/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/181205.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, December 5, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 243 Headlines 212 SERVICES: Underpays Asbestos Handlers, Sanchez-Marin Says 247 DELI: Rivera Villagomez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Rosenblatt Class Action ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Leavitt Files Securities Class Action ALTISOURCE ASSET: 3d Cir. Affirms Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in N.Y. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settles Price-Fixing Class Action for $45MM AMPLIFY ENERGY: Thompson Sues over Wage-and-Hour Laws Violation APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Bid to Dismiss Texas Suit Still Pending APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Faces Taneja & Pokoik Class Suits in Texas ARIZONA BILTMORE: Faces Class Action Over Bed Bugs ASC INC: Conditional Certification of Leonardo Class Partly Granted BANK OF AMERICA: $11MM McLeod Settlement Has Prelim Approval BANK OZK: Class Action Threat Hits Profitability Growth BARINGS BDC: Bid to Dismiss North Carolina Securities Suit Pending BARINGS BDC: Continues to Defend Hammer Class Suit BEF FOODS: Sar Sues over Misleading Product Presentation BIG PICTURE: Williams et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Virginia BILL GRAHAM: Kihn Seeks to Certify Composer and Performer Classes BORAL INDUSTRIES: Underpays Construction Workers, Bishop Alleges CALIBER HOME: 3rd Amended Razuki Suit Dismissed with Prejudice CALIFORNIA: Cal. App. Grants Warner's Bid for Writ of Mandate CALLOOH CALLAY: Underpays Ironers, River Suit Alleges CANADA: Groups Call for End of Coerced Indigenous Sterilizations CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Sought in Voeks Suit CAPITAL ONE: Doak Sues over Credit Background Checks CAPTAIN MIKE'S: Zaca et al Seek Unpaid Wages for Delivery Workers CARIBBEAN CRUISE: McCabe Appeals "Birchmeier" Ruling to 7th Cir. CARNEGIE INVESTMENTS: Nixon Files Class Action in NY Under ADA CAROLINA FIRST BANK: African American Applicants Claim Bias CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Abella Sues over Debt Collection Practices CENTENE CORPORATION: Removes Cisneros Suit to S.D. California CHIASMA INC: Still Defends Gerneth Securities Class Action CIELO VISTA: Trial Court Must Identify Costilla County Landowners CLEAR CHANNEL: GAMCO Files Class Suit vs. iHeartMedia CLEARVIEW SM: Underpays Laborers, Melgars Allege COINBASE INC: Faces Diaz Suit for Disabilities Act Breach CRIMSON WINE: Court Grants Final Approval of Settlement CSWS, LLC: Powell et al Seek Minimum Wages & OT Pay for Dancers DAMENZO'S INC: Sanchez Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA DARPHIN LLC: Diaz Files ADA Class Action in New York DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Students Sue Over Professor Sexual Misconduct DEFY MEDIA: Faces WARN Class Action in California DENTSPLY SIRONA: Castronovo & Golombeck Suits Consolidated DENTSPLY SIRONA: Futuredontics Still Defends Olivares Class Suit DIVINE MIRACLES: Settlement in Hohensee Suit Has Court Approval DONA MARIA: Final Approval of $275,000 FLSA Suit Settlement Sought DXC TECHNOLOGY: Settlement Reached in Forsyth Class Suit DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Perry Sues over Debt Collection Practices EDISON INT'L: Jan. 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ELECTRIC BEACH: Mitchell Seeks OT and Minimum Wage ENDOCYTE INC: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action in NY ENDOCYTE INC: Wheby Balks at Merger Deal with Novartis ENERGY TRANSFER: Parties in Warner Class Suit Agree to Stay Suit ENERGY TRANSFER: Trial in Dieckman Class Suit Set for Sept. 2019 ENHANCED RECOVERY: Geisinsky Sues Over Debt Collection Practices EWC UNION: Fair Seeks Unpaid Wages for Wax Specialist EXPEDIA INC: Diaz Brings Class Suit in NY Under ADA FAHERTY BRAND: Fischler Sues Clothing Brand for ADA Violation FANNIE MAE: Dismissal of Suit Challenging 3rd Amendment Affirmed FASION RETAIL: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Says FITNESS FORMULA: Court Tosses Out M. Wheeler's EFTA Claims FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Made Unsolicited Calls, Miller Says GAL FOOD: Ventura Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime GALERIE DE POP: Women's Clothing Shop Faces ADA Suit GARNIER LLC: Diaz Sues Cosmetics Firm Under Disabilities Act GEO GROUP: Immigration Detainees' Class Suits Ongoing GERBER PRODUCTS: Class Decertification in Zakaria Upheld GLAMGLOW LLC: Skincare Product Maker Faces Suit in New York GLOBAL EAGLE: Fairness Hearing in M&M Hart Suit Set for March 2019 HAIN CELESTIAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit HAIN CELESTIAL: Stockholder Class & Derivative Suit Remains Stayed HARKINS ADMINISTRATIVE: Removes Garcia Suit to C.D. California HEADCLICKS INC: Okoe Files Fraud Class Suit HERC HOLDINGS: 3rd. Cir. Affirms Dismissal in Ramirez Suit HESS CORPORATION: Website not Accessible to Blind, Figueroa Says HOMEAWAY.COM: Martinez Sues Web Portal Operator HUDSON CITY: Refused to Stay Foreclosure Case, Lins Claim HUUUGE INC: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in Wilson Suit I.C. SYSTEM: Violates Debt Collection Practices Act, Says Iskhakov IDAHO: Prison Officials Face Jones Ward Suit INDIANA: Court Certifies JJC Juvenile Detainees' Suit K & S ACW: Sandoval Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA K2M GROUP: Brown and Franchi Suits Voluntarily Dismissed KANSAS: Faces Class Action Over Foster Care System KENDO HOLDINGS: Faces Lawsuit in NY Under Disabilities Act KERYX BIOPHARMA: Faces Several Akebia Merger-Related Suits KEURIG DR PEPPER: Settlement Agreement in LAMPERS Suit Approved KONA GRILL: Trial Date on Boots Class Suit Set for April 1 KRISHNA SCHAUMBURG: Appeal Likely in BIPA Class Action Ruling LIBERTY MEDIA: Class Certification Bid in Buchanan Suit Ongoing LIVE NATION: Faces Class Action Over Marshmello Concert LIVINGSTON AUTO: Wortmann et al. Seek Wages for Car Wash Workers LOAD TRAIL: Faces Class Action Over Workers' Unpaid OT Wages LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Kohler's Bid for Writ of Mandate Okayed MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Bid For Class Certification in Lennen Underway MDL 2801: Court Certifies Capacitors Antitrust Suit MEDICAL RECORDS ONLINE: Sued over Steep Hospital Records Fees MENARD INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Astarita Suit MENGUIN INC: Faces Fischler Class Suit in NY METRO-TECH SYSTEMS: Court Denies as Moot Bid to Dismiss Manigo Suit MIDLAND FUNDING: Olson Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York MILESTONE MANAGEMENT: Santana Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA MONSANTO COMPANY: Riordan Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONTE R. LEE: Arredondo FLSA Suit Moved to N.D. Oklahoma MOTION RECRUITMENT: Violates ADA, Nixon Suit Asserts N.Y. CONSERVATORY: Faces Camacho Suit Asserting ADA Breach NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Montajo's Bid for Partial Summary Judgment OK'd NATUS MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Costabile Class Suit NECTAR RESTAURANT: Vidal Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA NEIGHBORHOOD PLAYHOUSE: Camacho Suit Alleges ADA Breach NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Faces Mulquin Securities Class Suit NEVSUN RESOURCES: Raul Sues over Misleading Reports, Merger Deal NEW MOOSEJAW: Revitch Sues over Alleged Wiretapping of Computers NEWEGG INC: Sued by Diaz for Violating ADA NORTH CAROLINA: Court Partly Allows Alvarez Suit to Proceed NORTH CAROLINA: Court Partly Allows Johnson Suit to Proceed OLIVE NAIL: Macas Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Costas Class Suit ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit v. PGV Unit ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Riche Class Action vs. USG Ongoing ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Tel Aviv Class Action Stayed PACCAR INC: Claims in Anderson Suit over Defective Engines Narrowed PACIFIC BELL: Failed to Pay Wages & Overtime, Herrera Says PACIFIC UNION: Mortgage Late Fees "Excessive," Hopkins et al. Say PAIGE LAW: Matjusinas Sue over Debt Collection Practices PARK HOTELS & RESORT: Fischler Brings Suit for ADA Breach PETPLATE INC: Slade Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Violation PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Lipitor-Related Antitrust Suits PFIZER INC: Hormone Therapy Consumer Class Action Ongoing PFIZER INC: Still Defends EpiPen Consolidated Class Suit PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Class Suit over Effexor XR Sales PINKO US: Nixon Files Disabilities Act Suit v. Fashion Brand PIQ-SOH LLC: Pet Insurance Service Firm Faces ADA Class Suit POPULAR INC: 2nd Motion for Reconsideration in Torres Suit Pending POPULAR INC: Appeal over Camacho Case Ruling Underway POPULAR INC: Bid for Reconsideration in Maura Suit Still Pending POPULAR INC: Says Settlement in Valle Suit Final and Unappealable PORT RESOURCES: Seeks 1st Cir. Review of Ruling in Giguere Suit PRINSTON PHARMA: Neal Sues over Contaminated Valsartan Drugs PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: 2d Cir. Tosses Bid to Appeal PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Order in PICA v. U.S. Bank Modified QUDIAN INC: Court Stays Securities Suit Over 2017 IPO RAKUTEN COMMERCE: Online Retailer Faces Class Action in NY RANBAXY PHARMA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Fenwick Class RANDSTAD GENERAL: Nixon Suit Asserts ADA Violation RELIANT CAPITAL: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Avila FDCPA Suit RFA BRANDS: Portable Charger Capacity Deceptive, Mancuso Claims RINGCENTRAL INC: Appeal in Supply Pro Sorbents Lawsuit Ongoing RINGCENTRAL INC: Continues to Defend Hurley TCPA Class Suit ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY: Camacho Sues Asserting ADA Violation ROSS STORES: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Morrison Suit RUBY THAI: Underpays Restaurant Workers, Martinez Claims RUBY TUESDAY: Robbins Geller to Lead in Securities Fraud Suit RUSSELL TOBIN: Violates Disabilities Act, Nixon Class Suit Says SABER HEALTHCARE: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Ruling in Bartels Suit SAN DIEGO OUTLET: Court Consolidates Outlaw's Suits SANDRIDGE ENERGY: West and Hopson Class Suit Dismissed SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Bid for Partial Judgment in Lanier Pending SANFORD KAHN: Dupes Tenants over Eviction Notice, Montes Claims SHAUN'S TOWING: Attorneys Can Start Sending Class Action Notices SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Appeal in New York Class Action Still Pending SIGNATURE CARE: Faces Adolphe Suit in New York Supreme Court SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Gentry Homes' Class Action Ongoing SINCLAIR BROADCAST: 22 Price Fixing Suits Filed over TV Ad Rates SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Continues to Defend Komito Class Suit SNEAKERSNSTUFF INC: Store Sued for Alleged ADA Violation SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Consolidated Suit in Nevada STITCH FIX: Weismann Alleges Misleading Business Reports STORCK USA: Underfills Werther's Candy Bags, Woods Suit Claims SUMA SUSHI: Placido Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime under FLSA TAKL INC: Violates ADA, Crosson Suit Alleges TREATMENT PARTNERS: Williams Seeks Unpaid Wages for Therapists TREVENA INC: Faces Class Suits in Pennsylvania TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Suit Ongoing TRUECAR INC: Appeal in Gordon Rose Class Action Underway TRUECAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Milbeck Complaint Underway TRUECAR INC: Ruling in Cal. Consumer Class Suit under Appeal TWILIO INC: Jan. 15 Initial Approval Hearing on Flowers Settlement U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES: Failed to Pay OT, Hernandez Suit Says UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Del Toro Lopez Deal Has Final Approval ULTA SALON: Medeiros Suit Moved to Eastern District of California ULTIMATE SERVICES: Servil Seeks Unpaid Wages for Home Care Workers UNITED STATES: ICE Faces Class Action Over Immigrant Detentions UNITED STATES: Navy Class Action Over Bad Paper Discharges OK'd UNITED WHOLESALE: Mekaway Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA UPTOWN COMMUNICATIONS: Underpays Technicians, Clark Suit Alleges US XPRESS: Jury Trial in Cal. Wage & Hour Suit Set for Feb. 2019 VENCHI 2: Faces Lawsuit Under Disabilities Act VIRGINIA: Court Narrows Claims in Unaccompanied Minors Suit VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Decision in Final Approval Hearing Reserved VUZIX CORP: Mulls Bid to Dismiss 2 NY Securities Class Suits WAL-MART ASSOC: Decertification of Magadia Meal Period Class Nixed WALSH CONSTRUCTION: Navar et al. Sue over Gender Discrimination WAYFAIR LLC: Diaz Sues Over Disabilities Act Breach WELEDA INC: Sued in New York for ADA Violation WILLS TOWERS: Sullivan Says Advisory Firm Violates ADA WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Still Defends EarthLink Merger-Related Suits WYETH INC: Court Narrows Claims in Effexor Antitrust Suit ZION OIL: Faces Putative Class Action in Texas ********* 212 SERVICES: Underpays Asbestos Handlers, Sanchez-Marin Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ELVIA SANCHEZ-MARIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 212 SERVICES, LLC; and ADESANOLA OLADIRAN, Defendants, Case No. CV18-6050 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2018) is an action for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Sanchez-Marin was employed by the Defendants as asbestos handler. 212 Services, LLC is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 247 DELI: Rivera Villagomez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------ CRISTIAN RIVERA VILLAGOMEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 247 DELI LLC (D/B/A DELICATESSEN), 247 DELICATESSEN MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC (D/B/A DELICATESSEN), MARK T. AMADEI, ANDREW GLASSBERG, MICHAEL FERRERO, FABIAN DOE, and JEFF CURRAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10515 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker. However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to cleaning the windows, cleaning the sidewalk, taking out the trash, running errand for the owners to buy food for the owners, the owner's girlfriend and friends, picking up laundry, picking up clothes and accessories at stores for the owner, bringing things to the owner's apartment such as a washing machine, taking things such as kitchen equipment when Defendant Michael Ferrero was cooking at home and stocking deliveries in the basement. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants without appropriate minimum wage compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Rivera appropriately for any hours worked at the straight rate of pay. The Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiff Rivera as a delivery worker in their payroll, but in actuality his duties required a significant amount of time spent performing the alleged non-tipped duties. Regardless, the Defendants paid Plaintiff Rivera at a rate that was lower than the required tip-credit rate. However, under both the FLSA and NYLL, Defendants were not entitled to take a tip credit because Plaintiff Rivera's non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday, or 2 hours per day, whichever is less in each day. The Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising Plaintiff Rivera’s actual duties in payroll records by designating him as a delivery worker instead of as a non-tipped employee. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiff Rivera at the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay him at the tip-credit rate. In addition, Defendants maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully appropriating Plaintiff Rivera’s and other tipped employees’ tips and made unlawful deductions from Plaintiff Rivera's and other tipped employees' wages, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employementcompliance.com AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Rosenblatt Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has been named as defendant in a shareholder class action suit entitled, Rosenblatt v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. On October 23, 2018, an alleged shareholder of Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or Keryx, filed a putative shareholder class action against Keryx, the members of the Keryx board of directors, Alpha Therapeutics Merger Sub, Inc., the company's wholly owned subsidiary, or the Merger Sub, and Akebia challenging the disclosures made in connection with the pending merger of Merger Sub with and into Keryx, or the Merger. The lawsuit, Rosenblatt v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint generally alleges that the registration statement filed in connection with the Merger fails to disclose certain allegedly material information. The alleged omissions relate to (i) certain financial projections for Keryx and Akebia and certain financial analyses performed by Keryx’s advisors; (ii) certain terms relating to the engagement of Perella Weinberg Partners by Keryx; and (iii) any alleged negotiations that may have taken place regarding future employment and directorship of the Keryx's officers and directors. The plaintiff asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against Keryx and the members of the Keryx board of directors, and claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the members of the Keryx board of directors, Akebia, and Merger Sub. The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the Merger and seeks damages in the event the transaction is consummated. Akebia Therapeutics said, "We and Keryx believe that the plaintiff’s allegations are without merit; however, litigation is inherently uncertain and there can be no assurance that Keryx’s or our defense of the action will be successful." Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of novel therapeutics for patients with renal disease through hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) biology. he company was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Leavitt Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Caryl Hull Leavitt individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., John M. Maraganore, Manmeet S. Soni, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12433-NMG (D. Mass., Nov. 21, 2018). The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, discovers, develops, and commercializes novel therapeutics based on RNA interference (RNAi). Its pipeline of investigational RNAi therapeutics focuses on genetic medicines, cardio-metabolic diseases, and hepatic infectious diseases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq. Pomerantz LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Email: ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Pomerantz LLP 600 Third Avenue 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Scott D. Musoff, Esq. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (NYC) Four Times Square New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 735-3000 Fax: (212) 735-2000 Email: smusoff@skadden.com - and - Alisha Quintana Nanda, Esq. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP 500 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 573-4800 Fax: (617) 573-4822 Email: Alisha.Nanda@skadden.com - and - Marley Ann Brumme, Esq. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (MA) 500 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 573-4861 Fax: (617) 305-4861 Email: marley.brumme@skadden.com ALTISOURCE ASSET: 3d Cir. Affirms Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CITY OF CAMBRIDGE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, On behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, et al., v. ALTISOURCE ASSET MANAGEMENT CORP; WILLIAM C. ERBEY; KENNETH NAJOUR; ASHISH PANDEY; ROBIN LOWE, Denver Employee Retirement Plan, Appellant, Case No. 17-2471 (3d Cir.), Judge D. Michael Fisher of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim. In the securities fraud class action, former shareholders allege that Altisource and several of its officers ("AAMC") inflated the price of its stock through false and misleading statements. When these mistruths were revealed to the market, the allegation goes, the price of AAMC's stock plummeted, costing shareholders billions of dollars. AAMC is one of several independent, but affiliated, companies founded by William Erbey. The first company, Ocwen Financial, was created in 1988 and became the country's largest purchaser of non-performing mortgage loans in the 1990s. Companies earn profit from non-performing mortgages by either efficiently foreclosing on the underlying properties or by bringing the loans to current status. The 2008 housing crisis changed this picture. As droves of borrowers fell behind on their mortgages, the largest mortgage holders found themselves ill-equipped to service the ballooning number of delinquent, non-performing loans. This led to widespread corner-cutting -- e.g., robo-signing of foreclosure documents, fraudulent affidavits, and other abusive servicing practices -- which culminated in the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement. Under this agreement, the nation's five largest mortgage holders, all banks, agreed to provide more than $50 billion worth of relief to mistreated homeowners. The initial complaint in the class action was filed on Jan. 16, 2015 by City of Cambridge Retirement System. After being appointed as the lead Plaintiff, Denver Employees Retirement Plan filed a significantly revised amended complaint, which it captioned its "Consolidated Complaint." The Plaintiffs base their fraud claims on two principal classes of statements made by AAMC. First, they argue that AAMC misrepresented the benefits attributable to its relationship with Ocwen. The second category of alleged misrepresentations concerns AAMC's stated policy of requiring its officers -- Erbey in particular -- to recuse themselves from any transactions involving other Ocwen-affiliated companies. The Plaintiffs allege that this disclosure was false and misleading because it omits to disclose that the Related-Party Transaction Policy was widely disregarded by Defendant Erbey and others. AAMC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The District Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). Roughly three weeks later, the Plaintiffs sought leave to reopen the case and further amend the complaint, attaching a proposed second amended complaint to its motion. After considering the proposed complaint, the District Court denied leave to amend as futile. The Plaintiffs then filed the timely appeal. Judge Fisher finds that the Plaintiffs allege that AAMC misrepresented both the benefits of its relationship with Ocwen and its adherence to a recusal policy designed to protect against conflicts of interest. However, the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently plead falsity as to either category. The statements concerning AAMC's relationship with Ocwen were not misleading in the context in which they were made because AAMC's reliance on Ocwen only extended to its ability to service the loans acquired by AAMC. Likewise, the complaint does not plausibly allege that AAMC's statements about its recusal policy were false or misleading. Instead, it simply speculates that Erbey must have violated the AAMC recusal policy because he is suspected to have done so with other companies. Neither allegation satisfies the PSLRA's strict standards for stating a claim. Even if they had sufficiently alleged that AAMC made false or misleading statements, the Judge holds that this alone would not be enough to survive a motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs must also plead facts sufficient to create a "strong inference" that AAMC intended to defraud shareholders (scienter), and adequately allege that, when the truth was revealed about those fraudulent statements, the Plaintiffs suffered an economic harm as a result (loss causation). Both factors are predicated upon a sufficient pleading of false or misleading statements. Because he holds that the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy this first requirement, he declines to go so far as to postulate whether AAMC may have intended to defraud shareholders with non-fraudulent statements. Nor does he we speculate whether statements made -- that do not correct or contradict misleading statements by AMMC -- could reasonably have caused economic harm to the Plaintiffs. Instead, the Judge concludes his analysis at his finding of no falsity and holds that the Plaintiffs have not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. Finally, he finds that the economic harm suffered by AAMC's investors is certainly regrettable, but the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that this harm arose from fraud. When a stock experiences the rapid rise and fall that occurred here, it will not usually prove difficult to mine from the economic wreckage a few discrepancies in the now-deflated company's records. In passing the PSLRA, Congress concluded that the very stability of our capital markets depends on forestalling meritless suits while preserving for "defrauded investors" the "indispensable tool" of private litigation. Because the Plaintiffs' complaint falls on the wrong side of this carefully-struck balance, he affirmed the decision of the District Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/tgd1MJ from Leagle.com. Steve W. Berman, Esq. -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300, Seattle, WA 98101. Peter E. Borkon, Esq. -- peterb@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202, Berkeley, CA 94710. Vincent A. Colianni, II, Esq. -- vinny@colianni.com -- Colianni & Colianni, 1138 King Street, Christiansted, VI 00820. Kevin K. Green, Esq. [ARGUED for Appellant Denver, Employee Retirement Plan], Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, 533 F Street, Suite 207, San Diego, CA 92101, Counsel for Appellant. Walter C. Carlson, Esq. -- wcarlson@sidley.com -- [ARGUED], Sidley Austin, One South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60603. Chad C. Messier, Esq. -- cmessier@dtflaw.com -- Dudley Topper & Feuerzeig, 1000 Frederiksberg Gade, P.O. Box 756, St. Thomas, VI 00804. David S. Petron, Esq., Sidley Austin, 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005, Counsel for Appellee Altisource Asset Management, Corp. Darrell Cafasso, Esq. -- cafassod@sullcrom.com -- John L. Hardiman, Esq., Julia A. Malkina, Esq., Sullivan & Cromwell, 125 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004, Counsel for Appellee William C. Erbey. AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court has granted lead plaintiff's and Hawaii Structural Iron Workers Pension Trust Fund's request that they be permitted to file an amended complaint. On January 12, 2018 and January 19, 2018, two putative federal securities class actions, captioned Hawaii Structural Iron workers Pension Trust Fund v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00299-AJN (the "Hawaii Action"), and Nichols v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00510-AJN (the "Nichols Action," and together with the Hawaii Action, the "Actions"), respectively, were filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Actions, which name certain of the Company's officers and directors and, in the case of the Hawaii Action, the underwriters of the Company's February 8, 2017 secondary public offering, as defendants, asserted claims under some or all of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to alleged material misstatements and omissions in the registration statement for the secondary public offering and in certain other public disclosures. On May 30, 2018, the court consolidated the Actions and appointed the International Union of Operating Engineers Pension Fund of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware as lead plaintiff. On August 13, 2018, lead plaintiff and additional named plaintiff Hawaii Structural Iron Workers Pension Trust Fund filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On October 12, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On October 24, 2018, the court granted lead plaintiff's and Hawaii Structural Iron Workers Pension Trust Fund's request that they be permitted to file an amended complaint on or before November 21, 2018. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates in the theatrical exhibition business. The company owns, operates, or has interests in theatres. The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Leawood, Kansas. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. is a subsidiary of Dalian Wanda Group Co., Ltd. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settles Price-Fixing Class Action for $45MM -------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Chicago reports that millions of Americans are receiving emails about a class action lawsuit for anyone who bought a domestic plane ticket during a six-plus year period. At least $60 million dollars is up for grabs, but how much might passengers actually receive? The answer could be zero, CBS Chicago reports. At the crux of the lawsuit are allegations that four major airlines conspired to increase prices. Two of those airlines have settled: American agreed to pay $45 million and Southwest agreed to pay $15 million. Both deny wrongdoing. "You just don't fork up $60 million dollars for no reason," CBS Chicago legal analyst Irv Miller said. The lawsuits against United and Delta continue. A Delta spokesperson described the case as "not only ridiculous, it is offensive." "The law provides small plaintiffs that have been wronged to go against a big company," said Miller. But here's where the math gets fuzzy. Sixty million dollars sounds like a lot of money. But attorneys fees could be as much as 30 percent -- or $18 million. Then mailing out the checks could cost tens of millions, leaving little to nothing for the 84 to 153 million passengers potentially involved in the lawsuit. When all is said and done, it is possible that after deductions, "the remaining amount will be distributed to charities, governmental entities, or other beneficiaries approved by the Court," according to the frequently asked questions section of the official website for the Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation Settlements. "You see you're a member of class action. Think you're gonna get a lot of money back. Then you read the fine print and the fine print says you may not get anything," said Miller. If you'd like more information about the lawsuit, you can go to DomesticAirClass.com. The U.S. Justice Department investigated airline price fixing back in 2015 and to date, it has not found any official wrongdoing. [GN] AMPLIFY ENERGY: Thompson Sues over Wage-and-Hour Laws Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD THOMPSON, an individual, for himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMPLIFY ENERGY CORP., a Delaware corporation doing business in California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case 2:18-cv-09541 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 9, 2018), seeks to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to unpaid minimum wages under California Labor Code. According to the complaint, Defendants provide services to drilling operations off the California coast, including on fixed oil platforms on the Outer Continental Shelf. Defendants employ hourly employees who work on these oil platforms and travel between them when necessary. The Defendants mandate that these hourly workers perform their work in "hitches," which are multiple-day shifts (varying in length) that begin and end in California and are also spent either on vessels traveling to, back from, or between oil platforms or on the oil platforms themselves. The employees' hitches begin on California soil, where the employees wait for a vessel to transport them to an oil platform. While they wait, Defendants mandate that the employees attend safety briefings. The employees board their vessel and travel to an oil platform on the Outer Continental Shelf. On rare occasions some employees travel to and back from their designated platform by helicopter. The process is similar to trips aboard a vessel. The primary difference is the length of the trip. Regardless of which method of travel the employees take to their platform, it is impossible for employees to take their own vessel and/or helicopter to reach the platform. They must use the transportation provided by Defendants. Defendants, in contravention of California law, maintained a policy and practice of paying their hourly employees for 13 hours each day. Plaintiffs were paid for their 12-hour shift, and paid an additional hour for the changeover. Defendants maintained a policy whereby it did not pay their hourly employees for controlled stand-by time, typically time spent on the platform between 5 p.m. and 5 a.m., then were paid for an additional hour, to 6 a.m. for changeover work at the end of the shift (and relieving employees worked the 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. shift, plus an hour at the end of the shift for changeover), even though this entire time was on-call time and even though their hourly employees were deprived several freedoms during this time. In short, Defendants violated California law by not treating as compensable hours worked every hour their hourly employees were restrained to the workplace, i.e., on Defendants' vessels and platforms, including sleeping time, and spent on California soil, the lawsuit says. Attorneys for Plaintfiff and the Putative Class: Michael A. Strauss, Esq. Aris E. Karakalos, Esq. Andrew C. Ellison, Esq. STRAUSS & STRAUSS, APC 121 N. Fir St., Suite F Ventura, CA 93001 Telephone: (805) 641.6600 Facsimile: (805) 641.6607 E-mail: mike@strausslawyers.com aris@strausslawyers.com andrew@strausslawyers.com APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Bid to Dismiss Texas Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the motion to dismiss a consolidated class action suit in Texas remains pending. On August 5, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and two of its officers in Mona Abouzied v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Chih-Hsiang (Thompson) Lin, and Stefan J. Murry, et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-02399. The complaint in this matter seeks class action status on behalf of the Company's shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its chief executive officer, and its chief financial officer, arising out of its announcement on August 3, 2017 that "the company see softer than expected demand for its 40G solutions with one of its large customers that will offset the sequential growth and increased demand the company expects in 100G." A second, related action was filed by Plaintiff Chad Ludwig on August 16, 2017 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02512) in the Southern District of Texas. The two cases were consolidated before Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore. On January 22, 2018, the court appointed Lawrence Rougier as Lead Plaintiff and Levi & Korinsky LLP as Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated class action complaint on March 6, 2018. The amended complaint requests unspecified damages and other relief. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to vigorously contest the matter. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 4, 2018. Lead Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss on May 4, 2018, and briefing was completed on May 21, 2018. . Further deadlines in this matter have been stayed until the court issues a decision on the pending motion to dismiss. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells various fiber-optic networking products worldwide. It offers optical modules, lasers, transmitters and transceivers, and turn-key equipment, as well as headend, node, and distribution equipment. The company sells its products to Internet data center operators, cable television and telecommunications equipment manufacturers, and Internet service providers through its direct and indirect sales channels. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas. APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Faces Taneja & Pokoik Class Suits in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that on October 1, 2018, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and two of its officers in Gaurav Taneja v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Thompson Lin, and Stefan Murry, Case No. 4:18-cv-03544. The complaint in this matter seeks class action status on behalf of the Company's shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its chief executive officer, and its chief financial officer, arising out of its announcement on September 28, 2018 that it was revising its third quarter revenue guidance due to "an issue with a small percentage of 25G lasers within a specific customer environment." A second, related action was filed by Plaintiff Davin Pokoik on October 10, 2018 (Case No. 4:18-cv-03722) in the Southern District of Texas. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to vigorously contest the matter. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells various fiber-optic networking products worldwide. It offers optical modules, lasers, transmitters and transceivers, and turn-key equipment, as well as headend, node, and distribution equipment. The company sells its products to Internet data center operators, cable television and telecommunications equipment manufacturers, and Internet service providers through its direct and indirect sales channels. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas. ARIZONA BILTMORE: Faces Class Action Over Bed Bugs -------------------------------------------------- Sonu Wasu, writing for ABC15, reports that an Arkansas woman has filed a class action lawsuit against the Arizona Biltmore Hotel and Resort, a Hilton Waldorf Astoria luxury property that is known for its charm and has been a popular hotspot and summer getaway here in the Valley. In the lawsuit, Christine Bingaman claims that the hotel that promises a world-class experience was anything but that for her. She stayed on the property for four nights in May 2018. The lawsuit states on her first night she experienced an itchy sensation all over her legs. On her second night, Ms. Bingaman says she saw a bug run across the sheets in her room. She was able to catch the bug and put it in a plastic bag and looked up pictures of bed bugs. She took the bug over to hotel staff and was immediately transferred to another room on the property. Ms. Bingaman told staff she worried about her personal belongings, as she knew bedbugs were known to be "hitchhikers" that latched on to clothing and luggage and could travel with you. The lawsuit states Ms. Bingaman met with several managers at the hotel who confirmed the bug had been a bedbug and acknowledged her concerns about her personal property. The lawsuit states Ms. Bingaman was told to leave behind any personal property she did not feel comfortable taking back home with her, and that she would be compensated for it. The lawsuit states Bingaman was never compensated for that property. Now, she is suing the hotel for false advertising, fraud, and emotional distress among other things. The lawsuit states hotel staff are not properly trained to identify bed bugs and treat them. The lawyers included attachments of several reviews posted on the web, written from prior customers who had stayed at the Biltmore and found bed bugs in their rooms as well. The reviews dated back to 2016. ABC15 reached out to pest control experts to get their take on the situation. Rick Cooper, the Senior Director of Services for Terminix, said there was a big misconception that bedbugs were only found in dirty, unhygienic areas. "There is nothing further from the truth; the reality is that bed bugs can affect anyone. They can be in the finest of hotels and the most expensive of homes," said Mr. Cooper. Cooper added that bedbugs typically went where people so it was not uncommon to find bed bugs in most areas frequented by the public. Anthony Deslo, the owner of Phoenix Bed Bug Expert, said finding and treating bedbugs were typically jobs for the experts. Many companies used trained bed bug dogs to detect the blood-sucking pests as they could be hard to find. He added that he would not be surprised to hear that housekeeping staff at the hotel did not find any bedbugs as they changed sheets. "In some cases, you would have to take the headboard off, which is usually screwed to the wall. You have to lift it up with two guys on each side as well as take all the sheets off and check the whole perimeter of the top seam and bottom as well as the box spring," said Mr. Deslo. He also agreed that the type of property did not make a difference when it came to this non-discriminating pest that just wanted to latch on to a human host to feed. "It doesn't matter if its a five-star hotel or Super 8 or Motel 6. It is just a matter of a lot of traffic and someone coming in contact with it along with their travels," added Mr. Deslo. The lawsuit claimed that the resort property was deceiving guests who felt they were in a top-notch, world-class property, by not notifying them of bedbug issues as they came up. The lawsuit seeks monetary compensation to be determined by a jury, along with the action on the resort property's part, outlining aggressive steps they planned to take to address the problem. A spokeswoman with the Arizona Biltmore resort sent us this statement. "We are not able to comment on a pending litigation. Arizona Biltmore takes the issue of bed bugs very seriously as the safety and comfort of our guests and staff are of paramount importance. The hotel employs a comprehensive detection program which maintains the highest levels of vigilance." ABC15 reached out to the resort again to ask them to outline the procedures they have in place to address bed bugs. A spokeswoman stated: "Our housekeeping and maintenance departments collaborate with outside specialists to perform regularly scheduled inspections. In the unlikely and unusual event, a guest suspects a problem; the guest is relocated, the area in question is isolated to determine whether a problem exists and, if warranted, the situation will be immediately remedied." ABC15 has reached out to the lawyers listed on the class action lawsuit; it has yet to hear back from them. [GN] ASC INC: Conditional Certification of Leonardo Class Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SEFERINO LEONARDO, Plaintiff, v. ASC, INC. (d/b/a La Nonna), 151 MULBERRY ST. CORP. (d/b/a Il Palazzo), 164 MULBERRY ST. CORP. (d/b/a Da Nico), P.J.'S OF LITTLE ITALY, INC. (d/b/a Pellegrino's), ESTATE OF ANNETTE SABATINO, PERRY CRISCITELLI, and NICHOLAS CRISCITELLI, Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-3657 (VEC) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, granted in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Leonardo has sued his former employer and related entities for violations of the FLSA, and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Plaintiff worked as a dishwasher for La Nonna, an Italian restaurant in Manhattan, between April 2012 and January 2016. During that time, La Nonna was owned by the late Annette Sabatino, whose estate is sued in the case, and was managed by Defendant Perry Criscitelli, who was Annette Sabatino's husband. The Plaintiff alleges that, each day, the Defendants deducted one hour from his compensable hours for a "lunch break." He alleges that was improper and resulted in him being underpaid because the Defendants required him to work during his purported meal break. Additionally, he alleges that, on a daily basis, the Defendants rounded the number of hours that he worked down to the nearest quarter hour. The Plaintiff asserts that this practice deprived him of approximately one hour of wages per week. Finally, he alleges that the Defendants failed to provide him with proper wage notices and wage statements, as required by the NYLL. While the Plaintiff worked primarily at La Nonna, he alleges that all non-managerial employees of Il Palazzo, Da Nico, Pellegrino's, and employees of non-party restaurants SPQR and Novella, were subject to the same time-shaving and rounding practices as employees of La Nonna. The Plaintiff moves for conditional certification of a collective action on behalf of all current and former non-exempt employees who were employed by these restaurants during the six years preceding the date that the Plaintiff filed the Complaint. Among other things, Judge Caproni finds while the Plaintiff seeks to include employees of Il Palazzo, SPQR, and Novella in the collective, he has not offered sufficient evidence that employees of those restaurants were subject to the same wage-and-hour practices as employees of La Nonna, Da Nico, and Pellegrino's. Hence, the Plaintiff's motion for a collective will be granted as to the kitchen staff who worked at La Nonna, Da Nico, and Pellegrino's at any time during the period beginning three years prior to the filing of the Complaint and continuing until the present. The Plaintiff requests that the Court equitably tolls the FLSA's statute of limitations for potential members of the collective while he attempts to effect notice. The Judge finds that whether tolling is appropriate is best addressed on an individual basis. Accordingly, she declines to toll the statute of limitations for all prospective Plaintiffs at this time, but prospective members of the collective may move for tolling, as needed, on an individual basis. For these reasons, Judge Caproni granted in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective. She conditionally certified the collective of kitchen staff (including dishwashers, cooks, bussers, and food preparers) who worked at La Nonna, Da Nico, and Pellegrino's at any time between April 30, 2015 and the present. She ordered the Defendants to provide to the Plaintiff's counsel contact information (including names, addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers) for all potential members of the collective. She did not order the Defendants to produce the social security numbers of prospective members of the collective at this time. The proposed notice must be modified consistent with the Order, and the parties must confer on any remaining objections to the form or means of distribution of the notice. Equitable tolling, if necessary, will be considered on a case-by-case basis. No later than Dec. 5, 2018, the parties must jointly submit a revised proposed notice and a letter outlining any points of disagreement. If the Notice needs to be translated into a language other than English, the submission must indicate whether the parties have agreed on a proposed translation of the Notice. The Clerk is respectfully directed to close the open motion at Dkt. 57. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/bNYcpx from Leagle.com. Seferino Leonardo, on behalf of himself & Seferino Leonardo, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs, represented by Anne Melissa Seelig -- info@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, Taimur Alamgir, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC. ASC, Inc. & Perry Criscitelli, Defendants, represented by Meredith Rosen Cavallaro -- mc@pwlawyers.com -- Paduano & Weintraub, L.L.P., Alicia Valenti -- av@pwlawyers.com -- Paduano & Weintraub LLP & Sarah Katherine Hook -- Sarah.Hook@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. P.J.'S of Little Italy, Inc., 133 Mulberry Street Restaurant, LLC, 191 Grand Restaurant Corp., 3333 Hylan Blvd. Food Corp. & 151 Mulberry St. Corp, doing business as Il Palazzo, Defendants, represented by Alicia Valenti, Paduano & Weintraub LLP. Annette Sabatino, Defendant, represented by Hillary Ann Fraenkel -- hfraenkel@clausen.com -- Clausen Miller P.C. & Alicia Valenti, Paduano & Weintraub LLP. Nicholas Criscitelli, Defendant, represented by Ali R. Jaffery , Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsbury LLP, Hillary Ann Fraenkel, Clausen Miller P.C., Hillary Jacobs Raimondi -- hraimondi@tlsslaw.com -- Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsbury LLP, Meredith Rosen Cavallaro, Paduano & Weintraub, L.L.P. & Sarah Katherine Hook, Jackson Lewis P.C. 164 Mulberry St. Corp., doing business as Da Nico, Defendant, represented by Ali R. Jaffery -- ajaffery@tlsslaw.com -- Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsbury LLP & Hillary Jacobs Raimondi, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsbury LLP. Estate of Annette Sabatino & P.J.'s of Little Italy, Inc., doing business as Pellegrino's, Defendants, represented by Meredith Rosen Cavallaro, Paduano & Weintraub, L.L.P. & Alicia Valenti, Paduano & Weintraub LLP. BANK OF AMERICA: $11MM McLeod Settlement Has Prelim Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, GINA McLEOD, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-03294-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. McLeod, a mortgage loan officer for Defendant Bank of America from February 2014 to November 2016, brought the suit on behalf of a class of Bank of America mortgage loan officers, alleging that the Bank failed to reimburse her and other loan officers for the use of their personal vehicles for work duties in violation of California Labor Code Section 2802 and a derivative claim under the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The Plaintiff also amended the complaint in July 2016 to add a cause of action under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). She acknowledges that the Bank has a facially-valid written reimbursement policy, but argues that the Bank failed to exercise due diligence to reimburse Class Members despite having constructive knowledge they incurred mileage expenses. Alternatively, the Plaintiff argues that the Bank had a de facto policy or practice of not reimbursing loan officers for routine mileage. On Dec. 13, 2017, the Court certified the class of all persons who are or have been employed, at any time from May 9, 2012 through the date of the Court's granting of class certification in the matter, by Bank of America, National Association in California under the job titles Loan Officer, Senior Loan Officer, Mortgage Loan Officer, Senior Mortgage Loan Officer, and Senior Lending Officer ("Loan Officers or Class Members"). The Court also certified the following questions for resolution on a class-wide basis under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) with respect to the Plaintiff's Section 2802 and UCL claims: (i) whether there was a regular practice of not reimbursing Loan Officers for mileage incurred and reimbursable under Section 2802; (ii) whether the Defendant had constructive notice of unreimbursed mileage incurred by Loan Officers in the discharge of their duties; (iii) whether the Defendant's constructive notice gave rise to a duty of due diligence under Section 2802; (iv) whether the Defendant's system-wide efforts (or lack thereof) satisfied its duty of due diligence under Section 2802; and, (v) whether, in light of questions 1-4, the Defendant violated California Labor Code Section 2802 and the UCL. The Bank sought permission to appeal the Class Certification Order, but permission was denied by the Ninth Circuit. The parties engaged in settlement negotiations overseen by Magistrate Judge Laporte and on Aug. 16, 2018 advised the Court that they were finalizing the terms of a Settlement Agreement. On Oct. 9, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted the proposed Settlement Agreement for preliminary approval. The proposed settlement defines the "Settling Class" as comprised of all persons who are or have been employed, at any time from May 9, 2012 through the date of Preliminary Approval, by BofA in California under the job titles Mortgage Loan Officer (job code SM009), Senior Mortgage Loan Officer (job code SM172), Senior Lending Officer (job code SM172), FC Lending Officer (job code SM611), Senior FC Lending Officer — E (job code SM610), and/or Senior FC Lending Officer — NE (job code SM614). The proposed settlement creates a non-reversionary $11 million gross settlement fund. The gross settlement fund will be allocated in the following order: (i) attorneys' fees of $3.3 million, or 30% of the settlement fund, to the class counsel and reimbursement of the class counsel's out-of-pocket litigation expenses not to exceed $75,000 (ii) a representative service award of $15,000 for Named Plaintiff McLeod (iii) $37,500 in penalties to the California Labor Workforces Development Agency to settle the PAGA claim. The $37,500 penalty represents 75% of the $50,000 allocated in the gross settlement fund to settle the PAGA claim; the remaining 25% will be distributed to the Class Members (iv) fees and costs of the Claims Administrator, capped at $20,300; (v) The approximately $7,552,200 remaining after the above items are deducted will be distributed to the Class Members as the net settlement fund. (vi) The residual amount of the settlement fund from any settlement checks not cashed by Class Members will be paid to the State of California as unclaimed wages under the name of the Settling Class Member pursuant to the escheat procedures set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1300. The net settlement fund will be distributed to the Class Members pro rata based on the number of weeks they worked for the Bank as a loan officer in California during the settlement period. The parties estimate that each Class Member will receive approximately $40 per workweek, which represents approximately 73 miles driven per workweek. The Plaintiff, based on a small survey of current and former loan officers, estimates that loan officers logged an average of 170 unreimbursed work-travel miles per week (a number the Bank disputes). Thus, the reimbursement for 73 miles per workweek represents a 43% recovery for the 170 total unreimbursed miles. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Bank will submit to a five-year consent decree that requires it to: (i) Send monthly email reminders to individuals in the covered loan officer positions, and to individuals directly managing them, that work travel expenses are reimbursable; (ii) Provide training to newly hired individuals in the covered positions and refresher training to supervisors of loan officers on reimbursements for work-related travel; and (iii) Train covered loan officers and their supervisors on how to access Defendant's reimbursement software on a smartphone. The parties estimate that the current class members who continue to work as MLOs during the consent decree period would receive approximately $93 a week in mileage reimbursement, assuming the current IRS mileage reimbursement rate and the 170 miles incurred per week. On Oct. 23, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the Plaintiff's motion, during which it questioned the parties about the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement and ordered them to make certain modifications to the Settlement Agreement and Notice. The parties made the modifications. Judge Chen finds that the primary terms of the proposed settlement agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate given the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, with the exception of the attorneys' fees request, and the adjustment to the Named Plaintiff's service award, he granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. The class counsel is asking for an award of $3.3 million in attorneys' fees, which amounts to 30% of the settlement fund, plus expenses not to exceed $75,000. The Judge finds that a fee award of $3.3 million may be excessive given that the litigation in the case has not been particularly extensive. Aside from briefing and arguing class certification, the parties have engaged in one round of mediation, some discovery, and the settlement negotiations that culminated in this proposed agreement. The Plaintiff's counsel stated at the hearing that their requested fee represents approximately a four-time multiplier on the lodestar figure for their work on this case. The Judge reserved ruling on the Plaintiff's attorneys' fees request until the final settlement approval stage, while noting his concerns. The proposed settlement provides a representative service award of $15,000 to the Named Plaintiff. The Judge holds that a service award of $15,000 would be much greater than the amounts that the other Class Members are likely to recover, and the Named Plaintiff has not asserted that she has expended a particularly significant amount of time and effort in the case, or that she may be subject to workplace retaliation for her role in bringing the litigation. He therefore finds that a service award of $7,500 is reasonable. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/m7JRAJ from Leagle.com. Gina McLeod, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron D. Kaufmann -- akaufmann@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder, LLP, David Philip Pogrel -- dpogrel@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder LLP, Elizabeth R. Gropman -- egropman@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder LLP & Edward Joseph Wynne -- ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com -- Wynne Law Firm. Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Apalla U. Chopra -- achopra@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Susannah Kelly Howard -- showard@omm.com -- O'Melveny& Myers LLP & Adam P. KohSweeney -- akohsweeney@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP. BANK OZK: Class Action Threat Hits Profitability Growth ------------------------------------------------------- George Waldon, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that the trawling for clients to support a class-action lawsuit against Bank OZK began on Oct. 19. That's when shares lost more than a quarter of their value when third-quarter earnings missed analysts' estimates by 32 cents per share. The price has not rebounded since. After an incredible run of profitability growth, the bank's real estate specialties group finally registered a $45.5 million lick on two legacy commercial loans. Bank OZK recorded a $74.2 million profit in the third quarter, a 22.7 percent decrease compared with the third quarter of 2017. George Gleason, Bank OZK's founding chairman and CEO, noted during the Oct. 19 conference call with analysts that the RESG portfolio has had only five losses during the past 15 years. "We will occasionally, in a quarter here and there, in a year here and there, have a loss on the RESG portfolio," Mr. Gleason said. "But we're not changing our business model at all because we believe it is very, very sound and very, very conservative. So it's business as usual for us, and we still are originating loans." [GN] BARINGS BDC: Bid to Dismiss North Carolina Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Barings BDC, Inc. (formerly Triangle Capital Corporation) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Triangle Capital Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL, remains pending. The Company and certain former executive officers have been named as defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits, each filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York -- and then transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina -- on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017. The first lawsuit was filed on November 21, 2017, and was captioned Elias Dagher, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00015-FL (the "Dagher Action"). The second lawsuit was filed on November 28, 2017, and was captioned Gary W. Holden, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL (the "Holden Action"). The Dagher Action and the Holden Action were consolidated and are currently captioned In re Triangle Capital Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL. On April 10, 2018, the plaintiff filed its First Consolidated Amended Complaint. The complaint, as currently amended, alleges certain violations of the securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants made certain materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but did not specify the amount of damages being sought. On May 25, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 9, 2018, the plaintiff filed its response in opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed as of July 31, 2018. Barings BDC, Inc. (formerly Triangle Capital Corporation) and its wholly-owned subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company"), are specialty finance companies. The Company currently operates as a closed-end, non-diversified investment company and has elected to be treated as a business development company ("BDC") under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the "1940 Act"). The Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Triangle Mezzanine Fund LLLP ("Triangle SBIC") has also elected to be treated as a BDC under the 1940 Act. The Company has elected for federal income tax purposes to be treated as a regulated investment company ("RIC") under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), for tax purposes. The company is based in Raleigh, North Carolina. BARINGS BDC: Continues to Defend Hammer Class Suit -------------------------------------------------- Barings BDC, Inc. (formerly Triangle Capital Corporation) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a putative securities class action suit entitled, Hammer, et al. v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02086-RDB . The Company and certain current and former members of the Board of Directors have been named as defendants in three other putative securities class action lawsuits challenging the company's June 1, 2018 proxy statement seeking shareholder approval of the Asset Purchase Agreement and the Externalization Agreement. The first lawsuit was filed on July 6, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and is captioned Carlson, et al. v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00332-FL (the "Carlson Action"). The second lawsuit was filed on July 9, 2018 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, and is captioned Hammer, et al. v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02086-RDB (the "Hammer Action"). The third lawsuit was filed on July 12, 2018 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, and is captioned Kent, et al. v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-0237-ELH (the "Kent Action"). The complaints in the Carlson Action, the Hammer Action, and the Kent Action each allege certain violations of the securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants made certain material omissions in the proxy statement, and each sought to enjoin the shareholder meeting scheduled for July 24, 2018, among other relief. On July 11, 2018, the plaintiff in the Carlson Action filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the July 24, 2018 shareholder vote and to require that certain supplemental disclosures be made. On July 16, 2018, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. The Kent Action was voluntarily dismissed on September 20, 2018. The Carlson Action was voluntarily dismissed on October 22, 2018. The time for the defendants to respond to the complaint in the Hammer Action has not yet expired. Barings BDC, Inc. (formerly Triangle Capital Corporation) and its wholly-owned subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company"), are specialty finance companies. The Company currently operates as a closed-end, non-diversified investment company and has elected to be treated as a business development company ("BDC") under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the "1940 Act"). The Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Triangle Mezzanine Fund LLLP ("Triangle SBIC") has also elected to be treated as a BDC under the 1940 Act. The Company has elected for federal income tax purposes to be treated as a regulated investment company ("RIC") under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), for tax purposes. The company is based in Raleigh, North Carolina. BEF FOODS: Sar Sues over Misleading Product Presentation -------------------------------------------------------- Boubacar Sarr individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff vs. BEF Foods, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06409 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 11, 2018), sues Defendant over misleading product presentation. BEF Foods, Inc. distributes, markets, labels and sells refrigerated ready-to-eat mashed potatoes under the "Bob Evans" brand. The Products are available in no fewer than the following varieties: Original, Garlic, Sour Cream & Chives, Sweet Potatoes, Buttermilk Red Skin, Loaded (mix of cheeses with bacon), Savory Romano & Herb, and Broccoli & Cheese. The Products are sold to consumers by third-parties from brick-and-mortar stores and online, and available in no fewer than 6, 12, 20 24, 28 and 32-ounce packages. The front labels include an image of mashed potatoes, name of the variety (i.e., Original, Garlic), a color pattern corresponding to the variety (i.e., green for Sour Cream & Chives), vignettes of the ingredients or flavor distinguishing that variety, "Farm-Fresh Goodness," a picture of a traditional farm house on the slope of a hill and "Made with Real Potatoes, Milk & Butter," and a golden yellow pat of melting butter. The representations are misleading because despite the centrality of butter to their marketing and labeling, they contain butter as a component of an ingredient designated as "butter blend," which also contains vegetable oils. When consumers eat mashed potatoes, they are typically prepared or consumed with fats and oils, like butter or vegetable oils (i.e., margarine). The naturally dry texture of potatoes requires a lipid ingredient to enhance their texture, viscosity, palatability and to provide lubrication in the mouth. Consumers prefer butter (and dairy spreads) which do not include vegetable oils because they prefer butter's: unique and unduplicated taste, owing to more than 120 naturally occurring flavor compounds including methyl ketones and lactones; ability to enhance the texture and other qualities of (mashed) potato products; mouthfeel, since butter melts at a normal body temperature, while margarine has a higher melting point, resulting in a greasy aftertaste on the palate. However, when purchasing and consuming defendant's Products, they do not get to make that all -- important decision -- choosing butter or vegetable oil-based lipids -- and instead, they get both despite believing they will only be having butter, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff reasonably believed based on defendant's representations that the Products contained butter and not vegetable oils, were fresh, and did not contain artificial ingredients. Defendant's representations are false, deceptive and misleading. The representations and omissions were relied on by plaintiff and class members, who paid more than they would have otherwise, causing damages. Defendant misrepresented the composition of the Products by highlighting butter, giving consumers the impression that they only contained butter to the exclusion of non-dairy based fat ingredients, since consumers do not use butter and vegetable oils on mashed potatoes, and implying the Products were fresh, which took advantage of mistaken consumer beliefs, when the Products are not fresh. Defendant had a duty to disclose and/or provide a non-deceptive description of the Products and knew or should have known same were false or misleading. This duty is based, in part, on defendant’s position as a trusted brand who has made homestyle fare for Americans for decades from the chain of popular restaurants with the Bob Evans name. The Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the Products or paid as much if the true facts had been known, thereby suffering damages.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Spencer Sheehan (SS-8533) 891 Northern Blvd., Suite 201 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2527 New York, NY 10119 BIG PICTURE: Williams et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Virginia -------------------------------------------------------- Lula Williams, Gloria Turnage, George Hengle, Dowin Coffy, and Felix Gillison, on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Big Picture Loans, LLC, Matt Martorella, Ascension Technologies, Inc., Daniel Gravel, James Williams, Jr., Gertrude McGeshick, Susan McGeshick, and Giiwegiizhigookway Martin, the Defendants, Simon Xu Liang, the Movant, Court No.: 6:18-mc-00303, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond) on Nov. 15, 2018. The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-mc-00012-REP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Robert E. Payne.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: David Andrew Maxfield, Esq. 1701 Richland Street Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 799-6000 - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. John G Albanese, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 43 SE Main St., Ste. 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: (612) 594-5933 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net jalbanese@bm.net Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES 763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: elizabeth@clalegal.com Attorneys for Movant: Beth B. Richardson, Esq. Elizabeth Van Doren Gray, Esq. ROBINSON GRAY STEPP AND LAFFITTE LLC 1310 Gadsden Street Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 929-1400 Facsimile: (803) 929-0300 E-mail: brichardson@robinsongray.com egray@robinsongray.com - and - Justin Alexander Gray, Esq. ROSETTE, LLP 25344 Red Arrow Highway Mattawan, MI 49071 Telephone: (269) 283-5005 Facsimile: (517) 916-6443 E-mail: jgray@rosettelaw.com BILL GRAHAM: Kihn Seeks to Certify Composer and Performer Classes ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled GREG KIHN, an individual; and RYE BOY MUSIC, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company v. BILL GRAHAM ARCHIVES, LLC, dba WOLFGANG'S VAULT, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; NORTON, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; and WILLIAM SAGAN, an individual, Case No. 4:17-cv-05343-YGR (N.D. Cal.), seek to certify these classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: * Composer Class: All owners of copyrights in the musical compositions which have been reproduced, performed, distributed, or otherwise exploited by Bill Graham Archives, LLC d/b/a Wolfgang's, Norton, LLC and William Sagan ("Defendants") without a license or authorization to do so during the period from September 14, 2014 to the present. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, Defendants' affiliates, subsidiaries or co-conspirators; employees of Defendants, including their officers and directors; and the Court to which this case is assigned ("Composer Class"); and * Performer Class: All persons whose performances are fixed on the sound recordings and audiovisual works which have been reproduced, performed, distributed, or otherwise exploited by Defendants without a license or authorization to do so during the period from September 14, 2014 to the present. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, Defendants' affiliates, subsidiaries or co-conspirators; employees of Defendants, including their officers and directors; and the Court to which this case is assigned ("Performer Class"). Rye Boy Music, LLC, seeks to be appointed as class representative for the Composer Class. Gregory Kihn seeks to be appointed as class representative for the Performer Class. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, and Johnson & Johnson, LLP, as class counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on February 26, 2019, at 2:00 p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neville L. Johnson, Esq. Douglas L. Johnson, Esq. Arun Dayalan, Esq. JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP 439 N. Canon Drive, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 975-1080 Facsimile: (310) 975-1095 E-mail: njohnson@jjllplaw.com djohnson@jjllplaw.com adayalan@jjllplaw.com - and - Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. Bobby Pouya, Esq. Matthew A. Pearson, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com bpouya@pswlaw.com mapearson@pswlaw.com BORAL INDUSTRIES: Underpays Construction Workers, Bishop Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN BISHOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BORAL INDUSTRIES, INC.; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00054773-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Oct. 29, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff Bishop was employed by the Defendants as construction worker. Boral Industries Inc. manufactures and supplies construction materials in the United States. It offers clay bricks and pavers, clay tiles, cement additives, fly ash, limestone, sand and gravel, concrete roof tiles, and coal combustion products. The company offers its products through a network of direct selling locations, as well as a network of independent distributors. The company was incorporated in 1978 and is based in Roswell, Georgia with operating and distribution sites across the United States. Boral Industries Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Boral Limited. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alisa A. Martin, Esq. AMARTIN LAW, PC 600 West Broadway, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 308-6880 Facsimile: (619) 308-6881 - and - Lindsay C. David, Esq. BRENNAN & DAVID LAW GROUP 2888 Loker Avenue East, Suite 302 Carlsbad, CA 92010 Telephone: (760) 730-9408 Facsimile: (760) 888-3575 CALIBER HOME: 3rd Amended Razuki Suit Dismissed with Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SALAM RAZUKI, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17cv1718-LAB (WVG) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Larry Alan Burns of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted Caliber's motion to dismiss Salam Razuki's Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"). The TAC relates to a data breach in which hackers obtained Razuki's personal information from Caliber. In its June 8, 2018 Order, the Court dismissed without prejudice Razuki's negligence, California Constitution, Customer Records Act, and Unfair Competition claims for failure to state a claim. In his TAC, Razuki re-alleges those four causes of action, and has added a fifth claim of bailment. But Razuki consented to dismissal of the California Constitution and bailment claims in his opposition, so the Court considers those claims dismissed. Razuki's second amended complaint failed to state a claim for negligence because his vague allegations of damages were impossible for the Court to evaluate. In his TAC, Razuki's newly alleged damages include diminution in value of his personal data, overpayments to Caliber, and continued risk to his financial information. Judge Burns finds that Razuki still has not adequately pled damages that could support a negligence claim. First, his claim alleging continued risk of harm is still insufficient because it stems from the danger of future harm. Second, his claim alleging diminution of value of his personal data fails to allege enough facts to establish how his personal information is less valuable as a result of the breach. Finally, Razuki alleges that he and the class members overpaid Caliber for financial services during or after the breach. However, it is unclear what payments were made to Caliber and for what services these alleged payments were made. Razuki claims that the Defendant knew of higher-quality security protocols available to them but failed to implement these measures, in violation of the California Customer Records Act. This claim, the Judge finds, fails because it is precisely the type of "threadbare" claim Ashcroft v. Iqbal warns of. Razuki makes a conclusory statement that Caliber knew of higher-quality security measures, but he does not support that conclusion with any facts about Caliber's protocols or actions it took when choosing appropriate security measures. Finally, the Judge finds that Razuki appears to be making his UCL claim based on the "unlawful" prong of the statute. He bases the claim on violation of the CRA, Privacy Act of 1974, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. His CRA claim fails, so it cannot serve as the basis for his UCL claim. Judge Burns granted Caliber's Motion to Dismiss. He concludes that it is Razuki's fourth complaint and he still has failed to plead basic facts that could supports his claim: (i) when the money was withdrawn from his account; (ii) how much was withdrawn; (iii) whether it was refunded; (iv) whether Caliber's security measures were insufficient; and (v) what the other firms were doing that Caliber wasn't. The only inference the Judge can draw from Razuki's failure to plead basic facts is that he is in possession of no facts that would plausibly support his claim, and that amendment would therefore be futile. For that reason, he dismissed the case with prejudice. The clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Caliber and to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/aZOfeT from Leagle.com. Salam Razuki, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alex M. Tomasevic -- atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas and Tomasevic LLP, Craig McKenzie Nicholas -- cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas and Tomasevic & David Gerald Greco -- dgreco@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., a Delware corporation, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Kleine -- bkleine@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, Laura Marie Elliott -- bkleine@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Maurice Werter Trevor -- rtrevor@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP. CALIFORNIA: Cal. App. Grants Warner's Bid for Writ of Mandate ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent; LARCO PRODUCTIONS, INC. et al., Real Parties in Interest, Case No. B289109 (Cal. App.), Judge Ray Grimes of the Court of Appeals of California for the Second District, Division Eight, On Jan. 29, 2013, Stuntman, Inc., a loan-out company for the services of Hal Needham, a writer and director, filed a class action complaint against Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Petitioner"). The substance of the complaint was that the Defendant failed to account properly to profit participants (Mr. Needham and the class members) for income derived from the distribution of motion pictures on home video formats. The complaint asserted the defendant engaged in the systematic practice of accounting to and crediting profit participants based on 20% of home video revenue, while it should have done so based on 100% of that revenue. Other named plaintiffs, represented by some of the same law firms representing plaintiffs in the case, filed similar lawsuits against other studios (Universal City Studios LLC, Paramount Pictures Corp., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., and Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.). On Feb. 15, 2013, Judge Elihu M. Berle issued an initial status conference order in the Paramount Pictures case, staying those proceedings pending further order of the court and setting an initial status conference for April 16, 2013. On Feb. 28, 2013, Judge Lee Edmon (to whom the case was originally assigned) issued a similar order in the case. On March 4, 2013, the five lawsuits were related. The parties agree that as a result of the March 4, 2013 order relating the cases, Judge Berle's initial status conference order was entered in the case, and that the stay Judge Berle ordered lasted for 43 days. The parties complied with the order. Mr. Needham died on Oct. 25, 2013, and on Nov. 26, 2013, a first amended complaint substituted Larco Productions, Inc. and Michael Elias as named plaintiffs. The parties agree that the five-year statute was tolled during this 32-day period, so the earliest date on which the five-year statute could have run was March 2, 2018. On March 2, 2018, the Defendant filed its motion to dismiss, contending the five-year deadline expired that day, or in the alternative that the case could not be brought to trial by a date that included the 43-day initial stay (by April 16, 2018). On the same day (March 2), the Plaintiffs filed a motion for an order finding the five-year deadline was extended, or in the alternative granting them "preference for trial immediately." The trial court heard both motions on March 26, 2018. The court denied the Dfendant's motion to dismiss and granted the Plaintiffs' motion for trial preference. Two days later, on March 28, 2018, the court granted the Defendant's ex parte application and stayed the case until the later of April 30, 2018, or the court's ruling on the Defendant's writ petition for review of the trial court's orders. The Defendant filed its writ petition on April 2, 2018, seeking dismissal of the lawsuit and a written decision clarifying that proceeding with the lawsuit would violate the five-year rule and that trial preference was improperly granted. The Court issued an order to show cause and set dates for a written return and reply. Its order directed the parties to address seven questions, in addition to any other issues they wished to address. These questions were whether the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss the case under the five-year statute; what circumstances tolled the five-year period; whether the court found reasonable diligence and excusable delay; whether the court erred in granting trial preference; the scope of the trial that was set for April 10, 2018; whether the Defendant's procedural rights were violated by setting trial despite no hearing on class certification and no merits discovery; and whether the court erred in deciding to empanel a jury before deciding class certification in view of Fireside Bank. Judge Grimes finds that the trial court's grant of trial preference under the circumstances presented to it inexplicable. The court offered no explanation at the hearing, and the factual considerations and conclusions the court stated at the hearing uniformly supported the opposite conclusion. So does the law. He granted the Defendant's petition for a writ of mandate and ordered the trial court to dismiss the entire action as required under sections 583.310 and 583.360. He holds that an order staying responsive pleadings and outstanding discovery requests, while also requiring the parties to negotiate and agree on a case management plan and to prepare and file a joint statement specifically addressing case-related issues in multiple areas (and also allowing the parties to informally exchange documents), does not effect a complete stay of the prosecution of the action within the meaning of Gaines v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1081, 1087 (Gaines), and Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 717, 730 (Bruns). Consequently, the trial court erred when it concluded the five-year period was tolled for 43 days because of such a stay, issued at the outset of the case. Thus, the five-year period expired on March 2, 2018, and dismissal of the action was mandatory. Alternatively, the Judge holds that even if he assumes the 43-day tolling period was permissible, the trial court's order granting trial preference and setting the trial for April 10, 2018, the same date on which the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was to be heard, was a manifest abuse of discretion. Well-settled principles of law tell that (1) generally courts should not resolve the merits in a putative class action case before class certification and notice issues absent a compelling justification for doing so, and (2) a class action is subject to dismissal under the five-year statute if the class issues are not decided, including notice to class members, with enough time to allow even a minimally reasonable period for exercise by the class members of their options. Setting a trial to begin one week before expiration of the five-year statute is impermissible and would render the Fireside Bank and Massey principles a nullity. Nor does the "ceremonial" principle stated in Hartman v. Santamarin -- allowing the pro forma commencement of the trial in order to preserve the right to a trial on the merits in the face of the five-year statute -- apply to the circumstances in the case. A peremptory writ of mandate will be issued directing the trial court to vacate its order of March 26, 2018, denying Petitioner's motion to dismiss the action, and granting real parties' motion for trial preference, and to enter a new and different order granting the Petitioner's motion and dismissing the action. Costs are awarded to the Petitioner. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/UAgUZ5 from Leagle.com. Irell & Manella, Steven A. Marenberg -- smarenberg@irell.com -- Josh B. Gordon -- josh.gordon@irell.com -- and Andrew J. Strabone -- astrabone@irell.com -- for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Kiesel Law, Paul R. Kiesel, Jeffrey A. Koncius, Nicole Ramirez -- ramirez@kiesel.law; Boucher, Raymond P. Boucher, Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, Maria L. Weitz; Johnson & Johnson, Neville L. Johnson -- njohnson@jjllplaw.com -- Douglas L. Johnson -- djohnson@jjllplaw.com -- and James T. Ryan -- jryan@jjllplaw.com -- for Real Parties in Interest. CALLOOH CALLAY: Underpays Ironers, River Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- MARILU RIVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALLOOH CALLAY, INC. d/b/a PRESSED CLEANERS; and JEFFREY CURTIS, Defendants, Case No. CV18-6042 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2018) is an action for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff River was employed by the Defendants as ironers. Callooh Callay, Inc. d/b/a Pressed Cleaners is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 CANADA: Groups Call for End of Coerced Indigenous Sterilizations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leyland Cecco, writing for The Guardian, reports that human rights groups are calling on Canada to end the coerced sterilization of indigenous women, as a growing number of victims seek to join a class action lawsuit against government and medical professionals. At least 60 women have joined a pending class action lawsuit against doctors and health officials in the province of Saskatchewan, seeking compensation for the violation of their rights. The lawsuit has yet to be certified by a judge, but Amnesty International announced it will lobby the UN committee against torture to increase pressure on the Canadian government to act. "Ultimately, this is about women who are supposed to have the right to make decisions about their bodies, having that right taken away from them," said Amnesty's Jacqueline Hansen. The women allege their fallopian tubes were tied, burned or cut in public hospitals when the women were unable to give sufficient consent -- which would be a breach of both medical ethics and the law. Some of the complainants have said they were told they would not be allowed to see their newborn child unless they agreed to the procedure. "These women and their communities have suffered. They have suffered. And they are entitled to restitution as they essentially relive their trauma," said Alisa Lombard, the lawyer representing the women. The continued use of coerced sterilization was exposed in 2015, when four women spoke about their experiences in the province of Saskatchewan. An investigation was launched and the province's health authority issued an apology and new criteria for tubal ligations. But the pending lawsuit suggests that some cases occurred as recently as 2017. Senator Yvonne Boyer, an indigenous lawyer who co-authored an independent report on the experiences of women in Saskatchewan, believes the problem is probably more widespread than currently understood. "If it's happened in Saskatoon, it has happened in Regina, it's happened in Winnipeg, it's happened where there's a high population of indigenous women," Boyer told the Canadian Press. "I've had many women contact me from across the country and ask me for help." Jane Philpott, minister of indigenous services, described the practice as "horrifying" in an interview with the Canadian Press. "The issue of forced sterilization of vulnerable people, including indigenous women, is a very serious violation of human rights," she said. Indigenous leaders have also expressed outrage: Perry Bellegarde, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, joined calls for an immediate investigation by the federal government. "It is wrong, it is immoral, it is a gross violation of human rights, and this dehumanizing practice must stop," he told the Canadian Press. Ms. Hansen said that Amnesty had investigated similar practices in Mexico, Chile and Peru. "It's always done for a very specific reason. It is clear that it's been linked to policies around wanting to ensure a group of people doesn't reproduce," she said. For Ms. Lombard, Canada's troubled history with indigenous people lays bare the motivation behind the procedure. "I think the genesis of this, and of treatment of people across the board, is really rooted in racism," she said. "I think we have to call it what it is." [GN] CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Sought in Voeks Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Voeks moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled JULIE VOEKS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LP, Case No. 2:18-cv-01782-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff contends. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com CAPITAL ONE: Doak Sues over Credit Background Checks ---------------------------------------------------- Daniel Doak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Capital One N.A., and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-07102-SVK (N.D. Cal., November 21, 2018) alleges the Defendant’s violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Specifically, the Defendants reported false information to EQUIFAX and TRANS UNION that its purpose for accessing Plaintiff's credit report was ostensibly for "an account review or other business transaction"; yet, at all relevant times, there was no legitimate reason for Defendants to access or review Plaintiff's credit report from any of the CRAs. In actuality, Defendants were trying to gain confidential information about Plaintiff in furtherance of its collection efforts on the subject Debt. If it denies this was its purpose, then Defendants were trying to gain access to Plaintiff's personal and financial information which is protected by law, says the complaint. Plaintiff Daniel Doak is a natural person residing in Santa Clara County in the state of California. Capital One N.A. regularly provided information to consumer reporting Agencies. Doe Defendants 1 through 10, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues such Defendants by fictitious names.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Habashy, Esq. LEXICON LAW PC 633 W. 5th Street, 28th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (877) 529-5090 Fax: (888) 373-2107 Email: john@lexiconlaw.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Kelsey L. Kuberka, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: 323-306-4234 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com kkuberka@toddflaw.com CAPTAIN MIKE'S: Zaca et al Seek Unpaid Wages for Delivery Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR MANUEL MALDONADO, GUSTAVO PEREZ ZACA, ANTONIO MIGUEL JIMENEZ, and RICARDO ESPINOSA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CAPTAIN MIKE'S SEAFOOD RESTAURANT, INC. (D/B/A MUDVILLE 9), FIUME LLC (D/B/A MUDVILLE 9), ERIC B. SCHWIMMER, MARK ANDRUS, and MIKE BAKALIAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10499 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants Captain Mike's Seafood Restaurant, Inc. The Defendants own, operate, or control an American Restaurant, located at 126 Chambers Street, New York, New York 10007 operating under the name "Mudville 9". The Plaintiffs were ostensibly employed as delivery workers at the restaurant. However, they were required to spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to cleaning the basement, mopping and sweeping the basement, loading the kitchen with containers for the next day of work, packing the delivery orders, arranging the food stations, bringing products from neighboring restaurants such as ice, bringing up ice from the basement, buying ice at the supermarket when the ice machine stopped working, buying products at the supermarket such as bread and cigarettes, bringing up products for cooking and for deliveries, bringing up sodas from the basement to the first floor, unloading deliveries, organizing deliveries and merchandise, folding cardboard boxes, cleaning the water and flooding in the basement, taking the damaged refrigerators to the street, running errands for the manager such as going to the bank to withdraw or deposit money, and taking out the garbage. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES , P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com CARIBBEAN CRUISE: McCabe Appeals "Birchmeier" Ruling to 7th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Objector Kevin McCabe filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled GRANT BIRCHMEIER, et al. v. CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-04069, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The appellate case is captioned as Grant Birchmeier, et al. v. Kevin McCabe, Case No. 18-3387, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Seventh Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook affirmed the District Court's approval of the settlement and attorneys' fees award to the class counsel in the lawsuits titled GRANT BIRCHMEIER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants. APPEALS OF: CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC.; VACATION OWNERSHIP MARKETING TOURS, INC.; THE BERKLEY GROUP, INC.; FREEDOM HOME CARE, INC.; KEVIN MCCABE, Case Nos. 17-1626, 17-1778, 17-1953, 17-1969, 17-1984 & 17-2857 (7th Cir.). During 2011 and 2012, a million people received phone calls asking them to take political surveys in exchange for a chance to go on a free cruise. Some recipients filed a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), seeking damages for these unsolicited communications. Caribbean Cruise Line, Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours, and the Berkley Group were named as the Defendants on the theory that, though they had not placed the calls, they had directed them and thus are vicariously liable. The District Court certified a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Later it granted partial summary judgment in the Plaintiffs' favor and scheduled a trial. On the eve of trial, the parties settled. The Plaintiffs agreed to release their claims against all the Defendants and any of the Defendants' agents or independent contractors. In exchange, the Defendants agreed to pay into a fund no less than $56 million and no more than $76 million. The total will depend on the number of approved claims that the class members submit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Appellant's brief is due on or before December 17, 2018, for Kevin McCabe.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees GRANT BIRCHMEIER, STEPHEN PARKES, REGINA STONE and GERARDO ARANDA, on behalf of themselves and classes of others similarly situated, are represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Ryan D. Andrews, Esq. Roger Perlstadt, Esq. Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Esq. EDELSON P.C. 350 N. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com randrews@edelson.com rperlstadt@edelson.com atievsky@edelson.com - and - Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Esq. EDELSON, P.C. 123 Townsend Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 E-mail: erapp@edelson.com - and - Mike Kanovitz, Esq. Jon C. Loevy, Esq. Scott R. Rauscher, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 N. Aberdeen Street Chicago, IL 60607-1249 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 Facsimile: (312) 243-5902 E-mail: mike@loevy.com jon@loevy.com scott@loevy.com Appellant KEVIN MCCABE, Objector, is represented by: Todd C. Bank, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TODD C. BANK 119-40 Union Turnpike Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 520-7125 Facsimile: (856) 997-9193 E-mail: tbank@toddbanklaw.com Defendants CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INCORPORATED, BERKLEY GROUP, INCORPORATED, and VACATION OWNERSHIP MARKETING TOURS, INCORPORATED, are represented by: Brian P. O'Meara, Esq. FORDE LAW OFFICES, LLP 111 W. Washington Street Chicago, IL 60602-0000 Telephone: (312) 641-1441 E-mail: bomeara@fordellp.com CARNEGIE INVESTMENTS: Nixon Files Class Action in NY Under ADA --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carnegie Investments, LLC. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Carnegie Investments, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06681 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Carnegie Investment Counsel is an employee owned investment manager. The firm provides its services to individuals, high net worth individuals, pension and profit sharing plans, charitable organizations, corporations, and state or municipal government entities. The firm manages separate client focused equity, fixed income, and balanced portfolios.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com CAROLINA FIRST BANK: African American Applicants Claim Bias ----------------------------------------------------------- REGINA ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAROLINA FIRST BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-02927-DCC-JDA (D.S.C., Oct. 29, 2018) alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. According to the Complaint, the Defendant utilized a uniform procedure for hiring non-exempt employees in all of its bank locations. From its headquarters, the Defendant developed a standardized set of employment procedures that each bank location utilized, including the credit history Screening Process described herein. The Defendant's Screening Process screened out individuals who would otherwise be eligible for employment according to any rational and fair system of determining who is qualified for employment. African American applicants were screened out from employment based on their credit histories at three times the rate of White applicants. The Defendant's Screening Process therefore had a significant and detrimental impact on African American applicants, based on their race, as compared to White applicants. As of September 30, 2010, Carolina First Bank was acquired by TD Bank, N.A. Carolina First Bank provides personal, small business, and commercial banking products and services in South Carolina and North Carolina. Carolina First Bank was founded in 1986 and is based in Greenville, South Carolina with branch offices in South Carolina and North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Scott Falls, Esq. Ashley L. Falls, Esq. FALLS LEGAL LLC 245 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 250 Charleston, SC 29492 Telephone: (843) 737-6040 Facsimile: (843) 737-6140 E-mail: scott@falls-legal.com ashley@falls-legal.com - and - Ossai Miazad, Esq. Juno Turner, Esq. Michael C. Danna, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, New York 10017 Telephone: 212-245-1000 E-mail: om@outtengolden.com jturner@outtengolden.com mdanna@outtengolden.com CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Abella Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW ABELLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC; CAVALRY SPV I, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-15415-CCC-MF (D.N.J., Oct. 29, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Claire C. Cecchi and referred to Magistrate Judge Mark Falk. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC provides financial resolution services. Its services cover various areas, such as collection account and debt control. The company was founded in 1991 and is based in Valhalla, New York. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Cavalry Investments, LLC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com CENTENE CORPORATION: Removes Cisneros Suit to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendants in the case of CARMELA CISNEROS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTENE CORPORATION; HEALTH NET FEDERAL SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 37-2018-00047894-CU-OE-CTL) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on October 29, 2018. The clerk of court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-02489-L-JLB. The case is assigned to Judge M. James Lorenz and referred to Magistrate Michael S. Berg. Centene Corporation operates as a diversified and multi-national healthcare enterprise that provides programs and services to under-insured and uninsured individuals in the United States. The company provides its services through primary and specialty care physicians, hospitals, and ancillary providers. Centene Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Timothy J. Long , esq. ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855 Telephone: (213) 629-2020 Facsimile: (213) 612-2499 E-mail: tjlong@orrick.com CHIASMA INC: Still Defends Gerneth Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Chiasma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a securities class action suit entitled, Gerneth v. Chiasma, Inc., et al. On June 9, 2016, Chiasma, Inc. and certain of the company's current and former officers were named as defendants in a federal securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, styled Gerneth v. Chiasma, Inc., et al. This lawsuit challenges the company's public statements regarding its Phase 3 clinical trial methodology for octreotide capsules and the company's ability to obtain FDA approval for the marketing and sale of octreotide capsules. In December 2016, a lead plaintiff was appointed in the case. An amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff on February 10, 2017 similarly challenging the company's statements regarding the Phase 3 clinical trial methodology and results, and the company's ability to obtain FDA approval for octreotide capsules, purportedly in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The amended complaint adds as defendants current and former members of the company's board of directors, as well as the investment banks that underwrote the company's initial public offering ("IPO") on July 15, 2015. The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all purchasers of the company's stock in its IPO. The plaintiff is seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory damages on behalf of himself and members of a putative shareholder class, including interest and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in litigating the action, and any other relief the court determines is appropriate. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 27, 2017 and on February 15, 2018, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint on March 30, 2018. Chiasma said, "We believe this lawsuit is meritless and intend to vigorously defend against it. At this time, no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of this lawsuit or whether the outcome will be material to us." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Chiasma, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on developing oral medications using transient permeability enhancer technology platform for the treatment of rare and serious chronic disease in the United States, Europe, and internationally. The company offers oral octreotide capsules for adult patients under the MYCAPSSA name, which is in two Phase III clinical trials for the treatment of acromegaly, a condition that results in the body's production of excess growth hormone. Chiasma, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts. CIELO VISTA: Trial Court Must Identify Costilla County Landowners ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Appeals of Colorado, Division III, issued Opinion affirming the judgment of the District Court granting Costilla County landowners permanent right to access the Cielo Vista Ranch and other properties that were once known as the Taylor Ranch (the Ranch). CVR Properties, Ltd., Jaroso Creek Ranch, LLC, and Western Properties Investors LLC (the "Ranch Owner") challenges the trial court's implementation of the supreme court's mandate on remand. The Appellees are landowners in Costilla County whose rights to access the Ranch to graze livestock and gather firewood and timber were decreed through the remand proceedings. Landowners have also cross-appealed, challenging certain proceedings on remand as contrary to the mandate. In Lobato v. Taylor, 71 P.3d 938 (Colo. 2002) (Lobato I), and Lobato v. Taylor, 70 P.3d 1152 (Colo. 2003), as modified on denial of reh'g (June 16, 2003) (Lobato II), the supreme court held that Costilla County landowners whose land was settled as of 1869 were entitled to access the Ranch for grazing and to take firewood and timber. Carlos Beaubien had recruited frontier families to settle in the area in the 1850s and induced settlement by granting settlers the right to access and use the Ranch for grazing, firewood, and timber. This grant was memorialized in a Spanish language document -- the Beaubien Document -- that was executed and recorded by Beaubien in 1863. The supreme court held that Beaubien had granted permanent access rights that run with the land. When it remanded the case after Lobato II, the supreme court "direct[ed] the trial court to identify all landowners who have access rights to the [Ranch] and to enter all necessary and appropriate orders to safeguard those rights." On appeal, Ranch Owner contends that the proceedings on remand from 2004 through 2010, when the trial court identified most of the landowners with access rights to the Ranch, violated the mandate. Ranch Owner raises several contentions of error. Ranch Owner's central contention is that the trial court's opt-out process, pursuant to which it decreed access rights for individual Costilla County landowners even if they had not come forward to make a claim, improperly relieved these landowners of their burden of proof. On cross-appeal, landowners contend that the trial court violated the mandate when, in 2010, it switched to an opt-in process to identify any remaining Costilla County landowners with access rights. They contend that this opt-in process, implemented from 2010 through 2016, failed to comprehensively identify all Costilla County landowners with access rights, as required by the mandate. The Colo. App. concludes that the opt-out proceedings on remand from 2004 through 2010 were largely consistent with Lobato II's mandate. But the Colo. App. also concludes that the opt-in process implemented from 2010 through 2016 failed to discharge the mandate because that portion of the identification process also could have been comprehensive, but was not. During the opt-out proceedings from 2004 through 2010, the trial court identified benefited landowners based on an official 1894 Costilla County land survey, which the supreme court described as "the best [available] evidence of benefited properties conveyed by Beaubien." The Colo. App. refers to the 1894 survey as "Map A and Book E" because of its location in the Costilla County records. Map A demarcates the boundaries and locations of the original vara strip tracts conveyed by Beaubien to settlers, while Book E describes each tract shown on Map A and identifies the settler to whom Beaubien originally conveyed the tract. Based on footnote six from Lobato II and the absence of contrary evidence, the trial court presumed that all Map A and Book E lands were settled as of 1869, which entitled their present-day owners to access the Ranch. For the duration of the opt-out process, the trial court worked backward from Map A and Book E to identify benefited Costilla County landowners and adjudicate their rights. It appointed the owner of the San Luis Valley Title Company to identify the present-day owners of the lands shown on Map A. After these benefited landowners were identified, Ranch Owner could assert res judicata as an affirmative defense to bar the claims of any individual landowners. Once the trial court determined that a benefited landowner was not subject to res judicata, it notified that landowner of his or her right to access the Ranch for reasonable grazing of livestock and to gather timber and firewood for household use. Any landowner whom the trial court found to be barred by res judicata was notified and given an opportunity for a hearing. Landowners were not otherwise required to come forward in order to assert individual claims as a condition of the trial court adjudicating their rights. Around 4500 Costilla County landowners gained access rights to the Ranch through the proceedings from 2004 through 2010, which we refer to as the opt-out process. In 2010, once the trial court had identified and adjudicated the rights of most present-day owners of the lands in Map A and Book E, it implemented a new process under which any remaining landowners with access rights were required to come forward and assert a claim before the trial court would adjudicate their rights. Because this process required landowners to affirmatively come forward to have their rights adjudicated, the Colo. App. refers to the proceedings from 2010 through 2016 as the opt-in process. Approximately 350 more Costilla County landowners gained access rights to the Ranch during this time. The Colo. App. concludes that the opt-out process implemented from 2004 through 2010 produced an efficient and comprehensive result with respect to the Map A portion of Costilla County. In Colo. App.'s view, the opt-out process was consistent with the supreme court's mandate to identify all benefited landowners on remand. In contrast, however, the Colo. App. concludes that the opt-in process implemented from 2010 through 2016 did not fully comport with the mandate because the trial court, pursuant to that process, failed to comprehensively and conclusively adjudicate the access rights of landowners in the remainder of Costilla County, even though it could have done so while remaining faithful to the mandate. During this second phase of the proceedings on remand, the Colo. App. says the trial court could have identified all remaining Costilla County landowners with access rights by using a combination of the same general opt-out process used from 2004 through 2010, in addition to a modified opt-in process. Although Map A and Book E had been exhausted as a reference for identifying benefited lands, landowners presented undisputed evidence showing that other lands -- lands outside of Map A -- were timely settled. Because the trial court never attempted to identify all present-day owners of these undisputedly timely settled lands, instead adjudicating the rights of only those landowners who came forward to assert claims, the Colo. App. concludes that it failed to discharge its mandate. The Colo. App., therefore, reverses the trial court's October 2016 order to the extent it requires any remaining landowners entitled to access the Ranch to come forward, and remands the case to the trial court with instructions to identify all remaining owners of benefited lands in Costilla County and adjudicate their rights. In all other respects, the Colo. App. affirms the trial court's orders that are challenged on appeal. The case is captioned Cielo Vista Ranch I, LLC; Jaroso Creek Ranch, LLC; and Western Properties Investors, LLC, Defendants-Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. Billy Alire, Willie Alire, Leonides Atencio, Robert Atencio, Frances D. Berggran-Buhrles, Zach Bernal, Jose Fred Carson, Emilio DeHerrera, Juan DeHerrera, Adeline Espinosa, Edward Espinosa, Elmer Manuel Espinoza, Margurito Espinoza, Pete E. Espinoza, Corpus Gallegos, Gloria Gallegos, Jose A. Gallegos, Moises Gallegos, Ruben Gallegos, Rupert Gallegos, Raymond Garcia, Richard J. Garcia, Robert Garcia, Manuel Gardunio, Ruben Herrara, Gilbert G. Herrera, Charlie Jacquez, Jr., J.R. Jaquez, Jeffrey Jaquez, Maria Jaquez, Adelmo Kaber, Juan Lacombe, Adolph J. Lobato, Bonifacio "Bonnie" Lobato, Carlos Lobato, Emilio Lobato, Jr., Eugene Lobato, Henry Lobato, Jose F. Lobato, Pete Lobato, Presesentacion Lobato, Crucito Maes, Bert Maestas, Manuel Maestas, Norman Maestas, Raymond J. Maestas, Robert "Bobby" Maestas, Clorindo Martinez, David Martinez, Eugene Martinez, Hubert J. Martinez, Jesse Martinez, Jesse Martinez, Leonardo Martinez, Rosendo Martinez, Solestiano Martinez, Agatha Medina, Alfonso Medina, Cory Medina, Gilbert Medina, Leonardo Medina, Loyola Medina, Marvin Medina, Orry Medina, Raymond M. Medina, Gilbert "Andres" Montoya, Rudy Montoya, Willie Ray Montoya, Frank Olivas, Gurtrude C. Olivas, Shirley Romero Otero, Eppy Quintana, Apolinar Rael, Henry Rodriguez, Robert Romero, Bentura Roybal, Lucille Samelko, Anthony Sanchez, Bonnie Sanchez, Eugene Sanchez, Evan Sanchez, Frank Sanchez, Gerald Sanchez, James Sanchez, Jose G. Sanchez, Rufino Sanchez, S.R. Sanchez, Vernon Sanchez, Ronald A. Sandoval, Elesam Santistevan, Daniel Segura, Floyd R. Solan, Carolyn Taylor, Jose R. Torres, Arnold Valdez, Sam Valdez, Emejido Vialpando, Lawrence Vialpando, Martha Vialpando, Ervin L. Vigil, Joe P. Vigil, Larry J. Vigil, Manuel Vigil, Michael J. Vigil, Walter Vigil, David Cordova, Jerome Cordova, Matthew Cordova, Rodney Cordova, S. Raymond Cordova, Theresa Cordova, Isidro Gomez, Rosalie Gallegos, Mark Martinez, Daniel Martinez, Mike Martinez, Joseph Medina, Manuel Pacheco, Silas Pacheco, Julian Padilla, and Mary Renden, Plaintiffs-Appellees and Cross-Appellants. No. 16CA2083. (Colo. App.). A full-text copy of the Colo. App.'s November 15, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yatnqp28 from Leagle.com Squire Patton Boggs, LLP, Carolyn L. McIntosh -- carolyn.mcintosh@squirepb.com -- Aaron A. Boschee -- Aaron.boschee@squirepb.com -- Brent R. Owen -- brent.owen@squirepb.com -- Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellees and Cross-Appellants Billy Alire, Willie Alire, Leonides Atencio, Robert Atencio, Frances D. Berggran-Buhrles, Zach Bernal, Jose Fred Carson, Emilio DeHerrera, Juan DeHerrera, Adeline Espinosa, Edward Espinosa, Elmer Manuel Espinoza, Margurito Espinoza, Pete E. Espinoza, Corpus Gallegos, Gloria Gallegos, Jose A. Gallegos, Moises Gallegos, Ruben Gallegos, Rupert Gallegos, Raymond Garcia, Richard J. Garcia, Robert Garcia, Manuel Gardunio, Ruben Herrara, Gilbert G. Herrera, Charlie Jacquez, Jr., J.R. Jaquez, Jeffrey Jaquez, Maria Jaquez, Adelmo Kaber, Juan Lacombe, Adolph J. Lobato, Bonifacio "Bonnie" Lobato, Carlos Lobato, Emilio Lobato, Jr., Eugene Lobato, Henry Lobato, Jose F. Lobato, Pete Lobato, Presesentacion Lobato, Crucito Maes, Bert Maestas, Manuel Maestas, Norman Maestas, Raymond J. Maestas, Robert "Bobby" Maestas, Clorindo Martinez, David Martinez, Eugene Martinez, Hubert J. Martinez, Jesse Martinez, Jesse Martinez, Leonardo Martinez, Rosendo Martinez, Solestiano Martinez, Agatha Medina, Alfonso Medina, Cory Medina, Gilbert Medina, Leonardo Medina, Loyola Medina, Marvin Medina, Orry Medina, Raymond M. Medina, Gilbert "Andres" Montoya, Rudy Montoya, Willie Ray Montoya, Frank Olivas, Gurtrude C. Olivas, Shirley Romero Otero, Eppy Quintana, Apolinar Rael, Henry Rodriguez, Robert Romero, Bentura Roybal, Lucille Samelko, Anthony Sanchez, Bonnie Sanchez, Eugene Sanchez, Evan Sanchez, Frank Sanchez, Gerald Sanchez, James Sanchez, Jose G. Sanchez, Rufino Sanchez, S.R. Sanchez, Vernon Sanchez, Ronald A. Sandoval, Elesam Santistevan, Daniel Segura, Floyd R. Solan, Carolyn Taylor, Jose R. Torres, Arnold Valdez, Sam Valdez, Emejido Vialpando, Lawrence Vialpando, Martha Vialpando, Ervin L. Vigil, Joe P. Vigil, Larry J. Vigil, Manuel Vigil, Michael J. Vigil, and Walter Vigil. Polsinelli, PC, Bennett L. Cohen -- bcohen@polsinelli.com -- Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellees and Cross-Appellants David Cordova, Jerome Cordova, Matthew Cordova, Rodney Cordova, S. Raymond Cordova, Theresa Cordova, Isidro Gomez, Rosalie Gallegos, Mark Martinez, Daniel Martinez, Mike Martinez, Joseph Medina, Manuel Pacheco, Silas Pacheco, Julian Padilla, and Mary Renden. Spencer Fane LLP, Ronald L. Fano -- rfano@spencerfane.com -- Jamie N. Cotter -- jcotter@spencerfane.com -- Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee Cielo Vista Ranch I, LLC. Dill, Dill, Carr, Stonbraker & Hutchings, P.C., John J. Coates -- jcoates@dillanddill.com -- Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellants and Cross-Appellees Jaroso Creek Ranch, LLC, and Western Properties Investors, LLC. CLEAR CHANNEL: GAMCO Files Class Suit vs. iHeartMedia ----------------------------------------------------- Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that iHeartMedia is facing a putative class action suit entitled, GAMCO Asset Management, Inc. v. Hendrix, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0633-JRS. On August 27, 2018, a stockholder of the Company that filed a derivative lawsuit against iHeartMedia and others in 2016 (GAMCO Asset Management Inc.) filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned GAMCO Asset Management, Inc. v. Hendrix, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0633-JRS. The complaint names as defendants the Sponsor Defendants and the members of the Company's board of directors. The complaint alleges that minority shareholders in the Company during the period November 8, 2017 to March 14, 2018 were harmed by decisions of the Company's Board and the intercompany note committee of the Board relating to an Intercompany Note. Specifically, the complaint alleges that (i) the members of the intercompany note committee breached their fiduciary duties by not demanding payment under the Intercompany Note and issuing a simultaneous dividend after a threshold tied to iHeartMedia's liquidity had been reached; (ii) the Company's Board breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Third Amendment rather than allowing the Intercompany Note to expire; (iii) the Company's Board breached their fiduciary duties by not demanding payment under the Intercompany Note and issuing a simultaneous dividend after a threshold tied to iHeartMedia's liquidity had been reached; (iv) the Sponsor Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by not directing the Company's Board to permit the Intercompany Note to expire and to declare a dividend. The complaint further alleges that the Sponsor Defendants aided and abetted the Board's alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, a ruling that the Company's Board, the intercompany note committee, and the Sponsor Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and that the Sponsor Defendants aided and abetted the Board's breach of fiduciary duty; and an award of damages, together with pre- and post-judgment interests, to the putative class of minority shareholders. Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc., an outdoor advertising company, owns and operates advertising display faces in the United States and internationally. It operates in two segments, Americas Outdoor Advertising and International Outdoor Advertising. he company was incorporated in 1995 and is headquartered in San Antonio, Texas. Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. is a subsidiary of iHeartCommunications, Inc. CLEARVIEW SM: Underpays Laborers, Melgars Allege ------------------------------------------------ CARLOS M. MELGAR, and JOSE ELIAS RAMIREZ MELGAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEARVIEW SM, INC., and MOJSI MARKE, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06048-AMD-RML (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2018) is an action for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laborers. Clearview SM, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 COINBASE INC: Faces Diaz Suit for Disabilities Act Breach --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coinbase, Inc. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Coinbase, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10943 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Coinbase, Inc. offers digital currency wallets. It also operates a platform that allows merchants and consumers to buy, sell, and store bitcoin, ethereum, and litecoin. It offers Coinbase, a platform that facilitates consumers and merchants to transact with bitcoins; global digital asset exchange; and merchant tools.[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 CRIMSON WINE: Court Grants Final Approval of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- Crimson Wine Group, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a court has granted final approval of the settlement amount on the class action suit filed by a former empoyee of Pine Ridge Vineyards, and final payments will be issued in the fourth quarter of 2018. On May 17, 2017, a former employee filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Napa against one of the Company's subsidiaries, Pine Ridge Vineyards, alleging various wage and labor violations. On February 5, 2018, the Company settled this class action complaint at mediation for $0.4 million, which was recorded in the consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2017. The settlement does not contain any admission of liability, wrongdoing, or responsibility by any of the parties. The court granted final approval of the settlement amount and final payments will be issued in the fourth quarter of 2018. Crimson Wine Group, Ltd., through its subsidiaries, engages in the production and sale of ultra-premium and wines. It operates through two segments, Wholesale and Direct to Consumer. Crimson Wine Group, Ltd. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Napa, California. Crimson Wine Group, Ltd. was formerly a subsidiary of Leucadia National Corporation. CSWS, LLC: Powell et al Seek Minimum Wages & OT Pay for Dancers --------------------------------------------------------------- Kenya Williams-Mix, Adrieana Powell, Shalayla Liddell, Jada Adams, Breona Smith and Princess Wellington, the Plaintiffs, vs. CSWS, L.L.C. d/b/a OCEAN GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, DEBORAH DIAZ and SEIF EL SHARIF, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07460 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 9, 2018), seeks minimum wages, overtime wages, and/or all owed wages due under the Fair Labor Standards and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were female exotic dancers who worked for Defendant at its Bedford Park Illinois location during the relevant time period, and who was denied their clearly-established rights under applicable federal and state statutes. As a result of the practices of Defendants described herein, Defendants failed to adequately compensate Plaintiffs, including minimum and overtime wages as required by the FLSA and IMWL, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: John C. Ireland, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND 636 Spruce Street South Elgin, IL 60177 Telephone: 630-464-9675 Facsimile: 630-206-0889 E-mail: Attorneyireland@gmail.com - and - David Fish, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 E. 5th Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (331) 425 7083 Facsimile: (630) 778 0400 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com DAMENZO'S INC: Sanchez Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE JUAN GONZALEZ SANCHEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. DAMENZO'S, INC., an Illinois corporation, DAMENZO'S 2, INC., an Illinois corporation, DAMENZO'S 4, INC., an Illinois corporation, and DOMINICK MANNINO, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07494 (N.D. Ill., Nov.12, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in workweek under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees are current and former cooks, dishwashers, cleaners and other kitchen staff employees of Defendants' Damenzo's restaurants. For the first three weeks of his employment in July 2017, the Plaintiff worked at Defendants' restaurants on a six day per week work schedule for eight hours each day. The Plaintiff typically did not work Monday. Based on this work schedule, The Plaintiff worked approximately 48 hours per week for the initial three weeks of work at Defendants' restaurants. Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff and other non-exempt cooks, dishwashers, cleaners and other kitchen staff employees, at one and one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in individual work weeks, the lawsuit says.[BN] Plaintiff's Attorneys: Timothy M. Nolan, Esq. Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 322-1100 Facsimile: (312) 322-1106 E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com sengelson@nolanwagelaw.com DARPHIN LLC: Diaz Files ADA Class Action in New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Darphin LLC. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Darphin LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10921 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Darphin LLC is a privately held company in New York, NY and is a Single Location business, categorized under Perfumes and Colognes.[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 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Students Sue Over Professor Sexual Misconduct ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jared Pendak, writing for Valley News, reports that shock, disappointment and conflicting emotions toward the school were some of the feelings expressed by Dartmouth College students in the wake of a class-action lawsuit filed by seven current and former students against the Ivy League institution. Filed on Nov. 15, the $70 million suit brought forth by a group of female psychology and brain sciences students brought to light unseemly details of allegations against former professors Todd Heatherton, Paul Whalen and Bill Kelley, all of whom resigned or retired earlier this year following internal investigations into alleged sexual misconduct beginning last fall. Few specifics of those allegations were made public before the Nov. 15 lawsuit revealed claims that professors "leered at, groped, sexted, intoxicated and even raped female students," and "perpetuated an alcohol saturated 'party culture,' by conducting lab meetings at bars, by inviting students to 'hot tub parties,' at private residences, and by suggesting undergraduates use cocaine as part of a class demonstration on addiction." The lawsuit claims college administrators turned a blind eye despite knowledge of the abuse over a period of 16 years. Even during a busy period of final exams wrapping up, many students made time to read news reports -- many from national sources, such as The New York Times and CNN -- after an email from President Phil Hanlon sent to the entire campus on Nov. 15 acknowledged the lawsuit and denied the characterizations of Dartmouth's actions. "It's like, 'Come on.' It's really a shame this would happen here," Rachel Quist, a freshman from St. Peter, Minn., said on Nov. 17 during a walk near the Collis Center with classmates Chantal Elias and Katie Miller. "Like with anything, there are two different sides to the story, and I know the college has their own version. But when you read some of these articles, it doesn't look good." In defense of the college, Hanlon's email states that Dartmouth's leadership is "dedicated to maintaining a safe and inclusive campus for all members of our community." Quist, Elias and Miller said they haven't felt uncomfortable on campus during their first semester and that they feel the college "definitely tries" to discourage sexual misconduct though various education and support initiatives. "There are a lot of student life groups that work really hard so that (sexual assault victims) are supported," Miller said. "As part of orientation, we all had training about what to do if we see or hear about sexual assault." Still, they said, the school has plenty of room for progress. "You can be proactive, but (the allegations) are part of a deeply entrenched culture," Elias said. "It takes constant effort to reverse something like that." Sophomore Abby Shipley said she wasn't bowled over by the details of the allegations that emerged in the lawsuit, but only because it wasn't new to her. In her view, the fact that the college began investigating the three professors during her freshman year was damning enough. "When all of this first came out, it was surprising," Shipley said, adding that she probably would read more about the lawsuit after finals. "I kind of feel like, as a campus, we've already been through this and it's in the past. I feel like the college has handled it well." Several students indicated general desensitization to such news in light of the myriad sexual assault allegations surfacing during the #MeToo movement. Sophomores Ish McLaughlin and Nick Schoeller said that while close to home, the allegations against Heatherton, Whalen and Kelley are only the latest revelations in a national epidemic of abuse. "It's disappointing, but it's less of a shock now than it might have been three or four years ago," McLaughlin said. "It's a very serious issue, but it's not a new one, just because you've heard about these kinds of things so much, recently." Other students, including a senior environmental studies major and an undecided freshman, both of whom declined to provide their names, said they have seen examples of misogyny and a "toxic culture" at Dartmouth. The senior who said she's involved in numerous student government organizations said she hopes the lawsuit brought on by the seven women helps inspire other victims to come forward without fearing consequences. That's also the aim of Abby Tassel, senior program adviser for WISE Upper Valley, a Lebanon-based nonprofit that advocates to end gender-based violence. WISE maintains an office near the Dick's House health services center on campus. Open twice per week for walk-ins and at other times for scheduled appointments, one of the services of WISE's Dartmouth office is to help victims of sexual assault and other gender-based violence understand options for coming forward. "We help them navigate into whatever process they choose and explain what some of the benefits might be for each one," said Tassel, who cited WISE's confidentiality policy when asked if any of the lawsuit's plaintiffs had consulted with the organization. "We want them to know they can access support no matter which avenue they choose to pursue." WISE also offers its support services through a crisis line it staffs 24 hours daily, seven days a week. As for eliminating instances of sexual harassment and assault at Dartmouth or any other institution, Tassel pointed to what many feel is the crux of the matter: accepted culture. "It's all about culture," she said. "You can focus on individual perpetrators of violence, but you also have to look at the systems in place that embolden these actions, the cultures and subcultures that support them. Anytime you're trying to end gender-based violence, you have to think about the context of the oppression." [GN] DEFY MEDIA: Faces WARN Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------- James Loke Hale, writing for tubefilter, reports that significant details about Defy Media's financial situation and its effects on former employees and creators have come to light in the wake of Defy's abrupt closure on Nov. 6, partially thanks to two lawsuits filed against the company. The first lawsuit: Former Defy employee Georgina Guinane filed a class-action suit Nov. 13 on behalf of herself and all other Defy employees whose employment was severed in the unexpected mass layoff. Guinane is alleging Defy did not provide employees with the 60 days' written notice of layoff required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), and therefore they're owed what they normally would have been paid for 60 days of work. The second lawsuit: David Rath and Kara Welker, owners of talent agency Generate Holdings, Inc., which was originally acquired by Alloy Digital in late 2011, filed suit Nov. 14 alleging Defy owes money to the creators Rath and Welker manage, as well as Rath and Welker themselves. (Alloy Digital and Break Media merged into 2013 to form Defy, bringing Generate into Defy's fold.) Tech lawyer Lior Leser, who regularly vlogs about legal issues that affect YouTubers, parsed out the implications of both lawsuits in a recent video. Leser calls Guinane's filing a "tactical" lawsuit. Here's why: It's a general assumption that Defy will eventually file for bankruptcy -- and in bankruptcy, unsecured debts (that is, debts where the ower hasn't put down some kind of collateral) can be written off. Payroll counts as unsecured debt. But Guinane's suit is trying to tie former Defy employees' payroll money to the WARN Act because in bankruptcy, companies can't easily write off debts related to WARN violations. Leser applies the "tactical" descriptor to Guinane's complaint because it shows some adroit planning on behalf of the plaintiffs in an attempt to still recoup some wages in the event of a foreseen bankruptcy. With that in mind, Rath and Welker's lawsuit is tactical, too. Their complaint claims that when Generate became a part of Defy, Defy took over some of its financial duties, including "the collection of fees generated by Generate's clients and the remittance of those fees to the respective clientele after deducting the appropriate management fee." In practice, that meant money owed to Generate's clients went through Defy first. Rath and Welker claim they sought to sever that arrangement last year, entering into talks with Defy to pull Generate out from under the company's umbrella and operate it independently with its own bank accounts. During those talks, Defy's CEO Matt Diamond and president Keith Richman allegedly urged Rath and Welker to stay with Defy (and keep Generate's cash in Defy accounts) while the company formulated a plan to separate Generate. But now Rath and Welker believe Defy was never actually working on a plan. Instead, they allege, Defy was holding on to Generate for the express purpose of using its creators' revenue (about $200,000) to "artificially inflate Defy Media's accountings for use in obtaining emergency financing for Defy Media." And when Defy shut down, that money, which Rath and Welker say was not held in a client trust account but was instead put into Defy's own operating account -- became "subject to the claims of Defy Media's many creditors and may be tied up in a bankruptcy proceeding." The "tactical" part of this suit is, as Leser notes, in the fact that it's pursuing allegations of fraud. Rath and Welker claim Diamond and Richman fraudulently concealed information and fraudulently misrepresented their intention to develop an exit strategy for Generate. If that's the case, Rath and Welker could walk away with some cash, as money owed because of fraudulent actions can't be discharged in bankruptcy. Bottom line is, these lawsuits are trying to give folks caught in the crossfire between Defy and its creditors a chance to walk away with at least some of what they claim is owed to them. Rath, Welker, and Guinane aren't the only ones pursing legal action against Defy. As previously reported, the company had two high-profile pending lawsuits prior to its shutdown. One, filed in August by Screen Junkies founder Andy Signore, whom Defy fired last year after multiple women reported sexual misconduct, asks for an undisclosed amount in damages for breach of contract. The second, from website Topix, is related to the March shuttering of its programmatic ad business, and alleges Defy owes Topix $300,000 in payment for ads it ran on behalf of Defy. There are three additional ongoing lawsuits with Defy names as the defendant before its closure. Shandy Media and Proper Media both filed separate $150,000 lawsuits (on June 13 and Sept. 7, respectively) alleging, like Topix, that Defy owes them for advertising. Another company, ViewAll Investments Limited, filed a third lawsuit on Oct. 25 related to Defy's former ad business, asking for $100,000. Defy also owes money to YouTubers who were in its multichannel network at the time of its closure. Those creators were due to receive their September AdSense checks from Defy at the beginning of November, but were never paid. We've confirmed that creators who were a part of Defy's MCN will receive their October AdSense payments directly from YouTube at the beginning of December, but don't have any word on the status of September AdSense money. There's no additional information yet about what entity is in charge of Defy's assets or whether any of Defy's creditors have been paid. The case is GEORGINA GUINANE and class v. DEFY MEDIA, LLC and DAVID RATH and KARA WELKER v. DEFY MEDIA, LLC. [GN] DENTSPLY SIRONA: Castronovo & Golombeck Suits Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------- Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the County of New York state court has consolidated the class action lawsuits filed by John Castronovo and Irving Golombeck. On June 7, 2018, John Castronovo filed a putative class action suit in the County of New York alleging that the Company and certain of its present and former officers and directors violated U.S. securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements in connection with a February 2016 registration statement issued in connection with the acquisition of and merger with former Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. by former Dentsply International Inc. On August 9, 2018, Irving Golombeck filed a class action on behalf of the same purported class with similar allegations. On September 19, 2018, the Court consolidated the two actions and ordered plaintiffs to either file a consolidated complaint or designate one of the previously filed complaints as operative within 45 days of the order. Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets various dental and oral health products, and other consumable healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies & Equipment; and Consumables. The company was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania. DENTSPLY SIRONA: Futuredontics Still Defends Olivares Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that Futuredontics, Inc. continues to defend itself from a purported class action suit brought by Henry Olivares. On January 25, 2018, Futuredontics, Inc. received service of a purported class action lawsuit brought by Henry Olivares and other similarly situated individuals in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. The plaintiff class alleges several violations of the California wage and hours laws, including, but not limited to, failure to provide rest and meal breaks and the failure pay overtime. The Company has filed its answer to the complaint and the parties have initiated written and other discovery. Dentsply Sirona said the Company continues to vigorously defend against this matter. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets various dental and oral health products, and other consumable healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies & Equipment; and Consumables. The company was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania. DIVINE MIRACLES: Settlement in Hohensee Suit Has Court Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LYDIA HOHENSEE, Plaintiff, v. DIVINE MIRACLES, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "E" (2). Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-1287 (E.D. La., Judge Susie Morgan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the Parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement. Hohensee filed the collective action, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, on Feb. 8, 2018. She alleges that Defendants Divine Miracles, Inc. and Donyette Williams violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay her and other employees one and one half times their hourly rate for the hours they work in excess of 40 hours per week, failing to compensate her and other employees for all hours worked, and failing to comply with the record-keeping provisions of the FLSA. On July 26, 2018, the Plaintiff moved for conditional certification as a collective action and notice to potential class members. The putative class was defined as all individuals who: (1) Worked for Divine Miracles, Inc. at any time during the past three years; and (2) Worded as a home health care worker ("direct support worker") on behalf of Divine Miracles, Inc. and were paid straight time for all hours worked. The Defendants opposed. Conditional certification as a collective action has not been granted. On Oct. 31, 2018, the parties jointly filed the instant motion to approve their proposed settlement agreement. Judge Morgan finds that (i) there's no indication of fraud or collusion; (ii) the unresolved issues and the complexity of the litigation indicate the settlement is fair and reasonable; (iii) the Parties have engaged in discovery relating to the motion to conditionally certify the class; (iv) given the unresolved disputes between the parties and the stage at which the litigation remains, it is unclear whether and to what extent the Plaintiffs would be meritorious; (v) he cannot ascertain whether the agreed-upon amount of $10,500 is within a range of possible recovery for the Plaintiffs; and (vi) the Parties jointly seek judicial approval of a settlement agreement that addresses a bona fide dispute and was negotiated in good faith. For the foregoing reasons, the Judge granted the Joint Motion to Approve Settlement, and the Parties' settlement agreement approved. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order and Reasons is available at https://is.gd/TbjeqR from Leagle.com. Lydia Hohensee, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by George Brian Recile -- GBR@CHEHARDY.COM -- Chehardy, Sherman, Williams, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLC, Anya M. Jones -- AMJ@chehardy.com -- Chehardy, Sherman, Williams, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLC, Barry William Sartin, Jr. -- BWS@CHEHARDY.COM -- Chehardy, Sherman, Williams, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLC, Matthew Arthur Sherman -- MAS@CHEHARDY.COM -- Chehardy, Sherman, Williams, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLC, Patrick R. Follette -- PRF@CHEHARDY.COM -- Chehardy, Sherman, Williams, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLC, Preston Lee Hayes -- PLH@CHEHARDY.COM -- Chehardy, Sherman, Williams, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLC & Ryan Paul Monsour -- RPM@CHEHARDY.COM -- Chehardy, Sherman, Williams, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLC. Divine Miracles, Inc. & Donyette Williams, Defendants, represented by Brandon E. Davis -- brandon.davis@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Ashley Joy Heilprin -- ashley.heilprin@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP & Rebecca Sha -- rebecca.sha@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP. DONA MARIA: Final Approval of $275,000 FLSA Suit Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled CESAR LEDO, an individual, MIGUEL LEDO, an individual, RICARDO CHOY MOREY, an individual v. GUILLERMO PRADO INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA DONA MARIA, MARIA PRADO INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA DONA MARIA, Case No. 5:17-cv-02393-LHK (N.D. Cal.), move the Court for entry of an order pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act: 1. finally certifying the California Commission Overtime Subclass for settlement purposes under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. finally certifying the FLSA Commission Overtime Subclass for settlement purposes under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); 3. appointing Cesar Ledo, Miguel Ledo and Ricardo Choy Morey as the Class Representatives; 4. appointing James Dal Bon, as Class Counsel for settlement purposes; 5. granting final approval to the class action settlement based upon the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and 6. entering final judgment in the form of the proposed Final Approval Order. Plaintiffs seek final approval for a class action filed on April 26, 2017, for nonexempt employees against the owners of Dona Maria's, a small chain of Mexican food restaurants. The Plaintiffs alleged violations of federal and state wage law under the Fair Labor Standard Act and California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs alleged Defendants failed to pay overtime, shaved time, issued inaccurate paystubs and failed to give employees legally mandated breaks. The Defendants denied all of the Plaintiff's allegations. The case settled for a total of $275,000 to be apportioned according to these terms: 1) A total of $105,418.93 to be reserved for the "OT" Class; 2) A total of $67,088.57 reserved for the "Hourly" Class; 3) Administrative Costs to CPA of between $8500 and $20,000; 4) Service awards of $2500 a piece for the named Plaintiffs; 5) Class counsel to receive up to $75,000 for attorney's fees and $5000 for costs; 6) A portion of the money for each class to be reserved for the opt-in consenters; 7) Any unclaimed money to cy pres to the George Alexander Law Center; 8) The Settlement used the work week method to calculate the net amounts awarded to the members of each class. In the work week method, the class members receives a pro rata portion of the net settlement amount based upon the total number of work weeks during the class period. The Net Settlement Fund is divided by the total number of weeks worked by each class member. The resulting amount is the dollar amount each of the class members receives for each week they worked during the class period; and 9) Finally, according to the settlement members of both the "OT" Class and the "Hourly" Class would receive 80% of the settlement if they did not opt-out of the Rule 23 portion of the class. Members of both the "OT" Class and the "Hourly" Class would receive an additional 20% of their net settlement amount if they opted into the FSLA portion of the class. Unclaimed FSLA funds created by members that did not opt-in would be reallocated to those members that did opt-in. The Court will commence a hearing on December 9, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Dal Bon, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES DAL BON 606 N. 1st St. San Jose, CA 95112 Telephone: (408) 466-5845 Facsimile: (408) 286-7111 E-mail: jdb@wagedefenders.com DXC TECHNOLOGY: Settlement Reached in Forsyth Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- DXC Technology Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a settlement was reached in Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, with all 16 named and opt-in plaintiffs who were compelled to arbitrate. The purported class and collective action, Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise. This purported class and collective action was filed on August 18, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, against HP and HPE alleging violations of the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the California Business and Professions Code. Former business units of Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (HPE) now owned by the Company will be proportionately liable for any recovery by plaintiffs in this matter. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 19, 2016. Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class action under the ADEA comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had their employment terminated pursuant to a work force reduction ("WFR") plan on or after December 9, 2014 (deferral states) and April 8, 2015 (non-deferral states), and who were 40 years of age or older at the time of termination. Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012. On January 30, 2017, defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss and a motion to compel arbitration of claims by certain named and opt-in plaintiffs who had signed releases as part of their WFR packages. On September 20, 2017, the Court denied the partial motion to dismiss without prejudice, but granted defendants' motions to compel arbitration for those named and opt-in plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court has stayed the entire action pending arbitration for these individuals, and administratively closed the case. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration as well as a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit (which has been denied as premature). The reconsideration motion was denied without oral argument. In that same decision, the Court held that a joint arbitration was permissible. The Company subsequently sought and obtained leave of Court to file a motion for reconsideration arguing that joint arbitration is not permitted under the relevant employee agreements. The Court denied the motion on April 17, 2018, ruling that interpretation of the employee agreements is an issue delegated to the arbitrator. The American Arbitration Association, which was designated to manage the arbitration process, has selected a single arbitrator to conduct the proceedings. An initial case management conference before the arbitrator was held on June 29, 2018. Pursuant to the release agreements, however, mediation is a precondition to arbitration. A mediation was held on October 4-5, 2018, and a settlement was reached with all 16 named and opt-in plaintiffs who were compelled to arbitrate. A settlement agreement has been signed. DXC Technology said, "The case will continue to proceed in Court, however, with respect to other putative class members. Former business units of the Company now owned by Perspecta will be proportionately liable for any recovery by plaintiffs in this matter." DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides information technology services and solutions primarily in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). DXC Technology Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Tysons, Virginia. DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Perry Sues over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- Walter Perry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company, and LVNV Funding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-01875-LCB (N.D. Ala., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to recover damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Alabama, residing in the Northern District of Alabama, from whom Defendants attempted to collect delinquent, time-barred consumer debt, which was allegedly owed to HSBC Bank for a credit card account. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC is a South Carolina limited liability company that acts as a debt collector, as defined by section 1692a of the FDCPA, because it regularly uses the mails and/or the telephone to collect, or attempt to collect, defaulted consumer debts. Defendant Dynamic operates a nationwide debt collection business and attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state, including consumers in the State of Alabama. In fact, Defendant Dynamic was acting as a debt collector as to the defaulted consumer debt it attempted to collect from Plaintiff, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: David J. Philipps, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Telephone: (708) 974-2900 Facsimile: (708) 974-2907 E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com mephilipps@aol.com - and - Ronald C. Sykstus, Esq. BOND, BOTES, SYKSTUS, TANNER & EZZELL, P.C. 225 Pratt Avenue Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 539-9899 Facsimile: (256) 713-0237 E-mail: Rsykstus@bondnbotes.com EDISON INT'L: Jan. 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Edison International ("Edison" or the "Company") (NYSE: EIX) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, and indexed under 18-cv-09690, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise, acquired Edison securities between February 23, 2016 through November 12, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Edison securities between February 23, 2016, and November 12, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have until January 15, 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. Edison International was founded in 1886 and is based in Rosemead, California. Edison International is the parent holding company of Southern California Edison Company ("SCE"). SCE is an investor-owned public utility primarily engaged in the business of supplying and delivering electricity to an approximately 50,000 square mile area of southern California. The Company supplies electricity primarily to residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and other customers, as well as public authorities through transmission and distribution networks. Its transmission facilities consist of lines ranging from 33 kV to 500 kV and substations; and its distribution system comprises approximately 53,000-line miles of overhead lines, 38,000-line miles of underground lines, and 800 substations located in California. The Company serves approximately 5 million customers. 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) the Company failed to maintain electricity transmission and distribution networks in compliance with safety requirements and regulations promulgated under state law; (ii) consequently, the Company was in violation of state law and regulations; (iii) the Company's noncompliant electricity networks created a significantly heightened risk of wildfires in California; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 8, 2018, two wildfires started in Southern California, designated the Hill Fire and the Woolsey Fire. The Hill Fire, which broke out in Ventura County, subsequently grew to 4,531 acres, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ("Cal Fire"). Stretching from Los Angeles County to Ventura County, the Woolsey Fire burned 93,662 acres, including 83 percent of all National Parks Service land in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, according to Cal Fire. On November 12, 2018, the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") launched an investigation into Edison's subsidiary SCE, in order to "assess the compliance of electrical facilities with applicable rules and regulations in fire-impacted areas." According to CPUC, electrical infrastructure may have suffered malfunctions near ground zero of the blazes. Specifically, it was reported that on the day the fires began SCE issued an alert to the CPUC that a substation circuit near the Woolsey Fire origin "relayed," or sensed a disturbance on the circuit, just two minutes before Cal Fire said that the devastating fire began. Following CPUC's announcement, Edison International's stock price fell $7.44 per share, or more than 12%, to close at $53.56 per share on November 12, 2018. Over the following days, as the Hill and Woolsey Fires continued to burn, Edison International's stock price continued to fall, closing at $47.19 on November 15, 2018, a total drop of 32% from its price prior to CPUC's announcement. With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN] ELECTRIC BEACH: Mitchell Seeks OT and Minimum Wage -------------------------------------------------- Angelica Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated as class representative under Illinois Law and/or as members of the Collective as permitted under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff, vs. Electric Beach Tanning Salon Ltd., V F V Inc., Ultramax Industries, Inc and MICHAEL A VOJACK as an individual under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois Wage Laws, the Defendants, Case: 1:18-cv-07475 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 12 2018), seeks overtime and minimum wage under FLSA and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiff brought claims for relief for violation of the FLSA as a collective action pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA (29 U.S.C. section 216(b)), on behalf of all employees of Defendants who were, are, or will be employed by Defendants during the period of three years prior to the date of commencement of this action through the date of judgment in this action, who were not compensated at one-and-one-half times the regular rate of pay for all work performed in excess of 40 hours per work week and/or who were not compensated at the federal minimum wage rate of $7.25 per hour, via the Defendants' policy and procedure of Shaving work hours to the retail hours of the Defendants operations, (rather than to the actual hours of work) and/or the policy and procedure of Defendants to pay via three allegedly separate corporations, which actually are one employer, thereby denying the FLSA Collective owed overtime wages and/or minimum wages and/or payment of the proper overtime rate, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiffs and Class: John C. Ireland, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND 636 Spruce Street South Elgin, IL 60177 Telephone: 630 464-9675 Facsimile: 630 206-0889 E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com ENDOCYTE INC: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action in NY -------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC on Nov. 16 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:18-cv-10392-JMF, on behalf of public common shareholders of Endocyte, Inc. ("Endocyte" or the "Company") (NasdaqGS: ECYT) who held Endocyte securities on the record date November 15, 2018 (the "Class Period"), and have been harmed by Endocyte and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the sale of the Company to affiliates of Novartis AG ( the "Proposed Merger"). Under the terms of the Proposed Merger, Endocyte shareholders are only anticipated to receive $24.00 in cash for each share of Endocyte common stock they own (the "Merger Consideration"). The complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration is inadequate and that the proxy statement regarding the Proposed Merger (the "Proxy") provides shareholders with materially incomplete and misleading information about the Proposed Merger, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In particular, the complaint alleges that the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the valuation analyses performed by the Company's financial advisors, Centerview Partners LLC and Jefferies LLC, in support of their fairness opinions. The special meeting of Endocyte shareholders to vote on the Proposed Merger is currently scheduled for December 20, 2018. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 15, 2019. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Click here for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/endocyte-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Monteverde & Associates PC -- http://www.monteverdelaw.com-- is a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm committed that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates PC lawyers have significant experience litigating mergers & acquisitions and securities class actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017, and 2018, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017 Top Rated Lawyer. Contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] ENDOCYTE INC: Wheby Balks at Merger Deal with Novartis ------------------------------------------------------ EARL WHEBY, JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ENDOCYTE, INC., JOHN C. APLIN, COLIN GODDARD, MARC KOZIN, PHILIP S. LOW, PATRICK MACHADO, FRED A. MIDDLETON, LESLEY RUSSELL, MIKE A. SHERMAN, and DAWN SVORONOS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01794 (D. Del., Nov. 4, 2018), alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a proxy statement. This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on October 18, 2018, pursuant to which Endocyte, Inc. will be acquired by Novartis AG and Edinburgh Merger Corporation. On October 17, 2018, Endocyte's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Novartis. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Endocyte's stockholders will receive $24.00 in cash for each share of Endocyte common stock they hold. On October 31, 2018, defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says. Endocyte is a biopharmaceutical company and leader in developing targeted therapies for the personalized treatment of cancer. The Company's drug conjugation technology targets therapeutics and companion imaging agents specifically to the site of diseased cells. Endocyte's lead program is a prostate specific membrane antigen ("PSMA")-targeted radioligand therapy, 177 Lu-PSMA-617, which is in phase 3 for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer ("mCRPC") for PSMA-positive patients. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Gina M. Serra, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com ENERGY TRANSFER: Parties in Warner Class Suit Agree to Stay Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Energy Transfer LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the parties in the putative class action suit by William D. Warner entered into a stipulation staying Defendants' response deadlines until the designation of a lead plaintiff/lead counsel structure in accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On September 17, 2018, William D. Warner ("Plaintiff"), a purported Energy Transfer Equity (ETP) unitholder, filed a putative class action asserting violations of various provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and various rules promulgated thereunder in connection with the Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.-Energy Transfer Partners GP Merger against ETP, Kelcy L. Warren, Michael K. Grimm, Marshall S. McCrea, Matthew S. Ramsey, David K. Skidmore, and W. Brett Smith ("Defendants"). Plaintiff specifically alleges that the Form S-4 Registration Statement issued in connection with the ETE-ETP Merger omits and/or misrepresents material information. Defendants believe the allegations have no merit and intend to defend vigorously against them. On October 26, 2018, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a stipulation staying Defendants' response deadlines until the designation of a lead plaintiff/lead counsel structure in accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Energy Transfer LP provides diversified energy-related services in the United States. It owns and operates approximately 7,900 miles of natural gas transportation pipelines and three natural gas storage facilities in Texas; and approximately 11,800 miles of interstate natural gas pipelines. The company was formerly known as Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. and changed its name to Energy Transfer LP in October 2018. The company was founded in 2002 and is based in Dallas, Texas. ENERGY TRANSFER: Trial in Dieckman Class Suit Set for Sept. 2019 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Energy Transfer LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that trial in the Regency Merger-related suit commenced by Adrian Dieckman, is currently set for September 23-27, 2019. Purported Regency unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas and Delaware asserting claims relating to the Regency-ETP merger (the "Regency Merger"). All but one Regency Merger-related lawsuits have been dismissed. On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman ("Dieckman"), a purported Regency unitholder, filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Regency Merger Litigation"), on behalf of Regency's common unitholders against Regency GP, LP; Regency GP LLC; ETE, ETP, ETP GP, and the members of Regency's board of directors ("Defendants"). The Regency Merger Litigation alleges that the Regency Merger breached the Regency partnership agreement because Regency's conflicts committee was not properly formed, and the Regency Merger was not approved in good faith. On March 29, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. Dieckman appealed. On January 20, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Chancery. On May 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Verified Class Action Complaint. Defendants then filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and a Motion to Stay Discovery on May 19, 2017. On February 20, 2018, the Court of Chancery issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss, dismissing the claims against all defendants other than Regency GP, LP and Regency GP LLC (the "Regency Defendants"). On March 6, 2018, the Regency Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiff's Verified Amended Class Action Complaint. Trial is currently set for September 23-27, 2019. Energy Transfer said, "The Regency Defendants cannot predict the outcome of the Regency Merger Litigation or any lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can the Regency Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the Regency Merger Litigation. The Regency Defendants believe the Regency Merger Litigation is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it and any others that may be filed in connection with the Regency Merger." Energy Transfer LP provides diversified energy-related services in the United States. It owns and operates approximately 7,900 miles of natural gas transportation pipelines and three natural gas storage facilities in Texas; and approximately 11,800 miles of interstate natural gas pipelines. The company was formerly known as Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. and changed its name to Energy Transfer LP in October 2018. The company was founded in 2002 and is based in Dallas, Texas. ENHANCED RECOVERY: Geisinsky Sues Over Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC. The case is styled as Yisroel Geisinsky on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06691 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process outsourcing services that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research primarily for Fortune 500 companies in the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. Adam J. Fishbein, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Phone: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com EWC UNION: Fair Seeks Unpaid Wages for Wax Specialist ----------------------------------------------------- JESSICA FAIR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EWC UNION SQUARE LLC d/b/a EUROPEAN WAX CENTER, EWC LAGUARDIA PLACE LLC d/b/a EUROPEAN WAX CENTER, and 34th STREET EUROPEAN WAX CENTER d/b/a EUROPEAN WAX CENTER, the Defendants, Case No.: 160397/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 8, 2018), alleges that Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in illegal and improper wage practices including (a) requiring Wax Specialists to perform work without compensation before the start of their shift; (b) requiring Wax Specialists to perform work without compensation after the end of their shift; (c) failing to pay Wax Specialists at their straight or agreed upon rate for all hours worked under 40 hours in a week; (d) failing to pay Wax Specialists overtime of time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty in a week; (e) paying commissions to Wax Specialists and not including such amounts in Wax Specialists' overtime rate of pay; and (f) failing to provide accurate wage statements under New York Labor Law. Additionally, Plaintiff brings individual claims pursuant to New York State Human Rights Law against Defendant for pregnancy discrimination.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative New York Class: Louis Ginsberg, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C. 1613 Northern Boulevard Roslyn, NY 11576 Telephone (516) 625-0105 EXPEDIA INC: Diaz Brings Class Suit in NY Under ADA --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Expedia, Inc. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Expedia, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10942 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online travel company in the United States and internationally. It operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments. The company facilitates the booking of hotel rooms, airline seats, car rentals, and destination services from its travel suppliers; and acts as an agent in the transactions.[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 FAHERTY BRAND: Fischler Sues Clothing Brand for ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Faherty Brand, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Faherty Brand, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10941 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Faherty Brand is an American clothing and lifestyle brand "about the beach" created by twin brothers Alex and Mike Faherty.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017-6705 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com FANNIE MAE: Dismissal of Suit Challenging 3rd Amendment Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAVID JACOBS; GARY HINDES, Appellants, v. FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, IN ITS CAPACITY AS CONSERVATOR OF THE FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AND THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 17-3794 (3d Cir.), Judge Stephanos Bibas of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Appellants' amended complaint. In 2008, the collapse of the housing market cost Fannie and Freddie billions of dollars, threatening the U.S. mortgage market. The Treasury quickly took steps to prop up Fannie and Freddie. But the mortgage and financial markets remained perilous, and the financial crisis grew worse. So the Agency put both Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship. Under the Agency's direction, they entered into funding agreements with the Treasury. The Treasury gave each enterprise a funding commitment. When Fannie's or Freddie's liabilities exceed their assets, they can draw on that funding commitment to keep their net worth in the black. In return, the Treasury received one million shares of senior preferred stock in each of Fannie and Freddie. These shares gave the Treasury a liquidation preference in each enterprise equal to $1 billion plus all the money drawn from the Treasury's funding commitment. The shares also gave the Treasury an annual dividend equal to 10% of the liquidation preference, if paid in cash. The Treasury initially capped its funding commitment at $100 billion per enterprise. That was not enough, at least for Fannie. Two amendments to the funding agreement more than doubled that cap, and Fannie and Freddie wound up drawing $116.1 billion and $71.3 billion from the Treasury. But as Fannie and Freddie drew more and more money from the Treasury, they owed it larger and larger dividends. In a vicious cycle, they sometimes had to draw money from the Treasury just to pay the Treasury's dividends. In 2012, the Treasury and the Agency renegotiated the funding agreements and agreed to the Third Amendment. The Third Amendment replaced the 10% annual dividend with a quarterly variable dividend. It set that variable dividend equal to Fannie's and Freddie's positive net worth above a capital buffer, which was set to decrease with each dividend payment. The capital buffer is now down to zero. So each quarter, the dividend consumes each enterprise's entire positive net worth. The challengers call this arrangement the Net Worth Sweep. Jacobs and Hindes filed the class-action suit against the Agency, Treasury, Fannie, and Freddie to challenge the Third Amendment. Their original complaint asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of Delaware and Virginia corporate law. The challengers later amended their complaint, voluntarily dismissing their claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The amended complaint contains four counts: two asserting that the Third Amendment violates Delaware and Virginia corporate law, and two new claims against the Treasury for unjust enrichment. It seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, including damages, restitution, and disgorgement. The Agency, Treasury, Fannie, and Freddie moved to dismiss. The District Court granted that motion, holding that 12 U.S.C. Section 4617(f) barred all the challengers' claims. It reasoned that the Agency acted within its statutory powers that the Recovery Act did not incorporate state law, and that Section 4617(f)'s sweeping limitations on judicial review deprived it of jurisdiction. The court also refused to take judicial notice of certain documents that allegedly undermined the Agency's and Treasury's assertions, because it did not rely on those assertions in reaching its decision. Judge Bibas finds that the challengers are in an unfortunate spot. They invested in Fannie and Freddie, expecting regular dividend payments in return. The Third Amendment destroyed those expectations. The Recovery Act is clear. He rejects the shareholders' challenge on all fronts. First, the Recovery Act gave the government broad, discretionary power to enter into the deal. Second, the deal complies with the requirements of the Recovery Act, as well as Delaware and Virginia corporate law. And third, the relief sought would restrain or affect the exercise of the government's powers as conservator, which the Recovery Act forbids. That relief, even the monetary relief, would unwind the whole deal. For these reasons, the Judge affirmed the District Court's dismissal. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/a3a41f from Leagle.com. Christopher N. Kelly, Esq. -- ckelly@potteranderson.com -- Michael A. Pittenger, Esq. -- mpittenger@potteranderson.com -- [ARGUED], Alan R. Silverstein, Esq. -- asilverstein@potteranderson.com -- Potter Anderson & Corroon, 1313 North Market Street, 6th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801. Myron T. Steele, Esq. -- msteele@potteranderson.com -- Potter, Anderson & Corroon, 800 North State Street, Suite 401, Dover, DE 19901, Counsel for Appellants. David B. Bergman, Esq. -- david.bergman@arnoldporter.com -- Howard N. Cayne, Esq. -- howard.cayne@arnoldporter.com -- [ARGUED], Ian S. Hoffman, Esq. -- ian.hoffman@arnoldporter.com -- Dirk Phillips, Esq. -- dirk.phillips@arnoldporter.com -- Asim Varma, Esq. -- asim.varma@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, 601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. Robert C. Maddox, Esq. -- maddox@rlf.com -- Robert J. Stearn, Jr., Esq. -- stearn@rlf.com -- Richards Layton & Finger, 920 North King Street, One Rodney Square, Wilmington, DE 19801, Counsel for Appellee Federal Housing Finance, Agency. Gerard J. Sinzdak, Esq.[ARGUED], Abby C. Wright, Esq., United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530, Counsel for Appellee United States Department of, Treasury. Robert C. Maddox, Esq., Robert J. Stearn, Jr., Esq., Richards Layton & Finger, 920 North King Street, One Rodney Square, Wilmington, DE 19801. Meaghan M. Vergow, Esq., O'Melveny & Myers, 1625 I Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006, Counsel for Appellee Federal National Mortgage, Association. Michael J. Ciatti, Esq., King & Spalding, 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20006. Robert C. Maddox, Esq., Robert J. Stearn, Jr., Esq., Richards Layton & Finger, 920 North King Street, One Rodney Square, Wilmington, DE 19801, Counsel for Appellee Federal Home Loan Mortgage, Corporation. FASION RETAIL: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fashion Retail NYC LLC. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fashion Retail NYC LLC doing business as: Sayki, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10930 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. SAYKI is a Men's Fashion brand located in New York City.[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 FITNESS FORMULA: Court Tosses Out M. Wheeler's EFTA Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARK WHEELER, Plaintiff, v. THE FITNESS FORMULA, LTD., and LAKEVIEW FITNESS EAST, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18 CV 582 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment to the extent that the Plaintiff seeks to hold them liable under section 1693e(b) of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA") for the six erroneous charges. Wheeler's debit card was erroneously charged six months' worth of gym membership dues by the Defendants. After catching their mistake, the Defendants refunded the Plaintiff for the erroneous charges. The Plaintiff filed the putative class action, bringing claims under the EFTA, and under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. The Defendants move for partial summary judgment on the EFTA claim, arguing that they are not liable for violating section 1693e(b). The Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated section 1693e(b) by failing to give him advance notice of the erroneous charges. The Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment for two reasons. First, they did not violate section 1693e(b) because -- although they erroneously double-charged the Plaintiff for six months -- none of those charges varied in amount from what the Plaintiff had authorized for his monthly gym membership dues. Second, even if they violated section 1693e(b), section 1693m(c) shields them from liability because their violation was, (1) unintentional, and (2) the result of a bona fide error despite having maintained procedures reasonably adapted to avoid that error. Judge Gettleman finds that if either of the Defendants' arguments is correct, they are entitled to summary judgment. He says he needs not find that a violation occurred to consider if the Defendants can successfully assert the bona-fide error defense. Assuming without deciding that they violated section 1693e(b), the Judge agrees that their violation was unintentional and the result of a bona fide error despite having maintained procedures reasonably adapted to avoid that error. Consequently, to the extent that the Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendants liable for violating section 1693e(b) as to the six erroneous charges, he granted the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is granted. The case remains set for a status on Dec. 6, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., and the parties should be prepared to identify the Plaintiff's remaining claims. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/8eG1gE from Leagle.com. Mark Wheeler, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members described herein, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Edelman, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Tara Leigh Goodwin, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Cathleen M. Combs, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, David See Kim, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC & James O. Latturner, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC. The Fitness Formula, LTD., doing business as Fitness Formula Clubs & Lakeview Fitness East, LLC, doing business as FFC-East Lakeview and Fitness Formula Club-East Lakeview, Defendants, represented by Isaac J. Colunga -- isaac.colunga@icemiller.com -- ICE MILLER LLP, Heather Lynn Maly -- heather.maly@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller & Martha Larson Kohlstrand -- martha.kohlstrand@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Made Unsolicited Calls, Miller Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JO ANN MILLER, and VITALY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 18STCV02663 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 29, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Frontier Communications Corporation provides communications services to consumer, commercial, and wholesale customers in the United States. The company was formerly known as Citizens Communications Company and changed its name to Frontier Communications Corporation in July 2008. Frontier Communications Corporation was founded in 1927 and is based in Norwalk, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghann E. George, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FFIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (866) 598-5042 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com % abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com GAL FOOD: Ventura Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime ----------------------------------------------- VIANEY VENTURA, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FRANCISCO HERREROS, AMADO HERREROS, Individually and GAL FOOD CORP. d/b/a TACOS AL SUADERO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06478 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wage and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Acording to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other FLSA Collective have been subjected to Defendant's decision, policy, plan and policies willfully failing and refusing to pay them the lawful minimum wage and one half times their regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and proposed FLSA Collective Plantiffs: Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq. THE KLEIN LAW GROUP 39 Broadway Suite 1530 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 344 9022 Facsimile: (212) 344 0301 GALERIE DE POP: Women's Clothing Shop Faces ADA Suit ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Galerie De Pop Inc. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Galerie De Pop Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10929 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Galerie DE Pop Inc is a privately held company in New York, NY and is a Single Location business, categorized under Women's Ready-To-Wear Apparel.[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 GARNIER LLC: Diaz Sues Cosmetics Firm Under Disabilities Act ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Garnier LLC. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Garnier LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10920 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Garnier is a mass market cosmetics brand of French cosmetics company L'Oréal. It produces hair care and skin care products.[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 GEO GROUP: Immigration Detainees' Class Suits Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------- The GEO Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from class action suits initiated by civil immigration detainees in Colorado, Washington and in California. On October 22, 2014, former civil immigration detainees at the Aurora Immigration Detention Center filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Court"). The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA"). The plaintiff class claims that the Company was unjustly enriched as a result of the level of payment the detainees received for work performed at the facility, even though the voluntary work program as well as the wage rates and standards associated with the program that are at issue in the case are authorized by the Federal government under guidelines approved by the United States Congress. On July 6, 2015, the Court found that detainees were not employees under the Colorado Minimum Wage Order and dismissed this claim. In February 2017, the Court granted the plaintiff-class' motion for class certification which the Company appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 9, 2018, a three-judge panel of the appellate court affirmed the class-certification order. A petition for rehearing en banc was denied on March 7, 2018. On October 2, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Company's petition for a writ of certiorari on the class certification order. The plaintiff class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper. In the time since the Colorado suit was initially filed, three similar lawsuits have been filed – two in Washington and one in California. In Washington, one of the two lawsuits was filed on September 9, 2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The second was filed on September 20, 2017 by the State Attorney General against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County, which the Company removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 9, 2017. In California, a class-action lawsuit was filed on December 19, 2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S. District Court Eastern Division of the Central District of California. All three lawsuits allege violations of the respective state's minimum wage laws. However, the California lawsuit, like the Colorado suit, also includes claims based that the Company violated the TVPA and California's equivalent state statute. The GEO Group said, "The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself and has consistently refuted the allegations and claims in these lawsuits. The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to these matters at this time, as a loss is not considered probable nor reasonably estimable at this stage of the lawsuit." The GEO Group, Inc. is the first fully integrated equity real estate investment trust specializing in the design, financing, development, and operation of correctional, detention, and community reentry facilities around the globe. GEO is the world's leading provider of diversified correctional, detention, community reentry, and electronic monitoring services to government agencies worldwide with operations in the United States, Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. The company is based in Boca Raton, Florida. GERBER PRODUCTS: Class Decertification in Zakaria Upheld -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, OULA ZAKARIA, individually as a representative the class, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GERBER PRODUCTS CO., a corporation, d/b/a NESTLE NUTRITION, NESTLE INFANT NUTRITION, and NESTLE NUTRITION NORTH AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-56509 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendant Gerber on Zakaria's California state law claims for restitution and actual, punitive, and statutory damages as well as its order decertifying the putative class of purchasers of Gerber's Good Start Gentle infant formula. The Court has reviewed the district court's decision to decertify the class for abuse of discretion and its grant of summary judgment de novo. It finds that district court did not abuse its discretion by decertifying the class on the ground that Zakaria had failed to provide an adequate basis to calculate restitution under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), False Advertising Law ("FAL"), or Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and actual damages under the CLRA. Regardless whether consumers were willing to pay a higher price for the labelled product, the expert's opinion did not contain any evidence that such higher price was actually paid; hence, no evidence of restitution or actual damages was proffered. Next, it finds that Dr. Howlett's deposition testimony, viewed in the light most favorable to Zakaria, does not support a justifiable inference to the contrary. Indeed, Gerber has adduced undisputed evidence to show that it did not raise the price of Good Start Gentle because of the 1st and Only Seal. Dr. Howlett's conjoint analysis alone does not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the amount of restitution or actual damages. And because Zakaria's claim for actual damages is unavailing, her claim for punitive damages cannot succeed. Finally, it finds that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to proceed with a liability-only class where no damages at all could be proven. Zakaria has not adduced sufficient evidence from which to infer what that premium might be, and Gerber has adduced uncontroverted evidence that it did not raise the price of Good Start Gentle because of its use of the 1st and Only Seal. Hence, the district court committed no error in de-certifying the class. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/ukOauD from Leagle.com. GLAMGLOW LLC: Skincare Product Maker Faces Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glamglow LLC. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Glamglow LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10916 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. GLAMGLOW Inc. produces skincare products. It offers products for anti-aging, problem skin, hydration, gentle applications, and eyes. The company also provides pro treatments, gifts, kits, sets, and cleansers.[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 GLOBAL EAGLE: Fairness Hearing in M&M Hart Suit Set for March 2019 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Global Eagle Entertainment Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court has preliminarily approved the settlement in the securities class action suit filed by M&M Hart Living Trust and Randi Williams, with a fairness hearing for final approval scheduled for March 4, 2019. On February 23, 2017 and on March 17, 2017, following the company's announcement that the company anticipated a delay in filing its Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2016 ("2016 Form 10-K") and that the company's former CEO and former CFO would separate from the company, three putative securities class action lawsuits were filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California. These lawsuits alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the company, its former CEO and two of the company's former CFOs. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed two of these lawsuits. The third lawsuit, brought by putative stockholder M&M Hart Living Trust and Randi Williams (the "Hart complaint"), alleged that the company and the other defendants made misrepresentations and/or omitted material information about the Emerging Markets Communications (EMC) Acquisition, the company's projected financial performance and synergies following that acquisition, and the impact of that acquisition on the company's internal controls over financial reporting. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On November 2, 2017, the Court granted the company's and the other defendants' motion to dismiss the Hart complaint, and dismissed the action with prejudice. On November 30, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the Court's previous judgment of dismissal to permit them to file a further amended complaint. On January 8, 2018, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the previous judgment. On January 29, 2018, the plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the Court’s denial of the plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the judgment. On October 4, 2018, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement to fully resolve the pending appeal and release all claims against the Company and the other defendants in exchange for a settlement payment of $1.1 million, to be fully paid by the carriers of the Company's Directors & Officers insurance. On November 2, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement, with a fairness hearing for final approval scheduled for March 4, 2019. Global Eagle Entertainment Inc. provides content, connectivity, and digital media solutions for travel industry worldwide. The company operates through two segments, Media & Content and Connectivity. Global Eagle Entertainment Inc. is headquartered in Los Angeles, California. HAIN CELESTIAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class action suit filed in the Eastern District of New York. On August 17, 2016, three securities class action complaints were filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Company alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The three complaints are: (1) Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Flora Complaint"); (2) Lynn v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Lynn Complaint"); and (3) Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Spadola Complaint" and, together with the Flora and Lynn Complaints, the "Securities Complaints"). On June 5, 2017, the court issued an order for consolidation, appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of selection of co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, the Securities Complaints were consolidated under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Consolidated Securities Action"), and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. On June 21, 2017, the Company received notice that plaintiff Spadola voluntarily dismissed his claims without prejudice to his ability to participate in the Consolidated Securities Action as an absent class member. The Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on August 4, 2017 and a Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 7, 2017 on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities between November 5, 2013 and February 10, 2017 (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint names as defendants the Company and certain of its current and former officers (collectively, the "Defendants") and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's business, prospects, financial results and internal controls. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 3, 2017. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition on December 1, 2017, and Defendants filed the reply on January 16, 2018. On April 4, 2018, the Court requested additional briefing relating to certain aspects of Defendants' motion to dismiss. In accordance with this request, Lead Plaintiffs submitted their supplemental brief on April 18, 2018, and Defendants submitted an opposition on May 2, 2018. Lead Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on May 9, 2018, and Defendants submitted a sur-reply on May 16, 2018. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake Success, New York. HAIN CELESTIAL: Stockholder Class & Derivative Suit Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the case entitled, In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation, continues to be stayed. On April 19, 2017 and April 26, 2017, two class action and stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Board of Directors and certain officers of the Company under the captions Silva v. Simon, et al. (the "Silva Complaint") and Barnes v. Simon, et al. (the "Barnes Complaint"), respectively. Both the Silva Complaint and the Barnes Complaint allege violation of securities law, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. On May 23, 2017, an additional stockholder filed a complaint under seal in the Eastern District of New York against the Board of Directors and certain officers of the Company. The complaint alleges that the Company's directors and certain officers made materially false and misleading statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's business, prospects and financial results. The complaint also alleges that the Company violated its by-laws and Delaware law by failing to hold its 2016 Annual Stockholders Meeting and includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. On August 9, 2017, the Court granted an order to unseal this case and reveal Gary Merenstein as the plaintiff (the "Merenstein Complaint"). On August 10, 2017, the court granted the parties stipulation to consolidate the Barnes Complaint, the Silva Complaint and the Merenstein Complaint under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation (the "Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action") and to appoint Robbins Arroyo LLP and Scott+Scott as Co-Lead Counsel, with the Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon as Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs. On September 14, 2017, a related complaint was filed under the caption Oliver v. Berke, et al. (the "Oliver Complaint"), and on October 6, 2017, the Oliver Complaint was consolidated with the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action. The Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint under seal on October 26, 2017. On December 20, 2017, the parties agreed to stay Defendants' time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended complaint through and including 30 days after a decision is rendered on the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the consolidated Securities Class Actions. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake Success, New York. HARKINS ADMINISTRATIVE: Removes Garcia Suit to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendants in the case of Adan Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Harkins Administrative Services, Inc.; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California County of Riverside (Case No. RIC1819339) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 29, 2018. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-02314-JAK-J. The case is assigned to Judge John A. Kronstadt and referred to Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott. Harkins Administrative Services Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J Mankin, Esq. Misty M Lauby, Esq. FERNANDEZ AND LAUBY LLP 4590 Allstate Drive Riverside, CA 92501 Telephone: (951) 320-1444 Facsimile: (951) 320-1445 The Defendants are represented by: Janet Lynn Grumer, Esq. Evelyn Wang, Esq. Michael T Baldock, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 South Figueroa Street Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 Facsimile: (213) 533-6899 E-mail: janetgrumer@dwt.com evelynwang@dwt.com michaelbaldock@dwt.com HEADCLICKS INC: Okoe Files Fraud Class Suit ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Headclicks, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Okoe individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Headclicks, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10911 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. HeadClicks is a data-driven retailer using state of the art technology to map consumer demands, and to identify and source products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group, PLLC 30 East 39th Street 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com HERC HOLDINGS: 3rd. Cir. Affirms Dismissal in Ramirez Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al. affirmed the dismissal of the action with prejudice. In November 2013, a putative shareholder class action, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleged that Hertz Holdings made material misrepresentations and/or omission of material fact in its public disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. In June 2014, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the amended complaint. In October 2014, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to amend the complaint a second time. In November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which shortened the putative class period and made allegations that were not substantively very different than the allegations in the prior complaint. In early 2015, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. In July 2015, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing plaintiff to file a third amended complaint. In August 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint which included additional allegations, named additional then-current and former officers as defendants and expanded the putative class period to extend from February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015. In November 2015, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the third amended complaint. The plaintiff then sought leave to add a new plaintiff because of challenges to the standing of the first plaintiff. The court granted plaintiff leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was filed on March 1, 2016. Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint with prejudice on March 24, 2016. In April 2017, the court granted Hertz Holdings' and the individual defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the action with prejudice. In May 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and, in June 2018, oral argument was conducted before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In September 2018, the court affirmed the dismissal of the action with prejudice. Herc Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an equipment rental supplier. It rents aerial, earthmoving, material handling, trucks and trailers, air compressors, compaction, and lighting equipment, as well as generators, and safety supplies and expendables; and provides ProSolutions, an industry specific solution based services, such as pumping solutions, power generation, climate control, remediation and restoration, and studio and production equipment. Herc Holdings Inc. is based in Bonita Springs, Florida. HESS CORPORATION: Website not Accessible to Blind, Figueroa Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HESS CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case 1:18-cv-10347 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018), alleges that Defendant's failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. Because Defendant's website, www.hesstoytruck.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12 Fl. Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com HOMEAWAY.COM: Martinez Sues Web Portal Operator ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against HomeAway.com, Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. HomeAway.com, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06666 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. HomeAway.com, Inc. operates online portals for the vacation rental industry. The company operates web portals that provide rental information for beach houses, condominiums, and vacation homes. Its portals include HomeAway.com, VRBO.com, and VacationRentals.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11217 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com HUDSON CITY: Refused to Stay Foreclosure Case, Lins Claim --------------------------------------------------------- JAY LIN, and IRENE LIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUDSON CITY SAVINGS BANK M & T BANK; and PARKER MCCAY, PA, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-15387-BRM-LHG (D.N.J., Oct. 29, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for monetary damages, out-of-pocket expenses, damages, restitution, injunctive relief and penalties. According to the complaint, August 3, 2010, the Defendants filed a foreclosure case to foreclose on the Plaintiffs' mortgage of 2007 and 2001 which had been paid off. The Plaintiffs settled and remitted payments to the Defendants. The Defendants delayed to sign the settlement as it was merging with another entity. Within the foreclosure case against the Plaintiffs, the Defendants included in a claim for costs to cover the additional fees, disbursements fees and the attorneys' fees in the Defendants complaint. On August 3, 2015, the Defendants filed Bankruptcy Petitions under Chapter 11 and for an automatic stay. However, the Defendants refused to stay the Plaintiffs' foreclosure case while the bankruptcy case is pending causing damages to the Plaintiffs. As of November 1, 2015, Hudson City Savings Bank, FSB was acquired by Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company. Hudson City Savings Bank, FSB provides banking products and services to customers in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. Hudson City Savings Bank, FSB was formerly known as Hudson City Savings Bank and changed its name to Hudson City Savings Bank, FSB in January 2004. The company was founded in 1868 and is headquartered in Paramus, New Jersey. It has branches in Westchester, Suffolk, Putnam, Richmond, and Rockland counties, New York; and Fairfield County, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jay J. Lin, Esq. JAY J. LIN, PA 18 Sheppard Place, Suite E. Edison, NJ 08818 Telephone: (732) 549-8800 Facsimile: (732) 549-7505 HUUUGE INC: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in Wilson Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SEAN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HUUUGE, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, (Case No. 3:18-cv-05276-RBL) (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, denied Huuuge's Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Huuuge on April 6, 2018, alleging that Huuuge Casino constitutes illegal gambling in violation of RCW Section 4.24.070. Huuuge Casino is a game available as a mobile app and allows users to play gambling games with virtual "chips" that may be purchased in the app after users run out of the initial free allotment. Despite the fact that these chips cannot be redeemed for actual money, Wilson alleges that they are nonetheless valuable because they can be used to continue playing. Therefore, Wilson alleges that Huuuge's game amounts to gambling as defined by statute and that he is entitled to recover the money he lost playing. Wilson downloaded Huuuge Casino from the Apple App Store. When a user searches for the Huuuge Casino app, they first encounter a list of apps that match their search query. Each item on the list contains the name of the app, the developer, the app's user rating, a large picture showing the gameplay experience, and a blue "GET" button on the right that initiates downloading. If a user wants to learn more about the app before downloading it, they can click to visit the app's page, which includes more information and another place to download. At the bottom of the app page, a user can click an icon that says "more," which reveals details about the game. After scrolling through several screens' worth of text, a user eventually encounters the statement "Read our Terms of Use," followed by a URL that a user can copy and paste into their web browser to access the Terms. Once a user downloads the game, they can view another link to the Terms of Use by visiting the settings menu. This menu is accessible via a button in the upper corner of the game screen. The matter is before the Court on Huuuge's Motion to Compel Arbitration. The underlying dispute is a class action to recover money lost playing electronic gambling games available through a mobile app. Huuuge's Terms of Use, which include an arbitration provision, are made available when a user initially downloads the app and in the menu of the game itself. Huuuge argues that the configuration of its app page and settings menu put a reasonable user on inquiry notice that playing Huuuge Casino entails agreeing to the Terms of Use. Wilson responds that he is not bound by Huuuge's Terms because the notice and URL were not sufficiently conspicuous. Judge Leighton finds that the question is whether Wilson was on inquiry notice of Huuuge's Terms of Use. Huuuge contends that its app page presents a "hybrid" situation where inquiry notice is more likely, but this is incorrect. He holds that although a user does have to click the "GET" button to download Huuuge Casino, there is no accompanying notification informing a user that the "GET" button doubles as a manifestation of assent to Huuuge's Terms. Despite this shortcoming, Huuuge's notification would likely be sufficient if it were actually next to the button a user must click to download the app. Beyond this fatal inadequacy, the Judge finds that there are other problems with the configuration of Huuuge Casino's app page. Perhaps most importantly, a user can download the app before ever even visiting the full app page because the "GET" button also shows up next to each app listed in the search results. In addition, the notification to "Read our Terms of Use" and the following URL are in generic black font and blend into the surrounding text such that a user would have no reason to notice them unless they were specifically hunting for them. All of these result in Huuuge's app page failing to put a reasonable user on inquiry notice of the Terms of Use. The in-game link to the Terms of Use is no better. The Judge finds that although the link to "Terms and Policy" is prominent enough within the settings menu, a user must first click a small box with three dots in the upper corner of the game screen to bring that menu up at all. The settings menu contains no notification, so any increased likelihood of Wilson visiting the settings menu due to repeated use of the app is irrelevant. Having failed to prove that its app can measure up to the standard set by other browsewrap cases, Huuuge argues in its Reply that the Court should take judicial notice of ubiquitous online agreements when weighing the objective standard for reasonable prudence and inquiry notice. The Judge declines to adopt Huuuge's suggestion. While online users today are savvier than in the past, this does not mean that the rules of contract law no longer apply. If an app developer wishes to bind a user to their copious terms, the onus is on the developer to at least provide reasonable notice and easy access. This is not a difficult thing to do when designing an app, despite Huuuge's protestations that the Court should devise some special rule for app store purchases. The fact is, Huuuge chose to make its Terms non-invasive so that users could charge ahead to play their game. Now, they must live with the consequences of that decision. For the reasons he stated, Judge Leighton denied Huuuge's Motion to Compel Arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/nvxdSa from Leagle.com. Sean Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Cecily C. Shiel -- cshiel@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Janissa Ann Strabuk -- jstrabuk@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Benjamin H. Richman -- brichman@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, Eve-Lynn Rapp -- erapp@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, J. Eli Wade-Scott -- ewadescott@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, Rafey S. Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice & Todd Logan -- tlogan@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice. HUUUGE, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Cyrus E. Ansari -- cyrusansari@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, Jaime Drozd Allen -- jaimeallen@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE & Stuart R. Dunwoody -- stuartdunwoody@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE. I.C. SYSTEM: Violates Debt Collection Practices Act, Says Iskhakov ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. System, Inc. The case is styled as Khamidulla Iskhakov on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. I.C. System, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06672 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. I.C. System, Inc., doing business as Adams, Cooper and Mark, operates as an accounts receivable company. It serves healthcare, dental, commercial, communications, utilities, government, financial services, and small and medium collection agencies, including small and medium businesses, pest control, optometry, veterinary, and chiropractic 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 IDAHO: Prison Officials Face Jones Ward Suit -------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against the State of Idaho. The case is captioned as GLEN JONES WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IDAHO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION - OROFINO; IDAHO STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; IDAHO MAXIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTION; IDOC ADMINISTRATORS; T CARLIN; R. VALLEY; K YORDY; A RAMIREZ; L ASHFORD; IDOC SUBSIDIARIES INCLUDING BONNER COUNTY JAIL, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00484-BLW (D. Idaho, Oct. 29, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge B. Lynn Winmill. Idaho Correctional Institution in Orofino was originally an old state school and mental health facility that was modified into a prison. A new wing was added in 1988. ICIO is designed to house up to 580 male inmates. The facility primarily houses medium custody inmates, but also houses offenders needing protective custody. Givens Hall, a unit adjacent to the compound, serves as a work camp. The Plaintiff appears pro se. INDIANA: Court Certifies JJC Juvenile Detainees' Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the case, TASHIANNE WILBURN, as the natural parent and guardian of Z.W., a minor child, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CYNTHIA NELSON, in her official capacity as the Executive Director of the St. Joseph County Juvenile Justice Center, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17 cv 331-PPS-MGG (N.D. Ind.), Judge Philip P. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The proposed class action involves the alleged policy of the St. Joseph Juvenile Justice Center ("JJC") of placing juvenile detainees in solitary confinement. Plaintiffs, Tashianne Wilburn and Quanan Wilburn, are the parents and guardians of Z.W., a minor child with special needs. When he was 11 years old, Z.W. was held in custody at the JJC and endured extended periods of solitary confinement. Z.W. is the purported class representative. The Wilburns seek an injunction bringing to a halt certain policies of the JJC, but they also seek individual damages for their child, Z.W. The Plaintiffs filed their complaint on May 1, 2017, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for alleged violation of Z.W.'s constitutional rights. They amended their complaint on April 27, 2018, to include allegations on behalf of the proposed juvenile class and the two subclasses. On the same day, they filed the instant motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs seek class certification for the class of all detainees under the age of 18 years old who have been held or will be held in any form of solitary confinement at the St. Joseph County Juvenile Justice Center since Sept. 7, 2016. Additionally, they seek class certification of two subclasses. The "IDEA Subclass" consists of all members of the Juvenile Class with a disability, as defined by the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act ("IDEA"), who have been or will be denied the special education and related support services to which they are entitled under the IDEA." And the "Disability Subclass" consists of all members of the Juvenile Class with psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, who have been or will be denied the programs, services, and benefits (including the individualized assessment) mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act and/or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Judge Simon finds that the class and subclasses of the Plaintiffs in the case meet all the prerequisites of Rule 23(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3). Therefore, he granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Accordingly, he certified (i) the class consisting of all detainees under the age of 18 years old who have been held or will be held in any form of solitary confinement at the St. Joseph County Juvenile Justice Center since Sept. 7, 2016; (ii) the IDEA Subclass, consisting of all members of the Juvenile Class with a disability, as defined by the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act ("IDEA"), who have been or will be denied the special education and related support services to which they are entitled under the IDEA; and (iii) the Disability Subclass, consisting of all members of the Juvenile Class with psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, who have been or will be denied the programs, services, and benefits (including the individualized assessment) mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act and/or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Judge bifurcated Z.W.'s individualized monetary damages claim. Any claim for individual damages for Z.W. will be stayed and considered only if a finding of liability is made in the class claim for injunctive relief. Finally, the Class Representatives will be: Patrick David Murphy, Charles Peter Rice, Murphy Rice LLP, 400 Plaza Building, 210 S. Michigan St., South Bend, Indiana 46601. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/rzwgpL from Leagle.com. Tashianne Wilburn, as the natural parent and guardian of & Quanan Wilburn, as the natural parent and guardian of, Plaintiffs, represented by Patrick David Murphy -- pmurphy@murphyrice.com -- Murphy Rice LLP & Charles Peter Rice -- crice@murphyrice.com -- Murphy Rice LLP. Cynthia Nelson, in her official capacity as the Executive Director of the St. Joseph County Juvenile Justice Center, Andrew Kostielney, The Board of County Commissioners of St. Joseph County, Deborah Fleming, The Board of County Commissioner of St. Joseph County, Dave Thomas, The Board of County Commissioners of St. Joseph County, Robert Kruszynski, Jr, The St. Joseph County Council, Corey Noland, The St. Joseph County Council, James O'Brien, The St. Joseph County Council, Rafael Morton, The St. Joseph County Council, Diana Hess, The St. Joseph County Council, Mark Telloyan, The St. Joseph County Council, Mark Catanzarite, The St. Joseph County Council, Robert McCahill, The St. Joseph County Council & Mark Root, St. Joseph County Council, Defendants, represented by James F. Groves, Lee Groves and Zalas & George C. Lepeniotis, Lee Groves and Zalas. K & S ACW: Sandoval Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ------------------------------------------------- Adalila Sandoval, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. K & S ACW, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, and Sean Rozsa and Kristi Rosa, a Married Couple, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04043-JZB (D. Ariz, Nov. 13, 2018), alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act for their unlawful failure to pay overtime. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated current and former Car Washers and/or Crew Members of Defendants K & S ACW, LLC, and Sean Rozsa and Kristi Rosa who were compensated at a straight-time hourly rate for all hours worked, regardless of whether those hours exceeded 40 in any given workweek. The Defendants operated and did business as Arizona Car Wash Company.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Telephone: (480) 382-5176 Facsimile: (480) 304-3805 E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com chris@bendaulaw.com K2M GROUP: Brown and Franchi Suits Voluntarily Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- K2M Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the plaintiffs in Brown v. K2M Group Holdings, Inc. et al. and Franchi v. K2M Group Holdings, Inc. et al. have voluntarily dismissed their lawsuits. On October 11, 2018, two purported class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, challenging a Merger deal with Stryker Corporation. These actions, Brown v. K2M Group Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01567 and Franchi v. K2M Group Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01568 (collectively, the "Actions") name K2M and individual officers and members of the K2M Board of Directors as defendants. The Actions allege, among other things, that the defendants failed to disclose certain information relating to K2M's financial projections set forth in the proxy statement filed with the SEC on October 5, 2018 (the "proxy statement"). On October 17, 2018, plaintiff in the Brown lawsuit filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Merger pending the disclosure of additional information. K2M believes that the Actions are without merit and that no further disclosure is required to supplement the proxy statement under applicable law; however, to eliminate the burden, expense, and uncertainties inherent in such litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, K2M made certain supplemental disclosures to the proxy statement as set forth in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 22, 2018. On October 23, 2018, in consideration for such supplemental disclosures by K2M, plaintiffs in the Actions voluntarily dismissed the Actions, and plaintiff in the Brown lawsuit withdrew the motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Merger. K2M Group Holdings, Inc., a medical device company, provides spine and minimally invasive solutions in the United States and internationally. The company offers implants, disposables, and instruments primarily to hospitals for use by spine surgeons to treat spinal pathologies, such as deformity, trauma, and tumor. The company was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Leesburg, Virginia. As of November 9, 2018, K2M Group Holdings, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Stryker Corporation. KANSAS: Faces Class Action Over Foster Care System -------------------------------------------------- Jon Parton, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Kansas Gov. Jeff Colyer and the heads of the state's foster care program allowed children in foster care to become essentially homeless and suffer from sexual exploitation and trafficking, according to a federal class action lawsuit filed on Nov. 16. Advocacy groups Children's Rights, The National Center for Youth Law and Kansas Appleseed filed the lawsuit on behalf of 10 children who are in the state's foster care system. Children were subjected to churning, a practice that moves foster kids "from placement to placement," with some moving more than a hundred times, according to the complaint. "Alarmingly, [the Kansas Department for Children and Families] frequently subjects children to 'night-to-night' or short-term placements," the 68-page complaint states. In a repetitive, destabilizing cycle, children are regularly forced to sleep for a night or several nights anywhere a bed, couch, office conference room, shelter or hospital can be found." The children stay overnight at the short-term lodgings "and their days in agency offices waiting to find out where they sleep next," which "deprives children of basic shelter and effectively renders them homeless while in state custody," the lawsuit claims. In one case, a 10-year-old boy who has been in state care since 2012 has been moved more than 70 times. This included a "near continuous" three-month string of night-to-night placements, which caused him to frequently change schools or not attend school at all, according to the complaint. Many of the children have also been forced to sleep in foster care contractor offices, with one 17-year-old girl staying in an office for a week. The girl, who entered foster care in 2007, was adopted along with her two sisters in 2010. Their adoptive father and brother "repeatedly sexually assaulted and sodomized" her and one of her sisters over a period of three years, the lawsuit states. "The sisters remained in this home for three years despite multiple calls to Child Protective Services reporting the abuse," the complaint says. The lawsuit claims that she was also sexually exploited and trafficked in one of her placements. Kansas, which relies on contractors to help find placements for foster children, is accused of letting those agencies waive capacity requirements and take on more children than are normally allowed. The lawsuit refers to a home that could only legally take in six children, but was approved for 10. The advocacy groups aren't seeking damages in their complaint, but instead ask the state to fix the problems. They claim the children's 14th Amendment right to equal protection was violated by the state agencies. [GN] KENDO HOLDINGS: Faces Lawsuit in NY Under Disabilities Act ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kendo Holdings Inc. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kendo Holdings Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10914 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kendo Holdings, Inc. manufactures beauty and skin care products under a range of brand names which includes Kat Von D Beauty, Marc Jacobs Beauty, Ole Henriksen, Fenty Beauty, and Bite Beauty.[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 KERYX BIOPHARMA: Faces Several Akebia Merger-Related Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company is facing several putative class action suits related to its merger deal with Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. On June 28, 2018, the company entered into an agreement and plan of merger, which was amended on October 1, 2018, or the Merger Agreement, with Akebia and Merger Sub, pursuant to which the company will combine its respective businesses through the merger of Merger Sub with and into its, with the Company's continuing after the Merger as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Akebia. The Merger Agreement has been approved by the company's Board of Directors and the board of directors of Akebia. On October 16, 2018, a putative shareholder class action was filed against the company and the members of the company's Board challenging the disclosures made in connection with the Merger. The lawsuit is captioned Corwin v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-01589, and is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On October 23, 2018, a putative shareholder class action was filed against the company, the members of the company's Board, Merger Sub, and Akebia also challenging the disclosures made in connection with the Merger. The lawsuit is captioned Rosenblatt v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-12205, and was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On October 24, 2018, another putative shareholder action was filed against the company and the members of the Keryx Board challenging the disclosures made in connection with the Merger. The lawsuit is captioned Van Hulst v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-01656, and is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On November 1, 2018, another putative shareholder class action was filed against the company and the members of the Keryx Board challenging the disclosures made in connection with the Merger. The lawsuit is captioned Andreula v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-01721, and is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaints generally allege that the Registration Statement filed in connection with the Merger fails to disclose certain allegedly material information in violation of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The alleged omissions relate to (i) certain financial projections for us and Akebia and certain financial analyses performed by our advisors; (ii) certain terms relating to the engagement of one of the company's advisors; and (iii) any alleged negotiations that may have taken place regarding which individuals would serve on the Board of the combined company as well as future employment of officers. Each of the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the Merger and seek damages in the event the transaction is consummated. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals said, "We, together with Akebia, are reviewing the complaints and have not yet formally responded to them, but believe that each Plaintiff's allegations are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and there can be no assurance regarding the likelihood that our or Akebia's defense of the actions will be successful. Additional lawsuits arising out of the Merger may also be filed in the future. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a commercial stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on providing medicines for patients with kidney disease in the United States. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. KEURIG DR PEPPER: Settlement Agreement in LAMPERS Suit Approved --------------------------------------------------------------- Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the settlement agreement in Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System ("LAMPERS") v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., has been approved. A consolidated securities fraud class action against Keurig and two of its former officers and directors captioned Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System ("LAMPERS") v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 2:11-cv-00289 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont. Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company's disclosures relating to its revenues and its inventory accounting practices. On March 9, 2018, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the case. On October 22, 2018, subsequent to the date of the financial statements, the settlement agreement was approved. The terms of the settlement were covered by the Company's insurance providers. As a result, the Company has recorded the liability to the plaintiffs and a receivable from the insurance providers. Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. engages in the brewing system and specialty coffee businesses in the United States and Canada. The company sources, produces, and sells coffee, hot cocoa, teas, and other beverages in K-Cup, Vue, Rivo, K-Carafe, and K-Mug pods brands; coffee in traditional packaging, including bags and fractional packs; and other specialty beverages in pods. The company was founded in 1981 and is based in Waterbury, Vermont. Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. is a subsidiary of Acorn Holdings B.V. KONA GRILL: Trial Date on Boots Class Suit Set for April 1 ---------------------------------------------------------- Kona Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a trial date of April 1, 2019, has been set in the class action suit filed by Mitchell Boots. On July 27, 2017, a class action complaint was filed against Kona Sushi, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, by Mitchell Boots, individually and on behalf of a Proposed Rule 23 Class, in the United States District Court for Minnesota claiming, among other things, that the Company violated Minnesota gratuity/tip pooling laws with respect to certain classes of restaurant employees. The plaintiff has brought claims on behalf of a putative Minnesota class and a putative national class of employees. On October 25, 2017, the plaintiff amended the complaint to withdraw the national class claims and other common law claims, leaving one claim on behalf of a putative Minnesota class, and added a second named Plaintiff, Tracy Fortman. On June 15, 2018, a revised pre-trial scheduling order was issued by the District Court, setting pre-trial dates and setting a trial date of April 1, 2019. The parties participated in mediation on August 3, 2018, which concluded without resolution. Therefore, the matter will proceed in accordance with the court-scheduled dates. Kona Grill said, "As we intend to diligently defend this matter we believe the possible loss or range of loss cannot be determined at this time, and therefore we have not accrued any costs associated with this matter as of September 30, 2018. The Company does not expect the result of such complaint to have a material adverse effect on the Company. However, there is no assurance that any adverse ruling or settlement in this matter would not have a material impact on the Company’s cash position and operations." Kona Grill, Inc. owns and operates upscale casual restaurants under the Kona Grill brand name. As of December 31, 2017, it owned and operated 46 restaurants in 23 states of the United States and Puerto Rico; and 3 franchised restaurants in Mexico, the United Arab Emirates, and Canada. The company is based in Scottsdale, Arizona. KRISHNA SCHAUMBURG: Appeal Likely in BIPA Class Action Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Burt, writing for BiometricUpdate.com, reports that there are approximately 100 class actions alleging violations under Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) that could be significantly affected by an upcoming ruling on the standard for plaintiffs to qualify as "aggrieved," Law360 reports. The state's Second District appeals court previously ruled in another BIPA case, Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., that the violation of technical requirements was insufficient to establish injury, and dismissed the case. Other courts have decided both for and against procedural violations constituting injury. The Rosenbach decision has been appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments in the case on November 20. The Illinois Appellate Court's First District recently ruled in Klaudia Sekura v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan Inc. that noncompliance with BIPA's procedural requirements is sufficient cause of action for a plaintiff, even without any allegation of further injury. The case had previously been dismissed by a lower court, but the appeals judge wrote that a procedural violation constitutes harm, and in the case of Sekura the additional procedural violation of uninformed disclosure of biometric data also distinguished it from Rosenbach. If the determination of the appeals court in Sekura is accepted by the state Supreme Court, then numerous BIPA cases, including the one against Facebook, would be strengthened. If the Illinois Supreme Court reverses the appellate court's decision, and raises the requirements for injury, many cases would lack the standing to continue. Law360 reports that the Sekura decision is expected to be promptly appealed, and that in the meanwhile courts can expect the pace of BIPA filings to accelerate further. [GN] LIBERTY MEDIA: Class Certification Bid in Buchanan Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Liberty Media Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that on March 13, 2017, Thomas Buchanan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against SIRIUS XM in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The plaintiff in this action alleges that SIRIUS XM violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") by, among other things, making telephone solicitations to persons on the National Do-Not-Call registry, a database established to allow consumers to exclude themselves from telemarketing calls unless they consent to receive the calls in a signed, written agreement, and making calls to consumers in violation of SIRIUS XM's internal Do-Not-Call registry. The plaintiff is seeking various forms of relief, including statutory damages of $500 for each violation of the TCPA or, in the alternative, treble damages of up to $1,500 for each knowing and willful violation of the TCPA and a permanent injunction prohibiting SIRIUS XM from making, or having made, any calls to land lines that are listed on the National Do-Not-Call registry or its internal Do-Not-Call registry. The plaintiff has filed a motion seeking class certification, and that motion is pending. Liberty Media said, "SIRIUS XM believes it has substantial defenses to the claims asserted in this action and intends to defend this action vigorously." Liberty Media Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the media and entertainment businesses primarily in North America and the United Kingdom. The company operates through SIRIUS XM and Formula 1 segments. Liberty Media Corporation is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado. LIVE NATION: Faces Class Action Over Marshmello Concert ------------------------------------------------------- Gary Trock and Liz Walters, writing for Blast, report that one fan of EDM star, Marshmello, felt he got a raw deal when the DJ only performed a portion of his normal set list before calling it quits, but because his true identity is relatively unknown, he was not listed as a defendant. Tommy Weinstein filed a class action lawsuit, obtained by The Blast, naming Live Nation as the sole defendant over a breach of contract claim. Mr. Weinstein says he attended the Festival Pier at Penn's Landing on May 12, 2018, and had paid $94 for a ticket to see Marshmello perform. Unfortunately, the festival got rained out and Marshmello only performed for 30 minutes before organizers pulled the plug. Weinstein blames Live Nation, claiming the "heavy rains" were predicted and should have been scheduled around. Marshmello actually addressed the cancellation that same night, saying, "Tonight was bittersweet philly! I was so pumped for this show and I'm glad we got to rock out for a little bit but Mother Nature isn't anything to play with and safety first!" He added, "I hope everyone gets home safe and I'll be back soon to make it up to you guys!" Because of the cancelation, Weinstein was offered a $15 voucher for "Live Nation Concert Cash," but he does not feel that the offer is enough. He is filing the lawsuit for himself and every other attendee that purchased a ticket to see Marshmello perform, and wants Live Nation to pay back restitution to all the concert goers who had to shell out money for a ticket. Mr. Weinstein also explains that he believes Marshmello is partly responsible for the blunder, but did not list the DJ as a defendant because he's "unaware of the true names" that the star uses. Marshmello has worked hard to keep his identity a secret, and even though many fans believe him to be DJ-producer Chris Comstock, it's never been confirmed. Mr. Weinstein says if he's able to find out the true identity of Marshmello, he will add him to the suit. [GN] LIVINGSTON AUTO: Wortmann et al. Seek Wages for Car Wash Workers ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARK WORTMANN and JOSE RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. LIVINGSTON AUTO WASH, INC., MORRISTOWN CAR WASH, LLC and PAUL RITTER, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-16128 (D.N.J., Nov. 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, unlawfully kept tips, liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs as a result of Defendants' willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have jointly operated as a single integrated enterprise doing business as "Ritter Family Car Wash," "Livingston Car Wash," "Morristown Car Wash" and "Morris County Hand Wash" and "the Ritter family has been serving the northern New Jersey area for over 40 years." The Plaintiffs and the putative FLSA collective and Rule 23 class members were the car wash workers subjected to Defendants' common unlawful policies in violation of the FLSA and New Jersey Wage and Hour Laws and Regulations. Specifically, the Defendants jointly employed the car wash workers including Plaintiffs who worked over 40 hours per week and were paid approximately $72 for 10 hours of work per shift, that is, at a wage rate of $7.2 per hour. As a result of Defendants' common unlawful policies and practices, the car wash workers were not compensated the statutorily mandated minimum wage for 40 hours of working time in any given week and overtime at a rate of not less than 1.5 times the statutorily mandated minimum wage for work performed over 40 hours perweek; and the car wash workers were divested of their rightfully earned tips, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Ching-Yuan Teng, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com tonyteng@jtblawgroup.com LOAD TRAIL: Faces Class Action Over Workers' Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin Krause, writing for Dallas News, reports that a vehicle trailer manufacturer that was the target of a recent immigration raid is being sued by dozens of current and former employees in federal court for allegedly failing to pay them required overtime wages. Jacinto Ramirez was the lead plaintiff against Load Trail when the lawsuit was first filed in October. Since then, more than three-dozen others have joined the suit, including welders, material transporters and warehouse workers, according to the lawsuit. Allen R. Vaught, attorney for the workers, said he will seek class-action status and that additional current and former employees may opt to join the suit. "Businesses have to make a profit. There's no reason why they can't employ people lawfully and also make a profit," he said on Nov. 16. Immigration agents armed with search warrants raided Load Trail in August and detained more than 150 workers suspected of being in the country without authorization. ICE said it was the nation's largest single-site enforcement operation in a decade. The company, which makes trailers that hitch onto the back of vehicles, is located in Sumner, about 100 miles northeast of Dallas. The raid was part of a criminal investigation into Load Trail for alleged illegal employment of foreign workers. The investigation continues. Gene Besen, a Load Trail attorney, said on Nov. 16 that he could not comment on the lawsuit because the company has not yet been served. He has previously said Load Trail pays good wages and does not exploit its immigrant workers. Mr. Besen said in September that the trailer manufacturer "always works diligently to abide by all laws." Mr. Besen said on Nov. 16 that his client is still working with the Justice Department to reach a resolution related to the criminal investigation. "I'm hopeful we'll see a resolution sooner rather than later," he said. Vaught said none of his clients were detained by ICE during the recent enforcement operation but added that some who were caught up in the raid may decide to join the lawsuit. Even if workers are unauthorized, U.S. employers must still follow federal labor laws, he said. "There's no getting around paying fair wages," he said. Load Trail began as a family-owned business in 1996 and grew to employ more than 500 people on its 100-acre site, according to the company's website. The company paid a $445,000 fine in 2014 for hiring unauthorized immigrants, according to an ICE report. The company employed more than 179 unauthorized workers at that time, the report said. The labor lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, says Load Trail did not pay employees who worked more than 40 hours per week overtime wages, in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Ramirez worked at the company as a welder from 2004 to May 2017, according to the lawsuit. He regularly worked over 40 hours per week and, like others, was paid both per trailer produced as well as on an hourly basis, the suit says. "Defendant unilaterally changed his method of pay at times of the defendant's choosing," the suit says. Mr. Ramirez received performance bonuses but did not get "all overtime premium compensation due," according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit also says Load Trail improperly deducted money from employees' earnings for "alleged immigration matters" as well as for uniforms, tools and other items the company required. That allegation was not included in the amended complaint filed on Nov. 15. But Mr. Vaught said he may file a separate action in state court for the questionable deductions. He said employers cannot take money from wages unless the law or a court order allows it, such as with taxes and child support. He said the thousands of dollars taken from his clients did not go toward any immigration services. Salvador Leon, another plaintiff and former welder for Load Trail, worked as a supervisor's assistant beginning in 2017 but did not have managerial authority, the lawsuit said. He was paid a salary while working as an assistant but wasn't paid overtime when he worked more than 40 hours per week, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit lists three major classes of employees affected: fabrication workers, including welders, painters, assemblers, electricians and material cutters; warehouse workers such as forklift operators, loaders and material transporters; and assistants to supervisors. Some of the plaintiffs were "occasionally" paid overtime for some hours, the suit says, but Load Trail did not "accurately record or pay all hours" worked. "Federal law requires employers to make and keep accurate and detailed payroll data for certain employees," the lawsuit says. Mr. Vaught said retaliation against workers who sue is always a possibility but is rare due to the added penalties that come with it. Employers that are "dumb enough" to retaliate usually learn the hard way, he said. "They end up adding a zero to the damage figure." [GN] LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Kohler's Bid for Writ of Mandate Okayed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KOHLER CO., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; JOANNA PARK-KIM et al., Real Parties in Interest, Case No. B288935 (Cal. App.), Judge Thomas Willhite of the Court of Appeals of California for the Second District, Division Four, granted Kohler's petition for writ of mandate, asking the Court to order the trial court to vacate its Jan. 22, 2018 order to the extent it denies Kohler's anti-class-certification motion with respect to the claim under the Right to Repair Act. Plaintiffs Joanna Park-Kim and Maria Cecilia Ramos are each owners of a residential condominium dwelling in which "Rite-Temp Pressure Balancing Valves" and "Mixer Caps" (which are contained in "Rite-Temp Valve assemblies") manufactured by Kohler were installed during construction. In the third amended complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that these valves and mixer caps, which are designed to regulate water flow and temperature in household plumbing, do not operate as intended due to their defective design and manufacturing, and are corroding, failing, and/or will inevitably fail, which has caused or will cause damage to other components of the household plumbing lines or fixtures. The Plaintiffs brought the instant lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all owners of residential dwellings in California in which these valves and mixer caps were installed during original construction, alleging a claim for violations of the Act, as well as claims for strict liability, warranty claims, and other claims. It is estimated that Kohler sold approximately 630,000 of the identified valves and mixer caps in California during the relative time period. After the Plaintiffs received numerous extensions of time, totaling 18 months, to file their motion for class certification, Kohler sought to resolve the case by filing a motion for summary judgment or adjudication on threshold legal issues. The trial court granted summary adjudication as to all claims except Plaintiff Ramos' warranty and negligence claims, both the Plaintiffs' claims under the Act, and their UCL claim. Kohler then filed a "motion re anti-class-certification," seeking a ruling that none of the remaining causes of action can be certified as a class action. On Jan. 22, 2018, the trial court granted Kohler's motion as to the warranty, negligence, and UCL claims, but denied it as to the claim under the Act. The court also certified its ruling for appellate review, on the grounds that it presented a controlling question of law upon which there were substantial grounds for differences of opinion, and that appellate resolution of the question would greatly advance the conclusion of the litigation. It then stayed all proceedings pending resolution of the instant petition. Kohler filed the instant petition for writ of mandate, asking the Court to order the trial court to vacate its Jan. 22, 2018 order to the extent it denies Kohler's anti-class-certification motion with respect to the claim under the Act and to issue a new order granting the motion in its entirety. The Court summarily denied the petition, and Kohler filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted review and transferred the matter back to the Court with directions to vacate its order denying mandate and to issue an order directing the superior court to show cause why the relief sought should not be granted. The issued the order to show cause as directed by the Supreme Court, and have received a return to the petition from the Plaintiffs and a traverse from Kohler. In the return, the Plaintiffs demurred to the petition on the ground that the petition fails to state a justiciable basis for granting a writ of mandate and/or prohibition. But, as Kohler observes in its traverse, the Supreme Court has concluded otherwise and directed us to issue an order to show cause and consider the issue Kohler presents. The Supreme Court's order constitutes a determination that writ review is proper. Therefore, the Court overrules the Plaintiffs' demurrer and addresses Kohler's petition. In the present case, the Court is asked to determine whether homeowners may bring a class action asserting a claim under the Act against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective plumbing fixture used in the construction of class members' homes. Based on his examination of the structure and language of the Act, as well as the legislative history, Judge Willhite concludes that class actions are not allowed under the Act except in one limited context: to assert claims that address solely the incorporation into a residence of a defective component, unless that component is a product that is completely manufactured offsite. Because the claim in the case involves allegedly defective products that were completely manufactured offsite, the Judge holds that the claim alleged under the Act cannot be litigated as a class action. Accordingly, he granted the writ petition filed by Kohler, and issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order to the extent it denied in part Kohler's anti-class certification motion and to enter a new order granting the motion in its entirety. Kohler will recover its costs with regard to this writ proceeding. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/aYWzcy from Leagle.com. Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Eric Shapland -- eric.shapland@arnoldporter.com -- Ryan W. Light -- ryan.light@arnoldporter.com -- and John C. Ulin -- john.ulin@arnoldporter.com -- for Petitioner. Newmeyer & Dillion, Alan H. Packer -- alan.packer@ndlf.com -- Jeffrey R. Brower -- jeffrey.brower@ndlf.com -- and Joseph A. Ferrentino -- joseph.ferrentino@ndlf.com -- for California Building Industry Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Kasdan LippSmith Weber Turner, Kenneth S. Kasdan -- kskasdan@kasdancdlaw.com -- Jaclyn L. Anderson -- janderson@klwtlaw.com -- and Graham B. LippSmith -- glippsmith@klwtlaw.com -- for Real Parties in Interest. MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Bid For Class Certification in Lennen Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------ Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that Anthony and Beth Lennen have sought class certification of their lawsuit. In May 2016, the company, certain of its subsidiaries, and certain third parties were named as defendants in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida by Anthony and Beth Lennen. The case is filed as a putative class action; the plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of themselves and all other purchasers of arriott Vacation Club Destinations (MVCD) points, from inception of the MVCD program in June 2010 to the present, as well as all individuals who own or have owned weeks in any resorts for which weeks have been added to the MVCD program. Plaintiffs challenge the characterization of the beneficial interests in the MVCD trust that are sold to customers as real estate interests under Florida law. They also challenge the structure of the trust and associated operational aspects of the trust product. The relief sought includes, among other things, declaratory relief, an unwinding of the MVCD product, and punitive damages. In September 2016, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and a motion to stay the case pending referral of certain questions to Florida state regulators, and the Court granted the motion to dismiss and denied the motion to stay. The Court granted leave to plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, which plaintiffs filed in October 2017. In November 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which remains pending. In October 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Marriott Vacations said, "We dispute the plaintiffs' material allegations and continue to defend against the action vigorously. Given the early stages of the action and the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot estimate a range of the potential liability, if any, at this time." Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation develops, markets, sells, and manages vacation ownership and related products under the Marriott Vacation Club, Grand Residences by Marriott, and Marriott Vacation Club Pulse brands. It operates through three segments: North America, Asia Pacific, and Europe. Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation is headquartered in Orlando, Florida. MDL 2801: Court Certifies Capacitors Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. III), Case No. 17-md-02801-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the direct purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPPs")'s motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs in the multi-district antitrust litigation are putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers, along with a few companies that opted out of the direct purchasers group to pursue claims on their own. The core allegation is that the Defendants profited from a long-running, global price-fixing conspiracy in the capacitor industry. The relevant product is the capacitor, an electronic component used to temporarily store and even out the flow of electrical energy. The DPPs seeking certification bought standalone capacitors directly from one or more of the Defendants. The four named DPPs are Chip-Tech, Ltd., Dependable Component Supply Corp., eIQ Energy, Inc., and Walker Component Group, Inc. All are United States companies. The Defendants are for the most part overseas capacitors manufacturers in Japan and other parts of East Asia. The DPPs allege a single conspiracy among the defendant electrolytic capacitor manufacturers and film capacitor manufacturers to fix prices and suppress competition in the markets for aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors, and film capacitors. The DPPs contend that the Defendants, which number in the dozens, effectuated the conspiracy through regular cartel meetings. These meetings ranged from informal group communications by email and telephone to formal gatherings of senior executives in Asia, all for the purpose of illegally colluding on capacitor pricing and production. The DPPs also point to frequent meetings and interactions between less senior personnel. Film capacitor meetings are alleged to have been held approximately six times a year. The conspiracy meetings regularly included a social component of golf outings, dinner and drinks, which provided additional opportunities for collusion. The DPPs contend that the conspiratorial effort was successful, and that the Defendants artificially raised the prices of capacitors that were billed or shipped to the United States. As the domestic civil action has unfolded, several parallel government investigations have been underway in overseas jurisdictions. China's National Development and Reform Commission, the Fair Trade Commissions of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, the competition commission of Singapore, Brazil's Administrative Council for Economic Defense, and the European Commission's competition authority have all pursued inquiries into price fixing for capacitors. Several of the investigations have resulted in the imposition of fines on various defendants. In the United States, the Department of Justice brought parallel criminal prosecutions for the price-fixing conspiracy against a number of the Defendants in the action and their individual employees. The Court is presiding over the parallel criminal cases. To date, the Court has taken guilty pleas from Defendants NEC Tokin Corp. (Case No. 15-cr-426), Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd. (Case No. 16-cr-180), Elna Co., Ltd. (Case No. 16-cr-365), Holy Stone Holdings Co. Ltd. (Case No. 16-cr-366), Rubycon Corporation (Case No. 16-cr-367), Nichicon Corp. (Case No. 17-cr-368), Matsuo Electric Co. Ltd. (Case No. 17-cr-73), and Nippon Chemi-Con Corp.(Case No. 17-cr-540). The Court sentenced each of these corporations to fines ranging from $600,000 to $60 million, along with a condition to implement detailed compliance programs to prevent future price fixing and other anti-competitive conduct. Two individual employees of Defendant companies, Satoshi Okubo (Case No. 17-cr-74) and Tokuo Tatai (Case No. 15-cr-163), also pled guilty and were each sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year and a day. Judge Donato resolves the DPPs class certification motion and the Defendants' Daubert motions to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert opinions. The DPPs seek to certify the class of a all persons that purchased capacitors directly from any of the Defendant Entities from Jan. 1, 2002 to Dec. 31, 2013, where such persons are: (a) inside the United States and were billed or invoiced for capacitors by one or more Defendant Entities during the Class Period (i.e., where capacitors were billed to persons within the United States); or (b) outside the United States and were billed or invoiced for capacitors by one or more Defendant Entities during the Class Period, where such capacitors were imported into the United States by one or more Defendant Entities (i.e., where the capacitors were billed to persons outside the United States but shipped to persons within the United States). The Judge granted the DPPs' motion for class certification. He certifies the class consisting of all persons that purchased capacitors directly from any of the remaining Defendants from Jan. 1, 2002 to Dec. 31, 2013, where such persons are: (a) inside the United States and were billed or invoiced for capacitors by one or more Defendant Entities during the Class Period (i.e., where capacitors were "billed to" persons within the United States); or (b) outside the United States and were billed or invoiced for capacitors by one or more Defendant Entities during the Class Period, where such capacitors were imported into the United States by one or more Defendant Entities (i.e., where the capacitors were "billed to" persons outside the United States but "shipped to" persons within the United States). He appointed The Joseph Saveri Law Firm as the counsel for the class. The Judge denied the Defendants' Daubert motions to exclude the DPPs' expert opinions. He finds that the Court has already considered and rejected the main challenges to the Plaintiffs' experts. In the case of Dr. McClave, the Defendants' Daubert arguments are duplicative of their substantive arguments, and he denied the motion to exclude his opinion for the same reasons. He also rejects the remaining Daubert arguments against Dr. Zona. The Defendants seek to exclude Dr. Zona's opinion that the Defendants engaged in the alleged conspiracy. The Judge acknowledges that that is a topic on which it is not likely to permit expert testimony at trial, but because Dr. Zona's opinion on that point was wholly immaterial to the Court's class certification analysis, defendants' motion to exclude that opinion is denied as moot. For Dr. Zona's price dispersion theory, again the Defendants' challenges go to weight, rather than admissibility. It is not junk science, and the Defendants' motion to exclude it is denied. Lastly, the Judge finds that Dr. Zona's opinions about the reliability of Dr. McClave's work are also admissible as far as they go. Judge Donato directed the DPPs to submit by Dec. 17, 2018, a proposed plan for dissemination of notice to the class. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/4FIIoi from Leagle.com. Chip-Tech, Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by C. Andrew Dirksen -- cdirksen@cerallp.com -- Cera LLP, Joseph J. DePalma -- jdepalma@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, Solomon B. Cera -- scera@cerallp.com -- Cera LLP, Steven J. Greenfogel -- sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenburg, LLC, Daniel R. Karon -- dkaron@karonllc.com -- Karon LLC, pro hac vice, Eric L. Cramer, Berger Montague PC, James W. Anderson, Heins Mills Olson, P.L.C., James Gerard Beebe Dallal -- jdallal@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Jason Scott Hartley, Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, Jessica N. Servais, Heins Mills and Olson, P.L.C., pro hac vice, Michael C. Dell'Angelo, IV, BERGER MONTAGUE PC, Ruthanne Gordon, Berger Montague PC, Ryan James McEwan -- rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C. & Joseph R. Saveri -- jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc. Dependable Component Supply Corp., Plaintiff, represented by C. Andrew Dirksen, Cera LLP, Solomon B. Cera, Cera LLP, Steven J. Greenfogel, Lite DePalma Greenburg, LLC, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Michael C. Dell'Angelo, IV, BERGER MONTAGUE PC & William Henry London , Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC. In Home Tech Solutions, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Dewitt Singh Kullar, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez Smith LLP, Allan Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Gabriel Dash Zeldin, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez Smith LLP & Simeon Andrew Morbey, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. Everett Ellis, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie, Inc., Anne Elizabeth Smith, Shaffer Lombardo Shurin, Kathleen Kopach Woods, Shaffer Lombardo Shurin, Richard Lombardo, Shaffer Lombardo Shurin & William Robert Pointer, II, Duncan Firm. Fredrick P. Hege, Jr., Mike Fisher, Michael W. Davis, Jane Schmit, Johnny Walker, John E. McDowell, Marta Michaud, Timothy Duffy, Sean G. Tarjoto, Todd Stowater, David C. Keller, Jamie Thaemert, Scot Dunlap, Garth Russell, M.D., BHRAC, LLC, doing business as Beverly Hills Rent-A-Car, Beverly Hills Leasing LLC, Cetacea Sound, Inc., Computing Solutions, Inc., doing business as Wired! By Computing Solutions, d/b/a Wired! Technology Partners, Gossett Motor Cars, Inc., doing business as Wired! By Computing Solutions, d/b/a Wired! Technology Partners, Gossett Motor Cars, Inc., doing business as Gossett Hyundai, Gossett Motor Cars, Inc., doing business as Gossett Mitsubishi, Gossett Motor Cars, Inc., doing business as Gossett Audi, Gossett Motor Cars, Inc., doing business as Gossett Volkswagen, Gossett Motor Cars, Inc., doing business as Gossett Porsche, Gossett Motor Cars, Inc., doing business as Gossett Chrysler/Jeep/Dodge, Gossett Motor Cars, Inc., doing business as Gossett Fiat of Memphis, WE 3 Gossett, LLC, doing business as Gossett Volkswagen of Germantown, WE 3 Gossett, LLC, doing business as Gossett Kia South, WE 3 Gossett, LLC, doing business as Gossett Hyundai South, WE 3 Gossett, LLC, doing business as Gossett Fiat & Autorama, Inc., doing business as Mercedes Benz of Memphis, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson -- drobinson@robinsonfirm.com -- Robinson Calcagnie, Inc. Panasonic Corporation, a Japanese corporation & PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendants, represented by Jeffrey L. Kessler -- jkessler@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, A. Paul Victor -- pvictor@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Frank S. Restagno, Ian L. Papendick, Winston & Strawn LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, Matthew Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Patrick Stephen Opdyke, Winston and Strawn LLP, Rebecca Lara Litman, Winston and Strawn LLP & Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP. Sanyo Electric Group, Ltd., a Japanese corporation & Sanyo Electronic Device (U.S.A.) Corporation, Defendants, represented by Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Ian L. Papendick , Winston & Strawn LLP & Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP. Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation & Taiyo Yuden (USA) Inc., Defendants, represented by Adam C. Hemlock -- adam.hemlock@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Christopher J. Cox, Weil Gotshal & Manges, David Ramraj Singh, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP & Steven A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice. NEC Tokin Corporation, a Japanese corporation & NEC Tokin America, Inc., Defendants, represented by Jacob R. Sorensen, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Roxane Alicia Polidora, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP & Laura Christine Hurtado, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. KEMET Corporation & Kemet Electronics Corporation, Defendants, represented by Jacob R. Sorensen, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Lindsay A. Lutz, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman & Roxane Alicia Polidora, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. MEDICAL RECORDS ONLINE: Sued over Steep Hospital Records Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- LMA LEGAL, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MEDICAL RECORDS ONLINE, INC. (dba MRO), the Defendant, Case No. CAM-L-004258-18 (N.J. Super. Ct., Nov. 13, 2018), alleges that MRO charged class members a fee for electronic copies of hospital records that far exceed the maximum limits allowed by New Jersey law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a personal injury law firm with an office in Moorestown, New Jersey. Like all class members, the Plaintiff was victimized by the uniform MRO policies and was charged more by MRO for electronic copies of client hospital records produced via CD than permitted by N.J.A.C. 2A:16-51, et seq., the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Stephne P. DeNittis, Esq. Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq. Shane T. Prince, Esq. DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 5 Greentre Center 525 Route 73 North Suite 410 Marlton, NJ, 08053 Telephone: (856) 797 9951 MENARD INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Astarita Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALBERT J. ASTARITA, DIANA M. OWENS, Plaintiffs, v. MENARD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:17-06151-CV-RK (W.D. Mo.), Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, St. Joseph Division, granted in part and denied in part Menard's Renewed Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, to Stay the Proceedings and Compel Arbitration. Astarita and Owens bring the putative class action against Menard, alleging that Menard failed to pay overtime wages in violation of federal and state laws. Astarita began working for Menard in the Flooring Department in December 2016. Shortly after his initial hire, he executed the 2016 Agreement which contained a designated signature line for both the "Team Member" and for Menard. Both Astarita and a representative of Menard signed it. In February 2017, Astarita electronically agreed to a document entitled "2017 Employment Agreement Acceptance Page" that did not contain designated signature lines for Astarita or Menard but does contain an electronic stamp. Menard has also submitted an attestation from a representative that the copy of the 2017 Agreement submitted to the Court is a copy of the electronic versions presented to and agreed to by the team member. The Second Amended Complaint asserts claims against Menard for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") (Count I); violations of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law (Count II); unjust enrichment / quantum meruit (Count IV); breach of contract (Count V); and retaliation under the FLSA (Count VI). Menard moves the Court to dismiss Astarita's claims in the Second Amended Complaint and compel arbitration, or stay the case pending arbitration. In support, Menard argues that Astarita's claims are subject to a valid arbitration provision in the 2017 Agreement in which Astarita agreed to arbitrate, in an individual capacity, the claims he has brought against Menard in this lawsuit. It further argues that the 2017 Agreement's delegation provision requires the threshold issue of arbitrability to be decided by the arbitrator. Astarita opposes the motion and purports to challenge the validity of both the delegation provision and the arbitration provision. Astarita does not dispute that his claims fall within the scope of the 2017 Agreement. The issue for the Court is whether there is a valid arbitration agreement. Judge Ketchmark concludes that Menard has met its burden to prove the existence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. Because the parties have agreed to arbitrate gateway questions of arbitrability per the delegation provision contained in the 2017 Agreement, Plaintiff Astarita's challenges to the 2017 Agreement are for the arbitrator to determine. Accordingly, the Judge granted in part and denied in part Menard's Motion to Compel. In particular, Menard's request to compel arbitration of Astarita's claims is granted, and the request to dismiss the case is denied. Astarita's claims are stayed pending completion of arbitration. The counsel for the parties will file a joint status report 90 days of the date of the Order and every 90 days thereafter until the claims are finally resolved. The Judge denied all the remaining relief requested in the Motion to Compel. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/8TTc4H from Leagle.com. Albert J. Astarita, Plaintiff, represented by Michael James Rahmberg -- mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com -- McClelland Law Firm, P.C. & Ryan L. McClelland -- ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com -- McClelland Law Firm, P.C. Diana M. Owens, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan L. McClelland, McClelland Law Firm, P.C. Menard, Inc., doing business as Menards, Defendant, represented by Brian E. Peterson -- bpeterson@spencerfane.com -- Spencer Fane LLP, Francis X. Neuner, Jr. -- fneuner@spencerfane.com -- Spencer Fane LLP, James E. Davidson -- james.davidson@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP, pro hac vice & Paul L. Bittner -- paul.bittner@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP, pro hac vice. MENGUIN INC: Faces Fischler Class Suit in NY -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Menguin, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Menguin, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06654 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Menguin, Inc. provides online tuxedo rental services for weddings, proms, black tie events, or other events. It serves grooms, brides, and wedding planners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017-6705 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com METRO-TECH SYSTEMS: Court Denies as Moot Bid to Dismiss Manigo Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ERIC MANIGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. METRO-TECH SYSTEMS, INC. and ECE INSTALLATIONS, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-479-RJC-DCK (W.D. N.C.), Magistrate Judge David C. Keesler of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, denied as moot Metro-Tech's Motion To Dismiss filed Oct. 24, 2018. The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was filed on Nov. 7, 2018 which supersedes the original Complaint. It is well settled that a timely-filed amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot. Therefore the Magistrate directed that Metro-Tech's Motion be denied as moot. His recommendation is without prejudice to the Defendant filing a renewed motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, if appropriate. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/x1Lt1v from Leagle.com. Eric Manigo, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated., Plaintiff, represented by Philip J. Gibbons, Jr. -- phil@philgibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons Leis, PLLC & Craig Lorne Leis -- craig@gibbonsleis.com -- Gibbons Leis, PLLC. Metro-Tech Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian Lee Church -- bchurch@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. & Lawrence C. Moore, III -- lmoore@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P. A.. MIDLAND FUNDING: Olson Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marissa Olson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Midland Credit Management, Inc. and Midland Funding, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.: 612040/2018, was removed from the Suffolk County Supreme Court, to the U.S. District Court fotr the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip) on Nov. 13, 2018. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-06451 to the proceeding. The suit alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Attorneys for Defendants: Matthew B Corwin, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP 800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 471-6200 Facsimile: (212) 935-1166 E-mail: mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com MILESTONE MANAGEMENT: Santana Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- LUIS SANTANA, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the Plaintiffs, v. MILESTONE MANAGEMENT MST, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, ST. JAMES CROSSING APARTMENTS INVESTORS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, and JAIME CARVER, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-02781 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 10, 2018), alleges that Defendants have unlawfully deprived Plaintiff, and all other employees similarly situated, of federal overtime compensation during the course of their employment, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff weekly performed work over 40 hours for which he was not compensated proper overtime as required by the FLSA. Specifically, Plaintiff would frequently be called back to perform work at the subject property in excess of 40 hours per week but would not be permitted to clock in and/or record those hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Defendants further violated the FLSA by improperly calculating and underreporting Plaintiff's hours, and by failing to pay Plaintiff one-and-a-half times his regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 805 East Broward Blvd. Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com melissa@jordanrichadrspllc.com livia@jordanrichardspllc.com jake@jordanrichardspllc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Riordan Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- VICKIE RIORDAN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01918 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207-2950 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com MONTE R. LEE: Arredondo FLSA Suit Moved to N.D. Oklahoma -------------------------------------------------------- FRANK ARREDONDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MONTE R. LEE & COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00037, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa). The Northern District of Oklahoma Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00580-JED-FHM. The suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John E Dowdell. The case is a collective action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a cable installer/inspector whose primary responsibility was the installation of broadband telecommunications and cable systems. The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week but was not paid lawfully for doing so because Defendant misclassified installers as independent contractors and only paid them a straight hourly rate, failing to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40.[BN] Attorneys for Frank Arredondo: J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 1701 N Market St Ste 210 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com Attorneys for Monte R. Lee & Company: Courtney Kay Warmington, Esq. FULLER TUBB & BICKFORD PLLC 201 Robert S. Kerr Ave. Ste 1000 Okla City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-2575 Facsimile: (405) 232-8384 E-mail: cwarmington@fullertubb.com - and - Jonathan Gary Rector, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC (DALLAS) 2001 Ross Ave Ste 1500 lb 116 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 880-8100 Facsimile: (214) 880-0181 E-mail: jrector@littler.com MOTION RECRUITMENT: Violates ADA, Nixon Suit Asserts ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Motion Recruitment Services, LLC. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Motion Recruitment Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06682 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Motion Recruitment Partners LLC, through its subsidiaries, provides recruitment solutions to organizations in the United States and Canada. It offers information technology (IT) permanent placement and contract staffing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com N.Y. CONSERVATORY: Faces Camacho Suit Asserting ADA Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The New York Conservatory for Dramatic Arts. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The New York Conservatory for Dramatic Arts, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10948 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The New York Conservatory for Dramatic Arts is a professional acting training conservatory in New York City for actors focusing on acting for film, television and theater.[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 NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Montajo's Bid for Partial Summary Judgment OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ANTHONY MARC MOSTAJO, and ELAINE QUEDENS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00350-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (i) granted the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment; and (ii) denied the Defendant's cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Mostajo and Quedens bring class claims against Nationwide, their former employer, for Nationwide's alleged failure to pay overtime and unused but accrued vacation time to claims adjusters in California. The Plaintiffs worked for Nationwide as claims adjusters in California from 1998 to December 2015 and January 2016, respectively. On Jan. 9, 2017, Mostajo filed a Complaint against Nationwide in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento (Case No. 34-2017-00206005-CU-OE-GDS), alleging, among other individual claims, class claims for Nationwide's failure to pay overtime in violation of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. The putative class consists of all claims adjusters employed by Nationwide in California since January 2013. A month later, Mostajo, joined by Quedens, amended the complaint to include a class claim for failure to pay, upon termination, accrued but unused vacation time. Shortly thereafter, Nationwide removed the case to federal court. On Feb. 15, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action Complaint against Nationwide which includes, in relevant part, an allegation that that Nationwide had in place a policy whereby it failed to pay for all accrued vacation time, precluding claims adjusters from carrying over all accrued vacation time from year to year and failed to pay all accrued vacation time at termination. Based on this policy, the Plaintiffs allege that Nationwide violated California Labor Code Section 227.3, which requires employers to pay employees for all accrued vacation time. Nationwide filed an answer with affirmative defenses on March 29, 2018. Its twenty-first affirmative defense argues that the Plaintiffs' California law-based causes of action related to the vacation time benefits are completely preempted by ERISA. After a period of discovery, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the Your Time Program is exempt from ERISA as a "payroll practice" and so Nationwide's twenty-first affirmative defense fails as a matter of law. Nationwide opposed and brought a cross-motion for summary judgment as to ERISA's applicability. Among other things, Judge Mendez finds that payroll practices exemption applies if the Your Time Program vacation benefits are paid from Nationwide's "general assets." He finds that the payroll practice exemption applies to the vacation benefits payments from the Your Time Program because the undisputed facts demonstrate Nationwide pays the benefit from its general assets. The Trust has no other source of funding beyond Nationwide, the Nationwide Benefits Administrative Committee determines the payments to be made to the Trust and by the Trust, and the Trust has no independent recourse against Nationwide for failure to pay. The Judge also finds that the vacation benefits payments for the Your Time Program constitute a "payroll practice" within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. Section 2510.3-1, rather than an employee welfare benefit plan covered by ERISA. Thus, ERISA does not preempt the Plaintiffs' state law claims as to the vacation benefits. For the reasons set forth, Judge Mendez granted the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, and denied the Defendant's cross-motion for partial summary judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/MvKNnE from Leagle.com. Anthony Marc Mostajo & Elaine Quedens, Plaintiffs, represented by Robin G. Workman -- robin@workmanlawpc.com -- Workman Law Firm, PC. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Barbara Allyn Blackburn -- bblackburn@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Britney Noelle Torres -- btorres@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Daniel W. Srsic -- dsrsic@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, pro hac vice, James J. Oh -- joh@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, pro hac vice, Richard H. Rahm -- rrahm@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Kai-Ching Cha -- kcha@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Michael J. Hui -- mhui@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.. NATUS MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Costabile Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Natus Medical Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself against an amended class action suit entitled, Costabile v. Natus Medical Incorporation, et al. In January 2017, a putative class action lawsuit (Badger v. Natus Medical Incorporation, et al., No. 17-cv-00458-JSW) alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain officers and a director. In July 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with a new lead plaintiff (Costabile v. Natus Medical Incorporation, et al., No. 17-cv-00458-JSW) alleging violations of federal securities laws based on allegedly false and misleading statements. The defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and in February 2018 the motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend. The plaintiffs re-filed an amended complaint in April 2018 and Natus responded in May 2018. A decision is expected later this year. Natus Medical said, "The Company continues to believe that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Natus Medical Incorporated provides newborn care, neurology, and hearing and balance assessment healthcare products and services worldwide. It offers products and services used for the screening, diagnosis, detection, treatment, monitoring, and tracking of common medical ailments in newborn care, hearing impairment, neurological dysfunction, epilepsy, sleep disorders, neuromuscular diseases, and balance and mobility disorders. Natus Medical Incorporated was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Pleasanton, California. NECTAR RESTAURANT: Vidal Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN VASQUEZ VIDAL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs NECTAR RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A NECTAR RESTAURANT), K.K. & D. OF 79TH ST. REST. CORP. (D/B/A NECTAR CAFE), GEORGE KYRKOSTAS, PANAYIOTIS VALIANTIS, ANDREAS ASONITIS, PETER DOE, and ESPIRO DOE, the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-10465 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2018), alleges that Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Vasquez and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations under Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, Defendants, According to the complaint, the Plaintiff ostensibly was employed as a delivery worker. However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to dishwashing, cleaning and organizing the basement, sweeping and mopping the floors, and preparing food for the cooks. The Plaintiff Vasquez worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff Vasquez appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com NEIGHBORHOOD PLAYHOUSE: Camacho Suit Alleges ADA Breach ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Neighborhood Playhouse School of the Theatre. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Neighborhood Playhouse School of the Theatre, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10946 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Neighborhood Playhouse School of the Theatre is a full-time professional conservatory for actors located at 340 East 54th Street in New York City, and is known as the home of the Meisner technique, developed by Sanford Meisner.[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 NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Faces Mulquin Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Nektar Therapeutics said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has been named as defendant in a putative securities class action suit entitled, Mulquin v. Nektar Therapeutics et. al. On October 30, 2018, the Company and its CEO and CFO were named in a putative securities class action entitled, Mulquin v. Nektar Therapeutics et. al., N.D. Cal. The case asserts that for the period of November 11, 2017 through October 2, 2018, the Company's stock was inflated due to alleged misrepresentations about the efficacy and safety of NKTR-214. Nektar said, "We believe, however, that the allegations lack merit. The case is in the early stages. Accordingly, we cannot reasonably estimate any range of potential future charges, and we have not recorded any accrual for a contingent liability associated with this legal proceeding. However, an unfavorable resolution could potentially have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations or prospects, potentially delay or limit our ability to use some of our research and development programs, and potentially result in paying monetary damages." Nektar Therapeutics, a research-based biopharmaceutical company, discovers and develops drug candidates for cancer, auto-immune disease, and chronic pain in the United States. The company was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. NEVSUN RESOURCES: Raul Sues over Misleading Reports, Merger Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY RAUL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NEVSUN RESOURCES LTD., IAN W. PEARCE, IAN R. ASHBY, GEOFF CHATER, ANNE E. GIARDINI, PETER G. KUKIELSKI, STEPHEN SCOTT, and DAVID S. SMITH, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10420 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2018), alleges that Nevsun Resources Ltd and members of the Company's Board of Directors violated Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed sale of the Company in a cash transaction with Zijin Mining Group Co. Ltd. According to the complaint, on September 5, 2018, Nevsun announced that the Company had entered into a definitive agreement with Zijin, pursuant to which Zijin will make a take-over bid to acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of Nevsun for C$6.00 per share in cash. The Offer is valued at C$1.86 billion (US$1.41 billion). The Proposed Transaction also contains restrictive deal protection devices that preclude the defendants from being able to shop the Company in the best interests of the shareholders. The deal protection devices include: (i) a "no-shop" provision that restricts the Company's ability to solicit alternative acquisition proposals for third parties; and (ii) a termination fee of $50 million that Nevsun must pay to Zijin. On September 14, 2018, the Company filed with the SEC an incomplete and misleading Solicitation Statement (the "Solicitation Statement") on Form SD14D-9F in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Solicitation Statement and the exhibits thereto omit material information regarding the Proposed Transaction. Accordingly, the failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as Nevsun stockholders need such information in order to make a fully informed decision whether to tender their shares in support of the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal, the lawsuit says. Nevsun is a Canadian, diversified mid-tier miner with a portfolio of base metal assets to drive growth. The Company is headquartered in Vancouver, BC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP 821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 493-9780 Facsimile: (516) 280-7376 E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com NEW MOOSEJAW: Revitch Sues over Alleged Wiretapping of Computers ---------------------------------------------------------------- JEREMIAH REVITCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NEW MOOSEJAW, LLC and NAVISTONE, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-06827-JCS (N.D. Cal., Nov. 9, 2018), sues Defendants for wiretapping computers of visitors to Defendant Moosejaw's website, Moosejaw.com. According to the complaint, the wiretaps, which are secretly embedded in the computer code on Moosejaw.com, are used by Defendants to scan the user's computer in search of files that can be used to de-anonymize and identify the user, and also to observe visitors' keystrokes, mouse clicks, and other electronic communications in real time for the purpose of gathering Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") to de-anonymize those visitors -- that is, to match previously unidentifiable website visitors to obtain their names and home addresses, along with detailed data concerning their browsing habits. These wiretaps enable Defendants to immediately, automatically, and secretly observe the keystrokes, mouse clicks, and other electronic communications of visitors regardless of whether the visitor ultimately makes a purchase from Moosejaw. By doing so, Defendants have violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act; have invaded Plaintiff's privacy rights in violation of the California Constitution; have intruded upon the seclusion of Plaintiff; have violated California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act; and have violated California's Unfair Competition Law. On several occasions prior to the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiff Revitch visited Moosejaw.com. During each of Plaintiff's visits Defendants scanned his device for files that could be used to de-anonymize and identify him, captured his electronic communications and redirected them to NaviStone in real time, and used the intercepted data to attempt to learn his identity, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jsmith@bursor.com fklorczyk@bursor.com scott@bursor.com NEWEGG INC: Sued by Diaz for Violating ADA ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newegg Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Newegg Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10934 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). Newegg Inc. is an online retailer of items including computer hardware and consumer electronics. It is based in City of Industry, California, in the United States. In 2016, Liaison Interactive, a Chinese tech company, acquired majority stake in Newegg in an investment deal.[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 NORTH CAROLINA: Court Partly Allows Alvarez Suit to Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Eli ALVAREZ, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH LASSITER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-116-Fdw (W.D. N.C.), Judge Frank D. Whitney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division, permitted the Amended Complaint to proceed on the Plaintiff's claim for prospective injunctive relief for the alleged deprivation of property without due process. The pro se incarcerated Plaintiff filed a civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 on his own behalf as well as four other inmates alleging, inter alia, that their forced participation in an RDU Program at Marion Correctional Institution violates their constitutional rights. The Complaint was so seriously deficient that the Court was unable to complete initial review. On May 15, 2018, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file IFP applications and an Amended Complaint within 21 days. The Court cautioned them that failure to comply would probably result in dismissal. It also informed the Plaintiffs that the filing of more than one Amended Complaint would probably result in the opening of separate Section 1983 cases. The Plaintiffs did not file a single Amended Complaint pursuant to the Court's instruction and the case was severed. Plaintiff Alvarez names the following as the Defendants in their official capacities in his Amended Complaint: Director of Prisons Kenneth Lassiter, Marion C.I. Superintendent Hubert Corpening, Case Manager/RDU Programmer Gregory Swink, Assistant Superintendent Donny Watkings, and RDU-Director Jenny Jenkins. Construing the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint liberally and accepting it as true, he was transferred to Marion C.I. on March 9, 2017. The Plaintiff alleges the following: (i) that the Defendants made up rules and implemented them in violation of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights; (ii) they took his religious literature and law books, personal property including his radio and electric razor, and legal documents in violation of their own policies and due process; (iii) the Defendants put the Plaintiff in the RDU Program against his will and without due process; (iv) his participation in the RDU Program was not court-ordered; (v) the Defendants are not using funds adequately, are lying about the housing status; (vi) the Plaintiff is unable to practice and learn about his religion of Islam and is unable to properly litigate his cases; (vii) he is being forced to talk about confidential issues including his personal life and medical health; and (viii) the Plaintiff has been put in segregation without due process where he will remain indefinitely until he completes the RDU Program. The Plaintiff seeks damages, transfer out of Marion C.I., a change in the RDU rules or shutdown of the RDU program; creation of a classification board, and a rule making participation in the RDU Program voluntary. The matter is before the Court on initial review of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Also pending are the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and a Motion for the Appointment of Counsel. The Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. The Plaintiff has filed an Affidavit in Support of Preliminary Injunction, in which he claims that there is a campaign of harassment and violations of constitution and policy at Marion C.I. The main gist of his Motion is that he and the other Plaintiffs will continue to remain on segregation without their property and other privileges so long as they refuse to participate in the RDU Program. He asks the Court to have them removed from Marion C.I. until this suit is complete to protect them from further harm by Defendants. Because the Plaintiff has failed to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits or that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, Judge Whitney will deny his request for preliminary injunctive relief. Attached to Alvarez's Motion to Amend is his Amended Complaint. The Judge will deny as moot the Motion because the Court previously granted the Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff's Motion is also moot insofar as he seeks relief on behalf of the other Plaintiffs because they, too, were granted leave to amend and the Plaintiff does not have standing to request relief on their behalf. In his Motion to Amend, the Plaintiff appears to seek class certification. His request will be denied because he is pro se and is not an attorney, although he filed pleadings purporting to represent a group, he is barred from representing anyone other than himself. The Plaintiff has filed a Motion for the Appointment of Counsel, that purports to be filed on behalf of all the Plaintiffs. The Judge finds that the case does not present exceptional circumstances that justify appointment of counsel. Moreover, Alvarez does not have standing to request relief on behalf of the other Plaintiffs. Therefore, his Motion for Appointment of Counsel will be denied. Turning to the merits of the Amended Complaint, among other things, finds that (i) to the extent the Amended Complaint seeks relief on behalf of individuals other than the Plaintiffs, these claims are dismissed; (ii) Alvarez's claims for damages and retrospective injunctive relief are dismissed except insofar as the Plaintiff requests prospective injunctive relief because they are barred by sovereign immunity; (iii) the Plaintiff's claims of cruel and unusual conditions of confinement are insufficient to proceed; (iv) the claim against RDU Program is too vague and conclusory to proceed; (v) the freedom of religion claim is insufficient to pass initial review because the Plaintiff's vague and conclusory allegations fail to establish that he had a sincere religious belief or that the official action or regulation substantially burdened his exercise of that belief; and (vii) the Plaintiff fails to allege how any of the Defendants' expenditures or recordkeeping with regards to prisoner housing deprived him of any rights. Based on the foregoing, Judge Whitney permitted the Amended Complaint to proceed on the Plaintiff's claim for prospective injunctive relief for the alleged deprivation of property without due process. The Plaintiffs' claim that the Defendants deprived him of properly without due process for prospective injunctive relief has passed initial review under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915. He dismissed the remaining claims for seeking relief against immune parties and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii). The Judge (i) denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for the Appointment of Counsel; and (ii) denied as moot the Plaitiff's Motion to Amend. The Clerk of Court will commence the procedure for waiver of service as set forth in Local Rule 4.3 for Defendants Lassiter, Corpening, Watkings, Jenkins, and Swink who are current or former employees of NC DPS. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/K1ypTY from Leagle.com. Eli Alvarez, Plaintiff, pro se. NORTH CAROLINA: Court Partly Allows Johnson Suit to Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARVIN H. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH LASSITER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-276-FDW (W.D. N.C.), Judge Frank D. Whitney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division, permitted the Amended Compliant to proceed on the Plaintiff's claims for prospective injunctive relief for the deprivation of property, cruel and unusual conditions of confinement, and violation of privacy. The pro se incarcerated Plaintiff filed a civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 along with four other inmates alleging, inter alia, that their forced participation in an RDU Program at Marion Correctional Institution violates their constitutional rights. The Complaint was so seriously deficient that the Court was unable to complete initial review. On May 15, 2018, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file IFP applications and an Amended Complaint within 21 days. It cautioned Plaintiffs that failure to comply would probably result in dismissal. The Plaintiffs did not file a single Amended Complaint pursuant to the Court's instruction and the case was severed. Plaintiff Johnson names the following as Defendants in his Amended Complaint in their official capacities: Director of Prisons Kenneth Lassiter, Marion C.I. Superintendent Hubert Corpening, Case Manager/RDU Programmer Gregory Swink, Assistant Superintendent Donny Watkings, and RDU-Director Jenny Jenkins. Plaintiff Johnson arrived at Marion C.I. on Jan. 26, 2017. Upon entering the RDU Program, he was forced to either send home or donate his legal books, literature, and religious literature. None of his property exceeded the two cubic foot limit. He failed to meet the deadline for his federal habeas corpus petition, which was March 8, 2018, because he did not have the needed legal books and literature. His personal privacy was invaded when he was forced to talk about or fill out a survey regarding his past and his present medical, mental health, criminal charges, and family issues, which has exposed to psychological harm, and Sergeant Pruett called him a "crack baby." Plaintiff Johnson has been forced to do six months in segregation with no procedural due process. It is fraud to hold him in segregation from March 10, 2018, to Sept. 10, 2018, while his status in the prison remained "Reg. Population." He claims that he has completed the RDU Program but is still in segregation. He is being harassed continuously and pepper spray was put in his food three times. His injuries have included psychological harm, separation from his immediate family, "assassination of character," violation of federal constitutional rights and privileges, discrimination, and the right to practice his religion. Plaintiff Johnson seeks on behalf of himself and participants in the "class" damages of $250,000, removal from the RDU Program, and cancellation of the RDU Program. The matter is before the Court on initial review of the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. Judge Whitney concludes that the Amended Compliant will be permitted to proceed on the Plaintiff's claims for prospective injunctive relief for the deprivation of property, cruel and unusual conditions of confinement, and violation of privacy. The remaining claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for seeking damages against immune parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii). Therefore, the Plaintiff's claims regarding the deprivation of his property, cruel and unusual conditions of confinement, and deprivation of privacy have passed initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 for prospective injunctive relief. The remaining claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for seeking damages against immune parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii). The Judge directed the Clerk of Court to commence the procedure for waiver of service as set forth in Local Rule 4.3 for Defendants Lassiter, Corpening, Watkings, Jenkins, and Swink who are current or former employees of NC DPS. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/LE4sX5 from Leagle.com. Marvin H. Johnson, Plaintiff, pro se. OLIVE NAIL: Macas Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ MAYRA JOANA MACAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OLIVE NAIL & SPA INC. (D/B/A FLOWER NAIL & SPA), ESTHER LEE , PAUL LEE , and KYUNG SOON YI , COLLECTIVE ACTION UNDER 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) ECF Case, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10525 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was ostensibly employed as a waxer, manicurist, pedicurist and masseuse. However, she was required to spend a considerable part of her work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to vacuuming the entire salon, washing towels, collecting used nail filer and buffs, cleaning the nail tools, cleaning bathrooms, cleaning the pedicure chairs, collecting and taking out the garbage, refilling the containers with cotton balls and lotions, cleaning the waxing room, cleaning the masseuse's room, sweeping, mopping, drying and folding sheets. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff Macas appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Macas the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which she had to work over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiff wages on a timely, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Costas Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Ormat Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit filed by Mac Costas. On June 11, 2018, a putative class action was filed by Mac Costas on behalf of alleged shareholders that purchased or acquired the Company's ordinary shares between August 8, 2017 and May 15, 2018 was commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. The complaint asserts claim against all defendants pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and against its officers pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that the Company's Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2017, and Form 10-Qs for each of the quarters in the nine months ended September 30, 2017 contained material misstatements or omissions, among other things, with respect to the Company's tax provisions and the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting, and that, as a result of such alleged misstatements and omissions, the plaintiffs suffered damages. Following the Mac Costas claim filing, four additional complaints of similar content were filed by other complainants. The Company has not yet responded to the complaints. The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law and intends to defend itself vigorously. Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered energy power business worldwide. The company operates through Electricity and Product segments. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in Reno, Nevada. ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit v. PGV Unit --------------------------------------------------------- Ormat Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that discovery is underway in the class action suit against the company's subsidiary Puna Geothermal Venture (PGV). On August 5, 2016, George Douvris, Stephanie Douvris, Michael Hale, Cheryl Cacocci, Hillary E. Wilt and Christina Bryan, acting for themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated residents of the lower Puna District, filed a complaint in the Third Circuit Court for the State of Hawaii seeking certification of a class action for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, consequential and punitive damages, attorney's fees and statutory interest against Puna Geothermal Venture ("PGV") and other presently unknown defendants. On December 12, 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion for joinder of HELCO as a co-defendant, and the case, which had been removed prior to the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, was remanded back to the Third Circuit Court. The amended complaint purports that injuries and other damages in an undisclosed amount were caused to the plaintiffs as a result of an alleged toxic release by PGV in the wake of Hurricane Iselle in August 2014. On June 14, 2017, the Third Circuit Court denied HELCO's motion to dismiss the complaint against itself which it had filed on March 25, 2017 and agreed to the Company's request to add two third party defendants, who are, respectively, the distributor and manufacturer of the pressure release valve that failed to reseat during Hurricane Iselle. Discovery is underway. The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law and intends to defend itself vigorously. Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered energy power business worldwide. The company operates through Electricity and Product segments. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in Reno, Nevada. ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Riche Class Action vs. USG Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ Ormat Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a purported class action suit entitled, Riche v. Pappas, et al. Following the announcement of the Company's acquisition of U.S. Geothermal Inc. ("USG"), a number of putative shareholder class action complaints were initially filed on behalf of USG shareholders between March 8, 2018 and March 30, 2018 against USG and the individual members of the USG board of directors. All of the purported class action suits filed in Federal Court in Idaho have been voluntarily dismissed. The single remaining class action complaint is a purported class action filed in the Delaware Chancery Court, entitled Riche v. Pappas, et al., Case No. 2018-0177 (Del. Ch., Mar. 12, 2018). An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 2018 under seal, under a confidentiality agreement that was executed by plaintiff. The amended Riche complaint alleges state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty against former USG directors and seeks post-closing damages. Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered energy power business worldwide. The company operates through Electricity and Product segments. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in Reno, Nevada. ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Tel Aviv Class Action Stayed ------------------------------------------------ Ormat Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company filed an agreed motion to the Tel Aviv District Court to stay the proceedings in Israel until a final decision in the U.S. case (Mac Costas) is adjudicated. On May 21, 2018, a motion to certify a class action was filed in Tel Aviv District Court against Ormat Technologies, Inc. and 11 officers and directors. The alleged class is defined as "All persons who purchased Ormat shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange between August 3, 2017 and May 13, 2018". The motion alleges that the Company violated Sections 31(a)(1) and 38C of the Israeli Securities Law because it allegedly: (1) misled investors by stating in its financial statements that it maintains effective internal controls over its accounting policies and procedures, however the Company's internal controls had material weaknesses which led to erroneous accounting in its 2017 unaudited quarterly reports that had to be restated, including adjustments to the Company's net income and shareholders' equity; and (2) failed to issue an immediate report in Israel until May 16, 2018, analogous to the report that was released in the United States on May 11, 2018 stating, inter alia, that the errors in its financial reports affected its balance sheet and would be remedied in its 2017 annual report. The Company filed an agreed motion to the Tel Aviv District Court to stay the proceedings in Israel until a final decision in the U.S. case (Mac Costas) is adjudicated. Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered energy power business worldwide. The company operates through Electricity and Product segments. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in Reno, Nevada. PACCAR INC: Claims in Anderson Suit over Defective Engines Narrowed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, S.L. ANDERSON & SONS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. PACCAR, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. C18-0742-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint. The Defendants manufacture and sell heavy-duty commercial vehicles. Beginning in 2010, they began to manufacture PACCAR MX-13 diesel engines. The Engines incorporate an aftertreatment system ("ATS") that the Defendants have previously included in other vehicles. In order to meet the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") 2010 Heavy-Duty On Highway Emissions Standard ("2010 Standard"), the Defendants designed, manufactured, sold for profit, and warranted Engines with an Emissions Aftertreatment System ("EAS") emissions control unit. The EAS includes an exhaust gas recirculation ("EGR") component that assists in altering the temperature and composition of the exhaust. The amended complaint asserts that a defect in the Engines, of which the Defendants were aware, causes vehicles containing the Engines to not function consistently or reliably, even following repeated warranty repairs and replacements. The EAS and related systems continuously monitor Vehicles and, upon detection of a malfunction, trigger a malfunction indicator and produce a fault code that is stored in the Engine Control Module ("ECM"). The ECM then derates or reduces the Vehicle's engine power, when required to protect the Engine and ATS. The fault codes are used by the Defendants to identify issues while performing repair work. They require that repair work on Engines be done at their authorized dealers. The amended complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs and the others Class members have suffered performance and reliability problems arising from the defect in the Engines, which produces numerous fault codes that require servicing. The amended complaint alleges that since 2009, prior to beginning to sell the Engines, the Defendants knew or should have known that the EAS and related systems were not sufficiently robust to meet their representations about their reliability and durability, that the Engines and EAS were experiencing failures, and that frequent repairs would be required. Although the Defendants knew or should have known about the defects, they failed to disclose the defects to the Plaintiffs and the other Class members. The Defendants performed numerous repairs of Vehicles pursuant to the Base Warranty. They have not rejected a request to repair an emissions-related defect pursuant to the terms of the Base Warranty. But the repair work done on the Vehicles failed to correct the underlying defect. The Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. Their amended complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), Revised Code of Washington section 19.86, and breached an express warranty in violation of Revised Code of Washington section 62A.2-313. In the alternative, Plaintiff Santoro and the California Class members allege that the Defendants violated California Commercial Code section 2313 and violated the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business and Professions Code section 17200. In the alternative, Plaintiff Anderson and the Wisconsin Class members allege that the Defendants breached an express warranty in violation of Wisconsin Uniform Commercial Code section 402.313. The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Judge Coughenour granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Anderson's claim for breach of express warranty is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. He finds that the amended complaint specifically asserts that the Vehicle's defect and deficiencies stem from the EAS technology that renders the Vehicles unreliable transportation and unsuitable for ordinary commercial use; that the ATS's inherent deficiencies produce numerous fault codes that require servicing; and that the Engines suffer from sensor, injector, and doser problems, along with other system failures. The amended complaint further alleges that the Defendants have exclusive knowledge or access to material facts about the Vehicles and their Engines," and that Plaintiffs could not know or reasonably discover these material facts. The multitude of the alleged problems resulting from the alleged defect in the Engines does not render the Plaintiffs' claims implausible or vague. He further finds that the amended complaint does not establish that Plaintiff Anderson, as the second purchaser, has a plausible claim for breach of the Base Warranty. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted on this ground. Plaintiff Anderson's claim for breach of express warranty arising under Wisconsin law is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. If the Plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, they should offer, if they can, factual assertions and legal argument establishing either that the limitation of the Base Warranty to the first purchaser is unconscionable or that Plaintiff Anderson is entitled to bring a third party claim for breach of the Base Warranty under Wisconsin law. If the Plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, they must plead additional allegations to cure the deficiencies identified in the order. The amended complaint must be filed within 30 days of the issuance of the order. If filed, the amended complaint will only include additional allegations regarding the claim that was dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/zKge4l from Leagle.com. S.L. Anderson & Sons, Inc & Santoro Transportation, Inc, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Caroline F. Bartlett , CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, PC, pro hac vice, James E. Cecchi -- jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, PC, pro hac vice, James C. Shah -- jshah@sfmslaw.com -- SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP, pro hac vice, Jerrod C. Patterson -- jerrodp@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Natalie Finkelman Bennett -- nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com -- SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP, pro hac vice, Richard J. Burke -- rich@qulegal.com -- QUANTUM LEGAL LLC, pro hac vice, Zachary A. Jacobs -- zachary@qulegal.com -- QUANTUM LEGAL LLC, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP. PACCAR, Inc, PACCAR Engine Company, Kenworth Truck Company & Peterbilt Motors Company, Defendants, represented by Anthony Pisciotti -- apisciotti@pmlegalfirm.com -- PISCIOTTI MALSCH, pro hac vice, Clifford M. Laney -- claney@pmlegalfirm.com -- PISCIOTTI MALSCH, pro hac vice, Danny Lallis -- dlallis@pmlegalfirm.com -- PISCIOTTI MALSCH, pro hac vice & William Randolph Squires, III -- rsquires@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP. PACIFIC BELL: Failed to Pay Wages & Overtime, Herrera Says ---------------------------------------------------------- DAVID HERRERA, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, a California corporation; AT&T SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.: RG18928072 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 9, 2018), alleges that Defendant failed to provide meal periods, failed to provide rest periods, failed to pay hourly wages, failed to provide accurate written wage statements, and failed to timely pay all final wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee from approximately 1999 through December 19, 2017. During their employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs regularly worked shifts of eight to twelve hours per day, without being afforded a meal break during the first five hours, and/or a second meal break after ten hours, as required by California law. Defendants had a policy f automatically deducting thirty minutes from Plaintiffs' paycheck, regardless of whether Plaintiffs took a lunch break or not. The Plaintiff and the putative class members were not provided with rest periods of at 5 least 10 minutes for each four hour work period, or major fraction thereof, due to (1) Defendants' policy of not scheduling each rest period as part of each work shift; (2) chronically understaffing each work shift with not enough workers; (3) imposing so much work on each employee such that it made it unlikely that an employee would be able to take their breaks if they wanted to finish their work on time; and (4) no formal written meal and rest period policy that encouraged employees to take their meal and rest periods, the lawsuit says. Pacific Bell Telephone Company is a telephone company that provides telephone service in California. The company is owned by AT&T Inc. through AT&T Teleholdings.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Shaun Setareh, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. William M. Pao, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com scott@setarehlaw.com william@setarehlaw.com PACIFIC UNION: Mortgage Late Fees "Excessive," Hopkins et al. Say ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT KEITH HOPKINS and DEBBIE ANN HOPKINS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PACIFIC UNION FINANCIAL, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.: DC-18-16775 (D. Tex., Nov. 6, 2018), alleges that the defendant charged and accepted late fees on the escrow portion of their mortgagee's payments in violation of the written contract with each class member. According to the complaint, Pacific serves as a mortgage loan originator and servicer for various and numerous mortgagees for mortgage loans in all 50 states throughout the United States. The mortgage loans are comprised of both notes and mortgages. Pacific, as a servicer for these various mortgage loans, is bound by the terms of the original mortgage loans and is responsible for the collection of payments made by the mortgagors, the assessment of late payment fees ("late fees"), and the collection of those late fees, among other duties. Pacific, as part of its servicing agreements, may retain all or a portion of any late fees collected from the mortgagors. Hopkins' note was prepared on the standard FHMA/FHLMC Uniform Instrument Form 3200 , which limits any applicable late fee charge to a percentage of their monthly principal and interest payment. The mortgage industry uses the Uniform Instrument about 90% of the time, and Paragraph 6 of the Uniform Instrument provides for a late fee charge. Pacific, however, routinely charges, collects, and retains more than the stated percentage of the monthly principal and interest payment for late fees to more than 300,000 individuals nationwide. Because Pacific routinely collects late fees in an amount larger than allowed under the terms of the Uniform Instrument, homeowners have paid more late fees to Pacific than they legally owed, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Zachary D. Herbert, Esq. HERBERT LAW GROUP, PLLC legal@zherbertlaw.com 1202 E. Arapaho Rd, Suite 140 Richardson, TX 75081 Telephone: 214 414-3808 Facsimile: 214 602-7156 PAIGE LAW: Matjusinas Sue over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------- OLGA MATJUSINA AND VALENTINA MATJUSINA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. PAIGE LAW GROUP, P.A., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-24727-AOR (S.D. Fla., Nov. 12, 2018), contends that the Defendant has dispatched hundreds, or even thousands, of unlawful collection letters to United States consumers, whereby each such letter contains identical violations of sections 1692g(a)(3), 1692g(a)(4) and 1692g(a)(5) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On or about September 26, 2018, the Defendant sent a collection letter to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the Consumer Debt. The Collection Letter does not effectively convey the informatio n required to be disclosed to consumers under section 1692g(a)(3)-(5), but rather provides, at best, a distorted version of the disclosures. Accordingly, the Collection Letter violates the FDCPA by failing to sufficiently inform the least sophisticated consumer of the rights and/or protections he or she enjoys under section 1692g(a)(3)-(5), as the information/disclosure proffered in the Collection Letter is devoid of entire swaths of mandatory information, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954 907-1136 Facsimile: 855 529-9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com PARK HOTELS & RESORT: Fischler Brings Suit for ADA Breach --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. doing business as: The London NYC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06658 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). Park is the second largest publicly traded lodging REIT with a diverse portfolio of market-leading hotels and resorts with significant underlying real estate value. Park's portfolio consists of 54 premium-branded hotels and resorts with over 32,000 rooms, a majority of which are located in prime United States markets with high barriers to entry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017-6705 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com PETPLATE INC: Slade Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Petplate, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Petplate, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10908 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. PetPlate, Inc. offers meal delivery service for dogs. The company's meals are cooked in a facility, and cold-pressure technology is used to destroy harmful bacteria and lock in nutrition.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Lipitor-Related Antitrust Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from purported class action suits over sales of Lipitor. Beginning in November 2011, purported class actions relating to Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against, among others, Pfizer, certain affiliates of Pfizer, and, in most of the actions, Ranbaxy, Inc. (Ranbaxy) and certain affiliates of Ranbaxy. The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the defendants from March 2010 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct (the Class Period). The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws, resulting from (i) the 2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled certain patent litigation involving Lipitor, and Pfizer granted Ranbaxy a license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various markets beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the actions, the procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor. Each of the actions seeks, among other things, treble damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) during the Class Period. In addition, individual actions have been filed against Pfizer, Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among others, that assert claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the purported class actions described above. These various actions have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation MDL-2332) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In September 2013 and 2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims by direct purchasers. In October and November 2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of all other Multi-District Litigation plaintiffs. All plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's orders dismissing their claims with prejudice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In addition, the direct purchaser class plaintiffs appealed the order denying their motion to amend the judgment and for leave to amend their complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In August 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's decisions and remanded the claims to the District Court. Also, in January 2013, the State of West Virginia filed an action in West Virginia state court against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, among others, that asserts claims and seeks relief on behalf of the State of West Virginia and residents of that state that are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the purported class actions described above. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It operates in two segments, Pfizer Innovative Health (IH) and Pfizer Essential Health (EH). The company was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PFIZER INC: Hormone Therapy Consumer Class Action Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that Wyeth LLC continues to defend itself from the so-called Hormone Therapy Consumer class action lawsuit. A certified consumer class action is pending against Wyeth LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California based on the alleged off-label marketing of its hormone therapy products. The case was originally filed in December 2003. The class consists of California consumers who purchased Wyeth's hormone-replacement products between January 1995 and January 2003 and who do not seek personal injury damages therefrom. The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages, including a full refund of the purchase price. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It operates in two segments, Pfizer Innovative Health (IH) and Pfizer Essential Health (EH). The company was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PFIZER INC: Still Defends EpiPen Consolidated Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit related to EpiPen. Beginning in February 2017, purported class actions were filed in various federal courts by indirect purchasers of EpiPen against Pfizer, and/or its affiliates King and Meridian, and/or various entities affiliated with Mylan N.V., and Mylan N.V. Chief Executive Officer, Heather Bresch. The plaintiffs in these actions seek to represent U.S. nationwide classes comprising persons or entities who paid for any portion of the end-user purchase price of an EpiPen between 2009 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. In August 2017, a similar lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a purported class of direct purchaser plaintiffs against Pfizer, King, Meridian and Mylan was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Against Pfizer and/or its affiliates, plaintiffs generally allege that Pfizer's and/or its affiliates' settlement of patent litigation regarding EpiPen delayed market entry of generic EpiPen in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust or consumer protection laws. At least one lawsuit also alleges that Pfizer and/or Mylan N.V. violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Plaintiffs also filed various consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims against, and relating to conduct attributable solely to, Mylan Pharmaceuticals regarding EpiPen. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for EpiPen since 2009. In August 2017, the actions were consolidated for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation (In re: EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust Litigation, MDL-2785) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas with other EpiPen-related actions against Mylan N.V. and/or its affiliates to which Pfizer, King and Meridian are not parties. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It operates in two segments, Pfizer Innovative Health (IH) and Pfizer Essential Health (EH). The company was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Class Suit over Effexor XR Sales ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that that Wyeth LLC and its affiliates continue to defend a class action lawsuit relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions, were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth LLC (Wyeth) and, in certain of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and entering into a litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff claims. In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In August 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's decisions and remanded the claims to the District Court. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It operates in two segments, Pfizer Innovative Health (IH) and Pfizer Essential Health (EH). The company was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PINKO US: Nixon Files Disabilities Act Suit v. Fashion Brand ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against PINKO US CORP. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PINKO US CORP, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06686 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. PINKO is a contemporary fashion brand with an Italian spirit. It was launched in the early 1980s by Cristina Rubini and Pietro Negra.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com PIQ-SOH LLC: Pet Insurance Service Firm Faces ADA Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against PIQ-SOH, LLC. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIQ-SOH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06684 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. PIQ LLC, doing business as petinsurancequotes.com, provides pet insurance services. The Company educates and helps pet owners to find pet insurance plans for their dogs and cats. petinsurancequotes.com serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com POPULAR INC: 2nd Motion for Reconsideration in Torres Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the second motion for reconsideration filed before the Puerto Rico Supreme Court by the defendant in the case, Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al, is pending. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) has separately been named a defendant in a putative class action complaint captioned Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al, filed before the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan Part. The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against Popular, Inc. and Popular Insurance, LLC (Popular Defendants), as well as other financial institutions with insurance brokerage subsidiaries in Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs essentially contend that in November 2015, Antilles Insurance Company obtained approval from the Puerto Rico Insurance Commissioner to market an endorsement that allowed its customers to obtain reimbursement on their insurance deductible for good experience, but that defendants failed to offer this product or disclose its existence to their customers, favoring other products instead, in violation of their duties as insurance brokers. Plaintiffs seek a determination that defendants unlawfully failed to comply with their duty to disclose the existence of this new insurance product, as well as double or treble damages (the latter subject to a determination that defendants engaged in anti-monopolistic practices in failing to offer this product). Between late March and early April, co-defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint and opposed the request for preliminary injunctive relief. A co-defendant filed a third-party Complaint against Antilles Insurance Company. A preliminary injunction and class certification hearing originally scheduled for April 6, 2017 was subsequently postponed, pending resolution of the motions to dismiss. On July 31, 2017, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. In August 2017, plaintiffs appealed this judgment and, on March 21, 2018, the Court of Appeals reversed the Court of First Instance's dismissal. On May 18, 2018, defendants each filed Petitions of Certiorari to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court. The Petitions of Certiorari were all denied on June 26, 2018 and all parties but BPPR filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration of such denial. Those Motions for Reconsideration were denied and one defendant filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, which is still pending. Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail, mortgage, and commercial banking products and services primarily to institutional and retail customers. The company accepts various deposit products. Popular, Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. POPULAR INC: Appeal over Camacho Case Ruling Underway ----------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that plaintiffs' appellate brief related to the case, Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., was due December 3, 2018. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) has been named a defendant in a putative class action captioned Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., filed before the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of mortgage-holders who have allegedly been subjected to illegal foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage servicers. Plaintiffs maintain that when they sought to reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel (or dual tracking). Plaintiffs assert that such actions violate the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"), the Home Affordable Refinance Program ("HARP") and other federally sponsored loan modification programs, as well as the Puerto Rico Mortgage Debtor Assistance Act and the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"). For the alleged violations stated above, plaintiffs request that all defendants (over 20, including all local banks), be held jointly and severally liable in an amount no less than $400 million. BPPR waived service of process in June 2017 and filed a motion to dismiss in August 2017, as did most co-defendants. On March 28, 2018, the Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. On April 9, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of such dismissal, which was denied on August 17, 2018. On August 29, 2018, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Plaintiffs' appellate brief is due on December 3, 2018 and Defendants' response brief will be due 30 days thereafter. Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail, mortgage, and commercial banking products and services primarily to institutional and retail customers. The company accepts various deposit products. Popular, Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. POPULAR INC: Bid for Reconsideration in Maura Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the ruling in the case, Yiries Josef Saad Maura v. Banco Popular, et al. suit, remains pending. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) has been named a defendant in a putative class action captioned Yiries Josef Saad Maura v. Banco Popular, et al., filed by the same counsel who filed the Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., on behalf of residential customers of the defendant banks who have allegedly been subject to illegal foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage servicers. As in Gonzalez Camacho, plaintiffs contend that when they sought to reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel, all in violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and other consumer-protection laws and regulations. Plaintiffs did not include a specific amount of damages in their complaint. On January 3, 2018, plaintiffs requested that BPPR waive service of process, which it agreed to do on February 1, 2018. BPPR subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the same grounds as those asserted in the Gonzalez Camacho action (as did most co-defendants, separately). BPPR further filed a motion to oppose class certification, which the Court granted, denying the motion for class certification on September 26, 2018. On October 8, 2018, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of such denial, which BPPR opposed on October 22, 2018. Those motions are still pending. Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail, mortgage, and commercial banking products and services primarily to institutional and retail customers. The company accepts various deposit products. Popular, Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. POPULAR INC: Says Settlement in Valle Suit Final and Unappealable ----------------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the settlement in the case, Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular Community Bank, became final and unappealable. Popular Bank (PB) has been named a defendant in a putative class action complaint captioned Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular Community Bank, filed in November 2012 in the New York State Supreme Court (New York County). Plaintiffs, PB customers, alleged among other things that PB engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and trade practices in connection with the assessment of overdraft fees and payment processing on consumer deposit accounts. The complaint further alleged that PB improperly disclosed its consumer overdraft policies and that the overdraft rates and fees assessed by PB violate New York's usury laws. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, including punitive damages, interest, disbursements, and attorneys' fees and costs. After several procedural steps that included a ruling partially granting PB's motion to dismiss and the filing of an amended complaint that was also partially dismissed, on August 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On September 17, 2015, PB filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and on February 18, 2016, the Court granted it in part and denied it in part, dismissing plaintiffs' unfair and deceptive acts and trade practices claim to the extent it sought to recover overdraft fees incurred prior to September 2011. On March 28, 2016, PB filed an answer to the second amended complaint and, on November 13, 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle. Under this agreement, an amount up to $5.2 million would be paid to qualified claimants. In March 2018, the Court entered an order for the preliminary approval of the settlement. On July 23, 2018, the claims process closed and, on August 6, 2018, the Court granted its final approval of the settlement agreement, entering such final order on August 13, 2018. The settlement became final and unappealable on September 12, 2018. Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail, mortgage, and commercial banking products and services primarily to institutional and retail customers. The company accepts various deposit products. Popular, Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. PORT RESOURCES: Seeks 1st Cir. Review of Ruling in Giguere Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Port Resources Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Giguere v. Port Resources Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00058-NT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, Portland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and Maine labor laws guaranteeing prompt payment of wages. Port Resources manages and provides staffing for 24 group homes and supervised apartments serving nearly 100 clients in residential neighborhoods across southern Maine. The appellate case is captioned as Giguere v. Port Resources Inc., Case No. 18-2073, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee DAVID GIGUERE, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Peter Mancuso, Esq. Andrew Arthur Schmidt, Esq. ANDREW SCHMIDT LAW PLLC 997 India Street Portland, ME 04101-0000 Telephone: (207) 619-0884 E-mail: peter@maineworkerjustice.com andy@maineworkerjustice.com - and - Howard T. Reben, Esq. REBEN, BENJAMIN & MARCH 97 India St. P.O. Box 7060 Portland, ME 04112-0000 Telephone: (207) 772-5496 E-mail: hreben@rbmlawoffice.com Defendant-Appellant PORT RESOURCES INC. is represented by: Graydon Stevens, Esq. KELLY REMMEL & ZIMMERMAN 53 Exchange St. PO Box 597 Portland, ME 04112-0597 Telephone: (207) 775-1020 E-mail: gstevens@krz.com PRINSTON PHARMA: Neal Sues over Contaminated Valsartan Drugs ------------------------------------------------------------ TALSIE NEAL, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL INC. d/b/a SOLCO HEALTHCARE LLC; SOLCO HEALTHCARE U.S., LLC; HUAHAI U.S. INC.; and ZHEJIANG HUAHAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., the Defendants, Case 3:18-cv-16071 (D.N.J., Nov. 12, 2018), alleges that Defendants willfully ignored warnings signs regarding the operating standards at the Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals manufacturing plant in China, and continued to allow ZHP to manufacture their Valsartan products for sale to consumers in the United States even after Defendants knew or should have known that their Valsartan products manufactured by ZHP contained or likely contained NDMA and/or other impurities. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and hundreds of thousands of other Valsartan consumers who paid for Defendants' generic Valsartan that was adulterated through its contamination with International Agency for Research on Cancer- and Environmental Protection Agency-listed probable human carcinogen known as N-nitrosodimethylamine. The Defendants represented and warranted to consumers that their generic Valsartan products were therapeutically equivalent to and otherwise the same as brand Diovan (TM), were otherwise fit for their ordinary uses, and were otherwise manufactured and distributed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. These adulterated Valsartan drugs were introduced into the American market at least as far back as 2015 for Defendants to profit from their sale to American consumers, such as Plaintiff and Class Members. However, evidence now suggests that the contamination dates back at least as far as 2012. Plaintiff and Class Members paid for all or part of their Valsartan prescriptions that were illegally introduced into the market by Defendants and which were not fit for their ordinary use. Defendants have been unjustly enriched through the sale of these adulterated drugs since at least 2012. Defendants' conduct also constitutes actionable common law fraud, consumer fraud, and other violations of state law, the lawsuit says. Prinston develops, manufactures, markets, and registers generic prescription pharmaceutical products.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class: Ruben Honik, Esq. David J. Stanoch, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-965-9177 Facsimile: 215-985-4169 E-mail: rhonik@golombhonik.com dstanoch@golombhonik.com - and - Allan Kanner, Esq. Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq. Layne Hilton, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC 701 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70115 Telephone: 504-524-5777 Facsimile: 504-524-5763 E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com c.whiteley@kanner-law.com l.hilton@kanner-law.com - and - Michael L. Slack, Esq. John R. Davis, Esq. SLACK DAVIS SANGER, LLP 2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: 512-795-8686 Facsimile: 512-795-8787 E-mail: mslack@slackdavis.com jdavis@slackdavis.com PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: 2d Cir. Tosses Bid to Appeal -------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that in the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities ("RMBS") Trustee Litigation filed against HSBC, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' request for permission to appeal the denial of their class certification motion, in PICA et al. v. HSBC, et al. In February 2018, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification and plaintiffs filed a petition with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals seeking permission to appeal the class certification decision. In May 2018, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' request for permission to appeal the denial of their class certification motion. Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides insurance, investment management, and other financial products and services in the United States and internationally. It operates through U.S. Individual Solutions, U.S. Workplace Solutions, Investment Management, and International Insurance divisions. The company offers its products and services to individual and institutional customers through its proprietary and third-party distribution networks. Prudential Financial, Inc. was founded in 1875 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Order in PICA v. U.S. Bank Modified --------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that in the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities ("RMBS") Trustee Litigation filed against U.S. Bank N.A., the New York State Supreme Court, First Department, modified the lower court's January 2018 order in PICA et al. v. U.S. Bank N.A. In February 2018, the federal court entered a stipulated order: (i) dismissing all claims involving three trusts with prejudice; (ii) with respect to twenty trusts, dismissing with prejudice the Trust Indenture Act ("TIA") claims for lack of standing, and the breach of contract claims without prejudice; and (iii) dismissing without prejudice the TIA and breach of contract claims concerning the four remaining trusts. In February 2018, U.S. Bank filed an appeal from the state court's order concerning U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In March 2018, plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal of the state court's order concerning the motion to dismiss. In August 2018, plaintiffs filed a second class action complaint in New York state court against U.S. Bank, as trustee, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of duty of care. In October 2018, the New York State Supreme Court, First Department, modified the lower court's January 2018 order, by dismissing plaintiffs' breach of contract claims for servicer violations involving 56 of 77 trusts, and otherwise affirmed the remainder of the lower court's January 2018 order. Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides insurance, investment management, and other financial products and services in the United States and internationally. It operates through U.S. Individual Solutions, U.S. Workplace Solutions, Investment Management, and International Insurance divisions. The company offers its products and services to individual and institutional customers through its proprietary and third-party distribution networks. Prudential Financial, Inc. was founded in 1875 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey. QUDIAN INC: Court Stays Securities Suit Over 2017 IPO ----------------------------------------------------- Judge O. Peter Sherwood of the New York County Supreme Court stayed further proceedings in the case, IN RE QUDIAN SEQURITIES LITIGATION, Docket No. 651804/2018, Motion Seq. No. 001 (N.Y. Sup.). The case is a securities class action pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of all purchasers of Qudian American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") in or traceable to defend Qudian Inc.'s Oct. 18, 2017, initial public offering ("IPO"). Each ADS represents one Class A ordinary share in Qudian. The Plaintiffs allege the Registration Statement acknowledged the importance of protecting Qudian's customer information and preventing data breaches, but it failed to disclose a breach had already occurred, compromising almost a million accounts. Additionally, the Registration Statement failed to state the company was lending improperly, and engaged in risky lending, credit assessment, and loan collection practices including predatory lending, high-risk lending, and providing prohibited online loans to college students, as well as other business practices putting the company at risk. Judge Sherwood finds that there is another, earlier-filed, action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY"). That action asserts the claims brought in the instant case. All of the Defendants in instant action are the defendants in the SDNY action, and the Plaintiff does not deny it is a member of the putative class laid out by that complaint. As the Plaintiff argues, some of the specific misrepresentations alleged in the instant action are not specified as actionable misrepresentations in the SDNY action and the Plaintiffs are not named in that action. Until the class in the SDNY action is certified and the Plaintiffs opt in to that action, they are prospective class members in that action, no more. Therefore, the Judge holds that a stay appropriate. Accordingly, he granted the motion to dismiss to the extent of staying further proceedings in the action, except for an application to vacate or modify said stay. Either party may make an application by order to show cause to vacate or modify the stay upon the class action determination of the court SDNY action. Judge Sherwood directed the Movant to serve a copy of the Order with notice of entry on the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office within 10 days from entry and the Clerk will mark the matter stayed. Such service upon the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office will be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases. The Order constitutes the decision and order of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/m0V9rG from Leagle.com. RAKUTEN COMMERCE: Online Retailer Faces Class Action in NY ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rakuten Commerce LLC. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rakuten Commerce LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10938 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rakuten Commerce LLC operates as an online retailer that sells various products to customers, merchants, and retailers worldwide. It offers computers and office products, electronics, fashion and beauty products, video games, books, movies and music, home and household products, health and fitness products, and toys and baby products.[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 RANBAXY PHARMA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Fenwick Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FRANCIS FENWICK, EDWARD SAFRAN, STEVE HARDING, MARY WARDRETT, and LINDA YOUNG, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, V. RANBAXY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., RANBAXY LABORATORIES, LTD., RANBAXY LABORATORIES, INC., RANBAXY USA, OHM LABORATORIES, ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-07354 (PGS)(DEA)(D. N.J.), Judge Peter G. Sheridan of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The case is a class action matter brought by individuals who seek refund of the money paid for certain prescription pills of the drug Atorvastatin, manufactured and sold by the Defendants. The product is the generic version of Lipitor, and is used to reduce cholesterol. On Sept. 5, 2012, Ranbaxy employees noticed blue particles in the raw materials used to manufacture Atorvastatin. On Oct. 22, 2012, the particles were identified as glass from glass liners for the reactors used during the manufacturing process for the active pharmaceutical ingredient ("API"), and at that time, Ranbaxy ceased further manufacture and distribution of that API. The API observed to be containing glass was not distributed to consumers. Thereafter, Ranbaxy manufactured another batch of the API, in the same facility where it had first noticed the glass in the API. This batch of API was shipped to a Ranbaxy manufacturing facility in Mohali, India, where it was used in the manufacturing of the Atorvastatin, and was then distributed to the distribution centers of 35 different companies. A total of 41 batches were manufactured and distributed using the API that may have, but was never observed to, contain glass. On Nov. 9, 2012, Ranbaxy initiated a voluntary recall at the retail level of 41 lots of Atorvastatin. Ranbaxy explained it was taking the action as a precautionary measure due to the fact that it cannot exclude the possibility that the affected lots may contain very small glass particles resembling a fine grain of sand (less than 1 mm in size). On Nov. 28, 2012, Ranbaxy issued a press release announcing the recall. On Nov. 29 and 30, 2012, the FDA issued a statement, notifying the public of the recall. It advised that the possibility of advised health problems related to the recalled product is extremely low and patients who have the recalled medicine can continue taking it unless directed otherwise by their physician or health care provider. The 41 recalled lots amounted to 480,425 bottles containing the recalled Atorvastatin pills. Of that amount, 400,201 bottles were returned during the recall. Nine of the 35 companies that received the recalled Atorvastatin pills sold the pills to the Class The Plaintiffs allege that from the 90 or 500 count pill bottles, the recalled pills were repackaged and disbursed in smaller bottles, often into 30 count pill bottles, and then sold to consumers through pharmacies. The parties agree that companies do not track the lot numbers when buying or selling drugs to consumers, and thus the parties are unable to determine which consumers received pills from the recalled lots through information provided by the companies. Because the recall was at the retail level, and not at the consumer level, only retailers were required to return the product and, as the Plaintiff alleges, received a refund. Thus, because consumers were instructed to continue taking the recalled pills, consumers who purchased the recalled pills did not receive a refund. Plaintiffs now seek to certify a class representing consumers who purchased pills that may have contained glass particles. The Plaintiffs brought the present action on Nov. 29, 2012, alleging: (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (3) breach of express warranty; and (4) unjust enrichment. The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The Plaintiffs seek class certification based upon the class of all consumers who were dispensed Ranbaxy Atorvastatin pills identified by found NDC numbers (66304-827-90; 66304-829-90; and 66304-829-05) by certain pharmacies and mail order facilities during specific date ranges. The Class Members were dispensed pills from inventory pools that included recalled pills for the exact same type that possibly contained glass particles. The Class Periods are the date ranges that those inventory pools included some of the recalled pills. The Plaintiffs also provide a more detailed, alternative definition, a class of all consumers who were dispensed Ranbaxy Atorvastatin pills identified by found NDC numbers (66304-827-90; 66304-828-90; 66304-829-90; 66307-829-05) from a list of specified stores of seven retail pharmacy companies or from a list of specified dispensing facilities of two mail order pharmacy companies during specific date ranges. Ranbaxy recalled 41 lots of pills identified by those found NDC numbers because of possible contamination with glass particles. The Class Members were dispensed pills from inventory pools of each of the specified retail pharmacy stores included the recalled pills and the date ranges that the inventory pools of each of the specified retail pharmacy stores included the recalled pills and the date ranges that the inventory pools of each of the specified mail order dispensing facilities included the recalled pills. Judge Sheridan denied the Plaintiffs' Motion. Among other things, he finds that it is impossible to identify potential class members without extensive and individualized fact-finding or mini-trials. Further, it is likely impossible to, several years after the recall, determine who from the potential class members did not purchase recalled pills, as the companies did not track the lot numbers. Thus, the Plaintiffs have failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the methodology suggested will be successful in identifying potential class members. Accordingly, he finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that they can identify the class members based on its proposed methodology. Regarding the Plaintiffs' breach of express and implied warranty claims, the Judge holds that the laws differing laws of the 50 states would apply. Regarding their unjust enrichment claims, the law of New Jersey would apply. The Plaintiff has not provided any extensive analysis of the state law variances for the breach of express and implied warranty claims, and whether or how these variances may impact predominance. Accordingly, because common legal issues do not predominate, the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). Thus, based on the information provided, the Judge is unable to grant the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/Jgw0eu from Leagle.com. FRANCIS FENWICK, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, EDWARD SAFRAN, LINDA YOUNG, STEVE HARDING & MARY WARDRETT, Plaintiffs, represented by BARRY J. GAINEY -- bgainey@gme-law.com -- GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON. RANBAXY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., RANBAXY LABORATORIES, LTD., RANBAXY LABORATORIES, INC., RANBAXY USA, OHM LABORATORIES & RANBAXY, INC., Defendants, represented by ARNOLD B. CALMANN -- abc@saiber.com -- SAIBER LLC, JEFFREY S. SOOS -- jsoos@saiber.com -- SAIBER LLC & KATHERINE ANN ESCANLAR -- kescanlar@saiber.com -- SAIBER LLC. ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10, Defendant, pro se. JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendant, pro se. RANDSTAD GENERAL: Nixon Suit Asserts ADA Violation -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Randstad General Partner (US) LLC. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Randstad General Partner (US) LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06683 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Randstad General Partner (US) LLC was founded in 1999. The company's line of business includes providing employment services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com RELIANT CAPITAL: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Avila FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Reliant's motion to dismiss the case, ANNMARIE AVILA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RELIANT CAPITAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, an Ohio Limited Liability Company; and JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-2718 (ADS)(ARL)(E.D. N.Y.). The Plaintiff initiated the putative class action against Reliant as well as unidentified natural person and/or business entities for damages stemming from alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Plaintiff contends that Reliant attempted to collect a defaulted student loan debt using a debt collection letter which falsely stated that the amount owed may increase due to interest, late charges, and other charges. Reliant is a debt collection agency and limited liability company that exists pursuant to the laws of the State of Ohio. Its principal place of business is 670 Cross Pointe Road in Gahanna, Ohio. Prior to Dec. 19, 2017, the Plaintiff defaulted on her federal student loan. The Debt was subsequently placed with Reliant for collection. On Dec. 19, 2017, Reliant sent the Letter to the Plaintiff in an attempt to collect an outstanding debt of $33,151.18. The principal balance was listed at $24,191.55, the interest as $2,470.17, and fees & costs as $6,489.46. The Letter noted that the Plaintiff had not accrued any penalty charges. Specific instructions were provided for submitting payment to Reliant. On May 8, 2018, the Plaintiff commenced the action against the Defendants by filing a complaint. The present motion in the action was filed on June 22, 2018 by Reliant seeking to dismiss the entire complaint in the action, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Reliant argues that the Plaintiff fails to successfully allege a claim under various provisions of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e or 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(1) because the language complained of in the Letter has already been expressly approved by the Second Circuit in Avila v. Riexinger & Assocs., a case where Avila was also a plaintiff. Specifically, the Plaintiff contends that the statement "because of interest, late charges, and other charges that may vary day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater," is false, deceptive and misleading. The Plaintiff alleges that the language Reliant used regarding "interest, late charges, and other charges" is false, deceptive, or misleading, because while the her debt is accruing interest, there are no accruing late charges or other fees. Judge Spatt granted in part and denied in part the Reliant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). He dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. However, he finds that judicial estoppel does not apply becuase while the disputed language in the Letter is the safe harbor formula established in Avila, the Plaintiff's position is not fundamentally inconsistent or clearly contradictory with her prior position in that case. The Judge also declined to award attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(a)(3) because Reliant has not met its burden in demonstrating that the Plaintiff has engaged in bad faith. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Memorandum of Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/bOPt7e from Leagle.com. Annmarie Avila, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Abraham Kleinman -- akleinman@kleinmanllc.com -- Kleinman, LLC, Andrew T. Thomasson, Stern Thomasson LLP, pro hac vice & Philip D. Stern , Stern Thomasson LLP, pro hac vice. Reliant Capital Solutions, LLC, an Ohio Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Arthur Sanders -- asanders@bn-lawyers.com -- Barron & Newburger, P.C.. RFA BRANDS: Portable Charger Capacity Deceptive, Mancuso Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- MARK MANCUSO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RFA BRANDS, LLC, d/b/a MYCHARGE, the Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-06807 (W.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks redress for Defendant's unjust, unfair, and deceptive practices in misrepresenting the capacity of the Products in violation of state law. In recent years consumers have become increasingly dependent on portable electronic devices like smart phones, tablets, and laptop computers (PED). PEDs have made it convenient for consumers to constantly stay in communication with colleagues, friends, and loved ones, and to immediately access information. However, like any electronic device, PEDs require power and their internal batteries must be periodically recharged. To address the needs of consumers to use PEDs during travel, or when the consumer otherwise lacks access to an electrical outlet, the portable charger industry emerged. A portable charger, often called a power bank ("Power Bank"), is a small, portable power source consumers can use to recharge their PEDs during travel. The greater the capacity of the Power Bank, as is expressed in milliampere-hours ("mAh"), the more times the Power Bank can be used to recharge PEDs before the Power Bank must be recharged itself. Thus, consumers prefer and are willing to pay a premium for Power Banks with higher mAh ratings. According to the complaint, RFA Brands, LLC manufactures, markets, and distributes for sale to consumers a number of Power Banks under the myCharge label. RFA Brands does so by prominently representing the Products' capacities as measured in mAh. Unfortunately for consumers, testing has shown the Products' actual capacities are substantially lower than what RFA Brands represents. By deceiving consumers about the Products’ capacities as detailed herein, RFA Brands is able to sell more of, and charge more for, the Products than the Company could charge if the Products were labeled accurately. Further, RFA Brands was also incentivized to mislead consumers to take away market share from competing products, thereby increasing its own sales and profits, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class: D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. Todd S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3290 E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com tgarber@fbfglaw.com RINGCENTRAL INC: Appeal in Supply Pro Sorbents Lawsuit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- RingCentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a district court has ordered that the putative class action suit by Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC be submitted on the briefs and record without oral argument. On April 21, 2016, Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC ("SPS") filed a putative class action against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging common law conversion and violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") arising from fax cover sheets used by the Company's customers when sending facsimile transmissions over the Company's system ("SPS Lawsuit"). SPS seeks statutory damages, costs, attorneys' fees and an injunction in connection with its TCPA claim, and unspecified damages and punitive damages in connection with its conversion claim. On July 6, 2016, the Company filed a Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling before the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), requesting that the FCC issue a ruling clarifying certain portions of its regulations promulgated under TCPA at issue in the SPS Lawsuit ("Petition"). The Petition remains pending. On July 8, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the SPS Lawsuit in its entirety, along with a collateral motion to dismiss or stay the SPS Lawsuit pending a ruling by the FCC on the Company's Petition. On October 7, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and gave SPS 20 days to amend its complaint. The Court concurrently dismissed the Company's motion to dismiss or stay as moot. Plaintiff filed its amended complaint on October 27, 2016, alleging essentially the same theories and claims. On November 21, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, along with a renewed motion to dismiss or stay the case pending resolution of the FCC Petition. On July 17, 2017, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice and concurrently dismissed the Company's motion to dismiss or stay as moot. SPS filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 28, 2017. SPS's opening brief on appeal was filed on December 20, 2017; asking that the dismissal be reversed and the case be returned to the district court for the Lawsuit to be processed. The Company's answering brief was filed on February 20, 2018; asking that the dismissal be affirmed. SPS filed its reply brief on April 12, 2018. Oral argument had been scheduled to be heard on November 16, 2018, but on October 23, 2018, the court ordered that the case be submitted on the briefs and record without oral argument. RingCentral said, "There is no deadline for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to then issue its decision. It is too early to predict the outcome of the SPS Lawsuit. Based on the information known by the Company as of the date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable to the preparation of the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements, it is not possible to provide an estimated amount of any such loss or range of loss that may occur." RingCentral, Inc. provides software-as-a-service solutions for business communications and collaboration primarily in the United States. The company sells its products through a network of direct sales representatives, as well as sales agents and channel partners. RingCentral, Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Belmont, California. RINGCENTRAL INC: Continues to Defend Hurley TCPA Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- RingCentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class action suit filed by Joann Hurley. On November 17, 2017, Joann Hurley ("Hurley"), filed a second amended complaint in an ongoing putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, adding the Company as a named defendant and alleging that the Company and other defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and regulations promulgated thereunder by allegedly using an automated telephone dialing system to deliver prerecorded political messages to Hurley, an incumbent running for reelection, and others. Hurley alternatively alleges that the Company is vicariously liable for the actions of its co-defendants. Hurley seeks statutory, compensatory, consequential, incidental and punitive damages, costs, and attorneys' fees in connection with her claims. The Company was served with the second amended complaint on January 4, 2018. On March 23, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing and failure to sufficiently state a claim on which relief may be granted. Hurley filed her opposition brief on April 6, 2018, and the Company filed its reply brief on April 13, 2018. On October 4, 2018, the district court issued its memorandum and opinion order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed Hurley's vicarious liability claim but allowed Hurley's TCPA claim to proceed. The Company filed its answer and affirmatives defenses to the second amended complaint on October 18, 2018. RingCentral said, "It is too early to predict the outcome of this lawsuit. Based on the information known by the Company as of the date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable to the preparation of the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements, it is not possible to provide an estimated amount of any such loss or range of loss that may occur." RingCentral, Inc. provides software-as-a-service solutions for business communications and collaboration primarily in the United States. The company sells its products through a network of direct sales representatives, as well as sales agents and channel partners. RingCentral, Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Belmont, California. ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY: Camacho Sues Asserting ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roosevelt University. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Roosevelt University, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10944 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Roosevelt University is a coeducational, private university with campuses in Chicago, Illinois and Schaumburg, Illinois. Founded in 1945, the university is named in honor of both former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt.[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 ROSS STORES: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Morrison Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the motions of Defendants Ross and AQ Textiles, LLC to dismiss the case, DOMINIQUE MORRISON, Plaintiff, v. ROSS STORES, INC. ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02671-YGR (N.D. Cal.). Morrison brings the putative class action against Defendants Ross, AQ, and Creative Textile Mills Private Ltd., alleging that the Defendants engaged in deceptive practice, namely making inflated thread count representations with respect to bed linens they sold. With the prior motions of Ross and AQ to dismiss pending, the Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint ("FAC") on July 20, 2018. The Plaintiff's FAC alleges claims for: violation of the Magnusson Moss Warranty Act; fraud (Count 2); violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") (Count 3); violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq. under its unlawful prong (Count Four), unfair prong (Count Five), and fraudulent prong (Count Six); (5) California False Advertising Law ("FAL") (Count Seven); breach of express warranty (Count Eight); breach of warranty of merchantability (Count Nine); negligent misrepresentation (Count Ten); and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (Count Eleven). The claims alleged under the CLRA, UCL, and FAL are alleged against Ross only, the others are alleged against all the Defendants. Ross and AQ have each filed a motion to dismiss. AQ moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Both the Defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for failure to allege the Plaintiff's standing as to the full scope of product misrepresentations alleged. Judge Rogers finds that based upon Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty. and Walden v. Fiore, a plaintiff, as in the case, who is not a California resident, does not allege to have suffered harm in California, and does not allege any conduct by the defendant occurred in California, has not established specific personal jurisdiction as to her claims. Therefore, the motion to dismiss AQ for lack of personal jurisdiction will be granted. The Plaintiff's allegation that the Defendants were put on notice of a breach by prior customer complaints and by a letter from the Plaintiffs' counsel sent three days prior to the filing of the action is insufficient. Though she argues futility in her motion, she does not allege any facts showing that pre-filing notice to Ross would have been futile. Likewise, the argument that a class action plaintiff need not provide pre-suit notice is wholly without support. Therefore, the Judge will grant Ross' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff has leave to amend to allege sufficiently the factual basis for her claims against Ross, and for her satisfaction (or excuse from satisfaction) of the notice requirements applicable to them. For these reasons, Judge Rogers granted the motion of Defendant AQ to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiff has failed to establish specific jurisdiction as to AQ Textiles. Because the Judge finds that personal jurisdiction is not established, she does not reach AQ's alternative grounds for dismissal based upon failure to allege sufficient facts to state a claim. The Judge also granted with leave to amend the motion of Defendant Ross to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff will file her second amended complaint no later than Dec. 4, 2018, and Defendant Ross will file its response no later than Jan. 4, 2019, in light of the intervening holidays. The Judge's Order terminates Docket Nos. 37 and 38. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/cyIXF0 from Leagle.com. Dominique Morrison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situtated, Plaintiff, represented by S. Clinton Woods -- cwoods@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners, LLP., Charles E. Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Sedran & Berman, pro hac vice, Gwendolyn R. Giblin, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Ling Yue Kuang, Audet & Partners, LLP, Michael Andrew McShane -- mmcshane@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners LLP & Stuart Cochran -- stuart@stecklerlaw.com -- Steckler Gresham Cochran. Ross Stores, Inc. & AQ Textiles LLC, Defendants, represented by Jeffrey Brian Margulies -- jeff.margulies@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Andrew Leigh Rodenbough , Brooks Pierce, Jennifer K. Van Zant -- jvanzant@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey and Leonard LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren A. Shoor -- lauren.shoor@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Ryan Clifford Fairchild -- rfairchild@brookspierce.com -- Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey, pro hac vice & Shirley Bora Kim -- shirley.kim@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP. RUBY THAI: Underpays Restaurant Workers, Martinez Claims -------------------------------------------------------- MARCELINO HERNANDEZ-MARTINEZ, an individual, JUAN JOSE VILLA ALVARADO, an individual, the Plaintiffs, vs. RUBY THAI VALLEY FAIR, LLC, a California Corporation, YUH MEI CHIOU, an individual, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.: 18CV337264 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 8, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to to pay all wages including California overtime wages; failed to pay all wages at the end of employment; failed to provide accurate California itemized employee wage statements; failed to provide breaks; and violated the California Unfair Competition Law for unlawful and/or unfair act in violation of California Law. According to the complaint, all Putative Plaintiffs are the individual Plaintiffs' co-workers employed by Defendants as non-exempt fast-food restaurant workers during the last four years from the day they filed this complaint. Each of the Defendants knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to damage the Plaintiffs and other non-exempt laborer employees by depriving each of them of the benefits of wage and hour law. The Defendants during the past four years did wrongfully and knowingly deprive the employees of their lawfully earned wages, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: James Dal Bon, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES DAL BON 606 N. 1 ST St. San Jose, CA 95112 Telephone: (408) 466-5845 Facsimile: (408) 286-7111 - and - Victoria L.H. Booke, Esq. BOOKE & AJLOUNY 606 North First Street San Jose, CA 95112 Telephone: (408) 286-7000 Facsimile: (408) 286-7111 E-mail: vbooke@bookelaw.com RUBY TUESDAY: Robbins Geller to Lead in Securities Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROBERT BLUESTONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STEPHEN I. SADOVE, MARK W. ADDICKS, DONALD E. HESS, F. LANE CARDWELL JR., KEVIN T. CLAYTON, JEFFREY J. O'NEILL, and JAMES F. HYATT II, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-63 (E.D. Tenn.), Judge Harry S. Mattice, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Knoxville, granted the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Lead Counsel. On Oct. 16, 2017, Ruby Tuesday announced that it had entered into a definite merger agreement pursuant to which certain affiliates of NRD Capital Management would take Ruby Tuesday private for $2.40 per share. On Oct. 21, 2017, Ruby Tuesday filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A. On Nov. 8, 2017, Marcell Maseman filed the first class action complaint, Maseman v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-478-HSM-CCS, alleging that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, in connection with the Acquisition. Subsequently, eight other Ruby Tuesday stockholders filed related complaints, Sun v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-482; Rosenfeld v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., 3:17-CV-485; Raul v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-494; Patterson v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-495; Breslau v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-496; Williams v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-499; Saile v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-501; and Baily v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-511. On Nov. 16, 2017, Plaintiff Maseman issued the statutory notice of the pendency of his lawsuit in PR Newswire pursuant to the requirements in 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(A). A few days later, on Nov. 21, 2017, Maseman filed a motion seeking consolidation of the Related Actions and appointment of the interim lead Plaintiff and the interim lead counsel. In his motion, he requested that the Court grants his request prior to the deadline for any other class member to seek leave to serve as the lead Plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). Plaintiff Robert Bluestone filed an objection to Plaintiff Maseman's motion on the basis that the request was contrary to the PSLRA, which allowed putative class members 60 days after the date on which notice is published to seek appointment as the lead Plaintiff. On Dec. 18, 2017, prior to the expiration of the sixty-day deadline, Maseman filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of his action. On Jan. 16, Plaintiff Bluestone filed a motion in Sun v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-482, seeking to consolidate the Related Actions and for appointment as the lead Plaintiff. Two days later, on Jan. 18, the plaintiffs in the remaining Related Actions filed Stipulations of Dismissal. On Feb. 21, Plaintiff Bluestone filed his own Complaint. He did not publish notice with respect to his own Complaint. The matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton recommending that the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Lead Counsel be granted. The Defendants timely filed their Objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R. They contend that the Plaintiff did not comply with the notice requirements of the PSLRA and that the Plaintiff cannot adequately represent the putative class because he is subject to unique defenses. Judge Mattice finds that the Defendants do not point to any particular error or misconstruction of authority in the R&R. They simply disagree that the Plaintiff should be appointed the lead Plaintiff in the action. Such a perfunctory objection is insufficient to trigger de novo review of the Magistrate Judge's recommendation on the issue. Moreover, the Judge finds that the Defendants' general arguments do not constitute "proof" sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Plaintiff is the most adequate plaintiff as required by 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II). The Magistrate Judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the appointment of Robert Bluestone as the lead Plaintiff were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. For these reasons, Judge Mattice overruled that Defendants' objection, accepted and adopted the Magistrate Judge's R&R, and granted the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion. Robert Bluestone is appointed the lead Plaintiff and his selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as the lead counsel is likewise approved. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/SjzDmv from Leagle.com. Robert Bluestone, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Hamp Lyons -- CLyons@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Danielle S. Myers -- DaniM@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, David T. Wissbroecker -- DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Eun Jin Lee -- elee@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Gerald E. Martin, Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC, pro hac vice, Jerry E. Martin -- jmartin@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC, William Scott Holleman -- FrankJ@JohnsonFistel.com --, Johnson Fistel, pro hac vice & David Wilson Garrison -- dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC. Stephen I. Sadove, Donald E. Hess, F. Lane Cardwell, Jr., Kevin T. Clayton & Jeffrey J. O'Neill, Defendants, represented by John S. Hicks -- jhicks@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, Kristine Roberts -- klroberts@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker, Donelson, Bearman Caldwell and Berkowitz, PC, pro hac vice, Nicole D. Berkowitz -- nberkowitz@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker, Donelson, Bearman Caldwell and Berkowitz, PC, pro hac vice & Christopher E. Thorsen -- cthorsen@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz. Mark Addicks, Defendant, represented by Christopher E. Thorsen, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz. RUSSELL TOBIN: Violates Disabilities Act, Nixon Class Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Russell Tobin and Associates LLC. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Russell Tobin and Associates LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06687 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Russell Tobin & Associates, LLC provides recruitment and staffing services. Its services include temporary, temporary to permanent, direct-hire, and consultant recruitment. The company caters to accounting, administrative, banking and finance, human resource, technology, legal and compliance, sales and marketing, and supply chain sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com SABER HEALTHCARE: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Ruling in Bartels Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Saber Healthcare Group, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Edward Bartels, et al. v. Saber Healthcare Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00283-BO, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Raleigh. The appellate case is captioned as Edward Bartels, et al. v. Saber Healthcare Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-2335, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Fourth Circuit Judge William Byrd Traxler, Jr., vacated the District Court's order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court, and remanded for reconsideration of the question of whether all of the Saber Defendants are bound by the Franklin Manor forum-selection clause in the cases, JEANNE T. BARTELS, by and through William H. Bartels, Attorney-in-Fact, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants; and JEANNE T. BARTELS, by and through William H. Bartels, Attorney-in-Fact, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Case Nos. 16-2416, 16-2247 (4th Cir.), Saber sits at the top of a family of wholly owned limited-liability companies that own and operate dozens of assisted-living facilities and nursing homes in several states, including North Carolina. Current and former residents of one of Saber's North Carolina assisted-living facilities brought a putative class action in North Carolina state court against Saber and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging that the Defendants failed to deliver the contractually promised care and failed to comply with certain state law requirements.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JOSEPH J. PFOHL, Executor of the Estate of Bernice C. Pfohl, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Matthew E. Lee, Esq. Jeremy Richard Williams, Esq. WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com matt@wbmllp.com eremy@wbmllp.com - and - Gary Edward Mason, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 640-1160 E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com - and - Stephen Jay Gugenheim, Esq. Andrew D. Hathaway, Esq. GUGENHEIM LAW OFFICES, PC 116 North Person Street Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 836-5551 Defendants-Appellants SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC; SABER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC; FRANKLIN OPERATIONS, LLC, d/b/a Franklin Manor Assisted Living Center, d/b/a Franklin Manor Assisted Living Center; SMITHFIELD EAST HEALTH HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a Gabriel Manor Assisted Living Center; and QUEEN CITY AL HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a The Crossings at Steele Creek, are represented by: Scott Elliot Bayzle, Esq. Stephen V. Carey, Esq. Robert Leandro, Esq. PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP P. O. Box 389 Raleigh, NC 27602-0389 Telephone: (919) 828-0564 E-mail: scottbayzle@parkerpoe.com stevecarey@parkerpoe.com robbleandro@parkerpoe.com - and - Edward John Bennett, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP 725 12th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-5901 Telephone: (202) 434-5083 E-mail: ebennett@wc.com - and - Mary Beth Hickcox-Howard, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP 725 12th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-5901 Telephone: (202) 434-5973 E-mail: mhickcox-howard@wc.com SAN DIEGO OUTLET: Court Consolidates Outlaw's Suits --------------------------------------------------- In the case, OUTLAW LABORATORY, LP a Texas Limited Partnership, Plaintiff, v. SAN DIEGO OUTLET INC., et al., Defendants. ROMA MIKHA, INC, Defendant-counterclaimant and NMRM, Inc. and SKYLINE MARKET, INC., third-party plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated entities, v. OUTLAW LABORATORY, LP, Counterclaim Defendant and Third-Party, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-1882-GPC-BGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted Defendant Roma Mikha, Inc., Midway M3, Inc., and Third-Party Plaintiffs NMRM, Inc. and Skyline Market, Inc. ("Counterclaimants")'s Motion to Consolidate the case with Outlaw Laboratory, L.P. v. DG in PB, LLC (Case No. 18-cv-840-GPC-GBS), dated Sept. 4, 2018. Review of the two operative complaints show that both cases are brought by the same Plaintiff, i.e., Outlaw, against similarly-situated Defendants -- i.e., retail stores accused of unlawfully offering for sale sexual enhancement products that allegedly compete with Outlaw's products. Indeed, the factual allegations section of both of Outlaw's complaints are identical; so too, are Outlaw's descriptions of the Defendants' alleged bad acts. Further, Judge Curiel finds that both complaints state causes of action for violations of Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act. The only difference between the two complaints, save the Defendants' names, is that the complaint in the instant matter also asserts two derivative state-law claims. However, because those state-law claims turn on the same evidence, and because the class action asserted against the Plaintiff by the Counterclaimants, embrace the Defendants identified in DG in PB, consolidation is nonetheless proper. He finds that the case and DG in PB share common questions of law and fact, and that the time and effort saved by consolidation will outweigh any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause. Accordingly, the Judge granted the motion to consolidate, and consolidated the captioned case and DG in PB for all purposes under the "low numbered case," Case No. 18-CV-840-GPC-BGS. All future filings must be made in No. 18-CV-840-GPC-BGS. The motion hearing set for the matter on Nov. 16, 2018 is vacated. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/fV8ney from Leagle.com. Outlaw Laboratory, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew J. Smith -- msmith@insurancelawservices.com. Roma Mikha, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mark Poe -- mpoe@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw, Gaw Poe LLP, Samuel Song -- ssong@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP & Victor Meng -- vmeng@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP. Midway M3, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP. Eagle's Nest Property Management, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Robert Charles Mardian, III -- rmardian@smalawsd.com -- Sullivan, McGibbons & Associates LLP. NMRM, Inc. & Skyline Market, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiffs, represented by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw, Gaw Poe LLP, Samuel Song , Gaw & Poe LLP & Victor Meng, Gaw & Poe LLP. Roma Mikha, Inc., a California Corporation, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw, Gaw Poe LLP & Victor Meng, Gaw & Poe LLP. Outlaw Laboratory, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Smith. Roma Mikha, Inc., a California Corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw, Gaw Poe LLP, Samuel Song, Gaw & Poe LLP & Victor Meng, Gaw & Poe LLP. Outlaw Laboratory, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership, Counter Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Smith & Robert Tauler, Tauler Smith LLP. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: West and Hopson Class Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court has granted the company's motion to dismiss the class action suit filed by Lisa West and Stormy Hopson, thereby dismissing the Company from the lawsuit. On October 14, 2016, Lisa West and Stormy Hopson filed an amended class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Exploration and Production, LLC, among other defendants. In their amended complaint, plaintiffs asserted various tort claims seeking relief for damages, including the reimbursement of past and future earthquake insurance premiums, resulting from seismic activity allegedly caused by the defendants' operation of wastewater disposal wells. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' amended complaint on May 12, 2017, but permitted the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint. On July 18, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint making allegations substantially similar to those contained in the amended complaint that was previously dismissed. On August 13, 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, thereby dismissing the Company from the lawsuit. SandRidge Energy, Inc. engages in the exploration, development, and production of oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids primarily in the Mid-Continent and North Park Basin of the United States. The company is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Bid for Partial Judgment in Lanier Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- SandRidge Mississippian Trust II said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the motion for partial judgment on the pleadings filed in the class action suit initiated by Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, is pending. On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated unitholders of the Trust, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Trust, SandRidge and certain current and former executive officers of SandRidge, among other defendants (the "Securities Litigation"). The complaint, which was amended on November 11, 2016 (adding Ivan Nibur, Lawerence Ross, Jase Luna, and Mathew Willenbuncher as lead plaintiffs) and supplemented on May 1, 2017, asserts a variety of federal securities claims on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust I ("SDT") in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 7, 2011, and (b) purchasers of common units of the Trust in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 17, 2012. The claims are based on allegations that SandRidge and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among other defendants, including the Trust, are responsible for making false and misleading statements, and omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves. The plaintiffs seek class certification, an order rescinding the Trust's initial public offering and an unspecified amount of damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs. As a result of its reorganization in bankruptcy in 2016, SandRidge is a nominal defendant only. On August 30, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. A partial judgment dismissing the claims was entered in accordance with the order on December 5, 2017, and the time to appeal that judgment has now expired. As a result of the Court's order, the only claims remaining in the litigation are the plaintiffs' claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (the "Exchange Act Claims"). The only remaining defendants in the litigation are SDT, James D. Bennett, Matthew K. Grubb, Tom L. Ward, and SandRidge as a nominal defendant only. On September 11, 2017, the Court entered a subsequent order regarding the remaining defendants' motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Claims, granting the motion in part and denying the motion in part. On January 19, 2018, SDT filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings as to any claims against it brought by purchasers of common units of the Trust, arguing that such purchasers lack standing to assert claims against SDT because they did not purchase units in SDT. That motion is fully briefed and is awaiting a decision from the Court. On February 15, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which has been fully briefed and is awaiting a decision from the Court. On July 2, 2018, the remaining defendants filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, arguing that all claims asserted on behalf of the members of the putative class are barred by the statute of limitations. The motion has been fully briefed and is awaiting a decision from the Court. Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, the Trust may incur expenses in defending the litigation, and any such expenses may increase the Trust’s administrative expenses significantly. However, the Trust is entitled to contractual indemnification covering reasonable costs of investigation and attorney’s fees and expenses that the Trust believes will be applicable. The Trust will estimate and, if the Trustee deems it appropriate, begin reserving funds for potential losses that may arise out of litigation to the extent that such losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment will be required in making any such estimates and any final liabilities of the Trust may ultimately be materially different than any estimates. The Trust is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of any potential loss the Trust may incur in connection with the Securities Litigation, and has not established any reserves relating to the Securities Litigation. The Trust may withhold estimated amounts from future distributions to cover future costs associated with the litigation if determined necessary. The Trust has not yet fully analyzed any rights it may have to indemnities that may be applicable or any claims it may make in connection with the Securities Litigation. SandRidge Mississippian Trust II holds royalty interests in oil and natural gas properties. The company's properties are located in the Mississippian formation in Alfalfa, Grant, Kay, Noble, and Woods counties in northern Oklahoma and Barber, Comanche, Harper, and Sumner counties in southern Kansas. The company was founded in 2011 and is based in Houston, Texas. SandRidge Mississippian Trust II is a subsidiary of SandRidge Exploration and Production, LLC. SANFORD KAHN: Dupes Tenants over Eviction Notice, Montes Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- NABOR MONTES, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. SANFORD KAHN, LTD., an Illinois Corporation; AMY MELAND SELLERGREN; and WHIPPLETREE MHC, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company d/b/a "Whippletree Village", the Defendants, Case No. 2018CH14037 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Nov. 9, 2018), alleges that Defendants lied to Plaintiff about the order of possession because they intended that Plaintiff not understand the Order of Possession on account of the language barrier created by his race and national origin. Plaintiff is, and identifies as, Hispanic. According to the complaint, Sanford Kahn, Ltd. is a law firm and Illinois' largest eviction mill, filing thousands of eviction cases annually and dispossessing thousands of tenants from their homes. One of the tactics Sanford Kahn, Ltd. uses is to lie to tenants of color, particularly those who do not read English fluently, telling them that they need to sign paperwork to stay in their units or speak to the Judge. That paperwork turns out to be an Order of Possession. This conduct, repeated over and over again by Sanford Kahn, constitutes a fraud upon the Court system and a violation of Illinois and federal law. This action seeks to vindicate the rights of those dispossessed tenants, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Sheryl Ring, Esq. OPEN COMMUNITIES LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 990 Grove Street, Suite 500 Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (847) 501-5760 E-mail: sheryl@open-communities.org SHAUN'S TOWING: Attorneys Can Start Sending Class Action Notices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rick Carroll, writing for The Aspen Times, reports that attorneys for a man suing an Aspen towing company for overtime compensation can start sending notices to other prospective plaintiffs to form a class-action suit, according to a court ruling. U.S. Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix, in an 11-page order issued Nov. 13, cleared plaintiff and former Shaun's Towing and Recovery driver Joseph Durrant to notify current and former employees of the company about the litigation and provide instructions on how to join the class action. Judge Mix's order supported Mr. Durrant's motion describing eligible class members as "all tow truck drivers who worked for Shaun's Towing And Recovery, LLC and/or Shaun Healy, at any time from three years before the date of the mailing of this notice through the final disposition of this case, but did not receive overtime for hours worked over 40 in any workweek." The notice also must tell prospective plaintiffs they may have to appear in Denver for court proceedings, Mix's order said. Mr. Durrant's complaint, which was filed in December in the U.S. District Court of Denver, claims he worked as a driver with Shaun's Towing from August 2015 until February 2016, earning $13 an hour plus 30 percent commission. The suit claims he wasn't paid for "the required rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked over 40 each workweek." The suit makes claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Wage Claim Act. Mr. Durrant has alleged he and other employees were paid for two weeks of work regardless of the number of hours they logged. Some workers put in as many as 96 hours a week, Mr. Durrant alleges. The defense has countered that Mr. Durrant cannot recruit "similarly situated employees" to join his suit because drivers could be required to cross state lines as part of their job, while Mr. Durrant did not. Mr. Durrant and other employees "are exempt from receiving overtime compensation under the FLSA as they are subject to the Motor Carrier Act Exemption," the defense argued. The defense asked that the class be restricted to drivers who only worked within state lines, but Mix ordered the class could include all drivers. The Motor Carrier Act exempts employees who work overtime, provided they are involved in interstate commerce through driving activities, from receiving time-and-a-half pay. Judge Mix's ruling said the defendants failed to provide information to the court supporting that distinction. "Defendants have offered no basis for differentiating between employees who worked solely in Colorado and those who worked in Colorado but also transported motor vehicles across State lines," the magistrate judge's order said. However, Judge Mix said that argument can be brought up again after the discovery portion of the litigation. At this stage of the case, Judge Mix also noted that the plaintiffs only need to demonstrate a "modest showing" that Mr. Durrant and other class members were victims of labor law violations by Shaun's Towing. Shaun's Towing started in 2005 and serves the entire Roaring Fork Valley. Corpus Christi, Texas, attorney Clif Alexander, who represents Mr. Durrant, and Shaun's Towing lawyer Michael P. McGovern of Knoxville, Tennessee, could not be reached for comment. [GN] SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Appeal in New York Class Action Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Sierra Oncology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the appeal in the purported class action suit before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is still pending. On November 9, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its executive officers (the New York Lawsuit). The New York Lawsuit was brought by purported stockholders of the Company seeking to represent a class consisting of stockholders who purchased stock between July 15, 2015 and June 6, 2016. The New York Lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On March 13, 2018, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and entered a final judgment dismissing the New York Lawsuit with prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal. The Company believes that the claims in the New York Lawsuit are without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Sierra Oncology said, "It is possible that additional similar lawsuits could be filed. Due to the early stage of the litigation, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. However, at this point in time, the Company does not expect the outcome of these claims will have a material impact on its condensed consolidated financial statements." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Sierra Oncology, Inc., a clinical stage drug development company, researches, develops, and commercializes DNA Damage Response (DDR) therapeutics for the treatment of patients with cancer in the United States and internationally. The company was formerly known as ProNAi Therapeutics, Inc. and changed its name to Sierra Oncology, Inc. in January 2017. Sierra Oncology, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Vancouver, Canada. SIGNATURE CARE: Faces Adolphe Suit in New York Supreme Court ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against SIGNATURE CARE LLC. The case is captioned ADOLPHE, FRIDANE AND INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED WHO WERE EMPLOYED BY SIGNATURE CARE LLC AND/OR SIGNATURE CARE CDAP, MEGA STAFFING, INC., AND SHOLOM EISEN, the Plaintiffs, vs SIGNATURE CARE LLC, SIGNATURE CARE CDPAP, MEGA STAFFING, INC., MEGA STAFFING NY, INC. AND SHOLOM EISEN, the Defendants, Case No. 151214/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 9, 2018). Signature Care is a New York State licensed home healthcare agency that provides comprehensive homecare services.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP 40 Broad St, 7th FL New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Attorneys for Defendant: LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 290 Broadhollow Rd Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 247-4700 SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Gentry Homes' Class Action Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from a class action suit initiated by Gentry Homes, Ltd. Gentry Homes, Ltd. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-cv-00566, was filed in federal district court in Hawaii against Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc. on November 20, 2017. The Gentry case is a product of a previous state court class action, Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd., et al. which is now closed. The Nishimura case concerned alleged corrosion of the Company's galvanized strap-tie holdowns and mudsill anchor products used in a residential project in Honolulu, Hawaii, Ewa by Gentry. In the Nishimura case, the plaintiff homeowners and the developer, Gentry, arbitrated their dispute and agreed on a settlement in the amount of $90 million, with $54 million going to repair costs and $36 million going to attorney's fees. In the Gentry case, Gentry alleges breach of warranty and negligent misrepresentation related to the Company’s "hurricane strap" and mudsill anchor products. Gentry is demanding general, special, and consequential damages from the Company in an amount to be proven at trial. Gentry also seeks pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief. Simpson Manufacturing said, "The Company admits no liability and will vigorously defend the claims bought against it. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably ascertain the likelihood that it will be found responsible for substantial damages to Gentry. Based on the facts currently known, and subject to future events and circumstances, the Company believes that all or part of the claims may be covered by its insurance policies." Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., through its subsidiaries, designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells building construction products. Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. was founded in 1956 and is headquartered in Pleasanton, California. SINCLAIR BROADCAST: 22 Price Fixing Suits Filed over TV Ad Rates ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has been named as defendant in 22 putative class action suits related to alleged price fixing of TV commercial prices. The Company is aware of 22 putative class action lawsuits filed in United States District Court against the Company and Tribune (Tribune Media Company, Tribune Broadcasting Company, LLC, or both). Most of these lawsuits were also brought against other broadcasters and other defendants, including, in certain cases, unidentified "John Doe" defendants. The lawsuits allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices for commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout the United States, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and, in one case, state consumer protection and tort laws. The lawsuits seek damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest, as well as injunctions against adopting practices or plans that would restrain competition in the ways the plaintiffs have alleged. The lawsuits followed published reports of a DOJ investigation earlier this year into the exchange of pacing data within the industry. Sinclair Broadcast Group said, "The Company believes the class action lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against all such claims." Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. operates as a television broadcasting company in the United States. It owns or provides various programming, operating, or sales services to television stations. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland. SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Continues to Defend Komito Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a class action complaint entitled, Komito vs. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-CV-02445-CCB. On August 9, 2018, Edward Komito, a putative Company shareholder, filed a class action complaint (the "Komito Complaint") in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the Company, Christopher Ripley and Lucy Rutishauser, which action is captioned Komito vs. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-CV-02445-CCB. The Komito Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading disclosures concerning the Merger prior to the termination thereof. The Komito Complaint seeks declaratory relief, money damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and attorney's fees and costs. On September 26, 2018, Hartej Singh, a putative Company shareholder, filed a substantially identical class action complaint (the "Singh Complaint"), which action was captioned Hartej Singh vs. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Case No. 1:18-CV-02967-CCB. The Singh complaint was subsequently dismissed voluntarily. Sinclair Broadcast Group said, "The Company believes that the allegations in the Komito Complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations." Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. operates as a television broadcasting company in the United States. It owns or provides various programming, operating, or sales services to television stations. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland. SNEAKERSNSTUFF INC: Store Sued for Alleged ADA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sneakersnstuff, Inc. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sneakersnstuff, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06689 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sneakersnstuff is still located in Stockholm and has since opened stores in Berlin, London, Paris and New York. Well-known throughout the world, Sneakersnstuff is the store that put Sweden on the sneaker map. It is widely known for always carrying carefully selected items hard to come by, as well as staying true to the old school sneaker lovers with a massive assortment of classics such as Converse Chuck Taylor's, adidas Stan Smith's, Puma Suedes, New Balance 577's, Nike Air Force 1's and Air Max 1's.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Consolidated Suit in Nevada ------------------------------------------------------------------- Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself against a consolidated class action suit in Nevada. These cases were filed against the Company: Olutayo Ayeni v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Filed September 21, 2016 in the United States District Court, Central District of California; Case No. 2:16-cv-07074) (the "Ayeni Action") and Glen Hartsock v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Filed September 28, 2016 in the United States District Court, District Court of Nevada Case; No. 2:16-cv-02279-RFB-GWF) (the "Hartsock Action"). On November 15, 2016, the Ayeni Action was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The parties have stipulated to a consolidation of the Ayeni Action with the Hartsock Action. These class action lawsuits allege that the company and certain of its executive officers made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about our business and the prospects of approval for the company's NDA to the FDA for QAPZOLA in violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals said, "We believe that these claims are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against these claims. Furthermore, as of September 30, 2018, the value of a potential settlement cannot be reasonably estimated given its highly uncertain nature." Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. develops and commercializes oncology and hematology drug products. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Henderson, Nevada. STITCH FIX: Weismann Alleges Misleading Business Reports -------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN WEISMANN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STITCH FIX, INC., KATRINA LAKE, PAUL YEE and MIKE C. SMITH, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-06565-HSG (N.D. Cal., Oct. 26, 2018), is a securities fraud class action on behalf of all purchasers of Stitch Fix common stock between June 8, 2018 and October 1, 2018, inclusive. According to the complaint, Stitch Fix is an online retail fashion subscription service. Stitch Fix purchases clothing, shoes and accessories from name-brand manufacturers and designs more in-house that it has manufactured. Stitch Fix personnel then select and deliver curated boxes of items to "clients" to try on, buy what they like, and return the rest. While some or all of the items can be returned free of charge, clients are incentivized to accept the entire selection through 25% price discount that is only applied if the client accepts the entire shipment. Beginning in 2017, the Company started to advertise its services on television, which attributed to its considerable active client growth during 2017 and 2018. For investors in Stitch Fix, reported active clients is a key metric for them to value the Company and make investment decisions. When the Company was marketing its IPO in November 2017, it specifically touted that its active client base had grown from 867,000 at August 1, 2015, to 1,674,000 at July 30, 2016, to 2,194,000 at July 29, 2017, representing year-over-year growth rates of 93.1% and 31.1%, respectively. The 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: (1) its active client growth was weakening; (2) the Company would cease its investment in television advertising; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 1, 2018, after the close of trading, Stitch Fix reported its 4Q18 financial results, which fell short of projected active client growth expectations, disclosing that the Company had signed up far fewer than expected new active clients during 4Q18, which had ended more than two months earlier, on July 28, 2018. The Company reported that its active client count was virtually flat, and that its active client growth had declined by 70% quarter-over-quarter. On this news, the price of Stitch Fix common stock fell $15.69 per share, greater than 35%, to close at $31.58 per share on October 2, 2018. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (818) 532-6449 Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com STORCK USA: Underfills Werther's Candy Bags, Woods Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE WOODS, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. STORCK USA L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, the Defendant, Case 5:18-cv-02409 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2018), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant with respect to packaging of product. This lawsuit charges Defendant with unlawfully and unfairly packaging its Werther's Original Caramel Hard Candies product in opaque containers that contain more than 40 % empty space. Most consumers purchased the Product without knowing that the containers were substantially empty. The Plaintiff purchased the Product manufactured/distributed by Defendant in April 2018 in Moreno Valley, California in the Central District of California. In particular, Plaintiff purchased the 8.1-ounce version of the Product in Moreno Valley at a Walmart store. The Plaintiff purchased the Product for the purpose of enjoying its contents consuming (eating) the food item. The Plaintiff was surprised when she opened the product that the container had over 40% empty space, or slack-fill. Defendant's conduct violates consumer protection and labeling laws, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Tania Babaie, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com mike@consumersadvocates.com tania@consumersadvocates.com SUMA SUSHI: Placido Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Hector Placido, Marcelo Carcamo, Ricardo Placido, as individually and on behalf of All Other Employees Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. The Suma Sushi NYC, Inc. d/b/a Suma Sushi, Li Wen Qiu, Guofeng Chen, and Guo Xun Chen, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10534 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, compensation for failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring and failure to provide paystubs in violation of the New York Labor Law, liquidated damages equal to the sum of gratuities reduction, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, and spread of hours premiums pursuant to the NY Wage Theft Prevention Act; prejudgment and post judgment interest; and attorney's fees and costs, under the New York Labor Law and the Federal Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiffs, proper minimum wage, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, "spread of hours" pay for each work day whose interval between beginning and end exceeds 10 hours and failing to provide reimbursement for tools of the trade, the lawsuit says. Suma Sushi is a Japanese restaurant popular for traditional array of raw fish plates complemented by cooked meals.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff, Proposed FLSA Collective and Potential Rule 23 Class: Lorena P. Duarte, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38 th Ave. Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: lduarte@hanglaw.com TAKL INC: Violates ADA, Crosson Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Takl, Inc. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Takl, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06667 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Takl platform connects customers who need chores completed with background-checked, self-employed Providers who are able to earn money using their skills on their own schedule.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11217 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com TREATMENT PARTNERS: Williams Seeks Unpaid Wages for Therapists -------------------------------------------------------------- LATOYA WILLIAMS, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff(s), vs. TREATMENT PARTNERS OF AMERICA LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and SCOTT FRANKEL, the individually, the Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-81568-JIC (S.D. Fla., Nov. 14, 2018), seeks all unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants unlawfully deprived Plaintiff, and all other employees similarly situated, of minimum wage compensation during the course of their employment. The Defendant employs and has employed within the past three years various forms of non-exempt "therapists" to provide addiction counseling in Palm Beach County, Florida. The Defendant uniformly treats and classifies its "therapists" as employees in Palm Beach County, Florida as it relates to the payment of wages. The Plaintiff and the class members performed the same or similar job duties as one another in that they worked as "therapist" employees of Treatment Partners within the past three years without receiving proper minimum wage pay for hours worked in each workweek during employment, the lawsuit says.[BN] Atorneys for Plaintiff: Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com jake@jordanrichardspllc.com livia@jordanrichardspllc.com TREVENA INC: Faces Class Suits in Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------- Trevena, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has been named as defendant in putative class action suits in Pennsylvania. On October 10, 2018, Trevena and certain of its former executives were sued in a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On October 15, 2018 and November 5, 2018, two substantially similar lawsuits were filed against the company and certain former and current executives in the same court. The plaintiffs allege that the company and its former executives made false and misleading statements in violation of federal securities laws regarding its business, operations, and prospects, including certain statements made relating to its End-of-Phase 2 meeting with the FDA. The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, unspecified damages, and attorneys' fees and other costs. Trevena said, "We believe that the lawsuits are without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend ourself against the allegations." Trevena, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops therapies based on breakthrough science to benefit patients and healthcare providers confronting serious medical conditions. The company was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania. TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Triple-S Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the case entitled, In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, is in a holding pattern until the 11th Circuit decides whether to take the Standard of Review ruling on appeal. Triple-S Salud, Inc. (TSS) is a co-defendant with multiple Blue Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) in a multi-district class action litigation filed by a group of providers and subscribers on July 24, 2012 and October 1, 2012, respectively, that has since been consolidated by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, in the case captioned In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Antitrust Litigation. Essentially, provider plaintiffs allege that the exclusive service area requirements of the Primary License Agreements with the Blue Plans constitute an illegal horizontal market allocation under federal antitrust laws. As per provider plaintiffs, the quid pro quo for said "market allocation" is a horizontal price fixing and boycott conspiracy" implemented through the Inter-Plans Program Committee ("IPPC") and whose benefits are allegedly derived through the BCBSA's Blue Card/National Accounts Program. Among the remedies sought, provider plaintiffs seek increased compensation rates and operational changes. In turn, subscriber plaintiffs allege that the alleged conspiracy to allocate markets have prevented subscribers from being offered competitive prices and resulted in higher premiums for Blue Plan subscribers. Subscribers seek damages in the form of supra-competitive premiums allegedly charged by the Blue Plans and/or the difference between what subscribers have paid the Blues and the lower competitive premiums that non-competing Blues would have charged. Both actions seek injunctive relief. Prior to consolidation, motions to dismiss were filed by several plans, including TSS - whose request was ultimately denied by the court without prejudice. On April 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court of Puerto Rico against TSS. Said complaint, nonetheless, is believed not to preclude TSS' jurisdictional arguments. Since inception, the Company has joined BCBSA and other Blue Plans in vigorously contesting these claims. On April 5, 2018, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, issued it's ruling on the parties' respective motions for partial summary judgment on the standard of review applicable to plaintiffs' claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and subscriber plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the Blue Plan's single entity defense. After considering the "undisputed" facts (for summary judgment purposes only) and evidence currently on record in the light most favorable to defendants, the court essentially found that: (a) the Exclusive Service Areas constitute horizontal market allocations that are subject to the Per Se standard of review; (b) the National Best Efforts Rule constitutes an "output restriction" subject to the Per Se standard of review; (c) there remain genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendants' conduct can be shielded by the "single entity" defense; and (d) claims concerning the BlueCard Program and uncoupling rules are due to be analyzed under the Rule of Reason standard. As a result, the joint defense group obtained certification of the standard of review decision, and on July 9, 2018 appealed the matter to the 11th Circuit. Presently, the case is in a "holding pattern" until the 11th Circuit decides whether to take the Standard of Review ruling on appeal. Triple-S Management said, "If successful, plaintiffs would be entitled to recover treble damages plus attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. In addition, the challenged practice would likely be enjoined nationwide. Even if class certification is denied, any one plaintiff could still challenge the entire system and seek the same broad relief as the current putative classes. An injunction in favor of a single plaintiff could likely apply to the entire system. Damages experts have yet to issue damage estimates. Estimates of potential exposure towards providers, after trebling, exceed $15 billion. Potential trebled damages towards subscribers are close to $150 million. Possibilities of success are difficult to predict globally and are contingent on whether the Per Se or the Rule of Reason standard of review will apply to the practice, which classes are certified, what practice is being challenged, and whether the judge decides the case on summary judgment or a jury does at trial. The likelihood of success globally appears to be greater as to providers than as to subscribers. As part of the Joint Defense Group, TSS intends to defend vigorously while engaging in serious efforts to resolve the case through mediation." Triple-S Management Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides a portfolio of managed care and related products in the commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid markets in Puerto Rico, the United States. The company operates through three segments: Managed Care, Life Insurance, and Property and Casualty Insurance. Triple-S Management Corporation was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in San Juan, Puerto Rico. TRUECAR INC: Appeal in Gordon Rose Class Action Underway -------------------------------------------------------- TrueCar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal on the court's denial of a class certification motion and the proceedings in the trial court have been stayed pending the resolution of the appeal. On December 23, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Gordon Rose in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. The complaint asserted claims for unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and violation of the California Business and Professions Code, based principally on factual allegations similar to those asserted in the NY Lanham Act Litigation and the CNCDA Litigation. The complaint sought an award of unspecified damages, interest, disgorgement, injunctive relief and attorney's fees. In the complaint, the plaintiff sought to represent a class of California consumers defined as "all California consumers who purchased an automobile by using TrueCar, Inc.'s price certificate during the applicable statute of limitations." On January 12, 2016, the court entered an order staying all proceedings in the case pending an initial status conference, which was scheduled for April 13, 2016. On March 16, 2016, the case was reassigned to a different judge. As a result of that reassignment, the initial status conference was rescheduled for and held on May 26, 2016. By stipulation, the stay of discovery was continued until a second status conference, which was scheduled for October 12, 2016. On July 13, 2016, the plaintiff amended his complaint. The amended complaint continues to assert claims for unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and violation of the California Business and Professions Code. The amended complaint retains the same proposed class definition as the initial complaint. Like the initial complaint, the amended complaint seeks an award of unspecified damages, punitive and exemplary damages, interest, disgorgement, injunctive relief and attorney's fees. On September 12, 2016, the Company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint. On October 12, 2016, the court heard oral argument on the demurrer. On October 13, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's demurrer to the amended complaint, dismissing the unjust enrichment claim but declining to dismiss the balance of the claims at the demurrer stage of the litigation. At a status conference held on January 26, 2017, the court ruled that discovery could then proceed regarding matters related to class certification only. At a status conference held on July 25, 2017, the court set a deadline of January 8, 2018 for the filing of the plaintiff's motion for class certification and provided that discovery could continue to proceed regarding matters related to class certification only at that time. Subsequently, the court extended to February 7, 2018 the deadline for the filing of plaintiff's motion for class certification and for the completion of related discovery. On February 7, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The court held a hearing on the plaintiff's class certification motion on July 12, 2018 and denied the motion on July 27, 2018. On September 26, 2018, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and proceedings in the trial court have been stayed pending the resolution of the appeal. The Company believes that the amended complaint is without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of September 30, 2018 as the Company does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. TrueCar, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an Internet-based information, technology, and communication services company in the United States. It operates its platform on the TrueCar Website and mobile applications. TrueCar, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Santa Monica, California. TRUECAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Milbeck Complaint Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- TrueCar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed in the class action suit initiated by Leon Milbeck. On March 30, 2018, the Company and one of its former officers were named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed by Leon Milbeck in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint sought an award of unspecified damages, interest, attorney's fees and equitable relief based on allegations that the defendants made false or misleading statements about the company's business, operations, prospects and performance during a purported class period of February 16, 2017 through November 6, 2017 in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On June 27, 2018, the court appointed the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 24, 2018. The amended complaint reiterated the claims in the prior complaint and added claims under Section 11 of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint also added the company's chief executive officer Chip Perry, the company's interim chief financial officer John Pierantoni, the company's former chief financial officer Michael Guthrie and the company's underwriters and directors who signed the registration statement for the company's secondary offering that occurred during the class period as defendants. On October 31, 2018, the plaintiff dismissed the underwriters from the litigation "without prejudice," meaning that they could be reinstated as defendants at a later time, and on November 5, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company believes that the amended complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of September 30, 2018 as the Company does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. TrueCar, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an Internet-based information, technology, and communication services company in the United States. It operates its platform on the TrueCar Website and mobile applications. TrueCar, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Santa Monica, California. TRUECAR INC: Ruling in Cal. Consumer Class Suit under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ TrueCar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the plaintiff in the California Consumer Class Action suit filed a notice of appeal on the court's denial of class certification motion, and proceedings in the trial court have been stayed pending the resolution of the appeal. In December 2015, the company was named as a defendant in the California Consumer Class Action. The complaint asserted claims for unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and violation of the California Business and Professions Code, based principally on factual allegations similar to those asserted in the NY Lanham Act Litigation and the CNCDA Litigation. In the complaint, the plaintiff sought to represent a class of "all California consumers who purchased an automobile by using TrueCar, Inc.'s price certificate during the applicable statute of limitations." On January 12, 2016, the court entered an order staying all proceedings in the case pending an initial status conference, which was scheduled for April 13, 2016. On March 16, 2016, the case was reassigned to a different judge. As a result of that reassignment, the initial status conference was rescheduled for and held on May 26, 2016. By stipulation, the stay of discovery was continued until a second status conference, which was scheduled for October 12, 2016. On July 13, 2016, the plaintiff amended his complaint. The amended complaint continues to assert claims for unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and violation of the California Business and Professions Code. The amended complaint retains the same proposed class definition as the initial complaint. Like the initial complaint, the amended complaint seeks an award of unspecified damages, punitive and exemplary damages, interest, disgorgement, injunctive relief and attorney's fees. On September 12, 2016, the company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint. On October 12, 2016, the court heard oral argument on the demurrer. On October 13, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part the company's demurrer to the amended complaint, dismissing the unjust enrichment claim but declining to dismiss the balance of the claims at the demurrer stage of the litigation. At a status conference held on January 26, 2017, the court ruled that discovery could then proceed regarding matters related to class certification only. At a status conference held on July 25, 2017, the court set a deadline of January 8, 2018 for the filing of the plaintiff's motion for class certification and provided that discovery could continue to proceed regarding matters related to class certification only at that time. Subsequently, the court extended to February 7, 2018 the deadline for the filing of plaintiff's motion for class certification and for the completion of related discovery. On February 7, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The court held a hearing on the plaintiff's class certification motion on July 12, 2018 and denied the motion on July 27, 2018. On September 26, 2018, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and proceedings in the trial court have been stayed pending the resolution of the appeal. TrueCar said, "We believe that the amended complaint is without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter. Based on the current stage of the proceedings in this case, the outcome of this legal proceeding, including the anticipated legal defense costs, remains uncertain; however, we may incur significant legal fees, settlements or damage awards resulting from this or other civil litigation. If this matter is not resolved in our favor, losses arising from the results of litigation or settlements, as well as ongoing defense costs, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows." TrueCar, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an Internet-based information, technology, and communication services company in the United States. It operates its platform on the TrueCar Website and mobile applications. TrueCar, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Santa Monica, California. TWILIO INC: Jan. 15 Initial Approval Hearing on Flowers Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Twilio Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a preliminary class settlement approval hearing has been scheduled Angela Flowers v. Twilio Inc., for January 15, 2019. On February 18, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Alameda County Superior Court in California, entitled Angela Flowers v. Twilio Inc. The complaint alleges that the company products permit the interception, recording and disclosure of communications at a customer's request and are in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The complaint seeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages. On May 27, 2016, the company filed a demurrer to the complaint. On August 2, 2016, the court issued an order denying the demurrer in part and granting it in part, with leave to amend by August 18, 2016 to address any claims under California's Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiff opted not to amend the complaint. Following a period of discovery, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on September 20, 2017. On January 2, 2018, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's class certification motion. The court certified two classes of individuals who, during specified time periods, allegedly sent or received certain communications involving the accounts of three of our customers that were recorded. The parties held a mediation on August 29, 2018. Following further discussions in coordination with the mediator, on September 27, 2018, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the case. The parties are preparing a long-form settlement agreement, and a preliminary class settlement approval hearing has been scheduled for January 15, 2019. Twilio Inc. provides a cloud communications platform that enables developers to build, scale, and operate communications within software applications in the United States and internationally. The company's programmable communications cloud provides a set of application programming interfaces that enable developers to embed voice, messaging, and video capabilities into their applications. Twilio Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES: Failed to Pay OT, Hernandez Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS MANUEL HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 79982368 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., Oct. 29, 2018) is an action against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime compensation and minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Hernandez was employed by the Defendant as hourly paid, non-exempt employee. U.S. Security Associates, Inc. provides uniformed security services, consulting and investigations, and specialized security solutions in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1955 and is based in Roswell, Georgia. As on October 26, 2018. U.S. Security Associates, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Allied Universal. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre,Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Del Toro Lopez Deal Has Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROXANA DEL TORO LOPEZ and ANA MEDINA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case Number: 17-cv-06255-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, granted (i) the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class settlement; and (ii) the Plaintiffs' and their counsel's motion for awards of the Class Representative Service Payments and the Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees and Costs Payment. On Nov. 6, 2018, a hearing was held on the unopposed motion of del Toro Lopez and Medina for final approval of the class settlement; and on the separate motion of the Plaintiffs and their counsel for awards of the Class Representative Service Payments and the Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees and Costs Payment. The Parties have submitted their Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release, which the Court preliminarily approved in its April 19, 2018 order. In accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order, the Class Members have been given notice of the terms of the Settlement and the opportunity to submit a claim form, comment on the settlement, and/or opt out of its provisions. In addition, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Uber has given the Attorney General of the United States and the appropriate state officials in the states in which the Class Members reside timely notice of the Settlement. Having received and considered the Settlement, the supporting papers filed by the Parties, and the evidence and argument received by the Court at the final approval hearing on Nov. 6, 2018, by means of her Final Approval Order, Judge Rogers granted final approval of the Settlement. She confirmed as final the appointment of Roxana del Toro Lopez and Ana Medina as the Class Representatives of the Rule 23 Class and the nationwide FLSA Class under section 16(b). She finds and determines that the award of $50,000 to Ms. del Toro Lopez and $30,000 to Ms. Medina for their services as the Class Representatives, in addition to their Individual Settlement Payments, is fair and reasonable. The Judge further finds that the requested payment of $2.5 million in attorneys' fees and $152,958 in litigation costs and expenses, for a total payment of $2,652,958 to the Class Counsel, is fair and reasonable and ordered that payment be made to the Class Counsel out of the Gross Fund Value in accordance with the terms of the Settlement. Upon completion of administration of the Settlement, the Settlement Administrator, JND Legal Administration, will provide written certification of such completion to the Court and the counsel for the Parties. The Judge set a compliance hearing for Jan. 18, 2019 at 9:01 a.m. No later than five business days prior to the date of the hearing, the parties will file a Post-Distribution Accounting in compliance with the District's Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements. If compliance is complete, the parties need not appear, and the compliance hearing will be taken off calendar. By means of the Final Approval Order, Judge Rogers entered final judgment in the action, as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a)(1). The Parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the Settlement. She dismissed the action with prejudice, each side to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees except as provided by the Settlement and the Court's orders. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/rBQM0S from Leagle.com. Roxana Del Toro Lopez, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated & Ana Medina, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Rachel Williams Dempsey -- rdempsey@outtengolden.com -- Outten Golden LLP, Adam T. Klein -- atk@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Laura Iris Mattes, Outten & Golden LLP & Jahan C. Sagafi -- jsagafi@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP. Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nancy L. Abell -- nancyabell@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP & Paul William Cane, Jr. -- paulcane@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP. Susan Fowler, Interested Party, represented by Christopher David Baker -- cbaker@bakerlp.com -- Baker Curtis & Schwartz, P.C.. ULTA SALON: Medeiros Suit Moved to Eastern District of California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sherri A. Medeiros, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. FCS051572, was removed from the Solano Superior Court, to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento) on Nov. 9, 2018. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-02947-TLN-AC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Troy L. Nunley. Ulta Beauty Inc., is a chain of beauty stores in the United States, headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Isandra Y. Fernandez, Esq. James Ross Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: Isandra@jameshawkinsaplc.com james@jameshawkinsaplc.com Attorneys for Defendant: Kai-Ching Cha, Esq. Littler Mendelson, P.C. (San Francisco) 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 Facsimile: (415) 399-8490 E-mail: kcha@littler.com ULTIMATE SERVICES: Servil Seeks Unpaid Wages for Home Care Workers ------------------------------------------------------------------ IKE SERVIL and MAKTUMMA TESHABAEVA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by ULTIMATE SERVICES FOR YOU, INC., the Plaintiffs, vs. ULTIMATE SERVICES FOR YOU, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 159458/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 9, 2018), seeks to recover wages and benefits which Plaintiffs were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive pursuant to New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of 10 hours per day, without providing the proper hourly compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread of hours" compensation. The Plaintiffs have initiated this action seeking for themselves, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees who are citizens of New York and who performed work within the State of New York, minimum wages, overtime compensation, "spread of hours" compensation, and damages arising from Defendant's breach of contract, which they were deprived of, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. This action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a putative class of individuals who are citizens of the State of New York and are presently or were formerly employed by to provide personal care, assistance, health-related tasks and other home care services to Defendant's clients within the State of New York, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com - and - Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C. 1517 Voohies Ave, 2nd Fl Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (212) 808-2224 Facsimile: (866) 261-5478 E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com Attorneys for Defendant: LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 290 Broadhollow Rd Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 247-4700 UNITED STATES: ICE Faces Class Action Over Immigrant Detentions --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Denney, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that the New York Civil Liberties Union has joined forces with The Bronx Defenders and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law to file a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that immigrant New Yorkers, including those here legally, held in immigration detention are waiting months on average before they can see a judge. According to the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of an immigrant who has been locked up in Orange County, the median wait time for immigration detainees to see a judge at the immigration court in Lower Manhattan has ballooned from 11 days in 2014 to 80 days this year. The delays have been exacerbated by stepped-up immigration enforcement, the plaintiff's counsel alleges, which is creating a bottleneck in the courts. "People arrested by ICE and detained in criminal jails in New York and New Jersey are detained for months, simply waiting for a first hearing before a judge who can determine whether or not they should even be locked up," said Jessica Kulig, a Cardozo Law student, for the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic in a news release. Spokespersons for U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement and and the Executive Office for Immigration Review declined to comment on the suit, citing pending litigation. The plaintiff alleges that ICE arrests more than 1,000 people in the New York City area annually. The suit states that, according to government data, 72 percent of detainees are languishing in jail for more than two months before they are brought before an immigration judge; 40 percent of detainees are eventually released on bond. They also allege that the immigration dragnet has swept up legal residents—about 30 percent of detainees are green card holders, the suit states. The suit is the second that the NYCLU filed against federal immigration authorities in November: it has also filed a proposed class action suit alleging that a required background check for immigrants is causing their children to be locked up in government custody for weeks and sometimes months. [GN] UNITED STATES: Navy Class Action Over Bad Paper Discharges OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- Leo Shane III, writing for MilitaryTimes, reports that veterans forced from the Navy and Marine Corps for what they say were undiagnosed mental health problems will be able move ahead with a class-action lawsuit against the military asking for denied benefits, a federal court ruled on Nov. 15. The move could affect thousands of so-called "bad paper" veterans who allege Defense Department officials unjustly ended their careers rather than deal with their military-related injuries. "This decision is a victory for the tens of thousands of military veterans suffering from service-connected PTSD and TBI who are denied the support of VA resources because of an unfair discharge status," Tyson Manker, an Iraq War veteran and plaintiff in the case, said in a statement on Nov. 16. He called the court's favorable ruling "further evidence of the Department of Defense's disgraceful violation of the legal rights of the men and women who have served their country." The issue of improper military dismissals has grown in prominence in recent years as studies show that veterans with limited access to military benefits face greater rates of homelessness and suicide. Veterans covered in the new lawsuit's class would have little or no access to Veterans Affairs health care services, education benefits or other support resources because of their less-than-honorable discharge status. However, many of those veterans argue that the infractions that led to the end of their military careers were linked to undiagnosed post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain injury, or other service-related mental health problems. They have argued that if supervisors properly treated those issues, they may still be serving today. Between 20 and 30 percent of troops who served in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have dealt with post-traumatic stress, according to Defense Department estimates. The new ruling will allow veterans advocates an easier path in demanding relief from the Navy, the service's review boards and other related agencies. Last year, Pentagon officials ordered that those review boards use more discretion in evaluating veterans' discharge status appeals when those cases involved "conditions resulting from post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, sexual assault or sexual harassment." Officials have said the goal is to make sure missed medical problems don't result in lost benefits or support services. But advocates for those veterans say those corrections remain slow and erratic. The National Veterans Council for Legal Redress, which is party to the lawsuit, said that in 2017, while more than half of cases to come before the Army and Air Force review boards were granted discharge upgrades, only 16 percent of cases before the Navy board received the same consideration. That has raised concerns from both advocates and the federal court that authorized the class action. More information on the lawsuit is available through the Yale Law School Veterans Legal Services Clinic, which is also involved in the suit. [GN] UNITED WHOLESALE: Mekaway Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------- WALEED MEKAWAY, On Behalf of Himself And All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED WHOLESALE & TRADING, INC., ISLAM ADEL, and YASSER NAWAR, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06327 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2018), seeks to recover damages and equitable relief based upon Defendants' flagrant and willful violations of Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed to them by: overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the overtime provisions of New York Labor Law; the requirement that employers furnish employees with wage statements on each payday containing specific categories of information under the NYLL section 195(3); and the requirement that employers furnish employees with a wage notice at the time of hiring containing specific categories of accurate information, NYLL section 195(1). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants -- a food cart storage, cleaning and supply business and its owners/managers -- from on or about January 6, 2016 through the date of his accident, February 5, 2018. Throughout his employment, the Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, at least 72 hours a week. However, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at the minimum wage or overtime rate of pay of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for each hour that Plaintiff worked per week in excess of forty, as the FLSA and the NYLL require. Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for his spread of hours in violation of NYLL. Lastly, Defendants failed to furnish Plaintiff with accurate and/or complete wage statements on each payday as the NYLL requires or provide Plaintiff with a wage notice containing the criteria enumerated under the NYLL. Defendants paid and treated of all their non-managerial employees who worked for them in the same manner, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Louis M. Leon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO 108 West 39 th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 583-7400 E-mail: LLeon@Cafaroesg.com UPTOWN COMMUNICATIONS: Underpays Technicians, Clark Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UPTOWN COMMUNICATIONS & ELECTRIC, INC.; JONATHAN SMOKLER; and DANIEL GREENBERG, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-6044-ILG-PK (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2018) is an action for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Clark was employed by the Defendants as technician. Uptown Communications & Electric, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 US XPRESS: Jury Trial in Cal. Wage & Hour Suit Set for Feb. 2019 ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the jury trial in the California Wage and Hour Class Action Litigation is set for February 5, 2019. In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the company in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino. The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The putative class includes current and former truck drivers employed by the company who worked or work in California after the completion of their training while residing in California since December 23, 2011 to present. The case alleges that class members were not paid for off-the-clock work, were not provided duty free meal or break times, and were not paid premium pay in their absence, were not paid minimum wage for all hours worked, were not provided accurate and complete time and pay records and were not paid all accrued wages at the end of their employment, all in violation of California law. The class seeks a judgment for compensatory damages and penalties, injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs and pre- and post-judgment interest. The matter is currently in discovery, and a jury trial is set for February 5, 2019. U.S. Xpress said, "We are currently unable to determine the possible loss or range of loss. We intend to vigorously defend the merits of these claims." U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload carrier providing services primarily in the United States. It operates in two segments, Truckload and Brokerage. The company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee. VENCHI 2: Faces Lawsuit Under Disabilities Act ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Venchi 2 LLC. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Venchi 2 LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10937 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Venchi concession at Eataly NYC Flatiron offers a broad range of fine chocolates, chocolate bars and spreads produced according to Italian tradition and using high quality, natural ingredients.[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 VIRGINIA: Court Narrows Claims in Unaccompanied Minors Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim in the case captioned J.E.C.M., a minor, by and through his next friend JOSE JIMENEZ SARAVIA, et al., Plaintiffs/Petitioners, v. SCOTT LLOYD, Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement, et al., Defendants/Respondents. No. 1:18-cv-00903 (LMB/MSN). (E.D. Va.). Plaintiffs/petitioners in this putative class action are four minors from Central America designated as unaccompanied alien children who are, or who have been, in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and the four sponsors who filed family reunification applications on their behalf. The Defendants/respondents are the minors' custodians and the officials responsible for administering ORR's policies with respect to the detention and release of unaccompanied minors. The Plaintiffs allege that the defendants' policies violate constitutional, statutory, and administrative law, and they seek declaratory and habeas relief as well as attorney's fees and costs. The Court ruled that the Defendant's motion to dismiss will be granted in part as to the individual claims of plaintiffs J.E.C.M., Jimenez Saravia, R.A.I., Alvarado, K.T.M., and Velasquez Trail and as to Count II and denied in all other respects. According to the Court, Lopez has nothing to do with the question here, which is whether plaintiffs remain in custody for purposes of 28 U.S.C. Section 2241(c). A petitioner need not be in actual physical custody to sustain a habeas action if ongoing or collateral consequences of detention constitute sufficient restraints on the petitioner's liberty, however, plaintiffs have not demonstrated why the minors' being released to their sponsors, which is the relief they sought in the first place, amounts to such a restraint on their liberty that they remain in custody under Section 2241. Accordingly, the Court will grant defendants' motion to dismiss as to individual claims advanced by J.E.C.M., Jimenez Saravia, R.A.I., Alvarado, K.T.M., and Velasquez Trail. The Court held that the remaining plaintiffs' claims are ripe. Were B.G.S.S. to be released to Jeronimo Sis's custody, their individual claims would be mooted; however, until that happens, B.G.S.S. continues to suffer an ongoing deprivation of his personal liberty interest, and he and Jeronimo Sis continue to suffer an ongoing deprivation of their interest in family unity. Because the remaining plaintiffs claim that they are injured not only by the possible denial of their family reunification application but also by the process through which ORR will reach a decision (or fail to act) on that application, their claims are ripe, and there is no prudential reason why the Court should decline to adjudicate them. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 15, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc9kkqme from Leagle.com. Blanca Jeronimo Sis, Sandra Alvarado & Cinthia Velasquez Trail, Plaintiffs, represented by Rebecca Ruth Wolozin -- becky@justice4all.org -- Legal Aid Justice Center, Angela A. Ciolfi, Legal Aid Justice Center, John Christopher Rozendaal -- jrozendaal@sternekessler.com -- Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC & Salvador Manuel Bezos -- sbezos@sternekessler.com -- Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC. J.E.C.M., a minor, by and through his next friend Jose Jimenez Saravia & Jose Jiminez Saravia, Petitioners, represented by Rebecca Ruth Wolozin, Legal Aid Justice Center, Angela A. Ciolfi, Legal Aid Justice Center, John Christopher Rozendaal, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC,Salvador Manuel Bezos, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC & Simon Yehuda Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon Sandoval Moshenburg. Scott Lloyd, Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Steven Wagner, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Natasha David, Federal Field Specialist, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Johnitha McNair, Executive Director, Northern Virginia Juvenile Detention Center, Timothy Smith, Executive Director, Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Center & Gary L. Jones, Chief Executive Officer, Youth For Tomorrow, Respondents, represented by Catherine M. Yang , US Attorney's Office. VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Decision in Final Approval Hearing Reserved -------------------------------------------------------------- Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the Court has reserved its decision in the final approval hearing in the case entitled, In re Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. Securities Litigation; formerly Tom Cummins v. Virtus Investment Partners Inc. et al. On February 20, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws was filed by an individual shareholder against the Company and certain of the Company's current officers (the "defendants") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"). On April 21, 2015, three plaintiffs, including the original plaintiff, filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and, on June 9, 2015, the Court appointed Arkansas Teachers Retirement System lead plaintiff. On August 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint") amending the originally filed complaint, which was purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 25, 2013 and May 11, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and concealed material adverse facts relating to certain funds formerly subadvised by F-Squared Investments Inc. ("F-Squared"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5. A motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint was filed on behalf of the Company and the other defendants on October 21, 2015. On July 1, 2016, the Court entered an opinion and order granting in part, and denying in part, the motion to dismiss, narrowing plaintiffs' claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and dismissing one of the defendants from the suit. The remaining defendants' Answer to the Consolidated Complaint was filed on August 5, 2016. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted on May 15, 2017. The Company believes that the suit is without merit, nonetheless, on February 6, 2018, it reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs, subject to Court approval, settling all claims in the litigation, in order to avoid the cost, distraction, disruption, and inherent litigation uncertainty. The parties executed a final settlement agreement on May 18, 2018. On June 28, 2018, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. A hearing for final approval was held on October 24, 2018, at which the Court reserved decision. Virtus Investment said, "Upon final approval by the Court, which the Company believes is likely, the resolution of this matter will not have a material impact on the Company's results of operations, cash flows or its consolidated financial condition." Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides its services to individual and institutional clients. It launches separate client focused equity and fixed income portfolios. irtus Investment Partners, Inc. was founded in 1988 and is based in Hartford, Connecticut. VUZIX CORP: Mulls Bid to Dismiss 2 NY Securities Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Vuzix Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company plans to file a motion to dismiss the class action suits filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. On July 24, 2018, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Company, certain of its current and former directors and executive officers and the placement agents of the Company's registered direct offering that was completed in January 2018. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of shareholders that purchased stock between November 9, 2017 and March 20, 2018, or pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with the registered direct offering. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and directors made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse events about the Company's business, operations and prospects in press releases and public filings. The complaint seeks damages in unspecified amounts, costs and expenses of bringing the action, and other unspecified relief. A similar purported class action was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers and directors on July 27, 2018, in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The Company believes the allegations are false and intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company plans to file a motion to dismiss the complaints. Vuzix Corporation designs, manufactures, markets, and sells wearable display devices in the United States and internationally. Its wearable display products include augmented reality (AR) smart glasses for various enterprise and commercial users and applications; and video viewing glasses for on-the-go users as mobile displays for entertainment and gaming. Vuzix Corporation was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in West Henrietta, New York. WAL-MART ASSOC: Decertification of Magadia Meal Period Class Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, RODERICK MAGADIA, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-00062-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, denied Wal-Mart move to decertify the meal period class. Magadia brings a class action against Defendants Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. that alleges that Wal-Mart denies its employees adequate meal period premiums in violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7. He filed the putative class action in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara on Dec. 2, 2016. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges causes of action for (1) violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512; (2) violation of California Labor Code Section 226(a); (3) violation of the Private Attorney Generals Act; and (4) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. On Jan. 5, 2017, Wal-Mart removed the action to the Court and alleged jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. On Feb. 2, 2017, Wal-Mart filed an answer to the Plaintiff's complaint. On Oct. 19, 2017, the Plaintiff moved for class certification. On Nov. 20, 2017, Wal-Mart filed its opposition. On Jan. 9, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. It certified three classes: i. Meal Period Regular Rate Class: All current and former California non-exempt retail store employees of Wal-Mart who received non-discretionary remuneration, including MYSHARE INCT, and was paid any meal period premium payments in the same period that the non-discretionary remuneration was earned, at any time between Dec. 2, 2012, through the present. ii. OVERTIME/INCT Wage Statement Class: All current and former California non-exempt employees of Wal-Mart who received OVERTIME/INCT at any time between Dec. 2, 2015, through the present. iii. Final Wage Statement Class: All former non-exempt employees who worked for Wal-Mart in the State of California and whose employment terminated (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) at any time from Dec. 2, 2015 to the present. On Jan. 26, 2018, Wal-Mart filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the Court's class certification order. On Feb. 22, 2018, the Ninth Circuit denied Wal-Mart's petition. On Oct. 30, 2017, the Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on his claim under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). On Jan. 16, 2018, Wal-Mart filed its opposition. On May 11, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Plaintiff's PAGA claim. On June 25, 2018, it denied Wal-Mart's request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. On July 26, 2018, Wal-Mart moved for partial summary judgment on the Plaintiff's three remaining claims. On Aug. 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed his opposition. On Sept. 27, 2018, the Court denied Wal-Mart's motion for partial summary judgment. On July 26, 2018, Wal-Mart moved for decertification of the meal period class. On Aug. 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed his opposition. On Aug. 23, 2018, the parties filed a joint discovery letter brief, in which the Plaintiff moved to strike corrections to the deposition of Wal-Mart's 30(b)(6) witness, Victoria Moore. On Sept. 6, 2018, Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins denied the Plaintiff's motion to strike the deposition corrections. Then, on Oct. 1, 2018, the Plaintiff filed objections to evidence offered in support of Wal-Mart's reply brief. On Oct. 9, 2018, Wal-Mart filed a response to Plaintiff's objections. Judge Koh denied Wal-Mart's motion for decertification. She determined in the Court's class certification order that with respect to Wal-Mart's liability to the class members, common questions predominated over individualized inquiries because Wal-Mart's own records "document why each meal exception happened." The evidence submitted with the instant motion continues to demonstrate that Wal-Mart's own records -- specifically, the EMS codes generated after a meal period exception investigation -- enable the Court to evaluate Wal-Mart's liability to the class members "on a class-wide basis," which warrants certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/Ry07d5 from Leagle.com. Roderick Magadia, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis Sangwon Hyun -- dhyun@hyunlegal.com -- Hyun Legal APC, Larry W. Lee -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group, P.C., Nicholas Rosenthal -- nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group & William Lucas Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- Polaris Law Group, LLP. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation & Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Aaron Thomas Winn -- atwinn@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP, pro hac vice & Natalie Frances Hrubos -- NFHrubos@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris, LLP, pro hac vice. Lerna Mays, Miscellaneous, represented by Alan Dale Harris -- law@harrisandruble.com -- Harris & Ruble. WALSH CONSTRUCTION: Navar et al. Sue over Gender Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- ALLISON NAVAR, and CAMILLE ROBERTSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WALSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY II, LLC, SKANSKA USA CIVIL NORTHEAST, INC., and SKANSKA USA BUILDING, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10476 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2018), alleges that Defendants have engaged in systematic, company-wide discriminatory treatment of female employees because of their gender under the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, Skanska and Walsh discriminate against their female employees through, inter alia: disparate treatment; discriminatory policies, practices, and procedures in selection, pay, promotion, and advancement; and retaliation. Skanska and Walsh also have known or should have known that their business practices -- including but not limited to their pay, promotion, discipline, demotion, evaluation, and compensation practices -- have an illegal disparate impact on female employees. Skanska and Walsh have failed to take adequate measures to rectify this disparate impact. The systemic gender discrimination described in this Complaint has been and is continuing in nature. The Class Representatives seek, on behalf of themselves and the classes they seek to represent, declaratory and injunctive relief; back pay; front pay; compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages; and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses to redress Skanska and Walsh' pervasive and discriminatory employment policies, practices, and procedures. Attorneys for Plaintiffs: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Lucas Buzzard, Esq. JOSEPH KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 688-2548 - and - Mariann Wang, Esq. CUTI HECKER WANG LLP 305 Broadway, Suite 607 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 620-2600 WAYFAIR LLC: Diaz Sues Over Disabilities Act Breach --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wayfair LLC. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wayfair LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10940 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Wayfair, Inc. is an American e-commerce company that sells home goods. Formerly known as CSN Stores, the company was founded in 2002 and now sells many home furnishings and decor items and over ten million products from over 10,000 suppliers.[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 WELEDA INC: Sued in New York for ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weleda, Inc. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Weleda, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10917 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Weleda, Inc. provides skin and baby care products. It offers facial care products.[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 WILLS TOWERS: Sullivan Says Advisory Firm Violates ADA ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wills Towers Watson Analytical Insurance Services Inc. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wills Towers Watson Analytical Insurance Services Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10900 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Willis Towers Watson's Insurance Consulting and Technology provides a combination of advisory services for insurance companies, integrated with technology solutions and software that is underpinned by analytical capabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group, PLLC 30 East 39th Street 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Still Defends EarthLink Merger-Related Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Windstream Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend purported shareholder class action complaints related to its merger agreement with EarthLink Holdings Corp. On February 27, 2017, Windstream Holdings completed its merger with EarthLink Holdings Corp. ("EarthLink"), pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") dated November 5, 2016, whereby EarthLink merged into Europa Merger Sub, Inc., an wholly-owned subsidiary of Windstream Services, LLC, and survived, and immediately following, merged with Europa Merger Sub, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Windstream Services, LLC, with Merger Sub surviving and changing its name to EarthLink Holdings, LLC (the "Merger"). Windstream Holdings, its current and former directors, and certain of its executive officers are the subject of shareholder-related lawsuits arising out of the merger with EarthLink Holdings Corp. in February 2017. Two putative shareholders have filed separate purported shareholder class action complaints in federal court in Arkansas and state court in Georgia, captioned Murray v. Earthlink Holdings Corp., et. al., and Yadegarian v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et. al., respectively. Additionally, two separate shareholder derivative actions were filed during the quarter in Arkansas federal court on behalf of Windstream Holdings, Inc., styled Cindy Graham v. Wells, et. al., and Larry Graham v. Thomas, et. al. All four of the complaints contain similar assertions and claims of alleged securities law violations and breaches of fiduciary duties related to the disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus soliciting shareholder approval of the merger, which the plaintiffs allege were inadequate and misleading. Windstream Holdings said, "We believe that we have valid defenses for each of the lawsuits, and we plan to vigorously defend the pursuit of all matters. While the ultimate resolution of the matters is not currently predictable, if there is an adverse ruling in any of these matters, the ruling could constitute a material adverse outcome on the future consolidated results of our income, cash flows, or financial condition." Windstream Holdings, Inc. provides network communications and technology solutions in the United States. Its Consumer & Small Business segment offers services, including traditional local and long-distance voice services, and high-speed Internet services; and value-added services, such as security and online back-up. Windstream Holdings, Inc. also leases and sells broadband modems, home networking gateways, and personal computers; and sells home phones. The company was incorporated in 2013 and is based in Little Rock, Arkansas. WYETH INC: Court Narrows Claims in Effexor Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants Wyeth Inc., Wyeth Manufacturing Limited, Wyeth Ireland Pharmaceutical Products (Wyeth), Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited's (Teva) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), regarding End-Payer Plaintiffs' Third Amended Consolidated Complaint in the case captioned In re EFFEXOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-5661 (PGS)(LHG). (D.N.J.). This case arises from allegations that two drug companies, Wyeth and Teva, engaged in an anticompetitive scheme that prevented the generic drug of Effexor XR from entering the market. The Plaintiffs are end-payor purchasers (EPP) who claim to have paid inflated costs for the brand-named drug, Effexor XR, due to, among other things, a delayed entry provision included in Wyeth and Teva's settlement agreement. Unlike the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, who assert claims under the Sherman Act, the EPPs base their claims on their state's antitrust and consumer protection acts. The Court declines to grant judgment as to EPPs' consumer protection claims in California, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and North Carolina. However, the Court grants Defendants' motion, without leave to amend as to EPPs' Illinois and Maine consumer protection claims; and with leave to amend with regards to EPPs' Rhode Island consumer protection claims. The Court also ruled that the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted in part and denied in part as follows: -- Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based on preemption principles is denied. -- Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based on statute of limitations is denied. -- Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to EPPs' state consumer protection claims in California, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and North Carolina is denied. -- Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as it pertains to EPPs' Arizona, Nevada, and Utah antitrust claims is granted without prejudice; EPPs are granted leave to amend their Complaint to plead compliance with these notice provisions and, with regards to Utah, include a named plaintiff from Utah. -- Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as it pertains to EPPs' antitrust claims under the laws of the District of Columbia is granted without prejudice. -- Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as it pertains to EPPs' Massachusetts, West Virginia, Rhode Island, and Tennessee consumer protection claims is granted without prejudice; EPPs are granted leave to amend their Complaint to plead compliance with Massachusetts and West Virginia's notice provisions, individual claims in Tennessee, and consumer claims under Rhode Island. -- Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as it pertains to EPPs' Illinois and Rhode Island antitrust claims, and EPPs' Illinois and Maine consumer protection claims is granted with prejudice. -- Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Count I of EPPs' Complaint under Kansas, New York, and Tennessee is GRANTED to the extent these claims are predicated on unilateral activity by Wyeth. The EPPs have thirty (30) days from the filing of this Memorandum and Order to file an Amended Complaint, consistent with this Memorandum. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 15, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycrqqwjd from Leagle.com. City of Providence, Rhode Island, A.F. OF L.-A.G.C. BUILDING TRADES WELFARE PLAN, IBEW-NECA LOCAL 505 HEALTH & WELFARE PLAN, NEW MEXICO UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION'S AND EMPLOYERS' HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND & SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, Plaintiffs, represented by JAMES E. CECCHI -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff, represented by DOUGLAS ROBERT PLYMALE, COUNSEL NOT ADMITTED TO USDC, JAMES R. DUGAN, II, COUNSEL NOT ADMITTED TO USDC & JAMES E. CECCHI, CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. WYETH, INC. & WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants, represented by LIZA M. WALSH, WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP, MEGAN DEPASQUALE, WHITE AND CASE, ELEONORE OFOSU-ANTWI, WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP, RUKHSANAH L. SINGH , CONNELL FOLEY LLP & WILLIAM T. WALSH, JR., Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. & TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendants, represented by BRIAN M. ENGLISH -- benglish@tompkinsmcguire.com -- TOMPKINS, MCGUIRE, WACHENFELD & BARRY, LLP, MICHAEL E. PATUNAS -- mpatunas@patunaslaw.com -- PATUNAS LAW LLC & WILLIAM H. TROUSDALE -- wtrousdale@tompkinsmcguire.com -- TOMPKINS, MCGUIRE, WACHENFELD & BARRY, LLP. ZION OIL: Faces Putative Class Action in Texas ---------------------------------------------- Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has been named as defendant in a putative class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Following the commencement of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation, on August 9, 2018, a putative class action Complaint was filed against Zion, Victor G. Carrillo, the Company's Chief Executive Officer at such time, and Michael B. Croswell Jr., the Company's Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Defendants") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC against all defendants and alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants in connection certain with public statements defendants made from March 12, 2018 to May 30, 2018 and claims unspecified losses to the putative class and fees and costs. Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. operates as an oil and gas exploration company in Israel. It holds a petroleum exploration license onshore Israel, the Megiddo-Jezreel License that covers an area of approximately 99,000 acres. The company was founded in 2000 and is based in Dallas, Texas. ********* 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 ***