/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/181212.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, December 12, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 248 Headlines 155 S.G.S. CORP: Underpays Nail Saloon Workers, Cao Claims 228 BLEECKER: Chavez Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations A.J. PIEDIMONTE: FLSA Action in Cardenas Conditionally Certified A1 SOUVLAKI: Sued over $50,000 Unpaid Judgment ADOBE SYSTEMS: Fails to Disclose Program Defect, Cooper Claims AFFINION GROUP: Bid for Class Status Still Pending in Calif. Suit ALABAMA: Cook et al Seek to Certify Class in Traffic Ticket Suit ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Leavitt Suit Transferred to Massachusetts ALPINE ACCESS: Court Approves Morse FLSA Suit Settlement AMERICAN FINANCE: Misled Shareholders According to Class Action AMERICAN INCOME: Golz Suit Moved to Central District of California ANZAI ASIAN: Denied Chen Overtime Pay, Wage Statements BARNES & NOBLE: PIN Pads Consolidated Class Action Suit Ongoing BECTON DICKINSON: Has Deal for 15,021 Women's Health Product Claims BECTON DICKINSON: Has Favorable Judgment in Filter Products Case BLACKSTONE LABS: Accused by Kavlakian Suit of Violating TCPA BLUE APRON: IPO-Related Class Suits Pending in N.Y. State Court BRISTOL-MYERS: Akin Gump Attorney Discusses TCPA Court Ruling BUTTS FOODS: Hayes Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay, Damages Under FLSA CANADA: Forcibly Sterilized Indigenous Women File Class Action CAPITAL RESORTS: Thomas Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Court Certifies Class in Kautsman CPA Suit CCK PIZZA: Westley Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Delivery Drivers CENTURY PARK: Response to Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 14 CHEGG INC: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit CHICAGO, IL: Court Dismisses Aviation Security Officers' Suit CITY BUFFET MONGOLIAN: Underpays Hibachi Chefs, Rodriguez Says CLAUDIO & JOHNSON: Toler Remanded to W. Va. State Court COLLECTO INC: Sued over Illegal Consumer Debt Collection CONCENTRIX CORP: Knight Seeks OT Pay for Call Center Workers CORONA REGIONAL: 9th Cir. Reverses Sali Class Certification Denial COSTA HOLLYWOOD: Breached Staffing Service Agreement, Suit Says COVANCE INC: Feckley Seeks Unpaid Compensation upon Termination DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Sued Over Professional Misconduct Allegations DATAWATCH CORPORATION: Stier Balks at Merger Deal with Altair DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Ongoing in BlackRock Suit in California DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Still Stayed in Blackrock Suit in N.Y. DITECH HOLDING: Dec. 5 Hearing for Final OK of Elkin Case Deal EDUCARE COMMUNITY: Mathis et al. Seek Unpaid Wages ELITE WHEEL: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Compensation EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Jan. 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ENDO PHARMA: Faces RICO Racketeering Lawsuit in Alaska FACEBOOK INC: Accused by Suttles of Sending Unsolicited Texts FARIS PROPERTIES: Beyer Seeks to Certify Class FCA US LLC: Grigorian Sues Over Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls FCB FINANCIAL: Suits over Synovus Financial Merger Deal Underway FIFTH THIRD BANK: Made Illegal Bank Account Debits, Starace Says FIVE POINT: Still Faces Class Suit by Bayview Hunters Residents FL CASH: Rodriguez Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Golden Isles Residents Sue Over Excessive Taxes GOLD STANDARD: Court Denies Motion to Certify Class as Moot GREAT PLAINS: Qureshi Wants Loans Deemed Void and Unenforceable GREY DOG CHELSEA: Kitchen Staff Sue to Recover Overtime Pay GURU TEG HOLDING: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Campos Suit Alleges H&H FRANCHISING: Court Certifies Class of Glenkat Franchise Workers H&R BLOCK: Faces Ramsey Antitrust Suit Over No-Poach Policy HELIOS AND MATHESON: Consolidation of Chang & Braxton Cases Sought HIBERNIA CONSTRUCTION: Cedeno et al. Seek Overtime Pay HIGHGATE HOTELS: Sayodi et al Suit Transferred to S.D. New York HP INC: Reaches Settlement with Opt-In Plaintiffs in Forsyth Case INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Students' Attorneys Seek Restraining Order INMATE SERVICES: Court Denies Bid to Amend Hastings Suit IQVIA INC: Reed Smith Attorney Discusses TCPA Court Ruling IZEA WORLDWIDE: Still Defends Perez Securities Suit in Calif. JETPAY CORPORATION: Faces Franchi Suit Over NCR Merger JOHNSON CONTROLS: Bid to Dismiss Gumm Class Suit Still Pending JOHNSON CONTROLS: Court Approves Settlement in Laufer Class Suit JOHNSON CONTROLS: Suits over Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Ongoing JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Class Suit Remains Pending in Illinois JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Discrimination Class Suit Ongoing JPMORGAN CHASE: Manipulated Share Prices, Cognata Suit Claims JUUL LABS: Faces Yannucci Suit over Sale of e-Cigarettes KANSAS: Addresses Foster Care System Issue Amid Class Action KELLOGG'S DINER: Romero Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages & Overtime KROLL FACTUAL: Butt Sues Over Erroneous Credit Report L'OREAL USA: Website not Accessible to Blind, Diaz Says LOS ANGELES, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Pimentel Suit LYFT INC: Class Action Over Applicant Background Checks Tossed MAGAZINES.COM: Parde et al Sue over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls MARQUETTE MANAGEMENT: Underpays Leasing Consultants, Jones Claims MAYFLOWER INTERNATIONAL: Xing Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA MCHENRY SCHOOL: Underpays School Bus Drivers, Klatt & Zenner Claim MCKESSON CORP: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit MCLANE CO: Viramontes Stayed Pending Ruling in Sampson MDL 2741: Bindon Suit vs. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Brunson Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Hill Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Jarrett Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Mabus Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Musso Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Newton Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Purdy Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MEDLEY LLC: Still Faces Consolidated Class Action Suit in Virginia MEDTRONIC INC: Settles HeartWare Investors' Class Action MEDTRONIC PLC: Accord Reached in Teachers' Retirement Fund Suit MEDTRONIC PLC: Settlement Paid in INFUSE Bone Graft Suit MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit over Covidien Acquisition Still Ongoing MERIDIAN DREAMS: Sandoval Seeks Unpaid Overtime METEOR SEALING: Riley Seeks Overtime Pay MI NUMERO: Steven Nod Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages MICHIGAN: Black Applicants' Discrimination Class Action Certified MILBERG LLP: Bobbitt Appeals D. Arizona Ruling to Ninth Circuit MONEYGRAM INT'L: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Fraud Suit MONEYGRAM INT'L: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Court Allows Filing of 2nd Amended Brinkley MOUNT IDA COLLEGE: Squeri et al. Sue over Sudden Closure MUSCLEPHARM CORP: Durnford Class Suit Remanded to N.D. Calif. NCAA: Patterson Sues over College Football Revenues NISSAN MOTOR: RM Law Investigates Possible Securities Violations NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Court to Take Up Jurisdictional Rules Issue OCWEN LOAN: Court Denies Bid to File Under Seal in Gonzalez Suit OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Kane et al Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania OVASCIENCE INC: Kim Securities Suit Challenges Millendo Merger PACIFIC BELL: Court Grants Bid for Writ of Mandate in Leggins Suit PACIFIC GAS: Faces Class Action Over Camp Fire PARKSIDE CHEMISTS: Manigo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages PDC ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Dufresne Complaint Pending PEOPLE 2.0: Duran Stayed Pending Final Approval of Grady Settlement PLAYBOY.COM INC: Faces Nixon ADA Class Action in NY PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Gomes Seeks to Certify Class POST HOLDINGS: Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Antitrust Suit v. Unit Ongoing PREMIUM RECEIVABLES: Rittle FDCA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval PROTECTIVE LIFE: Still Faces Advance Trust Class Action Complaint PURDUE PHARMA: Reynolds RICO Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio PURDUE PHARMA: W.E. Files Suit for Personal Injury RESHAPE LIFESCIENCES: Dec. 17 Hearing Set for Du Case Settlement REVLON INC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Diaz Says ROYAL OAK, MI: Court Denies Gale's Prelim Injunction Bid v. Police RYB EDUCATION: Zhang Sues over Plunge in ADS Trading Price SANOFI PASTEUR: Summary Judgment in Weitzner TCPA Suit Affirmed SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: EZ Seed Final Approval Hearing Set for Dec. 19 SELLAS LIFE: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Complaint in "Abstral" SETERUS INC: Baxas Ask Court for Hearing on Class Certification SHIFTPIXY INC: Unit Defending Against Ramirez Class Suit SINEMIA: Class Action Over Movie Subscription Services Ongoing SITO MOBILE: Bid to Dismiss Roper Suit Still Pending SKECHERS USA: Fishman Sues Over Share Price Drop SNAP INC: Ghosh Suit Alleges Securities Exchange Act Violations SOAPIN INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Gross Suit Alleges SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Lowinger Class Action Stayed SPRITE ENTERTAINMENT: Sued over Unwanted Telephone Calls STARBUCKS CORP: Wants Class Action to Remain in Federal Court STARHOTELS INT'L: Olsen Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Web Site STINE SEED: Black Farmers Get OK to Move Ahead With Suit SWITCH INC: Stockholders Class Suits over IPO Underway SYMANTEC CORP: Securities Class Action Remains Pending TAHOE RESOURCES: Faces Securities Class Action in Ontario TD AMERITRADE: Defendants Appeal from Ford Class Cert. Ruling TD AMERITRADE: Still Faces Aequitas Securities Litigation TEAM ENTERPRISES: Denied Workers Overtime Pay, Cipolla Suit Says TEKFOR INC: Graybill Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages TESLA INC: Largely Settles Class-Action Suit TIGER NATURAL: Court Certifies Customer Class in Fishman Suit TIME WARNER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Sims FLSA Suit UBER: Steers TCPA Class Action Into Arbitration UGI CORP: Suits over Underfilled Portable Propane Cylinders Ongoing UNITED DEVELOPMENT: Scharlene Brooks Files Class Suit in Texas UPS EXPEDITED: Sued over Collection of Insurance Premium Fees VISA INC: Bid for Class Status Pending in Suit over EMV Liability VISA INC: Consumer Class Suit over ATM Access Fees Still Ongoing VISA INC: National ATM Council Class Action Ongoing in Columbia VISA INC: Settlement Talks with Injunctive Relief Class Ongoing VISA INC: Walmart, Home Depot Appeal Settlement Approval VOYA RETIREMENT: Appeal in Dezelan Class Action Suit Still Pending VOYA RETIREMENT: Motion to Drop Goetz Class Action Remains Pending WEYERHAEUSER NR: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Waleski Suit ZOCDOC INC: 2nd Cir. Vacates Judgment in Geismann TCPA Suit ********* 155 S.G.S. CORP: Underpays Nail Saloon Workers, Cao Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- SHUZHEN CAO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 155 S.G.S. CORP. d/b/a SPA BUTTERFLY; CHOI SANG; SUNNY SANG; JIE "DOE"; and "JOHN" LEE a/k/a G LEE; Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10338 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff Cao was employed by the Defendants as nail saloon worker. 155 S.G.S. CORP. d/b/a Spa Butterfly is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. The Company is engaged in the spa business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 228 BLEECKER: Chavez Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Chavez Melchor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 228 Bleecker LLC dba Aria West Village, Briciola Corp., John Does 1-6, Roberto Passon, and Tanya Hira Passon, Case No. 1:18-cv-10527 (S.D. N.Y., November 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime premium pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff also brings claims against the Defendants for unpaid spread-of-hours premiums and for failure to provide proper wage notices and wage statements, pursuant to NYLL. The Plaintiff is a former porter, dishwasher, and cook at the Defendants' wine bar and restaurant located in the West Village neighborhood of Manhattan, New York. The Defendant 228 Bleecker LLC is an active New York Corporation doing business as "Aria West Village" with its principal place of business at 117 Perry St., New York, NY 10014. The Defendant Briciola Corp. is an active New York Corporation with its principal executive office at 48-50 White Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10013. The Individual Defendants own and operate the wine bar and restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 385-9700 Fax: (213) 385-0800 E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com graham@peltongraham.com A.J. PIEDIMONTE: FLSA Action in Cardenas Conditionally Certified ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ARMANDO CARDENAS, JOSE F. CARDENAS, JUANITA SENTENO, VERONICA SIMMONS BAILEY, ISAIAH ALEXANDER, KATHY ALEXANDER, and SHONDA TATE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. A.J. PIEDIMONTE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, JAMES J. PIEDIMONTE & SONS, INC., JAMES J. PIEDIMONTE & SONS, LLC, MAGC, INC., ANTHONY JOSEPH PIEDIMONTE, in his individual capacity, and SCOTT JAMES BENNETT, in his individual capacity, Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-881-EAW-MJR (W.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action. The Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals seeking relief for alleged willful violations of the FLSA overtime compensation requirements by the Defendants. Since the filing of the complaint, several other individuals have "opted in" to the lawsuit by filing "consent to sue" forms with the Clerk of Court. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants comprise a large-scale agricultural and produce packaging, storage, and distribution business operating under common ownership and control. They hired the Plaintiffs and other individuals to work as hourly employees performing physical labor at the Defendants' worksites in Holley, New York. The gravamen of Plaintiffs' FLSA claim is that the Defendants maintained a uniform policy and practice of failing to pay their hourly employees a premium rate for each hour over 40 that they worked in a week -- i.e., overtime compensation. The Defendants dispute that the Plaintiffs are entitled to overtime compensation, arguing that the Plaintiffs are exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA because they are "agriculture employees" within the meaning of the Act. The Plaintiffs contend that they are not agriculture employees because some of the work they performed for the Defendants -- namely, cleaning, sorting, and packing produce received from other sources -- is outside the definition of "agriculture" under the FLSA. Shortly after commencing the action, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action, which, if granted, will allow them to obtain contact information regarding potential opt-in Plaintiffs from the Defendants so that they may notify the potential opt-in Plaintiffs of the pendency of the lawsuit and their opportunity to join in as represented Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' proposed opt-in class consists of all current and former employees who have worked for the Defendants within the past three years of the filing of the complaint and the date of final judgment in this matter and who performed physical labor for more than 40 hours in any single work week and were paid on an hourly basis but did not receive overtime compensation. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification, but in the event conditional certification is granted, they ask the Court to make certain modifications to the Plaintiffs' proposal regarding the content and manner of notice to the potential opt-in Plaintiff class. Magistrate Judge Roemer granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification as set forth. The potential opt-in Plaintiff class will consist of all current and former employees who have worked for the Defendants within the past three years of the filing of the complaint and the date of final judgment in this matter and who performed physical labor for more than 40 hours in any single work week and were paid on an hourly basis but did not receive overtime compensation. The Plaintiffs may notify the potential opt-in Plaintiffs of the pendency of the lawsuit and their opportunity to opt-in as represented Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' counsel will revise the proposed notice, consent-to-sue form, and text-message notice to reflect the revisions and any other revisions necessitated by the terms of the Decision and Order. The Plaintiffs' counsel will provide the revised forms to the defense counsel, who will then have seven days to file with the Court any objections relating to the revisions. Based on the Plaintiffs' representation that a substantial number of the Defendants' former employees' primary language is Spanish, the notice, consent-to-sue form, and text-message notice may be translated into Spanish. The Magistrate directed that posting the notice and consent form in the Defendants' workplace is appropriate as well given that posting is routinely granted in FLSA cases and has not been shown by the Defendants to be unduly burdensome. He declined, however, to require the Defendants to include the notice and consent form along with payment of wages to their current employees, as doing so is largely duplicative of posting notice in the workplace. Finally, the Plaintiffs' counsel, not a third-party administrator, should be responsible for sending the notice and consent form via first-class mail, text message, and e-mail. Employing a third-party administrator to send these documents would simply result in undue cost and delay. The Plaintiffs' counsel may also send a reasonable number of reminder post cards, text messages, and e-mails to any potential opt-in Plaintiffs who have not responded within thirty days after the initial mailing, texting, and e-mailing of the notice. In order to facilitate the Plaintiffs' counsel in sending notice to potential opt-in Plaintiffs, the Magistrate further directed the Defendants to produce the following information within their possession to the Plaintiffs' counsel within 10 days of entry of the Decision and Order: names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, work locations, and dates of employment for all potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for defendants from Aug.8, 2015 to the present. Although the Plaintiffs request information dating back to Aug. 8, 2012, a six-year timeframe is not warranted because the potential FLSA opt-in Plaintiff class consists of employees who worked for the Defendants within only three years of the filing of the complaint. The potential opt-in Plaintiffs who wish to join the action will return their consent forms to the Plaintiffs' counsel, who will have no more than six months from the date notice is first distributed to file the forms with the Clerk of Court. The 30-day opt-in deadline proposed by the Defendants is too short given that it may take the Plaintiffs' counsel an extended amount of time to track down members of the potential opt-in class, many of whom are migrant and seasonal agricultural workers. The Plaintiffs are directed to notify the Court in writing of the opt-in deadline date. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/plHAhJ from Leagle.com. Armando Cardenas, Jose F Cardenas, Veronica Simmons Bailey, Isaiah Alexander, Kathy Alexander, Juanita Senteno, Shonda Tate, Dymon Close & Chanel Conner, Plaintiffs, represented by John Anthony Marsella -- jmarsella@wjcny.org -- Worker Justice Center of New York & Robert David McCreanor -- rmccreanor@wjcny.ort -- Worker Justice Center of New York. April Colson, Lynnette Schumacher, Clarence Campbell, Tanya Conner, Miguel Cardenas, Robert Scott, Curtis Siler, Kenneth McNeil, Saprina Simmons, Bradley Chadsey, Brian White, Jarred Hodgins, Benith White, Blossom Coger, Everton Ohara, Donovan Conner, Christopher Capen, Cheyenne Russaw, Pamela Rodriguez, Paul Gulczewski, William Weiss & Melissa Peruzzini, Plaintiffs, represented by John Anthony Marsella, Worker Justice Center of New York. Monica Santes, Plaintiff, represented by Robert David McCreanor, Worker Justice Center of New York. A.J. Piedimonte Agricultural Development, LLC, James J. Piedimonte & Sons, Inc., James J. Piedimonte & Sons, LLC, MAGC, INC., Anthony Joseph Piedimonte & Scott James Bennett, Defendants, represented by David L. Cook -- david.cook@leclairryan.com -- LeClairRyan. A1 SOUVLAKI: Sued over $50,000 Unpaid Judgment ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned Charalambos Papakleovoulou, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. A1 Souvlaki Corp. and Antonias Manolas, in his individual and professional capacity, Case No. 718071/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Ct., Nov. 26, 2018), Mr. Joseph Dimitrov, Esq., has made an affirmation in support of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint pursuant to CPLR section 3213. This action involves an unpaid Stipulation of Settlement supported by a confession of judgment signed and authorized by Defendants from an action for unpaid wages in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, bearing Case No.: 1:16-CV-01626-ENV-RML. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to collect $50,000.00 that is due and owing under a stipulation of settlement and confession of judgment executed by Defendants. In 2016, as reported by the Class Action Reporter, Papakleovoulou sued Defendants for unpaid overtime pay. That case was captioned, Charalambos Papakleovoulou, on behalf of himself, Plaintiff, v. A1 Souvlaki Corp. and Antonias Manolas in his individual and professional capacity, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-01626 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2016), and sought recovery of minimum and overtime pay, spread-of-hours premium, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Defendants operate a food truck where Plaintiff prepared food, serviced customers and manned the cash register. He worked over 68 hours per week without overtime compensation and was not issued work stubs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Dimitrov, Esq. PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA LLP 950 Third Ave., 25th Fl. New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 213 8511 ADOBE SYSTEMS: Fails to Disclose Program Defect, Cooper Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID KEITH COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-06742-BLF (N.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2018) alleges that Adobe's professional-grade video editing software, Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2017.1 (Version 11.1.0) ("PP2017.1"), permanently deleted the Plaintiff's and the Class members' "Files and Data", including but not limited to Files and Data that had never been associated with Premiere Pro CC 2017.1, when the Plaintiff and the Class members executed Premiere Pro CC 2017.1's "Clean Cache" function. According to the complaint, when operating properly, the "Clean Cache" function in Adobe Premiere Pro CC should delete only the temporary files within the "Media Cache" folder and its subdirectories. The "Clean Cache" function in Premiere Pro CC 2017.1, however, did not delete only the temporary files within the "Media Cache" folder and its subdirectories. Instead, in Premiere Pro CC 2017.1, the "Clean Cache" command permanently deleted substantial and numerous Files and Data that were not within the "Media Cache" folder or any of its subdirectories, including but not limited to Files and Data that had never been associated with Premiere Pro CC 2017.1, so long as the Files and Data had not been referenced or opened during the 90 days prior to the time that the Plaintiff or the Class member executed the "Clean Cache" command. The Plaintiff and the Class members all suffered financial injuries in that they paid recurring license fees to Adobe on an annual or monthly basis to use Premiere Pro CC 2017.1 that they would not have paid, or that they would have been willing to pay only in materially lower amounts, had Adobe disclosed that Premiere Pro CC 2017.1's "Clean Cache" function would permanently delete their Files and Data. Adobe Inc. operates as a diversified software company worldwide. The company was formerly known as Adobe Systems Incorporated and changed its name to Adobe Inc. in October 2018. The company was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com - and - David C. Deal, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C. DEAL, P.L.C. Post Office Box 1042 Crozet, VA 22932 Telephone: (434) 233-2727 Facsimile: (888) 965-8083 E-mail: david@daviddeal.com AFFINION GROUP: Bid for Class Status Still Pending in Calif. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the Court has taken under advisement the Plaintiff's motion for class certification on his claims for violation of the EFT on behalf of a nationwide class, and on his claims for conversion, and violation of CBPC on behalf of a California class. On June 7, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed against Webloyalty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. After filing several amended complaints, the plaintiff asserted a variety of claims, including claims under the EFT, the ECPA, California Business and Professional Code Sec. 17200, et seq. (the "CBPC"), CUTPA, various privacy statutes, and common law. The plaintiff did so on behalf of a purported nationwide class of consumers whose credit or debit card information was obtained by Webloyalty via data pass, and had their credit or debit cards charged on or after October 1, 2008. On June 22, 2015, the District Court of S.C. entered judgment dismissing the plaintiff's federal claims with prejudice, and his state claims without prejudice. The plaintiff appealed that judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit"). On March 28, 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's ECPA and privacy-based state law claims, but reversed and remanded the dismissal of other claims, including the plaintiff's claims under the EFT, CBPC, and CUTPA. On September 5, 2017, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, which asserts the claims that were remanded by the Ninth Circuit. Webloyalty has answered the complaint and denied all liability. On June 29, 2018, the plaintiff moved for class certification on his claims for violation of the EFT on behalf of a nationwide class, and on his claims for conversion, and violation of CBPC on behalf of a California class. The court held a hearing on this motion on October 29, 2018, and has taken it under advisement. Discovery has been stayed pending the outcome of that decision. Affinion Group, Inc. designs, administers, and fulfills loyalty, customer engagement, and insurance programs and solutions. The company operates through four segments: Global Loyalty, Global Customer Engagement, Insurance Solutions, and Legacy Membership and Package. The company is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut. Affinion Group, Inc. is a subsidiary of Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. ALABAMA: Cook et al Seek to Certify Class in Traffic Ticket Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned LAKENDRA COOK, CHRISTOPHER GRAY, and SHARON MOTLEY, on behalf of themselves and those similarily situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HAL TAYLOR, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, the Defendant, Case 2:18-cv-00977-WKW-SRW (M.D. Ala.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying a class of: "all individuals whose driver's licenses are suspended for nonpayment of traffic tickets."[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Micah West, Esq. Sara Zampierin, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400. Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 E-mail: micah.west@splcenter.org sara.zampierin@splcenter.org - and - Danielle Davis, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 526-8982 Facsimile: (504) 486-8947 E-mail: danielle.davis@splcenter.org Attorneys for Defendant: James W. Davis, Esq. Section Chief Constitutional Defense Section Office of the Attorney General 501 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 E-mail: jimdavis@ago.state.al.us ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Leavitt Suit Transferred to Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned CARYL HULL LEAVITT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., JOHN M. MARAGANORE, and MANMEET S. SONI, Case No. 1:18-cv-08845 (S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2018), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on November 21, 2018, and assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-12433-NMG. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired Alnylam securities between February 15, 2018, and September 12, 2018, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff alleges that Alnylam overstated the efficacy and safety of its Onpattro (patisiran) lipid complex injection, and as a result, its public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, according to the complaint. Alnylam is incorporated in Delaware and its principal executive offices are located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. John M. Maraganore has served as the Chief Executive Officer of Alnylam at all relevant times. Manmeet S. Soni has served as the Chief Financial Officer of Alnylam at all relevant times. Alnylam is a global biopharmaceutical company developing therapeutics based on RNA interference ("RNAi"). RNAi is a naturally occurring biological pathway within cells for sequence-specific silencing and regulation of gene expression. Alnylam purports to harness the RNAi pathway to develop a potential new class of innovative medicines, known as RNAi therapeutics. RNAi therapeutics are comprised of small interfering RNA, or siRNA, and function upstream of today's medicines by potently silencing messenger RNA, or mRNA, that encode for disease-causing proteins, thus, preventing them from being made.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com ALPINE ACCESS: Court Approves Morse FLSA Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CAROL MORSE, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. ALPINE ACCESS, INC., and SYKES ENTERPRISES, INC., Jointly and Severally as, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00235 (BKS/ATB) (N.D. N.Y.), Judge Brenda K. Sannes of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted the parties' settlement. Upon consideration of the joint stipulation for approval of settlement and dismissal of claims, the unopposed motion for approval of the collective action settlement, the supplemental letter brief requesting approval of attorneys' fees, the Plaintiffs' Lodestar calculation, and the Plaintiffs' attorneys' contemporaneous time records, as well as the representations by the counsel at the Nov. 1 and 26, 2018 telephone conferences, the Judge approved the parties' settlement as a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute regarding unpaid wages under the FLSA and state laws. The Judge (i) dismissed with prejudice the claims asserted by the Settling Plaintiffs in the Collective and Class Action Complaint; and (ii) dismissed without prejudice the claims asserted by the Non-Participating Opt-in Plaintiffs, Angelisa Collins, Sharlyn McCray, Kathryn Long-Krueger, Jessica Seward, Carolyn Carlisle, Talib Abu-Sufyaan, Daniel Terri, Darryl E. King, Melvin Miller, and Peggy Young. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 is available at https://is.gd/uHKSYv from Leagle.com. Carol Morse, other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Charles R. Ash, IV -- crash@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice, Jason T. Brown -- jtb@jtblawgroup.com -- JTB Law Group, LLC, Kevin J. Stoops -- kstoops@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice, Nicholas Raymond Conlon -- nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com -- JTB Law Group, LLC, pro hac vice & Zijian Guan, JTB Law Group, LLC, pro hac vice. Alpine Access, Inc., Jointly and Severally & Sykes Enterprises, Inc., Jointly and Severally, Defendants, represented by Andrew J. Voss -- avoss@littler.com -- Littler, Mendelson Law Firm, pro hac vice & Paul R. Piccigallo -- ppiccigallo@littler.com -- Littler, Mendelson Law Firm. AMERICAN FINANCE: Misled Shareholders According to Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that purchasers of American Finance Trust, Inc. have filed a class action complaint against the company's officers and directors for alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 pursuant to the company's October 2016 merger with American Realty Capital – Retail Centers of America, Inc. ("RCA"). American Finance Trust, Inc. ("AFIN") is a publicly traded real estate investment trust focused on acquiring and managing a diversified portfolio of retail and distribution related commercial real estate properties in the U.S. View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog: https://www.robbinsarroyo.com/american-finance-trust-inc/ American Finance Trust Accused of Filing Misleading Registration Statement According to the complaint, AFIN's registration statement issued in connection with the merger misled investors about the consequential negative financial impact to the merged companies and shareholders. Specifically, AFIN misled investors about changes to advisory agreements between AFIN and American Finance Advisors, Inc. and the advisory agreement between RCA and RCA advisers, which were conditioned upon approval of the merger. When AFIN filed the registration statement on October 21, 2016 in connection with the merger, AFIN officials failed to disclose that externally managed real estate investment trusts such as AFIN incur higher advisory fees and trade at massive discounts. In addition, the registration statement omitted important information about AFIN's inability to obtain a public listing of its stock in 2015 and 2016. When AFIN listed its stock for public trading in July 2018, the company's stock plunged. American Finance Trust Shareholders Have Legal Options Leonid Kandinov, Esq. Robbins Arroyo LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Toll Free: (800) 350-6003 Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN] AMERICAN INCOME: Golz Suit Moved to Central District of California ------------------------------------------------------------------ Alisa Golz, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. American Income Life Insurance Company, an Indiana corporation, and Torchmark Corporation, a Delaware corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 18STCV01354, was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Nov. 26, 2018. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-09879 to the proceeding. The suit alleges Job-related violation. American Income Life Insurance Company, based in Waco, Texas, is an insurance company that provides supplemental life insurance to labor unions, credit unions, and associations. American Income Life was founded in 1951. The company's executive offices have been located in Waco, Texas, since 1959.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Attorneys for Defendants: Albert Q. Giang, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 725 South Figueroa Street 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-5524 Telephone: (213) 629-9040 Facsimile: (213) 629-9022 E-mail: agiang@bsfllp.com ANZAI ASIAN: Denied Chen Overtime Pay, Wage Statements ------------------------------------------------------ Kewei Chen, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Anzai Asian Inc., Anzai Asian East Meadow, Inc., Hongyan Shen and Andy Chen, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06659 (E.D. N.Y., November 21, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid "spread-of-hours" premium, compensation for failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring and failure to provide paystubs, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Defendants operate as "Anzai Asian," a restaurant located at 1856 Front Street, East Meadow, NY 11554. Chen was employed as a teriyaki chef from around August 9, 2018 to on or around November 4, 2018. He worked in excess of 40 hours per work week without overtime pay and/or spread-of-hours pay and was not given wage statements, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Xiaoxi Liu, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Tel: (718)353-8588 Email: xliu@hanglaw.com BARNES & NOBLE: PIN Pads Consolidated Class Action Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, 2018, for the quarterly period ended October 27, 2018, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit related to tampered PIN pads. The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals. Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012, the Company was served with four putative class action complaints (three in federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices statutes. The actions sought various forms of relief including damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. All four cases were transferred and/or assigned to a single judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and a single consolidated amended complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a second motion to dismiss. On October 3, 2016, the Court granted the second motion to dismiss, and dismissed the case without prejudice; in doing so, the Court permitted plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint by October 31, 2016. On October 31, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, and on January 25, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On June 13, 2017, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On April 11, 2018, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision granting the motion to dismiss the case, and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The Company filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc; that petition was denied on May 10, 2018. The case is currently pending in the District Court. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Barnes & Noble, Inc. primarily operates as a bookseller in the United States. The company operates through two segments, B&N Retail and NOOK. The company was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York. BECTON DICKINSON: Has Deal for 15,021 Women's Health Product Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2018, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that as of September 30, 2018, the Company has reached agreements or agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately 15,021 of the Women's Health Product Claims. As of September 30, 2018, the Company is defending approximately 1,322 product liability claims involving Bard's line of pelvic mesh devices. The majority of those claims are currently pending in a federal MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, but claims are also pending in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions, including a coordinated proceeding in New Jersey State Court. In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in the United States. Not included in the figures above are approximately 1,037 filed and unfiled claims that have been asserted or threatened against Bard but lack sufficient information to determine whether a Bard pelvic mesh device is actually at issue. The claims identified above also include products manufactured by both Bard and two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a supplier of Bard. Medtronic has an obligation to defend and indemnify Bard with respect to any product defect liability relating to products its subsidiaries had manufactured. In July 2015 the Company reached an agreement with Medtronic (which was amended in June 2017) regarding certain aspects of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. The foregoing lawsuits, unfiled claims, putative class actions, and other claims, together with claims that have settled or are the subject of agreements or agreements in principle to settle, are referred to collectively as the "Women's Health Product Claims." The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. As of September 30, 2018, the Company has reached agreements or agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately 15,021 of the Women’s Health Product Claims. The Company believes that these Women's Health Product Claims are not the subject of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. These settlement agreements and agreements in principle include unfiled and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs’ law firms, which are not included in the approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section. Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. The Company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Women's Health Product Claims, which may include additional inventory settlements. Starting in 2014 in the MDL, the court entered certain pre-trial orders requiring trial work up and remand of a significant number of Women's Health Product Claims, including an order entered in the MDL on January 30, 2018, that requires the work up and remand of all remaining unsettled cases (the "WHP Pre-Trial Orders"). The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional costs or trial verdicts in future periods in defending Women's Health Product Claims. Trials are anticipated in 2018 and throughout 2019 in state courts. A trial in the New Jersey coordinated proceeding began in March 2018, and in April 2018 a jury entered a verdict against the Company in the total amount of $68 million ($33 million compensatory; $35 million punitive). The Company is in the process of challenging that verdict. The Company expects additional trials of Women's Health Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. In July 2015, as part of the agreement with Medtronic noted above, Medtronic agreed to take responsibility for pursuing settlement of certain of the Women's Health Product Claims that relate to products distributed by Bard under supply agreements with Medtronic, and Bard has paid Medtronic $121 million towards these potential settlements. In June 2017, Bard amended the agreement with Medtronic to transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women's Health Product Claims to Medtronic on terms similar to the July 2015 agreement, including with respect to the obligation to make payments to Medtronic towards these potential settlements. Bard also may, in its sole discretion, transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women's Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms. The agreements do not resolve the dispute between Bard and Medtronic with respect to Women's Health Product Claims that do not settle, if any. During the course of engaging in settlement discussions with plaintiffs' law firms, the Company has learned, and may in future periods learn, additional information regarding these and other unfiled claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the Company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the Company. Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in 1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey. BECTON DICKINSON: Has Favorable Judgment in Filter Products Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2018, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that a jury in the fourth MDL trial in the Filter Product Claims unanimously found in favor of the Company on all claims. As of September 30, 2018, the Company is defending approximately 4,515 product liability claims involving Bard's line of inferior vena cava filters (collectively, the "Filter Product Claims”). The majority of those claims are currently pending in an MDL in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, but claims are also pending in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions, including a coordinated proceeding in Arizona State Court. In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in the United States and Canada. The Filter Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. The Company has limited information regarding the nature and quantity of certain of the Filter Product Claims. The Company continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in future periods learn additional information regarding other unfiled or unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the Company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the Company. Trials are scheduled throughout 2018 in the MDL and state courts. On March 30, 2018, a jury in the first MDL trial found the Company liable for negligent failure to warn and entered a verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury found the Company was not liable for (a) strict liability design defect; (b) strict liability failure to warn; and (c) negligent design. The Company has appealed that verdict. On June 1, 2018, a jury in the second MDL trial unanimously found in favor of the Company on all claims. On August 17, 2018, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of the Company on all claims in the third MDL trial. On October 5, 2018, a jury in the fourth MDL trial unanimously found in favor of the Company on all claims. The Company expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims may take place over the next 12 months. Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in 1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey. BLACKSTONE LABS: Accused by Kavlakian Suit of Violating TCPA ------------------------------------------------------------ NAREG KAVLAKIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLACKSTONE LABS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 9:18-cv-81602-DMM (S.D. Fla., November 21, 2018), seeks to secure redress for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Blackstone Labs, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company whose principal office is located in Boca Raton, Florida. Blackstone Labs is a company that makes supplements. To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, the Plaintiff contends. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unauthorized text messages to cellular subscribers, who never provided Defendant with prior express consent, as well as cellular subscribers, who expressly requested not to receive the Defendant's text messages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd., #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com BLUE APRON: IPO-Related Class Suits Pending in N.Y. State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the Company remains subject to two putative class action lawsuits filed in New York Supreme Court alleging federal securities law violations in connection with the Company's June 2017 initial public offering. These cases are substantially similar to a pending a consolidated putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The parties have entered into a stipulation staying one of the state court actions pending resolution of the motion to dismiss filed in the federal court action. In the other state court action, no schedule has been entered by the court. The Company is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of any of these lawsuits or that an adverse resolution of any of these lawsuits would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations. Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates an e-commerce marketplace that delivers original recipes and fresh ingredients for making home cooking accessible. It provides original recipes with the pre-portioned ingredients to complement tastes and lifestyles of college graduates, young couples, families, singles, and empty nesters. Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. was incorporated in 2016 and is headquartered in New York, New York. BRISTOL-MYERS: Akin Gump Attorney Discusses TCPA Court Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Neal Marder, Esq. -- nmarder@akingump.com -- Andrew Jick, Esq. -- ajick@akingump.com -- Kelly Handschumacher, Esq. -- khandschumacher@akingump.com -- of Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, and law clerk Shelly Kim, in an article for Law.com, report that this year has seen significant developments in the field of class action litigation. Last year's Bristol-Myers decision has created a growing split as to the viability of a large number of nationwide class actions. The D.C. Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in the ACA International case, significantly altering the landscape for Telephone Consumer Protection Act litigation. Spokeo's impact on standing challenges continues to wind its way through courts across the country. The U.S. Supreme Court and appellate courts have also issued significant decisions on related topics, including the judicial approval of nationwide class action settlements, the tolling of statutes of limitations during the pendency of class actions, and state court jurisdiction over securities class actions. This article highlights at a high level the year's most noteworthy developments in this field and offers insights for their likely impact for litigants and practitioners. Split on 'Bristol-Myers' In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court that a California court lacked jurisdiction over the claims of nonresidents where Bristol-Myers was not a "citizen" of California and the nonresident claims lacked any connection to California. Since Bristol-Myers was decided, defendants have argued that the decision should similarly bar nationwide or multistate class actions where the defendant is not subject to general jurisdiction. District courts have diverged on this question, and the split has only continued to deepen over the past year as additional decisions have come out. This issue will surely continue to work its way through the federal courts of appeals in the coming year, and could potentially have a major impact on the continued viability of nationwide and multistate class actions. TCPA Cases In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit released its long-awaited ACA International v. Federal Communications Commission decision, which reviewed the validity of a 2015 FCC order that had broadly interpreted the statutory language of the TCPA. The decision set aside the FCC's interpretation of "automatic telephone dialing systems," including rejecting the interpretation that they included all equipment with the potential capacity (not just present capacity) to perform certain statutorily specified functions, reasoning in part that such a broad interpretation would cover everyday devices like personal smartphones. The decision also set aside the FCC's one-call safe harbor, under which a caller may contact the reassigned number of a previously consenting party one time without violating the TCPA, because the FCC could not justify a one-call limit that may or may not give the caller notice that a number was reassigned. The D.C. Circuit upheld the FCC's rule that a called party may revoke consent at any time through any reasonable means, orally or in writing, that clearly expresses a desire not to receive further messages. The decision also upheld the exemption of certain nontelemarketing health care calls from the TCPA's general ban. The ACA International decision has already impacted numerous cases and opened the door for further interpretive issues, including before the FCC, which has sought and received comment on the impact of the decision. In particular, a consensus has begun to emerge among the courts of appeal that ACA International vacated the FCC's interpretation of dialing systems, but the courts have differed thus far in their interpretations of the statutory definition. In addition, courts and the FCC are considering whether and to what extent individuals can revoke consent to receive communications when that consent was given in a bilateral contract. Grappling With 'Spokeo' Since the Supreme Court issued its decision in Spokeo v. Robins—holding that plaintiffs asserting claims based on statutory violations must nonetheless satisfy Article III's "concrete injury" requirement—district and circuit courts across the country have grappled with the decision's impact on class actions arising under various statutes. Over the past year, courts have continued to find a lack of Article III standing for certain Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act violations that were not shown to increase the risk of identity theft. For instance, in February the Ninth Circuit joined the Second and Seventh circuits in holding that failing to truncate credit card expiration dates on receipts by itself does not give rise to Article III standing. The Ninth Circuit similarly held in March that taxi companies' alleged printing and distributing credit card receipts containing the first digit and final four digits of a consumer's credit card number was not a harm sufficient to give consumers Article III standing. On the other hand, this year's case decisions generally have continued to find injuries in fact for violations involving invasion of privacy under the TCPA, even without a showing of tangible harm. Recent decisions have also continued the trend of finding standing where personal information was improperly disclosed in violation of a privacy statute. This last area is likely to develop further in the coming year with the rise of data breach litigation. Also of note this year is a Seventh Circuit opinion holding that the existence of Article III standing is a prerequisite for removal to federal court, and thus, where a case is removed and the court finds that the plaintiff lacks standing, the proper course is remand to state court rather than dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Nationwide Settlement Rejection Under Ninth Circuit precedent, material differences in state law can overwhelm common issues and preclude predominance for a single nationwide class. In In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit applied this precedent in vacating a nationwide settlement, holding that the district court failed to undertake the required predominance analysis in granting settlement approval. The panel's decision thus injects additional complexity into settlement negotiations and increases the burden on parties and courts in analyzing requests for approval of nationwide settlements. Subsequent decisions indicate that approval of nationwide settlements remains possible. In July, for example, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the $10 billion settlement in the Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" litigation, noting that, unlike in Hyundai, the district court had provided a thorough predominance analysis. Notably, the Ninth Circuit has agreed to rehear the Hyundai decision en banc. Oral argument occurred in September and the court's decision was pending at press time. Tolling Individual Claims Under American Pipe and Construction v. Utah, the pendency of a class action was held to toll the statute of limitations for class members' claims that could be separately asserted. On June 11, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified in China Agritech v. Resh that the American Pipe doctrine does not extend to successive class actions. In China Agritech, shareholders filed a putative class action alleging securities fraud. The named plaintiffs had been absent members of two nearly identical putative class actions where class certification was denied. Under China Agritech, putative class members hoping to file their own class action after the limitations period are out of luck. State Court Jurisdiction Based on the Supreme Court's decision in Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, issuer defendants, such as newly public companies, will likely have to defend themselves in state court against class action suits brought under the Securities Act of 1933. In addition to holding that state courts have jurisdiction over class actions alleging violations of only the Securities Act, the court further held that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 prohibits defendants from removing such cases to federal court. Subsequent district court decisions have clarified, however, that the act's anti-removal provision do not bar defendants from removing cases under other statutes, such as the Class Action Fairness Act. The developments discussed here are wide-ranging in their impact, affecting the viability and settlement of nationwide class actions, TCPA cases, statutory damages class actions, removal of securities class actions, and more. In the next year, district and circuit courts will continue to grapple with these topics. The Supreme Court also recently granted review of a case involving removal under the Class Action Fairness Act. In short, the next year promises to deliver additional significant developments in the field of class action litigation. [GN] BUTTS FOODS: Hayes Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay, Damages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------- DONDLI HAYES and MICHAEL PARR, individually, and on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former employees v. BUTTS FOODS, INC., a Tennessee Corporation, and RAY BUTTS III, individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-01235 (W.D. Tenn., November 21, 2018), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former employees of the Defendants. Butts Foods, Inc., is a Tennessee Corporation with its principal office located in Jackson, Tennessee. Ray Butts, III, is a stockholder and principal officer of Butts Foods. Butts Foods is a distributor of protein food products throughout multiple states with warehouses located in Birmingham, Alabama; Hattiesburg, Mississippi; Grenada, Mississippi; and Nashville, Tennessee; as well as in Jackson, Tennessee. Butts Foods owns and operates a mixed fleet of trucks and vans in which it transports food products to customers within and outside the state of Tennessee, and from suppliers of food products and other items from other states into Tennessee, consisting of tractor/trailer trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating ("GVWR") in excess of five tons and vans with a GVWR of less than five tons.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Nathan A. Bishop, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT ATTORNEYS AT LAW 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com pjackson@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com CANADA: Forcibly Sterilized Indigenous Women File Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Llowell Williams, writing for Care2.com, reports that in 2008, a Native American woman identified as Anishinaabe had just given birth to a child via emergency C-section at the Royal University Hospital in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. While she was being transferred to receive necessary surgery and -- and after being given opioids -- Anishinaabe says that hospital staff plied her with documents asking her to consent to tubal ligation, or sterilization. They claimed that the procedure would be reversible in the future if she changed her mind. In truth, however, this would be a permanent operation. In a haze, Anishinaabe signed the documents. More than a year ago, Anishinaable and 20 other First Nations women in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan filed a class action lawsuit against various medical staff and medical centers, as well as the Saskatchewan and Canadian government, for what they claim were coerced sterilizations performed after they had given birth. Since then, at least 60 women in Saskatchewan have joined the lawsuit, all with accounts similar to Anishinaable's. Some cases go back 25 years, but the most recent allegations are from 2017. Some women say they were even told by hospital staff that they would be unable to see their newborns until they consented to sterilization. A common thread among these accounts is that these women were misled to believe that the sterilization could be undone at a later time. Some women were not even allowed to give birth in the first place. A woman identified as Liz says that when she was 17 and became pregnant, a government aid worker coerced her into having an abortion and undergoing a sterilization procedure. Liz explains that she was told the child would be taken from her regardless of her choice. Alisa Lombard, Esq. -- alombard@mauricelaw.com -- a lawyer representing the group, says that these women have been left feeling physically and emotionally traumatized. They've experienced depression and anxiety — which, in tragic cases, has pushed some of the victims to take their own lives. Among the genocide and inhumane treatment inflicted upon native peoples in Canada and the United States was the practice of forced sterilization. This form of eugenics was inflicted upon not just indigenous groups, but also individuals considered "degenerates" by white supremacists, including people of color, the impoverished and drug users. Undeniably one of the most shameful moments of our shared past, many people likely see it as just that -- an abandoned practice. But this clearly is not the case. Sen. Yvonne Boyer is calling on her peers in the Canadian Senate to pursue a nationwide investigation into this act of systemic racist eugenics. As she explains, "If it's happened in Saskatoon, it has happened in Regina, it's happened in Winnipeg." Europeans and their descendants have murdered and abused the indigenous populations of North America for centuries. It is beyond incredible that such programs, albeit performed less conspicuously now, are still ongoing. Add your name to this Care2 petition to demand that the Canadian Senate authorize an in-depth, nationwide probe into the treatment of First Nations women by health care providers. These gross human rights violations must be brought to an end![GN] CAPITAL RESORTS: Thomas Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- STACY THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CAPITAL RESORTS GROUP, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00494-PLR-HBG (E.D. Tenn., Nov. 21, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's practice of making unsolicited telemarketing calls to the telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct. According to the complaint, the Defendant is a vacation resort ownership company. In an effort to solicit potential customers, Capital Resorts Group, LLC recruited, or employed call centers, to place telephone calls, en masse, to consumers across the country. On information and belief, Defendant and or its agents purchase phone number databases of consumers' contact information and creates an electronic database from which Defendant makes automated calls. The Defendant conducted wide scale telemarketing campaigns and repeatedly made unsolicited calls to consumers' telephones -- whose numbers appear on the National Do Not Call Registry -- without consent, all in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. By making the telephone calls at issue in this Complaint, Defendant caused Plaintiff and the members of a putative Class of consumers actual harm, including the aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unsolicited and harassing telephone calls, as well as the monies paid to their carriers for the receipt of such telephone calls, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: John J. Griffin, Jr., Esq. Michael A. Johnson, Esq. KAY GRIFFIN, PLLC 222 Second Ave. North, Suite 340-M Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 742-4800 Facsimile: (615) 742-4801 E-mail: john.griffin@kaygriffin.com michael.johnson@kaygriffin.com - and - W. Craft Hughes, Esq. Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120 Galleria Tower I Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 995-3335 E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com jarrett@hughesellzey.com CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Court Certifies Class in Kautsman CPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NIKOLAY KAUTSMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. C16-1940-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, for an extension of time to file a motion for class certification, and to amend their complaint. The Court previously dismissed all of the Plaintiffs' claims except the claim alleging that the Defendants' rekeying and winterization practices violate Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"). The Plaintiffs now move for class certification on their CPA claim. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all persons (a) who own(ed) real property in Washington State subject to a deed of trust or mortgage serviced or held by CMS; and (b) who, within the applicable statute of limitations, had their property entered by CMS and/or its agents for the purpose of changing the locks on the property, prior to CMS completing a foreclosure of the property. They move to be appointed as the class representatives and to have their counsel appointed as the class counsel. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification 252 days after filing the operative complaint. They argue that there is good cause for extending the deadline because their counsel have had to deal with personal, time-consuming circumstances and because counsel misinterpreted Local Civil Rule 23(i)(3). The Defendants oppose the class certification. They argue that, because the deadline lapsed without the Plaintiffs seeking an extension, the Court should apply an excusable neglect standard. They also argue that, even if a good cause standard applies, there is not good cause here because the Plaintiffs' operative motion for class certification is a copy of their original class certification motion with a cursory -- and deficient -- effort to scrub the motion of references to claims or proposed classes that the Court dismissed from the case. The Defendants argue that these changes did not require the two months that the Plaintiffs took beyond the 180-day deadline. Judge Coughenour finds that while the Defendants' arguments are reasonable, Plaintiffs have shown good cause for their delay. Moreover, denying the Plaintiffs class certification on timeliness grounds would be a disproportionate penalty. He also finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and the requirements of at least one of the categories under Rule 23(b). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' class will be certified under Rule 23(b)(3). However, the Judge concludes that the class definition is overbroad and will narrow it to comply with Rule 23. Defining a class as those property owners who had their property entered "for the purpose of" changing the locks is both impossible to quantify and likely inclusive of property owners who were not ultimately dispossessed. For that reason, he modified and certified the class as follows: All persons (a) who own(ed) real property in Washington State subject to a deed of trust or mortgage serviced or held by Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC ("CMS"); and (b) who, within the applicable statute of limitations, had their property entered and rekeyed by CMS and/or its agents, prior to CMS completing a foreclosure of the property. Based on the foregoing, Judge Coughenour granted the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification, to amend their complaint, and for an extension of time to file a class certification motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/b35cSj from Leagle.com. Nikolay Kautsman & Olga Kofanova, and each on behalf of himself/herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Harish Bharti -- mail@hbharti.com -- & Jason E. Anderson --jason@jasonandersonlaw.com. Carrington Mortgage Services LLC, a Delaware corporation & Carrington Home Solutions L.P., formerly known as White Van Real Estate Services, Defendants, represented by Jared L. Gardner -- JGardner@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE LLC, pro hac vice, Amanda J. Beane -- ABeane@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE & Steven Douglas Merriman -- SMerriman@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE. CCK PIZZA: Westley Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Delivery Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL WESTLEY, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. CCK PIZZA COMPANY, LLC and CHRIS SCHLOEMANN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-13627-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., Nov. 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to himself and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its Domino's stores under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants operate numerous Domino's franchise stores. The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses incurred that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 210 2100 Facsimile: (214) 346 5909 E-mail: www.foresterhaynie.com - and - David M. Blanchard, Esq. BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 929-4313 E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com CENTURY PARK: Response to Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 14 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA PENAROUQUE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CENTURY PARK ASSOCIATES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-CV-122 (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Harry Mattice entered an order on Nov. 20, 2018, granting Defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time to file its response to the motion for conditional certification. The Court said, "Defendant represents that Plaintiff does not oppose the requested extension. In light of the lack of opposition, Defendant's motion is granted and its response to Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is due no later than December 14, 2018.[CC] CHEGG INC: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired Chegg, Inc. ("Chegg") (NYSE:CHGG) securities between July 30, 2018 and September 25, 2018 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until November 26, 2018 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that on September 25, 2018, Chegg reported that it had "learned that on or around April 29, 2018, an unauthorized party gained access to a Company database that hosts user data for chegg.com and certain of the Company's family of brands such as EasyBib." The Company reported that approximately 40 million users' data could have been obtained and that an investigation into the incident was ongoing. On this news, the price of Chegg shares fell $3.91, or over 12%, to close at $28.42 on September 26, 2018. If you acquired Chegg securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Thomas W. Elrod, Esq. Kirby McInerney LLP Telephone: (212) 371-6600 Email: investigations@kmllp.com telrod@kmllp.com [GN] CHICAGO, IL: Court Dismisses Aviation Security Officers' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KEIA YATES, LEONARDO RODRIQUEZ, and JOHNNY JIMMERSON, as representative of that class of individuals working as Aviation Security Officers of the City of Chicago, Department of Aviation, Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, BRENT FISCHER, as Executive Director of the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board; the CITY OF CHICAGO; and GINGER EVANS, as Commissioner of the City of Chicago Department of Aviation, Defendants, Case No. 18 C 2613 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, (i) granted the State Defendants' motion to dismiss; and granted in part and denied in part the City Defendants' motion to dismiss. Yates, Rodriquez and Jimmerson, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals working as Aviation Security Officers of the City of Chicago, Department of Aviation, have brought a four count putative class action complaint against State Defendants, State of Illinois and Brent Fischer as Executive Director of the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board; and the City Defendants, City of Chicago and Ginger Evans as Commissioner of the City of Chicago Department of Aviation ("CDA"). Counts I and II are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and allege violations of the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause respectively. Counts III and IV are state law claims for fraudulent inducement and promissory estoppel. All claims are brought against all the Defendants. According to the complaint, in approximately 1982 the City of Chicago amended its municipal code to create the position of Aviation Security Officer ("ASO") to serve a security function within the CDA at O'Hare International and Midway International airports. Sometime in 1993, the City applied to the State for the CDA to be recognized as a law enforcement agency ("LEA"). The application was granted, giving the CDA the ability to send its officers to the Chicago Police Academy and/or the Cook County Sheriff's Training Academy for law enforcement training. Each ASO hired since 1993 through June of 2017 who completed those requirements received a law enforcement officer ("LEO") certification and a corresponding LEO ID Number. After the World Trade Center attacks in 2001 and the creation of the Transportation Safety Administration ("TSA"), the CDA officially renamed ASOs as "Aviation Police Officers" ("APOs"). In doing so, the City and CDA revised all documents and signs to indicate Aviation Police rather than Aviation Security. The CDA held the officers out as "police" in a number of ways, including giving them 5-point star badges, which are provided only to law enforcement officers, and providing APOs with patrol cars that had flashing red and blue emergency lighting, which in Illinois is restricted to law enforcement vehicles. On April 5, 2017, just four days before the flight 3411 incident, the ILETSB had sent a letter to the First Deputy Chief of Staff for the City, indicating that the Board had come to learn that APOs were not authorized to carry firearms on or off duty, that decisions of the Illinois Labor Relations Board ("ILRB") had repeatedly determined that ASOs were not LEOs, and that the chain of command for ASOs ended with the Chairman of the CDA but "at no point is the Superintendent of CPD involved in their direction or command. The letter then indicated that as a result the board could not trace law enforcement authority from the Illinois statutes to these particular employees, in the manner that they can for CPD officers, and they can no longer find them to be LEOs. The Plaintiffs allege that the ILETSB knew that the CDA was an independent LEA and had recognized it as such separate and apart from the Chicago Police Department when it assigned the CDA its own LEA ID Number. They further allege, on information and belief, that the April 5, 2017, letter was actually drafted later and was intended to create the false impression that its decision to decertify the CDA and APO was independent of -- and arose before -- the United Airlines Flight 3411 incident. On June 20, 2017, Joseph Martinico of the City Law Department responded to the ILETSB, indicating that he had responded earlier and including a copy of a May 19 letter. In the June 20 letter, Martinico indicated that the City's Aviation Security Officers do not receive any certification or appointment from the Chicago Police Superintendent, are under the supervision of the Commissioner of the CDA, and serve as an unarmed security function and are not police officers or special police officers under the Chicago Municipal Code. Based on Martinico's letter, the ILETSB, on June 29, 2017, indicated that it would deactivate the CDA as a LEA and administratively separate all personnel currently listed on that roster effective on the close of June 30, 2017. The State Defendants and the City Defendants have each brought separate motions to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. With respect to the State Defendants' Motion, Judge Gettleman finds that the Pplaintiffs state that they did not initiate the action because the Defendants stripped away their badges or prospectively altered their job titles and duties. They state in their response brief that they do not challenge the City's right or authority to change their status from LEOs to Airport Security Officers on a prospective basis. Instead, the Plaintiffs challenge the City's and State's authority to retrospectively alter -- to in effect, erase their employment history. What that means, the Judge finds, is that the Plaintiffs are simply seeking restoration of benefits already earned, but are not alleging that they are entitled to earn these benefits in the future. They are seeking retrospective relief. As such, the claims are not protected by Ex parte Young and are dismissed. With respect to the City Defendants' Motion, the Judge finds that (i) Count I fails to allege a constitutional violation; (ii) Count III fails to state a claim because the complaint fails to allege that the City knew that the statements made to the Plaintiffs were false when made; (iii) Count II states a claim because the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that their injuries were caused by a decisionmaker with authority; and (iv) Count IV states a claim against the City because Evans able to bind the City in her promise when the Plaintiffs were hired and promised by her that they would be certified LEOs. For these reasons, Judge Gettleman granted the State Defendants' motion to dismiss, and dismissed them. He granted the City Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Counts I and III, and denied as to Counts II and IV. The City is ordered to answer Counts II and IV by Dec. 18, 2018. The Judge directed the parties to file a joint status report using the Court's form on Dec. 21, 2018. The matter is set for a report on status on Jan. 9, 2019, at 9:10 a.m. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/YunxMu from Leagle.com. Keia Yates, Leonardo Rodriquez & Johnny Jimmerson, as representatives of that class of individuals working as Aviation Security Officers of the City of Chicago, Department of Aviation, Plaintiffs, represented by John Joseph Scharkey -- jscharkey@sweeneyscharkey.com -- Sweeney & Scharkey LLC, Zachary Michael Slavens -- zslavens@sweeneyscharkey.com -- Sweeney & Scharkey & Robert D. Sweeney -- rsweeney@sweeneyscharkey.com -- Sweeney & Scharkey, LLC. The City of Chicago & Ginger Evans, as Commissioner of the City of Chicago Department of Aviation, Defendants, represented by Tiffany S. Fordyce -- fordycet@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Howard L. Mocerf -- mocerfh@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Monica S. Harris -- harrisms@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig Llp. CITY BUFFET MONGOLIAN: Underpays Hibachi Chefs, Rodriguez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- RAMON RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY BUFFET MONGOLIAN BARBEQUE, INC.; and BI XIA XIONG, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-02745 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 7, 2018) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Mr. Rodriguez was employed by the Defendants as Hibachi Chef from May 2016 to June 2018. City Buffet Mongolian Barbeque, Inc. is a Florida corporation engaged in the restaurant business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Monica Espino, Esq. ESPINO LAW 2655 S. Le Jeune Road, Suite 802 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 704-3172 Facsimile: (305) 722-7378 E-mail: me@espino-law.com CLAUDIO & JOHNSON: Toler Remanded to W. Va. State Court ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Joseph R. Goodwin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston Division, remanded the case, SHANNA TOLER, Plaintiff, v. CLAUDIO & JOHNSON, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-01267 (S.D. W. Va.), to the Circuit Court of Fayette County, West Virginia. On July 9, 2018, the Plaintiff commenced the civil action by filing a putative class action complaint in the Circuit Court of Fayette County, West Virginia. The Complaint contains two counts. Count I alleges that the Defendants have engaged in numerous violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("WVCCPA"), including: (i) attempting to collect a debt by threats to take action that it did not intend to take by threatening to file a lawsuit against the Plaintiff immediately upon the expiration of 30 days when it had no intention of taking the threatened action in violation of West Virginia Code Section 46A-2-124; (ii) threatening to take any action prohibited by the chapter or other law regulating the debt collector's conduct by threatening to reduce the Plaintiff's time to dispute the validity of her debt in violation of West Virginia Code Section 46A-2-124(f); and (iii) engaging in unreasonable or oppressive or abusive conduct towards the Plaintiff in connection with the attempt to collect a debt by sending the letter to the Plaintiff in violation of West Virginia Code Section 46A-2-125. Count Two alleges class claims for relief, alleging, inter alia, that the principal common issues involve whether C&J's conduct regarding the aforementioned letters constitutes a violation of the unfair debt collection practices provisions of the WVCCPA. On Aug. 29, 2018, Defendant Professional Account Services, Inc. ("PASI") removed the action from state court purportedly on the ground of federal question jurisdiction. On Sept. 28, 2018, Plaintiff moved to remand the action to the Circuit Court of Fayette County. To establish substantial federal question jurisdiction, the state-law cause of action must implicate a federal issue that is "necessarily raised." Judge Goodwin finds that while one ground of the Plaintiff's cause of action for a violation of the WVCCPA is predicated on a breach of the FDCPA (federal law), all other grounds are predicated only on state law. Because she has presented theories of recovery in support of her cause of action for a violation of the WVCCPA that depend exclusively upon state law, the application of federal law is not essential to the claim's disposition. As such, the "necessarily raised" requirement has not been satisfied, and federal jurisdiction does not lie. Even if the Plaintiff's claim necessarily depended on a question of federal law, the Judge finds that the federal issue implicated by the Complaint is not "substantial" as required to confer federal jurisdiction. The Plaintiff's Complaint does not implicate a substantial federal issue. The gravamen of her Complaint is that the Defendants violated numerous sections of the WVCCPA. For this reason, the federal question is already well-settled, and all that remains is to apply it to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, no substantial federal issue is present, and the case must be remanded to state court. For these reasons, Judge Goodwin granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, and remanded the case to the Circuit Court of Fayette County, West Virginia. He directed the Clerk to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order to the counsel of record and any unrepresented party. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/BPQiBV from Leagle.com. Shanna Toler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ruperto Yongque Dumapit -- ryoung@hamiltonburgess.com -- HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD & Steven R. Broadwater, Jr. -- sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com -- HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD. Professional Account Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Angela L. Beblo -- abeblo@spilmanlaw.com -- SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE & Bruce M. Jacobs -- bjacobs@spilmanlaw.com -- SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE. COLLECTO INC: Sued over Illegal Consumer Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------- Stacy Crew, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Collecto Inc. d/b/a EOS CCA, the Defendant, Case No. 18-3382 (Mass. Super. Ct., Nov. 26, 2018), seeks injunction preventing Defendant from placing in excess of two collection calls within any seven days to any Massachusetts consumers' telephone, in violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and Massachusetts Debt Collection Regulations. According to the complaint, the Defendant initiated communication via telephone in excess of two times within a seven-day period regarding a Debt to Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of 940 CMR section 7.04(l)(f). The Defendant's failure to comply with 940 CMR section 7.04(l)(f) constitutes an unfair or deceptive act in violation of M.G.L. c. 93A section 2.741. The Defendant willfully or knowingly violated 940 CMR section 7.04(1)(±), and as such, Plaintiff is entitled to double or treble damages plus reasonable attorney's fees and costs.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Sergei Lemberg. Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com CONCENTRIX CORP: Knight Seeks OT Pay for Call Center Workers ------------------------------------------------------------ JACQLYN KNIGHT, AQUANETTA WRIGHT, and LAPRINCESS JUNE, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. CONCENTRIX CORPORATION, a wholly-owned subsidiary of SYNNEX CORPORATION, Case No. 4:18-cv-07101-KAW (N.D. Cal., November 21, 2018), is brought on behalf of similarly situated current and former call center employees of the Defendant to recover unpaid wages and overtime premiums and damages for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Payment of Wages Act, the New York Minimum Wage Age, the New York Code of Rules and Regulations and other New York wage and hour laws. Concentrix Corporation is "a global business services company, delivering extraordinary customer, employee and user experience for more than 450 of the world's best brands," according to its Web site. Concentrix "is the outsourced business service division of SYNNEX Corporation, headquartered in Fremont, CA."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark E. Burton, Jr., Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102-3229 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 Facsimile: (415) 568-2556 E-mail: mburton@audetlaw.com - and - Molly E. Nephew, Esq. Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. JOHNSONBECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: mnephew@johnsonbecker.com jrusch@johnsonbecker.com CORONA REGIONAL: 9th Cir. Reverses Sali Class Certification Denial ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of class certification in the case, MARLYN SALI and DEBORAH SPRIGGS, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CORONA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; UHS OF DELAWARE INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15-56460 (9th Cir.). Sali and Spriggs appeal the district court's denial of class certification in the putative class action alleging employment claims against Corona and UHS. Corona operates a hospital in Southern California that employs hourly-wage Registered Nurses ("RNs"). Sali and Spriggs are RNs formerly employed by Corona. They assert that a number of Corona's employment policies and practices with respect to RNs violate California law and have resulted in underpayment of wages. They filed the putative class action in California State Court on behalf of all RNs employed by Defendants in California at any time during the Proposed Class Period who (a) were not paid all wages at their regular rate of pay; (b) not paid time and a-half and/or double time for all overtime hours worked; and (c) denied uninterrupted, 'off-duty' meal-and-rest periods. They allege Corona violated California law by (1) failing to pay all regular hourly wages; (2) failing to pay time-and-a-half for all overtime; (3) failing to pay double time for all hours worked in excess of twelve hours in a day; (4) not providing compliant meal and rest breaks; (5) failing to timely pay all wages due to separated former employees within seventytwo hours of separation; and (6) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Corona removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Sali and Spriggs moved for certification of the following seven classes: 1. Rounding Time Class: All current and former nurses who work or worked for Defendants during the Proposed Class Period who were not paid all wages due them, including straight time, overtime, double time, meal premiums, and rest premiums due to the Defendants' rounding time policy. 2. Short Shift Class: All current and former nurses of the Defendants who work or worked pursuant to an Alternative Workweek Schedule ("AWS") during the Proposed Class Period who were flexed between the 8th and 12th hour of work due to low patient census and not paid daily overtime. 3. Meal Period Class: All current and former nurses of the Defendants who work or worked pursuant to an AWS during the Proposed Class Period who signed an invalid meal period waiver, and (1) not provided a second meal break after 10 hours of work; (2) not provided meal periods before 5 and 10 hours of work; and/or, (3) not provided a second meal period after 12 hours of work. 4. Rest Break Class: All current and former nurses who work or worked for the Defendants during the Proposed Class Period who were not relieved of all duty and therefore not authorized and permitted to take 10-minute, uninterrupted rest breaks for every four hours worked. 5. Regular Rate Class: All current and former nurses who work or worked for the Defendants during the Proposed Class Period who were not paid at the correct regular rate for overtime, double time, meal premiums, and rest premiums. 6. Wage Statement Class: All current and former nurses who work or worked for Defendants during the Proposed Class Period who were not provided pay stubs that complied with Labor Code Section 226. 7. Waiting Time Class: All former nurses who worked for the Defendants from Aug. 23, 2010 who were not paid all wages due at the time of separation from their employment with the Defendants. The district court denied certification of each of the proposed classes on multiple grounds. First, the district court concluded that Sali and Spriggs's proposed rounding-time, short-shift, rest-break, and wage-statement classes failed to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement. Second, it held that Rule 23(a)'s typicality requirement was not satisfied for any of the proposed classes because Sali and Spriggs failed to submit admissible evidence of their injuries. Third, the district court concluded that Spriggs was not an adequate class representative because she is not a member of the proposed class she is attempting to represent. Finally, the district court held the attorneys from the law firm Bisnar Chase had not demonstrated they will adequately serve as class counsel. Sali and Spriggs appealed the district court's denial of class certification. Upon Sali and Spriggs's motion, the Appellat Court stayed proceedings in the appeal pending resolution in the California State Courts of Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center, a case involving issues related to certain of the proposed classes. In light of the Gerard decision, Sali and Spriggs chose to appeal only the district court's denial of class certification with respect to the proposed rounding-time, regular-rate, wage-statement, and waiting-time classes. Judge Mendoza holds that the district court abused its discretion by relying on each of these reasons to deny class certification. He finds that (i) the district court's typicality determination was premised on an error of law; (ii) Spriggs is not an adequate class representative, but Sali remains as an adequate representative Plaintiff; (iii) the district court abused its discretion by concluding that attorneys from Bisnar Chase cannot serve as adequate class counsel; and (iv) district court erred by denying certification of the proposed rounding-time and wage-statement classes on the basis that they failed Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement. For these reasons, the Judge reversed the district court's denial of class certification, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with his Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Order and Amended Opinion is available at https://is.gd/eDAD1C from Leagle.com. Jerusalem F. Beligan -- jbeligan@bisnarchase.com -- (argued) and Brian D. Chase -bchase@bisnarchase.com -- Bisnar Chase LLP, Newport Beach, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Christina H. Hayes -- chayes@littler.com -- (argued), Khatereh Sage Fahimi -- sfahimi@littler.com -- and Stacey E. James -- sjames@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C., San Diego, California, for Defendants-Appellees. COSTA HOLLYWOOD: Breached Staffing Service Agreement, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL SERVICE GROUP & ASSOCIATES, INC., the Plaintiff, vs. COSTA HOLLYWOOD PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.: CACE-18-026915 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward County), demands judgment against Defendant for its breach of contract including the balance of $168.418.10. together with prejudgment interest, applicable late fees and any other relief deemed necessary and proper by the Court. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff fully performed all of its obligations as contemplated by the "Staffing Services Agreement". The Defendant failed to properly compensate Plaintiff pursuant to the "Staffing Services Agreement" entered into between the parties. As a result of the foregoing, Defendant breached the "Staffing Service Agreement. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach of the "Staffing Service Agreement", the Plaintiff sustained damages, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Aaron Behar, Esq. BEHAR BEHAR 490 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 300 Sunrise, FL 33325 Telephone: (954) 990-8639 Facsimile: (954) 332-9260 E-mail: ab@beharbehar.com COVANCE INC: Feckley Seeks Unpaid Compensation upon Termination --------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN FECKLEY individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. COVANCE, INC., a Delaware corporation; LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Delaware corporation; LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, a Delaware corporation; LC LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 30-2018-01032788-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages including compensation upon termination, pursuant to the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, at the time of Plaintiff's termination, on or about May 22, 2018, the Defendant had not paid Plaintiff commissions owed as laid out in the commission agreement. The Defendant has willfully, unfairly, fraudulently, or unlawfully failed to pay Plaintiff compensation owed upon termination of employment pursuant to California Labor Code section 201. The Defendant has still not paid Plaintiff for all of the commissions that are rightfully Plaintiff's wages. The Defendant is in violation of California Labor Code section 201 et seq. for failing to pay Plaintiff his final wages at the time of Plaintiff's termination, the lawsuit says. Covance Inc. is a contract research organization headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey, providing drug development and animal testing services.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. Jean P. Buchanan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP 301 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 1550 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 432-8933 Facsimile: (562) 435-1656 E-mail: gary@carlinbuchs baum.com brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com jean@carlinbuchsbaum.com DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Sued Over Professional Misconduct Allegations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alyssa Dandrea, writing for Valley News, reports that seven female science students filed a $70 million class-action lawsuit against Dartmouth College on November 15, saying they and dozens of others were sexually harassed and assaulted by three tenured professors who have since left the Ivy League institution. The women accuse college administrators of turning a blind eye to the abuse for more than 16 years, despite knowing that the professors "leered at, groped, sexted, intoxicated and even raped female students," according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Concord. The plaintiffs, some of whom still are at Dartmouth, say Todd Heatherton, Bill Kelley and Paul Whalen "perpetuated an alcohol-saturated 'party culture' " by conducting lab meetings at bars, by inviting students to "hot tub parties" at their private residencies, and by suggesting undergraduates use cocaine as part of a class demonstration on addiction. Sasha Brietzke, Annemarie Brown, Vassiki Chauhan, Andrea Courtney, Marissa Evans, Kristina Rapuano and an anonymous plaintiff identified as Jane Doe are bringing the lawsuit on behalf of every current and former female undergraduate and graduate student enrolled in Dartmouth's psychological and brain sciences department between March 31, 2015, and the date of judgment. They have brought six claims against the institution, including Title IX violations to include sexual harassment and gender discrimination, as well as claims of breach of fiduciary duty and negligent supervision and retention under New Hampshire law. The women accuse Heatherton, Kelley and Whalen of turning the department into a "21st Century ‘Animal House.' " The suit alleges the three professors objectified their female students by making inappropriate comments about their physical attractiveness, with Kelley going so far as to publicly rank them on what he called a "Papi" scale. The scale began at zero, which equated to "would never bang." In late spring and early summer, Kelley and Whalen resigned and Heatherton retired as Dartmouth took steps to fire them following an internal investigation by the college and a criminal investigation by the state's Department of Justice. The professors were accused of creating a hostile work environment in which undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral students endured a hostile workplace where the line between professional and personal relationships was blurred. Kelley and Whalen each are accused of assaulting a student after a night of drinking, attempting to seduce women under their supervision and punishing those who rebuffed their advances in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences. "The seven plaintiffs, each an exemplary female scientist at the start of her career, came to Dartmouth to contribute to a crucial and burgeoning field of academy study," according to the lawsuit. "Plaintiffs were instead sexually harassed and sexually assaulted by the Department's tenured professors and expected to tolerate increasing levels of sexual predation." Whalen and Kelley could not be reached for comment, and it is unclear if they have attorneys. Heatherton apologized for acting inappropriately at conferences but said, through a lawyer, that he never socialized or had sexual relations with students. In a page-and-a-half long statement distributed by his attorney on November 15 afternoon, Heatherton said that he "categorically denies playing any role in creating a toxic environment at Dartmouth College." "The specific allegations in the lawsuit predominantly involve the other professors and their relationships with students," the statement said. "None of the complaining parties were (Heatherton's) graduate students. He is disturbed by the graphic allegations." Six of the plaintiffs were graduate students and one was an undergraduate. The lawsuit paints a harrowing picture of women being forced to endure a program in which their academic careers were dependent on men who seemed mainly interested in drinking and getting them into bed. Those who refused to take part in their parties or bar hopping often were denigrated or ignored, according to the lawsuit. Repeatedly, the lawsuit alleges, the three would set about grooming incoming graduate students. They often would comment on their physical appearances, give them extra attention and then bombard them with invitations to drink with them at area bars or while out at conferences. When the women would oblige, they would seek to get them drunk and take advantage of them. One of the plaintiffs, Rapuano, alleges that Whalen in March 2014 forced himself upon her and put his hands down her pants when she visited his office. About a year later, she attended a conference with Kelley and alleges that he got her drunk and raped her. The lawsuit does not say whether she went to the police. After the assault, she alleges Kelley kept pressing her for sexual favors. When Rapuano finally rebuffed him, she said Kelley became hostile, stopped providing her with academic guidance and attempted to undermine her research by sharing it with colleagues. "This is the person who really holds the keys to your future," Rapuano, who completed her doctoral degree at Dartmouth this spring and now is at Yale University, told The Associated Press. "For me, it became a situation where I felt trapped and I couldn't get away from it because getting away from it meant leaving the career that I had worked so hard to get at." Chauhan, another plaintiff who still is at Dartmouth who alleges she was raped by Whalen at his home, said everyone in the department was aware of the trio's behavior but took no action. She did seek medical attention, but the lawsuit does not say whether she went to the police. The New Hampshire Attorney General's Office also has been investigating. The women who now are suing Dartmouth say they were told they would have a voice in the college's independent investigation, but ultimately were ignored as the three professors departed. They are seeking compensatory and punitive damages of at least $70 million, according to their lawsuit. A group of female graduate students had contacted the college's Title IX office in April 2017 to detail instances of sexual harassment and assault by the professors, with the goal of ending the "intolerable conditions." However, their complaints went unanswered and, consequently, Whalen sexually assaulted a graduate teaching assistant 20 days later, the suit says. In an email to the college community on November 15 morning, Dartmouth President Phil Hanlon said that while "sexual misconduct and harassment have no place at Dartmouth," the college disputes the allegations in the suit. "We applaud the courage displayed by members of our community within (the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences) who brought the misconduct allegations to Dartmouth's attention last year," Hanlon wrote. "And we remain open to a fair resolution of the students' claims through an alternative to the court process. However, we respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the characterizations of Dartmouth's actions in the complaint and will respond through our own court filings." The lawsuit against Dartmouth was filed by Steven Kelly of the Maryland-based law firm Sanford Heisler Sharp LLC, who represented St. Paul's School sexual assault survivor Chessy Prout and her parents in a 2016 federal lawsuit against the Concord prep school. Concord attorney Charles Douglas served as local counsel in that case and will do the same in this matter. The Prouts accused St. Paul's of endangering the welfare of the children entrusted in their care by allowing a sexually pervasive culture to continue at the school for decades. The parties reached a confidential settlement resolving the case in January. [GN] DATAWATCH CORPORATION: Stier Balks at Merger Deal with Altair ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT STIER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DATAWATCH CORPORATION, CHRISTOPHER T. COX, DONALD R. FRIEDMAN, THOMAS H. KELLY, DAVID C. MAHONEY, JOAN MCARDLE, MICHAEL A. MORRISON, RICHARD DE J. OSBORNE, and RANDALL P. SEIDL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11013 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 26, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from closing a tender offer or taking any steps to consummate the proposed transaction, unless and until material information is disclosed to Datawatch stockholders or, in the event the proposed transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On November 5, 2018, Datawatch, Altair, and Merger Sub entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, whereby each holder of Datawatch common stock will receive $13.10 per share in cash. On November 14, 2018, in order to convince Datawatch stockholders to tender their shares, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the SEC. In particular, the Recommendation Statement contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the financial analyses conducted by the Company's financial advisor, GCA Advisors, LLC, in support of their fairness opinion; (ii) the potential conflicts of interest faced by the Board; and (iii) the background process leading up to the Proposed Transaction. The Tender Offer is scheduled to expire at 12:00 midnight, New York City time, at the end of the day on December 12, 2018. It is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Recommendation Statement is disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior to the Expiration Date so they can properly determine whether to tender their shares, the lawsuit says. Datawatch Corporation is an American software company that creates and sells self-service data preparation solutions. The entire platform includes Datawatch Monarch Complete, Monarch Server and Monarch Swarm.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 Facsimile: (212) 202-7880 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Ongoing in BlackRock Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the BlackRock lawsuit filed in California against Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA"), discovery remains ongoing regarding the Plaintiffs' request for voluntary dismissal with prejudice as to all claims asserted by Sealink Funding Limited, Kore Advisors LP, and a group of funds managed by Nationwide Asset Management, LLC or an affiliate, as well as all claims asserted by a group of funds managed by AEGON USA Investment Management, LLC related to one trust. RFS Holding, L.L.C. disclosed in its Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution period from October 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018, that on March 25, 2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs filed a state court action against DBTCA in the Superior Court of California, Orange County with respect to 513 trusts. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and included DBNTC as an additional defendant. The amended complaint asserts three causes of action: breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest. Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other current owners of certificates in the 465 trusts. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of US$75.7 billion, but does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and motion to strike as to plaintiffs' breach of contract cause of action. On October 18, 2016, the court granted DBNTC and DBTCA's demurrer, providing plaintiffs with thirty days' leave to amend, and denied DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to strike. Plaintiffs did not further amend their complaint and, on December 19, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint. On January 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On May 30, 2018, the court denied that motion. On June 8, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the denial of that motion. On July 16, 2018, the court stayed all trial court proceedings during the pendency of Plaintiffs' appeal from the denial of class certification. On July 18, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a request for voluntary dismissal with prejudice as to all claims asserted by Sealink Funding Limited, Kore Advisors LP, and a group of funds managed by Nationwide Asset Management, LLC or an affiliate, as well as all claims asserted by a group of funds managed by AEGON USA Investment Management, LLC related to one trust. Discovery is ongoing. DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Still Stayed in Blackrock Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- RFS Holding, L.L.C. disclosed in its Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution period from October 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018, that in the lawsuit pending in New York against Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC"), discovery remains stayed pending the resolution of any FRCP 72 objections that Plaintiffs may file regarding the presiding magistrate judge's August 7 report and recommendation. On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a derivative action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 ("TIA"), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA's alleged failure to perform their duties as trustees for the trusts. Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state court complaint and filed a derivative and class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of and for the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts, which substantially overlapped with the trusts at issue in the state court action. The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of US$89.4 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19, 2016, the court partially granted the motion on procedural grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by pooling and servicing agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction. The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the motion to dismiss. On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in federal court. In the amended complaint, in connection with 62 trusts governed by indenture agreements, plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, violation of the TIA, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of US$9.8 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On July 15, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 23, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' conflict-of-interest claim, thereby dismissing it, and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and claim for violation of the TIA, thereby allowing those claims to proceed. On January 26, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order dismissing plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty. On January 27, 2017, the court entered the parties' joint stipulation and ordered that plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty be dismissed. On February 3, 2017, following a hearing concerning DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to dismiss on February 2, 2017, the court issued a short form order dismissing (i) plaintiffs' representation and warranty claims as to 21 trusts whose originators and/or sponsors had entered bankruptcy and the deadline for asserting claims against such originators and/or sponsors had passed as of 2009 and (ii) plaintiffs' claims to the extent they were premised upon any alleged pre-Event of Default duty to terminate servicers. On March 27, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint. On April 6, 2018, the court entered the parties' joint stipulation to dismiss the claims of Sealink Funding Limited and ordered that Sealink's claims be dismissed with prejudice. On April 24, 2018, the court entered the parties' joint stipulation to dismiss the claims of Kore Advisors LP and ordered that Kore's claims be dismissed with prejudice. On January 26, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On August 7, 2018, the presiding magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation recommending that the court: (i) deny Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; (ii) dismiss Plaintiffs' TIA claims as to 39 trusts; and (iii) decline to extend jurisdiction over, and therefore dismiss without prejudice, Plaintiffs' remaining claims as to the same 39 trusts, which claims all arise under state law. On August 9, 2018, the court stayed all discovery pending the resolution of any FRCP 72 objections to the report and recommendation that Plaintiffs may file. DITECH HOLDING: Dec. 5 Hearing for Final OK of Elkin Case Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- A final settlement hearing is scheduled for December 5, 2018 in the lawsuit styled Courtney Elkin, et al. vs. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., according to Ditech Holding Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. A federal securities fraud complaint was filed against the Company, George M. Awad, Denmar J. Dixon, Anthony N. Renzi, and Gary L. Tillett on March 16, 2017. The case, captioned Courtney Elkin, et al. vs. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-02025-JCJ, is pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court has appointed a lead plaintiff in the action who filed an amended complaint on September 15, 2017. The amended complaint seeks monetary damages and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act during a class period alleged to begin on August 9, 2016 and conclude on August 1, 2017. The amended complaint alleges that: (i) defendants made material misstatements about the value of the Company's deferred tax assets; (ii) the material misstatement about the value of the Company's deferred tax assets required the Company to restate certain financials in the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the periods ended June 30, 2016, September 30, 2016 and March 31, 2017 and the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016, and caused the Company to violate the financial covenants and obligations in agreements with the Company's lenders and GSEs; and (iii) defendants made material misstatements concerning the Company's initiatives to deleverage the Company's capital structure. On November 3, 2017, the lead plaintiff voluntarily dismissed defendant Denmar J. Dixon from the action. On November 14, 2017, the remaining defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. From December 1, 2017 to February 9, 2018, the action was stayed pursuant to section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. On July 13, 2018, the parties entered into a formal settlement agreement to settle the action for US$2.95 million subject to notice to the alleged class and court approval. The court preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a final settlement hearing for December 5, 2018. The settlement, if completed, will be paid by the Company's directors' and officers' insurance carrier. Ditech Holding Corporation operates as an independent servicer and originator of mortgage loans, and servicer of reverse mortgage loans. The company operates through three segments: Servicing, Originations, and Reverse Mortgage. Ditech Holding Corporation was founded in 1958 and is based in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania. EDUCARE COMMUNITY: Mathis et al. Seek Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------- DONTRAIL MATHIS; DONTRAUS JENKINS and RAMONA JAMES; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. EDUCARE COMMUNITY LIVING CORP, - TEXAS.; EDUCARE COMMUNITY LIVING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; and RES-CARE, INC., the Defendants, Case 2:18-cv-00518-JRG (E.D. Tex., Nov. 21, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid and incorrectly paid wages for all hours worked in a workweek, as required by law, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, interest, and attorney fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants are corporations engaged in the business of providing living assistance, education, and healthcare to persons with disabilities and infirmities. The Defendants employed Plaintiffs as direct support professionals. The Aides' primary job duties included grooming, feeding, ambulating, and medically monitoring, transporting, cleaning, bathing, and toileting, their Clients. The Plaintiffs bring this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of a collective of persons who are and were employed by Defendants as direct support professionals during the past 3 years through the final date of disposition of this action who were not paid an overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek in violation of the FLSA, the lawsuit says. Educare Community Living Corp Texas operates as a subsidiary of Res-Care Inc. ResCare provides services and support to seniors, people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, children, and job seekers.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Jay D. Ellwanger, Esq. ELLWANGER LAW LLLP 8310-1 N. Capital of Texas Highway, Suite 190 Austin, TX 7831 Telephone: (737) 808-2260 E-mail: jellwanger@equalrights.law - and - James A. Vagnini, Esq. Robert R. Barravecchio, Esq. Alexander M. White, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7180 Facsimile: (516) 706-0248 E-mail: jvagnini@vkvlawyers.com rrb@vkvlawyers.com awhite@vkvlawyers.com ELITE WHEEL: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------- ERIC RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ELITE WHEEL DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-02832-EAK-JSS (M.D. Fla., Nov. 19, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt hourly paid laborer for Defendant in Hillsborough County, Florida. The Defendant has a policy and practice of paying non-exempt hourly paid laborers like Plaintiff "straight time" for all overtime hours worked in a workweek, in lieu of the federally mandated time and one half rate for all overtime hours worked, the lawsuit says. Elite Wheel provides automotive products. The Company distributes wheels, tires, sensors, valve stems, wheel adapters, and lug nuts.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Jan. 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP regarding the Emergent Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (Southern Division) WILLIAM SPONN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS INC., et al., Defendants. No. 8:16-cv-02625-RWT CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS INC. ("EMERGENT") PUBLICLY-TRADED COMMON STOCK LISTED ON THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE DURING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 11, 2016, THROUGH AND INCLUDING JUNE 21, 2016, OR THEIR SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS") PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, that the above-captioned action (the "Litigation") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Amended Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Litigation, on behalf of themselves and the other Members of the Settlement Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the Litigation with defendants Emergent, Fuad El-Hibri, Daniel J. Abdun-Nabi, Robert G. Kramer, and Adam R. Havey (collectively, "Defendants") for the sum of $6,500,000.00 in cash (the "Settlement"). If the Settlement is approved, it will resolve all claims in the Litigation. A hearing will be held on January 22, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. ET, before the Honorable Roger W. Titus at the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, 6500 Cherrywood Lane, Greenbelt, MD 20770, for the purpose of determining: (1)whether the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2)whether, thereafter, this Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated October 16, 2018; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation of Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4)the reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with this Litigation, together with interest thereon (which request may include a request for reimbursement of Plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995). IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED EMERGENT PUBLICLY-TRADED COMMON STOCK LISTED ON THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE DURING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 11, 2016, THROUGH AND INCLUDING JUNE 21, 2016 (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS PERIOD"), YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THIS LITIGATION AND THE SETTLEMENT THEREOF. If you have not received a detailed Notice as referred to above and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to Emergent Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 404093, Louisville, KY 40233-4093, or by downloading this information at www.EmergentSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release online at www.EmergentSecuritiesLitigation.comby February 16, 2019, or by mail postmarked no later than February 16, 2019, establishing that you are entitled to a recovery. You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Litigation unless you request to be excluded, in writing, postmarked by December 26, 2018. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Emergent publicly-traded common stock listed on the New York Stock Exchange during the Settlement Class Period and you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is postmarked no later than December 26, 2018, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above. All Members of the Settlement Class who do not validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgments or orders entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement. Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement must be filed with the Clerk of the Court and also delivered by hand or First-Class Mail to each of the following addresses such that it is received no later than December 26, 2018: COURT: CLERK OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 6500 Cherrywood Lane Greenbelt, MD 20770 LEAD COUNSEL: ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL: KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP YOSEF J. RIEMER MATTHEW SOLUM 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: October 25, 2018 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ENDO PHARMA: Faces RICO Racketeering Lawsuit in Alaska ------------------------------------------------------ On behalf of Kenaitze Indian Tribe, Asa'Carsarmiut Tribe, Akiak Native Community, Native Village of Port Heiden, and the Native Village of Afognak, the law firms of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Sonosky Chambers Sachse Miller & Monkman, LLP, and Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP filed a RICO racketeering lawsuit on November 16, 2018 in federal court in Anchorage against Endo Pharmaceuticals, Purdue Pharma, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Teva, Allergan, Johnson & Johnson, Watson Pharmaceuticals, Actavis, Insys, Mallinckrodt, AmerisourceBergen, Health Mart Systems, Walgreen Co., Albertson's, CVS, the Kroger Co. and related entities who bear responsibility for the unprecedented destructive opioid epidemic raging across the U.S. and in the affected Alaska Native communities. Alaska Tribes & Native Communities Unite in Class Action RICO Lawsuit to Seek Justice from Opiate Drug Distributors and Manufacturers for Worst Man-Made Epidemic in Modern Medical History "It is long past time these companies were held accountable for the destruction they have brought to our Alaska Native communities," stated Mike Williams, Sr., member, Tribal Council of the Native Village of Akiak. "The deceptive practices these companies use to drain our people of money and their lives must be stopped." Tribal suits over opioid deaths and staggering costs were first filed in early 2017. Since then, more than 60 Native American Tribes have filed suits, and these cases have joined up with over 1,100 other cases pending in federal court in Ohio against dozens of companies across the opioid drug industry. At least 30 states, including Alaska, have also filed lawsuits. The class action complaint in the tribal lawsuit asserts two categories of claims. First, the complaint asserts that the pharmaceutical manufacturers of prescription opioid drugs engaged in a massive false marketing campaign to drastically expand the market for such drugs and their own market share thereof. Second, the complaint asserts claims against numerous entities in the prescription opiate supply chain that reaped enormous financial rewards by refusing to monitor and restrict the improper distribution of these drugs. The complaint alleges the named companies engaged in a vast scheme of false and deceptive prescription opioid drug marketing -- a campaign that exploded the market for such drugs along with the companies' share of that expanded market by convincing physicians, hospitals, and patients that these opioid drugs were safe for long-term use despite significant contrary evidence showing the drugs are ineffective in treating chronic pain and highly addictive. The complaint further alleges these companies engaged in a widespread supply chain scheme that reaped massive financial rewards by refusing to adequately monitor and restrict the improper distribution of these lethal, addictive drugs. The epidemic caused by prescription opioid drugs has taken such a heavy toll in Alaska that Governor Bill Walker has had to declare a public health crisis and issue a Declaration of Disaster Emergency for the State. As the Governor noted in this Declaration, by 2012 the prescription opioid overdose death rate was more than twice that of the national death rate. Indeed, this epidemic is so widespread and pervasive that for the first time in recorded history, the life expectancy for Americans has decreased since the drugs flooded the U.S. market. These drugs are now the leading cause of death for Americans under the age of 50. Native Americans, including Plaintiffs' citizens and patients, have been significantly impacted by this unimaginable epidemic. As noted in the Complaint, American Indians and Alaska Natives suffer the highest per capita rate of opioid overdoses. According to the U.S. Indian Health Service's Chief Medical Officer, "American Indians and Alaska Natives had the highest drug overdose death rates in 2015 and the largest percentage increase in the number of deaths over time from 1999-2015 compared to other racial and ethnic groups." As if that weren't bad enough, the opioid epidemic resulting from Defendants' conduct has injured even the youngest members of Indian tribes. In 1992, in the United States, only 2% of pregnant women admitted for drug treatment services abused opioids. By 2012, opioids accounted for 38% of all drug treatment admissions of pregnant women. Over this time period, the drug-related death rate among American Indians and Alaska Natives increased more than 500 percent. Pregnant American Indian women are up to 8.7 times more likely than pregnant women from other groups to be diagnosed with opioid dependency or abuse, and in some communities more than one in 10 pregnant American Indian women have a diagnosis of opioid dependency or abuse. The complaint alleges that the myriad defendants worked to conceal facts and disseminate a vast range of falsehoods relating to opioid drugs through multiple channels, including direct marketing, paying key opinion leaders to deceptively promote opioid use, through continuing medical education programs, through "branded" advertising to doctors and consumers and "unbranded" advertising to promote opioid use for chronic pain without FDA review, and by funding, editing, and distributing publications that supported these and other misrepresentations. In doing so, the complaint alleges the defendants deliberately disregarded their duties to maintain effective controls and to identify, report, and take steps to halt suspicious orders. The complaint asserts that their conspiracy to engage in this wrongful conduct enabled them to benefit both independently and jointly in their schemes relating to the promotion, sale, and distribution of opioid drugs. As further detailed in the complaint, this crisis was precipitated by the defendants who manufacture, sell, and market prescription opioids. Through massive marketing campaigns premised on false and incomplete information, these entities engineered a dramatic shift in how and when opioids were prescribed by the medical community and used by patients. Relentlessly, methodically, and most importantly untruthfully, these prescription opioid drug manufacturers and distributors asserted that the risks of addiction were low when opioids were used to treat chronic pain, and overstated the benefits and trivialized the risks of long-term opioid drug use. On the supply side, the crisis was fueled and sustained by those involved in the supply chain of opioids, including manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies, who failed to maintain effective controls over the distribution of prescription opioids, and who instead actively worked to evade such controls. The plaintiffs in this suit are federally-recognized Alaska Native tribes with thousands of members, all of which provide medical, dental, behavioral health, chemical dependency, wellness, physical therapy, optometry, pharmacy support, and traditional healing services to their members and communities. The complaint asserts claims under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), as well as claims for fraud, public nuisance, unjust enrichment, negligence, unfair competition under the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, product liability, and civil conspiracy. It seeks damages that include the tribal organizations' healthcare and medical care costs, additional therapeutic costs, drug purchase costs, costs of training, preparing, and providing first responders, mental health services, as well as losses caused by the diversion of limited health care funds to address the opioid epidemic. The complaint also seeks treble damages, equitable relief and injunctive relief, including an order enjoining any further violations of RICO, enjoining the future improper marketing of opioids, enjoining other wrongful conduct, and forfeiting the defendants' ill-gotten profits. A copy of the Alaskan tribal entities opioids complaint is available at https://is.gd/4Erdii About Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is an 87-attorney law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Seattle. Lieff Cabraser has filed opioid-related cases on behalf of counties and cities within California, Florida, Tennessee, and Washington, and also serves on the Court-appointed Plaintiffs' Executive and Settlement Committees and the Tribal Committee in the federal Opioids multidistrict litigation. Lieff Cabraser represents tribes, cities and counties, union plans, and others who have suffered devastating economic losses in battling an Opioid crisis of the defendants' making. The firm has recovered substantial economic losses for government entities, businesses and individuals in cases including the Tobacco litigation, the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill litigations, and the Neurontin RICO litigation. About Sonosky Chambers Sachse Miller & Monkman, LLP Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP represents Native American tribes and tribal organizations across the United States in trial and appellate litigation. The firm's attorneys have handled some of the most important Indian law cases to come before the Supreme Court, including recent victories which led to the recovery of nearly $2 billion against the United States on behalf of tribal governments and governmental health and social service providers. The firm represents two dozen Tribes and intertribal organizations in connection with the National Opioid Litigation, including the Navajo Nation and the bellwether tribal plaintiff the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and it also brought the first tribal opioid case against the pharmaceutical industry (McKesson v Hembree). The firm's partners sit on the six-member Plaintiff's Tribal Committee in the Opioid Litigation. About Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP was formed on January 1, 1985. Courts have selected Zwerling, Schachter many times as lead counsel in antitrust, RICO, securities, and consumer class actions in state and federal courts. The firm also represents tribes and governmental entities in actions seeking to redress corporate misconduct. The firm is counsel for a number of Tribes and Native Villages on the West Coast and Alaska in the National Opioid Litigation, including the Native Villages of Port Heiden, Akiak, and Afognak, the Asa'carsarmiut Tribe of Mountain Village, the Yurok and Hoopa Valley Tribes in Northern California, and the Swinomish Tribe in Washington. [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Accused by Suttles of Sending Unsolicited Texts ------------------------------------------------------------- COLIN SUTTLES v. FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01004 (W.D. Tex., November 23, 2018), is brought on behalf of all other persons similarly situated seeking to stop the Defendant's alleged practice of sending unsolicited text messages to the telephone of the Plaintiff and to obtain redress for their conduct. Mr. Suttles contends that for reasons unknown to him, Facebook sent text messages to his cellular phone encouraging him to go to facebook.com or providing verification codes assigned to unknown third parties. He asserts that the Defendant repeatedly sent unsolicited text messages to his cellular phone -- whose number appears on the National Do Not Call Registry -- without consent, all in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Facebook, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business located in Menlo Park, California. The Defendant is a social media company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Craft Hughes, Esq. Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1120 Galleria Tower I Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 995-3335 E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com jarrett@hughesellzey.com FARIS PROPERTIES: Beyer Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned JEREMIAH BEYER, on his own behalf, And on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FARIS PROPERTIES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-CV-00139-JRG-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a class of: "all persons to whom notice shall be sent regarding Plaintiff's claims in this action"; 2. approving Plaintiff's proposed form of notice; and 3. requiring Defendant to produce an Excel spreadsheet (or similarly-used electronic software format) containing the full names, last-known addresses, last-known e-mail addresses, last-known telephone numbers (including cell phone numbers), and dates of employment of all employees who are covered by the scope of the proposed class within 10 days of the Court's Order.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiff: James Friauf, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES W. FRIAUF, PLLC 9724 Kingston Pike, Suite 104 Knoxville, TN 37922 Telephone: (865) 236-0347 Facsimile: (865) 512-9174 E-mail: james@friauflaw.com - and - Mark N. Foster, Esq. P.O. Box 869 Madisonville, KY Telephone: (270) 213-1303 E-mail: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com FCA US LLC: Grigorian Sues Over Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Mariam Grigorian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FCA US, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-24364 (S.D. Fla., October 22, 2018), seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. FCA US LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and is wholly owned by holding company Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., a Dutch corporation headquartered in London, United Kingdom. FCA's principal place of business and headquarters is in Auburn Hills, Michigan. On July 17, 2018, FCA US sent a prerecorded telemarketing call promoting their new Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid. At no point in time did Grigorian provide FCA US with her express written consent to be contacted using an automated dialer. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com FCB FINANCIAL: Suits over Synovus Financial Merger Deal Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- FCB Financial Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 20, 2018, 2018, that the company is defending against two putative class action suit in relation to its merger agreement Synovus Financial Corp. FCB Financial said, "the proposed acquisition of FCB Financial Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") by Synovus Financial Corp. ("Synovus"). Subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated as of July 23, 2018, by and among the Company, Synovus and Azalea Merger Sub Corp., a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Synovus ("Merger Sub"), Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company continuing as the surviving entity, immediately after which the Company will merge with and into Synovus, with Synovus continuing as the surviving entity. In connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, two putative class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of Company stockholders in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, respectively. The lawsuits are captioned Stephen Bushansky v. FCB Financial Holdings, Inc. et al., Case 1:18-cv-62399-BB (filed October 9, 2018) and Paul Parshall v. FCB Financial Holdings, Inc. et al., Case 1:18-cv-01570-LPS (filed October 11, 2018). In general, the complaints assert claims against the Company and the Company’s board of directors, alleging, among other things, that the defendants failed to make adequate disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus relating to the Merger (in its definitive form, the "Proxy Statement") forming a part of the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed by Synovus in connection with the Merger. The Company believes that the allegations in the complaints are without merit. While the Company believes that the disclosures set forth in the Proxy Statement comply fully with applicable law, to moot plaintiffs’ disclosure claims, to avoid nuisance, potential expense and delay and to provide additional information to the Company's stockholders, the Company has determined to voluntarily supplement the Proxy Statement with the below disclosures. Nothing in the supplemental disclosure shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable law of any of the disclosure set forth herein or in the Proxy Statement. To the contrary, the Company denies all allegations in the litigations that any additional disclosure was or is required. A copy of the supplemantal disclosure is available at https://goo.gl/7p2jcg. FCB Financial Holdings, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for Florida Community Bank, N.A. that provides various financial products and services to individuals, small and medium-sized businesses, large businesses, and other local organizations and entities in south and central Florida. The company was formerly known as Bond Street Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to FCB Financial Holdings, Inc. in June 2014. FCB Financial Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1923 and is headquartered in Weston, Florida. FIFTH THIRD BANK: Made Illegal Bank Account Debits, Starace Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Starace, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fifth Third Bank and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-at-00846 (E.D. Cal., November 19, 2018) is a complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants in debiting Plaintiff's and also the putative Class members' bank accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers and/or after clear revocation of any authorization or similar authentication for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from Plaintiff's and also the putative Class members' accounts, thereby violating the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. In or around December 2017, Plaintiff contacted Defendant in an attempt to make payments for a car that Plaintiff purchased for his daughter. The Defendant's agent informed Plaintiff that he could initiate service with Defendant by providing his routing and checking account information. Plaintiff provided Defendant's agent with his routing and checking account information. However, due to a miscommunication, the payments that Plaintiff agreed to make were never made. When Defendant's agent tried to notify Plaintiff, Plaintiff did not respond due to the fact that Plaintiff's cell phone was lost. When Plaintiff did learn of the late payments, Plaintiff immediately overnighted payment in the form of personal checks to Defendant. Plaintiff tried vigorously to contact Defendant and explain the situation of why he could not be contacted, however, Defendant refused to accept his excuse and Defendant reported a late payment on his credit score. The Defendant continued to deduct funds from Plaintiff's account multiple times on a reoccurring basis, without providing Plaintiff a written authorization to do so, says the complaint. Plaintiff was only given an update on the disputes Defendant had filed for him. Plaintiff never provided Defendant with any authorization to deduct these sums of money on a regular recurring basis from Plaintiff's banking account. Defendants did not provide to Plaintiff, nor did Plaintiff execute, any written or electronic writing memorializing or authorizing these recurring or automatic payments, says the complaint. Plaintiff, Martin Starace is a natural person residing in Tulare County in the state of California. Fifth Third Bank was a company engaged, by use of the mails and telephone, in the business of collecting debts alleged to be due another. 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: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: 877-206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com FIVE POINT: Still Faces Class Suit by Bayview Hunters Residents --------------------------------------------------------------- Five Point Holdings, LLC still faces a putative class action suit filed by the residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. In May 2018, Bayview Hunters residents filed the putative class action in San Francisco Superior Court naming Tetra Tech, Inc. ("Tetra Tech"), Lennar Corporation and the Company as defendants. The plaintiffs allege that, among other things, Tetra Tech, an independent contractor hired by the U.S. Navy to conduct testing and remediation of toxic radiological waste at The San Francisco Shipyard, fraudulently misrepresented its test results and remediation efforts. The plaintiffs are seeking damages against Tetra Tech and have requested an injunction to prevent the Company and Lennar from undertaking any development activities at The San Francisco Shipyard. Five Point Holdings, LLC, through its subsidiary, Five Point Operating Company, LP, plans, develops, and owns mixed-use communities in California, the United States. It sells residential and commercial land sites to homebuilders, commercial developers, and commercial buyers. The company was formerly known as Newhall Holding Company, LLC and changed its name to Five Point Holdings, LLC in May 2016. Five Point Holdings, LLC was founded in 2009 and is based in Aliso Viejo, California. FL CASH: Rodriguez Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------- MARISA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FL CASH HOME BUYERS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-62841-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 21, 2018), seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals, and seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant knowingly and willfully violated of the TCPA, by making unsolicited prerecorded telemarketing calls in violation of consumers' privacy rights. The Defendant, a Florida real estate investment company, knew that it was prohibited by the TCPA from contacting consumers on their cellular telephones with prerecorded calls, without their prior express consent. Nevertheless, in a failed attempt to circumvent the TCPA, Defendant did just that by utilizing "ringless" voicemail technology to place calls to Plaintiff and members of the Class to promote its products and services, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1 st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305-975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Golden Isles Residents Sue Over Excessive Taxes ----------------------------------------------------------------- Taylor Cooper, writing for The Brunswick News, reports that Golden Isles residents say Glynn County is still overcharging them on their property taxes despite a court ruling it was improperly applying their homestead exemptions. The Georgia Court of Appeals ruled on a class action lawsuit in January, stating Glynn County had been overcharging around 7,500 residents on their property taxes by incorrectly applying their homestead exemptions. If a property owner is granted the Scarlett Williams homestead exemption, their property taxes are calculated based on their property's assessed value for the year they were granted the exemption, called the base year. In three companion civil cases filed in 2012, 2013 and 2014 -- certified as a class-action in 2015 -- residents claim the county selected the wrong base year. In the case of J. Matthew Coleman and Elizabeth Blair Coleman, two members of the class, 2006 was selected as their base year. Their property taxes from 2006 to 2012 were based on the 2006 assessed value of $133,800 when, according to the court of appeals, it should have been based on the 2005 value of $70,006. The Colemans claim to have overpaid on their property taxes by $1,500 per year from 2006 to 2012. Jay Roberts, Esq.-- jroberts@beckerlawyers.com -- the lawyer representing the residents, claimed in March the county had overcharged the 7,500 landowners by $15-17 million in total. The court of appeals did not rule on the plaintiffs' request to seek refunds on taxes paid outside the three-year window allowed by state law, however. Roberts filed a motion in Glynn County Superior Court on November 16 requesting a preliminary injunction preventing the county from collecting 2018 property taxes from members of the class. If the taxes have already been collected, the motion asks the court to prevent the county from spending the money. Alternatively, the motion asks the court to order the county to deposit their tax money into a trust until the residents can be refunded. Additionally, plaintiffs ask the court to make the county pay "attorney's fees and expenses . . . related to recovering refunds for the 2018 taxes based on defendant's intentional and knowing conduct of attempting to collect taxes from taxpayers that they do not owe by issuing tax bills once again based on the incorrect base year following the court of appeals ruling." Glynn County's attorneys responded to Roberts on November 15, writing that the "motion is wholly without merit, frivolous and without any support in law or fact," and asked that it be withdrawn. The county's attorneys argue that the new motion is without merit because Roberts already filed a motion and asked the judge on the case to include residents who paid 2017 and 2018 taxes in the class. "Since you have already filed an amended complaint seeking to include the 2018 taxes in the refund action, the motion . . . is inconsistent with your own prior pleadings," the county's response states. The county's lawyers further state that "It is inconsistent to file an amended complaint seeking to recover the 2018 taxes on behalf of the class and to follow that up with a motion . .. seeking to enjoin the collection of those same taxes." Tax Commissioner Jeff Chapman said on November 14 that anyone who is overcharged on taxes this year will get their refunds, but it may take time. "The ruling said that we are to use prior year. Well, there are 17,142 homesteads in Glynn County. That means we have to go into every homestead and set it to prior year to determine the freeze (base year) on the homestead. That's going to take a while," Chapman said. Any refunds the residents get will include the 2018 tax year, he said. "They're going to be reimbursed for '18 also. Everyone is going to get what they're owed," Chapman said. ". . . . When they get their refund, it will include the 2018 year." Chapman was not serving as tax commissioner when the class-action lawsuit was filed. He took office in January 2017. The class-action lawsuit started as three civil cases, the first filed in 2012. Plaintiffs claimed the county was collecting more taxes than it should from those with Scarlett Williams homestead exemptions. Cobb County Senior Judge G. Grant Brantley ruled on Jan. 6 in Glynn County Superior Court that the county applied the exemption correctly. Brantley took the case after judges in the Brunswick Judicial Circuit recused themselves. The residents appealed the decision, and the Georgia Court of Appeals partially granted their appeal. "In several related enumerations of error, the Colemans contend that the trial court erred in construing the terms of the (homestead exemption). We agree," the appeals court's decision stated. Appeals court judges overturned the superior court's ruling that the county had applied the exemption correctly, but did not rule on the residents' request to seek refunds outside the three-year limitation imposed by state law. Both parties asked the Georgia Supreme Court to hear the case, but the higher court declined. As such, the appeals court's ruling stands and damages will be determined in Glynn County Superior Court, Roberts said. Brantley is scheduled to hold a hearing on motions made by both sides on Dec. 17 in the Glynn County Courthouse.[GN] GOLD STANDARD: Court Denies Motion to Certify Class as Moot ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned Norman Green, et al., the Plaintiff, vs. Gold Standard Baking, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:13-cv-01524 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sara L. Ellis denied the motion to certify class as moot in light of a revised motion. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on November 20, 2018, the Court will rule on the motion for class certification after Magistrate Judge Kim rules on motions for sanctions.[CC] GREAT PLAINS: Qureshi Wants Loans Deemed Void and Unenforceable --------------------------------------------------------------- SHAHID QURESHI v. GREAT PLAINS LENDING LLC and VICTORY PARK CAPITAL ADVISORS LLC, Case No. CV 18 907370 (Ohio Com. Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., November 25, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the proposed classes seeking actual damages, statutory damages and a declaration that the loans issued by Great Plains to Ohio residents are void and unenforceable. The action is brought on behalf of all residents of Ohio, who have been victimized by the alleged unlawful and usurious scheme perpetrated by the Defendants to circumvent state laws designed to protect Ohioans from illegal interest rates. Great Plains loans money to Ohio residents via the Internet and purports to be an entity formed under the laws of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians. Victory Park conspires with Great Plains to loan money illegally in Ohio hiding behind the laws afforded legitimate tribal lending entities, says the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James S. Wertheim, Esq. JAMES S. WERTHEIM LLC 24700 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 309 Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 902-1719 E-mail: wertheimjim@gmail.com GREY DOG CHELSEA: Kitchen Staff Sue to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Marcelino Cuenca, Urbano Flores, Omar Gonzalez Hernandez, Raul Gonzalez, Alfonso Martinez and Martin Romero, individually and on behalf of other similarly-situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. Grey Dog Chelsea, Inc., The Grey Dog Mulberry, Inc., The Grey Dog, Inc., The Grey Dog’s Coffee Ltd., Grey Dog Carmine, Inc., Moose Goose Holding, Inc., Peter Adrian Stein and David Ethan, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-10918, (S.D. N.Y., November 21, 2018), is a collective action in accordance with 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law resulting from deprivation of right to overtime compensation. The lawsuit seeks liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants operate a chain of restaurants named "The Grey Dog," where Plaintiffs worked as kitchen staff who claim to be denied overtime pay for hours rendered in excess of 40 per work week. Defendants have also failed to pay them an additional hour or "spread of hours" pay at the minimum wage rate when they worked more than 10 hours in a workday, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Hope Pordy, Esq. Elizabeth Sprotzer, Esq. SPIVAK LIPTON LLP 1700 Broadway, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 765-2100 Fax: (212) 765-8954 Email: hpordy@spivaklipton.com esportzer@spivaklipton.com GURU TEG HOLDING: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Campos Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL ISAIAS CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GURU TEG HOLDING INC. d/b/a MAHARAJA FARMERS MARKET; AKSHAR HOLDINGS INC. d/b/a MAHARAJA FARMERS MARKET; KRISHNA HOLDING INC. d/b/a/ MAHARAJA FARMERS MARKET; AMANDEEP SINGH a/k/a "TONY" SINGH; and SUNIL PATEL, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06346 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2018) is an action against the Defendants to recover overtime compensation and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Campos was employed by the Defendants as workers assigned in the meat department from September 2015 to July 23, 2018. Guru Teg Holding inc. d/b/a Maharaja Farmers Market is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. The Company is a grocery store chains in New York area offering authentic Indian groceries like Basmati Rice, Dry Fruits, Premium Spices, Masala Curry Paste, Snacks, Sweets, and Teas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dong Phuong V. Nguyen, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 H&H FRANCHISING: Court Certifies Class of Glenkat Franchise Workers ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROSEANN GEIGER and SHERRI HOLLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. H.H. FRANCHISING SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a HOME HELPERS, a foreign corporation; GLENKAT, INC.; KATHLEEN HOLDEN, an individual; and GLENN HOLDEN, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00738-FDW-DSC (W.D. N.C.), Judge Frank D. Whitney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, (i) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Revised Motion to Conditionally Certify a Collective Action and Facilitate Notice under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b); and (ii) denied as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and Judicial Notice under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' original Motion for Conditional Certification, as well as their Revised Motion filed to clarify the identity of the moving party after the matter was stayed against Roseann Geiger, one of the Plaintiffs. In light of the Revised Motion, Judge Whitney denied as moot the original motion. In addition to seeking the Court's approval of the proposed Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit and the corresponding Consent to Become Party Plaintiff form, Plaintiff Holley also seeks conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") of a collective class defined as: all current and former in-home caregiver employees who regularly worked 24-hour shifts and/or who worked more than 40 hours per week, are/were employed by H.H. Franchising Systems, Inc., doing business as Home Helpers; and/or Glenkat, Inc.; Kathleen Holden and Glenn Holden in North Carolina from Dec. 24, 2014, to the present. The Defendants object to Plaintiff's Motion. Judge Whitney, in the exercise of his discretion, concludes that Court approval of a notice is appropriate on the record when limited to individuals who worked for the Glenkat franchise and not all North Carolina franchises. Thus, to the extent requested, he denied the Plaintiff's request to send notice to "all in-home care caregiver employeesemployed by H.H. Franchising Systems, Inc., doing business as Home Helpers; and/or Glenkat, Inc.; Kathleen Holden and Glenn Holden in North Carolina. The Judge finds that the Plaintiff has plead, attested to facts, and filed documentation supporting a plausible FLSA claim on behalf of similarly situated Plaintiffs who worked for the Glenkat franchise. The Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of a common policy or practice by the Glenkat franchise. However, statewide notice to all employees of Home Helpers, including those who worked for franchises other than Glenkat, is not appropriate -- particularly where other franchisees are not the named Defendants. Both the Court's ability to orderly oversee the joining of parties and the parties' ability to timely complete discovery would be hindered if such broad notice were allowed. He also declined to grant the Plaintiff's request to conditionally certify the collective action. Conditional certification of a collection action is not required by the FSLA. Therefore, he concludes some modifications to the Plaintiff's Proposed Notice are necessary. In addition to the modification to the proposed class, Judge Whitney ordered the following modifications to the Proposed Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit: 1. Modify the Notice to be sent to: All current and former in-home caregiver employees who regularly worked 24-hour shifts and/or who worked more than 40 hours per week, are/were employed by H.H. Franchising Systems, Inc., doing business as Home Helpers; and/or Glenkat, Inc.; Kathleen Holden and Glenn Holden in North Carolina from Dec. 24, 2014, to the present. 2. Modify the "Who Can Join This Lawsuit" section of the proposed Notice to be limited in accordance with the above ruling regarding employees who worked for Home Helpers franchisees other than Glenkat. 3. Add to the "Description of the Lawsuit" - "Glenkat, Inc. and Home Helpers deny that any employee was not properly paid minimum and overtime wages. All employees were properly paid under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and in particular were properly paid according to Department of Labor standards and guidelines regarding payment for work during sleep periods. Glenkat, Inc. and Home Helpers acted in good faith and contest any liability as alleged by the Plaintiff. The Judge also declined to grant the Plaintiff's request to send additional notices or subsequent notices. He finds that given the timing of the Notice, he believes repetitive unsolicited contact with potential party Plaintiffs after the initial Notice by First Class Mail may create the appearance of undue Court involvement in the solicitation of claims. To the extent the Plaintiff seeks email addresses for purposes of sending duplicative notice, he finds duplicative notice by email inappropriate. No later than Dec. 4, 2018, the Defendants will produce a computer-readable data file containing the names and addresses or all the Potential Plaintiffs. The Judge approved a 60-day "opt-in period," to begin Dec. 11, 2018. In light of these deadlines, the Judge sua sponte modified only the following deadlines: a. Discovery Completion - March 27, 2019 b. ADR - April 13, 2019 c. Dispositive Motions (filed) - April 27, 2019 Therefore, consistent with the Order, Judge Whitney granted in part and denied in part the Revised Motion, and denied as moot the original Motion. He approved the issuance of a notice consistent with the Order and set the deadline for opting into the action as Feb. 9, 2019. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/LI8pj4 from Leagle.com. Roseann Geiger & Sherri Holley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by L. Michelle Gessner, The Law Offices of Michelle Gessner, PLLC. Glenkat, Inc., Kathleen Holden & Glen Holden, Defendants, represented by Kimberly Sullivan -- ksullivan@horacktalley.com -- Horack Talley. H.H. Franchising Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Fredric A. Cohen -- fredric.cohen@chengcohen.com -- Cheng Cohen LLC, pro hac vice, Marlen Cortez Morris, Cheng Cohen LLC, pro hac vice & William Sutton Cherry, III -- cherry@manningfulton.com -- Manning, Fulton & Skinner, P.A.. H&R BLOCK: Faces Ramsey Antitrust Suit Over No-Poach Policy ----------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA RAMSEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. H&R BLOCK, INC., and H&R BLOCK TAX SERVICES LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00933-ODS (W.D. Mo., November 23, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the Sherman Act relating to No-Poach Clause in franchise agreements. The lawsuit is an antitrust class action brought by and on behalf of individuals, who work or have worked for H&R Block, a tax preparation services company and franchisor, for unlawfully conspiring to suppress the wages of its employees through agreements with its franchisees not to compete for workers in violation of the Sherman Act. H&R Block orchestrated and enforced this conspiracy at least in part through an explicit contractual prohibition ("No-Poach Clause") contained in standard H&R Block franchise agreements that severely limited the Plaintiff's and Class members' job mobility and served to significantly suppress their compensation, the Plaintiff asserts. H&R Block, Inc., is a Missouri corporation with headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri. H&R Block Tax Services LLC is a Missouri limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of H&R Block, Inc. H&R Block touts itself as the "world's largest consumer tax services provider" and provides tax preparation and assistance services through a variety of avenues. Individuals can make an appointment with a tax preparer at a physical office, can access the assistance of a "tax pro" remotely, and can download tax filing software via desktop and mobile applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Paul, III, Esq. Ashlea Schwarz, Esq. Sean Cooper, Esq. PAUL LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com Ashlea@PaulLLP.com Sean@PaulLLP.com - and - Jason S. Hartley, Esq. HARTLEY LLP 500 West C Street, Suite 1750 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-5822 E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com HELIOS AND MATHESON: Consolidation of Chang & Braxton Cases Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that motions are pending regarding the consolidation of the cases filed by Jeffrey Chang and by Jeffrey Braxton. On August 2, 2018, Jeffrey Chang, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between August 15, 2017, and July 26, 2018, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and two of its executive officers, Theodore Farnsworth and Stuart Benson (the "August 2, 2018 Complaint"). Jeffrey Chang v. Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-6965. The August 2, 2018 Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's statements to the market were materially false or misleading. The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. On August 13, 2018, Jeffrey Braxton, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between August 15, 2017, and July 26, 2018, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and two of its executive officers, Theodore Farnsworth and Stuart Benson (the "August 13, 2018 Complaint"). Jeffrey Braxton v. Helios and Matheson Analytics, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-07242-UA. The August 13, 2018 Complaint makes substantially identical allegations as the August 2, 2018 Complaint. Motions have been filed to consolidate the cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs' counsel. The motions were scheduled to be argued November 16, 2018. Helios and Matheson said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters and believes that they are without merit. Given the preliminary status of the litigation, it is difficult to predict the likelihood of an adverse outcome or estimate the amount or range of any reasonably possible losses, if any." Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. provides a range of information technology (IT) solutions to Fortune 1000 companies and other organizations in the United States. The Company was formerly known as Helios and Matheson Information Technology Inc. and changed its name to Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. in May 2013. Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in New York, New York. HIBERNIA CONSTRUCTION: Cedeno et al. Seek Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------ JOSE CEDENO and KELVIN DE LOS SANTOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situate, the Plaintiffs, vs. HIBERNIA CONSTRUCTION, INC.; MARK RUSSELL; and any other related entities, the Defendants, Case No. 605947/2017(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 21, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation under the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, beginning in June 2011 and continuing through the present, the Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of requiring their employees to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing proper overtime compensation as required by applicable state law. Under the direction of Mr. Russell, the Defendants instituted this practice of depriving their employees of overtime compensation at one and one-half times the regular hourly rate for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week, as required by applicable state law, the lawsuit says. Hibernia offers general contraction, home building, bathroom remodeling, and kitchen construction services.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs & Putative Class: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 Attorneys for Defendant: RIVELLA & FORTE, LLP Telephone: (914) 949-9075 HIGHGATE HOTELS: Sayodi et al Suit Transferred to S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Naim Sayodi, Ray Sanchez, and Abu Omar, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Highgate Hotels, L.P. and Knickerbocker Hotel, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00392, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on Nov. 20, 2018. The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-10989 to the proceeding. The suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violation. Highgate Hotels, L.P. invests in, operates, and manages hospitality properties. The company was founded in 1988 and is based in Irving, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. Attorneys for Defendants: Nicholas Paul Melito, Esq. MELTZER, LIPPE, GOLDSTEIN & BREITSTONE, LLP 190 Willis Avenue Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: (516) 747-0300 Facsimile: (516) 237-2893 E-mail: nmelito@meltzerlippe.com HP INC: Reaches Settlement with Opt-In Plaintiffs in Forsyth Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the purported class and collective action styled Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, a settlement agreement has been signed with regards to 16 named and opt-in plaintiffs who were compelled to arbitrate, according to Perspecta Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. The case will continue to proceed in Court, however, with respect to other putative class members. The Forsyth action was filed on August 18, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company ("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. 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. The case will continue to proceed in Court, however, with respect to other putative class members. Former business units of HPE now owned by the Company will be proportionately liable for any recovery by plaintiffs in this matter. HP Inc. provides products, technologies, software, solutions, and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health, and education sectors worldwide. It operates through Personal Systems and Printing segments. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. Perspecta is an IT service management company based in Chantilly, Virginia. INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Students' Attorneys Seek Restraining Order -------------------------------------------------------------- Taylor Haggerty, writing for Indian Public Media, reports that attorneys representing Indiana University students are asking for a temporary restraining order against the university after finding mold in hundreds of dorm rooms earlier this year. The plaintiffs made their case at a court hearing in Indianapolis on Nov. 19. The class-action lawsuit alleges the university has been misleading in its communications regarding the mold, telling students to look at a measurement called a "mold score" to determine if their dorm is safe. The attorneys say mold scores are the result of an air sample test, but it won't show whether mold is growing. They argue the scores are inconsistent and could vary over time. They also say air filters installed in the affected residence halls may help air quality, but they don't solve the mold problem. The restraining order would prevent IU from discussing the mold score with students moving forward. The plaintiffs are also asking that the university be restrained from destroying evidence, and to preserve that evidence using tape lift samples and photographs. They argue that the university has not been transparent about the procedures it has followed, and students who have hired an attorney are treated differently. But attorneys from the university that attended the hearing insisted that there is no health emergency. They say the air quality inside the dorms is at acceptable levels. And they argue the university is working to address the mold issue in 1,200 rooms, and a majority of the cleaning has been completed. They argue students can check the status of individual rooms on the university website, and documentation will be provided to affected students when it is available. [GN] INMATE SERVICES: Court Denies Bid to Amend Hastings Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAVID HASTINGS, Plaintiff, v. INMATE SERVICES CORPORATION, JOHN DOES, 1 to 100, and JANE DOES, 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-145-FtM-99CM (M.D. Fla.), Judge John W. Steele of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, denied the Plaintiff's Objection to Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint construed as a motion to amend the complaint. The matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, filed Oct. 31, 2018, recommending that the Plaintiff's Objection to Motion, construed as a request to amend the complaint, be denied. No objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Plaintiff has not shown good cause to extend the deadline for motions to amend pleadings. The deadline expired on March 15, 2018, and the Plaintiff did not seek leave to amend until April 27, 2018, and significantly that he first expressed the desire for a class action suit back in July 2017, but took no action for months. The Magistrate Judge further recommends that the proposed amendment would be futile because it would be subject to dismissal based on the Plaintiff's inability to represent a class pro se, and previous denials for the appointment of the counsel. Lastly, to the extent the Plaintiff is seeking a certification of the class, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the request is premature. After conducting an independent examination of the file and upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation, Judge Steele accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to the extent that the request is untimely, and premature since it also seeks leave of Court to obtain class counsel. Accordingly, Judge Steele adopted the Report and Recommendation, and denied the Plaintiff's Objection to Motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/jTl5Oj from Leagle.com. David Hastings, Plaintiff, pro se. Inmate Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bruce Michael Trybus -- btrybus@ctkplaw.com -- Cooney Trybus Kwavnick Peets, PLC, Caroline Anne Lewis -- clewis@ctkplaw.com -- Cooney Trybus Kwavnick Peets, PLC & Warren B. Kwavnick -- wkwavnick@ctkplaw.com -- Cooney Trybus Kwavnick Peets, PLC. IQVIA INC: Reed Smith Attorney Discusses TCPA Court Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------- James M. Beck, Esq. -- jmbeck@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that speaking of another one biting the dust, the recent decision in Mussat v. IQVIA Inc., 2018 WL 5311903 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 26, 2018), makes mincemeat of a purported nationwide class action against a non-resident defendant under Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) ("BMS"). It does so not in the context of a tort claim, but against a suit brought under a federal statute -- something called the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Since the TCPA has no provision permitting nationwide service of process, "this Court looks to Illinois law and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for the applicable limits on its exercise of personal jurisdiction." Mussat, 2018 WL 5311903, at *4. First, the plaintiffs tried to avoid the issue with a waiver argument. But as we discussed in our post on waiver and personal jurisdiction, one can't waive an unknown defense. Here, until the aftermath of BMS, class action plaintiffs got away with nationwide class actions against non-resident defendants. Thus, no waiver occurred: [Defendant's] personal jurisdiction defense was not available to it when it moved to dismiss. . . . [N]o court applied the Supreme Court's [BMS] holding or reasoning to a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act until two days before [defendant] filed its motion to dismiss on other grounds. . . . Following that decision, [defendant\ timely amended its first responsive pleading. . . . [Plaintiff] could not seriously expect [defendant] to know this defense was available to it at the time it could have first raised it. Id. at *2 (citations omitted). Dynamite with a laser beam. Guaranteed to blow your mind. Anytime! On the merits, the court in Mussat saw no reasons to distinguish between class actions and mass torts -- or between federal and state law -- under post-BMS Due Process analysis. "Taking heed of the Supreme Court's admonition that the primary concern of the analysis is the burden on the defendant, other district courts applied these principles of specific jurisdiction to federal class actions. It appears that those courts agree that [BMS] generally applies to bar nationwide class actions in federal court where the defendant allegedly injured the named plaintiff outside the forum." Id. at *4. But Mussat involved a harder case; the plaintiff was injured in the forum. The issue was whether an in-state plaintiff seeking to be a class representative could "represent the absent claims of the nonresident and unnamed putative class members who the defendant injured outside the forum." Id. (citations omitted). The answer was a resounding "no." "[T]he mere fact" that [plaintiff] received two faxes in Illinois "does not allow" for an exercise of "specific jurisdiction over the nonresidents' claims" with respect to faxes received outside of Illinois because those absent class members' claims do not relate to [defendant's] contacts with Illinois. It follows, then, that exercising specific jurisdiction over [defendant] with respect to the nonresidents' claims would violate [defendant's] due process rights. Therefore, the Court must strike the class definition to the extent it asserts claims of nonresidents. Id. at *5 (citations to BMS omitted). Mussat then distinguished a couple of Supreme Court cases: Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979), which assumed personal jurisdiction rather than deciding it, and Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985), on the same grounds that the Supreme Court had distinguished Shutts in BMS. 2018 WL 5311903, at *5. Read Mussat if you require any more detail about that. Then we get to the central holdings. First, to put it bluntly, BMS prohibits nationwide class actions against non-resident corporations. Following the Supreme Court's lead in [BMS] and applying its core reasoning here, due process, as an "instrument of interstate federalism," requires a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue. This recognition bars nationwide class actions in fora where the defendant is not subject to general jurisdiction. Whether it be an individual, mass, or class action, the defendant's rights should remain constant. Id. at *5 (BMS citation omitted) (emphasis added). Second, filing suit as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 cannot change the scope of personal jurisdiction. That would put Rule 23 outside the scope of the Rules Enabling Act: [T]he Constitution and state law guide the personal jurisdiction analysis, which affects only the forum where this suit may be brought. That consequence does not run afoul of the Rules Enabling Act. Conversely, faithfully interpreting the Act here ensures the consistent and uniform application of defendants' due process rights in class actions under Rule 23, as compared to the maintenance of individual or mass actions. This construction ensures that Rule 23 -- a rule of procedure subject to the Act's limitations -- does not violate the Act by extending the personal jurisdiction of the federal courts to "abridge, enlarge or modify" a "substantive right." Id. at *6 (quoting 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2072(b)) (emphasis added). [GN] IZEA WORLDWIDE: Still Defends Perez Securities Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- IZEA Worldwide, Inc., formerly known as IZEA, Inc., continues to defend itself against a securities class action lawsuit initiated by Julian Perez, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. The lawsuit styled, Julian Perez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IZEA, Inc., et al., case number 2:18-cv-02784-SVW-GJS, was instituted April 4, 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of its executive officers on behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock. The plaintiffs seek to recover damages for investors under federal securities laws. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. IZEA Worldwide, Inc. creates and operates online marketplaces that connect marketers and content creators. The company was formerly known as IZEA, Inc. and changed its name to IZEA Worldwide, Inc. in August 2018. IZEA Worldwide, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Winter Park, Florida. JETPAY CORPORATION: Faces Franchi Suit Over NCR Merger ------------------------------------------------------ Anthony Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JetPay Corporation, Laurence L. Stone, Diane Faro, Donald J. Edwards, Robert Frankfurt, Steven M. Michienzi, Robert Metzger, NCR Corporation and Orwell Acquisition Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-01791 (D. Del., November 13, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on October 22, 2018, pursuant to which JetPay Corporation will be acquired by NCR Corporation and Orwell Acquisition Corporation. On October 19, 2018, JetPay's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with NCR. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer to acquire all of JetPay's outstanding common stock for $5.05 per share in cash. The Tender Offer was set to expire on December 4, 2018. On November 2, 2018, the Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading. The Plaintiff is an owner of JetPay common stock. The Defendant JetPay is a leading provider of vertically integrated solutions for businesses including card acceptance, processing, payroll, payroll tax filing, human capital management services, and other financial transactions. JetPay is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices at 7450 Tilghman Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18106. JetPay’s common stock is traded on the NasdaqCM under the ticker symbol "JTPY." The Individual Defendants are board of directors of JetPay. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 295-5310 Fax: (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 Tel: (484) 324-6800 Fax: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com JOHNSON CONTROLS: Bid to Dismiss Gumm Class Suit Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls International plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, 2018, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that the motion to dismis filed in Gumm v. Molinaroli, et al., is still pending. On August 16, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Gumm v. Molinaroli, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1093, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, naming Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board of directors at the time of the merger with the Company's merger subsidiary and certain of its officers, the Company and the Company's merger subsidiary as defendants. The complaint asserted various causes of action under the federal securities laws, state law and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, including that the individual defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties and unjustly enriched themselves by structuring the merger among the Company, Tyco and the merger subsidiary in a manner that would result in a United States federal income tax realization event for the putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders and allegedly result in certain benefits to the defendants, as well as related claims regarding alleged misstatements in the proxy statement/prospectus distributed to the Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders, conversion and breach of contract. The complaint also asserted that Johnson Controls, Inc., the Company and the Company's merger subsidiary aided and abetted the individual defendants in their breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks, among other things, disgorgement of profits and damages. On September 30, 2016, approximately one month after the closing of the merger, plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking, among other items, to compel Johnson Controls, Inc. to make certain intercompany payments that plaintiffs contend will impact the United States federal income tax consequences of the merger to the putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders and to enjoin Johnson Controls, Inc. from reporting to the Internal Revenue Service the capital gains taxes payable by this putative class as a result of the closing of the merger. The court held a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion on January 4, 2017, and on January 25, 2017, the judge denied the plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 15, 2017, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 3, 2017. Johnson Controls said, "Although the Company believes it has substantial defenses to plaintiffs' claims, it is not able to predict the outcome of this action." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified technology and multi industrial company worldwide. The company operates through Building Technologies & Solutions and Power Solutions segments. The company was formerly known as Johnson Controls, Inc. and changed its name to Johnson Controls International plc in September 2016. Johnson Controls International plc was founded in 1885 and is headquartered in Cork, Ireland. JOHNSON CONTROLS: Court Approves Settlement in Laufer Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls International plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, 2018, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that the settlement in Laufer v. Johnson Controls, Inc., et al., has been approved. On May 20, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Laufer v. Johnson Controls, Inc., et al., Docket No. 2016CV003859, was filed in the Circuit Court of Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, naming Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board of directors, the Company and the Company's merger subsidiary as defendants. The complaint alleged that Johnson Controls Inc.'s directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger between Johnson Controls Inc. and the Company's merger subsidiary by, among other things, failing to take steps to maximize shareholder value, seeking to benefit themselves improperly and failing to disclose material information in the joint proxy statement/prospectus relating to the merger. The complaint further alleged that the Company aided and abetted Johnson Controls Inc.'s directors in the breach of their fiduciary duties. The complaint sought, among other things, to enjoin the merger. On August 8, 2016, the plaintiffs agreed to settle the action and release all claims that were or could have been brought by plaintiffs or any member of the putative class of Johnson Controls Inc.'s shareholders. The settlement was approved by the court on August 13, 2018. Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified technology and multi industrial company worldwide. The company operates through Building Technologies & Solutions and Power Solutions segments. The company was formerly known as Johnson Controls, Inc. and changed its name to Johnson Controls International plc in September 2016. Johnson Controls International plc was founded in 1885 and is headquartered in Cork, Ireland. JOHNSON CONTROLS: Suits over Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls International plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, 2018, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that the company and its subsidiaries continue to defend themselves from the Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF") Litigation. Two of the company's subsidiaries, Chemguard, Inc. ("Chemguard") and Tyco Fire Products L.P. ("Tyco Fire Products"), have been named, along with other defendant manufacturers, in a number of class action and other lawsuits relating to the use of fire-fighting foam products by the U.S. Department of Defense (the "DOD") and others for fire suppression purposes and related training exercises. Plaintiffs generally allege that the firefighting foam products manufactured by defendants contain or break down into the chemicals perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS") and perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and/or other per- and poly fluorinated ("PFAS") compounds and that the use of these products by others at various airbases, airports and other sites resulted in the release of these chemicals into the environment and ultimately into communities' drinking water supplies neighboring those airports, airbases and other sites. PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS compounds are being studied by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and other environmental and health agencies and researchers. The EPA has not issued regulatory limits, however; while those studies continue, the EPA has issued a health advisory level for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water. Both PFOA and PFOS are types of synthetic chemical compounds that have been present in firefighting foam. However, both are also present in many existing consumer products. According to EPA, PFOA and PFOS have been used to make carpets, clothing, fabrics for furniture, paper packaging for food and other materials (e.g., cookware) that are resistant to water, grease or stains. Plaintiffs generally seek compensatory damages, including damages for alleged personal injuries, medical monitoring, and alleged diminution in property values, and also seek punitive damages and injunctive relief to address remediation of the alleged contamination. The Company is named in 19 putative class actions in federal and state courts in six states as set forth below: Colorado * District of Colorado - Bell et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed September 18, 2016. * District of Colorado - Bell et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed September 18, 2016. * District of Colorado - Davis et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed September 22, 2016. The above cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, and a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification is expected in 2018 with a trial date schedule for April 2019. Delaware * District of Delaware - Anderson v. The 3M Company et al., filed May 18, 2018 in the United States District Court District of Delaware. * District of Delaware - Grubb v. The 3M Company et al., filed October 30, 2018 in the United States District Court District of Delaware. Massachusetts * District of Massachusetts - Civitarese et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed April 18, 2018 in the United States District Court of Massachusetts. Washington * Eastern District of Washington - Ackerman et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed April 5, 2018 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington. New York * Eastern District of New York - Green et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed March 27, 2017 in Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, prior to removal to federal court. * Southern District of New York - Adamo et al. v. The Port Authority of NY and NJ et al., filed August 11, 2017 in Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange County, prior to removal to federal court. * Southern District of New York - Fogarty et al. v. The Port Authority of NY and NJ et al., filed August 11, 2017 in Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange County, prior to removal to federal court. * Southern District of New York - Miller et al. v. The Port Authority of NY and NJ et al., filed August 11, 2017 in Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange County, prior to removal to federal court. * Eastern District of New York - Singer et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed October 10, 2017, in Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, prior to removal to federal court. * Eastern District of New York - Shipman et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed March 21, 2018, in Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, prior to removal to federal court. * Eastern District of New York - Py et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed April 26, 2018, in Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, prior to removal to federal court. * Supreme Court of the State of New York, Dutchess County - County of Dutchess v. 3M Company et al. - filed October 12, 2018. Pennsylvania * Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Bates et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed September 15, 2016. * Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Grande et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed October 13, 2016. * Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Yockey et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed October 24, 2016. * Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Fearnley et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed December 9, 2016. The above cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the consolidated proceeding was denied without prejudice and the cases are currently stayed pending the appeal of an action in which the Company is not a party. In September of 2018, the Company filed a Petition for Multidistrict Litigation with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking to consolidate all existing and future federal cases into one jurisdiction. A hearing on this petition is set for November 29, 2018. Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified technology and multi industrial company worldwide. The company operates through Building Technologies & Solutions and Power Solutions segments. The company was formerly known as Johnson Controls, Inc. and changed its name to Johnson Controls International plc in September 2016. Johnson Controls International plc was founded in 1885 and is headquartered in Cork, Ireland. JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Class Suit Remains Pending in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in Bland, et. al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et. al. On March 13, 2018, JFC and Edward Jones were named as defendants in a purported collective and class action lawsuit (Bland, et. al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et. al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by four former financial advisors. The lawsuit was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as Missouri and Illinois law and alleges that the defendants unlawfully attempted to recoup training costs from departing financial advisors and failed to pay all overtime owed to financial advisor trainees among other claims. The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and liquidated damages. The Jones Financial said, "JFC and Edward Jones intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in this lawsuit." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered broker-dealer. The company provides investment advisory services; shareholder accounting services, including maintaining client account information and other administrative services for the mutual funds; insurance contract services to insurance companies; and custodial and other account services. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Des Peres, Missouri. JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Discrimination Class Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2018, that an amended complaint was filed in Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al., under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, alleging that the defendants discriminated against the former financial advisor and financial advisor trainees on the basis of race. On May 24, 2018, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit (Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by a former financial advisor. An amended complaint was filed on September 24, 2018, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, alleging that the defendants discriminated against the former financial advisor and financial advisor trainees on the basis of race. The lawsuit seeks equitable and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. Edward Jones and JFC deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered broker-dealer. The company provides investment advisory services; shareholder accounting services, including maintaining client account information and other administrative services for the mutual funds; insurance contract services to insurance companies; and custodial and other account services. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Des Peres, Missouri. JPMORGAN CHASE: Manipulated Share Prices, Cognata Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- DOMINICK COGNATA individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.; JOHN EDMONDS; and JOHN DOE Nos. 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10356 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2018) is an action against the Defendants alleging unlawful and intentional manipulation of gold, silver, platinum, and palladium futures contracts and options on such contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange and the Commodity Exchange, Inc., from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2015, in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants manipulated the prices of NYMEX and COMEX precious metals futures and options contracts during the Class Period using a technique called "spoofing" whereby the Defendants routinely placed electronic orders to buy and sell such futures contracts with the intent to cancel those orders before execution ("spoof orders"). Such spoof orders injected materially false and illegitimate signals of supply and demand into the market and were intended to induce other market participants to trade against the Defendants' genuine orders (i.e., orders that the Defendants did want to execute) on the opposite side of the market from the spoof orders at prices, quantities, and times at which the Plaintiff and the other market participants otherwise would not have traded. The spoof orders were designed to, and did, artificially move the prices of NYMEX and COMEX precious metals futures and options contracts during the Class Period in a direction that was favorable to the Defendants but unfavorable to the Plaintiff. PMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company worldwide. JPMorgan Chase & Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent Briganti, Esq. Christian P. Levis, Esq. Amanda Miller, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com clevis@lowey.com amiller@lowey.com JUUL LABS: Faces Yannucci Suit over Sale of e-Cigarettes -------------------------------------------------------- J.Y., a minor, by and with his mother and Natural Guardian BARBARA YANNUCCI, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-06776-JCS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 10, 2018) is an action against the Defendant's false and deceptive sale, marketing, labeling and advertising of JUUL e-cigarette devices and JUUL pods which came into the market in 2015. The Plaintiffs alleges in the complaint that the Defendant knew that JUUL e-cigarettes were not safe under any circumstances for non-smokers and posed a risk of aggravating nicotine addiction in those already addicted to nicotine. The Defendant also knew that JUUL's nicotine solution could deliver more nicotine into the bloodstream than a cigarette, and did so more quickly than a cigarette. The Defendant was under a duty to disclose these material facts, but never did so. JUUL Labs, Inc. manufactures and markets e-cigarettes. The company offers a temperature regulation system to heat nicotine-based liquid to an ideal level, which is designed to avoid burning. Its products include device kits, JUULpods, and accessories in different flavors. The company retails its products online, through its e-commerce platform. JUUL Labs, Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is based in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. Barbara A. Podell, Esq. Russell D. Paul, Esq. Jonathan Z. DeSantis, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: ssavett@bm.net bpodell@bm.net rpaul@bm.net jdesantis@bm.net - and - Aaron J. Freiwald, Esq. FREIWALD LAW 1500 Walnut Street, 18th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 875-8000 E-mail: ajf@freiwaldlaw.com KANSAS: Addresses Foster Care System Issue Amid Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Kim Phagan-Hansel, writing for The Chronicle of Social Change, reports that Kansas Development of Children and Families (DCF) has been hit with a class-action lawsuit that accuses the agency of inappropriate practices when it comes to frequency of placements in foster care. The lawsuit -- brought on behalf of 10 specific foster youth by the National Center for Youth Law, Children's Rights and Kansas Appleseed -- is the latest challenge for a state that has been plagued by issues in the last few years that ultimately led to the resignation of DCF Secretary Phyllis Gilmore, who was replaced by Gina Meier-Hummel less than a year ago. In the last year, Meier-Hummel has worked with Gov. Jeff Colyer (R) who will leave office in January, to address the issue of missing foster youth, homeless youth, and children sleeping in county offices. The lawsuit contends that these issues persist, children running away from foster homes for being treated poorly, sexual abuse in adoptive homes, multiple moves for children in care and even a 13-year-old girl who was raped in May at an Olathe child welfare office. The suit names Mr. Colyer and officials responsible for the Kansas Department for Children and Families, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) and the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS) as defendants in the suit. "As Kansans, we should be ashamed and outraged that our own state government is harming our most vulnerable children this way," said Benet Magnuson, executive director at Kansas Appleseed in a press release about the suit. "The problems have become too dangerous and too entrenched that we believe this lawsuit is necessary to protect our children." Since taking over DCF, Meier-Hummel has implemented a number of changes, including increasing social worker recruitment efforts, introducing an online dashboard to monitor the child welfare reform process, and gathering public input on child welfare contracts. But the lawsuit contends that many DCF children are experiencing a high rate of placements once they enter foster care. According to reporting by Kansas City radio station KCUR, "Kansas moved kids an average of 8.6 times per 1,000 days, more than double the federal standard, and 30 percent more times than its 2016 average of 6.6 moves." The state's contracts with private operators are drawing additional heat. One of DCF's choices for a new contract for family preservation services -- Eckerd Connects, a Florida-based nonprofit, has had its own slew of issues. In recent months, Florida has threatened to revoke Eckerd's contract because of similar issues with youth safety. "Oh, brother," said House Majority Leader Don Hineman, (R), in a Kansas City Star article about the concerns about the contracts. "I'm disappointed to hear that. Full vetting and due diligence should be done before any private contractor is awarded a grant. I know that can be time-consuming and inefficient, but it's of paramount importance, in my opinion." Earlier in November, citing a growing number of homeless youth in the state, DCF announced plans to replicate a program that has shown promise in the Kansas City area. Typically, homeless youth are identified by their public school. The federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act requires school districts to support homeless youth so they can remain in school. DCF has been working to support homeless families so children can have more stability, Forrest said. The state launched Vital Impact, a program to bring together community supports and agencies to help families in the Kansas City area a few years ago. "These families intersect with the child welfare community because they are at-risk, often living relatively unstable lives, bouncing from place-to-place each night," said Taylor Forrest, director of communications at DCF, in an email to The Chronicle of Social Change. "In the past four years, Vital Impact has significantly decreased the number of homeless youth. DCF hopes to replicate this collaborative network approach to services across the state." DCF hosted a call to action meeting in early November to address the issue, at which it announced the expansion of that program to other counties in the state, including in the state's more populous communities for Wichita and Topeka, with the hopes of remedying the youth homelessness problem in those areas. Shawnee County, where Topeka is, currently has a youth homeless population of 554. "In Wyandotte County, Kansas City, they began to approach this a number of years ago through what's called collective impact . . . what they were able to do in about four years was to reduce the number of children who are homeless by 50 percent," said Barry Feaker, executive director of the Topeka Rescue Mission that's partnering with DCF in the program's expansion. A new report on the Kansas child welfare system is due to the legislature early next year. The responsibility for cleaning up the problems will land on the new Kansas-governor Laura Kelly (D), who was elected to the position by beating current Secretary of State Kris Kobach who had ousted Colyer in the primary election. Kelly will have the right to appoint a new DCF secretary when she moves into the position. [GN] KELLOGG'S DINER: Romero Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages & Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- ESGAR ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by SID BOYS CORP d/b/a KELLOGG'S DINER, and CHRISTOS SIDERAKIS and IRENE SIDERAKIS, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06583 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation and damages arising out of Defendants' failure to provide weekly wage notices, plus interest, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, beginning in approximately November 2012 continuing through the present, the Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and the putative class to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing all minimum wages owed and/or overtime compensation, as required by applicable Federal and New York State law. Beginning in November 2012, the Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and the putative class to regularly work in excess of 10 hours per week, without providing an additional hour's wage, as required by applicable New York State law. The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of failing to provide their Plaintiff and the putative class with wage notices and wage statements in Plaintiffs' primary language, as required by applicable New York State law, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Class: LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Leonor Coyle, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com lcoyle@vandallp.com Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 - and - S. Tito Sinha, Esq. Community Development Project 123 William Street, Sixteenth Floor New York, NY 10038 Email: tsinha@urbanjustice.org Telephone: (646) 459-3032 Facsimile: (212) 533-4598 KROLL FACTUAL: Butt Sues Over Erroneous Credit Report ----------------------------------------------------- Muhammad M. Butt, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kroll Factual Data, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-13641 (E.D. Mich., November 21, 2018), seeks damages resulting from violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Kroll is a consumer reporting agency that attempted to collect a debt incurred by Butt to Mayflower Auto, Inc. despite receiving a bankruptcy discharge of this and other alleged debts. Butt applied for mortgage loan through Hall Financial Group to purchase a residential home. As part of the loan application process, Hall Financial Group purchased a consumer report from Kroll that reflected an outstanding balance of $706.00 thereby disapproving his loan application. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Nemer N. Hadous, Esq. HADOUS CO. PLLC 1 Parklane Blvd., Suite 729 East Dearborn, MI 48126 Tel: (313) 415-5559 Fax: (888) 450-0687 Email: nhadous@hadousco.com L'OREAL USA: Website not Accessible to Blind, Diaz Says ------------------------------------------------------- EDWIN DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. L'OREAL USA, INC. d/b/a REDKEN, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10922 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018), alleges that Defendant 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.redken.com and www.redkensalon.com are not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The 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. L'Oreal USA, Inc. manufactures and markets cosmetics for consumer and professional markets. It provides skincare, haircare, and makeup.[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 LOS ANGELES, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Pimentel Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Jesus Pimentel, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Jesus Pimentel, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. 2:14-cv-01371-FMO-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges that a $63 fine Los Angeles imposes for an expired parking meter, and its doubling if not paid in two weeks -- not to mention the $28 "delinquent" fee and the $21 "collection fee" -- are so excessive they are unconstitutional. Lead Plaintiff Jesus Pimentel claims that the $175 he had to pay was an unconstitutional "excessive fine," and that the DMV's threat to withhold registration of his car and/or boot or seize it if he didn't pay the $175 -- accompanied by the threat of civil litigation, reporting him to a credit bureau and garnishing of his state tax refund -- violated the Due Process clause. The appellate case is captioned as Jesus Pimentel, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. 18-56553, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants Jacklyn Baird, Rafael Buelna, Wendy Cooper, Edward Lee, Jeffrey O'Connell, Jesus Pimentel, Anthony Rodriguez and David R. Welch's opening brief is due on January 18, 2019; -- Appellee City of Los Angeles' answering brief is due on February 19, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JESUS PIMENTEL, DAVID R. WELCH, JEFFREY O'CONNELL, EDWARD LEE, WENDY COOPER, JACKLYN BAIRD, ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ and RAFAEL BUELNA, and all persons similarly situated, are represented by: Theo Giovanni Arbucci, Esq. Maxwell Michael Blecher, Esq. Donald R. Pepperman, Esq. BLECHER COLLINS PEPPERMAN & JOYE, P.C. 515 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 622-4222 Facsimile: (213) 622-1656 E-mail: jarbucci@blechercollins.com mblecher@blechercollins.com dpepperman@blechercollins.com Defendant-Appellee CITY OF LOS ANGELES is represented by: Gabriel Dermer, Esq. Michael Nelson Feuer, Esq. Arlene Nancy Hoang, Esq. Gerald Masahiro Sato, Esq. Ronald S. Whitaker, Esq. LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 200 North Main Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 978-7558 E-mail: gabriel.dermer@lacity.org mike.feuer@lacity.org arlene.hoang@lacity.org kurt.sato@lacity.org ronald.whitaker@lacity.org LYFT INC: Class Action Over Applicant Background Checks Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- Perry Cooper, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Lyft Inc. convinced a federal court Nov. 19 to dismiss a class action over applicant background checks and send it to arbitration. The arbitration agreement delegates questions of arbitrability -- such as whether this claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act falls within the scope of the arbitration provision—to the arbitrator, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler wrote for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Lyft's assertion of arbitrability isn't "wholly groundless," the court said. [GN] MAGAZINES.COM: Parde et al Sue over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAURA PARDE, RACHEL DELAGUILA, and JEROME WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MAGAZINES.COM, LLC, the Defendant, Case 3:18-cv-01307 (M.D. Tenn., Nov. 21, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's practice of making unsolicited telemarketing calls to the telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct. According to the complaint, the Defendant is a magazines sales company. In an effort to solicit potential customers, MAGAZINES.COM, LLC recruited, or employed call centers, to place telephone calls, en masse, to consumers across the country. On information and belief, Defendant and or its agents purchase phone number databases of consumers' contact information and creates an electronic database from which Defendant makes automated calls. The Defendant conducted wide scale telemarketing campaigns and repeatedly made unsolicited calls to consumers' telephones -- whose numbers appear on the National Do Not Call Registry -- without consent, all in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. By making the telephone calls at issue in this Complaint, Defendant caused Plaintiffs and the members of a putative Class of consumers actual harm, including the aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unsolicited and harassing telephone calls, as well as the monies paid to their carriers for the receipt of such telephone calls. Magazines.com LLC is a privately held American e-commerce company based in Franklin, a suburb of Nashville, Tennessee. Magazines.com retains authorizations to sell magazine subscriptions by publishers. Time Inc. is a major investor.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: John J. Griffin, Jr., Esq. Michael A. Johnson, Esq. KAY GRIFFIN, PLLC 222 Second Ave. North, Suite 340-M Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 742-4800 Facsimile: (615) 742-4801 E-mail: john.griffin@kaygriffin.com michael.johnson@kaygriffin.com - and - W. Craft Hughes, Esq. Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120 Galleria Tower I Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 995-3335 E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com jarrett@hughesellzey.com MARQUETTE MANAGEMENT: Underpays Leasing Consultants, Jones Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEMARRET JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARQUETTE MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07426 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 8, 2018) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Jones was employed by the Defendant as leasing consultant. Marquette Management, Inc. operates as a real estate management company. It owns, operates, and rents boutique apartments in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Texas. The company was founded in 1983 and is based in Romeoville, Illinois. Marquette Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Marquette Company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Ching-Yuan Teng, Esq. BROWN, LLC 500 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com tonyteng@jtblawgroup.com - and - Josh Sanford, Esq. Joshua West, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com west@sanfordlawfirm.com MAYFLOWER INTERNATIONAL: Xing Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- LIYOU XING, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff, vs. MAYFLOWER INTERNATIONAL HOTEL GROUP INC d/b/a Mayflower Hotel and d/b/a Wyndham Garden; MAYFLOWER BUSINESS GROUP, LLC d/b/a Mayflower Hotel and d/b/a Wyndham Garden; MAYFLOWER INN CORPORATION d/b/a Mayflower Hotel and d/b/a Wyndham Garden; MAYFLOWER WENYU LLC d/b/a Mayflower Hotel and d/b/a Wyndham Garden; YAN ZHI HOTEL MANAGEMENT INC. d/b/a Mayflower Hotel and d/b/a Wyndham Garden; MAYFLOWER 1-1 LLC d/b/a Mayflower Hotel and d/b/a Wyndham Garden; YUEHUA HU, WEI HONG HU a/k/a Weihong Hu, and XIAOZHUANG GE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06616 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgement interest; and or attorney's fees and cost under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, the lawsuit says. Mayflower International Hotel Group Inc is in the hotels business.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and potential Rule 23 Class: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 MCHENRY SCHOOL: Underpays School Bus Drivers, Klatt & Zenner Claim ------------------------------------------------------------------ SYLVIA KLATT, and ANDREA ZENNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. McHENRY SCHOOL DISTRICT 15; and McHENRY SCHOOL DISTRICT 156, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07414 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 8, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, minimum wages, interest, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as school bus drivers. McHenry School District 15 is a school district serving parts of McHenry County, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jac A. Cotiguala, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAC A. COTIGUALA 431 South Dearborn Street, Suite 606 Chicago, IL 60605 Telephone: (312) 939-2100 E-mail: jac@wageandhour.com - and - James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com aceragioli@stephanzouras.com MCKESSON CORP: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against McKesson Corporation (McKesson or the Company) (NYSE: MCK) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's shares between October 24, 2013 and January 25, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before December 26, 2018. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian, of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. McKesson colluded with other companies in the market to fix the price of generic drugs. This collusion violated federal antitrust laws. McKessons revenues throughout the class period were in part the result of illegal activities and were therefore unsustainable. The Company also failed to maintain effective controls on financial reporting. Based on these facts, the Companys public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about McKesson, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. Brian Schall, Esq. Sherin Mahdavian, Esq. The Schall Law Firm 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310-301-3335 424-303-1964 Email: info@schallfirm.com brian@schallfirm.com. sherin@schallfirm.com[GN] MCLANE CO: Viramontes Stayed Pending Ruling in Sampson ------------------------------------------------------ Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, satyed the case, RAUL VIRAMONTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. McLANE COMPANY, INC. DBA McLANE NORTHWEST, a Texas corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-05909-RBL (W.D. Wash.), pending the Washington Supreme Court's decision on the certified question in Sampson v. Knight Transportation, Inc. On Oct. 5, 2018, Plaintiff Viramontes filed a putative Class Action Complaint in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for Pierce County. On Nov. 7, 2018, the Defendant removed the action to the Court invoking the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). In conjunction with its Notice of Removal of Civil Action, and pursuant to LCR 3(g), the Defendant filed a Notice of Related Case, identifying Eilerman v. McLane Company, Inc. dba McLane/Northwest, W.D. Wash. Case. No. 3:16-cv-05303-BHS, as a related case previously pending in the District and detailing the class action settlement to which the parties agreed and the Court approved in resolving that action. The Plaintiff was a settlement class member who participated in the Eilerman Action settlement, and, in order to avoid protracted litigation of res judicata issues related to the release and settlement class period agreed upon in that approved settlement, he irrevocably agrees that the putative class and limitations periods applicable to his individual and putative class action claims that are or may be asserted in the instant action, for all purposes including discovery and should class certification be sought, will commence no earlier than on Jan. 1, 2017, immediately after the end of the release period applicable to the Eilerman Action settlement, rather than on Oct. 5, 2015 as alleged in the Plaintiff's Complaint. In his Complaint, the Plaintiff also alleges that in Carranza v. Dovex Fruit Co., the Washington Supreme Court held that employers who pay agricultural workers on a piece-rate basis must compensate the workers on a separate hourly basis for time spent performing activities that are outside the scope of the piece rate picking work and that the Defendant's piece-rate compensation system is virtually indistinguishable from the piece rate scheme in Carranza. Based upon the Plaintiff's interpretation of Carranza, the Complaint asserts two causes of action for (1) Violations of RCW 49.46.020, 090 for Failure to Pay Minimum Wage for All Hours Worked, and (2) Double Damages for Willful and Intentional Withholding of Wages Pursuant to RCW 49.52.050, 070 Flowing from Cause of Action One. In support of his First Cause of Action, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant paid its truck drivers on a piece-rate scheme under which it did not compensate truck drivers for non-driving tasks as required under Washington law, including, but not limited to, pre-and post-trip inspections, detention time, and fueling, and asserts that the Plaintiff seeks relief on a class-wide basis for unpaid wages for non-driving tasks. In Sampson, currently pending in the District, the plaintiffs similarly contend that the Defendant's piece-rate compensation scheme violates Washington's Minimum Wage Act ("MWA") because drivers are not paid minimum wage for the time they spend conducting pre-trip inspections, completing paperwork, loading and unloading the truck, and refueling. In Sampson, the Court recognized that courts in the district have previously held that the Plaintiffs' on-duty, not driving claim are not cognizable under Washington law, but it reasoned that these prior holdings are called into question by the Washington Supreme Court's recent ruling in Carranza], on the grounds that the Washington Supreme Court's interpretation of the MWA would seem to apply to all employers, not just agricultural workers. The district court in Sampson concluded that the law underlying the Plaintiffs' on duty, not driving claim is not clearly determined, and that the Washington Supreme Court is in a better position than the Court to answer the question, and therefore certified the following question to the Washington Supreme Court on whether the Washington Minimum Wage Act requires non-agricultural employers to pay their piece-rate employees per hour for time spent performing activities outside of piece-rate work. The parties agree that the Washington Supreme Court's resolution of the question certified in Sampson could directly impact the disposition of the Plaintiff's claims asserted in the action, which assert an on-duty, not driving time unpaid wages claim similar to that asserted by the plaintiffs in Sampson. The parties' agree that a stay of the case pending the Washington Supreme Court's resolution of the certified question in Sampson, which could bear directly upon the Plaintiff's putative "on-duty, not driving" time unpaid wages claims in the action, would be prudent and efficient for both the Court and the parties. Therfore, the parties stipulated and agreed, and Judge Leighton approved, that the putative class and limitations periods applicable to the Plaintiff's individual and putative class action claims that are or may be asserted in the action, for all purposes including discovery and should class certification be sought, will commence no earlier than on Jan. 1, 2017, immediately after the end of the release period applicable to the Eilerman Action settlement, rather than on Oct. 5, 2015 as alleged in the Plaintiff's Complaint. The dates set forth in the Court's Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement and all other deadlines currently set in the action will be and are vacated, including without limitation the Plaintiff's deadline to move for class certification under LCR 23(i)(3). The action will be and is stayed, in its entirety and for all purposes, pending the Washington Supreme Court's decision on the certified question in Sampson. Within 14 days of the Washington Supreme Court's decision in Sampson, the parties will file a joint status report with the Court that (1) informs the Court regarding the Washington Supreme Court's Decision; and (2) provides the Court with agreed-upon and/or proposed deadlines for a Plaintiff's deadline to move for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and the dates for initial disclosures and submission of the parties' Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court in response to the parties' joint status report as referenced, the Plaintiff's presumptive deadline under LCR 23(i)(3) to move for class certification will commence running upon the Court lifting the stay of the action. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/Zknd7H from Leagle.com. Raul Viramontes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Walter Denlinger, ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C., Craig Ackermann, ACKERMANN AND TILAJEF PC, India Lin Bodien & Julian Hammond, HAMMOND LAW, P.C. McLane Company, Inc, a Texas corporation, Defendant, represented by Kasey D. Huebner, MILLS MEYERS SWARTLING. MDL 2741: Bindon Suit vs. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled ANNETTE A. BINDON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01854, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 20, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-07069-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant 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 Bindon case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 MDL 2741: Brunson Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled SARAH C. BRUNSON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01843, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 20, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-07064-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant 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 Brunson case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 MDL 2741: Hill Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled KATHRYN L. HILL, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01852, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 20, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-07068-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant 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 Hill case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 MDL 2741: Jarrett Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled WILLIAM E. JARRETT, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01823, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 20, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-07061-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant 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 Jarrett case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 MDL 2741: Mabus Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled JULIE MABUS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01845, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 20, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-07066-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant 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 Mabus case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 MDL 2741: Musso Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled DONNA W. MUSSO, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01856, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 20, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-07070-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant 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 Musso case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 MDL 2741: Newton Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled JERRY D. NEWTON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01842, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 20, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-07063-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant 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 Newton case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 MDL 2741: Purdy Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled GARY E. PURDY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00392, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 20, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-07147-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant 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 Purdy case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Kori Westbrook, Esq. JOHNSON LAW GROUP 2925 Richmond Ave., Suite 1700 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713)626-9336 Facsimile: (713) 583-9460 E-mail: kwestbrook@johnsonlawgroup.com MEDLEY LLC: Still Faces Consolidated Class Action Suit in Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------------ Medley LLC continues to defend itself against a consolidated class action currently pending in Virginia, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube were named as defendants, along with other various parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned as Royce Solomon, Jodi Belleci, Michael Littlejohn, and Giulianna Lomaglio v. American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark Curry, MacFarlane Group, Inc., Sol Partners, Medley Opportunity Fund, II, LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, DHI Computing Service, Inc., Middlemarch Partners, and John Does 1-100, filed on December 15, 2017 and amended on March 9, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No. 4:17-cv-145 (hereinafter, "Class Action 1"). Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned George Hengle and Lula Williams v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed February 13, 2018, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, as Case No. 3:18-cv-100 ("Class Action 2"). Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned John Glatt, Sonji Grandy, Heather Ball, Dashawn Hunter, and Michael Corona v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed August 9, 2018 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No. 4:18-cv-101 ("Class Action 3") (together with Class Action 1 and Class Action 2, the "Virginia Class Actions"). Medley Opportunity Fund II LP was also named as a defendant, along with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Christina Williams and Michael Stermel v. Red Stone, Inc. (as successor in interest to MacFarlane Group, Inc.), Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Mark Curry, Brian McGowan, Vincent Ney, and John Doe entities and individuals, filed June 29, 2018 and amended July 26, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as Case No. 2:18-cv-2747 (the "Pennsylvania Class Action") (together with the Virginia Class Actions, the "Class Action Complaints"). The plaintiffs in the Class Action Complaints filed their putative class actions alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of the alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan. The claims against Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube (in Class Action 1, as amended); Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation (in Class Action 2 and Class Action 3); and Medley Opportunity Fund II LP (in the Pennsylvania Class Action), allege that those defendants in each respective action exercised control over, or improperly derived income from, and/or obtained an improper interest in, American Web Loan's payday lending activities as a result of a loan to American Web Loan. The loan was made by Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in 2011. American Web Loan repaid the loan from Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in full in February of 2015, more than 1 year and 10 months prior to any of the loans allegedly made by American Web Loan to the alleged class plaintiff representatives in Class Action 1. In Class Action 2, the alleged class plaintiff representatives have not alleged when they received any loans from American Web Loan. In Class Action 3, the alleged class plaintiff representatives claim to have received loans from American Web Loan at various times from February 2015 through April 2018. In the Pennsylvania Class Action, the alleged class plaintiff representatives claim to have received loans from American Web Loan in 2017. By orders dated August 7, 2018 and September 17, 2018, the Court presiding over the Virginia Class Actions consolidated those cases for all purposes. On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 3 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of their claims, without prejudice, against Medley Opportunity Fund II, LP and Medley Capital Corporation. On October 22, 2018, the parties to Class Action 2 settled. On October 29, 2018, the plaintiffs in Class Action 2 stipulated to the dismissal of their claims against all defendants in Class Action 2 (including Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation), with prejudice. Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube never made any loans or provided financing to, or had any other relationship with, American Web Loan. Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube are seeking indemnification from American Web Loan, various affiliates, and other parties with respect to the claims in the Class Action Complaints. Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube believe the alleged claims in the Class Action Complaints are without merit and they intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. Medley LLC is an alternative asset management firm offering yield solutions to retail and institutional investors. The company focuses on credit-related investment strategies, primarily originating senior secured loans to private middle market companies in the United States that have revenues between $50 million and $1 billion. MEDTRONIC INC: Settles HeartWare Investors' Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Joe Carlson, writing for Star Tribune, reports that Medtronic has agreed to pay a $54.5 million class-action settlement to investors to resolve allegations that a heart-pump company it acquired in 2016, HeartWare, repeatedly misled investors about the safety of an important new medical device under clinical testing. The class-action investors, including the St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund Association, the lead plaintiff, allege HeartWare and its former CEO Douglas Godshall, lied repeatedly to investors about the fate of a product that was supposed to become HeartWare's major growth driver for years to come. Medtronic would not be admitting any wrongdoing as part of the proposed settlement, which still requires judge approvals and advertising to the class members. But the investors said in court filings that they were satisfied with a hard-fought settlement, which represented a large share of what they could have won at trial, estimated between $82 million and $218 million. Attorneys fees would comprise 24 percent of the settlement. "Lead plaintiff believes that the proposed settlement represents a very favorable result for the class because it provides a significant recovery, particularly when compared to the risks that continued litigation might result in a smaller recovery, or no recovery at all," the St. Paul teachers fund said in a legal filing on Nov. 16 in the federal Southern District of New York. HeartWare was one of a handful of companies worldwide to make a sophisticated class of implantable devices known as heart pumps, more formally known as left-ventricular assist devices (LVADs), that treat advanced cases of heart failure. LVADs make up an $800 million global market. The devices use a propeller-like system to push a person's blood when the heart's main pumping chamber is too weak to do the work on its own. Past studies have shown that such pumps get gummed up with blood clots as often as 4 percent of the time, and HeartWare told investors that its new MVAD, or miniaturized ventricular-assist device, could essentially eliminate the problem, the lawsuit says. In reality, three of the first 11 patients in Europe who received the device in a clinical trial experienced the problem. Overall, nearly half of all the patients in the European trial had the problem, causing the company to close down the trial in 2016. The MVAD has never been brought to market in any country. HeartWare stock crashed from $81.81 in September 2015 to $26.50 in January 2016. Medtronic announced its intentions to buy HeartWare on June 27, 2016, two days before the St. Paul teachers' fund filed its amended complaint. The deal closed on Aug. 23 for $1.1 billion, valuing HeartWare at $58 per share. Although the plaintiffs scored pretrial legal victories and had 450,000 pages of evidence, the attorneys said they still faced significant challenges at trial, including proving that HeartWare executives' statements were knowingly false or reckless. "Defendants would have pointed to the lack of any action by the SEC or FDA in support of their argument that they did not act with fraudulent intent," the settlement proposal says. [GN] MEDTRONIC PLC: Accord Reached in Teachers' Retirement Fund Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2018, for the quarterly period ended October 26, 2018, that the parties in the St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund Association putative class action have reached an agreement to settle the suit. On January 22, 2016, the St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund Association filed a putative class action complaint (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against HeartWare on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of HeartWare from June 10, 2014 through January 11, 2016 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint was amended on June 29, 2016 and claims HeartWare and one of its executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements about, among other things, HeartWare's response to a June 2014 U.S. FDA warning letter, the development of the Miniaturized Ventricular Assist Device (MVAD) System and the proposed acquisition of Valtech Cardio Ltd. The Complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers or acquirers of HeartWare's stock during the Class Period. In August of 2016, the Company acquired HeartWare. In October of 2018, the parties reached an agreement to settle this matter. Medtronic plc develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells device-based medical therapies to hospitals, physicians, clinicians, and patients worldwide. It operates through four segments: Cardiac and Vascular Group, Minimally Invasive Therapies Group, Restorative Therapies Group, and Diabetes Group. The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. MEDTRONIC PLC: Settlement Paid in INFUSE Bone Graft Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2018, for the quarterly period ended October 26, 2018, that the Company has paid the settlement amount in the lawsuit over its INFUSE Bone Graft product into a qualified settlement fund to be distributed following final court approval. West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27, 2013 and July 3, 2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints against Medtronic, Inc. and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the defendants made false and misleading public statements and engaged in a scheme to defraud regarding the INFUSE Bone Graft product during the period of December 8, 2010 through August 3, 2011. The matters were consolidated in September 2013, and in the consolidated complaint plaintiffs alleged a class period of September 28, 2010 through August 3, 2011. On September 30, 2015, the District Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in the consolidated matters. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and in December of 2016 the Eighth Circuit Court reversed and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On January 30, 2018, the District Court issued an order certifying a class for the period of September 8, 2010 through June 28, 2011. In July of 2018, the parties reached an agreement to settle this matter, and in September of 2018, the Company paid the settlement amount into a qualified settlement fund to be distributed following final court approval. Medtronic plc develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells device-based medical therapies to hospitals, physicians, clinicians, and patients worldwide. It operates through four segments: Cardiac and Vascular Group, Minimally Invasive Therapies Group, Restorative Therapies Group, and Diabetes Group. The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit over Covidien Acquisition Still Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2018, for the quarterly period ended October 26, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a consolidated class action suit involving the acquisition of Covidien PLC. On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien. The lawsuit named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic, Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders with regard to the then-potential acquisition. On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien acquisition. In September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters were consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien transaction. On March 20, 2015, the District Court issued an order and opinion granting Medtronic's motion to dismiss the case. In May of 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January of 2016, the Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part, and reversed in part. On April 19, 2016 the Minnesota Supreme Court granted the Company's petition to review the issue of whether most of the original claims are properly characterized as direct or derivative under Minnesota law. In August of 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals, sending the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings, which are ongoing. Medtronic said, "The Company has not recognized an expense related to damages in connection with this matter, because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Medtronic plc develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells device-based medical therapies to hospitals, physicians, clinicians, and patients worldwide. It operates through four segments: Cardiac and Vascular Group, Minimally Invasive Therapies Group, Restorative Therapies Group, and Diabetes Group. The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. MERIDIAN DREAMS: Sandoval Seeks Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------- JHONNY SANDOVAL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MERIDIAN DREAMS, INC., a Florida Corporation, and PABLO GOMEZ, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00777 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 19, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants owned and operated pool construction business based in Cape Coral, that has built pools throughout Florida. The Defendants have regularly handled and worked with commercial pool construction supplies, tools, and materials including but not limited to trucks, diggers, shovels, rakes, nail guns, twisters to tie steel, wood-lumber, pipes, concrete, bolt cutters, electric saws, concrete saws, concrete, and gunnite/shotcrete, all of which were all goods and/or materials moved in or produced for commerce; and (b) handled, worked with, and sold pools which were goods and/or materials moved in or produced for commerce, the lawsuit says. Meridian Dreams is in the business activities at non-commercial site business.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Keith M. Stern, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. One Flagler 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 901-1379 Facsimile: (561) 288-9031 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com METEOR SEALING: Riley Seeks Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------- MATTHEW RILEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. METEOR SEALING SYSTEMS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-02714 (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 21, 2018), seeks unpaid wages, including overtime wages, and all other available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him are current or former hourly employees of Defendant. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him frequently worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek, entitling them to overtime compensation under the FLSA. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him were not paid all of the overtime compensation they earned. The Defendant required its hourly employees to perform unpaid pre-shift work. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him regularly began work for the day up to 15 minutes before their scheduled start time but, pursuant to Defendant's uniform companywide policy, did not start getting paid until their scheduled start time. Specifically, pursuant to a uniform company-wide policy, hourly employees were required to report to their station up to 15 minutes before their scheduled shift to perform shift transition and preparatory work, the lawsuit says. Meteor Sealing Systems, LLC designs, develops, and manufactures sealing systems for automobile manufacturers.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage Street, NW, Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com MI NUMERO: Steven Nod Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN NOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MI NUMERO LOCAL, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No.: 1:18-cv-24888-CMA (S.D. Fla., Nov. 21, 2018), seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is a provider of cellular phones and services for clients who make international calls primarily to Cuba. To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. On or about September 22, 2018, September 27, 2018, October 10, 2018, October 17, 2018, October 19, 2018, and October 22, 2018, Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 3759. Defendant's text messages were transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone, and within the time frame relevant to this action. Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., selling Plaintiff telephone service and products. The information contained in the text message advertises Defendant's various promotions which Defendant sends to promote its business. At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express written consent to be contacted using an ATDS, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1 st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305-975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com MICHIGAN: Black Applicants' Discrimination Class Action Certified ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Egan, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that a Wayne County judge has certified a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of more than 600 black applicants who wanted to work as state police or conservation officers but failed the required Michigan civil service exam. The lawsuit alleges that two different civil service exams the state has used since 2014 -- one of which remains in use today -- violate the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and discriminate against black applicants, who have a higher failure rate than white applicants do. "The Michigan Civil Service Commission engaged in a pattern and practice of race discrimination in its hiring process through testing that had a disparate adverse impact on African-Americans," the suit alleges. "This illegal policy . . . was furthered by command officers'/officials' failure to monitor the adverse impacts of the employment policies in place." The suit doesn't allege the state intentionally discriminated - just that the exam produced racially disparate results in ways that weren't necessary to determine which test writers could best do the job. The suit alleges there are alternative tests that could screen applicants just as effectively without producing discriminatory results. The commission -- a bipartisan panel whose four members are appointed by the governor to oversee state hiring and employment issues -- denied the allegations in a court filing. Michigan State Police were under a federal consent order to increase minority hiring from 1977 through 1992, but a 2015 Detroit Free Press investigation showed that hiring of black troopers plummeted once the consent order was lifted in 1993, and the percentage of black troopers gradually dropped from close to 13 percent to about 5 percent. Black residents make up about 14 percent of Michigan's population, according to census numbers, and that percentage is much higher in major cities such as Detroit. Police departments that lack diversity or don't reflect the racial makeup of the communities they police are seen as an aggravating factor in ongoing tensions between police agencies and urban communities around the United States. Judge David Groner's Nov. 7 certification of the class-action suit can still be appealed. The certification is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but is based partly on evidence the Michigan Civil Service Commission failed to monitor whether the exam it administers on behalf of state agencies was producing discriminatory results, as the suit alleges it was required to do. For the exam used between Feb. 15, 2014, and Nov. 24, 2014, blacks had a fail rate of 77 percent, while whites had a fail rate of 51 percent, the suit alleges. That exam, which included an essay question portion, was replaced late in 2014 with a new exam, which is all multiple choice. For that exam, which remains in use today, blacks had a fail rate of between 4 and 5 percent, compared with a 1-percent fail rate for white test writers, the suit alleges. The state Attorney General's Office, representing the Civil Service Commission, opposed the certification, arguing the exam is only a screening tool, passing it is not equivalent to a job offer, the commission doesn't require anyone to write it, and each state agency does its own hiring. The suit doesn't specify which parts of the exams -- designed by Washington-based Ergometrics & Applied Personnel Research, Inc. -- are unfair to black applicants. The exams include sections related to human interaction, reading, and writing. Leonard Mungo, the Detroit attorney representing the plaintiffs, said cultural differences can make certain questions more difficult for blacks to answer correctly. The test itself is subject to a protective order, since the state doesn't want applicants to be able to study it before they sit down to write it. The lead plaintiff in the case, Carlos Bell, 46, a St. Clair Shores resident who grew up in Detroit and graduated from Henry Ford High School, said he failed the older state exam once and the newer exam twice, though he easily passed the equivalent screening exam for the Detroit Police Department. Mr. Bell, a married father of two, said he was extremely disheartened by the results and it didn't immediately occur to him that the problem could have been the test itself. "I may not have a lot of book smarts, but my common sense is pretty good," Bell told the Free Press. "I feel like I could have been the guy coming up to your car (on the freeway), and I wasn't given a chance." Though he passed the State Police physical test a few years ago, Bell said he thinks his hopes of becoming a state trooper have died, as his knees have worsened since then. He now drives a cement truck. Shanon Banner, a spokeswoman for the Michigan State Police, said the agency "is confident that neither the civil service exam nor our hiring practices favor or discriminate" against anyone. "Our current trooper recruit school, which today consists of 110 total recruits, includes 20 recruits who identify as nonwhite, including 11 black recruits," Banner said in a Nov. 19 email to the Free Press. "This school also includes 17 females, making it our most diverse recruit school in 20 years." Mr. Mungo said that lack of police diversity and related tensions with those who come into contact with police has become a national security issue, and it's essential to "conduct these tests in a way that is not likely to screen people out because of their cultural backgrounds." Assistant Attorney General Christopher argued on behalf of the commission the proposed class of plaintiffs includes black exam writers who suffered no injury as a result of receiving a failing grade, That's because far more people wrote and passed the exam than could have been hired as Michigan State Police troopers, motor carrier officers and state property security officers, or as Department of Natural Resources conservation officers, Christopher wrote in a court filing. But based on the number of successful exam writers who were hired, Kyle Brink of Western Michigan University, an organizational psychologist retained by Mr. Mungo, calculates that 13 more black applicants would have received jobs between 2014 and 2017 if the pass rate for black and white exam writers had been equal. Based on lost pay and pension income for those 13 applicants, Mr. Mungo pegs economic damages at about $6.5 million, which would be distributed among all the black applicants who failed the exam. The suit seeks unspecified noneconomic damages in addition to that amount. James Fett, a Pinckney attorney who has represented white plaintiffs in lawsuits related to Michigan State Police promotion and hiring practices, said more data needs to be analyzed before concluding the state exam is discriminating on the basis of race. "There may be nondiscriminatory factors that explain the difference" in test performance between blacks and whites, Mr. Fett said. For example, if most of the whites who wrote the exam had college degrees, while most of the blacks who wrote it had only completed high school, that would skew the results, he said. The education levels of all the test writers should be included in the analysis, he said. Mr. Mungo said on Nov. 19 that data about the educational level of the test writers -- if it exists -- has not yet been made available to the plaintiffs. [GN] MILBERG LLP: Bobbitt Appeals D. Arizona Ruling to Ninth Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Philip Bobbitt and Intervenor-Plaintiff Lance Laber filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Philip Bobbitt, et al. v. Milberg LLP, et al., Case No. 4:09-cv-00629-FRZ, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Tucson. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Intervenor-Plaintiff Lance Laber filed petitions for a writ of certiorari in the lawsuit titled Lance Laber, Petitioner v. Milberg LLP, et al., Case No. 18-169, in the Supreme Court of United States. In 2001, Milberg, a national law firm specializing in class actions, filed a lawsuit in Arizona district court against Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company, Inc. (VALIC), for alleged securities law violations. In January 2004, the District Court certified a class of plaintiffs, a significant accomplishment in any class action litigation. The Plaintiffs-Appellants sued Milberg for malpractice for allegedly failing to meet the discovery requirements in the VALIC class action. The Plaintiffs named as defendants four law firms, as well as various lawyers, who worked for them. The appellate case is captioned as Philip Bobbitt, et al. v. Milberg LLP, et al., Case No. 18-17250, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants Philip Bobbitt and Lance Laber's opening brief is due on January 18, 2019; -- Appellees Lustigman Firm, John Gabroy, Gabroy Rollman & Bosse PC, Brian C. Ker, Ronald M. Lehman, Andre B. Lustigman, Sheldon S. Lustigman, Milberg LLP, Janine Lee Pollack, Michael C. Spencer, Ronald A. Uitz, Uitz & Associates, Lee A. Weiss and Melvyn I. Weiss' answering brief is due on February 19, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant PHILIP BOBBITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant LANCE LABER is represented by: Roger James George, Jr., Esq. Gary Lewis, Esq. GEORGE BROTHERS KINCAID & HORTON LLP 110 Norwood Tower 114 W. 7th St. Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 494-1400 E-mail: rjgeorge@gbkh.com glewis@gbkh.com - and - Guy Michael Hohmann, Esq. THE HOHMANN LAW FIRM 114 W. 7th Street, Suite 1100 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 495-1438 E-mail: info@hohmannlaw.com - and - Lawrence Kasten, Esq. Robert H. McKirgan, Esq. LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP 201 E. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85004-2595 Telephone: (602) 262-0228 E-mail: lkasten@lrrc.com rmckirgan@lrrc.com - and - Ryan Trent Shelton, Esq. HOHMANN, BROPHY & SHELTON, PLLC 210 Barton Springs Rd. Austin, TX 78704 Telephone: (512) 596-3622 E-mail: ryans@beswlaw.com Defendants-Appellees MILBERG LLP, MELVYN I. WEISS, MICHAEL C. SPENCER, JANINE LEE POLLACK, LEE A. WEISS and BRIAN C. KER are represented by: Gregory P.N. Joseph, Esq. Jeffrey Harrison Zaiger, Esq. JOSEPH HAGE AARONSON LLC 485 Lexington Avenue, 30th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 407-1210 E-mail: gjoseph@jha.com jzaiger@jha.com - and - Douglas J. Pepe, Esq. GREGORY P. JOSEPH LAW OFFICES, LLC 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 407-1230 E-mail: dpepe@jhany.com - and - Michele Guy Thompson, Esq. UDALL LAW FIRM LLP 4801 E. Broadway, Suite 400 Tucson, AZ 85711-3638 Telephone: (520) 623-4353 E-mail: mthompson@udalllaw.com Defendants-Appellees UITZ & ASSOCIATES and RONALD A. UITZ are represented by: Kathleen Marie Rogers, Esq. SLUTES, SAKRISON & ROGERS, P.C. 4801 E. Broadway Blvd. Tucson, AZ 85711 Telephone: (520) 289-8411 E-mail: krogers@sluteslaw.com - and - Michele Guy Thompson, Esq. UDALL LAW FIRM LLP 4801 E. Broadway, Suite 400 Tucson, AZ 85711-3638 Telephone: (520) 623-4353 E-mail: mthompson@udalllaw.com Defendants-Appellees LUSTIGMAN FIRM, SHELDON S. LUSTIGMAN and ANDRE B. LUSTIGMAN are represented by: Steven Leach, Esq. Donald L. Myles, Jr., Esq. JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 40 N. Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 263-7350 E-mail: sleach@jshfirm.com dmyles@jshfirm.com Defendants-Appellees GABROY ROLLMAN & BOSSE PC, JOHN GABROY and RONALD M. LEHMAN are represented by: Noel Christian Capps, Esq. John Anthony Klecan, Esq. Steven G. Mesaros, Esq. RENAUD COOK DRURY MESAROS, PA One North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 307-9900 E-mail: ncapps@rcdmlaw.com jklecan@rcdmlaw.com smesaros@rcdmlaw.com - and - Ronald M. Lehman, Esq. GABROY ROLLMAN & BOSSE PC 3507 North Campbell Avenue Tucson, AZ 85719 Telephone: (520) 320-1300 E-mail: lehman@bosserollman.com MONEYGRAM INT'L: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notified investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against MoneyGram International, Inc. ("MoneyGram" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MGI) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired MoneyGram shares between February 11, 2014 and November 8, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/mgi. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) MoneyGram was aware for years of high levels of fraud involving its money transfer system; (2) MoneyGram failed to implement appropriate anti-fraud countermeasures, in part, because doing so would adversely impact its revenue; (3) this misconduct would draw scrutiny from the FTC, which had an agreed-upon order requiring MoneyGram to implement a comprehensive anti-fraud program; (4) this misconduct would draw scrutiny from the Department of Justice, which entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement concerning MoneyGram's anti-fraud and anti-money laundering programs; and (5) consequently, defendants' statements about MoneyGram's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/mgi or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in MoneyGram you have until January 14, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Yael Hurwitz, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Telephone: 212-697-6484 Email: peretz@bgandg.com[GN] MONEYGRAM INT'L: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP disclosed that it has filed a federal securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of the securities of MoneyGram International, Inc. from February 11, 2014 through November 8, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who have incurred losses in the shares of MoneyGram International, Inc. are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in the shares of MoneyGram International, Inc., you may, no later than January 14, 2019, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in MoneyGram International, Inc. According to filed complaint, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: -- MoneyGram was aware for years of high levels of fraud involving its money transfer system; -- MoneyGram failed to implement appropriate anti-fraud countermeasures, in part, because doing so would adversely impact its revenue; -- this misconduct would draw scrutiny from the FTC, which had an agreed-upon order requiring MoneyGram to implement a comprehensive anti-fraud program; -- this misconduct would draw scrutiny from the Department of Justice, which entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement concerning MoneyGram's anti-fraud and anti-money laundering programs; and -- as a result, defendants' statements about MoneyGram's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On November 8, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") announced that MoneyGram agreed to pay $125 million to settle allegations that the company "failed to take steps required under a 2009 [FTC] order to crack down on fraudulent money transfers" and allegations that the company violated a 2012 deferred prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice. Then, on November 9, 2018, MoneyGram reported a decrease in money transfer revenue due to the "impact of higher compliance standards and newly implemented corridor specific controls." On this news, MoneyGram's share price fell $2.20 per share, or over 49%, to close at $2.27 per share on November 9, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case please; immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. Kevin Cooper, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Gregory Stone Director of Case and Financial Analysis Telephone: (800) 575-0735 (212) 545-4774 Email: Gstone@whafh.com kcooper@whafh.com classmember@whafh.com [GN] MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Court Allows Filing of 2nd Amended Brinkley --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TIFFANY BRINKLEY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-1103-WQH-WVG (S.D. Cal.), Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend and to File a Second Amended Class Action Complaint. On Oct. 15, 2013, Brinkley initiated the action by filing a Complaint against Monterey Financial Services, Inc. and Doe Defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego. On April 1, 2016, Brinkley amended the Complaint to add Monterey Financial Services, LLC as a Defendant. On May 17, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint. On May 31, 2018, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. On June 30, 2018, Monterey Financial Services, Inc. was terminated from the case. On Sept. 13, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. On Oct. 22, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend and to File a Second Amended Class Action Complaint. On Nov. 2, 2018, the Defendant filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend and to File a Second Amended Class Action Complaint. Judge Hayes finds that Defendant Monterey does not oppose the Motion. He finds that there has been no showing that any of the remaining Foman factors warrants deviating from the presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. Therefore, he granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend and to File a Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiff may file the proposed Second Amended Class Action Complaint by Dec. 10, 2018. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/2ln0eu from Leagle.com. Tiffany Brinkley, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christina E. Wickman, Esq. -- Christina@wickmanlaw.com -- and -- Steven Allen Wickman, Esq. -- Steve@wickmanlaw.com -- WICKMAN AND WICKMAN -- Patrick N. Keegan, Esq. -- pkeegan@keeganbaker.com -- KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP. Monterey Financial Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Orr, Esq. -- morr@calljensen.com -- and William Paul Cole, Esq. -- wcole@calljensen.com -- CALL & JENSEN APC. MOUNT IDA COLLEGE: Squeri et al. Sue over Sudden Closure -------------------------------------------------------- TRISTAN SQUERI, MADELINE McCLAIN, and GEORGE O'DEA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MOUNT IDA COLLEGE, THE MOUNT IDA COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUTEES, BARRY BROWN, individually and as a representative of Mount Ida College, CARMIN C. REISS, individually and as a representative of the Mount Ida College Board of Trustees, JASON POTTS, individually and as a representative of Mount Ida College, JEFF CUTTING individually and as a representative of Mount Ida College, and RON AKIE, Individually and as a representative of Mount Ida College, the DefendantsCase 1:18-cv-12438 (D. Mass., Nov. 26, 2018), seeks to recover damages arising out of the deceptive and fraudulent practices and actions of Mount Ida College, the Mount Ida College Board of Trustees, Mount Ida's President and other academic officers relating to Mount Ida's sudden closure and the resulting harm suffered by its students. Without notice to its student population and their families, Defendant Mount Ida College abruptly closed its doors in May 2018. The fallout was catastrophic. Among numerous consequences, students were faced with finding an alternative institution to meet their educational goals to which to transfer – a daunting task given that transfer deadlines for most institutions had passed or were imminent; many students were left with degree programs that were discontinued or credits that could not be transferred; and many students lost their scholarships and other forms of financial aid. This could have been avoided. Yet, by closing abruptly, Mount Ida denied its students the opportunity to continue with their bargained for education, and their actions prevented some students from enrolling in other institutions of higher education or pursuing their intended degrees altogether. According to the complaint, one of the Defendants, Carmin C. Reiss, the Chairwoman of Mount Ida's Board of Trustees, testified under oath that she was aware as early as 2014 that Mount Ida was facing financial difficulties that ultimately led to its closure. Despite this knowledge, none of the Defendants disclosed Mount Ida's financial status to its students. As stated by Reiss: "did we go out and announce: 'hello interested students we're teetering on the brink of insolvency, but come on in?' No, we did not do that." According to Reiss, this omission was intentional, as it was the Defendants' understanding that "the public disclosure by a college that it is facing financial difficulties is a self-fulling prophecy of its demise." In other words, the Defendants intentionally concealed the truth from its students because they knew their students would seize this information and ultimately make an informed decision to enroll elsewhere, seek a transfer, or take some other action to avoid being harmed by the school's inevitable closure. As stated by the Office of Attorney General Maura Healy, "[Mount Ida's] closure has caused real harm to students and families. The Defendants had several opportunities to disclose the severity of Mount Ida's impending insolvency to its students. Most notably, Mount Ida had the opportunity to fully explain the situation when it believed it reached a merger deal with nearby Lasell College. Instead of disclosing the reason for merger at that time (i.e., that Mount Ida was on the brink of bankruptcy), Mount Ida instead made numerous false representations, including without limitation, that the merger was to strengthen and consolidate both its and Lasell's positions as institutions. The deal with Lasell ultimately failed. Instead, Mount Ida entered into an agreement to sell its land to UMass and close the college. As part of this deal, Mount Ida funneled its students to UMass Dartmouth, illegally providing UMass with sensitive student financial and academic information, which was inexplicably provided as part of a land acquisition. The sudden closure of Mount Ida deprived enrolled and prospective students of their ability to meaningfully consider alternate schools, and Mount Ida knew this. It was exactly when the students were most vulnerable when Mount Ida released its students' private information to UMass Dartmouth, allowing UMass Dartmouth to approach each individual student armed with knowledge of their specific finances, grades, awards, and majors. In effect, Mount Ida sold its students, at a discount, to UMass Dartmouth, as an incentive in the land transaction, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class: Andra J. Hutchins, Esq. Michael Tauer, Esq. KERSTEIN, COREN & LICHTENSTEIN , LLP 60 Walnut Street, 4 th Floor Wellesley, Massachusetts 02481 Telephone: (781) 997-1600 E-mail: ahutchins@kcl-law.com mtauer@kcl-law.com - and - Joshua N. Garick, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA N. GARICK , P.C. 34 Salem Street Suite 202 Reading, MA 01867 Telephone: (617) 600-7520 E-mail: joshua@garicklaw.com MUSCLEPHARM CORP: Durnford Class Suit Remanded to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on October 12, 2018, issued its opinion reversing the dismissal and remanding the "Durnford" case to the Northern District of California, according to MusclePharm Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. On July 28, 2015, Plaintiff, Tucker Durnford, filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint which alleged that MusclePharm's Arnold Iron Mass product violates consumer protection laws by misleading consumers about the amount and sources of protein in the product. The product has been discontinued. The last shipments were in March of 2016. Plaintiff's counsel alleged that results of laboratory testing demonstrate the actual total protein content per serving to be approximately 19.4 grams, once the free-form amino acids are excluded from the calculation. Plaintiff's counsel attached to the First Amended Class Action Complaint what purport to be test results supporting that allegation. The Company moved to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing that plaintiff's claims are preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and its implementing regulations. The Court granted MusclePharm's motion to dismiss the case on December 18, 2015. Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint, but instead chose to appeal the order granting MusclePharm's motion to dismiss. On December 31, 2015, plaintiff's counsel made a settlement demand, in an amount of US$100,000, which demand was rejected. On February 10, 2016, the court entered judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard arguments on November 15, 2017. On October 12, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion reversing the dismissal and remanding the case to the Northern District of California. The Ninth Circuit found that plaintiff's misbranding theory premised on alleged "nitogen-spiking" or "protein-spiking" was preempted by federal law, but that plaintiff could attempt to prove his allegation that the protein in the product does not come entirely from hydrolyzed beef and lacoterferrin, and his allegation that the label misleads consumers into believing that that protein does come entirely from hydrolyzed beef and lacoterferrin. The Company intends to vigorously defend this action and is awaiting next steps from the District court. MusclePharm Corporation (OTCQB: MSLP) develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes branded nutritional supplements in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. NCAA: Patterson Sues over College Football Revenues --------------------------------------------------- MYCHAL PATTERSON, the Plaintiff, vs. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, AND THE SUN BELT CONFERENCE, the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-03674-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind., Nov. 21, 2018), seeks restitution and/or disgorgement of all monies Defendants have unjustly received. According to the complaint, the Defendants receive significant revenues from the collegiate football played by student-athletes. These revenues include, but are not limited to, contractual revenues from broadcasting, merchandising agreements, and ticket sales. Under principles of equity and good conscience, Defendants should not be permitted to retain the profits they receive at the expense of Plaintiff and the Class while refusing to pay for medical expenses incurred as a result of their unlawful actions or otherwise failing to prevent such injuries. No matter the popularity and profitability of any college sport, player safety must come first. This is especially true of "amateur" college football, which has over the past few decades rivaled the NFL and other professional sports in popularity, and profitability. Yet Defendants sacrificed player safety -- including the Plaintiff's and the Class' long-term health and well-being -- in favor of profits and self-promotion. Despite the NCAA's and member conferences' assumption of this responsibility for player safety, Defendants were negligent and failed to carry out this duty in that they failed to implement and enforce regulations that would properly protect student-athletes from the risks associated with concussions and/or manage those risks to properly respond to the medically proven fact that repetitive concussions would lead to brain injuries in many football players, including Plaintiff and the Class, the lawsuit says. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,281 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Vincent P. Circelli, Esq. George Parker Young, Esq. Kelli L. Walter, Esq. CIRCELLI, WALTER & YOUNG, PLLC Tindall Square Warehouse 500 E. 4 th Street, Suite 250 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 697-4942 E-mail: gpy@cwylaw.com vinny@cwylaw.com kelli@cwylaw.com NISSAN MOTOR: RM Law Investigates Possible Securities Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- RM LAW, P.C. on Nov. 20 announced an investigation on behalf of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (OTC:NSANY) ("Nissan" or the "Company") investors concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased shares of Nissan and would like to learn more about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign up online, click here. The investigation concerns whether Nissan and certain of its officers and/or directors have violated federal securities laws. On November 19, 2018, media outlets reported that the Company's Chairman Carlos Ghosn had been arrested by Japanese authorities for violations of Japanese financial law. In a press release, Nissan stated that the Company "has been conducting an internal investigation over the past several months regarding misconduct involving the company's Representative Director and Chairman Carlos Ghosn and Representative Director Greg Kelly", which revealed "that over many years both Ghosn and Kelly have been reporting compensation amounts in the Tokyo Stock Exchange securities report that were less than the actual amount, in order to reduce the disclosed amount of Carlos Ghosn's compensation." The Company further stated that "in regards to Ghosn, numerous other significant acts of misconduct have been uncovered, such as personal use of company assets, and Kelly's deep involvement has also been confirmed." Following this news, Nissan's American depositary receipt price fell sharply during intraday trading on November 19, 2018. For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C. (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by email at rm@maniskas.com. For more information about class action cases in general or to learn more about RM LAW, P.C. please visit our website by clicking here. RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm. RM LAW, P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide. [GN] NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Court to Take Up Jurisdictional Rules Issue --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard M. Wasserman, writing for SCOTUSblog, reports that in a series of decisions in the past decade, most recently 2017's Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, the Supreme Court has distinguished jurisdictional rules from non-jurisdictional claim-processing rules. The distinction has been framed in consequential terms -- a jurisdictional rule is mandatory and does not admit of equitable exception, suspending or extending the deadline based on concerns for fairness and justice. But the court has allowed that non-jurisdictional claim-processing rules could be mandatory if the rulemaker (whether Congress or the Supreme Court) so chooses, while reserving whether such rules could be subject to equitable exception. That possibility is the focus of Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, to be argued November 27. This case concerns Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which provides that a "court of appeals may permit an appeal from an order granting or denying class-action certification under this rule if a petition for permission to appeal is filed with the circuit clerk within 14 days after the order is entered." This ensures that class litigation does not continue when a class is improper and that a case is not prohibited from moving forward as a class when it should. Troy Lambert filed a putative class action, alleging violations of California's false advertising, consumer fraud and unfair competition laws, arising from Nutraceutical's sale and marketing of purported aphrodisiac supplements. The district court certified the class in 2014, then decertified it on February 20, 2015. At a March 2, 2015, status conference, Lambert requested that the court recertify the class; the court notified Lambert he could file a motion for reconsideration of the decertification order within 10 days of the conference, which Lambert did on March 12, 2015 (the 10th day). The district court denied the motion for reconsideration on June 24, 2015. Lambert filed his Rule 23(f) petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on July 8, 2015. The 9th Circuit held that the appeal was timely. As a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule, Rule 23(f) is subject to equitable exception to "avoid or soften" the time limitations. One such exception is that filing a motion for reconsideration of the decertification order within the rule's 14-day window would have tolled, or suspended, the period, although that exception did not apply here because Lambert did not file his petition within 14 days. But other equitable factors supported tolling in this case, including Lambert's notifying the district court of his intention to seek recertification, filing his motion for reconsideration within the 10 days ordered by the court, and otherwise acting diligently in asserting his procedural rights. The court recognized that other circuits take a narrower approach to equitable tolling and would not allow tolling in this case. Nutraceutical's arguments Nutraceutical argues that Lambert's 23(f) petition should have been filed on or before March 6, 14 days after the court decertified the class. Failure to do so rendered the petition for review inexcusably and irrevocably untimely and not saved by equitable exceptions to the rule's time limits. Because the 14-day filing deadline appears in a judicially enacted federal rule rather than a statute, it is a claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional limitation. But a claim-processing rule may enjoy some attributes of a jurisdictional rule, including its mandatory nature. The purpose of a claim-processing rule is to promote the orderly progress of litigation, a purpose served when the rule is applied consistently and strictly in accordance with its text. When a party properly raises a claim-processing rule, it is unalterable and mandatory, the better to promote efficiency. Although Hamer reserved whether claim-processing rules can be subject to equitable exceptions, Nutraceutical argues that a rule written in the emphatic language of Rule 23(f) precludes such exceptions. Under the rules, the court of appeals may permit appeal only if a prerequisite is met -- the filing of a petition within the stated period. This mandatory reading ensures consistency with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5, which reinforces that petitions for permission to appeal must be filed within the time specified in the rule authorizing the appeal. And the reading receives further support from Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(b)(1), which allows courts to extend time limits for good cause, except for petitions for permission to appeal. Rule 23(f)'s purpose also supports the "strict and mandatory" reading. Deadlines for filing appeals generally should be strictly enforced. That need is especially pronounced with respect to deadlines for interlocutory appeals, which create exceptions to the final judgment rule, disrupt the normal flow of litigation, lengthen litigation, waste resources and create uncertainty around whether the appeal of one interlocutory issue stays the rest of the litigation in the district court. A strict reading of Rule 23(f) also does not produce the harsh consequences or traps for unwary or unsophisticated plaintiffs that may justify equitable exceptions in other contexts. Potential class members are typically represented by competent counsel familiar with relevant deadlines. And class members do not lose all opportunity to seek review if they miss the mandatory Rule 23(f) deadline, because they can appeal the decertification decision on appeal from final judgment. Even if equitable tolling were permissible under Rule 23(f), tolling is inappropriate in this case. No extraordinary circumstances prevented the plaintiff from seeking review within 14 days and the plaintiff's tardiness did not result from reliance on "specific assurances" from the court that he could file a late petition. The larger problem is that the 9th Circuit adopted and applied broad equitable exceptions; the court considered whether Lambert was diligent in pursuing his rights and whether he took some action to reflect an intention to preserve his right to appeal immediately. But these considerations are different from the usual facts allowing equitable tolling, which are both extraordinary and beyond a party's control. Lambert's arguments Lambert begins from the premise that the Supreme Court need not resolve whether Rule 23(f) can be equitably tolled, because the appeal was timely under the rule. The request for recertification of the class at the March 2 conference constituted an oral motion for reconsideration, which all parties and courts agree stopped the 14-day appeals clock until after resolution of the motion. Alternatively, Lambert's March 12 written motion was a timely motion to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), filed within 28 days of the original judgment. A potentially appealable interlocutory order is considered a "judgment" for Rule 59(e) purposes. Whether the court focuses on the oral or written motion, either presented the district court with a motion to reconsider its decertification order, stopping Rule 23(f)'s 14-day clock until that motion was resolved. The district court denied reconsideration on June 24, while also altering that judgment to provide notice to class members of decertification (an element missing from the original decertification order). Lambert then had 14 days to file the petition for permission to appeal. The petition, filed on July 8 (the 14th day following denial of reconsideration), therefore was timely. In any event, the 9th Circuit correctly recognized that Rule 23(f) is subject to equitable exception. Lambert's argument hinges on the history and nature of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which merged law and equity and resembled the old equity rules in their flexibility and vesting of broad judicial discretion. "Given this close kinship between the Federal Rules and chancery practice, time prescriptions in the Rules … should be entitled to a presumption in favor of equitable tolling." Lambert also points to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, which provides that the rules should be construed to "secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding." Those policy goals suggest that courts should apply time limits flexibly and with an eye towards equity, rather than in the "unyielding manner" that would prohibit any tolling. Lambert argues that the text and purpose of Rule 23(f) confirm the appropriateness of the equitable exceptions the 9th Circuit employed. Because the rule gives courts of appeals unfettered discretion whether to permit appeal of a certification order, "it only makes sense that the courts of appeals are permitted to take equitable considerations such as tolling into account when deciding whether to permit an appeal." Lambert rebuts Nutraceutical's argument about Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(b); that rule prohibits courts from extending the time to file petitions under a good-cause standard, but does not prohibit the application of tolling to an already expired deadline. Lambert emphasizes a fundamental distinction between extending a deadline and halting the running of the clock that leads to the deadline. Many rules, including 26(b), prohibit the former. But tolling achieves the latter and is permissible absent contrary language in a rule. Finally, Lambert argues that Rule 23(f) cannot be as unyielding as Nutraceutical urges, because Nutraceutical concedes that the period is tolled by a motion for reconsideration filed within 14 days. If the time period can be tolled by that motion, there is no textual or principled basis for allowing that equitable exception to Rule 23(f) but no others. [GN] OCWEN LOAN: Court Denies Bid to File Under Seal in Gonzalez Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WILFREDO GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-340-Oc-30PRL (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, denied the Defendant's motion to file documents under seal. Upon preliminary review, the Magistrate observes that the motion lacks the certification required by Local Rule 3.01(g). The purpose of Local Rule 3.01(g) is to require the parties to communicate and resolve certain types of disputes without court intervention. He expects the counsel to comply with both the letter and spirt of Local Rule 3.01(g). A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/lYWTDz from Leagle.com. Wilfredo Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by John Christopher Distasio, Morgan & Morgan, PA. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Aliza Pescovitz Malouf -- amalouf@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP & Edrei G. Swanson -- eswanson@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Kane et al Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH KANE, CANDI AMUSO, and KEISHA EDWARDS, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. OLLIE'S BARGAIN OUTLET HOLDINGS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-03475, was transferred from the the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 26, 2018. The Middle District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-02261-UN1 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege on behalf of themselves and other current and former Co-Team Leaders and similarly situated current and former employees holding comparable positions but different titles employed by Defendant in the United States, who elect to opt into this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, that they are entitled to, inter alia: (i) unpaid overtime wages for hours worked above 40 in a workweek, as required by law, and (ii) liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA, the lawsuit says. Ollie's Bargain is an American chain of retail stores founded in 1982 by the late Morton Bernstein. The first store was opened in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, just outside Harrisburg. As of November 2018, the chain now has 303 locations in 22 states- including Texas. The president and CEO is Mark Butler.[BN] Attorneys Plaintiffs: Charles Gershbaum, Esq. David A. Roth, Esq. Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq. HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC 192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-1199 Facsimile: (212) 532-3801 E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com droth@hgrlawyers.com Rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com Attorneys for Defendants: Kathleen Mcleod Caminiti, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP 430 Mountain Avenue Murray Hill, NJ 07974 Telephone: (908) 516-1050 Facsimile: (908) 516-1051 E-mail: kcaminiti@fisherphillips.com OVASCIENCE INC: Kim Securities Suit Challenges Millendo Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA KIM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. OVASCIENCE, INC., CHRISTOPHER KROEGER, RICHARD ALDRICH, JEFFREY CAPELLO, MARY FISHER, JONATHAN HOWE, MARC KOZIN, and JOHN SEXTON, Case No. 1:18-cv-10939 (S.D.N.Y., November 21, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the acquisition of OvaScience by Millendo Therapeutics, Inc. On August 8, 2018, OvaScience, Millendo, and Orion Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of OvaScience, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into Millendo, with Millendo surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of OvaScience. Pursuant to the exchange ratio formula of the Merger Agreement, on a pro forma basis and based upon the number of shares of OvaScience common stock to be issued in the Proposed Transaction, current OvaScience stockholders will own approximately 20% of the combined company and current Millendo investors will own approximately 80% of the combined company (the "Merger Consideration"). The Plaintiff contends that the Proxy Statement issued relating to the Proposed Transaction contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the valuation analyses prepared by the Company's financial advisor, Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc. ("Ladenburg Thalmann"), in support of their fairness opinion and (ii) the potential conflicts of interest faced by the Board during the sales process leading up to the Proposed Transaction. OvaScience is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located in Waltham, Massachusetts. OvaScience is a company focused on the discovery and development of new treatment options for women and families struggling with infertility. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of OvaScience. Millendo is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel treatments for orphan endocrine diseases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 440 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983-1300 Facsimile: (212) 983-0380 E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com PACIFIC BELL: Court Grants Bid for Writ of Mandate in Leggins Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; STEVEN LEGGINS et al., Real Parties in Interest, Case No. B287439 (Cal. App.), Judge Frances Rothschild of the Court of Appeals of California for the Second District, Division One, granted Pacific Bell's petition for writ of mandate. Petitioner Pacific Bell petitions for a writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its Nov. 22, 2017 order denying its motion to strike the first amended complaint in its entirety or, in the alternative, its allegations invoking the relation-back doctrine, and to issue an order granting the motion. In July 2015, real party in interest Steven Leggins filed a Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") class action against Pacific Bell alleging that it failed to provide a day of rest in each seven-day period in violation of Labor Code sections 551 and 552. In December 2015, while Pacific Bell's demurrer was pending, the parties submitted to the superior court a stipulation to stay the action because the California Supreme Court had accepted a certified question from the Ninth Circuit concerning the Labor Code sections at issue. On Jan. 5, 2016, the superior court stayed the case pending the high court's answer to the certified question presented in Mendoza v. Nordstrom (9th Cir. 2015). On May 8, 2017, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Mendoza. It concluded that sections 551 and 552, fairly read in light of all the available evidence, are most naturally read to ensure employees at least one day of rest during each week, rather than one day in every seven on a rolling basis. The Legislature intended to ensure employees, as conducive to their health and well-being, a day of rest each week, not to prevent them from ever working more than six consecutive days at any one time. The superior court lifted the stay in the case on July 24, 2017. On July 28, 2017, Leggins filed a first amended complaint that revised his day of rest claim, added seven additional unrelated alleged Labor Code violations to his PAGA claim, added real party in interest Fernando Lopez as an additional Plaintiff, and asserted a new cause of action for unfair business practices. The first amended complaint seeks to relate the new claims back to the date Leggins filed the initial complaint in July 2015 by alleging a "Class Period" commencing on the date that is within four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint and through the present date, and a "PAGA Period" commencing on the date that is within one year prior to the filing of the initial complaint and through the present date. Pacific Bell filed a motion to strike the amended complaint in its entirety, contending that it was effectively a new case, resting on different facts and theories, including claims by a new Plaintiff. In the alternative, it moved to strike real parties' allegation that they worked seven days "in a workweek" and their allegations that the new claims relate back to the filing of the initial complaint. On Nov. 22, 2017, the superior court issued an order denying Pacific Bell's motion to strike the first amended complaint in its entirety. The court granted the motion to strike from the amended complaint references to "in a workweek" because the allegation contradicted the original complaint and ran afoul of the sham pleading doctrine. It denied Pacific Bell's motion to strike the relation-back allegations. Pacific Bell filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Court, contending the superior court erred by denying its motion to strike Leggins' and Lopez's ("real parties") amended complaint because it is "an entirely new class action" complaint, which the real parties should have brought in a separate action. In the alternative, Pacific Bell contends the superior court erred by refusing to strike the relation-back allegations because the original complaint failed to provide adequate notice of the new claims, which are based on new and different facts and a new Plaintiff. The Court requested opposition, and then issued an alternative writ directing the superior court to vacate that part of its Nov. 22, 2017 order, denying Pacific Bell's motion to strike the relation-back allegations in the first amended complaint or, in the alternative, show cause before the court why a peremptory writ ordering it to do so should not issue. Because the superior court did not respond to the alternative writ, the Court issued an order to show cause. In their return, the real parties contend they alerted Pacific Bell to the new claims on May 3, 2017, when they served upon Pacific Bell an amended PAGA notice alleging the new Labor Code violations. They also contend the first amended complaint merely expands upon the original complaint by alleging that Pacific Bell's scheduling and timekeeping procedures result in the miscalculation and non-payment of wages owed to its employees. Thus, the real parties assert, the first amended complaint is sufficiently grounded on the same general set of facts that arise from the same or substantially similar employer-employee relationship. They also claim that Pacific Bell's counsel agreed in an email to stipulate to the proposed amendments. Lastly, real parties assert that they were unable to amend the complaint any earlier because the case was stayed. In its traverse, Pacific Bell contends real parties failed to identify any factual similarities between their new claims and the original day of rest claim, and the new claims are based on different evidence, different data, and different witnesses. It also contends that, contrary to real parties' assertion, the day of rest claim sought only penalties and has nothing to do with the calculation and payment of wages. Pacific Bell also asserts that real parties could have filed a separate action, or sought to lift the stay -- either by stipulation or order of the court -- to permit them to amend their complaint earlier. It contends real parties' amended PAGA notice failed to provide adequate notice of the new claims because it was served just two months before real parties filed their amended complaint, and years after the original complaint. Lastly, Pacific Bell disputes real parties' contention that Pacific Bell's counsel agreed to stipulate to the filing of an amended complaint. Judge Rothschild finds that rather than move to strike only the new claims and allegations, Pacific Bell moved to strike the entire amended complaint. She holds that this goes too far, because the amended complaint is not entirely new. Rather, it retains and restates the day of rest Labor Code violation, asserted as a PAGA claim by real party Leggins, the original Plaintiff. Accordingly, the superior court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to strike the entire amended complaint. With respect to Pacific Bell's motion to strike relation-back allegations, the Judge finds that none of the new allegations in real parties' first amended complaint has anything to do with Pacific Bell's alleged failure, once every few months, to provide one day off per week. The lack of any connection between the many new facts and claims in the amended complaint and the narrow facts and single day of rest claim in the original complaint amply supports Pacific Bell's contention that it was surprised by the amplification of the allegations of the original complaint in the amended one. Accordingly, because the real parties' new claims do not relate back to the original complaint, the respondent court abused its discretion by denying Pacific Bell's motion to strike the relation-back allegations. For these reasons, Judge Rothschild granted Pacific Bell's petition for writ of mandate. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the trial court to vacate that part of its Nov. 22, 2017 order denying the Petitioner's motion to strike the relation-back allegations in the first amended complaint and to issue a new and different order granting same. The parties will bear their own costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/Zm0MXf from Leagle.com. Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton, Michael C. Sullivan -- msullivan@paulplevin.com -- Aaron A. Buckley -- abuckley@paulplevin.com -- and Jeffrey P. Michalowski -- jmichalowski@paulplevin.com -- for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Clark Law Group, R. Craig Clark, and Monique R. Rodriguez -- mrodriguez@clarklawyers.com -- for Real Parties in Interest. PACIFIC GAS: Faces Class Action Over Camp Fire ---------------------------------------------- KKTV 11 News reports that The Law Offices of Frank D. Azar, and several other attorneys filed a lawsuit against Pacific Gas and Electric for allegedly starting the Camp fire, the deadliest fire in California history. A news release sent out by Azar's law firm said: A class action lawsuit filed on behalf of victims of the Camp Fire claims that Pacific Gas & Electric Co. is responsible for sparking the deadliest wildfire in California history. Since it first erupted in Butte County on November 8, the Camp Fire has resulted in at least 77 deaths, burned more than 150,000 acres and destroyed more than 10,000 homes. Officials say the cause of the blaze is still under investigation, but the lawsuit cites multiple reports of problems with a high-voltage power line operated by PG&E 14 minutes before the fire began and a vegetation fire under the utility's power lines at the point of ignition. This is not the first time PG&E's equipment has been linked to wildfires in Butte County. PG&E agreed to pay more than $24 million in damages to Butte County residents in the 2015 Butte Fire, and the troubled utility is also facing billions in potential liability over 2017 wildfires in Northern California. The lawsuit complaint contends that the circumstances that produced the Camp Fire were foreseeable and preventable, but that "PG&E has a long history of disregarding safety regulations in order to maximize its own corporate profits" -- by, for example, failing to trim trees near power lines or initiate power shutoffs in particularly hazardous fire conditions. Two days before the Camp Fire started, PG&E announced on Twitter a possible Public Safety Power Shutoff planned for November 8, as a result of high winds, low humidity and dry vegetation. Yet the shutoff never occurred. The lawsuit was filed in Superior Court in Butte County by the law firm of Garner & Associates, of Willows, California, and Franklin D. Azar & Associates of Aurora, Colorado, on behalf of several residents who lost homes and other property in the Camp Fire and others similarly situated. "We encourage people affected by the Camp Fire to not respond to robocallers, but to contact the Butte County Bar Association or your local attorney first," said Ivy Ngo, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys. These two plaintiff law firms worked closely together protecting the interests of Butte County residents after last year's October 8th fires. There is significant concern right now regarding lawsuits relating to the Camp Fire being filed by Bay Area firms in San Francisco County. "For us, these fires have devastated family and friends," said John Garner -- jrg@erglaw.net -- of Garner & Associates. "Nothing substantial about this fire occurred in San Francisco County. When the time is right for litigation, a Butte County judge should protect the victims of this fire." [GN] PARKSIDE CHEMISTS: Manigo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Ngenyama Manigo, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Parkside Chemists and Alexandros Argryis, the Defendants, Case No.: 523722/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, Parkside Chemists is a pharmacy in Brooklyn, NY, doing business under the name Parkside Chemists Specialty Pharmacy and located at 1274 Nostrand Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11226. The pharmacy is owned and operated by Alexandros Argryis. In or about October 2014, the Defendant hired Plaintiff to do deliveries within New York City, dropping off medications and medical devices and other medical products to Parkside's customers. The Plaintiff used his personal car for the deliveries and paid out of his pocket for all gas, maintenance, and other expenses incurred in the course of using his personal car to perform the work required by the Employer. Among the expenses Plaintiff incurred were charges to his personal EZ Pass when used to pay for tolls incurred in the course of perform his job duties as required by Parkside; the EZ Pass charges were incurred during the final 2 months of the period of employment. New York law requires employers to pay employees wages equivalent to minimum wage plus an amount sufficient to reimburse Plaintiff for all costs incurred in the performance of his job duties. Mr. Manigo was a loyal and dedicated employee. He worked long hours, specifically, and to the best of his recollection, he worked five days a week, occasionally, six days a week. He worked in excess of 40 hours per week for Defendants during the employment period. Mr. Manigo worked in excess of ten hours per day for Defendants during the employment period. During the last six months of the employment period, Defendants would cut 10 to 13 hours of compensable time from Plaintiff weekly hours. The Defendants never paid an overtime premium, and instead paid straight time rates for overtime hours, the lawsuit says. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 3rd Avenue Suite 1810 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com PDC ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Dufresne Complaint Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rockies Region 2007 Limited Partnership disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a motion to dismiss the case styled Dufresne, et al. v. PDC Energy, et al., is still pending. In December 2017, PDC Energy, Inc. (PDC) received an action entitled Dufresne, et al. v. PDC Energy, et al., filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The original complaint was brought by a number of limited partner investors seeking to assert derivative claims on behalf of this Partnership against PDC and alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. The plaintiffs also included claims against two of PDC's senior officers for alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit accuses PDC, as the managing general partner of this Partnership, of, among other things, failing to maximize the productivity of this Partnership's crude oil and natural gas wells. PDC filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on February 1, 2018, on the grounds that the complaint is deficient, including because the plaintiffs failed to allege that PDC refused a demand to take action on their claims. On March 14, 2018, the motion was denied as moot by the court because the plaintiffs requested leave to amend their complaint. In late April 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their complaint. Such amendment alleged additional facts to support the plaintiffs' claims and purports to add direct class action claims in addition to the original derivative claims. The amendment also added three new individual defendants, all of which are currently independent members of PDC's Board of Directors. PDC filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and, in response, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on July 10, 2018. PDC filed a motion to dismiss this second amended complaint and the claims against the individuals named as defendants on July 31, 2018, and is awaiting a ruling at this time. The Company said, "This motion has not yet been decided by the court. Potential damages as a result of this lawsuit, if any, would be paid by PDC and not affect this Partnership." PDC Energy, Inc. ("PDC") is the Managing General Partner of Rockies Region 2007 Limited Partnership. The Partnership was organized in 2007 as a limited partnership, in accordance with the laws of the State of West Virginia, for the purpose of engaging in the exploration and development of crude oil and natural gas properties. Business operations commenced upon closing of an offering for the private placement of Partnership units. Upon funding, this Partnership entered into a Drilling and Operating Agreement with the Managing General Partner which authorizes PDC to conduct and manage this Partnership's business. In accordance with the terms of the Limited Partnership Agreement, the Managing General Partner is authorized to manage all activities of this Partnership and initiates and completes substantially all Partnership transactions. PEOPLE 2.0: Duran Stayed Pending Final Approval of Grady Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California stayed the case, DESIREE DURAN, an individual, Plaintiff, v. PEOPLE 2.0 NORTH AMERICA LLC; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02546-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal.), pending completion of settlement negotiations and the Court's final approval of a class action settlement agreement in the case of Jesse Grady, et al. v. People 2.0 dba The Hire Source, et al., San Joaquin Superior Court Case No. STK-CV-2017-13867. The Parties will file an updated joint status report with the Court by April 26, 2019, regarding the status of litigation in the Grady Action. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/tpP9Yf from Leagle.com. Desiree Duran, Plaintiff, represented by John Paul Briscoe -- jbriscoe@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC, Nicholas John Scardigli -- nscardigli@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC, Robert Joshua Wasserman -- rwasserman@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC & William J. Gorham, III -- wgorham@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC. People 2.0 North America, LLC, Defendant, represented by Laura E. Hayward -- lhayward@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & R. Brian Dixon -- bdixon@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson. PLAYBOY.COM INC: Faces Nixon ADA Class Action in NY --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Playboy.com, Inc. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Playboy.com, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06769 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 28, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Playboy.com, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Playboy Enterprises, Inc., operates as the Internet company dedicated to the adult entertainment interests of young men around the world, as of December 31, 1999. The company was incorporated in 1998 and is based in New York, the United States.[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 PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Gomes Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned LEONARDO GOMES, the Plaintiff, vs. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, the Defendant, Case 1:18-cv-21872-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all individuals located in the State of Florida to whom PRA, between May 10, 2016 through the date of class certification, sent a letter based on the template used to create the May 16, 2017 letter that PRA sent to Mr. Gomes, regarding a Capital One credit card debt where the charge off date reported by Capital One preceded the date of the letter by more than five years"; 2. certifying Mr. Gomes as the class representative; and 3. appointing Alex D. Weisberg of the Weisberg Consumer Law Group, PA and David N. McDevitt of the Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC as class counsel.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Alex D. Weisberg, Esq. WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PA 5846 S. Flamingo Rd, Ste. 290 Cooper City, FL 33330 Telephone: (954) 212-2184 Facsimile: (866) 577-0963 E-mail: aweisberg@afclaw.com - and - David N. McDevitt, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC 5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: 602 845-5969 Facsimile: 866 317-2674 E-mail: dmcdevitt@consumerlawinfo.com POST HOLDINGS: Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Antitrust Suit v. Unit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Post Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that wholly-owned subsidiary Michael Foods, Inc. remains a defendant only with respect to claims that seek damages based on purchases of egg products by opt-out plaintiffs. In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class action lawsuits were filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc. ("MFI"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, and some 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs and egg products, and egg industry organizations), alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and egg products, and seeking unspecified damages. All cases were transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The case involved three plaintiff groups: (1) a nationwide class of direct purchasers of shell eggs ("direct purchaser class"); (2) individual companies (primarily large grocery chains and food companies that purchase considerable quantities of eggs) that opted out of various settlements and filed their own complaints related to their purchases of shell eggs and egg products ("opt-out plaintiffs"); and (3) indirect purchasers of shell eggs ("indirect purchaser plaintiffs"). In December 2016, MFI settled all claims asserted against it by the direct purchaser class for a payment of US$75.0 million, which was approved by the district court in December 2017. MFI settled all claims asserted against it by opt-out plaintiffs related to shell egg purchases on confidential terms in January 2017. In June 2018, MFI settled all claims asserted against it by indirect purchaser plaintiffs on confidential terms. MFI has at all times denied liability in this matter, and no settlement contains any admission of liability by MFI. MFI remains a defendant only with respect to claims that seek damages based on purchases of egg products by opt-out plaintiffs. The district court had granted summary judgment precluding any claims for egg products purchases by opt-out plaintiffs, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded these claims for further pre-trial proceedings. Defendants have filed a second motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims, and that motion is currently pending. The Company said, "Although the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of the MFI settlements, the remaining portion of the case could still result in a material adverse outcome." Post Holdings, Inc. operates as a consumer packaged goods holding company in the United States and internationally. It was founded in 1895 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. PREMIUM RECEIVABLES: Rittle FDCA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DENNIS RITTLE on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PREMIUM RECEIVABLES, LLC d/b/a Premium Asset Services, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-0166 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Sylvia H. Rambo of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted the parties' motion for final approval of the proposed Class Settlement Agreement. Judge Rambo has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Arbuckle filed with the Court on Oct. 15, 2018. No objections have been filed with the Court. She adopted the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Judge certified the Settlement Class defined as all consumers with addresses in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to whom Premium mailed an initial written communication, which failed to inform consumers they must (i) dispute the debt in writing to obtain verification, and/or (ii) make a request in writing to obtain information regarding the name and address of the original creditor, during the period beginning Jan. 23, 2014, and ending Feb. 13, 2015. The Plaintiff is an appropriate and adequate representative for the Class and his attorneys, Andrew T. Thomasson, Philip D. Stern, and Craig Thor Kimmel, were previously appointed as the Class Counsel. The Judge approved a form of notice for mailing to the Settlement Class. The actual notice was sent to 80 Class Members by Heffler Claims Group, the third-party settlement administrator. A total of four envelopes were returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable. None of the Class Members requested exclusion from, or objected to, the Settlement. On Nov. 28, 2016, the Court held a fairness hearing. Judge Rambo finds that finds the provisions for notice to the Settlement Class satisfy the requirements of due process pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. She approved the Agreement submitted by the Parties, including the Release and payments by Premium. In accordance with the terms of the Agreement, Premium will make the following payments: Premium will remit the class settlement fund of $1,000 to the Settlement Administrator who will distribute it pro rata among those 76 Class Members who received the notice and did not exclude themselves from the Settlement. The Claimants will receive a pro rata share of the Class Recovery by check. Checks issued to Claimants will be void 60 days from the date of issuance. Any checks that have not been cashed by the void date, along with any unclaimed funds remaining in the Class Recovery, will be donated as a cy pres award to: MidPenn Legal Services, 213-A North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101. Premium will pay Class Representative Plaintiff, Dennis Rittle, $1,000, the Class Counsel $18,000 for their attorneys' fees and costs, including costs to the Settlement Administrator incurred in the action. The Class Counsel will not request additional fees or costs from Premium or the Class Members. The terms of the Agreement are incorporated into the Order and the Order will operate as a final judgment and dismissal with prejudice of the claims in the action. The Judge finds, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), that there is no just reason for delay of enforcement of, or appeal from, the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/V6MZiu from Leagle.com. Dennis Rittle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew T. Thomasson, Stern Thomasson LLP, Craig Thor Kimmel -- kimmel@creditlaw.com -- Kimmel & Silverman & Philip D. Stern, Stern Thomasson LLP. Premium Receivables, LLC, d/b/a Premium Asset Services, Defendant, represented by Robert J. Foster -- rfoster@regerlaw.com -- Reger & Rizzo, LLP. PROTECTIVE LIFE: Still Faces Advance Trust Class Action Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- Protective Life Insurance Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that it remains a defendant in the putative class action styled Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities Intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290. The putative class action was filed on August 13, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Plaintiff alleges that the Company required policyholders to pay unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life and variable universal life policies issued or administered by the Company or its predecessors that provide that cost of insurance rates are to be determined based on expectations of future mortality experience. The plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, costs, and other unspecified relief. The Company is vigorously defending this matter and cannot predict the outcome of or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that might result from this litigation. PURDUE PHARMA: Reynolds RICO Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jason Reynolds individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Purdue Pharma LP, Purdue Pharma Inc., The Purdue Frederick Company Inc., Insys Therapeutic Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Cephalon Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Actavis PLC, Actavis Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc., Watson Laboratories Inc., McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health Inc., Amerisourcebergen Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01911 was transferred from the District of Oregon to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on November 28, 2018, and assigned Case No. 1:18-op-46271-DAP. The case was filed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and Raymond Sackler. The company's branches include Purdue Pharma Inc., The Purdue Frederick Company, Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P., and Purdue Products L.P. The Frederick Purdue Company provides research, development, production, marketing, sales, and licensing of prescription and non-prescription medicines and healthcare products. The Company specializes in pain medication research, as well as other therapeutic areas, including sleep and gastrointestinal disorders. The Frederick Purdue operates in the United States. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops and commercializes supportive care products. The company markets SUBSYS, a sublingual fentanyl spray for breakthrough cancer pain in opioid-tolerant adult patients; and SYNDROS, an orally administered liquid formulation of dronabinol for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with AIDS. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. The Generic Medicines segment offers sterile products, hormones, narcotics, high-potency drugs, and cytotoxic substances in various dosage forms, including tablets, capsules, injectables, inhalants, liquids, ointments, and creams. This segment also develops, manufactures, and sells active pharmaceutical ingredients. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. manufactures and markets generic drugs in the United States. It offers generic products for various therapeutic options, such as cardiovascular, anti-infective, central nervous system, anti-inflammatory, oncolytic, anti-diabetic, analgesic, dermatologic, respiratory, and women's health. The company offers its products in various dosage forms, such as tablets, capsules, injectables, creams, ointments, inhalants, solutions, and suspensions. It serves patients through distributors. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. was formerly known as Lemmon Pharmacal Company and changed its name to Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. in 1996. Cephalon, Inc. engages in the discovery and development of medicines for central nervous system disorders, pain, and cancer. It offers NUVIGIL (armodafinil) tablets for improving wakefulness in patients with excessive sleepiness associated with treated obstructive sleep apnea and shift work disorder, also known as shift work disorder and narcolepsy; TREANDA (bendamustine HCl) for injection for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia; and AMRIX (Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride extended-release capsules), which is indicated as an adjunct to rest and physical therapy for relief of muscle spasm associated with acute and painful musculoskeletal conditions. Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational medical devices, pharmaceutical and consumer packaged goods manufacturing company founded in 1886. Its common stock is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the company is listed among the Fortune 500. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. manufactures and markets prescription pharmaceutical products. It provides medicines for health concerns in various therapeutic areas, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, pain management, acid reflux and infectious diseases, women's health, and mental health (bipolar I disorder and schizophrenia); neurologics, including Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy, and migraine prevention and treatment; and SYMTUZATM, a darunavir-based single-tablet regimen for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in treatment-naive and certain virologically suppressed adults. Endo Health Solutions Inc. provides specialty healthcare solutions in the United States and internationally. The company's Endo Pharmaceuticals segment offers branded prescription products, including Lidoderm, Opana ER, Percocet, Voltaren Gel, Frova, Supprelin LA, Vantas, Valstar, and Fortesta Gel for pain, urology, endocrinology, and oncology. Its Qualitest segment provides non-branded generic products in the pain management, urology, central nervous system disorders, immunosuppression, oncology, women's health, and hypertension markets. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. engages in the research and development, production, sale, and marketing of branded and generic pharmaceutical products primarily in the United States. It offers injections, sustained release capsules, gels, tablets, oral suspensions, nasal sprays, extended-release tablets, capsules, mucoadhesive for buccal administration, subcutaneous implants, and sterile solutions for intravesical instillation; and clinical research services. Actavis Generics is a global pharmaceutical company focused on developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded pharmaceuticals, generic and over-the-counter medicines, and biologic products. Actavis has a commercial presence across approximately 100 countries. Watson Laboratories, Inc. manufactures pharmaceutical drugs. The company was incorporated in 1992 and is based in Corona, California. Watson Laboratories, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of ATeva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited. McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies in the United States and internationally. It operates in three segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. The company distributes branded, generic, specialty, biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs, as well as other healthcare-related products; and offers practice management, technology, clinical support, and business solutions to community-based oncology and other specialty practices. Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services and products company in the United States and internationally. It provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems, pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and physician offices. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation distributes pharmaceuticals products, equipment, and systems. The company provides global product sourcing, generic purchasing programs, technology solutions, pharmacy network and programs, and pharmaceutical packaging solutions. The company serves healthcare providers, independent retailers, and pharmacies. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation was formerly known as AmeriSource Corporation and changed its name to AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation in January 1995.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve D. Larson, Esq. Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter P.C. 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 227-1600 Fax: (503) 227-6840 Email: slarson@stollberne.com PURDUE PHARMA: W.E. Files Suit for Personal Injury -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit asserting Personal Injury has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. The case is styled as W.E. by and through her guardian and next friend, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Next Friend Pamela Osborne, Plaintiff v. Purdue Pharma LP, Purdue Pharma Inc., Purdue Frederick Company Inc., Allergan PLC formerly known as: Actavis PLC, Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. now known as Actavis, Inc., Watson Laboratories Inc., Actavis LLC, Actavis Pharma Inc. formerly known as: Watson Pharma, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Cephalon Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Jannsen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Noramco, Inc., Mallinckrodt, PLC, Mallinckrodt, LLC, Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation, Cardinal Health Inc., McKesson Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00629-GFVT (E.D. Ky., Nov. 28, 2018). Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and Raymond Sackler. The company's branches include Purdue Pharma Inc., The Purdue Frederick Company, Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P., and Purdue Products L.P. The Frederick Purdue Company provides research, development, production, marketing, sales, and licensing of prescription and non-prescription medicines and healthcare products. The Company offers specializes in pain medication research, as well as other therapeutic areas, including sleep and gastrointestinal disorders. The Frederick Purdue operates in the United States. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. The Generic Medicines segment offers sterile products, hormones, narcotics, high-potency drugs, and cytotoxic substances in various dosage forms, including tablets, capsules, injectables, inhalants, liquids, ointments, and creams. This segment also develops, manufactures, and sells active pharmaceutical ingredients. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. manufactures and markets generic drugs in the United States. It offers generic products for various therapeutic options, such as cardiovascular, anti-infective, central nervous system, anti-inflammatory, oncolytic, anti-diabetic, analgesic, dermatologic, respiratory, and women's health. The company offers its products in various dosage forms, such as tablets, capsules, injectables, creams, ointments, inhalants, solutions, and suspensions. It serves patients through distributors. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. was formerly known as Lemmon Pharmacal Company and changed its name to Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. in 1996. Cephalon, Inc. engages in the discovery and development of medicines for central nervous system disorders, pain, and cancer. It offers NUVIGIL (armodafinil) tablets for improving wakefulness in patients with excessive sleepiness associated with treated obstructive sleep apnea and shift work disorder, also known as shift work disorder and narcolepsy; TREANDA (bendamustine HCl) for injection for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia; and AMRIX (Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride extended-release capsules), which is indicated as an adjunct to rest and physical therapy for relief of muscle spasm associated with acute and painful musculoskeletal conditions. Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational medical devices, pharmaceutical and consumer packaged goods manufacturing company founded in 1886. Its common stock is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the company is listed among the Fortune 500. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. manufactures and markets prescription pharmaceutical products. It provides medicines for health concerns in various therapeutic areas, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, pain management, acid reflux and infectious diseases, women's health, and mental health (bipolar I disorder and schizophrenia); neurologics, including Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy, and migraine prevention and treatment; and SYMTUZATM, a darunavir-based single-tablet regimen for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in treatment-naïve and certain virologically suppressed adults. Endo Health Solutions Inc. provides specialty healthcare solutions in the United States and internationally. The company's Endo Pharmaceuticals segment offers branded prescription products, including Lidoderm, Opana ER, Percocet, Voltaren Gel, Frova, Supprelin LA, Vantas, Valstar, and Fortesta Gel for pain, urology, endocrinology, and oncology. Its Qualitest segment provides non-branded generic products in the pain management, urology, central nervous system disorders, immunosuppression, oncology, women's health, and hypertension markets. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. engages in the research and development, production, sale, and marketing of branded and generic pharmaceutical products primarily in the United States. It offers injections, sustained release capsules, gels, tablets, oral suspensions, nasal sprays, extended-release tablets, capsules, mucoadhesive for buccal administration, subcutaneous implants, and sterile solutions for intravesical instillation; and clinical research services. Actavis Generics is a global pharmaceutical company focused on developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded pharmaceuticals, generic and over-the-counter medicines, and biologic products. Actavis has a commercial presence across approximately 100 countries. Watson Laboratories, Inc. manufactures pharmaceutical drugs. The company was incorporated in 1992 and is based in Corona, California. Watson Laboratories, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of ATeva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited. McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies in the United States and internationally. It operates in three segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. The company distributes branded, generic, specialty, biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs, as well as other healthcare-related products; and offers practice management, technology, clinical support, and business solutions to community-based oncology and other specialty practices. Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services and products company in the United States and internationally. It provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems, pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and physician offices. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation distributes pharmaceuticals products, equipment, and systems. The company provides global product sourcing, generic purchasing programs, technology solutions, pharmacy network and programs, and pharmaceutical packaging solutions. The company serves healthcare providers, independent retailers, and pharmacies. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation was formerly known as AmeriSource Corporation and changed its name to AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation in January 1995.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Sacks, Esq. - and - Ashley M. Liuzza, Esq. Stag Liuzza, L.L.C. 365 Canal Street One Canal Place, Suite 2850 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 593-9600 Fax: (504) 593-9601 - and - John Weston, Esq. - and - Kelly Cox Bilek, Esq. - and - Matthew D. Rogenes, Esq. Stag Liuzza, L.L.C. 365 Canal Street One Canal Place, Suite 2850 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 593-9600 Fax: (504) 593-9601 - and - Michael G. Stag, Esq. Smith Stag, LLC 365 Canal Street, Suite 2850 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 593-9600 Fax: (504) 593-9601 - and - Rodney Garrett Davis, Esq. Davis Law, PSC - Irvine 133 Main Street P.O. Box 150 Irvine, CA 40336 Phone: (606) 726-9991 Fax: (606) 726-9772 Email: rgd@davislawky.com - and - Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. RESHAPE LIFESCIENCES: Dec. 17 Hearing Set for Du Case Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action complaint filed by Vinh Du, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has scheduled a hearing for December 17, 2018 to decide on the approval of a proposed settlement of the case, according to ReShape Lifesciences Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. On February 28, 2017, the Company received a class action and derivative complaint filed on February 24, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by Vinh Du, one of the Company's shareholders. The complaint named as defendants ReShape Lifesciences, the board of directors and four members of the Company's senior management, namely, Scott Youngstrom, Nick Ansari, Peter DeLange and Paul Hickey, and contained a purported class action claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the board of directors and derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the board of directors and unjust enrichment against the Company's senior management. The allegations in the complaint related to the increase in the number of shares authorized for grant under the Company's Second Amended and Restated 2003 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan"), which was approved by the Company's shareholders at the Special Meeting of Shareholders held on December 12, 2016 (the "Special Meeting"), and to its subsequent grant of stock options on February 8, 2017, to the Company's Directors and senior management to purchase an aggregate of 521 shares of its common stock (the "Option Grants"). In the complaint, the plaintiff contended that (i) the number of shares authorized for grant under the Plan, as adjusted by the board of directors after the Special Meeting for the subsequent recapitalization of the Company, resulted from an alleged breach of fiduciary duties by the board of directors, and (ii) the Company's senior management was allegedly unjustly enriched by the subsequent Option Grants. The plaintiff sought relief in the form of an order rescinding the Plan as approved by the shareholders at the Special Meeting, an order cancelling the Option Grants, and an award to plaintiff for his costs, including fees and disbursements of attorneys, experts and accountants. The parties have reached an agreement-in-principle concerning the proposed settlement of this matter, which was filed with the court on August 13, 2018. The court has scheduled a hearing for December 17, 2018 to decide if the settlement will be approved. The terms of the settlement require the Company to (i) rescind and cancel the Option Grants, with the exception of options that were already rescinded when certain individuals left the company in the last fiscal quarter of 2017, (ii) amend the Plan to add a provision establishing the maximum total annual equity compensation for non-employee directors and to seek stockholder approval of this amendment at the Company's next annual meeting of stockholders, and (iii) proportionally adjust all share reserves and limitations in the Plan (and any other equity compensation plan for the company) in connection with any future split of the company's stock during the next five years unless otherwise brought to and approved by stockholder vote. The Company said, "During the quarter ended June 30, 2018, the Company recorded an accrued liability and legal expense for US$190,000 representing a probable and currently estimable settlement amount for this matter." ReShape Lifesciences Inc., a medical device company, focuses on the design and development of devices that use neuroblocking technology to treat obesity, metabolic diseases, and other gastrointestinal disorders. ReShape Lifesciences Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in San Clemente, California. REVLON INC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Diaz Says ------------------------------------------------------ EDWIN DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. REVLON, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10915 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018), alleges that Defendant 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.revlon.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The 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. Revlon, Inc. is an American multinational cosmetics, skin care, fragrance, and personal care company founded in 1932 and based in New York City.[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 ROYAL OAK, MI: Court Denies Gale's Prelim Injunction Bid v. Police ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JOSEPH GALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRIGAN O'DONOHUE, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-1149 (6th Cir.), Judge Helene n. White of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Gale's motion to preliminarily enjoin practices and policies of the Royal Oak Police Department that he alleges are unconstitutional. On Oct. 5, 2016, Gale filed a Citizen's Complaint with the City of Royal Oak Police Department. The department initiated an investigation that included a review of footage from the responding officers' vehicles, and Lt. David Van Ness met with Gale on Oct. 17, 2016. Van Ness and Gale agreed to record the audio of their meeting. Van Ness and Gale discussed Gale's complaint over the course of more than two hours. Van Ness explained the department's policy for responding to and investigating 911 calls and told Gale that the officers were justified in stopping and questioning him. Van Ness explained that there had recently been several nighttime home invasions in the area and that the police often encountered intoxicated civilians in the area, and that, as a result, the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and investigate Gale based on a combination of (a) the 911 call, (b) the officers' observation that Gale matched the 911 caller's description and was walking alone on a nearby street, and (c) the fact that Gale did not provide a coherent explanation for his presence. Van Ness further explained that the officers were also motivated by concern for the safety of civilians who might be lost or intoxicated. In short, Van Ness told Gale that the officers had acted in accordance with police procedure and stood by the officers' conduct. On July 5, 2017, Gale filed a "Verified Class Action Complaint" naming Klinge, Paramo, and Heppner in their individual capacities and Royal Oak Police Chief Corrigan O'Donohue in both his individual and official capacities. Gale filed an amended complaint on July 31, 2017, advancing nine separate claims: (1) search and seizure in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against all the individual Defendants, (2) deprivation of property in violation of Section 1983 against all the individual Defendants, (3) abuse of process and conspiracy in violation of Section 1983 against all the individual Defendants; (4) Monell liability under Section 1983 against O'Donohue in his official capacity; (5) false imprisonment or false arrest against all the individual Defendants; (6) conspiracy to commit false imprisonment or false arrest against Paramo and Heppner; (7) assault and battery against all the individual Defendants; (8) common law trespass against all the individual Defendants; and (9) violation of Michigan's Freedom of Information Act against O'Donohue in his official capacity. Gale moved for a temporary restraining order against O'Donohue in his official capacity on July 10, 2017. Gale asked the court to restrain the Defendant's policy to stop or frisk individuals within the City of Royal Oak for their identification, in order to run warrant checks, without any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity being afoot, until such time as the Court can further consider the merits. The court denied the motion, finding that Gale has not shown that he will suffer immediate and irreparable harm before the Defendants can be heard and has failed to certify whether any efforts have been made to give notice to the Defendants. On Aug. 2, 2017, Gale moved for a preliminary injunction. In particular, Gale sought an order (a) enjoining the Royal Oak police department from continuing its alleged policy, practice, or custom of conducting suspicionless stops; (b) requiring the Defendants to maintain a database of information concerning all stops conducted by Royal Oak police officers; and (c) requiring them to monitor the police department's stop-and-frisk practice on an ongoing basis. The district court denied Gale's motion. The district court first noted that Gale's municipal liability claim was his only claim that plausibly seeks prospective relief and therefore considered only whether Gale had met the requirements for a preliminary injunction with respect to that claim. The district court ultimately found that Gale had failed to demonstrate either a likelihood of success on the merits or a danger of irreparable harm. The district court therefore denied Gale's motion for a preliminary injunction. It also found that the Plaintiff's request for expedited discovery in support of his claim for injunctive relief was moot. Gale appeals Judge White holds that the district court did not err in finding that Gale failed to demonstrate either a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim for municipal liability or a danger of irreparable harm absent the injunction. The Judge finds that Gale failed to demonstrate that the Defendants provided inadequate training, that they were deliberately indifferent to civilians' constitutional rights, or that there was a causal connection between any training and his alleged injury. Gale therefore has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim against the municipal Defendant, and the Court would be justified in affirming the district court's order on this ground alone. She also finds that Gale has not demonstrated that any unconstitutional policy caused his alleged injury and provides no evidence suggesting that he will be subject to the allegedly unconstitutional conduct again. He has therefore failed to demonstrate a danger of irreparable harm absent the injunction. Finally, the Judge finds that even assuming that Gale's requested injunction is practicable, the imposition of such an injunction would dramatically disrupt -- rather than preserve -- the status quo by hampering the Defendants' ability to respond to and investigate complaints, resulting in tremendous hardship to the Defendants and, in all likelihood, endangering civilians. Without evidence of an unconstitutional policy, she must find that the equities counsel against Gale's requested injunction. Because Gale has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the preliminary injunction factors, Judge White affirmed the district court's denial of Gale's requested preliminary injunction. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/XgeQyL from Leagle.com. RYB EDUCATION: Zhang Sues over Plunge in ADS Trading Price ---------------------------------------------------------- YIQING ZHANG, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RYB EDUCATION, INC., CHIMIN CAO, YANLAI SHI, PING WEI, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA), MORGAN STANELY & CO. INTERNATIONAL PLC, CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED, and BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 717923/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 21, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal securities laws and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the case is a securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of RYB pursuant and traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering completed on or about September 27, 2017. On or about August 30, 2017, RYB filed with the SEC its initial Registration Statement on Form F-1 with the SEC. Following amendments filed with the SEC on September 13, 2017 and September 22, 2017, the SEC declared the Registration Statement effective on September 26, 2017. The next day, on September 27, 2017, RYB filed its Prospectus in connection with the IPO. The initial Form F-1 and subsequent amendments are referred to collectively as the "Registration Statement." On or about September 27, 2017, RYB offered 5,500,000 American Depositary Shares. RYB engaged defendants Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc, China International Capital Corporation Hong Kong Securities Limited, and BNP Paribas Securities Corp. to serve as underwriters for the IPO, setting the per-ADS offering price of $18.50. RYB stated that it expected to receive net proceeds of approximately $90.2 million from the IPO and that the Company intended to use such net proceeds for "general corporate purposes and working capital and potential acquisitions." Ultimately, RYB reported that it had received net proceeds of $90.1 million from the closing of the IPO. In the Registration Statement and Prospectus, RYB states that it is a provider of early childhood education in the People's Republic of China for children from age 0 to 6 years old and describes itself as "the largest early childhood education service provider in China, as measured by annual total revenues in 2016." Just prior to the IPO, RYB stated that it now operates a total of 853 "play and learn" centers in its network after having begun operations almost two decades ago. The Registration Statement and Prospectus attribute RYB's commercial success to its "established and highly standardized operations system,” which is intended to "ensure service quality," and to its "best-in-class teaching staff specialized in early childhood education," among other things. The Company touts its maintenance of "high standards in selecting, certifying and training" its teaching staff and the "stringent" vetting process that each teaching candidate must complete prior to becoming an RYB certified teacher. In addition to the claims about the quality of its teachers, RYB represented to investors that it had "established and strictly implemented security and safety protocols" to protect its young and vulnerable students while on campus, and that such standards were "strictly enforce[d]" across its network of learning centers. Unbeknownst to the market, however, RYB's statements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus about its teaching staff, teacher training, and safety and security protocols were false and misleading. Teachers received inadequate training from RYB in terms of disciplining and administering punishment to students. The Company also employed teachers who were not certified to teach in its learning centers. RYB's safety and security protocols were also deficient because it relied heavily on surveillance technology that was not adequately staffed or monitored and was not upgraded, uniformly implemented, or even implemented at all in some of its learning centers. The inadequacies of RYB's teaching staff, teacher training, and safety and security protocols began to reveal themselves to the market on or about November 24, 2017, when Reuters reported that Chinese police were investigating claims of sexual molestation and needlemarks on children at an RYB kindergarten in Beijing. In the days that followed, further details of the incident emerged and additional corrective disclosures were made to the market. Such news caused RYB shares to plummet, and RYB ADSs currently trade over 56% below the IPO price. RYB Education is a publicly listed company for preschool education in the People's Republic of China. As measured by annual total revenues in 2016, the company is the largest provider of early childhood education service in China.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com SANOFI PASTEUR: Summary Judgment in Weitzner TCPA Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ARI WEITZNER; ARI WEITZNER MD PC, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. SANOFI PASTEUR INC, formerly known as Aventis Pasteur Inc.; VAXSERVE INC, formerly known as Vaccess America, Inc., Case No. 17-3188 (3d Cir.), Judge D. Brooks Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment. Dr. Ari Weitzner is a physician who maintains a practice in New York. Dr. Weitzner is, and has always been, the sole shareholder of co-plaintiff Weitzner P.C. During the events at issue in the case, Dr. Weitzner practiced through the P.C. At the present time, the P.C. has neither assets nor any ongoing business, yet remains legally active under New York law. On April 21, 2004 and March 22, 2005, Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccines division of the pharmaceutical company Sanofi, and VaxServe, Inc., a healthcare supplier, sent two unsolicited faxes to a fax machine located in Dr. Weitzner's office. Based on the receipt of these two faxes, Dr. Weitzner filed a putative class action against Sanofi Pasteur and VaxServe in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. In the state court action, Dr. Weitzner alleged that the Defendants transmitted thousands of faxes in violation of the TCPA, including at least one fax sent to Dr. Weitzner. The proposed class included all individuals who received an unsolicited facsimile advertisement from the Defendants between Jan. 2, 2001[,] and the date of the resolution of the lawsuit. On June 27, 2008, the Court of Common Pleas denied class certification, after which the case proceeded as an individual action by Dr. Weitzner against the Defendants. There has yet to be a final judgment in the state court case. It is undisputed that the Defendants stopped sending unsolicited faxes in April 2005. More than three years after denial of class certification in the state action, and over six years after the Defendants sent any unsolicited faxes, the Plaintiffs filed the case in the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 26, 2011. The Plaintiffs brought individual claims based on the same two faxes sent on April 21, 2004, and March 22, 2005, along with class claims substantially similar to those alleged in the state court action. The District Court concluded that the four-year federal default statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. Section 1658 applies to claims under the TCPA. On appeal, the parties do not dispute the application of the four-year statute of limitations. The statute of limitations for claims arising from the two faxes actually sent to the Plaintiffs therefore ran in 2008 and 2009, respectively, and the statute of limitations for any class claims had similarly elapsed by April 2009. Accordingly, there is no dispute that all of these claims are untimely absent tolling. The Plaintiffs rely on Dr. Weitzner's 2005 state court action -- in which Dr. Weitzner initiated suit as the named plaintiff in a putative class action and which he continues to pursue on an individual basis -- as the means for tolling the statute of limitations as Dr. Weitzner and his P.C. attempt to bring the same claims in the District Court. The Defendants moved for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds and filed an accompanying statement of material facts pursuant to Local Rule 56.1. The Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and their answer to their statement of material facts. The Defendants moved to strike the Plaintiffs' answer to the statement of facts for noncompliance with Local Rule 56.1. The Defendants argued, in part, that portions of the answer were argumentative in violation of Local Rule 56.1. The District Court granted the Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiffs' answer to the statement of facts in part, striking 19 responses from the answer for noncompliance with Local Rule 56.1 because they were not concise and were argumentative. In the same order, the District Court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that American Pipe tolling did not apply to the Dlaintiffs' class or individual claims and that the Plaintiffs' claims were therefore untimely. The Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal. Dr. Weitzner and his professional corporation challenge the District Court's conclusion on summary judgment that their claims under the TCPA were untimely. There is no dispute that the Plaintiffs' TCPA claims -- brought individually and on behalf of a proposed class -- are untimely unless tolling applies. As a result, the primary question before the Court is whether tolling is available under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah. American Pipe provides that the timely filing of a class action tolls the applicable statute of limitations for putative class members until the propriety of maintaining the class is determined. This tolling is an equitable remedy that promotes both the efficiency and economy goals of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 by encouraging class members to rely on the named Plaintiff's filings and protects unnamed class members who may have been unaware of the class action. The Plaintiffs argue that a previous state court putative class action brought by Dr. Weitzner, involving the very same claims raised in this case, tolled the statute of limitations such that Dr. Weitzner and his P.C. should be allowed to pursue their claims anew in federal court. Specifically, they raise three categories of claims, each of which they assert is timely under American Pipe: (1) purported class claims; (2) Dr. Weitzner's individual claims; and (3) Weitzner P.C.'s individual claims. Judge Smith concludes that American Pipe created a generous tolling rule that applies broadly to protect putative class members in pending class actions. Yet the rule is not without limits. As the Supreme Court clarified in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, tolling does not apply to successive class actions under any circumstances. He now holds that American Pipe tolling does not allow individuals who were the named plaintiffs in an initial class action to toll their own statute of limitations. The Judge emphasizes that American Pipe tolling has long been recognized as an equitable remedy that applies only where necessary to prevent injustice. Courts should not permit tolling where doing so would result in an abuse of American Pipe. As a result, American Pipe does not apply to preserve any of the Plaintiffs' untimely claims. Finally, he concludes that the District Court's application of Local Rule 56.1 was not an abuse of discretion and, in any event, had no effect on its appropriate grant of summary judgment. Therefore, he affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/u2YdkG from Leagle.com. Todd C. Bank -- tbank@toddbanklaw.com -- [ARGUED], Fourth Floor, 119-40 Union Turnpike, Kew Gardens, NY 11415. Paul T. Kelly, Needle Law, 240 Penn Avenue, Suite 202, Scranton, PA 18503. Daniel A. Osborn -- dosborn@osbornlawpc.com -- Suite 131, 43 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036, Counsel for Appellants. Carl J. Greco -- cjgreco@cjgrecolaw.com -- [ARGUED], 4th Floor, 327 North Washington Avenue, Professional Arts Building, Scranton, PA 18503, Counsel for Appellees. SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: EZ Seed Final Approval Hearing Set for Dec. 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2018, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that the date of the final settlement approval hearing in In re Scotts EZ Seed Litigation, Case No. 12-cv-4727 (VB), is December 19, 2018. The Company has been named as a defendant in In re Scotts EZ Seed Litigation, Case No. 12-cv-4727 (VB), a New York and California class action lawsuit filed August 9, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that asserts claims under false advertising and other legal theories based on a marketing statement on the Company's EZ Seed grass seed product from 2009 to 2012. The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and purported class members, various forms of monetary and non-monetary relief, including statutory damages that they contend could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. The Company has defended the action vigorously, and disputes the plaintiffs’ claims and theories, including the recoverability of statutory damages. In 2017, the Court eliminated certain claims, narrowed the case in certain respects, and permitted the case to continue proceeding as a class action. On August 7, 2017, the Court requested briefs on the Company's request for interlocutory review of issues relating to the recoverability of statutory damages in a class action by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and, on August 31, 2017, approved that request. On January 8, 2018, however, the Second Circuit denied the interlocutory appeal request. The parties engaged in mediation on April 9, 2018 and agreed in principle to a preliminary settlement of the outstanding claims on April 10, 2018. The preliminary settlement would require the Company to pay certain attorneys' and administrative fees and provide certain payments to the class members. The preliminary settlement will not be finalized until after the court approves the settlement and a claims process determines the payments to be provided to the class members. The date of the final settlement approval hearing with the court is December 19, 2018. The Scotts said, "During fiscal 2018, the Company recognized a charge of $11.7 million for a probable loss related to this matter within the "Impairment, restructuring and other" line in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. The resolution of the claims process may result in additional losses in excess of the amount accrued, however, the Company does not believe a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued would be material to, nor have a material adverse effect on, the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." Deal Reached in Calif. Suit Lauren Berg, writing for Law360, reports that Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. has reached a deal in California federal court with a class of consumers who accused the lawn company of knowingly selling bird food laced with toxic pesticides. The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company manufactures, markets, and sells consumer lawn and garden products in the United States and internatonally. The company operates through three segments: U.S. Consumer, Hawthorne, and Other. The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company was founded in 1868 and is headquartered in Marysville, Ohio. SELLAS LIFE: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Complaint in "Abstral" ------------------------------------------------------------ SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc. seeks the Court's ruling to dismiss the amended complaint filed in the putative shareholder securities class action regarding Galena Biopharma, Inc.'s promotional practices for Abstral(R), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. On December 29, 2017, Galena completed the Merger with SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Ltd., a privately held Bermuda exempted company ("Private SELLAS"), in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated as of August 7, 2017 and amended November 5, 2017. The Company's predecessor company, Galena, was involved in multiple legal proceedings and administrative actions, including stockholder class actions, both state and federal, some of which are ongoing and to which the Company are now subject as a result of the Merger. On February 13, 2017, putative shareholder securities class action complaints were filed in federal court alleging, among other things, that the Company and certain of the Company's former officers and directors failed to disclose that Galena's promotional practices for Abstral(R) (fentanyl sublingual tablets) were allegedly improper and that Galena may be subject to civil and criminal liability, and that these alleged failures rendered Galena's statements about its business misleading. The actions were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were named by the Court and a consolidated complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On August 21, 2018, the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was granted without prejudice to file an amended complaint. On September 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On October 22, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development of novel cancer immunotherapies for various cancer indications. SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc. is headquartered in New York, New York. SETERUS INC: Baxas Ask Court for Hearing on Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN BAXA AND LINDA BAXA, the PLAINTIFFS, vs. SETERUS, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case 2:17-cv-05434-JTM-MBN (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for a hearing on class certification under Local Rule 23.1 (B).[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: David S. Moyer, Esq. DAVID S. MOYER, LLC 13551 RIVER ROAD LA Hwy 18 Luling, LA 70070-4261 Telephone: 985 308-1509 Facsimile: 985 308-1521 E-mail: davidmoyerlaw@gmail.com - and - Charles M. Raymond, Esq. CHARLES M RAYMOND, L.L.C. 13551 RIVER ROAD LA Hwy 18 Luling, LA 70070-4261 Telephone: 985 308-1509 Facsimile: 985 308-1521 Cell: 504 400-0170 E-mail: charles@raymondlaw.us SHIFTPIXY INC: Unit Defending Against Ramirez Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- ShiftPixy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2018, for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2018, that the company's subsidiary continues to defend against a class action lawsuit by Maribel Ramirez. On May 1, 2018, Ramirez filed a class action lawsuit, naming the company's subsidiary, Shift Human Capital Management Inc., and its client as defendants, claiming that she was forced to work hours for which she was not paid and denied lunch breaks, and rest periods, etc., to which she was entitled, and also claiming in separate government complaints that she was discriminated against and wrongfully terminated. ShiftPixy said, "This lawsuit is in the initial stages; the financial impact to the Company, if any, cannot be estimated. No liability has been recorded for this matter at this time. In the event of an unfavorable outcome the Company's client is obligated contractually obligated to indemnify the Company for misreported hours and portions of the claim would be covered under the Company's employment practices liability insurance." ShiftPixy, Inc. provides employment services for businesses; and workers in shift or other part-time/temporary positions in the United States. The company also operates as a payroll processor, human resources consultant, and administrator of workers' compensation coverages and claims. It primarily serves restaurant, hospitality, and maintenance service industries. The company was founded in 2015 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. SINEMIA: Class Action Over Movie Subscription Services Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Nathan McAlone, writing for Business Insider, reports that movie-ticket subscription services have been the hottest topic in the movie-theater business this year, as MoviePass has sparked a surge in customer interest. But both leaders among the services that aren't tied to specific chains, MoviePass and Sinemia, have "F" ratings from the Better Business Bureau. They have also both been hit with class-action lawsuits that are ongoing. Since Business Insider's McAlone began to report on the subscription services, he has received hundreds of angry complaints from customers, especially in recent months. Over the last year, the rise of MoviePass has helped stoke widespread interest in movie-ticketing subscription services. But the Better Business Bureau has a message for potential customers: buyer beware. In general, there are two main types of subscription services on the market in the US: those tied to a specific theater chain like AMC Stubs A-List (AMC Theatres), and those that can be more widely used (like MoviePass and Sinemia). The services that offer theater flexibility can feel like the more attractive option for many consumers. But the two main competitors in movie-ticket subscription services, MoviePass and Sinemia, both sport an "F" rating from the Better Business Bureau. MoviePass has had a whopping 2,461 complaints filed against it, while smaller Sinemia has had 169. Both also have had class-action lawsuits filed against them that are still ongoing. MoviePass' parent company, Helios and Matheson Analytics, had two class-action suits filed by shareholders in August, one of which alleged that some of Helios' "statements to the market were materially false or misleading." It had a further lawsuit filed against it by a shareholder in September, alleging "breach of fiduciary duty" and "unjust enrichment" by some officers of the company. Sinemia was hit with a class-action lawsuit in November from customers, primarily over the introduction of a new $1.80 processing fee. The lawsuit claims Sinemia "lures consumers in by convincing them to purchase a purportedly cheaper movie subscription, and then adds undisclosed fees that make such purchases no bargain at all." This year, throughout the course of reporting on both companies, Mr. McAlone received hundreds of complaints from angry customers, and, in the case of MoviePass, angry investors as well. The common gripes about both services have been a lack of customer service and technical glitches that prevent them from seeing movies. Specifically for MoviePass, some customers have also felt cheated by the severe restrictions on movies and showtimes, which some said makes the app effectively unusable. For Sinemia, dozens complained of hidden fees, and multiple customers said they'd had trouble getting partial refunds for yearlong prepaid accounts after they attempted to cancel because of major service changes (the new processing fee, for example, which is the subject of the lawsuit). Since the summer, when MoviePass introduced unpopular restrictions and Sinemia saw a surge in new subscribers, the vast majority of people who have contacted me have had very negative experiences with both apps. Those sentiments are reflected in MoviePass and Sinemia's abysmal ratings from the Better Business Bureau. The takeaway Mr. McAlone had, as both a reporter and as a subscriber to both services, is that when the deal sounds too good to be true, it usually is. MoviePass and Sinemia did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider. [GN] SITO MOBILE: Bid to Dismiss Roper Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------- SITO Mobile, Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the motion to dismiss the securities class action lawsuit styled Roper v. SITO Mobile, Ltd., remains pending. On February 17, 2017, plaintiff Sandi Roper commenced a purported securities class action against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Roper v. SITO Mobile, Ltd., Case No. 17-cv-1106-ES-MAH (D.N.J. filed Feb. 17, 2017). On May 8, 2017, Red Oak Fund, LP, Red Oak Long Fund LP, Red Oak Institutional Founders Long Fund, and Pinnacle Opportunities Fund, LP (collectively, "Red Oak") were appointed lead plaintiffs. On June 22, 2017, Red Oak filed an amended complaint, purporting to represent a class of stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock between August 15, 2016 and January 2, 2017 ("Class Period"). The amended complaint names as defendants the Company's directors and certain of its officers during the Class Period. It alleges that the defendants violated section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), in connection with the September 16, 2016 offering of the Company's stock, by allegedly omitting material information from the registration statement and prospectus, and that the individual defendants are liable as controlling persons under section 15 of the Securities Act. The amended complaint also alleges that the defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by allegedly making materially false or misleading statements regarding its media placement revenues, and that the individual defendants are liable as controlling persons under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September 1, 2017. That motion is pending. Discovery has not commenced, and no trial date has been set for this action. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. SITO Mobile, Ltd. provides advertisement delivery, measurement and attribution, and consumer insights using its proprietary location-based marketing intelligence platform in the United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as Single Touch Systems, Inc. and changed its name to SITO Mobile, Ltd. in September 2014. SITO Mobile, Ltd. was incorporated in 2000 and is based in Jersey City, New Jersey. SKECHERS USA: Fishman Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------ Steven S. Fishman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Skechers USA, Inc., Robert Greenberg, John Vandemore and David Weinberg, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-09510, (S.D.N.Y., October 17, 2018) seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Skechers designs and markets branded footwear for men, women, and children. In recent years, Skechers has experienced rapid sales growth, particularly in the Company's international markets driven largely by unsustainable increases in its selling, general and administrative expenses despite lacking the operational infrastructure to meet the demand for its products in China and other international markets, notes the complaint. Skechers was relying on expensive, third-party operational solutions to drive its sales growth. On this news, Skechers stock dropped $6.98, or 20.1%, from a closing price of $33.25 per share on July 19, 2018, to $26.27 per share the next trading day, wiping out an additional $947 million in market cap. Fishman purchased Skechers common stock and lost substantially. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com SNAP INC: Ghosh Suit Alleges Securities Exchange Act Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Sharmilli Ghosh, Irland James Stewart, and Howard Weisman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Snap Inc., Evan Spiegel, Robert Murphy, Andrew Vollero, and Imran Khan, Case No. 2:18-cv-09587 (C.D. Calif., November 13, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiffs bring this securities class action on behalf of Plaintiffs and all purchasers of Snap common stock between March 2, 2017 and August 10, 2017, inclusive, including those who purchased Snap common stock traceable to the registration statement and prospectus incorporated therein, issued in connection with the Company’s March 3, 2017 IPO Registration Statement. The Plaintiffs allege that the registration statement issued by the Defendants falsely touts Snapchat's rapid growth and conceals the known impact Instagram's stories had on Snap's user growth and engagement. The Plaintiffs also alleged that the registration statement conceals credible allegations that Snap's user metrics were unreliable. The Plaintiff Sharmilli Ghosh is an individual investor who purchased Snap common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the March 2, 2017 IPO. The Plaintiff Howard Weisman is an individual investor who purchased Snap common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the March 2, 2017 IPO. The Plaintiff Irland James Stewart is an individual investor who purchased Snap common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the March 2, 2017 IPO. The Defendant Snap, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Venice, California, is a self described "camera company" whose primary product is a free mobile chatting application, Snapchat. Snap, trades on the New York Stock Exchange as "SNAP," generates revenue by growing user engagement of Snapchat and delivering advertisements to Snapchat users. In 2012, the parent company of Snapchat incorporated as Snapchat, Inc. In 2016, Snapchat, Inc. changed its name to Snap, Inc. The Defendant Evan Spiegel is one of the co-founders of Snap and has been a director and the Company's CEO since its founding. The Defendant Robert Murphy is one of the founders of Snap and has been a director and the Company's Chief Technology Officer since its founding. The Defendant Andrew Vollero has been Snap's Chief Financial Officer since 2016. The Defendant Imran Khan has been Snap's Chief Strategy Officer since January 2015. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 985-7290 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com - and - Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Tel: (818) 532-6499 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com SOAPIN INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Gross Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- KYLIE GROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOAPIN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-24689-KMW (S.D. Fla., Nov. 8, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Soapin, Inc. is a Florida corporation that specializes in laundry, alterations, and dry-cleaning services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1 st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com SOLID BIOSCIENCES: Lowinger Class Action Stayed ----------------------------------------------- Solid Biosciences Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the class action suit filed by Robert Lowinger remains stayed. On March 28, 2018, Robert Lowinger, a purported stockholder of the company, filed a putative class action complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws, in the Business Litigation Section of the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Civil Action No. 1884-00984), against the compay, Ilan Ganot, Jennifer Ziolkowski, its directors and certain of the underwriters in the company's initial public offering. The plaintiff in this suit claims to represent purchasers of the company's common stock in or traceable to the company's January 25, 2018 initial public offering and seeks unspecified damages arising out of the alleged failure to disclose risks associated with toxicity and potential for adverse events related to our lead product candidate. On April 30, 2018, all defendants including the company moved to stay the proceedings in favor of the prior-filed federal court securities class action. The plaintiff filed his opposition to this motion on May 14, 2018, and defendants filed a reply in support of their motion on May 24, 2018. After oral argument on June 13, 2018, the court issued an order on June 22, 2018 allowing the motion to stay and directing the parties to advise the court of the status of the federal court action every six months. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Solid Biosciences Inc. engages in identifying and developing therapies for duchenne muscular dystrophy in the United States. The company was founded in 2013 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. SPRITE ENTERTAINMENT: Sued over Unwanted Telephone Calls -------------------------------------------------------- JOHN KRISTENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs SPRITE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. DBA ANIMATION SHARKS; DOES 1-10 Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-09811 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 21, 2018), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy and causing him to incur unnecessary and unwanted expenses. According to the complaint, on or about September of 2017, the Plaintiff received a text message from Defendant on his cellular telephone, number ending in -9711. During this time, the Defendant began to use Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the purpose of sending Plaintiff spam advertisements and/or promotional offers, via text messages, including a text message sent to and received by Plaintiff on or about September of 2017. On or about September of 2017, the Plaintiff received a text message from Defendant. These text messages placed to Plaintiff's cellular telephone were placed via an "automatic telephone dialing system," (ATDS) as defined by 47 24 U.S.C. section 227 (a)(1) as prohibited by 47 U.S.C. section 227 (b)(1)(A). The telephone number that Defendant, or their agent texted was assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming texts pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227 (b)(1). These text messages constituted texts that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227 (b)(1)(A)(i). The Plaintiff was never a customer of Defendant and never provided his cellular telephone number Defendant for any reason whatsoever. Accordingly, the Defendant and their agents never received Plaintiffs prior express consent to receive unsolicited text messages, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227 (b)(1)(A), the lawsuit says. Sprite Entertainment, Inc. (trade name Sprite Animation Studios) is in the Entertainers business.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 323-306-4234 Facsimile: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com abacon@ toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com STARBUCKS CORP: Wants Class Action to Remain in Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Steingart, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Starbucks Corp. asked a federal judge not to send a lawsuit alleging it failed to provide employees with overtime or rest and meal breaks required by California law back to state court. There could be more than 116,000 employees eligible to join the class, Starbucks said. The company's "ultra-conservative calculations" place the potential damages at more than $22 million. Starbucks in September removed the case from California state court where it was filed. Under the Class Action Fairness Act, the company transferred it to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. CAFA lets a defendant in a large class action that's sued in state court switch to federal. Defendants often prefer to litigate class actions in federal court to avoid inconsistent state-court rulings; plaintiffs may view state courts as better-positioned to enforce state law protections. The company's estimate of the potential damages shows that it's "precisely the type of case" that CAFA authorizes federal courts to hear, Starbucks said in a Nov. 16 opposition to remanding the case to state court. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP represents the proposed class. Littler Mendelson P.C. represents Starbucks. The case is Amster v. Starbucks Corp., C.D. Cal., No. 2:18-cv-08327, opposition to remand 11/16/18. [GN] STARHOTELS INT'L: Olsen Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Web Site -------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. STARHOTELS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, d/b/a The Michelangelo Hotel, Case No. 1:18-cv-10972 (S.D.N.Y., November 24, 2018), is a civil rights class action against Starhotels for its alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site, http://www.michelangelohotel.com/,to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Starhotels is a domestic business corporation that is organized under New York law, and authorized to do business in the state of New York. Starhotels owns and operates hotels throughout the world, including The Michelangelo Hotel, located at 152 West 51st Street, in New York City. Michelangelo Hotel is a luxury hotel that offers studio and one bedroom suites, a lobby lounge, fitness center, concierge services and in-room beauty services. The Website is heavily integrated with this hotel, serving as its gateway. Through the Web site, Starhotels' customers are, inter alia, able to: learn information about the hotel's location; learn about the types of rooms available; learn about the services offered at the hotel; learn about special packages available; view images of the hotel; purchase an e-gift; and book a reservation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Lowe, Esq. Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com doug@lipskylowe.com STINE SEED: Black Farmers Get OK to Move Ahead With Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Phillip Jackson, writing for Memphis Commercial Appeal, reports that a group of black farmers based in Memphis said they were "encouraged" when a judge decided to move forward with their class-action lawsuit after the group claimed targeted discrimination and allegedly being sold defective seeds by Stine Seed Co., the nation's largest independent seed producer. The Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association had a status hearing on the issue on November 14. The case stems from claims made by the group in April of this year. Thomas Burrell, president and founder of the farmers group said the next hearing is scheduled on Jan. 3 at 9:30 a.m. to present more evidence on the claim. Burrell said farmers in other surrounding states such as Mississippi and Arkansas, also received defective soybean seeds. Burrell said Mississippi State University's agricultural department verified the seeds ability to reproduce was 0 percent. "They swapped seeds and they sold the farmers fake seeds, but billed them for certified seeds," Burrell said. Stine Seeds claims suit 'without merit' Stine President Myron Stine in July said the farmers' lawsuit against the seed company is "without merit and factually unsupportable." Bishop David Allen Hall, chairman of the Ecumenical Action Committee for the group, said he purchased $100,000 worth of soybean seeds from the Iowa based company that turned out to be defective. A letter was sent from the Department of Justice to U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen on November 13, in response to a letter Cohen sent to the DOJ on behalf of the farmers' group back in July. The DOJ said they will take action on the matter "if warranted." Cohen's communications team told The Commercial Appeal on November 15 his staff has sided with black farmers on this matter and "other issues for years." Burrell said the letter from the DOJ shows the department "may be preparing to entertain the criminal side" of the allegations. Hall described the allegedly defective seeds purchased by many farmers as "major setbacks" for people who work in the farming industry. "We did not get what we contracted for," Hall said. "It was a lesser species of seeds we received that we put in the ground," he added.[GN] SWITCH INC: Stockholders Class Suits over IPO Underway ------------------------------------------------------ Switch, Inc. is defending itself against lawsuits brought by purported stockholders of the Company seeking to represent a class of stockholders who purchased Class A common stock in or traceable to its initial public offering (IPO), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. Four substantially similar putative class action complaints, captioned Martz v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 20, 2018); Palkon v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 30, 2018); Chun v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed May 11, 2018); and Silverberg v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed June 6, 2018), were filed in the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada, and subsequently consolidated into a single case (the "State Court Securities Action"). Additionally, on June 11, 2018, one putative class action complaint captioned Cai v. Switch, Inc. et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Federal Court Securities Action") and subsequently transferred to the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada in August 2018 and the federal court appointed Oscar Farach lead plaintiff. These lawsuits were filed against Switch, Inc., certain current and former officers and directors and certain underwriters of Switch, Inc.'s IPO alleging federal securities law violations in connection with the IPO. These lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of Switch, Inc. seeking to represent a class of stockholders who purchased Class A common stock in or traceable to the IPO, and seek unspecified damages and other relief. The Company said, "Switch, Inc. believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend against them." Switch, Inc., through its subsidiary, Switch, Ltd., provides colocation space and related services to technology and digital media companies, cloud and managed service providers, financial institutions, and telecommunications providers that conduct critical business on the Internet. The Company develops and operates data centers in Nevada, Michigan, and Georgia. Switch, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. SYMANTEC CORP: Securities Class Action Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Symantec Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2018, that the Company is subject to pending securities class action and stockholder derivative legal proceedings that may adversely affect its business. The Company said, "Several securities class action and derivative lawsuits were filed against us following our announcement on May 10, 2018 of the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors' (the "Audit Committee") internal investigation (the "Audit Committee Investigation"), including an action brought derivatively on behalf of Symantec's 2008 Employee Stock Purchase Plan. In addition, we have received certain demands from purported stockholders to inspect corporate books and records under Delaware law. No specific amounts of damages have been alleged in these lawsuits. We will continue to incur legal fees in connection with these pending cases, including expenses for the reimbursement of legal fees of present and former officers and directors under indemnification obligations. The expense of continuing to defend such litigation may be significant. We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but there can be no assurance that we will be successful in any defense. If any of the lawsuits related to our Audit Committee Investigation are decided adversely, we may be liable for significant damages directly or under our indemnification obligations, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and cash flows. At this stage, we are unable to assess whether any material loss or adverse effect is reasonably possible as a result of these lawsuits or estimate the range of any potential loss." Symantec Corporation provides cybersecurity products, services, and solutions worldwide. The Company operates through two segments, Enterprise Security and Consumer Digital Safety. It was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Mountain View, California. TAHOE RESOURCES: Faces Securities Class Action in Ontario --------------------------------------------------------- Siskinds LLP on Nov. 19 announced the filing of a proposed securities class action against Tahoe Resources Inc. (Tahoe) and its former CEO and director, Ronald W. Clayton, in Toronto, Ontario (Action). The Action was commenced on October 4, 2018. The Action alleges that a press release issued by Tahoe on May 24, 2017 contained misrepresentations. The press release concerned the commencement of an action against the Guatemalan Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) by Centro de Accion Legal Ambiental y Social de Guatemala (CALAS), in the Supreme Court of Guatemala. It is alleged that the May 24, 2017 press release did not provide adequate disclosure about the CALAS proceeding. Specifically, the Action alleges among other things that: -- Tahoe's Guatemalan operating subsidiary, Minera San Rafael S.A., had been named as an interested third party in the proceeding commenced by CALAS; -- CALAS was seeking to suspend the Escobal mining license provisionally and until MEM met its consultation obligations to the Xinka indigenous people of Guatemala; -- there was a material risk that the Escobal mining license would be provisionally suspended, as in fact occurred; and -- there was a material risk that the Escobal mining license would be suspended beyond the period of the provisional suspension, as also in fact occurred. It is alleged that Tahoe was required to disclose those facts in its May 24, 2017 press release but failed to do so. The action alleges that Tahoe shareholders who acquired its securities from and including May 24, 2017 to and including July 5, 2017 (Class Period) suffered damage as a result of the alleged misrepresentations. Subject to certain exclusions, the proposed class includes all persons and entities, wherever domiciled, who acquired Tahoe securities during the Class Period. The claims being pursued in the Action are claims for damages for losses allegedly suffered as a result of Tahoe's alleged misleading disclosure. The plaintiff claims Tahoe and Mr. Clayton have liability for those losses. Class Member Contacts: If you hold or previously held securities of Tahoe acquired during the Class Period, we encourage you to complete the information form on the website of Siskinds LLP at https://www.siskinds.com/tahoe by clicking on the "Receive Updates on this Case" link. For inquiries, please click on the "Ask a Question" link on the Siskinds website above or email tahoe@siskinds.com. For telephone inquiries, please call 1-800-461-6166 x 2206. Institutional investors with specific inquiries should contact: Nicholas Baker Tel: +1 519-660-7868 Toll Free: +1-800-461-6166 x7868 nicholas.baker@siskinds.com [GN] TD AMERITRADE: Defendants Appeal from Ford Class Cert. Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- In the putative class action styled Roderick Ford (replacing Gerald Klein) v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., the defendants' petition requesting that the U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, grant an immediate appeal of the District Court's September 14 class certification decision remains pending, according to TD Ameritrade's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018. In 2014, five putative class action complaints were filed regarding TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s routing of client orders and one putative class action was filed regarding Scottrade, Inc.'s routing of client orders. Five of the six cases were dismissed and the United States Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, affirmed the dismissals in those cases that were appealed. The one remaining case is Roderick Ford (replacing Gerald Klein) v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14CV396 (U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska). Plaintiff alleges that, when routing client orders to various market centers, defendants did not seek best execution, and instead routed clients' orders to market venues that pay TD Ameritrade, Inc. the most money for order flow. Plaintiff alleges that defendants made misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Company's order routing practices. The complaint asserts claims of violations of Section 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. The complaint seeks damages, injunctive relief, and other relief. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which defendants opposed. On July 12, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and a recommendation that plaintiffs' motion for class certification be denied. Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, which defendants opposed. On September 14, 2018, the District Judge sustained plaintiff's objections, rejected the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. On September 28, 2018, defendants filed a petition requesting that the U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, grant an immediate appeal of the District Court's class certification decision. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the petition together with motions for permission to file the briefs. On October 9, 2018, plaintiff filed an opposition to the petition. TD Ameritrade said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit and is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the ultimate resolution of the lawsuit, or the potential loss, if any, that may result." TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides securities brokerage and related technology-based financial services to retail investors, traders, and independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) in the United States. The company is based in Omaha, Nebraska. TD AMERITRADE: Still Faces Aequitas Securities Litigation --------------------------------------------------------- TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation continues to defend itself against the Aequitas Securities Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018. An amended putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in Lawrence Ciuffitelli et al. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, EisnerAmper LLP, Sidley Austin LLP, Tonkon Torp LLP, TD Ameritrade, Inc., and Integrity Bank & Trust, Case No. 3:16CV580, on May 19, 2016. A second amended putative class action complaint was filed on September 8, 2017, in which Duff & Phelps was added as a defendant. The putative class includes all persons who purchased securities of Aequitas Commercial Finance, LLC and its affiliates on or after June 9, 2010. Other groups of plaintiffs have filed five non-class action lawsuits in Oregon Circuit Court, Multnomah County, against these and other defendants: Walter Wurster, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 16CV25920 (filed Aug. 11, 2016), Kenneth Pommier, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 16CV36439 (filed Nov. 3, 2016), Charles Ramsdell, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 16CV40659 (filed Dec. 2, 2016), Charles Layton, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 17CV42915 (filed October 2, 2017) and John Cavanagh, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 18CV09052 (filed March 7, 2018). FINRA arbitrations have also been filed against TD Ameritrade, Inc. The claims in these actions include allegations that the sales of Aequitas securities were unlawful, the defendants participated and materially aided in such sales in violation of the Oregon securities laws, and material misstatements and omissions were made. While the factual allegations differ in various respects among the cases, plaintiffs' allegations include assertions that: TD Ameritrade customers purchased more than US$140 million of Aequitas securities; TD Ameritrade served as custodian for Aequitas securities; recommended and referred investors to financial advisors as part of its advisor referral program for the purpose of purchasing Aequitas securities; participated in marketing the securities; recommended the securities; provided assurances to investors about the safety of the securities; and developed a market for the securities. In the Ciuffitelli putative class action, plaintiffs allege that more than 1,500 investors were owed more than US$600 million on the Aequitas securities they purchased. On August 1, 2018, the Magistrate Judge in that case issued findings and a recommendation that defendants' motions to dismiss the pending complaint be denied with limited exceptions not applicable to the Company. TD Ameritrade and other defendants filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, which plaintiffs opposed. On September 24, 2018, the District Judge issued an opinion and order adopting the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation. Discovery has commenced. In the five non-class action lawsuits, approximately 200 named plaintiffs collectively allege a total of approximately US$125 million in losses plus other damages. In the Wurster and Pommier cases, the Court, on TD Ameritrade's motion, dismissed the claims by those plaintiffs who were TD Ameritrade customers, in favor of arbitration. Discovery is ongoing. The Court in the Wurster and Pommier cases denied TD Ameritrade's motion to dismiss the claims by the plaintiffs who were not TD Ameritrade customers. Plaintiffs in the Ramsdell case have filed a second amended complaint in which TD Ameritrade is not named as a defendant. On September 24, 2018, plaintiffs in the Cavanagh case dismissed their claims against TD Ameritrade. On July 17, 2018, plaintiffs in the Ciuffitelli case filed a motion for preliminary approval of an US$18.5 million settlement with the defendant Tonkon Torp law firm of the claims against it in all the pending cases. On September 24, 2018, defendants filed a response requesting the Court to defer considering the plaintiffs' motion or to deny it as presented. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this litigation. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the ultimate resolution of this litigation, or the potential losses, if any, that may result. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides securities brokerage and related technology-based financial services to retail investors, traders, and independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) in the United States. The company is based in Omaha, Nebraska. TEAM ENTERPRISES: Denied Workers Overtime Pay, Cipolla Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Felicia Cipolla and Alexis Wood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Team Enterprises, LLC, New Team LLC dba Team Enterprises, Case No. 3:18-cv-06867 (N.D. Calif., November 13, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs allege that they and other non-exempt employees were denied overtime compensation and other wages. The Plaintiff Felicia Cipolla is an individual residing in El Sobrante, California. She was employed by the Defendants from approximately 2013 to December 2017. She worked as a Promotional Specialist for the Defendants within this judicial district. The Plaintiff Alexis Wood is an individual residing in Sacramento, California. She was employed by the Defendants from approximately 2013 to October 2017. She worked as a Promotional Specialist for the Defendants within this judicial district. The Defendants are in the business of marketing and promoting specific brands of products on behalf of clients who own or sell those products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward J. Wynne, Esq. George Nemiroff, Esq. WYNNE LAW FIRM 80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. 3G Larkspur, CA 94939 Tel: (415) 461-6400 Fax: (415) 461-3900 E-mail: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com - and - Bryan J. McCormack, Esq. MCCORMACK & ERLICH, LLP 150 Post Street, Suite 742 San Francisco, CA 94108 Tel: (415) 296-8420 Fax: (415) 296-8552 E-mail: bryan@mcelawfirm.com TEKFOR INC: Graybill Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Beverley Graybill, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Tekfor, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-02618 (N.D. Ohio, November 13, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff alleges that during her employment with the Defendant, she was not fully and properly paid in accordance with the minimum requirements of the FLSA and Ohio Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt "employee" of the Defendant in the packaging department beginning in or around April of 2012 and is still presently employed as of the filing of this Complaint. The Defendant manufactures precision machine parts. The Defendant is a foreign corporation formed under the laws of the State of Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Tel: (614) 949-1181 Fax: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Peter Contreras, Esq. CONTRERAS LAW, LLC P.O. Box 215 Amlin, OH 43002 Tel: (614) 787-4878 Fax: (614) 923-7369 E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com TESLA INC: Largely Settles Class-Action Suit -------------------------------------------- Fender Bender.com, reports that Tesla has resolved most of a purported class-action lawsuit by customers who alleged that their Model S and Model X vehicles would suddenly accelerate, which in some cases resulted in accidents, reported Insurance Journal. The six plaintiffs will drop their claims and the remaining plaintiff and his son will only pursue individual claims, according to the report. The narrowing of the case to only a California plaintiff means that Tesla can't be held liable for any alleged defects under the laws of other states, including Florida and New Jersey, that were part of the class-action complaint.[GN] TIGER NATURAL: Court Certifies Customer Class in Fishman Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILY FISHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and SUSAN FARIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TIGER NATURAL GAS, INC., an Oklahoma corporation, COMMUNITY GAS CENTER, INC., a Colorado corporation, JOHN DYET, an individual, and DOES 2–100, the Defendants, Case 3:17-cv-05351-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order on Nov. 20, 2018: 1. certifying a Tiger/PG&E Customer Class: "all California consumers and businesses that were customers of PG&E at the time they enrolled in Tiger's capped-rate price protection program after receiving a telemarketing call advertising the program between August 18, 2013, and the present." The Customer Class is certified only with respect to Plaintiffs' Recording Law claim. 2. appointing Emily Fishman and Susan Faria as class representatives; 3. appointing counsel Kimberly A. Kralowec, Kathleen Styles Rogers, Daniel Balsam, and Jacob Harker as class counsel; and 4 directing parties to jointly submit a proposal for class notification with a plan to distribute notice.[CC] TIME WARNER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Sims FLSA Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARKIA SIMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-631 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied the Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss and for Sanctions. The Plaintiffs bring claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Ohio law for failure to compensate Sims and others similarly situated, for time spent logging into the Defendants' systems before their shifts began and for failure to pay overtime. Sims, proceeding as an individual Plaintiff, filed an initial complaint in the Northern District of Ohio on May 4, 2017. She filed a First Amended Complaint on May 5, 2017, to bring a collective action suit under the FLSA and a class action under Ohio law. Roughly six months before, Daylon Howard and Tracy Dewald filed a virtually identical lawsuit in the Southern District of Ohio. Sims and all but one of the Plaintiffs who have opted in to the instant case also initially opted in to the Howard litigation. The Howard litigation alleges the same basis for relief as the Plaintiffs allege in the instant case. The Defendants in Howard, however, filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and compel arbitration, arguing that Howard signed an arbitration agreement that governed his claims for relief. The magistrate judge stayed discovery in Howard pending the Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs in Howard filed a motion to lift the stay, which the magistrate denied. The Defendants later filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that Tracy Dewald was exempt from the FLSA and similar provisions of Ohio law. While the Court's stay was in place, Sims filed the suit in the Northern District of Ohio, and she and other Plaintiffs involved in the suit opted out of the class in Howard. The Northern District of Ohio transferred the case to the Court since Howard was pending there. On Feb. 21, 2018, the Court administratively closed Sims' case pending the Supreme Court's decision in Ernst & Young LLP et al. v Morris, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018). On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Morris, and on May 30, 2018, the Court reopened Sims. The Defendants filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss, to which the Plaintiffs responded. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' suit should be dismissed under the first-to-file rule. The Defendants have also moved the Court to grant sanctions requiring the Plaintiffs to reimburse them for unnecessary attorneys' fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. Section 1927 or under its inherent powers. Judge Marbley finds that the Sims Plaintiffs could face difficulties in having their claims heard with the Plaintiffs in Howard. The parties do not argue that the class in Howard is "impossible." But if Sims is dismissed and Howard's arbitration agreement is found to control, the Sims Plaintiffs will face difficulty in having their claims heard. The Defendants allege that Howard has an arbitration agreement that requires not only binding arbitration but requires such arbitration, on an individual rather than class or representative basis. Thus, dismissing the Sims' complaint would prejudice the Plaintiffs who do not have such arbitration agreements. If Dewald is found to be exempt, that could mean the end of his claims, leaving the Sims Plaintiffs without a lawsuit to join. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied. As to the Motion for Sanctions, the Judge finds that the conduct of the Plaintiffs' counsel is not so egregious as the Defendants would make it out to be. The Plaintiffs discovered differences between themselves and the Plaintiffs in Howard and took action to assert their claims in a forum they believed would be appropriate. While this could under some circumstances appear to be forum-shopping, it could just as equally be seen as an attempt of the Plaintiffs' counsel to protect their clients' interests. As such, the conduct was not unreasonable, vexatious, or in bad faith. The Defendants' Motion for Sanctions is also denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/r4YnqB from Leagle.com. Markia Sims, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. Lazzaro , Chastity Lynn Christy & Lori M. Griffin, Lazzaro Law Firm, LLC. Time Warner Cable Inc., Charter Communications, LLC & TWC Administration LLC, Defendants, represented by James Edward Davidson -- james.davidson@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP, Catherine L. Strauss -- catherine.strauss@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP, Laura M. Jordan -- LJordan@ThompsonCoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice, R. Nelson Williams -- rwilliams@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen Cody Reinberg, Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice. UBER: Steers TCPA Class Action Into Arbitration ----------------------------------------------- Uber drove a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action out of the courthouse, successfully convincing an Illinois federal court judge that the ride-hailing app's terms included a "clear and conspicuous" statement that arbitration was the forum for any disputes. In 2013, Charles Johnson downloaded the Uber app to his smartphone and completed each of the steps required to create an account. Johnson provided his email address, first and last name, and mobile phone number; created a password; and linked his debit card to the account. During the process, Johnson was informed that "[b]y creating an Uber account, you agree to the Terms of Service & Privacy Policy" and given a hyperlink that brought users to a screen displaying the terms of service in effect at the time. The first paragraph of the terms stated: "In order to use the Service . . . and the associated application . . . you must agree to the terms and conditions that are set out below." The terms of service also included a "Dispute Resolution" section. The first paragraph of the section read: "You and Company agree that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation or validity thereof or the use of the Service or Application (collectively, 'Disputes') will be settled by binding arbitration . . . You acknowledge and agree that you and Company are each waiving the right to a trial by jury or to participate as a plaintiff or class User in any purported class action or representative proceeding." Johnson admitted that he may have seen, clicked on, read and indicated that he accepted Uber's terms of service and privacy policy when he created his account, but he did not recall doing so. Although Johnson later opened the app to see how it worked, he never requested a ride using the Uber app. In his putative TCPA class action, Johnson alleged that Uber sent a single unsolicited text message to his mobile phone number asking him whether he wanted to sign up to be an Uber driver. Pursuant to the terms of service that Johnson agreed to when he downloaded the app, Uber moved to compel arbitration. Applying Illinois law, U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee granted the motion. A consumer must be provided reasonable notice of all the terms and conditions of an agreement as well as reasonable notice that, by clicking a button, the consumer is assenting to the agreement, Judge Lee explained. He also considered whether a reasonable person would have been misled, confused, misdirected or distracted by the manner in which Uber presented the terms and conditions. Reviewing the process of creating an Uber account, the court found the defendant put users on notice that "[b]y creating an Uber account, you agree to the Terms of Service & Privacy Policy," using an easy-to-read font on an uncluttered screen that required no scrolling to view. The words "Terms of Service" also served as a hyperlink, the court noted, which brought users to a screen displaying the full terms. "[T]he Court holds that the manner in which this statement and the Terms of Service were presented placed a reasonable person on notice that there were terms incorporated with creating an Uber account and that, by creating an account, he or she was agreeing to those terms," Judge Lee wrote. Uber's "clear and conspicuous" statement that users were agreeing to its terms was easily distinguishable from other cases where a website actively misled a customer or lacked a clear statement that a purchase was subject to any terms and conditions. Further, "a reasonable user would know that, by entering his debit or credit card information … he was creating an Uber account," the court added. The fact that Johnson elected not to read the actual terms of service, when he was given an opportunity to do so, "has no probative force," Judge Lee said. Although the court found Johnson failed to raise a genuine dispute as to whether he entered into an enforceable agreement to arbitrate, the plaintiff tried a fallback argument that even if the arbitration agreement was binding, his TCPA claim did not fall within its scope. The court was not persuaded, as the terms of service specifically permitted Uber to text promotional offers to its customers. "Because Johnson's TCPA claim may arguably fall within the parameters of this provision, the claim must be arbitrated," the court said. Judge Lee granted Uber's motion for summary judgment, staying the case pending the resolution of arbitration proceedings. Why it matters: This case highlights the importance of having a solid arbitration provision and of having the customer agree to terms and conditions which are truly clear and conspicuous. The Illinois federal court determined that Uber provided reasonable notice of all the terms and conditions of its arbitration agreement with a "clear and conspicuous statement" and that, by clicking a button, the plaintiff assented to that agreement. Further, the manner in which the terms were presented in an easy-to-read font on an uncluttered screen, with no scrolling required—supported the conclusion that the plaintiff was not misled, confused or misdirected by the terms and conditions, and was thus bound by the arbitration provision. [GN] UGI CORP: Suits over Underfilled Portable Propane Cylinders Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------- UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, 2018, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself against class action suits related to the alleged collusion in reducing the fill level of portable propane cylinders. Between May and October of 2014, purported class action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers. The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to persuade their common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative classes. On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class action cases to the Western Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri ("District Court"). As of June 2018, as the result of rulings on a series of procedural filings, including petitions filed with the Eighth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, both the federal and state law claims of the direct customer plaintiffs and the state law claims of the indirect customer plaintiffs have been remanded to the District Court. The decision of the District Court to dismiss the federal antitrust claims of the indirect customer plaintiffs was upheld by the Eighth Circuit. Motions are pending before the District Court regarding the indirect purchasers' state law claims. UGI said, "We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising from such litigation. We believe we have strong defenses to the claims and intend to vigorously defend against them." UGI Corporation distributes, stores, transports, and markets energy products and related services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through four segments: AmeriGas Propane, UGI International, Midstream & Marketing, and UGI Utilities. UGI Corporation was founded in 1882 and is based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. UNITED DEVELOPMENT: Scharlene Brooks Files Class Suit in Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- Scharlene Brooks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. United Development Funding III, UMT Services, Inc., UMTH General Services, L.P., UMTH Land Development, L.P., UMT Holdings, L.P., Hollis M. Greenlaw, Todd Etter, Cara D. Obert, Ben L. Wissink and Whitley Penn LLP Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03097 (N.D. Tex., November 21, 2018), seeks rescission and/or rescissory damages including interest, compensatory, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief pursuant to the Texas Securities Act and common law. The complaint relates that United Development Funding loans money to developers of residential real estate, with rates above those offered by commercial lenders. The third in a series of investment offerings by United Development Funds (UDF) have essentially failed. UDF was receiving funds from subsequent UDF investment vehicles to pay its distributions. Brooks was misled in foregoing the receipt of his cash distributions from UDF and used those distributions to purchase subsequent UDF units in the Dividend Reinvestment Plan. It used money from investors to prop up UMT Services, Inc., UMTH General Services, L.P., UMTH Land Development, L.P. and UMT Holdings, L.P. without disclosure thereby creating the appearance that UDF was a successful, productive investment. The scheme allowed UDF to funnel cash to the UDF Entity while giving overvalued units in lieu of cash dividends, the complaint alleges. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. Jamie J. McKey, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Tel: (214) 744-3000 Fax: (214) 744-3015 (fax) Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Lee Squitieri, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 421-6492 Fax: (212) 421-6553 Email: lee@sfclasslaw.com UPS EXPEDITED: Sued over Collection of Insurance Premium Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- PAULA HINOJOSA, the Plaintiff, vs. VIANEV lNC. DBA THE UPS STORE No. 0015; UPS EXPEDITED MAIL SERVICES, INC. AND DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 30-2018-01033802-CU-BT-CJC (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 26, 2018), seeks to permanently enjoin Defendants from collecting insurance premium fees; impose constructive trusts on all amounts by which Defendants were unjustly enriched as a result of collecting the Insurance Premium Fees; recover as damages and/or restitution all Insurance Premium Fees heretofore paid by UPS customers; and obtain all such other relief to which they may be entitled pursuant to the UCL, the CLRA or any other applicable provision of California law, including, without limitation, disgorgement, actual damages and restitution. According to the complaint, the terms of UPS's California Insurance Agreements, provided through UPS and its partners, provide for insurance for goods sent through its service and a premium is charged for this service. However, Ms. Hinojosa purchased this insurance and sent a birthday gift through UPS to her sister in San Francisco. She showed the contents of the box to the UPS operative at the UPS store in Huntington Beach and filmed him both examining the contents (a new "Beatz" brand headphones set valued at over $300) and him personally closing and sealing the container. He insisted she purchase insurance "just in case". She did. UPS then lost the package. She complaint and it took over 6 weeks before UPS acknowledged it was lost. However, UPS and its insurance partner refused to pay the value of the headphones. The imposition of fees for a worthless "Insurance Agreement" is an unfair and unlawful business practice. The Insurance Premium Fees have generated substantial revenues and profits for UPS and its parents and affiliates, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Anthony G. Graham, Esq. GRAHAM & MARTJN, LLP 2901 West Coast Highway, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2792 E-mail: anthonyggraham@msn.com VISA INC: Bid for Class Status Pending in Suit over EMV Liability ----------------------------------------------------------------- In a class action complaint on EMV Chip Liability Shift, the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification remains pending, according to Visa Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018. Following their initial complaint filed on March 8, 2016, B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, and Grove Liquors LLC filed an amended class action complaint on July 15, 2016, against Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., MasterCard, Discover, American Express, EMVCo and certain financial institutions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The amended complaint asserts that defendants, through EMVCo, conspired to shift liability for fraudulent, faulty or otherwise rejected payment card transactions from defendants to the purported class of merchants, defined as those merchants throughout the United States who have been subjected to the "Liability Shift" since October 2015. Plaintiffs claim that the so-called "Liability Shift" violates Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and certain state laws, and seek treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. EMVCo and the financial institution defendants were dismissed, and the matter was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which has clarified that this case is not part of MDL 1720. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification on July 16, 2018, following an earlier denial of the motion without prejudice. Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions, businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. VISA INC: Consumer Class Suit over ATM Access Fees Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- The consumer class actions against Visa Inc. and MasterCard regarding U.S. ATM access fee matters are still ongoing, according to Visa's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018. In October 2011, a purported consumer class action was filed against Visa and MasterCard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Two other purported consumer class actions challenging the rules, later combined, were also filed in October 2011 in the same federal court naming Visa, MasterCard and three financial institutions as defendants. Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees where available under federal and state law, including under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and consumer protection statutes. These cases are proceeding in the district court. Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions, businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. VISA INC: National ATM Council Class Action Ongoing in Columbia --------------------------------------------------------------- Visa Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that the National ATM Council Class Action regarding U.S. ATM access fee matters is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In October 2011, the National ATM Council and thirteen non-bank ATM operators filed a purported class action lawsuit against Visa (Visa Inc., Visa International, Visa U.S.A. and Plus System, Inc.) and MasterCard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint challenges Visa's rule (and a similar MasterCard rule) that if an ATM operator chooses to charge consumers an access fee for a Visa or Plus transaction, that fee cannot be greater than the access fee charged for transactions on other networks. Plaintiffs claim that the rule violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions, businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. VISA INC: Settlement Talks with Injunctive Relief Class Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Visa Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that settlement discussions with plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf of the putative Injunctive Relief Class in the Interchange Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) are ongoing. Beginning in May 2005, a series of complaints (the majority of which were styled as class actions) were filed in U.S. federal district courts by merchants against Visa U.S.A., Visa International and/or MasterCard, and in some cases, certain U.S. financial institutions. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for coordination of pre-trial proceedings in MDL 1720. A group of purported class plaintiffs subsequently filed amended and supplemental class complaints. The individual and class complaints generally challenged, among other things, Visa's and MasterCard's purported setting of interchange reimbursement fees, their "no surcharge" and honor-all-cards rules, alleged tying and bundling of transaction fees, and Visa's reorganization and IPO, under the federal antitrust laws and, in some cases, certain state unfair competition laws. The complaints sought money damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and, in one instance, an order that the IPO be unwound. Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International, MasterCard Incorporated, MasterCard International Incorporated, various U.S. financial institution defendants, and the class plaintiffs signed a settlement agreement (the "2012 Settlement Agreement") to resolve the class plaintiffs' claims. Pursuant to the 2012 Settlement Agreement, the Company deposited approximately US$4.0 billion from the U.S. litigation escrow account and approximately US$500 million attributable to interchange reductions for an eight-month period into settlement accounts established under the 2012 Settlement Agreement. Subsequently, Visa received from the Court and deposited into the Company's U.S. litigation escrow account "takedown payments" of approximately US$1.1 billion. On June 30, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the lower court's certification of the merchant class and reversed the approval of the settlement. The Second Circuit determined that the class plaintiffs were inadequately represented, and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings. On remand, the district court entered an order appointing interim counsel for two putative classes of plaintiffs, a "Damages Class" and an "Injunctive Relief Class." Thereafter, a new group of purported class plaintiffs, acting on behalf of the putative Injunctive Relief Class, filed a class action complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees. That complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction against: the setting of default interchange rates; certain Visa operating rules relating to merchants, including the honor-all-cards rule; and various transaction fees, including the fixed acquirer network fee. The complaint names as defendants Visa Inc., MasterCard Incorporated and MasterCard International Incorporated, and certain U.S. financial institutions. In addition, the plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf of the putative Damages Class filed a Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, seeking money damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief. On September 17, 2018, Visa, MasterCard, and certain U.S. financial institutions reached an agreement with plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf of the putative Damages Class to resolve all Damages Class claims (the "Amended Settlement Agreement"), subject to court approval. The Amended Settlement Agreement supersedes the 2012 Settlement Agreement and includes, among other terms, a release from participating class members for liability arising out of conduct alleged by the Damages Class in the litigation, including claims that accrue no later than five years after the Amended Settlement Agreement becomes final. Participating class members will not release injunctive relief claims as a named representative or non-representative class member in the putative Injunctive Relief Class. The Amended Settlement Agreement also requires an additional settlement payment from all defendants totaling US$900 million, with the Company's share of US$600 million to be paid from the Company's litigation escrow account established pursuant to the Company's retrospective responsibility plan. The additional settlement payment will be added to the approximately US$5.3 billion previously deposited into settlement accounts by the defendants pursuant to the 2012 Settlement Agreement. If more than 15% of class members (by payment volume) opt out of the class, up to US$700 million may be returned to defendants (with up to US$467 million to the Company) based on the total merchant opt-out percentage. Defendants may terminate the Amended Settlement Agreement if more than 25% of class members (by payment volume) opt out of the class. Settlement discussions with plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf of the putative Injunctive Relief Class are ongoing. Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions, businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. VISA INC: Walmart, Home Depot Appeal Settlement Approval -------------------------------------------------------- Visa Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that in the Canadian Merchant Litigation, Wal-Mart Canada and/or Home Depot of Canada Inc. have filed notices of appeal of the British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta decisions approving the settlements. Beginning in December 2010, a number of class action lawsuits were filed in Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta against Visa Canada, MasterCard and ten financial institutions on behalf of merchants that accept payment by Visa and/or MasterCard credit cards. The actions allege a violation of Canada's price-fixing law and various common law claims based on separate Visa and MasterCard conspiracies in respect of default interchange and certain of the networks' rules. In 2015 and 2016, four financial institutions settled with the plaintiffs. In June 2017, Visa, MasterCard and a fifth financial institution also reached settlements with the plaintiffs. Settlement approval hearings were held in 2018 and courts in each of the five provinces approved the settlements. Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions, businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. VOYA RETIREMENT: Appeal in Dezelan Class Action Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the putative class action styled Dezelan v. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, the Plaintiff's notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the district court's August 17 denial of the amended complaint with prejudice remains pending, according to Voya Retirement's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. Dezelan v. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-1251)(filed July 26, 2016) is a putative class action in which plaintiff, a participant in a 403(b) Plan, seeks to represent a class of plans whose assets are invested in Voya Retirement and Annuity Company ("VRIAC") "Group Annuity Contract Stable Value Funds." Plaintiff alleges that VRIAC has violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by charging unreasonable fees and setting its own compensation in connection with stable value products. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, damages and attorney's fees. The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously. On July 19, 2017, the district court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, but permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff subsequently filed a first amended complaint, and the district court denied the amended complaint with prejudice on August 17, 2018. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on September 13, 2018. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a stock life insurance company in the United States. The company is based in Windsor, Connecticut. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company is a subsidiary of Voya Holdings Inc. VOYA RETIREMENT: Motion to Drop Goetz Class Action Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company's motion to dismiss the case entitled, Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC District of Delaware, No. 1:17-cv-1289) (filed September 8, 2017) is a putative class action in which plaintiff, a participant in a 401(k) plan, seeks to represent other participants in the plan as well as a class of similarly situated plans that "contract with [Voya] for recordkeeping and other services." Plaintiff alleges that "Voya" breached its fiduciary duty to the plan and other plan participants by charging unreasonable and excessive recordkeeping fees, and that "Voya" distributed materially false and misleading 404a-5 administrative and fund fee disclosures to conceal its excessive fees. The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 4, 2018, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint of February 8, 2018. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a stock life insurance company in the United States. The company is based in Windsor, Connecticut. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company is a subsidiary of Voya Holdings Inc. WEYERHAEUSER NR: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Waleski Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Matt Waleski filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Waleski v. Weyerhaeuser NR Company, Case No. 1:17-CV-01940-RBJ, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado - Denver. The nature of suit is stated as property damage - product liability. The appellate case is captioned as Waleski v. Weyerhaeuser NR Company, Case No. 18-1457, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Docketing statement is due on December 7, 2018, for Weyerhaeuser NR Company; -- Transcript order form is due on December 7, 2018, for Weyerhaeuser NR Company; and -- Notice of appearance is due on December 7, 2018, for Matt Waleski and Weyerhaeuser NR Company.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee MATT WALESKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Franklin D. Azar, Esq. Hugh Zachary Balkin, Esq. Keith R. Scranton, Esq. FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 14426 East Evans Avenue Aurora, CO 80014-0000 Telephone: (303) 757-3300 E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com balkinz@fdazar.com scrantonk@fdazar.com - and - Shanon Jude Carson, Esq. Lawrence Deutsch, Esq. Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: scarson@bm.net ldeutsch@bm.net jpolakoff@bm.net - and - Eleanor Michelle Drake, Esq. Joe Christopherson Hashmall, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC 43 South East Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net jhashmall@bm.net - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com Defendant-Appellant WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY is represented by: Mary Rose Alexander, Esq. Robert Collins, III, Esq. Mark S. Mester, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 876-7700 E-mail: mary.rose.alexander@lw.com robert.collins@lw.com mark.mester@lw.com - and - Craig Martin Johnson Allely, Esq. HOLLAND & HART LLP 555 17th Street, Suite 3200 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 295-8000 E-mail: callely@hollandhart.com - and - Daniel Albert Nicholas Graham, Esq. Michael A. Sink, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 1400 Denver, CO 80202-5255 Telephone: (303) 291-2300 E-mail: DGraham@perkinscoie.com MSink@perkinscoie.com ZOCDOC INC: 2nd Cir. Vacates Judgment in Geismann TCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RADHA GEISMANN, M.D., P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZOCDOC, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Docket No. 17-2692 (2d Cir.), Judge Robert D. Sack of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (i) vacated the judgment of the district court, and (ii) remanded for further proceedings. In 2014, Geismann filed a class action complaint against ZocDoc in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that it received unsolicited telecopies from ZocDoc in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Geismann, a Missouri professional corporation, alleges that it received from ZocDoc, a Delaware corporation, two unsolicited faxes advertising a "patient matching service" for doctors. Geismann sought between $500 and $1,500 in statutory damages for each alleged TCPA violation, an injunction prohibiting ZocDoc from sending similar faxes in the future, and costs. On the same day that it filed its complaint in state court, Geismann filed a separate motion for class certification pursuant to Missouri law. It defined the proposed class as all persons who on or after four years prior to the filing of the action, were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising a patient matching service for doctors by or on behalf of the Defendant. On March 13, 2014, ZocDoc removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Two weeks later, ZocDoc made an offer of judgment to Geismann pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 683 for: (i) $6,000, plus reasonable attorney's fees, in satisfaction of Geismann's individual claims, and (ii) an injunction prohibiting ZocDoc from engaging in the alleged statutory violations in the future. Geismann rejected ZocDoc's offer because it provided no relief to the other members of the class. ZocDoc subsequently moved to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district court granted ZocDoc's motion on Aug. 26, 2014. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Radha Geismann, M.D., P.C. v. ZocDoc, Inc., ("Geismann I"), reasoning that the rejected offer rendered the entire action moot. It therefore entered judgment in favor of Geismann. Geismann appealed. Relying in large part on the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, the Court vacated the judgment and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings. On remand, ZocDoc attempted to use another procedural rule to settle Geismann's individual claims: ZocDoc requested and obtained leave from the district court to deposit funds in the court's registry pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67. The funds that ZocDoc deposited with the court represented what ZocDoc regarded as the maximum possible damages Geismann could receive for its individual TCPA claims. The district court agreed with ZocDoc that its deposit mooted Geismann's individual claim, and accordingly entered judgment in favor of Geismann and dismissed what remained of the action. Judge Sack holds that it was error and returned the case to the district court again for further proceedings. He finds that the Rule 67 procedure is nothing like a bank account in the Plaintiff's name -- that is, an account in which the Plaintiff has a right at any time to withdraw funds. By itself, then, ZocDoc's deposit of funds cannot be considered to have rendered Geismann's individual claims moot. The Judge also doubt that mootness is the correct legal concept to employ in analyzing the effect of ZocDoc's Rule 67 deposit. Geismann's individual claims could not have been "mooted" prior to that time by the Rule 67 deposit. While Rule 67 itself does not affect the vitality of a plaintiff's claims, those claims may of course become moot in other ways. Judge Sack concludes that the district court must resolve the pending motion for class certification before entering judgment and declaring an action moot based solely on relief provided to a plaintiff on an individual basis. If the motion is granted, the class action may proceed. A conclusion otherwise would risk placing the Defendant in control of a putative class action, effectively allowing the use of tactical procedural maneuvers to thwart class litigation at will. For these reasons, the Judge concludes that ZocDoc's Rule 67 deposit did not provide Geismann with an entitlement to complete relief and therefore did not render its TCPA claim moot. The district court should not have entered judgment based on ZocDoc's deposit, nor should it have dismissed Geismann's action. The fact that Geismann's claim is not moot means both that its own claim is still viable, and that the door remains open for possible class certification. The Judge considered the parties' remaining arguments on appeal and finds them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, he vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/x8LGKu from Leagle.com. GLENN L. HARA -- -- GHara@andersonwanca.com -- (David M. Oppenheim, on the brief), Anderson + Wanca, Rolling Meadows, Illinois, for Plaintiff-Appellant. BLAINE C. KIMREY -- bkimrey@vedderprice.com (Charles J. Nerko -- cnerko@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price P.C., New York, New York, Bryan K. Clark, on the brief), Vedder Price P.C., Chicago, Illinois, for Defendant-Appellee. Adina H. Rosenbaum -- litigation@citizen.org -- Scott L. Nelson, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Public Citizen, Inc., in support of Plaintiff-Appellant. Brian Melendez -- brian.melendez@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Amicus Curiae ACA International, in support of Defendant-Appellee. ********* 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 ***