOLUMNE COUNTY JAIL, Defendant. Case No.
1:18-cv-01096-DAD-SAB (PC). (E.D. Cal.).
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by individuals
who are proceeding in forma pauperis. The Court must dismiss a
complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that
are legally frivolous or malicious that fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted or that seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS
The Tuolumne County Jail has a policy of refusing grievances and
restricting access to the courts. There is also a custom to
retaliate and restrict the rights of inmates who try to continue to
file grievances.
The facility adopted an arbitrary rule from Title 15 stating that
grievance requests should be handled at the post Deputy level if
possible. This policy gave rise to a custom of automatically
denying grievances and saying the issue if handled when in fact it
is not. Plaintiff has a very long history of being beat and
harassed for requesting citizen complaint forms and grievances from
both Tuolumne County Jail and the Superior Court dating back to
2003.
Grievance Policy/Tuolumne County Jail
Under section 1983 a local government unit may not be held
responsible for the acts of its employees under a respondeat
superior theory of liability. Rather, a local government unit may
only be held liable if it inflicts the injury complained of through
a policy or custom.
To state a claim, it is not sufficient for a plaintiff to identify
a custom or policy, attributable to the municipality, that caused
his injury. A plaintiff must also demonstrate that the custom or
policy was adhered to with `deliberate indifference to his
constitutional rights.
Here, Plaintiff has not linked any alleged violation of his rights
to a policy or practice attributable to the Tuolumne County Jail,
nor has he provided facts to support that Tuolumne County Jail knew
of, and blatantly ignored, the alleged violations committed by its
employees.
The fact that Tuolumne County Jail created a policy that grievances
were to be handed at the post Deputy level if possible, does not
give rise to an unconstitutional violation. Plaintiff fails to
explain how or why the alleged policy violates his constitutional
rights other than the mere conclusion that all grievances are
automatically denied.
Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim against
the Tuolumne County Jail.
Access to the Courts
Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the
courts. However, to state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must
show that he suffered an actual injury, which requires actual
prejudice to contemplated or existing litigation.
To the extent Plaintiff attempts to bring a denial of access to the
courts claim, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim. Although
Plaintiff contends that his grievances are "automatically denied",
Plaintiff has alleged no actual prejudice with respect to any
action which resulted from prison officials alleged failure to
respond to an appeal. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to allege a
cognizable claim for interference with his access to the courts
stemming from any alleged inadequacies of the inmate appeals
process at Tuolumne County Jail.
Retaliation
Within the prison [pretrial] context, a viable claim of First
Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion
that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2)
because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such
action (4) chilled the inmate's exercise of his First Amendment
rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate
correctional goal.
Here, as with the original complaint, Plaintiff contends he was
subjected to retaliation because he requested to file grievances,
but he fails to provide the Court with any clear understanding of
who did what, and how his First Amendment rights were violated.
Although Plaintiff contends he was beat and harassed, he fails to
provide supporting facts as to who was responsible and what
actually took place. Conclusory statements about being beat or
subject to harassing actions are insufficient.
Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for
retaliation.
Appointment of Counsel
Plaintiff makes reference to filing a motion seeking appointment of
counsel.
Plaintiff is advised he does not have a constitutional right to
appointed counsel in this actio and the court cannot require any
attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(e)(1).However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court
may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section
1915(e)(1).
The test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to
evaluate the Plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits and
the ability of the Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in
light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.
Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal
education and limited law library access, do not establish
exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for
voluntary assistance of counsel. In the present case, the does not
find the required exceptional circumstances, and his request for
counsel is denied.
Class Action
In the demand for relief, Plaintiff states that he seeks damages
based on class action settlement for all affected by the illegal
policy.
Plaintiff is advised that he cannot bring this action on behalf of
other inmates. Class action Plaintiffs must be represented by
counsel best able to represent the interests of the class. A
litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent
anyone other than himself.
It is plain error to permit an imprisoned litigant who is
unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class
action.
Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot seek relief or proceed as a class
action in this instance.
The instant action be dismissed without further leave to amend for
failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 18, 2018 Findings
and Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/yae46h44
from Leagle.com.
Raymond Chad Watkins, Plaintiff, pro se.
UPPER STORY: Naula Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------
WILSON NAULA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. UPPER STORY LLC, THE CREATIVE EVENTS
GROUP, L.P., and AMERIVENTS CATERING LLC, and CHARLES PALMER and
GAVIN MURPHY, as individuals, the Case No.: 655092/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Oct. 15, 2018), seeks unpaid wages and compensatory damages
under the New York State Labor laws.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants at Upper Story Restaurant from in or around 1997 until
in or around May 2015. The Plaintiff's primary duties were as a
waiter, bartender, and caterer.
Although the Plaintiff worked approximately 60-63 hours or more per
week during the course of his employment, the Defendants did not
pay the Plaintiff time and a 1.5 for hours worked over 40, a
blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the NYLL,
instead paying the Plaintiff his regular hourly rate for all hours
worked. The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the
minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place
at the location of their employment as required by the NYLL. The
Defendants willfully failed to keep payroll records as required by
the NYLL, the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Roman AvshaLumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
69-12 Austin Street
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
VERB SURGICAL: Sullivan Files Suit in NY Under Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verb Surgical Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit in New York.
The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Verb Surgical Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09746 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 23, 2018).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Verb Surgical Inc. is a new medical device company that is creating
robotic-assisted surgical products. Verb Surgical was founded with
technology, expertise, and funding from Verily (formerly Google
Life Sciences) and Ethicon, a medical device company in the Johnson
& Johnson family of companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
30 East 39th Street
2nd Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
Email: cklee@leelitigation.com
VITAL ONE: Unauthorized Calls Violate TCPA, Dickey Says
-------------------------------------------------------
DAWN DICKEY, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. VITAL ONE HEALTH PLANS DIRECT, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company; and DOE INDIVIDUALS, inclusive, and each
of them, Case No. 1:18-at-00750 (E.D. Cal., October 10, 2018),
arises from the Defendants' alleged illegal actions in contacting
the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Vital One is a Florida limited liability company and maintains its
principal place of business in Miami Lakes, Florida. The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to
the Plaintiff.
Vital One sells health insurance and health insurance related
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
David L. Weisberg, Esq.
KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
david@kristensenlaw.com
- and -
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
2700 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1120
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
VIVIENNE HU: Nixon Suit Asserts ADA Breach
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vivienne Hu, LLC
asserting violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is captioned Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vivienne Hu, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05915 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 23, 2018).
Vivienne Hu is an American fashion designer based in New York City.
After a fashion degree from Parsons School of Design, Vivienne Hu
established her brand, and debuted her Spring/Summer collection in
2012.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
Shalom Law, PLLC
124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
Kew Gardens, NY 11374
Phone: (516) 807-1748
Email: jonathan.shalom25@gmail.com
VIZIO: Gibbs Law Group Discloses $17MM Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in a nationwide Vizio class
action lawsuit over allegations that Vizio secretly tracked what
was displayed on about 16 million Smart TVs for three years. The
class action alleges Vizio collected and sold consumers' viewing
histories -- along with information about their digital identities
-- to third parties, without consumers' knowledge or consent.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Vizio will establish a
$17 million settlement fund that will deliver money directly to
consumers who bought Vizio Smart TVs that were subsequently
connected to the Internet between February 1, 2014 and February 6,
2017. Vizio has also stopped tracking what is displayed on its
Smart TVs unless a consumer consents to this tracking after
receiving a prominent notification. And Vizio will delete the
remaining contested viewing data in its possession.
"After years of intensive litigation, we are pleased to present the
Court with a nationwide class action settlement that is
restorative," said Andre Mura, one of the lead attorneys
representing consumers. "$17 million is more than the revenue Vizio
obtained from licensing viewing data during this three-year period,
and the changes that Vizio is making and recently made to its
business put consumers in the driver's seat when it comes to their
viewing data. This is not only important relief for the class, it
sets an important precedent for the entire consumer electronics
industry at a time when companies are leveraging new technologies
to track customers without their knowledge or consent."
The Court is expected to hold a hearing on December 7, 2018, at
10:30 am in federal court in Santa Ana, California, to consider
preliminarily approving the proposed settlement. The Court will
also decide whether to send a notice through the Smart TVs and via
e-mail that will alert affected customers about the settlement and
the timing and process to file a claim for payment. No deadlines to
participate in the proposed settlement have been set yet.
The Court has appointed Eric Gibbs of Gibbs Law Group LLP and
Joseph Cotchett of Cotchett, Pitre, & McCarthy LLP to lead this
litigation. They have worked alongside Andre Mura and Adam Zapala
to secure these benefits for the proposed class.
For more information and additional updates about the lawsuit and
settlement, please visit
https://www.classlawgroup.com/vizio-smart-tv-privacy-lawsuit/
About Gibbs Law Group
Gibbs Law Group represents consumers, employees, investors and
whistleblowers in complex class action lawsuits nationwide. The
firm is involved in a variety of emerging litigation concerning
consumers' rights in data breach and privacy cases. Andre Mura was
recognized among the "Top Cybersecurity / Privacy Attorneys Under
40" by Law360 in 2017, and Eric Gibbs has been honored as a "Top
Plaintiff Lawyer in California" by the Daily Journal and as a "2016
Consumer Protection MVP" by Law360.
Eileen Epstein, Esq.
Gibbs Law Group
Tel. No. 510-350-9728
E-mail: EJE@CLASSLAWGROUP.COM [GN]
WAGLER CUSTOM HOMES: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nuria Antunez, Jose Luis Martinez, Selvin Reyes, Nectali Reyes and
Christian Reyes, on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated individuals, v. Wagler Custom Homes, LLC and Larry Wagler,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00882 (M.D. La., October 2, 2018), seeks
restitution of unpaid wages, an award of damages, attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Wagler Custom Homes provides construction services throughout the
greater Baton Rouge area and elsewhere in Louisiana where
Plaintiffs were employed by the defendants to perform construction
work. They claim that they have worked in excess of 40 hours per
week without being paid overtime. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel B. Davis, Esq.
Randall E. Estes, Esq.
ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC
850 North Boulevard
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Telephone: (225) 336-3394
Facsimile: (225) 384-5419
Email: dan@estesdavislaw.com
WISCONSIN: Court Orders Amendment to Inmates' Pro Se Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin issued an Opinion and Order directing Amendment to the
Complaint in the case captioned FREDRICK ANDREW MORRIS and JOVAN
WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs, v. SCOTT WALKER, JON LITSCHER, JAMES GREER,
DAVID BURNETT, M.D., KEVIN KALLAS, M.D., DAI ADMINISTRATOR, WARDENS
OF CCI, WCI, GBCI and WSPF, SECURITY DIRECTORS OF CCI, WCI, GBCI
and WSPF, PSU DIRECTORS OF CCI, WCI, GBCI and WSPF, HSU MANAGERS OF
CCI, WCI, GBCI and WSPF and UNNAMED JOHN AND JANE DOES, Defendants.
No. 18-cv-496-bbc. (W.D. Wis.)
The complaint is now before the court for screening under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915A.
This is a proposed civil action originally filed by eight prisoners
incarcerated at various prisons within the Wisconsin Department of
Corrections. The complaint sets out allegations relating to the
treatment of prisoners who are held in solitary confinement.
Scope of Plaintiffs' Claims
Now that many of the plaintiffs have withdrawn from the case, there
is a question about how plaintiffs would like to proceed and on
which claims. Plaintiffs' complaint is titled as a class action
complaint. The complaint is 17 single-spaced pages and includes
allegations about conditions in various Wisconsin prisons and the
experiences of numerous individual prisoners housed at prisons in
the state. The complaint also includes extensive argument and
commentary on Wisconsin Department of Corrections' policies and
procedures regarding solitary confinement and the effect that
solitary confinement has on inmates.
The complaint purports to raise claims under the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, and
names as defendants the Wisconsin governor, Scott Walker, and
several Wisconsin Department of Corrections officials, as well as
wardens, security staff and medical and mental health staff at
several prisons.
It is not clear which of the allegations or legal theories included
in the complaint actually pertain to plaintiffs. For example, the
complaint includes discussion of the Americans with Disabilities
Act and Rehabilitation Act, but the complaint does not include
allegations suggesting that either Morris or Williams is disabled
or was denied access to programs or services because of a
disability.
Similarly, the complaint includes claims against officials and
staff at several Wisconsin prisons, but Morris is housed at Green
Bay Correctional Institution and Williams is housed at Waupun
Correctional Institution. It is not clear whether plaintiffs still
intend to bring claims regarding policies or procedures at prisons
other than Green Bay or Waupun.
Because plaintiffs' complaint does not provide clear notice of the
claims they intend to bring against defendants, the complaint does
not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 8 states that a complaint must include a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief. This means that the complaint must provide notice to the
defendants of what plaintiffs believe defendants did to violate
their rights.
Additionally, the complaint must contain enough allegations of fact
to support a claim under federal law.
In light of the many questions raised by the complaint and
procedural posture of this case, the Court concludes that
plaintiffs may not proceed further with this action unless they
file an amended complaint that clarifies their claims. In
particular, plaintiffs should file an amended complaint that
explains: (1) which claims they wish to proceed with and (2) which
defendants should remain in the case.
The Court ruled that the Plaintiffs should refrain from including
legal argument and social commentary in their amended complaint, as
the extensive arguments and commentary included in the initial
complaint are distracting and unnecessary. After plaintiffs file an
amended complaint, the Court will review the complaint under 28
U.S.C. Section 1915A.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 18, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9o5pp9q from
Leagle.com.
Fredrick Andrew Morris, Plaintiff, pro se.
Jovan Williams, Plaintiff, pro se.
WOLFORD AMERICA: Nixon Sues Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wolford America, Inc.
The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wolford America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05913 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 23, 2018).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Wolford America Inc was founded in 1996. The company's line of
business includes the retail sale of men's and boys ready-to-wear
clothing and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
Shalom Law, PLLC
124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
Kew Gardens, NY 11374
Phone: (516) 807-1748
Email: jonathan.shalom25@gmail.com
XIFU FOOD: Denied Kitchen Staff OT Pay, Wage Statements, says Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wing Chan and Ming Zhang, individually and on behalf all other
employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Xifu Food Inc., Peng
Xiang and Hong Ji, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05445 (E.D. N.Y.,
September 27, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime compensation; unpaid
"spread-of-hours" premium; compensation for failure to provide wage
notice at the time of hiring and failure to provide paystubs;
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law.
Defendants operate as "Xifu Food," a restaurant located at 318
Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York 11217. Wing Chan was employed
as a fry wok from on or around December 15, 2015 to on or around
July 15, 2016 while Ming Zhang worked as a baker.
Both worked in excess of 40 hours per work week without overtime
pay and/or spread-of-hours pay and were not given wage statements,
asserts the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Xiaoxi Liu, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
Flushing, NY 11354
Tel: (718)353-8588
Email: xliu@hanglaw.com
ZESTFINANCE INC: Court Won't Compel Arbitration in Titus Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, issued an Order denying Defendant BlueChip
Financial's (BlueChip) Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss
or Stay Proceedings Herein Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case
captioned TERESA TITUS, as an individual and as a representative of
the class, Plaintiff, v. ZESTFINANCE, INC., BLUECHIP FINANCIAL, and
DOUGLAS MERRILL, Defendants. Case No. 18-5373 RJB. (W.D. Wash.).
This putative class action arises from a series of loans the
Defendants made to the Plaintiff, which the Plaintiff alleges carry
triple digit interest rates (sometimes exceeding 400%), that
violate Washington State usury law, the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, (WCPA), and unjustly enriches Defendants. The
Plaintiff also makes a claim against the Defendants for violation
of Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), asserting
that the Defendants associated for the common purpose of profiting
off of the collection of unlawful debt by offering and collecting
on loans to consumers throughout the United States.
STANDARD ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
Under section two of the FAA, a contract evidencing a transaction
involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy
thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction shall be
valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as
exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.
Under the FAA, the basic role for courts is to determine (1)
whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2)
whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.
The arbitration clauses of the Loan Agreements here are enforceable
unless the effective vindication exception applies.
VALIDITY OF THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE AND THE EFFECTIVE
VINDICATION EXCEPTION
The policy favoring arbitration does not, however, extend to a
substantive waiver of federally protected statutory rights in an
arbitration agreement. Under the effective vindication exception,
arbitration agreements that operate as a prospective waiver of a
party's right to pursue statutory remedies are invalid under the
FAA's Section 2 public policy grounds.
The Defendants' motions to compel arbitration should be denied.
Their choice-of-forum and choice-of-law clauses operate as a
prospective waiver of a party's right to pursue federal statutory
remedies and so the arbitration clause is invalid. Being mindful
that a contract is to be interpreted as a whole and every part with
reference to the whole and that the various provisions of a
contract or statute must be so construed if possible as to give
force and effect to every part thereof, the only reasonable way to
interpret the Loan Agreement is to conclude that Tribal law
applies, barring application of federal law except where it is
expressly included. By implicitly excluding all other federal law,
there is an implicit, prospective waiver of federal rights.
In 2016, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals considered a situation
similar (although not exactly) like the case at bar. Hayes v.
Delbert, 811 F.3d 666 (4th Cir. 2016). In Hayes, the Plaintiff took
out a payday loan from a lender owned by a member of the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe.
Hayes signed a loan agreement which provided, in part: "This Loan
Agreement is subject solely to the exclusive laws and jurisdiction
of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Cheyenne River Indian
Reservation. By executing this Loan Agreement, you, the borrower,
hereby acknowledge and consent to be bound to the terms of this
Loan Agreement, consent to the sole subject matter and personal
jurisdiction of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court, and that no
other state or federal law or regulation shall apply to this Loan
Agreement, its enforcement or interpretation."
The loan agreement in that case also contained an agreement to
arbitrate, which permitted the borrower to select the AAA or JAMS
to administer the arbitration. The Fourth Circuit held that this
arbitration agreement fails for the fundamental reason that it
purports to renounce wholesale the application of any federal law
to the plaintiffs' federal claims. The Hayes Court noted that,
while the Court has affirmed that the FAA gives parties the freedom
to structure arbitration in the way they choose, it has repeatedly
cautioned that this freedom does not extend to a substantive waiver
of federally protected civil rights in an arbitration agreement.
Like the agreement in Hayes, the arbitration agreement here uses a
choice of law provision, which, when construed with the other
provisions in the Loan Agreement, prospectively waives most federal
statutory remedies. Although the language in this case is not as
specific as it was in Hayes, it implicitly achieves the same
results. The choice of forum arbitration surreptitiously waives a
potential claimant's federal rights through the guise of a choice
of law clause. Where an arbitration clause compels the surrender of
federal statutorily mandated rights, the arbitration clause
contravenes the federal statute at issue, and so the arbitration
clause is invalid. Accordingly, the agreement to arbitrate here
should be held to be invalid and unenforceable.
A full-text copy of the District Court's October 18, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybmgtgys from Leagle.com.
Teresa Titus, an individual and as a representative of the class,
Plaintiff, represented by Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
Elizabeth Anne Adams -- eadams@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, E. Michelle Drake -- emdrake@bm.net --
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennifer Rust Murray --
jmurray@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
John G. Albanese -- jalbanese@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.,
pro hac vice & Matt Wessler -- matt@guptawessler.com -- GUPTA
WESSLER PLLC, pro hac vice.
ZestFinance, Inc. & Douglas Merrill, Defendants, represented by
Thomas C. Rubin -- tomrubin@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL
URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, John Baumann -- johnwbaumann@gmail.com --
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, pro hac vice & Shon Morgan
-- shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN
LLP, pro hac vice.
BlueChip Financial, Defendant, represented by Kay Fitz-Patrick --
FITZPATRICKK BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD SPAHR LLP, pro hac vice,
Scott M. Pearson -- PEARSONS BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD SPAHR LLP,
pro hac vice & Timothy E. Steen, BERESFORD BOOTH PLLC, 145 3rd
Avenue South, Edmonds, WA 98020
[*] Aussie Class Actions Require 250% Return for Litigation Funder
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Marin-Guzman, writing for the Australian Financial Review,
reports that new class actions set to hit the mining industry over
casual entitlements will require lawyers first make a 250 per cent
return on their costs before claimants see any money.
The confidential litigation funding agreement for Canberra-based
firm Adero Law, obtained by The Australian Financial Review, could
have workers end up with nothing.
However, Adero has called the funding deal the "new norm" and
argues it could have employees receive a greater share of any
damages.
Adero announced it was preparing four class actions against mining
labour hire companies, including WorkPac and Programmed, worth more
than $325 million.
The firm's actions, yet to be filed, are in part based on a new
Federal Court precedent that held casuals working regular shifts
are entitled to accrued annual leave pay.
Adero, backed by UK litigation funder Augusta Ventures, claims 1100
casuals in the black coal industry have already registered their
interest to claim entitlements.
Most funding agreements for class actions are based on a percentage
of the compensation received, usually 25 to 40 per cent.
But Augusta's 50-page funding agreement shows Augusta's fees are
based on multiples of the legal costs associated with the class
action.
If the class action is settled in less than six months, Augusta
must first get a 180 per cent return on the legal costs before
workers see any money.
If the action continues for more than a year, as is common for
class actions, Augusta's returns climb to 250 per cent, and to 350
per cent on appeal.
The returns are on top of the legal costs themselves, which must
also be reimbursed to Augusta, as well as GST and a 5 per cent fee
Augusta receives for all budget increases.
'Model could diminish returns'
John Emmerig, class action defence head at global law firm Jones
Day, said funding agreements linked to the cost of the litigation
were "an unusual model for this market".
"The question it will raise is whether it's a model that will
further diminish the returns for class members. If it does that, it
would be a major concern."
He said legal costs to run a class action are "routinely over $10
million". That would require Augusta to clear $35 million from one
action alone.
However, Augusta managing director Neil Brennan said budgets for
its previously lodged employee class actions ranged from $1.2
million to $4 million.
"It's not going to be $8 million-$10 million, I can say that for
sure."
He said Augusta carefully examined the economic viability of its
class action and sought to ensure claimants get "at least 50 per
cent".
He said the present fixed-percentage model was "not sustainable"
because it gave funders windfall gains not commensurate with the
risk of their investment.
Adero principal Rory Markham said Augusta's model was "the most
competitive in the funding industry".
"If a matter was a $50 million matter and it was to settled on a
percentage basis in the first six to 12 months, on a 25 per cent
return, that's $12.5 million.
"But I might have only spent $500,000 in the first six months and
if it's a 250 per cent return [on costs] then I'm actually saving
claimants $10 million."
'Not a sensible reality'
Another clause in the agreement requires Augusta be paid its fees
before any set-off or counter-claim, opening up the possibility of
claimants owing money.
Companies are likely to argue any permanent entitlements granted be
offset by casuals' 25 per cent loading.
If such claims are successful, Augusta could receive its fee from
the entitlements compensation but still leave claimants liable to
repay the loadings.
However, Mr Markham ridiculed that possibility as "not a sensible
reality" as WorkPac would practically have to sue each worker for
the money after a class action was settled.
He said any offset defence would be run in full during the class
action and "that is the end of the equation".
The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union,
which is preparing its own legal actions for members, urged miners
to exercise "extreme caution" and seek independent advice before
signing up.
"We are alarmed at the prospect that mine workers with legitimate
claims for lost entitlements could see their recovered money
disappear in legal fees," mining secretary Grahame Kelly said.
"Mine workers caught up in the 'permanent casual' rort have already
been ripped off by their employers, they don't deserve to be
fleeced again through murky legal funding deals hidden in fine
print." [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. 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 ***