/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/181129.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, November 29, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 239 Headlines 1ST CHOICE HOME CARE: Adolphe Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ABBVIE INC: Bid for Class Cert. in Medical Mutual Suit Denied ALCON LAB: Court Won't Review Class Definition Ruling ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action ALTISOURCE ASSET: Still Defends Cambridge Retirement System Suit AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER Related Suit AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Generic Drugs Pricing Suit Still Ongoing APPLE INC: Court Dismisses Orshan Suit Without Leave to Amend APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: McGrath Hits Share Drop from Product Flaw ATENCION FAMILY SERVICES: Bringas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime AVIVA: Windsor Law Firm Mulls Car Crash Insurance Class Action CAFEPRESS INC: Franchi Seeks to Halt Sale to Snapfish CAMPBELL SOUP: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit CAMPING WORLD: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Class Action CANADA: Attempt to Appeal '60s Scoop Settlement Ditched CASH DEPOT: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in FLSA Suit CHEGG INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action CIT BANK: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Wieck Suit CITRUS COUNTY, FL: Sheriff's Office Seeks Dismissal of Class Action CLEVELAND, OH: Permanent Injunctions in Williams Flipped CLIENT SERVICES: Yancy Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey COCA-COLA CO: Frankfurt Kurnit Discusses Diet Coke Suit Ruling COLUMBIA DEBT: Epps Disputes Collection Letter CONTAINER KING: Chenault Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Shafir Sues Over Debt Collection Practices CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Saraci Files FDCPA Class Action COSTCO WHOLESALE: Jan. 7 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set CUCINA & AMORE INC: Flolo Sues Over Product Mislabeling CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP: Partial Bid to Dismiss Schenck FCRA Suit Nixed CV SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Smith Class Suit CV SCIENCES: Still Awaits Scheduling Order in Sallustro Suit DEPLOYED DATA SOLUTIONS: Denied Payment of OT Wages, Dicks Says DJO GLOBAL: Dreifort Alleges Shoe Flaw Caused Hip Injury DRIVELINE RETAIL: Merchandisers Sue to Recover Unpaid Overtime DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Neglia Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices ENCLARITY INC: Womble Bond Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling EVOQUA WATER: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action FINANCE SYSTEM: Washington Files Suit in Ohio Under FDCPA FITBIT INC: Dec. 31 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set FITBIT INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Class Action FITBIT INC: RM Law Files Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit FITBIT INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Fraud Class Action FRONT YARD: Discovery Still Ongoing in Martin Class Suit HONEYWELL INT'L: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action JACQUES TORRES: Figueroa Sues Chocolatier for ADA Breach KAYNE LLC: Faces Figueroa Suit Asserting ADA Violation LAGUNA BEACH, CA: Judge Okays Homeless Class Action Settlement LEAFFILTER NORTH: Federman & Sherwood Files Data Class Action LEON MAX: Violates Disabilities Act, Figueroa Suit Asserts MANHATTAN DINER: Delivery Staff Hit Tip Credit, Seek Overtime Pay MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Can Compel Arbitration in Benson Suit MDL 1720: Optium Fund Buying Goodmans Stores' Claim for $392,000 MEADOWBROOK CARE: Sued for Resident's Injuries, Untimely Death MELINTA THERAPEUTICS: Wins Dismissal of Merger-Related Suit NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action NEUHAUS INC: Faces Garey Suit in NY Alleging ADA Violation NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Violates ADA, Camacho Suit Says OHIO NATIONAL: Murray Murphy Files Broker-Dealer Class Action PACESETTERS INC: Faces Scantland Wage-and-Hour Suit PEACEHEALTH: Oregon Man Files Overbilling Class Suit PETCO: Mini Tanks for Betta Fish Are Harmful, Lawsuits Allege PREMIER AUTOMOTIVE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Torres TCPA Suit PRINSTON PHARMA: Borkowski Sues Over Carcinogen in Hypertension Med PRO FOOTBALL: Lawyers Seek Ticketholders Class-Action Status PROCTER & GAMBLE: Takano Suit Answer Deadline Moved to Dec. 5 PURDUE PHARMA: Shaffer Files Personal Injury Class Action RIDER UNIVERSITY: Camacho Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ROCHESTER INSTITUTE: Camacho Suit Asserts ADA Violation SACRED HEART: Camacho Files ADA Class Action in New York SAG-AFTRA: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Junks Suit Over Defective Plasma TV SANTANDER CONSUMER: Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement SANTANDER CONSUMER: Merits Discovery in Deka Suit Stayed SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Court Stays Johnson FLSA Suit SKECHERS: Kicked With Defective Light-Up Shoes Class Action SOUTHERN METHODIST: Camacho Sues in New York for ADA Breach STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Faces FCRA Lawsuit STATE COLLECTION: Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss Class Action STEVEN ALAN: Website not Accessible to Blind, Nixon Says STITCH FIX: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Class Action SUNRUN INC: Seeks Initial Approval of $5.5MM Slovin Settlement SUNRUN INC: Settlement of California Suit Wins Initial Approval SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Vincent Wong Files Securities Suit TESARO INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Class Action TG THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit TOWER RESEARCH CAPITAL: Boutchard Hits Illegal Futures Manipulation TREVENA INC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Class Action VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Camacho Files ADA Class Action WORKPAC: Adero Law Firm to Intervene in Casual Worker Test Case [*] Calif.'s New Class Action Guidelines Raises Fresh Concerns [*] Gibson Dunn Promotes 17 Lawyers to Partnership ********* 1ST CHOICE HOME CARE: Adolphe Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------- Fridane Adolphe, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated who were employed by 1st Choice Home Care Services, Inc., and/or 1st Aide Home Care, Inc. along with other entities affiliated or controlled by 1st Choice Home Care Services, Inc. and/or 1st Aide Home Care, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. 1st Choice Home Care Services, Inc. and 1st Aide Home Care, Inc., and/or any other related entities, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05876 (E.D. N.Y., October 21, 2018), seeks to recover wages and benefits pursuant to New York Labor Law and Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants are primarily engaged in providing nursing and home health aide services at the residences of its clients where Adolphe worked as a home health care attendant. She regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, without being provided the proper overtime hourly compensation, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C. 1517 Voorhies Ave, 2nd Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11235 Tel: (718) 808-2224 Email: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com ABBVIE INC: Bid for Class Cert. in Medical Mutual Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the plaintiff's motion for class certification in the putative class action lawsuit, Medical Mutual of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was denied. In November 2014, a putative class action lawsuit, Medical Mutual of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed against several manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies (TRTs), including AbbVie, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all insurance companies, health benefit providers, and other third party payers who paid for TRTs, including AndroGel. The claims asserted include violations of the federal RICO Act and state consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices laws. The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. In July 2018, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification. AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases; IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in North Chicago, Illinois. ALCON LAB: Court Won't Review Class Definition Ruling ----------------------------------------------------- In the case, AMERICA'S HEALTH & RESOURCE CENTER LTD., AND AFFILIATED HEALTH GROUP, LTD. individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. ALCON LABORATORIES, INC., NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, AND JOHN DOES 1-12, Defendants, Case No. 16 C 4539 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the Court's June 15, 2018 order granting the Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiffs' class definition, or in the alternative, transfer the proceeding to the District of Delaware. At the crux of the Plaintiffs' arguments is the Supreme Court decision in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh. In American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, the Supreme Court held that the timely filing of a class action tolls the applicable statute of limitations for all persons encompassed by the class complaint. The court also held that where class-action status has been denied, members of the failed class could timely intervene as individual plaintiffs in the still-pending action. Later, in Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, the court clarified American Pipe's tolling rule to state that putative class members need not intervene in or join an existing suit. Instead, the rule also applies to putative class members who, after denial of class certification, prefer to bring an individual suit rather than intervene once the economies of a class action are no longer available." The circuit courts then split as to whether the American Pipe tolling rule includes successive class action suits. The Supreme Court in China Agritech resolved the circuit split, and held that the American Pipe rule tolls only a putative class member's individual claims -- it does not allow a putative class member to file a new class action after the statute of limitations has expired. It explained that equitable tolling is available for individual claims because economy of litigation favors delaying those claims until after a class-certification denial. But the efficiency and economy of litigation that support tolling of individual claims do not support maintenance of untimely successive class actions; any additional class filings should be made early on, soon after the commencement of the first action seeking class certification, so that all would-be early representatives come forward to allow the district court to select the best plaintiff. With that background, Judge Durkin turns to the Plaintiffs' arguments. He finds that the Plaintiffs have a pending putative class comprised of Illinois residents who received faxes in Illinois. If they wish to expand that class, they must do so in a forum that can exercise personal jurisdiction over the Defendants with regard to all of the Plaintiffs' proposed class members. And if they wish to encompass as many faxes as possible, they should file suit in that forum, rather than continuing to seek reconsideration of this Court's application of clear Supreme Court precedent while the statute of limitations continues to run. For these reasons, the Judge denied Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs request the Court transfer these proceedings to the District of Delaware under 28 U.S.C. Section 1631. The Judge agrees with the Defendants' argument that the Court cannot transfer the case under Section 1631 because the Court has jurisdiction, and thus there is no "want of jurisdiction" as required by the section. The Court has jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims because the Plaintiffs are Illinois residents and allegedly received their faxes in Illinois. Accordingly, Section 1631 cannot apply. Therefore, the Judge denied the Plaintiffs' motion to transfer. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 6, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/MjV75h from Leagle.com. America's Health & Resource Center, Ltd., an Illinois corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip A. Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, Daniel J. Cohen -- danieljaycohen209@gmail.com -- Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, pro hac vice, David Max Oppenheim -- david@classlawyers.com -- Bock, Hatch, Lewis and Oppenheim, LLC, James Michael Smith, Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, Jonathan B. Piper, Bock & Hatch, LLC, Molly Elizabeth Stemper, Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC & Tod Allen Lewis -- tod@classlawyers.com -- Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC. Affiliated Health Group, Ltd., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the respresentatives of a class of similarly-situated perosns, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip A. Bock, Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC & Molly Elizabeth Stemper, Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC. Alcon Laboratories Inc, Defendant, represented by Francis A. Citera -- citeraf@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP., Gregory Edward Ostfeld -- ostfeldg@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Kyle L. Flynn -- flynnk@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Defendant, represented by Francis A. Citera, Greenberg Traurig, LLP., Gregory Edward Ostfeld, Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Kyle L. Flynn, Greenberg Traurig. WestFax, Inc., Respondent, represented by William B. Hayes, William B. Hayes, pro hac vice. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Align Technology, Inc. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Align Technology, Inc. (NASDAQGS: ALGN) Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 4, 2019 Class Period: July 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018 Get additional information about ALGN: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/align-technology-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3 Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Telephone: 212.425.1140 Fax: 866.699.3880 Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN] ALTISOURCE ASSET: Still Defends Cambridge Retirement System Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Altisource Asset Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from a putative shareholder class action suit entitled, City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management Corp., et al. On January 16, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands by a purported shareholder of Altisource Asset Management Corporation (AAMC) under the caption City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management Corp., et al., 15-cv-00004. The action names as defendants AAMC, its former Chairman, William C. Erbey, and certain officers of AAMC and alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose material information to AAMC shareholders concerning alleged conflicts of interest held by Mr. Erbey with respect to AAMC's relationship and transactions with Front Yard, Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A., Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., Southwest Business Corporation, NewSource Reinsurance Company and Ocwen Financial Corporation, including allegations that the defendants failed to disclose (i) the nature of relationships between Mr. Erbey, AAMC and those entities; and (ii) that the transactions were the result of an allegedly unfair process from which Mr. Erbey failed to recuse himself. The action seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney's and other fees and expenses. AAMC and Mr. Erbey are the only defendants who have been served with the complaint. On May 12, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of Denver Employees Retirement Plan to be lead plaintiff, and lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 19, 2015. AAMC and Mr. Erbey filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and on April 6, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order granting defendants' motion to dismiss. On May 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and, at the same time, filed a proposed first amended consolidated complaint. AAMC and Mr. Erbey opposed the motion, and on July 5, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order denying with prejudice the motion of the Plaintiff for leave to file the first amended consolidated complaint. On July 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals with respect to the federal district court's April 6, 2017 memorandum and order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss, the April 6, 2017 order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss and the July 5, 2017 order denying with prejudice Plaintiff's motion for leave to file the first amendment consolidated complaint in the matter. On September 18, 2017, Appellant filed its appeal brief, and briefing on the appeal motion was completed on November 15, 2017. On May 24, 2018, the parties made oral arguments with respect to the briefs in response to the Plaintiff's appeal of our successful motions to dismiss in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Altisource said, "We believe the amended complaint is without merit. At this time, we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if any." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Altisource Asset Management Corporation, an asset management company, provides portfolio management and corporate governance services to institutional investors in the United States. The company offers its services under an asset management agreement to Altisource Residential Corporation, which acquires and manages single-family rental properties for working class families. It also provides management services to NewSource Reinsurance Company Ltd. The company was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in Christiansted, Virgin Islands. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER Related Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that discovery is still ongoing in the Opana ER(R) Antitrust class action lawsuit. From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints were filed as class actions on behalf of direct and end-payor (indirect) purchasers, as well as by certain direct purchasers, against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and Impax. On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 6, 2018, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss its complaint with prejudice. The court granted that motion on June 11, 2018. On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re-filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On November 17, 2014, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation. On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 26, 2015 Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson’s LLC, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On April 23, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an anticompetitive settlement agreement with Impax to delay generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Consolidated amended complaints were filed on May 4, 2015 by direct purchaser plaintiffs and end-payor (indirect) purchaser plaintiffs. On July 3, 2015, defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints, as well as the complaints of the "Opt-Out Plaintiffs" (Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.). On February 1, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The parties agreed that CVS Pharmacy, Inc. would be bound by the Court's ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints. On February 10, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the end-payor purchaser plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint, and denied defendants' motion to dismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint. The end-payor purchaser plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint and Impax moved to dismiss certain state law claims. On August 11, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the end-payor purchaser plaintiffs' second consolidated amended complaint. Impax has filed its answer. On September 15, 2018, the claims of Mary Davenport were voluntarily dismissed from the end-payor action. On February 25, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints, with leave to amend. The Opt-Out Plaintiffs and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. have filed amended complaints and Impax has filed its answer. Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been scheduled. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions. The company has operations in North America, Asia, and Europe. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Generic Drugs Pricing Suit Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in the case entitled, In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. From March 2016 to April 2017, 22 complaints were filed as class actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers against manufacturers of generic digoxin and doxycycline and Impax alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of these generic products. From January 2017 to April 2017, three complaints were filed on behalf of indirect purchasers against manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and Impax alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of these generic products. On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 9, 2016. On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff Tulsa Firefighters Health and Welfare Trust, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff Pipe Trade Services MN, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On April 25, 2016, Plaintiff Edward Carpinelli, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff Nina Diamond, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff The City of Providence, Rhode Island, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff United Food & Commercial Workers and Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff Ottis McCrary, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff César Castillo, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 33 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 1, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 7, 2016, Plaintiff United Here Health, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 20, 2016, Plaintiff Valerie Velardi, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On January 13, 2017, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and the Company alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of this generic drug. On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and Impax alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of this generic drug. On April 25, 2017, Plaintiff Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and Impax alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of this generic drug. On May 19, 2016, several indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate the actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Judicial Panel ordered the actions consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and ordered that the actions be renamed "In re Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust Litigation." On January 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed two consolidated class action complaints. On April 6, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the consolidation of all civil actions involving allegations of antitrust conspiracies in the generic pharmaceutical industry regarding 18 generic drugs to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The consolidated actions have been renamed In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. Consolidated class action complaints for each of the 18 drugs were filed on August 15, 2017. Direct purchaser plaintiffs, end-payer plaintiffs, and indirect reseller plaintiffs filed consolidated class complaints against Impax for two products, digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine. On October 6, 2017, Impax filed a motion to dismiss the digoxin complaint. On February 9, 2018, the Court issued an order denying the discovery stay and allowing certain fact discovery to proceed. On October 16, 2018, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the digoxin complaint. On January 19, 2018, Plaintiffs The Kroger Co., Albertsons Companies, LLC, and H.E. Butt Grocery Company L.P., opt-outs, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against 35 companies, including Impax, alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of 30 drugs and specifically digoxin and lidocaine/prilocaine with respect to Impax. No schedule has been set. On June 22, 2018, Plaintiffs Ahold USA, Inc., Cesar Castillo, Inc., FWK Holdings, L.L.C., KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc., and Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. filed a complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against 23 companies, including Impax, and one individual, alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for various drugs, specifically glyburide-metformin and metronidazole with respect to Impax. No schedule has been set. On June 27, 2018, Plaintiffs Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC and Marion Healthcare, LLC filed a motion seeking leave to file a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against seven named defendants, alleging a horizontal and vertical distributor conspiracy to fix prices and allocate sales of lidocaine products. On September 7, 2018, the Court denied the Marion Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice. On September 25, 2018, the Marion Plaintiffs filed a new civil action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania regarding other generic drugs that does not name Impax as a defendant. On August 3, 2018, Plaintiff Humana Inc. filed a complaint against 37 companies, including the Company, as the successor to Impax, alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for various drugs, specifically digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine with respect to Impax. No schedule has been set. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions. The company has operations in North America, Asia, and Europe. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. APPLE INC: Court Dismisses Orshan Suit Without Leave to Amend ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PAUL ORSHAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:14-cv-05659-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted Apple's motion to dismiss all of the claims in the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") with prejudice. Plaintiffs Orshan, Endara, and Henderson filed the class action suit against Apple on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, alleging that Apple violated various consumer protection laws by misleading consumers regarding the storage capacity of certain mobile devices running iOS 8. The Plaintiffs initiated the action on Dec. 30, 2014 and filed their First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on April 9, 2015. The Plaintiffs are California consumers who purchased Apple products running iOS 8. According to the allegations in the FAC, all the three Plaintiffs purchased their devices in reliance on the Defendant's claims, on its website, advertisements, product packaging, and other promotional materials, that the devices came with 16 GB of storage space and they expected that capacity would be available for their personal use. Contrary to these expectations, anywhere from 18.1% to 23.1% of this capacity (2.9 to 3.7 GB) was used by iOS 8 and not available to the Plaintiffs for personal storage. The Plaintiffs alleged that had they known this, they would not have upgraded to iOS 8, would not have purchased the 16 GB of storage capacity or would not have been willing to pay the same price for it. The Plaintiffs also alleged that in addition to not meeting consumer expectations, Apple exploits the discrepancy between represented and available capacity for its own gain by offering to sell, and by selling, cloud storage capacity through its iCloud service. The FAC stated that Apple charges anywhere from $0.99 to $29.99 per month for iCloud subscriptions, and Apple does not permit its users to use cloud storage services from other vendors. The Plaintiffs' FAC asserted the following causes of action: (1) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (2) violation of the False Advertising Law ("FAL"); and (3) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). Apple filed a motion to dismiss on May 15, 2015. On March 27, 2018, the Court issued an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss First Amended Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiffs filed the SAC on May 1, 2018. The SAC asserts the same UCL, FAL and CLRA claims based upon the same core allegation: that Apple represented on its website, advertisements, product packaging, and other promotional materials that the Plaintiffs' devices came with 16 GB of storage space. Newly added to the SAC is that it is the principle false representation made by the Defendant and relied upon by Named Plaintiffs Orshan, Endara and Henderseon . The Plaintiffs continue to allege that in reliance on the allegedly false representation, the Plaintiffs expected that 16 GB would be available for personal use. Contrary to their expectations, anywhere from 18.1% to 21.3% of the 16 GB of storage capacity (2.9 to 3.4 GB) was used by iOS 8 and not available for the Plaintiffs' personal use. They also continue to allege Apple did not adequately disclose in conjunction with upgrades to iOS 8 the additional and substantial storage capacity that would be consumed by the upgrade. The Plaintiffs estimate that iOS 8 uses between 600 MG and 1.3 GB more storage space than iOS 7, and that "no consumer could reasonably anticipate" this increase. The Plaintiffs add to the SAC that the Plaintiffs and consumers did not expect the iOS update to include unnecessary and unwanted applications that cannot be erased. They also reallege that Apple exploits the discrepancy between represented and available capacity for its own gain by offering to sell, and by selling, cloud storage capacity to purchasers whose internal storage capacity is at or near exhaustion. As a preliminary matter, Apple requests that the Court again takes judicial notice of items the Court took judicial notice of in ruling on the previous motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs do not oppose Apple's request. Apple's request is granted for the reasons previously stated in the court's March 27, 2018 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss. The Court will take judicial notice of the items, but will not accept the truth of the factual statements or opinions expressed therein. As a result of the Court's ruling on Apple's previous motion to dismiss, the only potentially viable theory of fraud remaining in the case depends on the Plaintiffs' allegation that Apple deceived them into thinking that iOS 8 would not consume as much storage capacity as it did. Despite having been given leave to amend, Judge Davila finds that the SAC still fails to allege facts to plausibly support this theory of fraud. The Plaintiffs attempt to insert a new theory of fraud in the SAC, alleging that Apple's statement that "actual formatted capacity less" is misleading. The Plaintiffs allege that this disclaimer was not sufficient to put them on notice of the difference between the 16 GB of space promised and the usable space received because the dictionary definition of "format" does not reference the operating system, and it certainly does not mean the inclusion of software that cannot be erased or a partition of the available storage space beyond what is even required for the operating system. None of these allegations salvage the Plaintiffs' claims, the Judge holds. The Plaintiffs do not allege that they understood the term "formatted capacity" in the manner proposed. And regardless of the dictionary definition of "format," no reasonable consumer could have read Apple's disclaimer and expected that all of the 16 GB would be available for personal use on their devices because the average consumer would know and expect that their Apple devices come pre-installed with an operating system and applications. Furthermore, no consumer could have read Apple's disclaimer and reasonably expected that iOS 8 would not consume a substantial amount of storage; the disclosure simply does not imply anything about the amount of storage iOS 8 would or would not consume. In sum, the Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts that would make it plausible that they reasonably expected iOS 8 not to consume a substantial amount of storage. Judge Davila therefore granted Apple's motion to dismiss. Given the futility of further amendment, the Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without leave to amend. The Clerk will close the file. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 6, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/YWXPNz from Leagle.com. Paul Orshan, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Christopher Endara, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Amy Elizabeth Boyle -- boyle@halunenlaw.com -- Halunen Law, Charles J. LaDuca -- charlesl@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Jon Michael Herskowitz -- jon@bhfloridalaw.com -- pro hac vice, Matthew Evan Miller -- mmiller@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Melissa S. Weiner, Halunen Law, Michael Andrew McShane -- mmcshane@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners LLP, S. Clinton Woods, Audet & Partners, LLP. & William H. Anderson -- wanderson@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP. David Henderson, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Amy Elizabeth Boyle, Halunen Law, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Jon Michael Herskowitz, pro hac vice, Ling Yue Kuang, Audet & Partners, LLP, S. Clinton Woods, Audet & Partners, LLP & William H. Anderson, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP. Apple Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew David Powers -- mpowers@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP. APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: McGrath Hits Share Drop from Product Flaw ------------------------------------------------------------------ Stephen McGrath, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Chih-Hsiang Lin and Stefan J. Murry, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03914 (S.D. Tex., October 18, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Applied Optoelectronics is a provider of fiber-optic networking products for the internet data center, cable television, and telecommunications markets. On September 27, 2018, an analyst reported that the company was experiencing product quality issues with certain transceivers that were prone to fail after thousands of hours of operation. Said report lowered gross margin and revenue expectations because the product quality issues suggested that the company would outsource its lasers externally through 2019. On this news, the company's stock price fell $2.98 per share, or more than 9%, to close at $28.36 per share on September 27, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on September 28, 2018, it reduced its revenue guidance for the third quarter 2018 and stated that it had identified a problem with its lasers that required the temporary suspension of certain transceivers. On this news, its share price fell further down 13%, to close at $24.66 per share on September 28, 2018, on unusually high trading volume. McGrath purchased Applied Optoelectronics common stock and lost substantially. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P. 700 Louisiana, Suite 3950 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 227-7720 - and - Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. Shaelyn Gambino-Morrison, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE P.C. 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 Facsimile: (212) 486-0462 Email: fortunato@bespc.com passmore@bespc.com gambino-morrison@bespc.com ATENCION FAMILY SERVICES: Bringas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Gloria Bringas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Atencion Family Services and Jennifer Muller, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00965 (D. N.M., October 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Mexico common law. Bringas was employed by Atencion Family Services as a caregiver, providing companionship services to clients in their homes. She routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Benoit, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF LYNN COYLE, P.L.L.C. 2515 North Stanton El Paso, TX 79902 Tel: (915) 532-5544 Fax: (915) 532-5566 Email: chris@coylefirm.com - and - Brandt Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE 1123 Spruce Street, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80302 Tel: (303) 440-8780 Fax: (303) 957-5754 Email: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com AVIVA: Windsor Law Firm Mulls Car Crash Insurance Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- CTV Windsor reports that there's a Windsor connection to a series of class action lawsuits proposed against six Ontario auto insurers and their regulator the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. Jennifer Bezaire, a partner at Greg Monforton & Partners in Windsor, announced on Nov. 7 that she and her firm are members of the consortium of lawyers formed to commence the lawsuits. "This $600-million lawsuit seeks to force these insurers to pay back HST wrongly charged to policyholders injured in car crashes," says Ms. Bezaire, a member of the Board of Directors of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association. It also seeks an injunction prohibiting these insurers from continuing their practice against the direction of FSCO and case law from the License Appeal Tribunal. Ms. Bezaire, pointing to a FSCO Bulletin which told all insurers "The HST is a tax and is not part of the benefit limits" said "FSCO could not have been clearer. But these insurers unilaterally took the position that HST should be deducted from our clients' benefits." Ms. Bezaire says a few weeks ago, one of the insurers (Aviva) wrote to a Windsor accident victim saying: "Aviva intends to maintain its position that any applicable HST is inclusive of the benefit limit." Ms. Bezaire added: "these insurers seemingly ignored FSCO and where they could they refused to pay HST or they used HST to wrongfully reduce benefits, resulting in less care for injured policyholders." "FSCO turned a blind eye to the unfair industry practices, even when it knew people were being unfairly denied benefits," says Ms. Bezaire. "In response to repeated complaints, FSCO acknowledged the practice and indicated that the offending insurers had been told to stop the practice and had promised to follow the directive. However, insurers continued ignoring FSCO and the practice continued." Ms. Bezaire says this deceitful action by insurers appears widespread and our investigation of other insurers continues. The lawyers have established a toll free hotline (1-866-540-2747) and website (autohstclassaction.com) to receive complaints from the public. [GN] CAFEPRESS INC: Franchi Seeks to Halt Sale to Snapfish ----------------------------------------------------- Adam Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, plaintiff, v. Cafepress Inc., Fred E. Durham III, Anthony C. Allen, Mary Ann Arico, Kenneth T. Mcbride, Alan B. Howe, Snapfish LLC and Snapfish Merger Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01620 (D. Del., October 18, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of CafePress Inc. by Snapfish, LLC and Snapfish Merger Sub, Inc., rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger, 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, Snapfish will acquire all of CafePress' outstanding common stock for $1.48 per share in cash. CafePress, Inc. is an online retailer of stock and user-customized on demand products, including custom t-shirts, stickers, posters, coffee mugs and more. The complaint says the solicitation statement filed in connection with the transaction omitted material information regarding CafePress' financial projections and the analyses performed by its financial advisor, Needham & Company, LLC. The statement failed to disclose the timing and nature of all communications regarding future employment and directorship of the its officers and directors and failed to disclose whether CafePress entered into any confidentiality agreements that contained standstill and/or "don't ask, don't waive" provisions that are or were preventing the counterparties from submitting superior offers to acquire the Company, it adds. [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 CAMPBELL SOUP: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has commenced on behalf of Campbell Soup Company (NYSE: CPB). If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Campbell Soup Company (NYSE: CPB) Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 27, 2018 Class Period: August 31, 2017 and May 17, 2018 Get additional information about CPB: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/campbell-soup-company-loss-submission-form?wire=3 Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway, Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Telephone: 212.425.1140 Fax: 866.699.3880 Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN] CAMPING WORLD: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Camping World Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: CWH). If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Camping World Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: CWH) Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 18, 2018 Class Period: March 8, 2017 and August 7, 2018 Get additional information about CWH: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/camping-world-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3 Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Telephone: 212.425.1140 Fax: 866.699.3880 Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN] CANADA: Attempt to Appeal '60s Scoop Settlement Ditched ------------------------------------------------------- Colin Perkel, writing for Global News, reports that a last-ditch effort to challenge the court-approved settlement of the '60s Scoop class action failed on November 9 when a judge tossed the novel attempt as lacking any substance. In his decision, Judge John Laskin of the Federal Court of Appeal said the applicants had provided no support for their highly unusual motion seeking leave to appeal the settlement. "The evidence filed by the applicants is inadequate in the extreme," Laskin wrote. The ruling, barring any further court machinations, paves the way for implementation of the $750-million class-action settlement. The federal government had said it could not proceed with payouts to victims pending finality in the court proceedings. The request to appeal the agreement finalized over the summer rather than opt out -- fewer than a dozen class members did so -- came from a group of 11 claimants who said they were Scoop victims, although two of the plaintiffs subsequently dropped out of the proceeding. They filed their application through a law firm that had been shut out of the $75 million in legal fees agreed to as part of the class-action settlement. Among other things, they alleged they were excluded from the process that led to court approval of the agreement that would pay survivors as much as $50,000 a piece for the harms done when they, as children, were taken from their Indigenous families and placed with non-Indigenous ones. They also expressed unhappiness over the fees awarded to the lawyers who negotiated the deal. Laskin noted the applicants had failed to show they were survivors of the '60s Scoop and therefore members of the class. Nor did they provide evidence that an appeal of the settlement would be in the best interests of survivors, he said. One of the applicants, Joan Frame, of Hamilton, had alleged to The Canadian Press that the lawyers who negotiated the settlement -- some of whom worked on the case for free for the better part of a decade -- "resorted to trickery" to get the agreement. "To allow people to win illegally and make money off our backs and suffering again should not be allowed to happen," Frame had said. Laskin also took issue with such assertions, saying the applicants had offered no evidence in support. While it is normal in litigation for the losing party to be on the hook for the legal costs incurred by the winners, the winning lawyers are seeking costs personally from the lawyer who filed the appeal motion given the serious misconduct allegations he made against them. Laskin declined to award costs until Jai Singh Sheikhupura with Vancouver-based Watson Goepel has had an opportunity to make submissions. He has until Nov. 19 to do so. "We are pleased that the Federal Court of Appeal has cleared away the last impediment to the settlement being implemented," said Kirk Baert, Esq. -- kmbaert@kmlaw.ca -- one of the lawyers involved in the class action. "Now the settlement funds can flow to the survivors as intended." The $75 million in legal fees, which the federal government agreed to pay to four legal firms separately from the compensation to the Scoop survivors, became a flashpoint earlier this year when Ontario Superior Court of Justice Edward Belobaba said they were far too high. [GN] CASH DEPOT: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TIMOTHY J. FAST, Plaintiff, v. CASH DEPOT LTD., Defendant, Case No. 16-C-1637 (E.D. Wis.), Judge William C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (i) denied Fast's motion for attorney's fees and costs, and (ii) granted Cash Depot's motion for summary judgment. Fast sued his former employer, Cash Depot, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated current and former non-exempt Field Service Technicians, alleging Cash Depot violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), in failing to lawfully compensate them at a correct rate of overtime pay and for all overtime hours worked at that overtime rate of pay. After Fast filed his complaint, Cash Depot tendered the full amount of the underpayment in overtime pay calculated by its accountants to its current and former employees and filed motions to dismiss Fast's claims on mootness grounds and for summary judgment. The Court denied the motions on Nov. 7, 2017, noting that Fast disputed whether the full amount owed to him and the members of the putative class had been paid. It also recognized that under current law a collective or class action plaintiff may refuse an offer of settlement for the full value of his individual claim to avoid rendering his potential class or collective action moot. The Court nevertheless observed that, if Cash Depot had cured its prior FLSA violations by paying what is owed to its current and former employees, the case should promptly resolve. Cash Depot provided Fast's counsel with its calculations and payment information for all of its employees, even though Fast had not moved for class certification, in December 2017. On Feb. 2, 2018, Fast's counsel stated that Cash Depot had paid all wages owed to its employees resulting from its FLSA violations and that the only outstanding issue was reimbursement of Fast's attorney's fees and costs. Cash Depot's counsel did not expect Cash Depot would pay approximately $50,000 in fees but indicated he would discuss the matter with Cash Depot. On Feb. 14, 2018, Fast's counsel emailed Cash Depot's counsel seeking an update regarding the reimbursement of fees. Cash Depot's counsel never responded. On June 20, 2018, Fast filed a motion for attorney's fees and costs. He maintains that he is the prevailing party and is entitled to attorney's fees and costs, totaling $50,137.04, pursuant to Section 216(b). Cash Depot opposes Fast's motion on the ground that he is not a prevailing party, as that term has been defined by the Supreme Court in Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services. Cash Depot then filed its own motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment on July 25, 2018. Judge Griesbach finds that the payment Fast received from Cash Depot was never submitted as a settlement for judicial approval. Because there is no court order confirming the resolution of Fast's claims or other judicially sanctioned material alteration in the legal relationship between the parties, Fast does not qualify as a prevailing party. Accordingly, Fast is not the prevailing party and is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees. Lastly, Cash Depot contends the case should be dismissed because the matter is now nonjusticiable and moot. Fast concedes that he has been fully paid the wages owed pursuant to the FLSA. In short, a live controversy no longer exists, and the court lacks jurisdiction as a result. Cash Depot's motion for summary judgment will therefore be granted. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Griesbach denied Fast's motion for attorney's fees and costs, and (ii) granted Cash Depot's motion for summary judgment. The case is dismissed as moot. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 6, 2018 Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/A6DIcq from Leagle.com. Timothy J Fast, Plaintiff, represented by Scott S. Luzi -- sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com -- Walcheske & Luzi LLC & James A. Walcheske -- jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com -- Walcheske & Luzi LLC. Cash Depot Ltd, Defendant, represented by George Burnett, Law Firm of Conway Olejniczak & Jerry SC & Jodi Arndt Labs, Law Firm of Conway Olejniczak & Jerry SC. CHEGG INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action -------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that purchasers of Chegg, Inc. filed a class action complaint against the company's officers and directors for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between July 30, 2018 and September 25, 2018. Chegg operates a direct-to-student learning platform that supports high school and college students. View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog: https://www.robbinsarroyo.com/chegg-inc/ Chegg Accused of Failing to Maintain Sufficient Data Security Measures According to the complaint, in July 2018, Chegg announced impressive financial growth and raised full year 2018 guidance. That same month, Chegg acknowledged in an SEC filing that computer malware, viruses, hacking, phishing attacks, and spamming could harm its business. On September 25, 2018, Chegg revealed that an unauthorized party had gained access in April 2018 to approximately 40 million users' data. In the massive security breach, usernames, email addresses, shipping addresses, and hashed Chegg passwords had been compromised. On this news, Chegg's stock fell over 12%, closing at $28.42 on September 26, 2018, and has since fallen even further. Chegg Shareholders Have Legal Options Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website. Leonid Kandinov, Esq. Robbins Arroyo LLP Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Toll Free: (800) 350-6003 Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN] CIT BANK: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Wieck Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JULIA WIECK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CIT BANK, N.A.; FINANCIAL FREEDOM; SEATTLE SPECIALTY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS OF LLOYD'S, LONDON, and GREAT LAKES REINSURANCE (UK), PLC, Defendants, Civ. No. 16-00596 JMS-RLP (D. Haw.), Judge J. Michael Seabright of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On March 30, 2018, the Court issued a comprehensive decision that granted in part and denied in part several motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in the putative class action, which arises out of lender-placed hurricane insurance on reverse mortgages. The March 30th Order determined that some of Wieck's claims -- certain non-preempted breach of contract, and unfair or deceptive trade practices allegations -- survived the motions to dismiss, but the Order dismissed other claims. The court granted the Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") solely to attempt to rectify pleading deficiencies with the claims that were dismissed without prejudice as explained in the March 30th Order. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a SAC on May 11, 2018. Similar to the FAC, the SAC alleges the following Counts: a. Count One (Breach of Contract) against Defendants Financial Freedom and CIT Bank, N.A. (collectively sometimes referred to as CIT) b. Count Two (Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) against Financial Freedom c. Count Three (Violations of Hawaii Revised Statute ("HRS") Section 480-2) against Financial Freedom d. Count Four (Violations of HRS Section 480-2) against Defendants Certain Underwriters of Lloyd's, London (Lloyd's); Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK), PLC (Great Lakes); Seattle Specialty Insurance Services, Inc. (Seattle Specialty); and National General Lender Services, Inc., (National General) e. Count Five (Tortious Interference with a Business Relationship) against Lloyd's, Great Lakes, Seattle Specialty, and National General, (construed as a claim for tortious interference with contract under Hawaii law) f. Count Six (Violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") against all the Defendants g. Count Seven (Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (conspiracy)) against all the Defendants Unlike the FAC, the SAC no longer alleges a violation of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") against Financial Freedom and CIT (a claim that the March 30th Order dismissed without prejudice). The Defendants now move to dismiss the repleaded claims. CIT's Motion to Dismiss challenges aspects of Counts One, Two, Three, Six and Seven. Seattle Specialty and National General's Motion to Dismiss challenges the addition of National General as a Defendant, and Counts Five, Six, and Seven. Similarly, Lloyd's and Great Lakes challenge aspects of the SAC's additional allegations in Count Four, as well as Counts Five, Six, and Seven. the Plaintiff filed an omnibus Opposition on Aug. 3, 2018. Replies were filed on Aug. 17, 2018. The Court heard the Motions on Sept. 10, 2018. Judge Seabright granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the SAC. With respect to CIT's Motion to Dismiss, the Judge dismissed Financial Freedom as a separate Defendant and any remaining claims against "Financial Freedom" are construed as being made against CIT Bank, N.A., itself. He again dismissed with prejudice Count II. Finally, the Judge struck the Section 431:13-103(a)(8) allegations in paragraph 154 of Count Three of the SAC as to CIT. As to Seattle Specialty and National General's Motion to Dismiss, the Judge (i) dismissed National General without prejudice to the Plaintiff filing an appropriate Rule 15 motion to amend the SAC to add a new Defendant; and (ii) dismissed Count Five and because the Plaintiff was already given leave to amend to attempt to rectify pleading deficiencies, the dismissal is with prejudice. Next, the Judge denied Lloyd's and Great Lakes' Motion to Dismiss. In addition to also challenging Count Five, Lloyd's and Great Lakes seek to dismiss or strike the SAC's new allegations in Count Four, which (as in the FAC) asserts violations of HRS Section 480-2 for unfair or deceptive trade acts or practices. The Judge holds that it would be inappropriate for the Court at this stage to opine on this complicated and important issue of state law, and address whether an entire class of insurers would be immune from all statutorily-defined unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive trade acts or practices in Hawaii. Finally, Judge Seabright dismissed with prejudice the RICO Counts. He finds that the SAC fails to establish all the elements of a RICO claim, and the RICO claims are time-barred. The Plaintiff discovered, or could have discovered, her alleged injury when lender-placed insurance was first placed on her property in 2010 (more than four years before the Complaint was filed in 2016). A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/MYBqq8 from Leagle.com. Julia Wieck, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bridget G. Morgan -- morgan@bsds.com -- Bickerton Dang LLLP, Catherine E. Anderson -- canderson@gslawny.com -- Giskan Solotaroff & Anderson LLP, pro hac vice, James J. Bickerton -- bickerton@bsds.com -- Bickerton Dang LLLP, Roosevelt N. Nesmith -- roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com -- Law Office of Roosevelt N. Nesmith, LLC, pro hac vice & Stephen M. Tannenbaum -- tannenbaum@bsds.com -- Bickerton Dang LLLP. CIT Bank, N.A. & Financial Freedom, Defendants, represented by Judy A. Tanaka -- judy.tanaka@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Louis Smith -- smithlo@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice & Michelle N. Comeau, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing. Seattle Specialty Insurance Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew James Lautenbach -- alautenbach@starnlaw.com -- Starn O'Toole Marcus & Fisher, Judy A. Tanaka, Dentons US LLP, Robyn C. Quattrone, Buckley Sandler LLP, pro hac vice, Scott Sakiyama -- ssakiyama@buckleysandler.com -- BuckleySandler LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen LeBlanc -- sleblanc@buckleysandler.com -- Buckley Sandler LLP, pro hac vice. Certain Underwriters of Lloyd's, London & Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK), PLC, other Great Lakes Reinsurance SE, Defendants, represented by Eileen T. McCabe, Mendes & Mount, LLP, pro hac vice, Judy A. Tanaka, Dentons US LLP, Stephen Thomas Roberts, Mendes & Mount, LLP, pro hac vice, Steven M. Egesdal, Carlsmith Ball LLP Honolulu & William M. Harstad, Carlsmith Ball LLP Honolulu. National General Lender Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew James Lautenbach, Starn O'Toole Marcus & Fisher, Robyn C. Quattrone, Buckley Sandler LLP, pro hac vice, Scott Sakiyama, BuckleySandler LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen LeBlanc, Buckley Sandler LLP, pro hac vice. MS Amlin Corporate Member, Ltd. & Liberty Corporate Capital Ltd., Defendants, represented by Nicholas M. McLean, Cades Schutte LLP, Peter W. Olson, Cades Schutte LLP, Gregory L. Mast, Fields Howell LLP, pro hac vice, Paul Lindsey Fields, Jr., Fields Howell LLP, pro hac vice & Taryn Michelle Kadar, Fields Howell LLP, pro hac vice. CITRUS COUNTY, FL: Sheriff's Office Seeks Dismissal of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- Buster Thompson, writing for Citrus County Chronicle, reports that an attorney for Citrus County Sheriff Mike Prendergast has asked a federal judge to throw a class-action lawsuit by a trio of deputies alleging the sheriff's office's physical fitness test is discriminatory to both female and older deputies. Tampa-based lawyer Carly Wilson, Esq. -- cwilson@anblaw.com -- filed a motion on November 8 with the U.S. District Court in Ocala to have Judge James S. Moody dismiss an eight-count complaint against Prendergast alleging the violation of U.S. and Florida gender and age protections, according to Wilson's court filing. Wilson also filed a second motion on November 8 to have Moody strike several "irrelevant" and "scandalous" allegations in the suit filed Oct. 9 by former sheriff's deputies Dawn Alexander and Michele Tewell, and current deputy Lisa Ventimiglia, the attorney's motion shows. Wilson's filings are the first response to the deputies' accusations, which contend the sheriff's "uniform, unvalidated and unreliable" fitness test is unfair and harms female and older deputies by suppressing their pay and promotions -- and that sheriff's officials are aware of this, continue to mandate the fitness test and better accommodate male deputies if they're unable to take it. According to her first 12-page motion, Wilson states the plaintiffs' claims have no standing because they don't allege the test caused them injury or threat of injury; did not provide data on how the test discriminates against a particular group; and speculated about how the test discriminates, even though they continued to pass their quarterly tests. "This irrational fear cannot form the basis for an injury in fact," Wilson wrote, "and therefore plaintiffs have no standing and their disparate claims should be dismissed." Attorneys representing Alexander, Tewell and Ventimiglia could not be reached for comment on November 9. Alexander, Ventimiglia and Tewell are seeking back pay, benefits, compensatory damages, punitive damages, payment of attorney fees and an injunction to end the sheriff's current fitness test policy, which began in 2008.[GN] CLEVELAND, OH: Permanent Injunctions in Williams Flipped -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TYNISA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, Defendant-Appellant, Case Nos. 16-4237/17-3508 (6th Cir.), Judge Eugene Edward Siler, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (i) reversed the district court's summary judgment and permanent injunction orders; and (ii) remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment in favor of the City on all counts and to vacate the permanent injunction. In 2009, Williams brought suit against the City , on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. She alleged that the City's intake procedures conducted at its House of Corrections ("HOC") -- consisting of strip searches and mandatory delousing -- violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On Oct. 30, 2009, Williams was pulled over and cited for driving with a suspended license. She was brought into the Justice Center, Cleveland's downtown city jail. After spending the night in the downtown jail, Williams was driven to the HOC in a van with several other inmates. She was placed in a holding cell for three to four hours with approximately 10 other female detainees. A female correctional officer took her to a back room with two other female detainees and gave them uniforms. The officer then provided the detainees with lock bins in which to store their street clothes and ordered the detainees to remove their clothing, including their bras and underwear. The detainees were then ordered to get into the shower, which had three separate stalls, and they were given about one minute to shower. The women were ordered to exit the shower, which left them standing approximately one foot from each other in the nude. The correctional officer then proceeded to spray the detainees with a delousing solution, one at a time. The officers then directed the detainees to put on their uniforms, without being given the opportunity to shower again. Williams waited for ten to fifteen minutes in the holding cell before being escorted to the pod: a large room with several bunks. She was then immediately released on bail, at approximately 6:00 p.m. Later in 2009, Williams brought the class action against the City, arguing that she and similarly situated pretrial detainees were deprived of their Fourth Amendment rights when they were subjected to mandatory strip searches and delousing upon entry at the HOC without individualized suspicion of lice or concealed contraband. She sought monetary damages, a declaration that the City's policies were unconstitutional, and an injunction precluding the City from continuing its allegedly unconstitutional practices. Back in the district court, both Williams and the City moved for summary judgment. The district court granted Williams' motion in part, awarding summary judgment to Williams on her Fourth Amendment claim challenging the manner in which the City conducted delousing and strip-search procedures. With regard to Williams's strip-search claim, the district court found that the City's policy of strip searching multiple detainees at a time did not strike a reasonable balance between Williams' privacy interests and the need to provide safety and security at the jail. It rejected the City's provided justification that the jail was 'busy,' and corrections officers need to strip search multiple detainees for expediency. The district court also issued a permanent injunction forbidding the City from conducting: (1) the physical delousing of detainees by utilizing a pressurized spray canister except in instances of purposeful avoidance or misapplication of a delousing solution by a detainee; and (2) the showering of detainees in the jail booking area absent detainees being allowed to enter and use those showers in the absence of any other detainees. If the City chose to conduct strip searches during the intake process in groups of two or more, the district court ordered that the City must install a privacy partition/curtain between the detainees being searched to completely preclude each detainee from seeing the other in a state of partial and/or complete undress. If the City did not install such partitions, the strip searches had to be conducted individually and privately. The City now appeals the district court's decisions partially granting summary judgment in favor of Williams, partially denying summary judgment to the City, and issuing a permanent injunction against the City. Judge Siler finds that the district court erred by granting Williams' motion for summary judgment on her third and fourth causes of action -- demanding declaratory and injunctive relief -- because Williams lacked standing to bring these claims. He accordingly reversed those portions of the district court's orders. Next, he finds that Williams has not provided evidence questioning the legitimacy of the City's proffered justification. Indeed, processing detainees in groups of two or three during high-volume hours would presumptively speed up the intake process. He finds that the City's policy of allowing strip searches to be conducted in groups of two or three during busy periods, such as Williams' time of intake, was reasonably related to the City's legitimate penological interest of expediting the intake procedure. Finally, the Judge finds that based on the undisputed facts, the City's delousing policy did not violate Williams' Fourth Amendment rights. The City's decision to delouse detainees with a fine mist was reasonably related to its interest in maintaining the cleanliness and habitability of the HOC. The need for delousing outweighed the admittedly substantial invasion of personal rights that resulted from the policy. The City has set forth "good reasons" for its decision to delouse detainees at the HOC with a fine mist -- and consequently, its delousing procedure was not a needless intrusion into the detainees' constitutional rights. Accordingly, Judge Siler reversed the district court's partial grant of summary judgment in favor of Williams on her Fourth Amendment claim. He remanded with instructions for the district court to grant summary judgment in favor of the City on all counts and to vacate the permanent injunction order. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/097bVD from Leagle.com. ARGUED: Stephen W. Funk -- sfunk@ralaw.com -- ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA., Akron, Ohio, for Appellant. Elmer Robert Keach, III , LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, PC., Albany, New York, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Stephen W. Funk, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA., Akron, Ohio, Thomas J. Kaiser, CITY OF CLEVELAND, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Elmer Robert Keach, III, LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, PC., Albany, New York, D. Aaron Rihn -- arihn@peircelaw.com -- ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, PC., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Nicholas Migliaccio -- nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com -- MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP., Washington, D.C., Daniel Karon -- dkaron@karonllc.com -- KARON LLP., Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. CLIENT SERVICES: Yancy Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Laura Yancy individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Client Services, Inc., John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-16163-CCC-MF (D. N.J., Nov. 15, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Client Services, Inc. operates as a customer relationship management company that offers a suite of accounts receivable management, business processing outsourcing (BPO), and healthcare solutions.[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 COCA-COLA CO: Frankfurt Kurnit Discusses Diet Coke Suit Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Dorian Thomas, Esq. -- dthomas@fkks.com -- of Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC, in an article for Lexology, reports that in yet another suit against The Coca-Cola Company alleging that it was misleading to call Diet Coke a "diet" drink, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Coca-Cola's motion to dismiss. In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that Diet Coke was falsely advertised as "diet" because the drink leads to weight gain. Plaintiffs alleged the aspartame in Diet Coke contributes to weight gain as well as an increased risk of metabolic disease, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Plaintiffs' claims were based, in part, on ads depicting thin men and women drinking Diet Coke. In response, Coca-Cola argued that it never advertised Diet Coke as contributing to weight loss or aiding in weight management. In dismissing the complaint, Judge Louis L. Stanton relied upon, in part, a survey the plaintiffs conducted that found that only 15% of respondents believed that drinks labeled "diet" would aid in weight loss. Judge Stanton held that "[t]he brand name 'Diet Coke' conveys to reasonable consumers that the soft drink contains fewer calories than non-diet soft drinks -- not that it will, on its own, lead to weight loss or healthy weight management." Although Judge Stanton granted Coca-Cola's motion to dismiss, Judge Stanton did reject Coca-Cola's argument that plaintiffs' claims were preempted under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. [GN] COLUMBIA DEBT: Epps Disputes Collection Letter ---------------------------------------------- Cody Epps, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Columbia Debt Recovery Group, LLC (previously Genesis Credit Management, LLC), Defendant, Case No. No. 18-cv-00327, (E.D. Wash., October 18, 2018) seeks to pursue remedies under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Washington Collection Agency Act and the Consumer Protection Act. Columbia is a collection agency that regularly conducts business in Eastern Washington. It attempted to collect a debt via collection letter that Epps incurred for residential tenancy rents and related fees, in particular, "general cleaning" charges that were not agreed to in advance, says the complaint.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brian G. Cameron, Esq. KIRK D. MILLER, P.S. 421 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 660 Spokane, WA 99201 Tel: (509)413-1494 Fax: (509)413-1724 CONTAINER KING: Chenault Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mary Wiley Chenault, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Container King Inc., Cole Smith and Paula Pacanins, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00752, (E.D. Tex., October 18, 2018), seeks unpaid back wages due with liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation, reimbursement of costs of this action, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Container Kings Inc. is a shipping container supplier which specializes in containers for both storage and office space use. Chenault was employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid accounts receivable clerk from approximately April 2015 until August 2018. She was often required to work in excess of 40 hours but was not paid time-and-one-half her regular rate of pay for all the hours that she worked over 40 hours per week, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. D. Matthew Haynie, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (214) 210-2100 phone Fax: (214) 346-5909 Website: www.foresterhaynie.com - and - M. Shane McGuire, Esq. THE MCGUIRE FIRM, PC 102 N. College, Suite 301 Tyler, TX 75702 Tel: (903) 630-7154 Fax: (903) 630-7173 CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Shafir Sues Over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent Healthcare Recoveries, Inc. The case is styled as Ilya Shafir on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Convergent Healthcare Recoveries, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06518 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Convergent provides a wide range of customer contact management services which help to lower cost, manage uneven call volumes, deal with specific call types and prepare for unexpected outages or natural disasters.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. Maxim Maximov, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Phone: (718) 395-3459 Fax: (718) 408-9570 Email: m@maximovlaw.com CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Saraci Files FDCPA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Sunaj Saraci on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06505-BMC (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. offers business process outsourcing, revenue cycle, and receivables management services. It also provides receivables collection services to credit grantors in retail, telecommunications, and utilities industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. Maxim Maximov, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Phone: (718) 395-3459 Fax: (718) 408-9570 Email: m@maximovlaw.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Jan. 7 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on Nov. 8 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corporation ("Costco" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: COST ) for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's shares between June 6, 2018 and October 25, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before January 7, 2019. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian, of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Costco failed to maintain appropriate internal controls over financial reporting. The Company admitted on October 4, 2018, that "in its upcoming fiscal 2018 Annual Report on Form 10-K, it expects to report a material weakness in internal control. The weakness relates to general information technology controls in the areas of user access and program change-management over certain information technology systems that support the Company's financial reporting processes. The access issues relate to the extent of privileges afforded users authorized to access company systems." Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Costco, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. [GN] CUCINA & AMORE INC: Flolo Sues Over Product Mislabeling ------------------------------------------------------- Mark Flolo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cucina & Amore Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-06374, (N.D. Cal., October 18, 2018), seeks declaratory relief, damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees for violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and various state consumer protection laws. Cucina & Amore Inc. develops, markets, and sells food products under the "Cucina & Amore" brand name throughout the United States. Flolo disputes their "No Preservatives" labeling, and claims that they actually contain the preservatives citric acid and/or ascorbic acid. Flolo purchased the 7.9 oz. Cucina & Amore Sundried Tomato Pesto Sauce at a Safeway supermarket on 4495 First Street in Livermore CA. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: CK Lee, Esq. 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com - and - Nadir O. Ahmed, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF NADIR O. AHMED 401 West A Street, # 1100 San Diego CA 92101 Tel: (619) 800-4214 Email: nadir.ahmed@noalaw.net CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP: Partial Bid to Dismiss Schenck FCRA Suit Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUSTIN SCHENCK, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-164 (W.D. Pa.), Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (i) without prejudice the Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss and (ii) denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Remand. The Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, raising claims of violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the Pennsylvania Criminal History Record Information Act. On Feb. 5, 2018, the Defendant removed the action to the Court. the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint on Aug. 15, 2018. Therein, he added an additional claim under the FCRA. On Sept. 5, 2018, the Defendant filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss seeking the dismissal of Count One (a FCRA claim) on the basis of lack of standing, and the dismissal of Counts One, Two and Three (all FCRA claims) on the basis of the insufficiency of the allegations in the Amended Complaint. On Sept. 20, 2018, the Defendant filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority in support of its Partial Motion to Dismiss, citing a Sept. 10, 2018, decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Long v. SEPTA. It argued that the holding in Long conclusively resolved the standing issue as to Count One and further established that the Plaintiff does not have standing to assert Counts Two and Three. Therefore, the Defendant sought to amend its Partial Motion to Dismiss to incorporate its standing argument as to Counts Two and Three. On Sept. 25, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand, as well as a Motion to Vacate the Court's Scheduling Order as to the Partial Motion to Dismiss pending a determination on the Motion for Remand. On Sept. 26, 2018, the Court granted the Motion to Vacate the Scheduling Order. The Defendant filed an Opposition to the Motion to Sever and Remand on Oct. 11, 2018. On Oct. 19, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Reply Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Remand. On Nov. 2, 2018, the Defendant filed a Sur-Reply. Judge Kelly notes that in Long, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held: (1) that the plaintiffs therein had standing to assert a claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 b(b)(3)(A)(i), a provision of the FCRA which prohibits a potential employer from taking adverse action on the basis of a consumer report before providing to the consumer a copy of the report; and (2) that the plaintiffs therein did not have standing to assert a claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 b(b)(3)(A)(ii), a provision of the FCRA which prohibits a potential employer from taking adverse action on the basis of a consumer report before providing to the consumer a written description of the consumer's rights under the FCRA. The Long court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing for the latter claim because, although they did not receive FCRA rights disclosures, they understood their rights sufficiently to be able to bring this lawsuit. In the instant case, the FCRA-based claims are as follows. Count One is based on the alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 b(b)(2)(A)(i), a provision of the FCRA which prohibits a potential employer from procuring a consumer report before providing to the consumer a written stand-alone disclosure to the consumer that a report may be obtained for employment purposes. Count Two is based on the alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 b(b)(2)(A)(ii), a provision of the FCRA which prohibits a potential employer from procuring a consumer report before obtaining a written authorization to do so from the consumer. Count Three is based on the alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681(d)(a), a provision of the FCRA which prohibits a potential employer from procuring an investigative consumer report without making certain disclosures to the consumer. Count Four is based on the alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i), based on the failure to provide a copy of the consumer report used to make an employment decision. Count Five is based on the alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 b(b)(3)(A)(ii), based on the failure to provide a summary of rights. Counts Six and Seven are based on alleged state law violations of the Pennsylvania CHRIA. As should be clear, the Judge holds that only Counts Four and Five of the instant case share the statutory bases with the claims addressed in Long. The Long court held that plaintiffs therein had standing to bring a claim with the same statutory basis as Count Four but no standing to bring a claim with the same statutory basis as Count Five. The Long court did not address claims with the same statutory bases as Counts One, Two and Three. Thus, the Plaintiffs Motion to Remand, which is based on the holding in Long, a case in which the Plaintiff claims the Court examined whether FCRA claims virtually identical to those alleged in Counts I to III of the First Amended Complaint, is flawed. Perhaps the rationale expressed in Long may be extended to claims like those set forth in Counts One through Three, but such a conclusion is not expressly dictated by the holding in Long and thus immediate remand of these claims is not warranted at this time. Accordingly, the Judge denied without prejudice the Motion to Remand to raise the arguments therein in response to a Motion to Dismiss, if necessary. As to the pending Partial Motion to Dismiss, because the state of the law has changed since it was filed and because the Defendant has sought to amend its Motion to reflect this change, the pending Partial Motion to Dismiss is denied without prejudice to refile, by Dec. 6, 2018, a Motion to Dismiss encompassing all relevant arguments and current legal support therefor. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 6, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/y3PSlp from Leagle.com. JUSTIN SCHENCK, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Rabenold -- ERABENOLD@FDPKLAW.COM -- Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, James M. Pietz -- JPIETZ@FDPKLAW.COM -- Feinstein, Doyle, Payne & Kravec, LLC & Taylor E. Gillan -- TGILLAN@FDPKLAW.COM -- Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by Kevin D. Holden -- Kevin.Holden@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, Pc, pro hac vice, Marla N. Presley -- Marla.Presley@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Joanna M. Rodriguez -- Joanna.Rodriguez@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.. CV SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Smith Class Suit ------------------------------------------------- CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from a purported class action suit filed by David Smith. The Company has been made aware of a series of complaints and one derivative suit filed by various plaintiffs alleging violations of securities law related to the Company's disclosures regarding patent prosecution of its various drug development assets. On August 24, 2018, David Smith filed a purported class action complaint against the Company in the United States District Court District of Nevada. This complaint and the other complaints that the Company has been made aware of were filed directly after Citron Research published on Twitter on August 20, 2018 its belief that the Company misled investors by failing to disclose that the Company's efforts to secure patent protection had been "finally rejected" by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The Company believes these claims are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend any claims in the event it is served with a complaint. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates through two segments, Specialty Pharmaceuticals and Consumer Products. The company focuses on developing and commercializing prescription drugs utilizing synthetic cannabidiol (CBD) as the active pharmaceutical ingredient. Its initial drug candidate is CVSI-007 that combines CBD and nicotine for the treatment of smokeless tobacco use and addiction. CV Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. CV SCIENCES: Still Awaits Scheduling Order in Sallustro Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that parties in the class action suit filed by Tanya Sallustro are still awaiting entry of a case scheduling order by the Court. On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action complaint (the "Complaint") in the Southern District of New York (the "Court") alleging securities fraud and related claims against the Company and certain of its officers and directors and seeking compensatory damages including litigation costs. Ms. Sallustro alleges that between March 18-31, 2014, she purchased 325 shares of the Company's common stock for a total investment of $15,791. The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K and Current Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on April 3, 2014 and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended previously disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1,275,000 were restated to $1,082,375 - a reduction of $192,625) and restated goodwill as $1,855,512 (previously reported at net zero). On March 19, 2015, the Court issued a ruling appointing Steve Schuck as lead plaintiff. Counsel for Mr. Schuck filed a "consolidated complaint" on September 14, 2015, asserting two claims: (1) for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10B-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and (2) for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. Plaintiffs sued the Company, Michael Mona, Jr., Bart Mackay, Theodore Sobieski, Edward Wilson, Stuart Titus, and Michael Llamas. On December 11, 2015, the Company and the individuals (except for Messrs. Titus and Llamas) filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On April 2, 2018, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. With respect to the First Claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, the court ruled that plaintiffs failed to allege misstatements or omissions attributable to Messrs. Mackay, Sobieski, or Titus, and so granted the motion on that claim as to those parties. The court found the allegations sufficient as to the Company and Messrs. Wilson, and Mona Jr., and so denied the motion as to those parties. Under plaintiffs' separate theory of "market manipulation," the Court granted the motion in favor of all defendants. The parties are currently awaiting entry of a case scheduling order by the Court. CV Sciences said, "Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations and an estimate of possible loss cannot be made at this time." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates through two segments, Specialty Pharmaceuticals and Consumer Products. The company focuses on developing and commercializing prescription drugs utilizing synthetic cannabidiol (CBD) as the active pharmaceutical ingredient. Its initial drug candidate is CVSI-007 that combines CBD and nicotine for the treatment of smokeless tobacco use and addiction. CV Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. DEPLOYED DATA SOLUTIONS: Denied Payment of OT Wages, Dicks Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Leonard Dicks, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Deployed Data Solutions, LLC and Michael Finnegan, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04828, (N.D. Ga., October 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Deployed Data Solutions provides technical staff augmentation and support services to specialized sectors of the telecommunications industry. Dicks worked for Deployed Data Solutions as a technician, installing, maintaining and repairing cable lines for residential and commercial clients. He was allegedly misclassified as an independent contractor and denied overtime pay despite working over forty hours in most weeks. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Roger Orlando, Esq. THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C. 315 W. Ponce de Leon Avenue Suite 400 Decatur, GA 30030 Tel: (404) 373-1800 Fax: (404) 373-6999 Email: roger@orlandofirm.com - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas R. Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC Jersey City, NJ 07302 Tel: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com DJO GLOBAL: Dreifort Alleges Shoe Flaw Caused Hip Injury -------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Dreifort, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DJO Global, Inc., DJO, LLC, and Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02393, (S.D. Cal., October 18, 2018), seeks redress for fraud and for violation of California's False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. DJO is a manufacturer and distributer of orthopedic rehabilitation products. Dreifort bought a pair of boots whose one sole is approximately 1-2 inches thicker than the other. He claims that the boot has caused permanent injury resulting in a hip replacement operation. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Sanborn, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT SANBORN 707 10th Ave #609 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619)808-5912 Email: ss@scottsanborn.law Website: www.scottsanborn.law DRIVELINE RETAIL: Merchandisers Sue to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Shirley Black, Rena McCraw and Rebecca Morris, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Driveline Retail Merchandising, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00778, (E.D. Ark., October 19, 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. Defendant owns and operates a retail merchandising agency that conducts business throughout the United States. Plaintiffs work as merchandisers. They claim 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 DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Neglia Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Olga Neglia, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06507 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full-service collection agency based in South Carolina. Dynamic Recovery Solutions is experienced in collecting late-stage debt for small, medium, and high-volume businesses. Dynamic Recovery Solutions deals with delinquencies dating back as far as 2000. Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC, purchases portfolios of both domestic (U.S.) and international consumer debt owned by credit grantors including banks and finance companies, and by other debt buyers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. Maxim Maximov, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Phone: (718) 395-3459 Fax: (718) 408-9570 Email: m@maximovlaw.com ENCLARITY INC: Womble Bond Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Artin Betpera, Esq. -- artin.betpera@wbd-us.com -- of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that the Sixth Circuit held that a plaintiff in a junk fax class action alleged sufficient facts to establish that a fax -- which was seemingly informational on its face -- was nonetheless an "unsolicited advertisement" within the meaning of the TCPA. So what kind of sorcery did the Sixth Circuit use to reach this conclusion? Before diving in, let's orient ourselves on the statutory definition of "unsolicited advertisement". The TCPA defines the term as: [A]ny material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(a)(5). Seems straightforward enough . . . At least compared to the ATDS definition. But, TCPAland, right? In Matthew N. Fulton, D.D.S., P.C. v. Enclarity, Inc., No. 17-1380, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31077 (6th Cir. Nov. 2, 2018), the defendant sent a fax to a dentist office for the purpose of verifying certain information relating to the dental practice such as address, phone number, and secure fax numbers. Defendant maintained a database of medical provider business and professional demographic data that it licensed to its customer base of health insurance plans, pharmacies, life science companies, and the like. According to the fax, the purpose of the request was to "help preserve the privacy and security," of patient information, and to facilitate sensitive communications. The fax also contained the phone number and a link to the FAQ page on the defendant's website. Plaintiff sued Defendant in a nationwide putative class action claiming this fax was an unsolicited advertisement that violated the TCPA. But the District Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because "nothing mentioned in the fax is available to be bought or sold," and the fax "lacked the commercial components inherent in ads." Makes sense. On its face this fax doesn't contain any sort of advertising material. I mean, it's literally asking to verify information, so this would seem to be pretty clearly informational in nature. Right? But according to the Sixth Circuit, that's wrong… At least judging from the face of the Plaintiff's complaint and construing it in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. The court goes through some machinations in reaching its holding. But at the heart of the decision was the court's finding that an "unsolicited advertisement" as defined under the TCPA includes "faxes that serve as pretext for a commercial solicitation." This was based on the Sixth Circuit's prior holding Sandusky Wellness Ctr., Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Medco Health Sols., Inc., 788 F.3d 218 (6th Cir. 2015), as well as FCC guidance on the issue which states: [F]acsimile messages that promote goods or services even at no cost, such as free magazine subscriptions, catalogs, or free consultations or seminars, are unsolicited advertisements under the TCPA's definition. In many instances, "free" seminars serve as a pretext to advertise commercial products and services. Similarly, "free" publications are often part of an overall marketing campaign to sell property, goods, or services. For instance, while the publication itself may be offered at no cost to the facsimile recipient, the products promoted within the publication are often commercially available. Based on this, it is reasonable to presume that such messages describe the "quality of any property, goods, or services." Therefore, facsimile communications regarding such free goods and services, if not purely "transactional," would require the sender to obtain the recipient's permission beforehand… In light of the pretextual fax rule – the Sixth Circuit had a problem with the District Court concluding on the face of Plaintiff's complaint that the fax at issue wasn't an "unsolicited advertisement". It said "[f]inding a fax to be pretext for a subsequent advertising opportunity would require looking into what came after the fax. A court could not possibly resolve a claim that a fax was pretextual if it confined its evaluation to the fax itself." In other words, the court is allowed to "peek behind the curtain" so to speak and evaluate circumstances beyond just the face of the fax to determine whether it falls within the definition of an "unsolicited advertisement". According to the court, "a fax could be an advertisement without overtly offering a product or service for sale, such as offers for free seminars that turn out to be pretext for a later solicitation." The Sixth Circuit therefore held that the District Court erred in granting the defendant's motion to dismiss. The complaint contained certain allegations that "the fax was a pretext to increase awareness and use of Defendants' proprietary database service and increase traffic to Defendants' website," and that Defendant uses the verified contact information it was seeking from Plaintiff to compile a commercially available product or service that Defendants sell or lease to their subscribers and licensees." Plaintiff was able to reinforce the plausibility of these allegations -- in part -- with some of the content from Defendant's own website as well. On that record, therefore, the Sixth Circuit held that Plaintiff had "adequately alleged that the fax received was an unsolicited advertisement because it served as a commercial pretext for future advertising opportunities. Fulton has therefore stated a plausible TCPA claim under the fax-as-pretext theory." The Sixth Circuit's holding reinforces just how careful businesses need to be when creating and sending these sorts of faxes. Under Fulton, the fact that the fax appears informational on its face may not be enough to defeat liability where the Plaintiff can establish it was a pretext for downstream solicitation. And, at the very least, it's likely not going to cut it to defeat a nationwide TCPA class action at the pleading stage. It's a perilous landscape out there. [GN] EVOQUA WATER: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. (NYSE: AQUA) ("Evoqua") on behalf of purchasers of Evoqua securities on the open market between November 6, 2017 and October 30, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Important Deadline: Investors who purchased Evoqua securities during the Class Period may, no later than January 7, 2019, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this action please visit www.ktmc.com/evoqua-securities-class-action. According to the complaint, Evoqua purports to be a leading provider of mission critical water treatment solutions, offering services, systems and technologies to support its customers' full water lifecycle needs. With over 200,000 installations worldwide, Evoqua holds leading positions in the industrial, commercial and municipal water treatment markets in North America. Evoqua offers a portfolio of differentiated, proprietary technology solutions sold under a number of brands. Evoqua claims that the customer intimacy created through its service network is a significant competitive advantage. The Class Period commences November 6, 2017, the date of the completion of Evoqua's initial public offering ("IPO"). In the IPO prospectus, filed with the SEC on November 2, 2017 and part of its IPO registration statement, Evoqua touted its "[e]xperienced management team with proven operational capabilities" as one of its strengths. According to the complaint, on October 30, 2018, Evoqua announced disappointing preliminary financial results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ended September 30, 2018. Evoqua said the shortfalls are "primarily due to acquisition system integration issues, supply chain disruptions influenced by tariffs and an extended delay on a large aquatics project." Following this news, Evoqua's stock price fell $4.78 per share, or 34.64%, to close at $9.02 on October 30, 2018. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Evoqua failed to successfully integrate its prior acquisitions; (ii) Evoqua was experiencing supply chain disruptions influenced by tariffs and an extended delay on a large aquatics project; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Evoqua's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or (610) 667-7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com. Evoqua investors may, no later than January 7, 2019, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (888) 299-7706 (610) 667-7706 Email: abell@ktmc.com jmaro@ktmc.com [GN] FINANCE SYSTEM: Washington Files Suit in Ohio Under FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Finance System of Toledo, Inc. The case is styled as Sallie C. Washington on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Finance System of Toledo, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02653 (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 15, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Finance System of Toledo, Inc., is one of the largest and most experienced full-service collection agencies in Northwest Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric D. Coleman, Esq. Sulaiman Law Group 2500 South Highland Avenue, Ste. 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: ecoleman@sulaimanlaw.com - and - Taxiarchis Hatzidimitriadis, Esq. Sulaiman Law Group 2500 South Highland Avenue, Ste. 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: thatz@sulaimanlaw.com - and - Nathan C. Volheim, Esq. Sulaiman Law Group 2500 South Highland Avenue, Ste. 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com FITBIT INC: Dec. 31 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP alerts investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against Fitbit, Inc. (NYSE: FIT) ("Fitbit") on behalf of purchasers of Fitbit securities between August 2, 2016 and January 30, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased Fitbit securities during the Class Period may, no later than December 31, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this action please visit www.ktmc.com/fitbit-2018-securities-class-action According to the complaint, Fitbit claims to be a technology company focused on health-related devices. Fitbit's products purportedly include wearable devices -- health and fitness trackers and smartwatches -- that enable users to view data about their daily activity, exercise, and sleep, in real-time. The Class Period commences on August 2, 2016, when Fitbit issued a press release entitled "Fitbit Reports $587M Q216 Revenue, $0.03 GAAP EPS/$0.12 Non-GAAP EPS, and Confirms Revenue and Profit Guidance for FY16." According to the complaint, on November 2, 2016, Fitbit issued a press release announcing its third quarter 2016 financial results. In the press release, Fitbit disclosed that it was lowering its full year 2016 revenue guidance to "between $2.320 billion and $2.345 billion," down from the previously announced "$2.5 to $2.6 billion." Following this news, Fitbit's share price fell $4.30 per share, or 33.6%, to close at $8.51 per share on November 3, 2016. Then, on January 30, 2017, Fitbit issued a press release announcing its preliminary fourth quarter 2016 financial results. In the press release, Fitbit disclosed that it expected fourth quarter of 2016 revenue to be in the range of $572 million to $580 million, rather than its previously announced guidance range of $725 million to $750 million. Fitbit also disclosed expected annual revenue growth of approximately 17%, rather than the previously announced forecast of 25% to 26%. Following this news, Fitbit's share price fell $1.15 per share, or 16%, to close at $6.06 per share on January 30, 2017. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Fitbit was struggling to transition its mission and differentiate itself from Apple Inc. and other competitors; (2) as such, Fitbit was experiencing increased competition; (3) as a result, demand and sell-through for Fitbit's existing and new products were being negatively impacted; (4) as a result, Fitbit's sales and financial results were weakening, and growth was slowing; (5) Fitbit's financial guidance was overstated; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' statements during the Class Period about Fitbit's business, operations, financial results and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Fitbit investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class action and their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com. Fitbitinvestors may, no later than December 31, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Returning any form or communicating with any counsel is not necessary to participate or share in any recovery achieved in this case. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- http://www.ktmc.com-- prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. [GN] FITBIT INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Fitbit Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court and further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Fitbit Inc. (NYSE: FIT) Class Period: August 2, 2016 - January 30, 2017 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 31, 2018 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fitbit-inc-loss-form?wire=3 The lawsuit alleges: Fitbit Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements throughout the class period and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the company was struggling to transition its mission and differentiate itself from Apple Inc. and other competitors; (2) as such, the Company was experiencing increased competition; (3) as a result, demand and sell-through for the Company's existing and new products were being negatively impacted; (4) as a result, the Company's sales and financial results were weakening, and growth was slowing; (5) the Company's financial guidance was overstated; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements during the Class Period about Fitbit's business, operations, financial results and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. To learn more about the Fitbit Inc. class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com. Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Toll Free: (877) 363-5972 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] FITBIT INC: RM Law Files Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- RM LAW, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Fitbit, Inc. (NYSE: FIT) ("Fitbit" or the "Company") common stock between August 2, 2016 and January 30, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Fitbit shareholders may, no later than December 31, 2018, move the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you purchased shares of Fitbit and would like to learn more about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign up online, click here. Fitbit claims to be a technology company focused on health-related devices. Fitbit's products purportedly include wearable devices -- health and fitness trackers and smartwatches -- that enable users to view data about their daily activity, exercise, and sleep, in real-time. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Class Period commences on August 2, 2016, when Fitbit issued a press release entitled "Fitbit Reports $587M Q216 Revenue, $0.03 GAAP EPS/$0.12 Non-GAAP EPS, and Confirms Revenue and Profit Guidance for FY16." According to the complaint, on November 2, 2016, Fitbit issued a press release announcing its third quarter 2016 financial results. In the press release, Fitbit disclosed that it was lowering its full year 2016 revenue guidance to "between $2.320 billion and $2.345 billion," down from the previously announced "$2.5 to $2.6 billion." Following this news, Fitbit's share price fell $4.30 per share, or 33.6%, to close at $8.51 per share on November 3, 2016. Then, on January 30, 2017, Fitbit issued a press release announcing its preliminary fourth quarter 2016 financial results. In the press release, Fitbit disclosed that it expected fourth quarter of 2016 revenue to be in the range of $572 million to $580 million, rather than its previously announced guidance range of $725 million to $750 million. Fitbit also disclosed expected annual revenue growth of approximately 17%, rather than the previously announced forecast of 25% to 26%. Following this news, Fitbit's share price fell $1.15 per share, or 16%, to close at $6.06 per share on January 30, 2017. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Fitbit was struggling to transition its mission and differentiate itself from Apple Inc. and other competitors; (2) as such, Fitbit was experiencing increased competition; (3) as a result, demand and sell-through for Fitbit's existing and new products were being negatively impacted; (4) as a result, Fitbit's sales and financial results were weakening, and growth was slowing; (5) Fitbit's financial guidance was overstated; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' statements during the Class Period about Fitbit's business, operations, financial results and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than December 31, 2018, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: 484-324-6800 844-291-9299 Email: rm@maniskas.com [GN] FITBIT INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Fraud Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that purchasers of Fitbit, Inc. (NYSE: FIT) have filed a class action complaint against the company's officers and directors for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between August 2, 2016 and January 30, 2017. Fitbit, a technology company, provides health solutions in the United States and internationally. View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog: https://www.robbinsarroyo.com/fitbit-inc-nov-2018/. Fitbit Accused of Failing to Disclose Impact of Competitive Pressures According to the complaint, Fitbit touted that the company was on the cusp of transitioning its mission from a consumer electronics company to a digital healthcare company and that it sold the number one best-selling fitness tracker on Amazon. However, Fitbit was struggling to differentiate itself from Apple Inc., leading to slowing demand for Fitbit's products. On November 2, 2016, Fitbit released disappointing financial results and lowered its full year 2016 revenue guidance. The company again lowered its guidance in January 2017. Since Fitbit's financial outlook started declining, the company's stock price lost over half of its value, closing at $6.06 per share on January 30, 2017. Nearly two years later, Fitbit trades at approximately the same price. Fitbit Shareholders Have Legal Options Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website. Leonid Kandinov, Esq. Robbins Arroyo LLP Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Toll Free: (800) 350-6003 E-mail: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com[GN] FRONT YARD: Discovery Still Ongoing in Martin Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Front Yard Residential Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that discovery is still ongoing in the case, Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation et al. On March 27, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands by a purported shareholder of the Company under the caption Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15-cv-00024. The action names as defendants the Company, its former Chairman, William C. Erbey, and certain officers and a former officer of the Company and alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by, among other things, making materially false statements and/or failing to disclose material information to the Company's shareholders regarding the Company's relationship and transactions with AAMC, Ocwen Financial Corporation ("Ocwen") and Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. These alleged misstatements and omissions include allegations that the defendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's reliance on Ocwen and the risks relating to its relationship with Ocwen, including that Ocwen was not properly servicing and selling loans, that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators for violating state and federal laws regarding servicing of loans and Ocwen’s lack of proper internal controls. The complaint also contains allegations that certain of the Company's disclosure documents were false and misleading because they failed to disclose fully the entire details of a certain asset management agreement between the Company and AAMC that allegedly benefited AAMC to the detriment of the Company's shareholders. The action seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney's and other fees and expenses. In May 2015, two of the company's purported shareholders filed competing motions with the court to be appointed lead plaintiff and for selection of lead counsel in the action. Subsequently, opposition and reply briefs were filed by the purported shareholders with respect to these motions. On October 7, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of Lei Shi to be lead plaintiff and denying the other motion to be lead plaintiff. On January 23, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the action. The plaintiffs filed opposition papers on May 20, 2016, and the defendants filed a reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 11, 2016. On November 14, 2016, the Martin case was reassigned to Judge Anne E. Thompson of the United States District Court of New Jersey. In a hearing on December 19, 2016, the parties made oral arguments on the motion to dismiss, and on March 16, 2017 the Court issued an order that the motion to dismiss had been denied. On April 17, 2017, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s decision to deny the motion to dismiss. On April 21, 2017, the defendants filed their answer and affirmative defenses. Plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant' motion for reconsideration on May 8, 2017. On May 30, 2017, the Court issued an order that the motion for reconsideration had been denied. Discovery has commenced and is ongoing. Front Yard said, "We believe this complaint is without merit. At this time, we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if any." Front Yard Residential Corporation, is an industry leader in providing quality, affordable rental homes to America's families in a variety of suburban communities that have easy accessibility to metropolitan areas. HONEYWELL INT'L: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Honeywell International Inc. (NYSE: HON). If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Honeywell International Inc. (NYSE: HON) Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 31, 2018 Class Period: February 9, 2018 and October 19, 2018 Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Telephone: 212.425.1140 Fax: 866.699.3880 Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN] INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has commenced on behalf of shareholders of India Globalization Capital Inc. (NYSE American: IGC). If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. India Globalization Capital Inc. (NYSE American: IGC) Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 2, 2019 Class Period: October 25, 2017 and October 29, 2018 Get additional information about IGC: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/india-globalization-capital-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3 Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Telephone: 212.425.1140 Fax: 866.699.3880 Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN] JACQUES TORRES: Figueroa Sues Chocolatier for ADA Breach -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jacques Torres Retail, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jacques Torres Retail, LLC doing business as: Mr. Chocolate, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10669 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jacques Torres is a pastry chef and chocolatier. Torres is a member of the International Culinary Center community, as Dean of Pastry Arts as well as holding pastry demonstrations.[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 KAYNE LLC: Faces Figueroa Suit Asserting ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kayne, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kayne, LLC doing business as: Jenni Kayne, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10677 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kayne, LLC, doing business as Jenni Kayne, LLC, designs and manufactures women's apparel and footwear. The company's products include shirts, tee shirts, pants, coats, blazers, and accessories.[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 LAGUNA BEACH, CA: Judge Okays Homeless Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Julia Sclafani, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that a federal judge approved a settlement between Laguna Beach and the American Civil Liberties Union in a 2015 class-action lawsuit involving accommodations for people with disabilities at area homeless shelters, authorities said. The settlement, filed in federal court in June, outlines changes in accommodations for disabled homeless people at the city's night shelter. No money was exchanged as part of the settlement, which marked an end to a lawsuit that spanned nearly three years. Instead, the agreement details changes to area homeless shelters to help disabled residents and expand available accommodations. Furthermore, language was included that prevents parties to the class-action suit from filing similar future claims against the city, according to Laguna Beach City Manager John Pietig. "Though we are pleased with the outcome, the money and time we've spent over the last three years defending ourselves against the unfounded allegations in this lawsuit would have been better spent elsewhere," Mr. Pietig said in a statement on Nov. 5. "We are ready to move on and put this behind us." Despite the city's enthusiasm to have the case concluded, advocates see the settlement as a symbolic win. "It's a call to county government to get serious about taking a leadership role in a regional solution to ending homelessness," ACLU homeless policy analyst and advocate Eve Garrow said in June when the document was filed. The ACLU filed the suit in 2015 on behalf of five chronically homeless people with mental and physical disabilities. The organization accused Laguna Beach of trying to push homeless people -- especially those with disabilities -- out of the city by not providing adequate accommodations for them. As part of the settlement, Laguna Beach and the nonprofit Friendship Shelter will create a pilot program including daytime services for shelter residents and a streamlined enrollment process giving priority to local homeless residents and those deemed most vulnerable, the city said. That includes guaranteeing beds to qualifying people for up to 30 days with the aim of helping to move candidates into transitional housing, the city said. "There are more than 85 formerly homeless men and women participating in the program who have been placed in housing throughout south Orange County," the city said in a news release on Nov. 5. As part of the settlement, the Laguna Beach City Council agreed to adopt a resolution to affirm its commitment to end homelessness in the city, encourage Orange County to fund and expand affordable housing for unsheltered people and coax other cities in the county to take a similar stance. The 17-page agreement, signed March 23, focuses extensively on conditions at the shelter in Laguna Canyon called the Alternative Sleeping Location. The site provides shelter nightly for up to 45 homeless people, plus meals, laundry, showers and van service to Laguna's bus depot. The Laguna Beach-based Friendship Shelter has operated the facility under contract with the city since 2009. The settlement came at a critical time for Orange County communities that have been grappling to find locations for homeless shelters. A civil lawsuit was filed in federal court in January after hundreds of homeless people were removed from encampments along the Santa Ana River. U.S. District Judge David Carter, who is overseeing that lawsuit, has called for a regional approach to homelessness in which the county would be split into three zones, each with a shelter. [GN] LEAFFILTER NORTH: Federman & Sherwood Files Data Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on November 2, 2018, it filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, against LeafFilter North, LLC and LeafFilter North of Texas, LLC ("LeafFilter"), alleging that LeafFilter failed to meet its legal duty to protect the private, personal information of the plaintiff and thousands of others. According to the Complaint, on or before August 21, 2018, LeafFilter discovered that unauthorized persons had used a phishing email to gain access to LeafFilter employees' email accounts and were able to obtain and/or view the private, personal information of the plaintiff and others. The compromised data may include social security number, date of birth, driver's license number, and bank account information. On behalf of himself and all class members, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages suffered by class members as a result of LeafFilter's failure to maintain the security of the private, personal information in its possession. LeafFilter is an Ohio company, with offices in forty (40) states, that sells a gutter protection system to consumers across the United States. If you are or were an employee, prospective employee, contractor, or other person who provided PII to LeafFilter via email between April 1, 2018 and August 21, 2018 and believe you have been affected by the LeafFilter security breach, please contact: Allicia Bolton FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 [GN] LEON MAX: Violates Disabilities Act, Figueroa Suit Asserts ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leon Max, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Leon Max, Inc. doing business as: Max Studio, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10678 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Leon Max, Inc. offers clothing for women. The company offers its products through stores, boutiques, Internet, and department stores.[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 MANHATTAN DINER: Delivery Staff Hit Tip Credit, Seek Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nereo Cuahua Tetlactle, Placido Xochiquiquisqui Garcia and Sergio Cuahua Mayahua, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Karpenisi Rest. Inc., Fofios Milas, Fotios Hilas, Fanis Tsiamtsiouris, Angelo Kantlis, John Doe, Candido Doe and Tony Doe, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-09554 (S.D. N.Y., October 18, 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 diner, located at 2532 Broadway New York, NY 10025 under the name "Manhattan Diner" where Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers. The Plaintiffs were required to spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties. Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to take a tip credit because their non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday, asserts the complaint. Moreover, Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that they worked. They also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Can Compel Arbitration in Benson Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LORETTA JEAN BENSON, an individual on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00771-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration on an Individual Basis and to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Through the present action, Benson pursues claims arising out of her employment with the Defendant. As a condition of her employment, however, the Plaintiff signed a Mutual Arbitration Agreement ("MAA") agreeing to arbitrate on an individual basis claims against Defendant arising from her employment or the termination of her employment. Accordingly, the Defendant now seeks an order compelling arbitration in accordance with the MAA. There is no dispute that the arbitration agreement on which the Defendant relies extends to the bulk of the Plaintiff's instant claims. Instead, the Plaintiff argues that the MAA is: (1) procedurally unconscionable since the Plaintiff was required to sign it as a condition of her employment and certain provisions were hidden within the class action waiver; and (2) substantively unconscionable because the Plaintiff is prohibited from joining claims against the Defendant on behalf of other individuals or seeking damages/penalties on behalf of other individuals, but the Defendant is purportedly not likewise restricted. Judge England holds these arguments cannot carry the day. First, the fact that the Plaintiff's employment was conditioned on her acceptance of the MAA does not itself render the agreement unenforceable. Second, the Plaintiff has not shown that the MAA is substantively unconscionable. More specifically, the Plaintiff contends that the MAA imposes a one-way prohibition on the ability of employees to join and consolidate their claims against Maxim but no reciprocal prohibition on the ability of Maxim to join and consolidate its claims against employees. The Judge finds that when read in context, it is clear that the provision is intended to be reciprocal. It does not limit its application to claims brought by the employee only. And throughout the paragraph, it refers to the "parties." Nor is the agreement one-sided with respect to the parties' ability to recover damages. Given this, and the fact that the Defendant is, again by definition, precluded from joining claims against other employees in any arbitration against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's contention that the MAA is substantively unconscionable is not well taken. For the reasons just stated, Judge England granted the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration on an Individual Basis and to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. He dismissed the action is DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 6, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/qC1Mgx from Leagle.com. Loretta Jean Benson, Plaintiff, represented by Kye Douglas Pawlenko -- kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com -- Hayes, Pawlenko, LLP & Matthew Bryan Hayes -- mhayes@helpcounsel.com -- Hayes Pawlenko LLP. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Spivey Battenfeld -- john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Andrea L. Fellion -- andrea.fellion@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. MDL 1720: Optium Fund Buying Goodmans Stores' Claim for $392,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- G-Estate Liquidation Stores, Inc., formerly known as Gordmans Stores, Inc., and its affiliates ask the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska to authorize them to enter into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Optium Fund 2, LLC in connection with their sale of class action interchange claim for $392,000. On Oct. 20, 2005, numerous merchants, retailers, and trade associations commenced a class action case against Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Mastercard International Inc., among other entities, styled In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation (Case No. 1:05 md-1720-JG-JO) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Defendants conspired to unlawfully fix the price of "interchange fees" and other fees charged to merchants for transactions that were processed through the Defendants' networks. On Sept. 18, 2018, the parties filed the Superseding and Amended Definitive Class Settlement Agreement with the District Court seeking approval of a proposed $5.56 to $6.26 billion settlement. As of the date of the Motion, the District Court has not granted preliminary approval of the Proposed Settlement. Moreover, inclusion in a specific class, as well as monetary allocations based on potential claim amounts, have not yet been determined, and the District Court has not yet approved a claim form for claimants or a timetable for claim submissions. The Post-Effective Date Debtors may have a right to a share in the Proposed Settlement or other recovery the Plaintiffs may obtain in the Class Action Interchange Litigation on account of interchange fees paid to the Defendants. The ultimate value of the Interchange Claim and the timing of any distribution or recovery to the Post-Effective Date Debtors are unknown, as a result, the Post-Effective Date Debtors determined that soliciting bids from certain parties that specialize in the purchase and sale of claims in the Class Action Interchange Litigation would reduce the costs and expenses attendant to the sale, while simultaneously serving to maximize value. Nine Potential Purchasers were given access to an electronic data room and provided identical information concerning the interchange fees charged to the Debtors. Subsequently, the Post-Effective Date Debtors sent the bid procedures and proposed asset purchase agreement to the Potential Purchasers. The Bid Procedures set forth the procedures for the auction whereby the Potential Purchases were instructed to submit their proposals by Oct. 26, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. (PET). The Post-Effective Date Debtors also required that all Qualified Proposals be accompanied by a good faith deposit in an amount equal to 10% of the value of the Potential Purchaser's Qualified Proposal made payable to Frost Brown Todd, LLC, the counsel for the Post-Effective Date Debtors. On Nov. 1, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. (PET), the Post-Effective Date Debtors conducted the auction. Four Potential Purchasers participated in the Auction. At the end of the Auction, the Post-Effective Date Debtors determined the bid of Optium to be the highest and best offer. The APA provides for the sale of the Interchange Claim by the Post-Effective Date Debtors to Optium for the purchase price of $392,000. The APA also provides for the following: a. Optium agrees to purchase all rights, title and interest in the Claim from Seller, and Seller agrees to sell, transfer and assign right, title and interest in the Claim to Optium for the sum of $392,000, plus the reimbursement by Optium of the Seller's reasonable costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees) in an amount not to exceed $15,000 in connection with the Seller's efforts to obtain the Approval Order. b. The closing of the purchase and sale of the Claim will take place via electronic mail within two business days after entry of the Approval Order, provided there is no stay pending appeal. c. Optium does not assume any obligation or liability of Seller related to or in connection with the Claim. d. The Seller expressly disclaims and does not make any warranties, guarantees, promises, or representations of any kind whatsoever regarding the Claim, including, but not limited to: (i) the value of the Claim; and (ii) the anticipated recovery or timing of recovery on the Claim. e. The transaction contemplated by the APA is subject to the approval of the Bankruptcy Court. The Post-Effective Date Debtors request that the Interchange Claim be transferred to Optium free and clear of liens, claims, interests and other encumbrances. They respectfully ask leave to submit a proposed order for the Court's consideration to grant the relief requested. The relief requested is necessary and appropriate and in the best interests of the estates and creditors. Accordingly, the Post-Effective Date Debtors ask the Court to waive the stay under Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h). A copy of the APA attached to the Motion is available for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/Gordmans_Stores_1609_Sales.pdf The Purchaser: Neil B. Kornswiet, CEO OPTIUM FUND 2, LLC 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 610 Newport Beach, CA 92660 E-mail: nkornswiet@optiumcapital.com About Gordmans Stores Founded in 1915, Gordmans Stores, Inc. -- http://www.gordmans.com/ -- was a retail company engaged in the sale of apparel, home goods, and other merchandise. Then with 106 stores in 22 states, Gordmans Stores and five affiliates sought protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Neb. Lead Case No. 17-80304) on March 13, 2017, disclosing $274 million in assets and $131 million in liabilities. Houston, Texas-based Stage Stores and a joint venture of liquidators Tiger Capital Group and Great American Group were declared winning bidders for Gordmans' assets at an auction in March 2017. Stage Stores said at that time it plans to operate at least 50 of Gordmans' 105 locations and keep the warehouse in Omaha as a going concern. Stage operates about 800 locations nationwide under the Peebles, Bealls and Goody's brands, among others. The winning bid amounted to $75.6 million. The Debtor changed its name to G-Estate Liquidation Stores, Inc., following the asset sale. MEADOWBROOK CARE: Sued for Resident's Injuries, Untimely Death -------------------------------------------------------------- Dominic Polatz as executor of the estate of Anna Polatz, deceased, and Dominic Polatz, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Meadowbrook Care Center, Oceanside Care Center and South Nassau Communities Hospital, Defendants, Case No. 614195/2018, (N.Y. Sup., October 19, 2018) seeks punitive and compensatory damages, costs, disbursements and attorneys' fees for violation of Public Health Law Section 2801-d. Defendant operated a nursing home in New York where Anna Polatz was a resident and sought their professional care for certain medical care, long term care, rehabilitation and nursing home care. She suffered pain and prematurely died allegedly from malfeasance, negligence and the lack of reasonable care within their care. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Silverman CELLINO & BARNES 532 Broad Hollow Road Melville, NY 11747 Tel: (800) 888-8888 Email: david.silverman@cellinoandbarnes.com MELINTA THERAPEUTICS: Wins Dismissal of Merger-Related Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court has granted defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit related to Cempra, Inc. now known as Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. On November 3, 2017, Melinta merged with Cempra, Inc. in a business combination. Prior to the merger, on November 4, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, Durham Division, naming Cempra, Inc. (now known as Melinta Therapeutics, Inc.) (for purposes of this Contingencies section, "Cempra") and certain of Cempra's officers as defendants. Two substantially similar lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina on November 22, 2016, and December 30, 2016, respectively. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, on July 6, 2017, the court consolidated the three lawsuits into a single action and appointed a lead plaintiff and co-lead counsel in the consolidated case. On August 16, 2017, the plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiff alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the defendants between July 7, 2015, and November 4, 2016 (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff sought to represent a class comprised of purchasers of Cempra's common stock during the Class Period and sought damages, costs and expenses and such other relief as determined by the court. On September 29, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. After the motion to dismiss was fully briefed, the court heard oral arguments on July 24, 2018. On October 26, 2018, the court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint in its entirety. Melinta Therapeutics said, "It is possible that plaintiff may appeal or otherwise seek to reinstate the lawsuit or that similar lawsuits may yet be filed in the same or other courts that name the same or additional defendants, in which case Defendants intend to defend any such lawsuits vigorously." Melinta Therapeutics, Inc., a commercial-stage pharmaceutical company, discovers, develops, and commercializes various anti-infectives for the treatment of bacterial infectious diseases in North America. The company was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in New Haven, Connecticut. NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that purchasers of Nektar Therapeutics. (NASDQ: NKTR) have filed a class action complaint against the company's officers and directors for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between November 11, 2017 through October 2, 2018. Nektar discovers and develops innovative medicines in areas of high unmet medical needs. The company's lead clinical-stage drug is NKTR-214. View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog: https://www.robbinsarroyo.com/nektar-therapeutics/ Nektar Accused of Misrepresenting the Viability of its Drug NKTR-214 According to the complaint, NKTR-214 is a modified version of cytokine IL-2. Nektar hypothesized that it could improve IL-2 -- which had been approved for treating cancer in 1992, but has limitations -- by adding polyethylene glycol molecules to it to extend the half-life and cause fewer side effects than IL-2 alone. On November 11, 2017, Nektar issued a press release touting the viability of NKTR-214 and announcing its active enrollment of patients in the next phase of the trial. On March 1, 2018, in announcing its financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2017, Nektar noted that its year was "truly transformative … as we achieved a number of successes…" and noted the advances it had made in relation to the NKTR-214 trial. Nektar continued to make these representations until Plainview LLC published a report on October 1, 2018, addressing the efficacy of NKTR-214. The report asserted that the core concept of Nektar's plan to develop NKTR-214 into "a new universal cancer treatment" "has never worked in practice," and further asserted that Nektar's decision to only disclose certain trial results represented "an unprecedented level of data opacity." Nektar's stock price fell $5.63 per share, or over 9%, over the following two trading session to close at $55.33 per share on October 2, 2018, and continues to decline. Nektar Shareholders Have Legal Options Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website. Leonid Kandinov, Esq. Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Toll Free: (800) 350-6003 Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN] NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Nektar Therapeutics (NASDAQ: NKTR). If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Nektar Therapeutics (NASDAQ: NKTR) Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 31, 2018 Class Period: November 11, 2017 and October 2, 2018 Get additional information about NKTR: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/nektar-therapeutics-loss-submission-form?wire=3 Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Telephone: 212.425.1140 Fax: 866.699.3880 Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN] NEUHAUS INC: Faces Garey Suit in NY Alleging ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Neuhaus, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Neuhaus, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10656 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Neuhaus is a notable Belgian chocolatier which manufactures and sells luxury chocolates, biscuits and ice cream. The company was founded in 1857 by Jean Neuhaus, a Swiss immigrant, who opened the first store in the Galeries Royales Saint-Hubert in central Brussels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. The Law Offices of Jonathan Shalom 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Violates ADA, Camacho Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northeastern University. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Northeastern University, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10693 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Northeastern University is a private research university in Boston, Massachusetts, established in 1898. It is categorized as an R1 institution by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com OHIO NATIONAL: Murray Murphy Files Broker-Dealer Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- A Federal class action lawsuit was filed against Ohio National Financial Services, Inc. ("Ohio National") by Veritas Independent Partners ("Veritas"), an independent broker-dealer based in Conway, Arkansas. The suit is the first to seek class action status for thousands of broker-dealers nationwide who had previously sold annuities for Ohio National and who were informed recently that the company would no longer pay commissions under its selling agreements with the broker-dealers. Veritas, which had sold annuity contracts offered by Ohio National to many of its clients, alleges in the lawsuit that Ohio National decided that it was in its best interest to exit as many existing annuity contracts as possible because they had become unprofitable for the company. However, because many clients decided to continue holding the annuity contracts, Ohio National decided to eliminate paying ongoing commission obligations to the class of broker-dealers who had previously sold the annuity contracts irrespective of the company's existing contractual obligations. The suit alleges that Ohio National held $23.6 billion in annuities under management at the end of 2017 and that thousands of broker-dealers may be owed commissions totaling in the tens of millions of dollars under the contracts that Veritas is seeking to hold Ohio National to for itself and other broker-dealers in the class. The case was filed in the Southern District of Ohio and has been assigned to Judge Michael R. Barrett. Veritas and the putative class of broker-dealers are represented in the case by Murray Murphy Moul + Basil LLP ("MMMB"), a Columbus, Ohio law firm with extensive experience in complex litigation and securities class actions. Geoffrey J. Moul, Esq. Email: moul@mmmb.com [GN] PACESETTERS INC: Faces Scantland Wage-and-Hour Suit --------------------------------------------------- SHELLY MARIE SCANTLAND, Individually, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees, the Plaintiff, v. PACESETTERS, INCORPORATED, A Tennessee Nonprofit Corporation, the Defendant, Case 2:18-cv-00095 (M.D. Tenn., Nov. 8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and putative class members are current or former non-exempt hourly-paid Direct Support Professional employees of Defendant. The net effect of Defendant's common plan, policy, and practice of working Plaintiff and class members "off the clock" and "editing out/shaving" their compensable work time from its timekeeping system is that by doing so, it willfully violated the FLSA and enjoyed ill-gained profits at the expense of Plaintiff and the class. Although at this stage Plaintiff is unable to state the exact amount owed to her and other members of the class, she believes such information will become available during the course of discovery. However, when an employer fails to keep complete and accurate time records, employees may establish the hours worked solely by their testimony and the burden of proof of overcoming such testimony shifts to the employer, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Nathan A. Bishop, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT Attorneys at Law 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com PEACEHEALTH: Oregon Man Files Overbilling Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Insurance Journal reports that an Oregon man has filed what may be a first of its kind Medicare lawsuit against PeaceHealth, claiming the organization didn't follow federal Medicare guidelines specific to Oregon and overbilled him for treatment. The Register-Guard in Eugene reported that Donald Griffith filed the complaint in U.S. District Court in Portland. Griffith alleges that PeaceHealth overbilled him by nearly $15,000 for treatment after a car crash in 2015. The suit claims the overbilling happened despite a state of Oregon exception to federal law that says a Medicare provider may only ask for money from a medical settlement if the insurance company pays the settlement within a certain amount of time. Griffith is seeking a class-action lawsuit against PeaceHealth and three times whatever economic losses a jury sees fit to give him. PeaceHealth officials wouldn't comment specifically on the case.[GN] PETCO: Mini Tanks for Betta Fish Are Harmful, Lawsuits Allege ------------------------------------------------------------- Maxine Bernstein, writing for The Oregonian, reports that a Lewis & Clark Law School student, fresh from completing a consumer protection litigation class during his last semester, began researching betta fish and how to care for them as he considered buying one to celebrate his graduation last spring. By September, after passing the state bar exam, Alex Hostetler, 31, was dismayed to read that the mini aquariums often advertised for the vibrantly colored tropical fish weren't adequate and could be harmful to their health. He approached his consumer protection law professor, attorney Michael Fuller, with an idea. Hostetler and Fuller are now representing a Portland woman, Echo Gray, in class-action lawsuits filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court against three major sellers of the mini betta fish aquariums, Petco, Aqueon and Rolf C. Hagen Inc. Marina Aquarium Products. The suits allege the companies are engaged in unlawful trade practices through deceptive advertising and are profiting from faulty merchandise. They urge a judge to bar the sale of betta fish aquariums of less than 1.5 gallons, contending they don't provide healthy housing for the fish and cause them to die much sooner than if kept in a larger aquarium. "They're creatures that don't deserve to be put in tiny tubs," Hostetler said on November 9. "It's needlessly cruel." The Siamese fighting fish, or betta, is a tropical freshwater fish often seen swimming solo. With proper care, they can live from two to four years. They take in oxygen from both water and the air and prefer to be independent. According to PetSmart's website, a betta fish tank should hold a minimum of 3 to 5 gallons of water. Petco spokeswoman Ventura Olvera did not respond to messages for comment. Nick Sranske, manager of warranties and technical support at Aqueon, said he wasn't aware of the lawsuit. In the suits, Hostetler and Fuller cite a National Geographic article headlined, "Betta fish often mistreated in pet industry, evidence suggests." Though advertised as easier to care for, the fish don't thrive in tanks of less than 2.5 gallons, the article says. They need filtration, warm water, plants and caves to explore and regular feeding and tank cleaning, it says. If not, the suits say, they often die of fish ammonia excretion. Ammonia is stored in the body of fish but becomes toxic if allowed to accumulate. The suits ask a judge to order the companies to permanently stop the sale of the mini betta aquariums, provide an accounting of their profits from the sale of such aquariums and reimburse plaintiffs for the costs of buying the aquariums. The mini tanks range from $20 to $40. "I feel bad for the consumer, and I also feel very bad for these fish," Hostetler said. "I'd like to see more transparency and honesty in what these companies are selling and curtail the abuse of these fish. We're not looking to make a whole lot of money off of Petco.'' Hostetler is working on this case as he continues to search for a job in consumer protection law, employment law or criminal defense. The rookie lawyer hasn't yet bought a betta fish himself. He said he still remembers having one when he was in middle school, kept in a small container that it came in. And, he remembers when he discovered it had died. "I don't think it made it past a few months," Hostetler said. For now, he keeps freshwater shrimp in a large aquarium at his Beaverton home.[GN] PREMIER AUTOMOTIVE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Torres TCPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CARLOS TORRES, Plaintiff, v. INTELIQUENT, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-10022 (E.D. La.), Judge Susie Morgan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied Defendant Premier Automotive, L.L.C.'s motion to dismiss Torres' second amended complaint. On Oct. 3, 2017, the Plaintiff brought an action against Defendants Inteliquent, Inc. and Neutral Tandem-Louisiana LLC on behalf of himself and a class of persons whose wireless telephone number the Defendants, or someone on the Defendants' behalf, called using an automated telephone dialing system ("ATDS") or an artificial or prerecorded voice without prior express written consent of the called party. The Plaintiff brought the class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") to stop their practice of making unlawful and unsolicited text message calls to the cellular telephones of consumers and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct. On Nov. 1, 2017, the Plaintiff amended his complaint to add Premier Automotive, LLC and Twilo, Inc. as Defendants. The Plaintiff dismissed Defendants Ineliquent, Inc. and Twilo, Inc. on Jan. 31, 2018 and dismissed Defendant Neutral Tandem-Louisiana, LLC on Feb. 6, 2018. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file his second amended complaint,10 which he filed on March 13, 2018. The Plaintiff's second amended complaint brings the class action against Premier Automotive on behalf of himself and those whose wireless telephone number the Defendant, or someone on the Defendant's behalf, called as part of the Defendant's text message marketing efforts. The Plaintiff's second amended complaint again alleges a violation of the TCPA. More specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant used a third-party platform, DirectMail.io, to create and implement the text message marketing campaign at issue in the lawsuit. The Defendant's use of DirectMail.io resulted in the delivery of thousands of telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff and Class. Premier Automotive filed the instant motion to dismiss on March 27, 2018, arguing that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim for a violation of the TCPA because he did not properly plead that an ATDS was used. Judge Morgan holds that because little is required to properly allege a violation of the TCPA and because the Plaintiff provides some facts to complement his allegation that an ATDS was used, the allegations in the second amended complaint allow the Court to infer that an ATDS was used. It would be unreasonable, at this juncture, to hold the Plaintiff to a higher standard because it would be virtually impossible, absent discovery, for any plaintiff to gather sufficient evidence regarding the type of machine used to justify a higher pleading standard. Although the Court may ultimately determine DirectMail.io does not qualify as an ATDS as a matter of law, the allegations in the second amended complaint allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. At this stage, the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of the TCPA. Accordingly, he denied Premier Automotive's motion to dismiss and request for a stay until the FCC provides further guidance. He denied as moot the Defendant's request for oral argument. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 6, 2018 Order and Reasons is available at https://is.gd/Mg0eTv from Leagle.com. Carlos Torres, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Roberto L. Costales -- rlc@beaumontcostales.com -- Costales Law Office, Jonathan Mille Kirkland, Beaumont Costales LLC & William Henry Beaumont -- whb@beaumontcostales.com -- William H. Beaumont Law. Premier Automotive, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by James M. Garner -- jgarner@shergarner.com -- Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, Ashley Gremillion Coker -- acoker@shergarner.com -- Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, Joshua Simon Force -- jforce@shergarner.com -- Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC & Matthew M. Coman -- mcoman@shergarner.com -- Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC. PRINSTON PHARMA: Borkowski Sues Over Carcinogen in Hypertension Med ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alphonse Borkowski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc. d/b/a SOLCO Healthcare LLC, SOLCO Healthcare U.S., LLC and Huahai US Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01150 (W.D. N.Y., October 19, 2018), seeks preliminary and/or final injunctive relief, exemplary or punitive damages, and/or restitution, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and costs resulting from negligence, unjust enrichment, fraud, breach of implied and express warranty and for violation of New York General Business Law and various state consumer protection laws. Valsartan is a non-peptide tetrazole derivative used in the treatment of hypertension, heart failure and post-myocardial infarction. It was adulterated with N-nitrosodimethylamine, a probable human carcinogen. Huahai US Inc. is a New Jersey corporation, with its principal place of business located at 2002 Eastpark Blvd., Cranbury NJ 08512. Huahai US is a subsidiary of Huahai Pharmaceutical. Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc. (d/b/a Solco Healthcare LLC) is a subsidiary of Huahai Pharmaceutical and has been engaged in the manufacturing, sale, and distribution of adulterated generic Valsartan in the United States. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Paul G. Joyce, Esq. COLUCCI & GALLAHER, P.C. 2000 Liberty Building 424 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 Tel: (716) 853-4080 Fax: (716) 853-4070 Email: pjoyce@colucci-gallaher.com - and - Ruben Honik, Esq, David Stanoch, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 965-9177 Fax: (215) 985-4169 Email: rhonik@golombhonik.com dstanoch@golombhonik.com - and - Michael L. Slack, Esq. John R. Davis, Esq. SLACK DAVIS SANGER, LLP 2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220 Austin, TX 78746 Tel: (512) 795-8686 Fax: (512) 795-8787 Email: mslack@slackdavis.com jdavis@slackdavis.com - and - Allan Kanner, Esq. Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq. Layne Hilton, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC 701 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70115 Tel: (504) 524-5777 Fax: (504) 524-5763 Email: a.kanner@kanner-law.com c.whiteley@kanner-law.com l.hilton@kanner-law.com PRO FOOTBALL: Lawyers Seek Ticketholders Class-Action Status ------------------------------------------------------------ Alison Matas, writing for IndeOnline.com, reports that the class only would include people who haven't accepted the reimbursement package offered by the Hall, and the court only would decide whether the Hall breached its contract by canceling the game. The attorneys suing the Pro Football Hall of Fame on behalf of fans who attended the canceled 2016 Hall of Fame Game still are trying for a class-action lawsuit. The firms representing ticketholders filed a renewed motion for class-action certification, which would allow one person who attended the game to represent an entire group of people who purchased tickets. This time, however, the class only would include people who haven't accepted the reimbursement package offered by the Hall, and the court only would decide whether the Hall breached its contract by canceling the game -- the awarding of damages would be handled on an individual basis after the court ruled on liability. The document was filed by an attorney from the Becker Law Firm in Elyria and attorneys from the Eagan Avenatti law firm in Newport Beach, Calif., including Michael Avenatti, who also represents pornographic actress Stormy Daniels in her fight against President Donald Trump. Originally, Avenatti wanted to receive class certification to award damages to all fans. He argued the reimbursement package the Hall offered -- including up to $289 for a one-night hotel stay and the face value of tickets -- didn't adequately cover what people spent to come to Canton, court documents show. Avenatti in 2016 told The Canton Repository he expected each person who attended the game would be awarded upward of $1,500 as a result of the lawsuit and the court would throw out any reimbursement the Hall gave to fans. But a federal judge in September ruled in favor of the Hall, saying its reimbursement method was superior to what Avenatti proposed and agreeing with the Hall that each person's situation was too unique to be able to award damages as a group. The judge said the attorneys were permitted to seek liability-only class-action certification and to submit a new definition for the class that excluded anyone who already had taken money from the Hall -- more than 19,650 of the 22,800 people who attended the game, according to court documents. In the newest filing, it is suggested damages could be determined and awarded on a case-by-case basis following the liability determination. Potential class members would be asked to provide evidence of travel expenses. The 2016 Hall of Fame Game was canceled after congealed paint on the field made playing conditions unsafe. The lawsuit argues the Hall breached its contract with fans by canceling the game after crews waited too long to begin prepping the field for the Sunday game and Hall officials waited to announce the game was canceled as a last-minute money grab for merchandise and concessions revenue. The plaintiff who would represent the class is Carmelo Treviso, a Wisconsin resident who came to Canton for the game with his son. They paid more than $1,000 for their trip, court documents show. [GN] PROCTER & GAMBLE: Takano Suit Answer Deadline Moved to Dec. 5 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TOM TAKANO and TRACY McCARTHY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00385 TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California extended the time for the Defendant to answer the Complaint up to and including Dec. 5, 2018. Takano and McCarthy filed their Class Action Complaint in the action on Feb. 21, 2017. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on March 29, 2017, which was ruled upon by the Court on Oct. 24, 2018, and therefore the date by which P&G must respond to the Complaint currently is set for Nov. 7, 2018. In accordance with Local Rule 144, the Plaintiffs and P&G have agreed to extend the time for P&G to answer the Complaint up to and including Dec. 5, 2018, which is 28 days from the date that the answer is currently due and does not exceed the 28 days allowed under Local Rule 144. This is the first extension of time to respond to the Complaint agreed to by the parties. Accordingly, the parties stipulated and Judge Nunley approved, that P&G's time to answer the Complaint will be extended to Dec. 5, 2018. Pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), approval of the stipulation by the Court is not necessary. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 6, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/KX2pFD from Leagle.com. Tom Takano & Tracy McCarthy, Plaintiffs, represented by Yeremey Olegovich Krivoshey -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Procter & Gamble Company, Defendant, represented by Raymond A. Cardozo -- rcardozo@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP. PURDUE PHARMA: Shaffer Files Personal Injury Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. The case is styled as Jodi Shaffer individually and as next friend and guardian of minor, R. C. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Purdue Pharma LP, Purdue Pharma Inc., Purdue Frederick Company Inc., Allergan PLC formerly known as: Actavis PLC, Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. now known as Actavis, Inc., Watson Laboratories Inc., Actavis LLC, Actavis Pharma Inc. formerly known as: Watson Pharma, Inc., Cephalon Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Jannsen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., R.C. Son & R.C. Son, Noramco, Inc., Mallinckrodt, PLC, Mallinckrodt, LLC, Amerisourcebergen Corporation, Cardinal Health Inc., McKesson Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01448 (S.D. Va., Nov. 15, 2018). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and Raymond Sackler. The company's branches include Purdue Pharma Inc., The Purdue Frederick Company, Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P., and Purdue Products L.P. The Frederick Purdue Company provides research, development, production, marketing, sales, and licensing of prescription and non-prescription medicines and healthcare products. The Company offers specializes in pain medication research, as well as other therapeutic areas, including sleep and gastrointestinal disorders. The Frederick Purdue operates in the United States. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. The Generic Medicines segment offers sterile products, hormones, narcotics, high-potency drugs, and cytotoxic substances in various dosage forms, including tablets, capsules, injectables, inhalants, liquids, ointments, and creams. This segment also develops, manufactures, and sells active pharmaceutical ingredients. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. manufactures and markets generic drugs in the United States. It offers generic products for various therapeutic options, such as cardiovascular, anti-infective, central nervous system, anti-inflammatory, oncolytic, anti-diabetic, analgesic, dermatologic, respiratory, and women's health. The company offers its products in various dosage forms, such as tablets, capsules, injectables, creams, ointments, inhalants, solutions, and suspensions. It serves patients through distributors. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. was formerly known as Lemmon Pharmacal Company and changed its name to Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. in 1996. Cephalon, Inc. engages in the discovery and development of medicines for central nervous system disorders, pain, and cancer. It offers NUVIGIL (armodafinil) tablets for improving wakefulness in patients with excessive sleepiness associated with treated obstructive sleep apnea and shift work disorder, also known as shift work disorder and narcolepsy; TREANDA (bendamustine HCl) for injection for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia; and AMRIX (Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride extended-release capsules), which is indicated as an adjunct to rest and physical therapy for relief of muscle spasm associated with acute and painful musculoskeletal conditions. Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational medical devices, pharmaceutical and consumer packaged goods manufacturing company founded in 1886. Its common stock is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the company is listed among the Fortune 500. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. manufactures and markets prescription pharmaceutical products. It provides medicines for health concerns in various therapeutic areas, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, pain management, acid reflux and infectious diseases, women's health, and mental health (bipolar I disorder and schizophrenia); neurologics, including Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy, and migraine prevention and treatment; and SYMTUZATM, a darunavir-based single-tablet regimen for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in treatment-naïve and certain virologically suppressed adults. Endo Health Solutions Inc. provides specialty healthcare solutions in the United States and internationally. The company's Endo Pharmaceuticals segment offers branded prescription products, including Lidoderm, Opana ER, Percocet, Voltaren Gel, Frova, Supprelin LA, Vantas, Valstar, and Fortesta Gel for pain, urology, endocrinology, and oncology. Its Qualitest segment provides non-branded generic products in the pain management, urology, central nervous system disorders, immunosuppression, oncology, women's health, and hypertension markets. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. engages in the research and development, production, sale, and marketing of branded and generic pharmaceutical products primarily in the United States. It offers injections, sustained release capsules, gels, tablets, oral suspensions, nasal sprays, extended-release tablets, capsules, mucoadhesive for buccal administration, subcutaneous implants, and sterile solutions for intravesical instillation; and clinical research services. Actavis Generics is a global pharmaceutical company focused on developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded pharmaceuticals, generic and over-the-counter medicines, and biologic products. Actavis has a commercial presence across approximately 100 countries. Watson Laboratories, Inc. manufactures pharmaceutical drugs. The company was incorporated in 1992 and is based in Corona, California. Watson Laboratories, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of ATeva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited. McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies in the United States and internationally. It operates in three segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. The company distributes branded, generic, specialty, biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs, as well as other healthcare-related products; and offers practice management, technology, clinical support, and business solutions to community-based oncology and other specialty practices. Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services and products company in the United States and internationally. It provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems, pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and physician offices. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation distributes pharmaceuticals products, equipment, and systems. The company provides global product sourcing, generic purchasing programs, technology solutions, pharmacy network and programs, and pharmaceutical packaging solutions. The company serves healthcare providers, independent retailers, and pharmacies. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation was formerly known as AmeriSource Corporation and changed its name to AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation in January 1995.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas E. McIntire, Esq. THOMAS E. MCINTIRE & ASSOCIATES 82 1/2 14th Street Wheeling, WV 26003 Phone: (304) 232-8600 Email: tom@mcintirelaw.com RIDER UNIVERSITY: Camacho Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rider University. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rider University, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10700 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rider University is a private, coeducational and nonsectarian university located chiefly in the Lawrenceville section of Lawrence Township in Mercer County, New Jersey, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com ROCHESTER INSTITUTE: Camacho Suit Asserts ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rochester Institute of Technology. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rochester Institute of Technology, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10699 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rochester Institute of Technology is a private doctoral university within the town of Henrietta in the Rochester, New York metropolitan area. RIT is composed of nine academic colleges, including the National Technical Institute for the Deaf.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com SACRED HEART: Camacho Files ADA Class Action in New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sacred Heart University, Inc. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sacred Heart University, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10697 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sacred Heart University (SHU) is a private Roman Catholic university located in Fairfield, Connecticut, United States. Sacred Heart was founded in 1963 by the Most Reverend Walter W. Curtis, Bishop of the Diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com SAG-AFTRA: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Sanchez, writing for Digital Music News, reports that despite suffering a setback in his case, a federal judge has allowed songwriter/producer Kevin Risto's key claim against SAG-AFTRA to proceed. On November 5, SAG-AFTRA filed a motion to dismiss an important class-action lawsuit. According to the powerful performers union, it has the right to collect a fee from money collected by the Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund. Unfortunately, a federal judge has disagreed. So, what's the case all about? Last June, award-winning songwriter and record producer Kevin Risto filed a class-action lawsuit against SAG-AFTRA, the American Federation of Musicians, and the trustees of the Fund. Risto claimed that the performers unions had unfairly collected millions from sessions musicians and backup singers. Trustees of the Fund -- employees of the unions -- had unfairly tacked on a 3% fee on all royalties collected. SAG-AFTRA alone collected $1.7 million in service fees from in 2016. It has also collected similar fees since 2013. The performers unions apply this questionable fee even to nonmembers, like Risto. The performers' unions had set up the Fund 15 years ago to help them identify and pay non-featured musicians. Yet, prior to 2013, the Fund hadn't taken any fee. Risto wrote in June, "All of the obligations conferred on the unions in the service agreement were activities that the unions were already performing as a benefit to its members. No new consideration was provided by the unions in exchange for the service fee." According to the motion to dismiss filed last November 5, SAG-AFTRA claimed it 'needed' to take this additional amount. The rise of digital services and platforms requires extra work. Thus, the performers unions need to be fairly compensated. US District Court Judge Christina Snyder didn't buy SAG-AFTRA's argument. Yet, she largely dismissed most of Risto's claims without prejudice. He can no longer sue on the grounds that the Fund's trustees had breached their duty of impartiality, along with two other claims. Snyder wrote, "Plaintiffs allege that the unions already provided those services, that the trustees received no additional benefit from the agreement, and that the agreement was entered into solely for the benefit for the unions." Risto, however, can pursue the claims SAG-AFTRA had broken its fiduciary duty of breaches of loyalty. The performers union had benefited from the transactions, Risto's key claim. In a statement celebrating Snyder's ruling, Risto's attorney, Jordanna Thigpen, Esq. -- jthigpen@jjllplaw.com -- said. "We are very pleased with Judge Snyder's decision as it will allow these claims to proceed so that we may work towards recovery of these funds for artists. It is very important for claims for breach of fiduciary duty to proceed especially when there is no other method of challenging a given trustee's conduct, as is the case here."[GN] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Junks Suit Over Defective Plasma TV -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, dismissed the case, ALEXIS BRONSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Defendants, Case No. C 18-2300 WHA (N.D. Cal.). Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its wholly owned subsidiary Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. manufactured plasma television sets from January 2009 through November 2014, after which the Defendants stopped manufacturing plasma televisions and any spare or replacement parts. In August 2013, Bronson purchased one of the Defendants' 51-inch plasma Smart 3D HDTV televisions for $1,700. The television proved defective. It displayed red lines on the screen, a problem defendants fixed once under warranty, but the red lines returned. Starting in August 2016, the unit would take a long time to turn on (if it turned on at all) and would sporadically power on and off. The complaint alleges that inferior component parts caused at least one of the television's defects. Because plasma televisions require more energy to run, excessive heat and/or excessive voltage caused components -- such as capacitors -- to overheat and prematurely fail. The Plaintiff concluded in August 2016 that the television could not be fixed because the Defendants had discontinued making any parts available. The Plaintiff filed the putative class action in federal court in April 2018 asserting diversity jurisdiction and alleging violations of Section 1793.03(b) of the California Civil Code under the Song-Beverly Consumer Protection Act and Section 17200 of California's Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff amended his complaint in June 2018 primarily adding a claim against Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (but not Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.) for violating California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). The amended complaint alleged separate claims for recovery under the foregoing three statutes, alleging that the Defendants failed to (1) maintain an adequate supply of replacement parts for seven years and (2) that such failure left the Plaintiff's television prematurely obsolete. In addition, under Section 17200 and the CLRA only, the complaint alleged the Defendants failed to disclose information concerning the inadequate supply of parts and the defects that caused the televisions to become prematurely obsolete. The Defendants now move to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Among other things, Judge Alsup finds that counting four years from that point, the statute of limitations under the Act would run until November 2018. As the Plaintiff filed the initial complaint in April 2018, well before any limitations period could have run, the statute of limitations does not bar the Plaintiff's claims under the Song-Beverly Act. As to the complaint's allegations that at the time of purchase the Defendants failed to disclose the defects, the Judge finds that the Defendants meet their initial burden. Nowhere does the complaint plead facts as to the "time and manner of discovery" or any diligent investigation. The Plaintiff's claim that the Defendants failed to disclose defects in the television are deemed time-barred subject to possible amendments. Finally, as pleaded, the Plaintiff's complaint alludes to discovery of the defect when red lines appeared on the Plaintiff's television for the second time. At that point, the Plaintiff's suspicion should have been triggered. Because the complaint alleges no other facts, the Plaintiff has not adequately rebutted that the limitations period bars this claim. The Order accordingly deems the failure to disclose claim under the CLRA to be time-barred. Judge Alsup granted the motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff may move for leave to amend by Nov. 29 at noon. Any such motion should include as an exhibit a redlined version of the proposed amendments that clearly identifies all changes from the initial complaint. Moreover, should the Plaintiff amend, the parties are required to abide by the rulings at the hearing -- namely, that the Plaintiff submit his television to inspection by the Defendants by the end of November. Should the Defendants have parts available that would fix the Plaintiff's television, the Defendants must provide the Plaintiff the list specifically providing not only the parts they have available but which part fixes which problem. The order highlights certain deficiencies in the initial complaint, but it will not necessarily be enough to add a sentence parroting each missing item identified. If the Plaintiff so moves, he should be sure to plead his best case. Any motion should explain how the proposed complaint overcomes all deficiencies, even those the Order did not reach. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 6, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/ya2BOe from Leagle.com. Alexis Bronson, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Rothstein , pro hac vice & Alan J. Sherwood -- alansherwood@earthlink.net -- Law Office of of Alan J. Sherwood. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. & Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., Defendants, represented by Shannon Suzanne Broome -- sbroome@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Beth Sharon Coplowitz -- bcoplowitz@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Michael J. Mueller -- mmueller@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP & Thomas Richard Waskom -- twaskom@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. SANTANDER CONSUMER: Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court in Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., has entered an order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement of the lawsuit. The Company is a defendant in two purported securities class actions lawsuits that were filed in March and April 2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. The lawsuits were consolidated and are now captioned Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783. The lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and executive officers on behalf of a class consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016. The complaint alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements, as well as failing to disclose material adverse facts, in its periodic reports filed under the Exchange Act and certain other public disclosures, in connection with, among other things, the Company's change in its methodology for estimating its allowance for credit losses and correction of such allowance for prior periods. In March 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In January 2018, the court granted the Company's motion as to defendant Ismail Dawood (the Company's former Chief Financial Officer) and denied the motion as to all other defendants. In July 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement of the lawsuit for a cash payment of $9,500. In September 2018, the court entered an order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement of the lawsuit. Santander Consumer USA Inc., a consumer finance company, provides vehicle finance and unsecured consumer lending products. The company offers new and used car loans, and auto and cash-back refinance services. It provides products through dealers in the United States. The company was incorporated in 1981 and is based in Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. SANTANDER CONSUMER: Merits Discovery in Deka Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court has vacated the order staying the Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., and ordered that merits discovery in the Deka Lawsuit be stayed until the court ruled on the issue of class certification. The Company is a defendant in a purported securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K. The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 26, 2014, was brought against the Company, certain of its current and former directors and executive officers and certain institutions that served as underwriters in the Company's Initial Public Offering (IPO) on behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's IPO registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing misleading statements concerning the Company's ability to pay dividends and the adequacy of the Company's compliance systems and oversight. In December 2015, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which was denied. In December 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed classes. On in July 2017, the court entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit pending the resolution of the appeal of a class certification order in In re Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017). In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka Lawsuit and ordered that merits discovery in the Deka Lawsuit be stayed until the court ruled on the issue of class certification. Santander Consumer USA Inc., a consumer finance company, provides vehicle finance and unsecured consumer lending products. The company offers new and used car loans, and auto and cash-back refinance services. It provides products through dealers in the United States. The company was incorporated in 1981 and is based in Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Court Stays Johnson FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CURTIS JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SERENITY TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-02004-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of that portion of the Court's August 2018 order; and (ii) granted the Plaintiffs' motion to stay proceedings pending disposition of their petition for permission to appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). In this wage and hour class action, Plaintiffs Gary and Curtis Johnson allege that Defendants Serenity Transportation, Inc. and David Friedel misclassified their employment status as independent contractors instead of employees, and therefore denied them the benefits of federal and California wage-and-hour laws. The Plaintiffs also seek to recover damages from Defendants Service Corp. International Inc. ("SCI") and SCI California Funeral Services, Inc. ("SCI-Cal"). The Plaintiffs insist that the SCI Defendants are liable as client employers under Section 2810.3 for their minimum wage, overtime, and meal and rest break claims. Their motion for class certification sought to certify the subclass as to the SCI Defendants of all persons from the class who were made available to SCI/SCI-Cal between Jan.1, 2015 through class certification. The Court denied class certification as to the Plaintiffs' claims against the SCI Defendants after determining that common questions did not predominate as to the SCI subclass. Specifically, the Court held that the SCI Defendants may be held liable for wages owed for work performed on their premises or worksite, but not for time the drivers spent waiting for Serenity's dispatch to send them to any Serenity client. It follows that common questions do not predominate as to the overtime, minimum wage and meal and rest break claims against the SCI Defendants. While an individual driver may be able to prove that the driver is owed overtime or minimum wages based on time spent on SCI removals, such an inquiry will be highly individualized. The same for whether the driver was owed a meal or rest break while performing SCI removals. On Aug. 15, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit seeking review of the Court's order pursuant to Rule 23(f). The Plaintiff then filed with the Court a motion for leave to file motion for reconsideration, which the Court granted in part as to the claims under Section 2810.3 against the SCI Defendant. Now pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of that portion of the Court's August 2018 order. Also before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion to stay proceedings pending disposition of their petition for permission to appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). Judge Corley finds that the Plaintiffs' theory of liability must at least provide a viable basis for certifying the proposed SCI subclass. Here, liability for client employers under Section 2810.3 extends only to work performed for that client employer; thus, the proposed SCI subclass is overbroad. The Judge incorporates by reference the analysis and conclusions set forth in its order denying class certification of the SCI subclass, and will not repeat the same statutory interpretation. As the Court previously explained, SCI-Cal acted as a "client employer" (i.e., end user) for purposes of liability under Section 2810.3 only for the time Serenity drivers spent performing SCI removals. This conclusion is supported by the plain terms and legislative history of the statute. As with Serenity's other 75 to 80 "regular" clients between 2015 and 2016 to whom Serenity made its drivers available, the Judge holds that SCI-Cal was not a client employer during the time drivers spent waiting on-call to be sent to any client because drivers were not performing work on SCI-Cal's premises or worksite during that time (i.e., performing an SCI removal); instead, SCI-Cal became liable as a client employer under Section 2810.3 only when Serenity drivers performed actual work for SCI-Cal. As to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay, Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' petition raises serious legal questions regarding the proper interpretation of Section 2810.3, and she recognizes that this is a matter of first impression. Further, the SCI Defendants do not argue that they will be prejudiced by a stay. The Plaintiffs filed their Rule 23(f) petition on Aug. 15, 2018, and the Judge anticipates that Ninth Circuit will dispose of the petition soon. Simply put, a brief stay pending disposition of the petition will not unduly delay these proceedings or harm the SCI Defendants. For the reasons she set forth, Judge Corley denied the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration because the Court's order denying certification of the proposed SCI subclass was neither clearly erroneous nor manifestly unjust. The proposed SCI subclass does not meet the commonality requirement under Rule 23(a)(2) or the predominance requirement under Rule 23(b) because Section 2810.3 extends liability to client employers only for work performed, and determining whether persons from the class who were made available to SCI/SCI Cal between Jan. 1, 2015 through the class certification performed actual work for SCI-Cal is a highly individualized inquiry. She granted the Plaintiffs' motion to stay proceedings pending disposition of their petition for permission to appeal the Court's order denying class certification pursuant to Rule 23(f). In light of this order, she continued the Oct. 17, 2018 hearing on the Defendants' motion to decertify the Fair Labor Standards Act collective action, to Dec. 20, 2018 at 9:00 a.m., under the assumption that the Ninth Circuit will have ruled by that date. Further, she continued the case management conference scheduled for Oct. 17, 2018 regarding the briefing schedule for the parties' motions for summary judgment to Dec. 20, 2018, as well. The Order disposed of Docket Nos. 284 & 289. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 12, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/hD3Rwo from Leagle.com. Curtis Johnson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated & Gary Johnson, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Peter Scott Rukin -- prukin@rukinhyland.com -- Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP, Jean K. Hyams -- jean@levyvinick.com -- Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP, Jessica Lee Riggin -- jriggin@rukinhyland.com -- Rukin Hyland & Riggins LLP & Valerie Jean Brender -- vbrender@rukinhyland.com -- Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP. Jean Katheryn Hyams, Plaintiff, pro se. Serenity Transportation, Inc. & David Friedel, Defendants, represented by William Frederick Schauman -- wschauman@schauman-hubins.com -- Schauman & Hubins. Service Corporation International, Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Mason -- info@gurneelaw.com -- Gurnee Mason & Forestiere LLP. SCI California Funeral Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Steven Hazard Gurnee, Gurnee, Mason & Forestiere LLP, Candace Holly Shirley -- cshirley@gurnee-law.com -- Gurnee Mason Forestiere LLP & William Frederick Schauman, Schauman & Hubins. County of Santa Clara, Defendant, represented by Nancy Joan Clark, Office of County Counsel. Service Corporation International, Inc., Cross-claimant, represented by John A. Mason, Gurnee Mason & Forestiere LLP. SKECHERS: Kicked With Defective Light-Up Shoes Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Keshner, writing for Market Watch, reports that Skechers allegedly made dangerously defective battery powered light-up shoes for kids and then didn't disclose the safety risks, according to a new class-action lawsuit led by the mother of a boy who sustained chemical burns on his feet. It's a case Skechers SKX, says it's ready to boot out of court, telling MarketWatch "our lighted footwear has always been and remains safe." The dust-up started when Sherry Foster's 9-year-old son laced up his light-up Skechers for the last day of school and came home with red, burned feet and shoe lights that no longer blinked, according to a new Manhattan federal lawsuit. The following day, a podiatrist determined the grade schooler's burns were second-degree and "chemical" in nature, said the lawsuit filed on November 7. Almost a year earlier, Skechers allegedly knew there were potential problems with some of its battery-operated light-up shoes, the lawsuit claimed. The shoemaker stopped making the "problematic styles" and brought new kicks to market, court papers said, "all while quietly replacing sneakers of a handful of consumers who raised the dangers of the defective sneakers to the company." But some of the shoes allegedly remained available at third-party sellers, which is how Foster, who lives in Hillsdale, N.Y., bought the shoes in question. She bought the "sporty mesh" footwear at issue in March 2018 for $65, according to the lawsuit. In a statement to MarketWatch, Skechers called the case "frivolous" and said Foster's lawyers were getting their facts wrong about the shoe batteries at issue. The company said even though it had "serious doubts that Ms. Foster's son's burns were caused by our shoes, we took the complaint, as we do all safety-related complaints, seriously and immediately contacted Ms. Foster to seek her assistance with our safety investigation." Skechers said the lawsuit failed to note that the company repeatedly asked to have its experts look at the shoes and speak with the podiatrist. Foster "refused all assistance with our safety investigation," it said. Even without her cooperation, Skechers said it had the style tested, with engineers concluding there was no grounds for the claim. Daniel Rehns, Esq. -- drehns@hrsclaw.com -- a lawyer for Foster, declined to comment.[GN] SOUTHERN METHODIST: Camacho Sues in New York for ADA Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southern Methodist University Inc. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Southern Methodist University Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10695 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Southern Methodist University is a private research university in metropolitan Dallas, with its main campus spanning portions of the town of Highland Park and the cities of University Park and Dallas in Texas, United States. SMU also operates satellite campuses in Plano, Texas and Taos, New Mexico.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se: Jason Camacho, Esq. 150 E. 18 St. New York, NY 10003 c/o Gottlieb & Associates PRO SE STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Faces FCRA Lawsuit --------------------------------------- Thomas Ahearn, writing for Employment Screening Resources, reports that a class action lawsuit filed in a Northern California District Court in October of 2018 claims Stanford University procured background checks for employment purposes without obtaining the proper authorization from job applicants in an alleged violation of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that regulates the collection, dissemination, and use of consumer information in America. The complaint claims that before plaintiff Theresa Richard was hired as a worker at defendant Stanford University's "residential and dining enterprises" she completed Stanford's standard application form during the job application process which permitted Stanford to obtain a "consumer report" -- the FCRA's term for a background check. The complaint claims Stanford's standard application form stated: "I authorize a thorough investigation of my prior employment, education background, criminal record, and where applicable to a position, credit check and/or driving record. I agree to cooperate in such an investigation, to execute any consent forms required in connection with those investigations, and release form [sic] all liability and responsibility all persons or entities requesting or supplying such information. I understand that employment is conditional based on investigation results." Under FCRA 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) and (ii), it is unlawful to procure a consumer report for employment purposes without: "Providing a clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing in a standalone document before the report has been pulled that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes; and Obtaining authorization in writing from a consumer for whom a report will be procured." The class action lawsuit claims: "Because defendant unlawfully included extraneous information in its standard form permitting defendant to obtain a consumer report verifying plaintiff's background and experience, plaintiff was confused by the standard form document and did not understand that defendant would be requesting a 'consumer report' as defined in the FCRA." The class action lawsuit against Stanford University seeks statutory damages of $1,000 for each violation of the FCRA, punitive damages, court costs, and attorneys' fees. The complaint also seeks to represent a Class of individuals estimated to include more than 1,000 job applicants who applied to work at Stanford University and had a consumer report obtained on their background since August 16, 2015. This is not the first time Stanford University has been sued over alleged FCRA violations for unlawfully including extraneous information in its standard application form. In 2015, Stanford faced the same claims from another employee in Lagos v. Leland Stanford Junior University. In December 2015, Lagos survived a motion to dismiss the case and proposed class certifications deadlines in November 2017. Other companies have faced similar lawsuits over the FCRA's "clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing in a standalone document" requirement and lost. In August 2018, ESR News reported that a California federal judge approved a proposed $1.3 million class action lawsuit settlement against a healthcare company for using disclosures "embedded with extraneous information" instead of a standalone document. In July 2018, ESR News reported that a bottling subsidiary of PepsiCo agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle a class action lawsuit that claimed the company violated the FCRA by procuring background reports for employment purposes without making certain required disclosures and failing to disclose that it would obtain a consumer report for employment purposes in a document consisting solely of the disclosure. In April 2018, ESR News also reported that Frito-Lay Inc. -- another subsidiary of PepsiCo -- agreed to pay $2.4 million to settle a class action lawsuit that claimed the snack food manufacturer violated the FCRA by using improper disclosure forms for background checks on job applicants without providing a "clear and conspicuous disclosure… in a document that consists solely of the disclosure." On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins -- which involved a man who claimed FCRA violations for suffering an injury after incorrect information about him was published online -- that consumers must prove "concrete injury" in lawsuits for alleged "bare" violations of federal statutes such as the FCRA as required under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The fact that employers are still targeted in lawsuits for technical violations of the FCRA even after the Spokeo ruling is one of the "ESR Top Ten Background Check Trends" for 2018 selected by Employment Screening Resources(R)(ESR). "In no way did the Supreme Court decision in Spokeo mean employers could relax obligations for FCRA compliance," explained ESR founder and CEO Attorney Lester Rosen, Esq. Passed by Congress in 1970, the FCRA promotes the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information contained in the files of consumer reporting agencies. It is intended to protect consumers from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of inaccurate information in their credit reports and regulates the collection, dissemination, and use of consumer information, including consumer credit information. ESR Offers Two White Papers on Avoiding FCRA Lawsuits Employment Screening Resources(R)(ESR) -- a leading global background screening firm -- offers a complimentary white paper library that includes two white papers that examine the causes that can lead to FCRA class action lawsuits: "Common Ways Prospective or Current Employees Sue Employers Under the FCRA" and "Common Ways Consumer Reporting Agencies are Sued Under the FCRA."[GN] STATE COLLECTION: Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriel Neves, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a federal judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought against a debt collector, saying the plaintiff could continue with the action accusing the collector of wrongly placing collection calls to him, even after he had sent a fax telling them he was represented by a lawyer. The judge also said she would likely rule later on the question of whether the plaintiff effectively waived his prior express consent to receive such calls when he sent the fax. U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis issued a five-page ruling on Oct. 30, rejecting State Collection Service Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings in the class action lawsuit filed by Matthew Bahr over the allegation SCS violated federal law. Bahr alleged SCS violated federal law when it sent him a letter directing him to speak to one of its representatives after the company was told that Bahr had legal representation. He also claimed SCS violated telecommunications law by calling his number using an automated system without his previous consent. SCS filed the pleadings motion stating, per the ruling, that Bahr "failed to plead a lack of prior express consent and that he did not effectively revoke his prior express consent to phone calls under the TCPA." The company is attempting to collect an alleged debt from Bahr, who allegedly owes money to original creditor Advocate Lutheran General. "From November 2017 to February 2018, SCS sent Bahr a series of collection letters informing Bahr of the debt he owed," Ellis wrote in the ruling. "However, the letters made inconsistent assertions regarding both the account number and the amount owed." Bahr consulted with an attorney about discrepancies and whether he owed the alleged debt. He faxed a letter to SCS stating that he had an attorney in February, the ruling states, but SCS sent another letter stating that Bahr "would need to contact SCS if he wanted SCS to discuss the account with a third party." Bahr did not respond, and the company then started calling him via an automated calling system, according to the ruling. "Having determined that Bahr's complaint does not conclusively demonstrate consent so as to require dismissal ... the court need not reach SCS' argument that Bahr's counsel's fax did not effectively revoke any prior consent," Ellis wrote. "The court leaves this determination to a later motion for summary judgment upon a more fully developed record." Bahr is represented by attorney Stacy M. Bardo, Esq. of Bardo Law P.C., of Chicago, and attorneys from Chicago Consumer Law Center P.C., of Chicago. SCS is represented by attorneys from the firm of Bassford Remele, of Minneapolis. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois case number 1:18-cv-02910[GN] STEVEN ALAN: Website not Accessible to Blind, Nixon Says -------------------------------------------------------- DONALD NIXON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. STEVEN ALAN OPERATIONS, LLC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06363 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2018), seeks to put an end to systemic civil rights violations committed by Defendant, against sight-impaired, disabled individuals, under Americans with Disability Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to access and read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all individuals 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 20/200. Some blind individuals who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million individuals in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action against the Defendants for the Defendants' failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products 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 (ADA). Because the Defendants' website is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals, it violates the ADA, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 971-9474 Facsimile: (718) 865-0943 E-mail: Jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com STITCH FIX: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Stitch Fix, Inc. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Stitch Fix, Inc. (NASDAQ: SFIX) Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 10, 2018 Class Period: June 8, 2018 and October 1, 2018 Get additional information about SFIX: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/stitch-fix-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3 Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Telephone: 212.425.1140 Fax: 866.699.3880 Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN] SUNRUN INC: Seeks Initial Approval of $5.5MM Slovin Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Sunrun Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that plaintiffs in Slovin et al. v. Sunrun Inc. and Clean Energy Experts, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-05340, are seeking preliminary approval to settle all claims against the Company for $5.5 million. On November 20, 2015, a putative class action captioned Slovin et al. v. Sunrun Inc. and Clean Energy Experts, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-05340, was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. The complaint generally alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") on behalf of an individual and putative classes of persons alleged to be similarly situated. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on December 2, 2015, and a Second Amended Complaint on March 25, 2016, also asserting individual and putative class claims under the TCPA. By Order entered on April 28, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motion to strike the class allegations set forth in the Second Amended Complaint, and granted leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on July 12, 2016 asserting individual and putative class claims under the TCPA. On October 12, 2016, the Court denied the Company's motion to again strike the class allegations set forth in the Third Amended Complaint. On October 3, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, seeking to, among other things, revise the definitions of the classes that plaintiffs seek to represent. The Company has opposed that motion, which remains pending before the Court. In each iteration of their complaint, plaintiffs seek statutory damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs, on behalf of themselves and the absent classes. On April 12, 2018, the Company and plaintiffs advised the Court that they reached a settlement in principle, and the Court vacated all deadlines relating to the motion for class certification. On September 27, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval to settle all claims against the Company for $5.5 million, which was accrued as of March 31, 2018. Most, if not all, of the claims asserted in the lawsuit relate to activities allegedly engaged in by third-party vendors, for which the Company denies any responsibility. The vendors are contractually obligated to indemnify the Company for losses related to the conduct alleged. The Company has denied, and continues to deny, the claims alleged and the settlement does not reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or liability. The settlement is subject to definitive documentation, class notice and court approval. Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale, ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in the United States. It also sells solar leads. The company markets and sells its products through direct channels, partner channels, mass media, digital media, canvassing, referral, retail, and field marketing. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. SUNRUN INC: Settlement of California Suit Wins Initial Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Sunrun Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a California court has granted preliminary approval of the settlement in the consolidated class action suit. On April 13, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Pytel v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538215, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of the Company's directors and officers, the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and certain other defendants. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), by making false or misleading statements in connection with the Company's August 5, 2015 initial public offering regarding the continuation of net metering programs. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who acquired the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the initial public offering. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, including interest, rescission or rescissory damages, an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, and any equitable or injunctive relief deemed appropriate by the court. On April 29, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Baker et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538419, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. On May 10, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Nunez v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538593, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. The Baker and Nunez complaints are substantially similar to the Pytel complaint, and seek similar relief against similar defendants on behalf of the same purported class. On May 3, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint including allegations related to the alleged effect of customer cancellations on the Company's business. On April 21, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Cohen, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538304, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of the Company's directors and officers, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act by making false or misleading statements in connection with an August 5, 2015 initial public offering regarding the Company's business practices and its dependence on complex financial instruments. The Cohen plaintiffs seek to represent the same class and seek similar relief as the plaintiffs in the Pytel, Nunez, and Baker actions. On September 26, 2016, the Baker, Cohen, Nunez, and Pytel actions were consolidated (such consolidated action referred to as the "state court litigation"). On December 27, 2017, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Following a mediation on May 4, 2018, the parties entered into an agreement in principle to settle all claims asserted in the state court litigation against all defendants. The aggregate amount of the proposed settlement is $32.0 million, $30.1 million of which will be funded by the Company's insurers and the remaining $1.9 million of which was accrued as of June 30, 2018. The Company and all defendants have denied, and continue to deny, the claims alleged in the state court litigation and the settlement does not reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or liability as to any defendant. On September 14, 2018, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement is subject to definitive documentation, shareholder notice and final court approval. Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale, ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in the United States. It also sells solar leads. The company markets and sells its products through direct channels, partner channels, mass media, digital media, canvassing, referral, retail, and field marketing. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Vincent Wong Files Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Synchrony Financial (NYSE: SYF). If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Synchrony Financial (NYSE: SYF) Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 2, 2019 Class Period: October 21, 2016 and November 1, 2018 Get additional information about SYF: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/synchrony-financial-loss-submission-form?wire=3 Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Telephone: 212.425.1140 Fax: 866.699.3880 Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN] TESARO INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Tesaro, Inc. ("Tesaro" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TSRO) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, and indexed under 18-cv-12352, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise, acquired Tesaro securities between November 4, 2016 through November 14, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Tesaro securities between November 4, 2016, and November 14, 2016, both dates inclusive, you have until January 9, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Tesaro is an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company that identifies, acquires, develops, and commercializes cancer therapeutics and oncology supportive care products in the United States. The Company describes its focus as "responsibly develop[ing] and commercializ[ing] innovative treatments where others may not." On July 7, 2016, Tesaro announced the closing of a previously announced underwritten public offering of common stock, pursuant to which the Company sold 5,347,500 shares at an offering price to the public of $81.00 per share (the "July Offering"). In a press release, Tesaro advised investors that the net proceeds from the July Offering would be approximately $409 million. On November 4, 2016, Tesaro filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC, reporting the Company's financial and operating results for the quarter ended September 30, 2016 (the "Q3 2016 10-Q"). The Q3 2016 10-Q stated, inter alia, that "[o]ur balance of cash and cash equivalents as of September 30, 2016, and the cash we expect to generate from sales of VARUBI, are expected to be sufficient to meet our existing cash flow requirements and fund our existing operations at their currently planned levels through at least the twelve months." Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) notwithstanding the completion of the July Offering, Tesaro's liquidity position was insufficient to meet its cash flow requirements and fund its existing operations; (ii) accordingly, unbeknownst to investors, an additional public offering of Tesaro common stock was imminent; and (iii) as a result, Tesaro's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Aftermarket close on November 14, 2016 -- less than four months after the July Offering, and just ten days after assuring investors that VARUBI sales would be sufficient to fund the Company's cash flow requirements and necessary operational funding for the next 12 months -- Tesaro abruptly announced another proposed public offering (the "November Offering"). In a press release, Tesaro stated that the Company had "commenced an underwritten public offering of 1,750,000 shares of its common stock", "pursuant to its automatic shelf registration statement on Form S-3 filed with the [SEC] on June 30, 2016." That same day, Tesaro filed a preliminary prospectus supplement and related prospectus for the November Offering with the SEC. Then, on November 15, 2016, Tesaro issued a second press release, announcing that the offering price for the November Offering would be $135.00 per share -- roughly 9%, lower than the price of Tesaro stock at market close on November 14, 2016 ($148.50), the last trading session prior to the announcement of the November Offering. Following these announcements, Tesaro's share price plunged $17.46 per share, or roughly 11.76%, to close at $131.04 on November 15, 2016, wiping out approximately $607 million in shareholder value. Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Telephone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980 Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] TG THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has commenced on behalf of shareholders of TG Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQCM: TGTX). If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. TG Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQCM: TGTX) Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 3, 2018 Class Period: June 4, 2018 and September 25, 2018 Get additional information about TGTX: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/tg-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3 Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway, Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Telephone: 212.425.1140 Fax: 866.699.3880 Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN] TOWER RESEARCH CAPITAL: Boutchard Hits Illegal Futures Manipulation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Boutchard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kamaldeep Gandhi, Yuchun Mao (a/k/a Bruce Mao), Krishna Mohan, Tower Research Capital LLC and John Doe Nos. 1 – 5, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-07141, (N.D. Ill., October 19, 2018), seeks damages with prejudgment interest, restitution of any and all sums derived from unjust enrichment, reimbursement of costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses, and such other relief for violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. Defendants are a group of futures traders and the trading firms that employ them. In October 2018, the United States Department of Justice brought criminal charges against Mao, Gandhi and Mohan for participating in a scheme to manipulate the prices of E-mini Index Futures contracts traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Boutchard transacted in thousands of E-mini S&P 500 Futures contracts and E-mini NASDAQ 100 Futures contracts and lost money by trading them at artificial prices brought about by the Defendants' unlawful manipulation. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony F. Fata, Esq. Brian O'Connell, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: (312) 782-4880 Fax: (312) 782-4485 Email: afata@caffertyclobes.com boconnell@caffertyclobes.com - and - Vincent Briganti, Esq. Raymond P. Girnys, Esq. Christian P. Levis, Esq. Lee J. Lefkowitz, Esq. Johnathan Seredynski, Esq. Peter Demato, Jr., Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway White Plains, NY 10601 Tel: (914) 997-0500 Fax: (914) 997-0035 Email: vbriganti@lowey.com rgirnys@lowey.com clevis@lowey.com llefkowitz@lowey.com jseredynski@lowey.com pdemato@lowey.com TREVENA INC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Trevena, Inc. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Trevena, Inc. (NASDAQGS: TRVN) Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 10, 2018 Class Period: May 2, 2016 and October 9, 2018 Get additional information about TRVN: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/trevena-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3 Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Telephone: 212.425.1140 Fax: 866.699.3880 Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN] VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Camacho Files ADA Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vanderbilt University. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vanderbilt University, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10694 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Vanderbilt University is a private research university in Nashville, Tennessee. Founded in 1873, it was named in honor of shipping and rail magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt, who provided the school its initial $1 million endowment despite having never been to the South.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com WORKPAC: Adero Law Firm to Intervene in Casual Worker Test Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Dana McCauley, writing for The Age, reports that a class action law firm representing thousands of workers allegedly owed more than $320 million in entitlements will apply to intervene in a casual worker test case. ACT-based law firm Adero was set to apply in the Federal Court to intervene in the case between mining industry labour hire firm WorkPac and its former worker Robert Rossato, which seeks to clarify the definition of a casual worker. WorkPac is seeking a declaration that Mr Rossato was a casual employee and not entitled to annual leave, after being hit with an earlier ruling that a truck driver it employed on a casual basis, Paul Skene, was entitled to leave. It comes after Federal Industrial Relations Minister Kelly O'Dwyer last month applied to intervene in the case on behalf of the Commonwealth, saying the law must be clarified to prevent workers from "double dipping" by claiming leave on top of casual loadings. A WorkPac spokesman said Adero's attempt to join the test case "underscores the real threat posed by opportunistic class action lawyers seeking to double dip on entitlements and exposes the legal minefield potentially faced by small businesses employing casuals". "Businesses small and large are at risk of job-destroying back payment claims from Adero and other class action law firms that want casual employees to be paid twice for the same entitlements," the spokesman said. Adero Law managing director Rory Markham -- who is preparing class actions against Australia's four biggest mining industry labour hire firms, including WorkPac -- said the intervention, on behalf of another former WorkPac employee and class action participant, Beau Daniel Meaney, aimed to ensure that the test case did not adversely impact his clients. "We'll apply tomorrow and suggest the class action should go first," Mr Markham said on Nov. 7. "It is not appropriate that the Commonwealth, or WorkPac on its own, get involved in matters that are the subject of a class action." The firm wants the WorkPac case to be delayed until after the class action has been heard. The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union and Mr Skene, a union member, have also applied to intervene in the fresh WorkPac case. Mr Markham said WorkPac had cherry-picked Mr Rossato, whose legal fees the company is paying, for the test case because he had worked a more regular pattern of hours than the typical labour hire worker, as represented by Mr Skene. He argued that any finding in relation Mr Rossato's employment status was unlikely to bind the thousands of workers who would be able to participate in the WorkPac class action. Mr Markham said he planned to file four class action suits in December - claiming more than $320 million in unpaid entitlements - against WorkPac and fellow mining industry labour hire firms Hays Recruitment, Programmed and One Key Resources. He said the class action against WorkPac would proceed "irrespective of the court's decision" in relation to Adero's intervention application. A WorkPac spokesman said casual employees "are already paid for their entitlements in the form of a higher hourly rate". "That's the way the system was designed to work, and this approach is reflected in agreements and awards approved by the Fair Work Commission," the spokesman said. "Double dipping is manifestly unfair and poses a significant risk to businesses and the Australian economy." The Australian Industry Group last month referred Adero's class action to the ACCC, citing concerns about the wording of an agreement with overseas litigation funder Augusta Ventures, which requires a 250 per cent return on costs. A spokesman for the competition watchdog said on Nov. 7: "The ACCC has received the Ai Group's letter and is considering the issues raised." AI Group chief executive Innes Willox said it was "obviously unfair" for an employee to pursue a claim for years of back-pay for annual leave if they had been paid a casual loading. "It is important that Parliament legislates without delay to prevent opportunistic double-dipping claims being pursued by class action lawyers," Mr Willox said. [GN] [*] Calif.'s New Class Action Guidelines Raises Fresh Concerns -------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Recorder, reports that the Northern District of California's new procedural guidance for class action settlements is among the most detailed in the nation, prompting welcome relief to critics but raising fresh concerns for some practitioners. The guidance, announced on Nov. 1, comes as little surprise to lawyers who practice in the Northern District of California, which is home to numerous consumer class actions and judges who have spoken out about reforms. The guidance also mimics proposed changes to the Federal Rule 23 of Civil Procedure. But the Northern District's guidance seeks to implement some of the most far-reaching revisions in the country. Many lawyers said it creates transparency that's been long needed in the class action process. "It's a good first step," said Joel Fleming -- joel@blockesq.com -- a partner at Block & Leviton in Boston. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant and, generally speaking, having more information to the courts and the class is a good thing." Defense attorneys and law professors who have called for more transparency in the class action process praised the new procedures. "They've done a wonderful job of figuring out what are the most important things to worry about, and let's make sure every judge has a checklist," said Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School. "They are wise to focus on what happens to the money after the settlement's approved because we don't know." The guidelines apply to all of the district's judges, some of whom already have detailed standing orders on class action settlements. Others have raised numerous questions about class action settlements before approving them. "It's been my experience that the judges in the Northern District of California have been more attentive to these issues than others in the country," said William Rubenstein, a professor at Harvard Law School. Among other things, the guidance asks lawyers to provide billing calculations in class counsel's fee request, identify the process used to select the settlement administrator, consider social media and a marketing specialist for the notice program, disclose relationships between the parties and cy pres recipients, and file an accounting of the settlement 21 days after distributing the fund to the class. Most of the concerns, such as poor claims rates or leftover settlement funds that revert to the defendants, focus on consumer class actions, not securities fraud cases, Mr. Fleming said. For most lawyers, he said, the guidelines shouldn't impact how they do their jobs. "If a settlement is reached that would benefit the attorneys more than class members, this information being required will probably serve as a deterrent because it's getting at information that's useful for class members to know," Mr. Fleming said. "But for plaintiffs' lawyers doing their jobs, and keeping the best interests of class members at heart, I don't think any of this would change the way you'd litigate your case or change the way you'd structure a settlement. It will require careful review of your materials to make sure you're complying, but it won't have a strategic impact." The biggest change in the guidelines is the accounting guidance. That revision is noteworthy because, in most cases, judges don't keep up with what happens to a class action settlement after granting final approval. And there's a slew of information that lawyers are supposed to post on the settlement's website: The number of notices sent to class members, claim forms submitted, opt-outs and objections, for example, and the average, largest and smallest amounts paid to class members, methods of notice and payment, number and amount of checks not cashed—all in an "easy-to-read chart." The accounting revision is similar to a requirement tucked into a class action reform bill that the U.S. House of Representatives passed last year. "It's very hard to determine whether class settlements are doing what they're supposed to be doing if you don't know where the money goes and where it winds up, and you don't know how much of the class gets paid," said Andrew Trask -- atrask@shb.com -- of counsel at Shook, Hardy & Bacon in San Francisco. "In the past, it's the propriety information of the settlement vendor. So the defendant might see that information in a few cases, but usually they don't. To the degree we continue to have debates over what class certification ought to be and what class settlement ought to look like, having that information publicly available is better than not having it." Mr. Fitzpatrick said the data also would help law professors who study class action trends. "The data that we will be able to gather from these new guidelines will help inform a lot of debate and discussions about whether the class action system is working as intended," he said. "They're making a great contribution to the public understanding of class actions by requiring the lawyers to be transparent and return to the court with this data." But the guidelines haven't come without new concerns. Mr. Rubenstein said the guidance could "dissuade lawyers from filing in the Northern District because it feels like more hoops to jump through." Mr. Fitzpatrick specifically flagged the revisions prompting plaintiffs attorneys to turn over their lodestar billing, which are the hours they worked on the case multiplied by their hourly rate. He said such a mandate could encourage more judges to use the lodestar when assessing an attorney fee request that is based on a percentage of the settlement fund. That's not required in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, he said. More importantly, he said, the practice raised concerns about the motivations of plaintiffs attorneys in settling class actions. "The more and more courts that are doing lodestar cross-checks, the more lawyers are going to worry they need to bill a bunch of hours in order to get a decent fee award instead of focusing on the most important thing, which is getting the most recovery for the class," Mr. Fitzpatrick said. Mr. Fleming agreed that requiring lodestar could create "misaligned incentives" but, in most cases, plaintiffs lawyers are prepared to submit billing records as part of their fee requests in the event judges use them as cross-checks. Ted Frank, a frequent critic of class action settlements, raised another question about the guidance: "What are the consequences when the guidelines are shirked?" Frank, director of litigation at the Center for Class Action Fairness at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, noted that the Ninth Circuit, in an unpublished decision on Nov. 5, found a district judge's noncompliance with one provision of Rule 23 to be "harmless." That provision requires that class members have the opportunity to oppose attorney fee requests before a settlement's approval. But the Ninth Circuit, in a class action involving false advertising claims against Kohl's, found that remanding the fee issue, while upholding the settlement, would remedy the error. "If there aren't consequences for, say, failing to disclose cy pres conflicts or previous settlement track records, settling parties will be worse off if they comply -- and simply won't," Mr. Frank wrote in an email. [GN] [*] Gibson Dunn Promotes 17 Lawyers to Partnership -------------------------------------------------- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP on Nov. 26 disclosed that the firm has elected 17 new partners, effective January 1, 2019. "We would like to congratulate our new partners on this important professional achievement," said Ken Doran, Chairman and Managing Partner of Gibson Dunn. "The new partners come from diverse backgrounds and experiences, but they all exemplify the core values of the firm -- excellence, professionalism and collegiality and, as our partners, I know that they will continue to uphold our highest traditions." The new partners are: Jefferson Bell, Esq. -- jbell@gibsondunn.com -- (Litigation, Securities/New York) -- Mr. Bell's experience includes a wide variety of complex civil litigation and securities/M&A litigation, with an emphasis on high stakes disputes in the financial services industry. Mr. Bell graduated cum laude in 2006 from Harvard Law School, where he was an articles editor for the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. Ryan T. Bergsieker, Esq. -- rbergsieker@gibsondunn.com -- (Litigation, White Collar, Privacy and Cybersecurity/Denver) -- Mr. Bergsieker is a former federal cybercrime prosecutor who has tried more than 45 civil and criminal cases to verdict. His practice is focused on government investigations, complex civil litigation, and information security/data privacy counseling. Mr. Bergsieker graduated from Yale Law School in 2004, where he served as Comments Editor of the Yale Law Journal. He clerked for Judge David M. Ebel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Michael H. Dore, Esq. -- mdore@gibsondunn.com -- (Litigation, White Collar/Los Angeles) -- A former federal prosecutor, Mr. Dore focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation matters, particularly law firm defense and media and entertainment litigation, as well as white collar criminal defense matters and internal investigations. He has particular experience representing technology companies in financial fraud and data security matters. Mr. Dore graduated in 2003 from the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was a member of the Virginia Law Review. Krista P. Hanvey, Esq. -- khanvey@gibsondunn.com -- (Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits/Dallas) -- Ms. Hanvey has significant experience with all aspects of executive compensation, retirement plan, and health and welfare benefit plan compliance, planning, and transactional matters. She also regularly advises clients with respect to general corporate governance matters. She graduated first in her class from William and Mary School of Law in 2009, where she served as Senior Articles Editor of the William & Mary Law Review. Abbey Hudson, Esq. -- ahudson@gibsondunn.com -- (Litigation, Environmental and Mass Tort / Los Angeles) -- Hudson practices complex trial litigation, with an emphasis on environmental, transnational and technological litigation. She also helps clients navigate environmental and emerging regulations and related governmental investigations. Hudson graduated from Columbia University in 2009, where she was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar and president of OutLaws, Columbia's LGBT law student organization. Jeffrey M. Jakubiak, Esq. -- jjakubiak@gibsondunn.com -- (Energy, Regulation and Litigation / New York and Washington, D.C.) -- Mr. Jakubiak's practice focuses on energy matters at the crossroads of law and economics before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the federal courts, particularly those involving electric company mergers, power sales, electric transmission rates, market development, and allegations of market manipulation. Mr. Jakubiak graduated from Cornell Law School in 1997, where he was an Olin Foundation Law and Economics Scholar. Allison H. Kidd, Esq. -- akidd@gibsondunn.com -- (Real Estate / San Francisco) -- Mr. Kidd's practice encompasses a wide variety of commercial real estate transactions and land use/development matters, including acquisitions and dispositions, construction and permanent financing, joint ventures, processing of entitlements and structuring of public-private partnerships. She received a law degree and master of public policy, with an emphasis on urban development policy, in 2008 from the University of California, Los Angeles. Andrew LeGrand, Esq. -- alegrand@gibsondunn.com -- (Litigation / Dallas) -- Mr. LeGrand is a complex commercial litigator who principally focuses on class actions and other high-stakes commercial disputes. He has successfully defended corporate clients against claims of fraud, breach of contract, products liability, consumer protection violations, and antitrust violations. He graduated in 2009 from Columbia Law School, where he was an editor of the Columbia Law Review and a Harlan Fiske Stone scholar. Mr. LeGrand clerked for Judge A. Joe Fish in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and Judge Ann Claire Williams in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Mary Beth Maloney, Esq. -- mmaloney@gibsondunn.com -- (Litigation / New York) -- Mr. Maloney's practice focuses on high-stakes complex commercial and business litigation in state, federal, and bankruptcy courts. She is a trusted advisor to numerous public companies, asset funds, fund managers, and portfolio companies. Mr. Maloney graduated from University of Southern California Gould School of Law in 2007, where she was the Editor-in-Chief of the Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, and clerked for Judge Alicemarie Stotler, then-chief judge of the Central District of California. Keith R. Martorana, Esq. -- kmartorana@gibsondunn.com -- (Business Restructuring / New York) -- Mr. Martorana represents debtors, financial institutions, creditor groups and hedge funds inside and outside of chapter 11 in numerous industries, including the retail, communications, energy, homebuilding, automotive, emergency services, commercial real estate, and manufacturing sectors. Mr. Martorana graduated magna cum laude from New York Law School in 2007, where he served as Executive Articles Editor of the New York Law School Law Review. Jason R. Meltzer, Esq. -- jmeltzer@gibsondunn.com -- (Litigation, Class Actions / Washington, D.C.) -- Mr. Meltzer has experience in a wide range of complex commercial litigation, with an emphasis on securities and consumer products class action defense. He also has extensive experience representing clients in antitrust, mass tort, breach of contract, commercial fraud, insurance and merger-related litigation. Mr. Meltzer graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 2005. Jeremy Robison, Esq. -- wrobison@gibsondunn.com -- (Litigation, Antitrust / Washington, D.C.) -- Mr. Robison's practice focuses on antitrust and white-collar criminal defense matters, including litigation, internal investigations, and regulatory enforcement actions. He received his law degree magna cum laude in 2010 from the Georgetown University Law Center, where he served as Managing Editor of The Georgetown Law Journal and was a member of the Order of the Coif. Lena Sandberg, Esq. -- lsandberg@gibsondunn.com -- (Antitrust / Brussels) -- Ms. Sandberg's practice covers competition law, especially State aid and other aspects of competition law, such as abuse of a dominant position, cartels, and merger filings. In addition, she has extensive sectoral regulatory experience in the energy/environmental and electronic communications sectors. She also has strong experience in public procurement. Ms. Sandberg graduated from the University of Copenhagen in 1995. Akiva Shapiro, Esq. -- ashapiro@gibsondunn.com -- (Litigation / New York) -- Mr. Shapiro's practice focuses on a broad range of high-stakes constitutional, commercial, and appellate litigation matters. He has successfully represented clients in suits involving civil RICO, securities fraud, breach of contract, tortious interference, and forgery claims, as well as constitutional and other exceeding-the-scope-of-authority challenges to government actions and regulations. Shapiro graduated in 2008 from Columbia Law School, where he was a senior editor of the Columbia Law Review, a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar, and a semifinalist in the Harlan Fiske Stone Honors Moot Court competition. Jeffrey L. Steiner, Esq. -- jsteiner@gibsondunn.com -- (Financial Institutions, Derivatives / Washington, D.C.) -- Mr. Steiner advises a range of clients, including commercial end-users, financial institutions, dealers, hedge funds, private equity funds, clearinghouses, industry groups and trade associations on regulatory, legislative and transactional matters related to over-the-counter and listed derivatives, commodities and securities. He also advises clients on regulatory and enforcement matters relating to digital currencies and distributed ledger technology. Before joining Gibson Dunn, Steiner was special counsel in the Division of Market Oversight at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. He graduated from Tulane Law School in 2004, where he was a Business Editor of the Tulane Environmental Law Journal. Daniela L. Stolman, Esq. -- dstolman@gibsondunn.com -- (Corporate, Mergers and Acquisitions, Private Equity / Los Angeles) -- Ms. Stolman advises companies and private equity firms across a wide range of industries on public and private merger transactions, stock and asset sales, and public and private capital-raising transactions. She also advises public companies on federal securities law and corporate governance matters. She graduated from University of Southern California Law School in 2006 where she was elected to the Order of the Coif and was a Senior Editor of the Southern California Law Review. Daniel A. Zygielbaum, Esq. -- dzygielbaum@gibsondunn.com -- (Tax / Washington, D.C.) -- Mr. Zygielbaum's practice focuses on tax planning for mergers & acquisitions, joint ventures, fund formations, REITs, real estate investments, and capital markets transactions. He has worked on a wide range of matters, including public and private mergers & acquisitions, cross-border transactions, REIT formations, acquisitions and dispositions, investment fund formations, and real estate joint ventures. He has also represented clients in tax controversy matters before the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Zygielbaum received his J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School in 2010. About Gibson Dunn Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP -- https://www.gibsondunn.com -- is an international law firm. Consistently ranking among the world's top law firms in industry surveys and major publications, Gibson Dunn is distinctively positioned in today's global marketplace with more than 1,300 lawyers and 20 offices, including Beijing, Brussels, Century City, Dallas, Denver, Dubai, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Houston, London, Los Angeles, Munich, New York, Orange County, Palo Alto, Paris, San Francisco, Sao Paulo, Singapore, and Washington, D.C. ********* 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 ***