/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/181214.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, December 14, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 250
Headlines
ABC CORP: Juarez et al. Seek Overtime Premium Pay
ACE AMERICAN: Mayfield Seeks Interest from Delayed Death Benefit
ADP LLC: Faces Porter Suit over Biometrics Collection Practices
AIG DIRECT INSURANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Willis Claims
AIRBNB: Jewish Residents in Judea, Samaria File Class Action
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Robinson Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
AMERIWASTE INC: Rust Seeks Overtime Pay for Garbage Truck Drivers
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iMac, MacBook Issues
APPLE INC: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Antitrust Case
ASOCIACION PUERTORRIQUENOS: Travis Seeks OT Pay for Case Managers
AUROBINDO PHARMA: Kruk Files Suit Over Carcinogen in Irbesartan
BARRETT BUSINESS: Cal. App. Reverses Attorney's Fees in Kaanaana
BIRCH FAMILY SERVICES: Snagg Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
BITMAIN: Faces Customer Class Action in California
BROWN BROTHERS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Diaz Alleges
CARDIFF BAY: Encarnacion-Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
CBS CORP: Mootness Fee & Dismissal Granted in Retirement Sys. Suit
CHICAGO, IL: Sued for Refusing to Repay Duplicate Vehicle Tickets
CHICAGO, IL: Sued over Illegal Fines from Vehicle Stickers
CLEVELAND, OH: Sued By Moore Over Unpaid Overtime
COMENITY CAPITAL: Teichen Sues over Credit Background Check
COMMAND SECURITY: Plaintiff Agree to Drop Merger Class Suit
CONCENTRIX SERVICES: Turner Seeks OT Pay for Customer Service Reps
CONTRACT CALLERS: Bailey Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CORECIVIC: Sued for Allegedly Using Detainee Labor in New Mexico
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Sexual Misconduct Class Action Ongoing
DEBORAH S. LESTER: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Cunningham Claims
EFTHIA RESTAURANT: Underpays Busboys, Gonzalez Suit Alleges
EKSO BIONICS: Court Allows Filing of Consolidated Securities Suit
ELDORADO RESORTS: Rush Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Tipped Employees
ESTERLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Rosenfeld Balks at TransDigm Merger Deal
EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Haggar Says
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Ridgell Suit
G&G METAL: Glenn Wyatt Seeks Overtime Pay
GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Wants Property Tax Class Action Decertified
GREENSKY INC: Faces Langere Suit over 60% Drop in Shares
GROUPON INC: Suit Over Use of Instagram Photos Remain in Dist. Ct.
HEADCLICKS INC: Faces Class Action Over Himalayan Salt Lamps
HEALTH ACQUISTION: Faces Bazoe Suit in Kings County, New York
HERTZ CORP: Hirsi Labor Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
HORTONWORKS INC: Sherry Balks at Merger Deal with Cloudera, Inc.
ILLINOIS: Faces Class Action Over Solitary Confinement
INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Required to Document Mold Before Remediation
INTEGRATED DEVICE: Merger Docs Omit Important Info, Rosenblatt Says
JOHN CHRISTNER: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Huddleston Partly OK'd
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hernandez Sues Over False Tylenol Product Claims
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Unjust Enrichment Class Action
JUUL LABS: Viscomi et al. Suit Moved to N.D. California
JUUL LABS: Zampa Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
KANSAS: Incoming Governor Needs to Deal with Foster Care Issues
KING'S COUNTY, NY: Rosenfeld Suit Alleges Wiretapping Activities
KNIGHT TRANSPO: Class of Truck Drivers in Martinez Suit Certified
KPMG LLP: Certification Bids in Gender Discrimination Suit Nixed
LANNETT CO: Levi & Korsinsky to Lead in Strougo Securities Suit
LAURA CHRISTY: Court Certifies Class in Zivkovic NYLL Suit
LENOVO GROUP: $8.3MM Spyware Suit Settlement Gets Initial OK
LMG MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, Suit Alleges
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Tapling & Sparks Sue over Data Breach
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Walker Sues over Data Breach
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Weinstein Sues over Data Breach
MASTER OIL: Underpays Oil Technicians, Tounkara Suit Alleges
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Edwards Suit Alleges Exchange Act Breach
MDL 2804: Bennington Considers Joining Opioid Class Action
METRO CHRYSLER: Faces Brutus Suit in Queens, New York
MICHAEL G. KELLY: Faces Class Action Over "Predatory" Contracts
MONSANTO COMPANY: Allens Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Capo Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Conns Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Coviello Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Dailey Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Dugger Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Goodsons Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Griffiths Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Hildebrands Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Neville Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Triplett Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MORTON BUILDINGS: Underpays Construction Workers, Helms Claims
NCAA: Sued by Former Football Players Over Head Injuries
NORTH CAROLINA: Court Certifies Class in Buffkin Prisoners Suit
NOVANT HEALTH: Marshall Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
OASIS OUTSOURCING: Namowitz Sues over Excessive Taxes
OLYMPIC MASONRY: Underpays Masons, Cannon Suit Allege
OVASCIENCE INC: Faces 2 Milindo Merger-Related Class Suits
PAUL BLANCO: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action Lawsuit
PENNSYLVANIA: Settles Class Action Over Inmate Hep C Treatment
PETSMART INC: Court Okays 2nd Notice to New LePine Class Members
PINNACLE FOODS: Moreno Product Mislabeling Case Removed to C.D. Cal
PIONEER CREDIT: Reizner Sues over Debt Collection Practices
PREFERRED HOME: Underpays Customer Care Specialists, Suit Says
PURDUE PHARMA: Walter Sues over Sale of Prescription Opioid Drugs
RESIDENCE INN: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Arias Suit
RIVERCHASE GALLERIA: Class Action Mulled Over Bradford Shooting
RIVERFRONT LLC: Underpays Waitresses, Dore Suit Alleges
ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Lax Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ROWAN COMPANIES: Faces Jorgensen Suit over Proposed Merger
SAGE BRE NY: Discriminates Against Pregnant Workers, Cunya Alleges
SANTA FE, NM: Petitions for Writ of Certiorari Filed in Moya Suit
SCANA: Settles Class Action Over V.C. Summer Nuclear Project
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Faces Class Action Over Union Dues
SOLARTE FOODS: Fuentes Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Min., Overtime Wages
SONIC CORP: Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Merger Class Suit
SUJA LIFE: Suja Juices Contaminated with Lead, Wachs et al. Say
TERNIUM S.A.: Ulbright Sues over Misleading Financial Report
TEXAS: May Have to Show Foster Care Improvements to Judge
UNILEVER US: Removed Zizumbo et al. Case to N.D. Cal.
UNITED RENTALS: Removes Elizarraz Suit to C.D. California
UNITED STATES: Cross-Bid for Summary Judgment in Zhang Denied
UNITED STATES: Says Contempt Motion in H-2B Case "Meritless"
US FOODS: Flerlage Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
VIOLETTE'S CELLAR: Vilchez Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Judge Approves $48MM Emissions Cheating Settlement
WEBSTAURANT STORE: Rogers Appeals W.D. Ky. Decision to 6th Cir.
WELBILT INC: Todd Fenton Sues over 26% Drop in Share Price
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Sued Over Unfair Overdraft Fee Collection
WOODBOLT DISTRIBUTION: Kinder Files Suit Over Slack-filled Product
YAHOO INC: Judge Refuses to Approve Data Breach Settlement
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Still Faces Talc-Related Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Still Defends PI Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Accrues $38MM for DuPont Suits at Sep.30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 29,323 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Defends Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $461MM Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Defends Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enbridge Energy Had $41MM Liabilities at Sept.30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garrett Motion to Pay 90% of Honeywell Payables
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Still Defends 32 Lawsuits at Oct. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Had US$845.1MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 25,000 Claims Pending at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,600 PI Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Still Defends PL Suits at Sept. 30, 2018
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Seeks Vote on Prepackaged Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 29 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oakfabco, CNA Agree to $12.4MM Settlement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Posts $108MM Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Onorato Fails to Satisfy Highland Minimum Contacts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sanchez Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Ct. Restores Trial Court's DeLisle Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two CIRCOR Units Still Defend Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Faces 750 Active Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Defends Less Than 225 Claims at Sept. 30
*********
ABC CORP: Juarez et al. Seek Overtime Premium Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Miguel Juarez and Eduardo Catalan, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ABC Corp.
d/b/a New University Deli, Bong Jun Choi, and John Does No. 1-10,
the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-10949 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid wages from Defendants for overtime work for which
they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and
liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and and
the New York Labor Law, because defendants’ violations lacked a
good faith basis.
According to the complaint, Defendants' failure to pay plaintiffs
an amount at least equal to the New York state minimum wages in
effect during all relevant time periods was willful, and lacked a
good faith basis. The Plaintiffs were paid in cash throughout their
employment, and they received no paystubs or wage statements of any
sort with their pay. In addition, Defendants failed to pay
plaintiffs any overtime "bonus" for hours worked beyond 40 hours in
a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, the New York Labor Law, and
the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations, the
lawsuit says.
ABC Corporation manufactures and markets housekeeping, janitorial,
and engineering products for the cleaning industry.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated:
David Stein, Esq.
SAMUEL & STEIN
38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
New York, NY 10001
Telephone (212) 563-9884
E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com
ACE AMERICAN: Mayfield Seeks Interest from Delayed Death Benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mayfield, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ace American Insurance Company, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-01695 (W.D. Wash., November 26, 2018), seeks an
award of damages and recovery of benefits due, attorney's fees and
other costs and expenses of litigation and such other and further
relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
Mayfield was a licensed airline pilot employed by Delta Air Lines,
Inc. He and his beneficiaries were insured by ACE as an employee of
Delta being part of their benefit plan. On or about April 21, 2016,
Mayfield's wife suffered sudden cardiac death at her home, as a
result of the interaction of medications she was taking as
prescribed by her doctors. ACE initially denied Mr. Mayfield's
claim for accidental death benefit but eventually paid him almost 2
years after her death. Mr. Mayfield seeks interest for the delayed
payment.
ACE American Insurance Company is an insurance company based in
Pennsylvania. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew N. Menzer, Esq.
John David Toren, Esq.
MENZER LAW FIRM, PLLC
705 Second Avenue, Suite 800
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 903-1818
Email: mnm@menzerlawfirm.com
johndavid@menzerlawfirm.com
- and -
Adam Berger, Esq.
Lindsay Halm, Esq.
810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel: (206) 622-8000
Email: berger@sgb-law.com
halm@sgb-law.com
ADP LLC: Faces Porter Suit over Biometrics Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
RIHANNA PORTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ADP, LLC; Defendant, Case No.
ESX-L-008026-18 (N.J. Super., Essex Cty., Nov. 9, 2018) is an
action for damages and other remedies resulting from the actions of
the Defendant in capturing, storing, using, and disseminating the
Plaintiff's biometrics, and the class, without fully informing them
of all pertinent facts surrounding the Defendant's collection,
storage, use, and transmission of their biometric information,
thereby depriving them of substantive privacy rights, including the
right to be informed as to the circumstances in which they provide
their biometrics.
ADP, LLC develops and provides electronic invoicing software
solution for accounts payable and accounts receivable automation.
The company was incorporated in 1970 and is headquartered in
Roseland, New Jersey. ADP, LLC operates as a subsidiary of
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Shah, Esq.
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
475 White Horse Pike
Collingswood, NJ 08107
Telephone: (856) 858-1770
E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
AIG DIRECT INSURANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Willis Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
TROY WILLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AIG DIRECT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01560-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
AIG Direct Insurance Services, Inc. provides life insurance agency
services in the United States. AIG Direct Insurance Services, Inc.
was formerly known as Matrix Direct, Inc. The company was founded
in 1995 and is based in San Diego, California. As of February 28,
2007, AIG Direct Insurance Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary
of American General Life Insurance Company, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghann E. George, Esq.
Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FFIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (866) 598-5042
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com %
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
AIRBNB: Jewish Residents in Judea, Samaria File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Breaking Israel News reports that a group of Jewish residents of
Judea and Samaria filed a class-action lawsuit against Airbnb in
Jerusalem District Court on Nov. 22, after the travel home-rental
company erased 200 listings that they said would no longer be
available due to their location in "occupied territories."
The petitioners argued that removing or restricting the listings
exclusively in their area constitutes offensive and blatant
discrimination, and asked the court to forbid Airbnb from banning
listings based on a property owner's country of origin.
According to main petitioner, Maanit Rabinovitz of Kida in Samaria,
Airbnb never contacted her about the company's policy change, and
that she only found out she had been erased from the system when
she heard about it in the news.
She said Airbnb offers rental properties in dozens of conflict
regions across the world which are not subjected to any
restrictions, such as Tibet.
"As far as Airbnb is concerned, their clients can deny women or
minorities to rent apartments from them, offer listings in war
zones or in regions where tens of thousands of people have been
expelled from their homes. The only thing that is prohibited is to
be a settler in the State of Israel," the petition said.
It further argues that the new policy flies in the face of its
zero-tolerance policy regarding racism and discrimination.
"Israeli settlers, it turns out, do not belong to the utopian
community that Airbnb is trying to create," the petition concluded,
"and are not entitled to the same level of respect."
Airbnb removed Judea and Samaria listings belonging to Jewish
property-owners on Nov. 19.
"There are conflicting views regarding whether companies should be
doing business in the occupied territories, which are the subject
of historical disputes between Israelis and Palestinians," the
company said in a statement.
"Many in the global community have stated that companies should not
do business here because they believe companies should not profit
on lands where people have been displaced. Others believe that
companies should not withdraw business operations from these
areas," said Airbnb.
"We spent considerable time speaking to various experts, including
those who have criticized our previous approach, about this matter.
As a global platform operating in 191 countries and regions and
more than 81,000 cities, we must consider the impact we have and
act responsibly." [GN]
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Robinson Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Lynn Robinson, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
the United States petitions for a writ of certiorari in the matter
entitled Lynn Robinson, et al., Petitioners vs. American Airlines,
Inc., et al., Case No. 18-685.
Responses are due on December 26, 2018.
The lower court cases are styled LYNN ROBINSON; JUDITH ROBINSON,
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., d/b/a American Airlines,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-6166 (10th Cir.); and PAUL STEWART;
MICHEL HICKS, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., d/b/a Southwest
Airlines, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-6167 (10th Cir.).
The District Court cases are titled LYNN ROBINSON; JUDITH ROBINSON,
and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., d/b/a
American Airlines, Case No. 5:17-CV-00426-F (W.D. Okla.); and PAUL
STEWART; MICHEL HICKS, and all others similarly situated v.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., d/b/a Southwest Airlines, Case No.
5:17-CV-00429-F (W.D. Okla.).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District
Court's order holding that the Plaintiffs' claims in the cases were
pre-empted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA).
In these related appeals, the Plaintiffs filed putative class
actions against American Airlines and Southwest Airlines for not
fully refunding the price of non-refundable airline tickets they
had purchased but did not use.
The District court held that the Plaintiffs' claims were pre-empted
by the ADA, which states, in relevant part, that a State may not
enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the
force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an
air carrier. Therefore, the District Court dismissed the
complaints with prejudice.
The Plaintiffs appeal, pursuing their claims for breach of
contract. The ADA's pre-emption prescription bars state-imposed
regulation of air carriers, but allows room for court enforcement
of contract terms set by the parties themselves.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners Lynn Robinson, et al., are represented by:
Jeffrey Allen Martin, Esq.
JEFF MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
P.O. Box 18425
Oklahoma City, OK 73154
Telephone: (918) 583-4165
Facsimile: (918) 583-4166
E-mail: jm8069337@aol.com
AMERIWASTE INC: Rust Seeks Overtime Pay for Garbage Truck Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER RUST on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, th Plaintiff, vs. AMERIWASTE INC, the
Defendant, Case 3:18-cv-00407 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 29, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation owed to Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of all current and former day rate paid
workers who performed work for Defendant during the three-year
period before the filing of this Complaint up to the date the Court
authorizes notice.
According to the complaint, the Defendant required Plaintiff to
work more than 40 hours a week as a garbage truck driver. The
Defendant paid Plaintiff a day rate without overtime, a practice
which violates the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Ameriwaste is the primary trash provider for League City and other
municipalities across Brazoria county and the surrounding counties.
Ameriwaste Inc serves more than 40,000 customers in the Gulf Coast
Region from its headquarters in Alvin, Texas.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
John Neuman, Esq.
SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
5612 Chaucer Drive
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (281) 885-8844
Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iMac, MacBook Issues
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Apple customers claim in a federal class action that iMac desktops
and Macbook laptops fail to filter out dust sucked in by cooling
fans, compromising performance.
APPLE INC: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Antitrust Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Chung, writing for Reuters, reports that when iPhone users
want to edit blemishes out of their selfies, identify stars and
constellations or simply join the latest video game craze, they
turn to Apple Inc's App Store, where any software application they
buy also includes a 30 percent cut for Apple.
That commission is a key issue in a closely watched antitrust case
that was set to reach the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 26. The nine
justices were set to hear arguments in Apple's bid to escape
damages in a lawsuit accusing it of breaking federal antitrust laws
by monopolizing the market for iPhone apps and causing consumers to
pay more than they should.
The justices will ultimately decide a broader question: Can
consumers even sue for damages in an antitrust case like this one?
Apple, which is appealing a lower court decision that revived the
proposed consumer class-action lawsuit, says no, citing a
decades-old Supreme Court precedent. The Cupertino,
California-based technology company said that siding with the
iPhone users who filed the lawsuit would threaten the burgeoning
field of e-commerce, which generates hundreds of billions of
dollars annually in U.S. retail sales.
The plaintiffs, as well as antitrust watchdog groups, said that if
the justices close courthouse doors to those who buy consumer
products, monopolistic conduct could expand unchecked.
"A lot of tech platforms will start making the argument that
consumers don't have standing to bring antitrust suits against us,"
said Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director for the Open Markets
Institute, a Washington-based antitrust advocacy group.
"Uber could say, we're just providing communication services to
ride-sharing drivers," Mr. Vaheesan said, referring to the popular
ride-sharing company. "If there's an antitrust issue, the drivers
can bring a claim but passengers do not have standing."
The iPhone users accused Apple of violating federal antitrust law
by monopolizing the sale of paid apps, leading to inflated prices
compared to if apps were available from other sources.
Though developers set the prices of their apps, Apple collects the
payments from iPhone users, keeping a 30 percent commission on each
purchase. One area of dispute in the case is whether app developers
recoup the cost of that commission by passing it on to consumers.
Developers earned more than $26 billion in 2017, a 30 percent
increase over 2016, according to Apple.
The company sought to have the antitrust claims dismissed, saying
the plaintiffs lacked the required legal standing to bring the
lawsuit.
Apple has seized upon a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that limited
damages for anti-competitive conduct to those directly overcharged
instead of indirect victims who paid an overcharge passed on by
others. Part of the concern, the court said in that case, was to
free judges from having to make complex calculations of damages.
Apple said it is acting only as the agent for app developers who
sell the apps to consumers through the App Store.
The company said allowing the lawsuit to proceed would be dangerous
for the e-commerce industry, which increasingly relies on
agent-based sales models. Apple cited companies like ticket site
StubHub, Amazon's Marketplace and eBay.
Lawsuits against companies like these would multiply "and lead to
the quagmire this court sought to avoid," Apple told the justices
in a legal brief.
E-commerce reached $452 billion in U.S. retail sales in 2017,
according to U.S. government estimates.
Apple is supported by President Donald Trump's administration. The
plaintiffs are backed by the attorneys general of 30 states
including California, Texas, Florida and New York.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce business group, backing Apple, said in
a brief to the justices, "The increased risk and cost of litigation
will chill innovation, discourage commerce, and hurt developers,
retailers and consumers alike."
The plaintiffs and some anti-monopoly groups disagree. They said
that app developers would be unlikely to sue because they would not
want to bite the hand that feeds them, leaving no one to challenge
anti-competitive conduct.
Developers "cannot risk the possibility of Apple removing them from
the App Store if they bring suit," the American Antitrust Institute
advocacy group said in a brief.
Apple is "trying to make it harder for injured parties to assert
their rights under federal antitrust law," said Mark Rifkin, an
attorney for the plaintiffs.
The claims against Apple date to 2011 when several iPhone buyers
including lead plaintiff Robert Pepper of Chicago filed a class
action lawsuit against Apple in federal court in Oakland,
California. A judge initially threw out the suit, ruling that the
consumers were not direct purchasers because the higher fees they
paid were passed on to them by the developers.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year
revived the lawsuit, deciding that Apple was a distributor that
sold iPhone apps directly to consumers. [GN]
ASOCIACION PUERTORRIQUENOS: Travis Seeks OT Pay for Case Managers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANELL TRAVIS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. ASOCIACION PUERTORRIQUENOS EN MARCHA, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-05015-RK (E.D. Pa., Nov. 19, 2018),
seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act on behalf of case managers
working for the Defendant. According to the complaint, Case
Managers regularly work over 40 hours per week. For example,
Plaintiff often works 43-50 hours per week and sometimes works over
50 hours. The Plaintiff and other Case Managers unlike the Case
Managers employed and paid directly by the City of Philadelphia do
not receive any overtime premium compensation for hours worked over
40 per week, the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
R. Andrew Santillo
Mark J. Gottesfeld
Winebrake & Santillo, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
AUROBINDO PHARMA: Kruk Files Suit Over Carcinogen in Irbesartan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Kruk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., an Indian
corporation; ScieGen Pharmaceuticals Inc., a New York corporation;
Westminster Pharmaceuticals, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; Walmart Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No.
8:18-cv-2927 (M.D. Fla., December 1, 2018) seeks to recover
economic damages and restitution for strict product liability,
failure to warn, breach of contract, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment,
conversion, negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
Plaintiff brought this class action on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated regarding Defendants' respective
manufacturing, distribution, and sale of generic irbesartan
prescription medications containing an active pharmaceutical
ingredient ("API") adulterated with N-nitrosodiethylamine ("NDEA"),
a probable human carcinogen.
Irbesartan is a prescription medication mainly used to treat high
blood pressure and diabetic nephropathy. Due to manufacturing
defects originating in Defendant Aurobindo Pharma Ltd's facility in
India, certain batches of irbesartan active pharmaceutical
ingredient were supplied to Defendant ScieGen Pharmaceuticals, LLC,
and thus introduced to the United States market, that were
adulterated with the probable human carcinogen, NDEA, says the
complaint.
After ScieGen used the Adulterated Irbesartan to manufacture and
produce finished generic prescription irbesartan tablets, ScieGen
shipped the tablets containing Adulterated Irbesartan to Defendant
Westminster Pharmaceuticals in or about Tampa, Hillsborough County,
Florida.
Plaintiff purchased and ingested tablets containing Adulterated
Irbesartan from her local Walmart pharmacy as part of a medical
treatment regimen. Plaintiff and the putative class members were
injured by paying the full purchase price of their medications
containing Adulterated Irbesartan and by paying for incidental
medical expenses. These medications are worthless because they are
contaminated with carcinogenic and harmful NDEA and are thus not
fit for human consumption, the complaint asserts.
Plaintiff, Barbara Kruk, is an individual who is a citizen of the
State of Illinois, domiciled in DuPage County, Illinois. During all
relevant time periods, Plaintiff was prescribed, purchased, and
consumed Adulterated Irbesartan manufactured, distributed, and sold
by Defendants.
Aurobindo is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the Republic of India. It maintains its principal place of business
in Hitech City, Hyderabad, India. Aurobindo presently maintains its
United States headquarters, through its American subsidiary
Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc., in East Windsor, New Jersey. Aurobindo
has been engaged in the manufacturing, distribution, and sale of
Adulterated Irbesartan in the United States, including but not
limited to within the State of Illinois and within the State of
Florida.
ScieGen is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
New York. It maintains its principal place of business in
Hauppauge, Suffolk County, New York. ScieGen has been engaged in
the manufacturing, national distribution, and national sale of
Adulterated Irbesartan, including within the State of Florida and
within this District.
Westminster is a limited liability company organized under the laws
of the State of Delaware. Westminster is registered with the
Florida Department of State's Division of Corporations to do
business in Florida as a foreign limited liability company, and it
maintains a registered agent for service of process in Florida in
Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Westminster maintains its
principal place of business in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida.
Westminster has been engaged in the manufacturing, national sale,
and national distribution of Adulterated Irbesartan, including
within Florida and within this District.
Walmart Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State
of Delaware. It maintains its principal place of business in
Bentonville, Arkansas. Walmart is registered with the Florida
Department of State's Division of Corporations to do business in
Florida as a foreign profit corporation, and it maintains a
registered agent for service of process in Florida in Broward
County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Sawin, Esq.
SAWIN LAW FIRM, LTD.
55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312-853-2490
Facsimile 312.327.7072
Email: jsawin@sawinlawyers.com
- and –
Scott Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN LAW FIRM, LTD.
55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312-327-3386
Email: smorgan@smorgan-law.com
- and –
Myles McGuire, Esq.
Paul T. Geske, Esq.
Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW P.C.
55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312-893-7002
Email: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
pgeske@mcgpc.com
tkingsbury@mcgpc.com
BARRETT BUSINESS: Cal. App. Reverses Attorney's Fees in Kaanaana
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID KAANAANA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., et al, Defendants and Respondents,
Case Nos. B276420, B279838 (Cal. App.), Judge Laurence D. Rubin of
the Court of Appeals of California for the Second District,
Division Eight, reversed the trial court's award to the class of
$53,293.50 in civil penalties under PAGA, and of $109,514 in
attorneys' fees.
The Plaintiffs sued Defendant Barrett, a company providing staffing
and management services. The Defendant provided employees for two
publicly owned and operated recycling facilities under contracts
with Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.
The class consisted of "belt sorters" employed by the Defendant at
those facilities between April 15, 2011, and Sept. 30, 2013. The
Plaintiffs alleged failure to pay minimum wages, overtime, and all
wages owing at termination (all based at least in part on alleged
noncompliance with the prevailing wage law); failure to provide
meal periods; unfair competition; and civil penalties under
sections 558, 1197.1 and 2698 (PAGA, the Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004).
The Defendant brought a motion to strike the prevailing wage claims
contending, it was not required to pay the prevailing wage as a
matter of law. The trial court granted the motion in January 2016,
concluding the work the Plaintiffs performed sorting recyclables
did not come within the definition of "public works" under the
prevailing wage law.
Thereafter, the parties stipulated to certain facts, and to the
admissibility and authenticity of certain evidence, for purposes of
trial on the Plaintiffs' other claims. Central to these claims was
the Defendant's policy of requiring belt sorters to return to their
stations at the conveyor belt before the end of their 30-minute
meal break. The class members are all former employees of the
Defendant. The parties further stipulated that deposition
testimony could be substituted for live testimony for any witness,
and the deposition transcripts were deemed authentic.
The Plaintiffs asserted two theories of recovery on the wage and
hour violations, both based on the meal period defendant provided.
The first was that the Defendant failed to provide at least 30
minutes of duty-free time during meal periods, requiring the
Plaintiffs to return to the conveyor belt (which was turned off for
just 30 minutes during meal periods) three to five minutes before
it restarted. This made Defendant liable under section 226.7 for
meal period premiums (one additional hour of pay) for each workday
that a full 30-minute meal period was not provided. The amount
claimed was $227,190.73.
The Plaintiffs' second theory of recovery was that, by not counting
the improperly shortened meal periods as "time worked," the
Defendant did not pay them "the legal minimum wage" under section
1194. That is, the truncated meal periods should have been
considered an 'on-duty meal period,' and the belt sorters should
have been paid at least the minimum wage for this time. The
Plaintiffs asserted this theory of recovery was separate and
distinct from the right to recover a meal period premium under
section 226.7. According to them, each class member could recover
30 minutes of pay at the minimum wage for each shortened meal
period, plus interest, as well as liquidated damages in the same
amount under section 1194.2.4 The amount claimed was $216,486.92.
In addition, the Plaintiffs contended they were entitled to
"waiting time penalties" that apply when an employer willfully
fails to pay any wages of an employee who is discharged or who
quits. The amount claimed was $377,599.20. Finally, they sought
civil penalties under PAGA, which allows a representative action to
recover civil penalties for violations of the Labor Code. The
Plaintiffs sought these penalties under section 558 (for meal
period violations)6 and section 1197.1 (for minimum wage
violations).7 The amount claimed was $1,390,800.
The Defendant contended that even if the court found the Plaintiffs
were not provided a full 30-minute meal period, the imposition on
their time was de minimis and therefore noncompensable. If the
court were to find a remedy was justified, it argued, the sole and
exclusive remedy was the additional hour of pay under section
226.7, and no other remedies or penalties are legally or factually
appropriate.
The trial court held that the evidence established that employees
lost three to five minutes of a 30-minute break. It awarded
$227,190.73 for the 22,220 instances in which the unrounded time
records reflect breaks of less than 30 minutes. For the employees
who lost three to five minutes of a 30 minute break, they are not
entitled to recover minimum wages for all or any portion of the
meal period. Their exclusive remedy is a meal period premium under
Labor Code section 226.7. No waiting time penalties applied,
because no minimum wages were owed for the shortened meal periods
and the meal period premiums that are owing for the shortened meal
periods are not a wage that could trigger waiting time penalties.
The court awarded the class $53,293.50 in civil penalties under
PAGA. The Plaintiffs sought civil penalties under section 558 for
noncompliant meal periods totaling $409,950, but the court
exercised its discretion to reduce the penalties to 13% of the full
amount. The court found the full penalty would be unjust,
arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory under section 2699,
subdivision (e)(2). No civil penalties were owing under section
1197.1 for unpaid minimum wages.
The Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal. They then sought
attorney fees under PAGA and Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5
of $1,095,140. The trial court awarded fees of $109,514, and the
Plaintiffs appealed. The Court ordered the two appeals
consolidated for purposes of oral argument and decision.
Judge Rubin holds that the "construction" language limiting the
definition of "public works" in subdivision (a)(1) of section 1720
does not also limit the definition of "public works" in subdivision
(a)(2) of that statute. Instead, subdivision (a)(2) is to be read
independently. When he does so, he concludes that the Defendant's
motion to strike the Plaintiffs' prevailing wage law claim was
improperly granted.
The Judge also finds that no authority supports the claim that the
wage order as it exists today requires payment of 30 minutes of
wages for any incursion, however short, into the meal period, in
addition to the hour of premium pay for the same incursion into the
meal period. He therefore construes the wage order to require
premium pay for the meal period violation and payment of minimum
wages for all time worked -- but no more. "Time worked" does not
include time during which employees are relieved of any duty or
employer control and are free to come and go as they please. He is
persuaded that neither the Legislature nor the IWC intended
anything more.
Because he has found the trial court erred in finding no minimum
wages were owed for time worked during the shortened meal periods,
it necessarily follows that the trial court also erred in rejecting
the Plaintiffs' claim for civil penalties for the payment of a wage
less than the minimum. He notes that, while the Defendant is
subject to penalties for violations of both section 512 (the meal
period claims) and section 1194 (the minimum wage claims), the
Court may award a lesser amount than the maximum civil penalty
amount specified if, based on the facts and circumstances of the
particular case, to do otherwise would result in an award that is
unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory. He expresses no
opinion on what penalty, if any, should be awarded for the
violation of section 1194 greater than the $53,293.50 already
awarded for the violation of section 512.
The question whether violations of meal period regulations give
rise to claims for waiting time penalties under section 203 is
among the issues raised in a request for certification of questions
from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, recently granted by the
California Supreme Court. The Judge holds he needs not consider
the issue in the case because he has concluded, contrary to the
trial court's ruling, that the Defendant owed minimum wages for
time worked during the improperly shortened meal periods. Because
this is a proper basis for the Plaintiffs' claim for waiting time
penalties under section 203, he must reverse the trial court's
judgment to the extent it denies recovery of waiting time penalties
and remands for consideration of the Plaintiffs' claim and the
Defendant's contentions.
Finally, he finds that the amount of the Plaintiffs' recovery will
necessarily change as a result of his decision, and this may in
turn affect the trial court's analysis of the appropriate amount of
the attorney fee award. He therefore vacates the award and remands
to enable the court to exercise its discretion to reconsider the
amount of the fee award, should it so choose.
For these reasons, Judge Rubin reversed the judgment in the merits
appeal. The cause is remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings to address the calculation of minimum wages owing, the
award of civil penalties based on failure to pay minimum wages, and
reconsideration of waiting time penalties, as well as to allow the
Plaintiffs to pursue their prevailing wage law claim. The trial
court's order awarding attorney fees (B279838) is vacated to permit
the trial court to reconsider attorney fees following remand. The
Plaintiffs will recover their costs on appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2018 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2zOvZvS from Leagle.com.
Hayes Pawlenko, Matthew B. Hayes -- mhayes@helpcounsel.com -- and
Kye D. Pawlenko -- kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com -- for Plaintiffs and
Appellants.
Hinshaw & Culbertson, Frederick J. Ufkes -- fufkes@hinshawlaw.com
-- and Filomena E. Meyer -- fmeyer@hinshawlaw.com -- for Defendants
and Respondents.
BIRCH FAMILY SERVICES: Snagg Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Micelle Snagg, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class, Plaintiff, v. Birch Family Services, Inc. and Matthew
Sturiale, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06723, (E.D. N.Y., November
26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, compensation for
retaliation, liquidated damages, statutory penalties and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Birch Family Services, Inc. provides a variety of social services
to developmentally disabled individuals throughout New York City
where Snagg was hired as a direct support professional at their
facility located at 122-15 Irwin Place, Jamaica, NY 11434. She
worked weeks that exceeded 40 hours in duration without being paid
overtime premium, says the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
Taimur Alamgir, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
BITMAIN: Faces Customer Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------
Cali Haan, writing for Crowdfund Insider, reports that a class
action suit against the world's largest cryptocurrency mining
equipment maker and cryptomining conglomerate, Bitmain, has been
filed in Northern California.
The suit will test rumours circulating in crypto circles for some
time that allege Bitmain used customers' newly-purchased machines
to mine crypto at full power while those customers were setting up
(configuring) their machines.
Plaintiff Gor Gevorkyan of Los Angeles County, alleges:
"Until approximately 2 years ago, the machines started in low power
mode . . . (and) there was no default account setting to which
virtual currency mined during the setup process was directed and
transferred."
However:
"Recently, Bitmain modified the startup procedure for its ASIC
devices such that the devices immediately start in full power high
energy consumption mode before the customer's account is linked to
the device and stay in that mode until the setup process is
complete. Moreover, the default account setting on the Bitmain ASIC
devices is set to contribute to Bitmain's own account on its own
Antpool server."
The setup process, Mr. Gevorkyan alleges, can take anywhere from a
few hours to a few days, during which time:
"Bitmain's ASIC devices are preconfigured to use its customers'
electricity to generate crypotocurrency for the benefit of Bitmain
rather that its customers . . . and lay the substantial costs of
operating the ASIC devices at the feet of its customers . . .
(resulting in) out of pocket losses."
Mr. Gevorkyan says he purchased Bitmain ASIC devices, including the
Antminer 9, in January 2018.
The plaintiff also argues that courts in Northern California have
jurisdiction in the case because, in addition to offices in
Beijing, China, Bitmain maintains offices in Santa Clara,
California.
Mining cryptocurrency profitably has become much more difficult in
the past few years due to the strategic establishment of massive
mining entities that are simply outgunning smaller firms.
Background provided in the Gevorkyan/Class complaint states:
"It has been reproted that the cost to mine virtual currency
increased tenfold between 2016 and 2017 alone."
Bitmain quickly established itself as the leader in global crypto
mining after it was founded in China in 2013. Associated Bitmain
farms regularly mine close to 50% of all bitcoins produced, maybe
more.
According to the Gevorkyan/Class filing:
"(Bitmain is) the largest single miner of cryptocurrency in the
world…and largest single competitor to each of its ASIC device
customers because it maintains its own virtual currency mining
accounts…(and runs) virtual currency mining "farms" in locations
where electricity costs are extremely low, including Russia and
inner Mongolia."
If the allegations are true, mining on a customer device would
unfairly contribute to Bitmain's dominance in the sector.
The case alleges Bitmain made, ". . . 3-4 billion in operating
profits in 2018."
Bitmain recently filed for an initial public offering (IPO) on the
Hong Kong Exchange. Rumours that company fortunes were on the wane
swirled around the offering, and Bitcoiners like Jimmy Song alleged
the company was essentially doing a buyout after most of its
profitability had already occurred.
Rival crypto miner Canaan let its application to IPO in Hong Kong
lapse leading to speculation that Bitmain may do the same.
This year has been a bad one for crypto miners, especially small
ones and new ones.
First, markets for all coins contracted substantially in 2018, and
regulators and law enforcement, in the US at least, are circling
closely, looking for manipulation and illegal activity in the
sector.
This could mean that allegedly unfair activity used to drive fake
demand for crypto is being curtailed.
As coins shut down, mining too, will contract, producing a lack of
demand for new Bitmain miners as a surfeit of used machines go up
for resale.
Industry watchers have also speculated publicly about whether
Bitmain co-founder Jihan Wu damaged his personal wealth last year
by backing a fork of Bitcoin called Bitcoin cash.
Lawyers for Mr. Gevorkyan are asking for a jury trial in their case
against Bitmain. [GN]
BROWN BROTHERS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Diaz Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BROWN BROTHERS HARRIMAN & CO., Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-10496 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2018) is an action
against the Defendant for failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people
in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
website, www.bbh.com, is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., formerly known as Brown Brothers &
Co., is a private bank, provides commercial banking, investment
management, brokerage, and trust services to private companies and
individuals. It also performs merger advisory, foreign exchange,
custody services, commercial banking, and corporate financing
services. Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. was founded in 1818 and is
based in New York, New York. It has offices in the United States,
Europe, and Asia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
- and -
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003-2461
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
CARDIFF BAY: Encarnacion-Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Encarnacion-Hernandez, Individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CBA Industries, Inc.,
and CBA Insert Distribution System, Inc.,the Defendants, Case No.
523968/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 29, 2018), alleges that Defendants
failed to pay and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and all those
similarly-situated as class members, their wages including overtime
and non overtime wages weekly, in violation of the New York Labor
Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants were engaged in the
business of packing, transporting and distributing marketing and
other materials in bulk. The Defendants employed over 75 employees
during the class period across several locations. The Plaintiff has
been employed by Defendants from in or around August 2017 to
present. the Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a warehouse
worker performing functions such as lifting, packing, stocking, and
handling boxes all day. The Plaintiff was paid at a regular rate of
about $12-$13.25 an hour, at separate times during his employment
with Defendants. The Plaintiff and the putative class members were
paid on a bi weekly basis in violation of NYLL.
The Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with the notice(s)
required by NYLL section 195(1). The Defendants did not provide
Plaintiff with the statement(s) required by NYLL section 195(3);
the wage statements provided to Plaintiff did not state the hours
worked in each weekly pay period, among other deficiencies. The
NYLL claims refers to the six-year period preceding the filing of
the complaint, the lawsuit says.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff:
Abdul Hassan, Esq.
215-28 Hillside Avenue
Queens Village, NY 11427
Telephone: 718 740-1000
Facsimile: 718 355-9668
E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com
CBS CORP: Mootness Fee & Dismissal Granted in Retirement Sys. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 29, 2018,
2018, that a court has granted the Stipulation and Order Regarding
Mootness Fee Request, Notice, and Dismissal in the Westmoreland
County Employees' Retirement System suit.
On September 14, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court")
dismissed as moot the class action lawsuit (the "Westmoreland
Action") filed with the Court on May 31, 2018 by the Westmoreland
County Employees' Retirement System ("Westmoreland"), a purported
beneficial owner of the Class B Common Stock of CBS Corporation
(the "Company").
The Court retained jurisdiction to consider any application for
attorneys' fees and expenses submitted by Westmoreland or its
counsel (the "Fee Request").
On November 30, 2018, the Court granted a Stipulation and Order
Regarding Mootness Fee Request, Notice, and Dismissal (the "Order")
in the Westmoreland Action to resolve the Fee Request.
CBS Corporation operates as a mass media company worldwide. The
company operates through four segments: Entertainment, Cable
Networks, Publishing, and Local Media. The company was founded in
1986 and is headquartered in New York, New York.
CHICAGO, IL: Sued for Refusing to Repay Duplicate Vehicle Tickets
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Klein, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
class action filed on Nov. 29 accuses Chicago of refusing to repay
residents money it collected from illegally issued duplicate
vehicle-related tickets.
Brought by lead plaintiffs Orlando Jones and Rodney Shelton, the
Cook County Circuit Court lawsuit says the city has been giving
residents who don't have a city vehicle sticker or whose
registration is expired more than one ticket a day, violating its
own municipal code.
"City sticker violations are one of the priciest tickets motorists
can get in the city, the cost of which increased by 67 percent as
part of the city's 2012 budget," according to the lawsuit filed by
attorney Jacie Zolna -- jzolna@cherry-law.com -- with Myron Cherry
& Associates.
The penalty for not have a sticker -- which is required for all
vehicles used in the city -- is $200, and can rise to $488 with
late and collection fees.
"The reason the city does this is simple: money," the complaint
states. "The more citations it issues the more revenue it
generates."
According to the Chicago Reporter, the city doled out $162 million
in vehicle-related tickets and $87 million in late fees in 2017.
The complaint also cites a study by ProPublica Illinois that found
unpaid ticket debt is causing a spike in bankruptcy in Chicago,
with residents filing for Chapter 13 to avoid losing their cars or
licenses.
If they don't pay up, they could be hit with garnished wages,
vehicle seizures and liens.
Minority communities have been hit the hardest, according to the
lawsuit, receiving a disproportionate amount of the duplicate
citations.
Despite the city claiming it was taking the issue seriously, the
plaintiffs argue "this was all lip service."
"The city hammered its most vulnerable citizens with illegal and
duplicative tickets, falsely assured the public that it would
remedy the situation, then stiffed affected motorists and kept all
of the illegal fines and penalties for itself," the complaint
states.
Kristen Cabanban, Chicago's director of public affairs, said that
"for the past several months, the city has been working on
developing a plan to address instances of duplicate tickets and
offer refunds to affected motorists."
Chicago's legal department said it had not received the lawsuit and
therefore could not comment on it, but a statement issued by the
city says that "between 2007 and 2018, duplicate tickets
represented less than one percent of all issued city sticker
violations and less than one tenth of one percent of all issued
parking violations. Motorists who receive tickets in error can and
have always been able to contest them."
The city also said it dismissed thousands of duplicate sticker
violations going back to 1992, and thousands more paid tickets are
eligible for a refund. It also said it plans to upgrade its
technology to "identify and preemptively dismiss multiple tickets
issued on the same day."
The plaintiffs and proposed class are suing the city for unjust
enrichment and seek a court order requiring it to issue refunds and
clear debts for duplicate tickets issued.
CHICAGO, IL: Sued over Illegal Fines from Vehicle Stickers
----------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO JONES and RODNEY SHELTON, individually and of behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF CHICAGO, a
Municipal Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH14812 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), seeks refunds of illegal fines and penalties
and extinguish unlawful debt.
According to the complaint, all Chicago residents operating a
vehicle in the City of Chicago are subject to the Chicago Wheel Tax
and must purchase and display a Chicago City Vehicle Sticker.
Depending on the type of vehicle, the City's vehicle stickers can
cost up to several hundreds of dollars every year. Failure to
purchase and display a City sticker can result in hefty fines and
penalties. In fact, City sticker violations are one of the
priciest tickets motorists can get in the City, the cost of which
increased 67% as part of the City's 2012 budget. See Melissa
Sanchez and Elliott Ramos, Chicago Hiked the Cost of Vehicle City
Sticker Violations to Boost Revenue. But It's Driven More
Low-Income, Black Motorists Into Debt. A citation for not having a
City sticker now carries a $200 fine, "an amount that, with late
penalties and collections fees, quickly can rise to $488 and become
a financial burden for 'SI". To make matters worse the City has
also engaged in an illegal practice of issuing duplicative City
sticker tickets -- i.e., issuing two or more City sticker tickets
to the same vehicle on the same day, a practice specifically
prohibited under the Municipal Code of Chicago ("MCC"). In short,
the City hammered its most vulnerable citizens with illegal and
duplicative tickets, falsely assured the public that it would
remedy the situation then stiffed affected motorists and kept all
of the illegal fines and penalties for itself, the lawsuit says.
Chicago, on Lake Michigan in Illinois, is among the largest cities
in the U.S. Famed for its bold architecture, it has a skyline
punctuated by skyscrapers such as the iconic John Hancock
Center.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Classes and the Sub-Classes:
Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Jacie C. Zolna, Esq.
Benjamin R. Swetland, Esq
Jessica C. Chavin, Esq
MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES LLC
30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 372-2100
E-mail: mcherry@cherry-law.com
jzolna@cherry-law.com
bswetland@cherry-law.com
jchavin@cherry-law.com
CLEVELAND, OH: Sued By Moore Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------
Margerita Noland-Moore, On behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. City Of Cleveland, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-02730 (N.D. Ohio, October 26, 2018), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation as well as liquidated damages, attorney's
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio Labor
Laws.
City of Cleveland is a unit of local government and a municipal
corporation organized under the laws of the state of Ohio.
Plaintiff has been employed by the City of Cleveland in the
Division of Emergency Medical Service as a paramedic. She claims to
have worked in excess of forty hours per week without being paid
overtime premiums. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
The Caxton Building
812 E. Huron Road, Suite 490
Cleveland, OH 44114
Tel. (440) 498-9100
Fax (216) 621-1094
Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
COMENITY CAPITAL: Teichen Sues over Credit Background Check
-----------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN M. TEICHEN, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. COMENITY CAPITAL BANK, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07921 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks
to redress from the actions of Defendant in knowingly obtaining
Plaintiff's consumer report without a permissible purpose, in
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
According to the complaint, Comenity Capital Bank was formerly
known as World Financial Capital Bank and changed its name to
Comenity Capital Bank in October 2012. The Defendant operates as an
industrial bank and issues credit cards for retailers.
The Plaintiff did not have a business relationship with PayPal
Credit on August 3, 2017. The Defendant's internal records will
demonstrate that Plaintiff did not apply for PayPal Credit on
August 3, 2017. PayPal Credit's internal records will demonstrate
that Plaintiff did not apply for PayPal Credit on August 3, 2017.
Defendant intentionally misrepresented to Equifax that Plaintiff
was attempting to obtain credit with Defendant. The Defendant
falsely certified to Equifax that Plaintiff was attempting to
obtain credit with Defendant or had a current credit relationship
with Defendant. Defendant's misrepresentations resulted in Equifax
releasing highly confidential and sensitive personal information
concerning Plaintiff to Defendant. Defendant's false certifications
resulted in Equifax releasing highly confidential and sensitive
personal information concerning Plaintiff to Defendant, the lawsuit
says.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members:
Marwan R. Daher, Esq.
James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
Omar T. Sulaiman, Esq.
Marwan R. Daher, Esq.
Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD
2500 S Highland Ave, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 575-8181
E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com
ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
COMMAND SECURITY: Plaintiff Agree to Drop Merger Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Command Security Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 29, 2018,
2018, that the plaintiff has agreed to request voluntary
discontinuance of a class action lawsuit over a merger
transaction.
Command Security has previously disclosed in its Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2018, that a
putative class action lawsuit was filed on November 5, 2018 (the
"Merger Litigation") relating to the Agreement and Plan of Merger
(as it may be amended from time to time, the "Merger Agreement"),
dated as of September 18, 2018, by and among the Company, Prosegur
SIS (USA) Inc., a Florida corporation ("Parent"), and Crescent
Merger Sub, Inc., a New York corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, upon the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub
will merge with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the
Company continuing as the surviving corporation, and the
disclosures provided in the Company's definitive proxy statement
(the "Proxy Statement") filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") on November 2, 2018 with respect thereto.
While the Company believes that no supplemental disclosure is
required to be made to the Proxy Statement under applicable law and
that the claims asserted in the Merger Litigation are without
merit, in order to avoid the risk of the Merger Litigation delaying
or adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the costs, risks
and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the Company has determined to voluntarily
supplement the Proxy Statement as provided under the heading
"Supplement to the Proxy Statementw. The named plaintiff in the
Merger Litigation ("Plaintiff") has agreed to request voluntary
discontinuance of the Merger Litigation with prejudice as to
Plaintiff only, and without prejudice as to the putative class,
within five business days of the closing of the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement.
A copy of the Supplement to the Proxy statement is available at
https://goo.gl/mLgJEz.
Command Security Corporation provides uniformed security officers
and aviation security services in the United States. It operates
through Security and Aviation Safeguards divisions. Command
Security Corporation was founded in 1980 and is based in Herndon,
Virginia.
CONCENTRIX SERVICES: Turner Seeks OT Pay for Customer Service Reps
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIARA TURNER, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CONCENTRIX SERVICES US, INC., and
CONCENTRIX CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01072-SOH
(W.D. Ark., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendants'
failure to pay Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants
from December 2016 until November 14, 2018, as an at-home customer
service representative from her residence in Camden. The Plaintiff
and other at-home customer service representatives were paid an
hourly rate by Defendants. The Plaintiff and other at-home customer
service representative were responsible for handling in bound
customer service and troubleshooting calls on behalf on Defendants'
clients.
Defendants' failed to pay Plaintiff and their other at-home
customer service representatives for off-the-clock work performed
prior to the beginning of their scheduled shifts, during their
unpaid 30-minute meal breaks, and after the end of their scheduled
shifts, the lawsuit says.
Concentrix Services is a privately held company in Farmington
Hills, Michigan. Concentrix Corporation provides customer
engagement services in the United States and internationally.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Sean Short, Esq.
Joshua Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
2
CONTRACT CALLERS: Bailey Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA BAILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONTRACT CALLERS, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04867-JP (E.D. Pa., Nov. 9, 2018)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt. The case is assigned to Honorable John R. Padova.
Contract Callers, Inc. provides collection, call center, and field
services primarily to the utility industry in the United States.
Contract Callers, Inc. was formerly known as Commerce Service
Corporation. The company was founded in 1926 and is based in
Augusta, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antranig Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES PC
1800 John F. Kennedy Blvd Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 326-9179
E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com
CORECIVIC: Sued for Allegedly Using Detainee Labor in New Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Holpuch, writing for The Guardian, reports that when a New
Mexico immigration detention facility needed people to cook for
inmates and clean its halls, it found a solution already inside its
walls.
For $0.50 or less per hour, detainees such as Mbah Emmanuel Abi and
Desmond Ndambi, who have since been granted political asylum,
cooked meals for their fellow inmates and worked in the facility
library.
Their experience is not unique: for $1 a day -- and sometimes less
-- migrants prepare meals, clean facilities and do laundry at
privately run immigration detention centers across the country.
The practice has been compared to slave labor and has brought a
pile of lawsuits to the doorsteps of the country's two biggest
private prison companies, CoreCivic and Geo Group, which in 2017
had a combined $4bn in revenue.
In a recently filed class-action lawsuit, Abi, Ndambi and one other
man who fled Cameroon in 2017, brought wage theft claims against
CoreCivic's Cibola county correctional center in New Mexico.
"The fact that the company is able to obtain the labor it needs to
function, for the facility to function, at vastly below market
rates is part of its business model," Joseph Sellers, an attorney
at Cohen Milstein who is representing the plaintiffs, told the
Guardian.
Both CoreCivic and Geo Group have said the pay is compliant with a
voluntary work program mandated by the government, but attorneys
said the labor is not voluntary because it is needed to pay for
items such as toothpaste or to make phone calls to loved ones.
"I wouldn't call it voluntarily," Mr. Sellers said. "They do this
work because they need the income, which is meager, certainly, to
help pay for sundries and various things like toothpaste they may
need while they are confined and don't otherwise have."
The New Mexico case was filed in a federal court in Maryland and
centers on CoreCivic's alleged violation of minimum wage laws.
"We're looking into it in other places," Mr. Sellers said. "It
regrettably appears to be a widespread phenomenon."
In the past four years, other ongoing lawsuits about $1-a-day pay
have accused private prison companies of also violating laws that
prohibit forced labor and unjust enrichment.
In April, a class-action lawsuit was filed against CoreCivic for
using "forced labor" at a facility in Georgia. A plaintiff from
Guatemala, Wilhen Hill Barrientos, said he had to work to pay for
phone calls to his family, who he couldn't speak to without doing
work for about $0.50 per hour.
In September 2017, Washington state filed suit against Geo Group
for paying detainees $1 a day.
Detainees at an Aurora, Colorado, facility sued Geo Group for wage
theft in 2014. This case, like the others, is still working through
the courts.
Amanda Gilchrist, a Core-Civic spokeswoman, said the company could
not comment on pending litigation, but said its work programs were
"completely voluntary and operated in full compliance with Ice
standards".
"We set and deliver the same high standard of care -- including
three daily meals, access to health care and other everyday living
needs -- regardless of whether a detainee participates in a
voluntary work program," Ms. Gilchrist said in an email.
Pablo Paez, a Geo Group spokesman, also said in a statement that
the company complied with national, government-established
standards for voluntary work.
"The wage rates associated with this federally-mandated program are
stipulated under long-established guidelines set by the United
States Congress," Mr. Paez said. "As a service provider to the
federal government, Geo is required to abide by these federally
mandated standards and congressionally established guidelines."
Both companies contributed to Trump's presidential campaign and
have benefited from his administration's harsh immigration
policies, which include reversing Obama administration efforts to
reduce the federal government's use of private prisons.
The day after the 2016 presidential election, Geo Group's stock
prices increased 21% and CoreCivic's increased 43%. In earnings
calls, company leaders have predicted increased profits because of
the increasing immigration arrests in the US.
The founding director of Northwestern University's Deportation
Research Clinic, Jacqueline Stevens, prompted the 2014 Colorado
lawsuit through her research of private prisons' voluntary work
schemes.
Ms. Stevens said these extraordinarily low pay rates also impact
local wages and other industries.
"The purpose of these laws isn't simply to protect the earning
rights of the people who are being exploited, but also the average
wages of people in a particular community," Ms. Stevens said.
"That's why there are all sorts of rules and precedents that say
that if employers hire people below that, even if it looks like
someone is consenting, it is still unlawful."
She said many strands of US laws prevent companies from compelling
people who haven't been convicted of crimes to work; define
volunteers as doing work for no pay for humanitarian purposes and
protect local wages by prohibiting companies from paying people
less than an agreed-to standard.
Ms. Stevens said: "When you are able to hire people for a $1 a day
or less, you undercut the employment opportunities for everybody
else." [GN]
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Sexual Misconduct Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Todd Feathers, writing for New Hampshire Union Leader, reports that
for more than a year after a group of female psychology students
organized to file complaints of sexual harassment against three
Dartmouth College professors, they remained publicly quiet about
their experiences.
The school launched and concluded an internal investigation, the
Attorney General's office initiated a criminal probe, and the three
professors -- Todd Heatherton, William Kelley and Paul Whalen --
resigned or retired. But beyond hints of sexual misconduct and a
predatory culture in the Department of Psychological and Brain
Sciences, the public received scant information about how many
victims there were, who they were, or what happened to them.
On Nov. 15, the women's strategy shifted. In preparation for filing
a class action lawsuit against Dartmouth, six of the seven
plaintiffs engaged in a coordinated media blitz.
A public relations firm helped arrange their interviews.
Professional pictures of the women were made available upon
request. And their stories, including accusations of groping, lewd
messages and rape, appeared in dozens of media reports, from small
local newspapers to national outlets like The New York Times, The
Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.
The seemingly abrupt shift from quiet to outspoken, is part of a
larger trend, during the #MeToo era of sexual assault and
harassment victims speaking out, according to attorneys who handle
the cases. But when the accusations involve a powerful institution
with a reputation to defend, they say, it remains a risky
approach.
"In the majority of cases that become public, I think it makes them
harder to settle in the short run because of the public perception
that the school has a mark on it, their brand took a hit," said New
York attorney Andrew Miltenberg, who specializes in defending
students in campus sexual assault cases. "Anything short of a
complete exoneration in the public eye is bad (for the school). . .
. They want a public victory to go with their public humiliation."
The plaintiffs attempted to negotiate a settlement with Dartmouth
before turning to the court system but the two sides couldn't reach
an agreement, said Steve Kelly -- skelly@sanfordheisler.com -- one
of the Sanford Heisler Sharp attorneys who is representing the
women.
In addition to $70 million in damages, the women are also asking
for a court order that Dartmouth institute policies to ensure no
future students suffer the type of harassment they reported. The
college declined to comment for this story. At the beginning of
this year, the National Women's Law Center, a nonprofit, founded
the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund. In addition to financial
assistance for primarily low-income women who want to pursue sexual
harassment cases, it also gives public relations grants.
Emily Martin, vice president for education and workplace justice at
the NWLC, said many women have taken advantage of the aid to make
their stories public. While there may be no data that proves
victims are more or less successful when publicizing their
accusations, the attention does seem to have shifted the justice
system as a whole.
"This past year of so many people being brave enough to share their
experiences -- I suspect that is shifting how judges and juries
hear stories of harassment and abuse because it makes it harder to
think of harassment as 'not that bad,'" Ms. Martin said.
Mr. Kelly has been representing sexual assault victims for more
than a decade and was an anti-sexual violence advocate for years
before that, following the rape and murder of his sister in 1988.
For many years, he believed it was paramount to maintain his
clients' anonymity in assault and harassment cases.
His feelings have evolved, due in large part to another New
Hampshire case.
In 2016, Mr. Kelly represented Chessy Prout in her civil lawsuit
against St. Paul's School. She was 15 when she accused Owen Labrie,
a classmate at the prep school, of sexually assaulting her and she
remained anonymous throughout his criminal trial. But when she
brought the civil suit against St. Paul's, the school's lawyers
sought to end that anonymity.
"St. Paul's School, in its idiocy, filed a motion to make her use
her name because she was going to turn 18 before the case went to
trial," Mr. Kelly said. "They believed they had leverage over her
and they were going to use that leverage because she didn't want to
be identified."
Instead, Ms. Prout went public, giving interviews to the "Today"
show and other national outlets and has written a book about her
experience.
In January she reached a confidential settlement with St. Paul's.
Each client must make his or her own decision, Kelly said, but
since representing Ms. Prout he counsels his clients on the
benefits of publicizing their cases.
"That's what's going to change an institution like Dartmouth --
shining a light on these actions. Because if you don't do that, you
have these bureaucrats who are hiding in offices and are fearful
and the pressure (on them) is to manage risks," he said. "We always
try to engage with people quietly, but if they don't want to engage
in those conversations you have to shine the light."
Six of the seven women suing Dartmouth have chosen to do so under
their true names, while one has filed a motion to remain anonymous.
In a recent filing, Dartmouth's lawyers said they do not oppose the
woman proceeding as Jane Doe at the current time, but they reserved
the right to object in the future.
Beyond a brief statement challenging the plaintiffs' claims about
how administrators handled harassment reports, Dartmouth has not
yet responded to the lawsuit.
As such, it's too early to tell what kind of effect the women's
public campaign will have on the outcome of the suit itself.
"In New Hampshire, you'll have some judges who will be quite
critical of that approach, who will be quite critical of a
plaintiff talking to people when they have a case," said
Eric Macleish, a Massachusetts attorney famous for his work
representing priest sex abuse victims. "I don't know whether it's
strategically good to do it" in order to reach a settlement or win
a jury trial, he said.
But the fact that the students have used the lawsuit's publicity to
steer a public conversation about sexual harassment not just at
Dartmouth, but in science classrooms and workplaces as a whole,
suggests they have loftier goals than being compensated for their
suffering, Mr. Macleish said.
"I think you have to take a look at it from a longer-term
perspective -- it's a way to educate the public," he said. "These
are also matters where you're really trying to change behavior.
You're trying to change a society to make it less tolerant of
harassment and abuse." [GN]
DEBORAH S. LESTER: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Cunningham Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEBORAH S. LESTER; NAOMI E.
JOHNSON; and JESSICA JOLLIFFE, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-03486-DKC (D. Md., Nov. 12, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John M. Bredehoft, Esq.
KAUFMAN & CANOLES
150 Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 624-3000
Facsimile: (888) 360-9092
E-mail: jmbredehoft@kaufcan.com
- and –
Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
50 Main Street, Suite 1000
White Plains, NY 10606
Telephone: (914) 358-5345
Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com
EFTHIA RESTAURANT: Underpays Busboys, Gonzalez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JESUS GARCIA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EFTHIA RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a TOM'S
RESTAURANT; and MICHAEL ZOULIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10493
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendant
unpaid overtime compensation, prejudgment interest, maximum
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed by the Defendants as busboy.
Efthia Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Tom's Restaurant is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New York. The Company is
engaged as the restaurant business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
SAMUEL & STEIN
38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
EKSO BIONICS: Court Allows Filing of Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN G. CHEEHY, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. EKSO BIONICS HOLDINGS,
INC., THOMAS LOOBY, and MAXIMILLIAN SCHEDER-BIESCHIN, Defendants,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00212-CRB (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
On Jan. 10, 2018, Cheehy commenced the action against the
Defendants. On Jan. 2, 2018, Rimon Bekhet filed an action,
captioned Bekhet v. Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00001
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
On June 15, 2018, the Court appointed James Myers as the Lead
Plaintiff on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Ekso
Bionics Holdings, Inc. securities. On Aug. 14, 2018, Myers filed
his Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint against the
Defendants.
On Oct. 15, 2018, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Lead
Plaintiff's Consolidated Amended Complaint.
The parties stipulated and agreed, and Judge Breyer granted that
Myers will forego filing an opposition to the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Lead Plaintiff's Consolidated Amended Complaint. All
parties will bear their own costs and expenses relating to the
Case, including attorneys' fees. The matter is dismissed with
prejudice as to Lead Plaintiff Myers and as to Plaintiffs Bekhet
and Cheehy.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3DScDa from Leagle.com.
Steven G. Cheehy, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice.
Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc., Thomas Looby & Maximilian
Scheder-Bieschin, Defendants, represented by Darryl Paul Rains --
drains@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Nicholas Ethan Ham --
nham@mofo.com -- Morrison Foerster LLP.
John Hessen, Ruth Hessen, Prakash Shani & Lai Ming Shani Yit,
Movants, represented by Avraham Noam Wagner --
avi@thewagnerfirm.com -- The Wagner Firm.
James Myers, Movant, represented by Jacob Alexander Goldberg --
jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice,
Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm.
P.A. & Lesley F. Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP.
ELDORADO RESORTS: Rush Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Tipped Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA RUSH, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ELDORADO RESORTS, INC., MGM ELGIN SUB,
INC., ILLINOIS RBG, LLC, and ELGIN RIVERBOAT RESORT – RIVERBOAT
CASINO d/b/a GRAND VICTORIA RIVERBOAT CASINO, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-07893 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 29, 2018), seeks to remedy
Defendants' illegal practices, whereby Defendants deliberately and
uniformly deprived Plaintiff and similarly-situated tipped
employees of earned minimum wages, overtime wages, and all tips
received in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly paid, tipped dealer for over two
decades. The Defendants paid Plaintiff and similarly situated
tipped employees sub-minimum hourly wages under the tip-credit
provisions of the FLSA and IMWL.
This action arises out of Defendants' systematic violations of the
FLSA and IMWL with regard to Plaintiff and other similarly situated
tipped employees. Specifically, Defendants violated the FLSA and
IMWL by (1) failing to pay tipped employees at the correct overtime
rate for all hours worked in excess forty hours per workweek; (2)
requiring tipped employees to participate in a mandatory,
involuntary and invalid tip pool that included non-tipped
supervisors; and (3) failing to pay tipped employees for meetings,
training classes, auditions, and other work, , the lawsuit says.
Eldorado Resorts, Inc. is a casino entertainment company based in
Reno, Nevada that owns and operates 28 properties across 12 U.S.
states.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Collective and Class:
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP.
www.stephanzouras.com
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Ste. 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312 233-1550
Facsimile: 312 233-1560
ESTERLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Rosenfeld Balks at TransDigm Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHAIM ROSENFELD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ESTERLINE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
CURTIS C. REUSSER, MICHAEL J. CAVE, MICHAEL J. COVEY, DELORES M.
ETTER, ANTHONY P. FRANCESCHINI, PAUL V. HAACK, MARY L. HOWELL,
SCOTT E. KUECHLE, and NILS E. LARSEN, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01891-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 29, 2018), is a stockholder class
action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other
public stockholders of Esterline Technologies Corporation against
Esterline and the members of Esterline's Board of Directors for
their alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On October 10, 2018, Esterline and TransDigm issued a joint press
release announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated October 9, 2018 (as amended on October 10, 2018) to
sell Esterline to TransDigm. Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, each Esterline stockholder will receive $122.50 in cash
for each share of Esterline common stock they own. The Proposed
Transaction is valued at approximately $4.0 billion, including the
assumption of debt.
On November 7, 2018, Esterline filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement
on Schedule 14A with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends
that Esterline stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) the background process leading
to the Proposed Transaction; (ii) potential conflicts of interest
faced by Company insiders' and one of the Company's financial
advisors, Evercore Group L.L.C.; and (iii) the valuation analyses
prepared by one of the Company's financial advisors, Goldman Sachs
& Co. LLC, in connection with the rendering of its fairness
opinion. The failure to adequately disclose such material
information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act as Esterline stockholders need such information in
order to make a fully informed decision whether to vote in favor of
the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal. In short, unless
remedied, Esterline's public stockholders will be forced to make a
voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction without
full disclosure of all material information concerning the Proposed
Transaction being provided to them.
Esterline is a publicly traded company that designs, manufactures,
and markets specialty products primarily for aerospace and defense
customers.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
901 N. Market St., Suite 1000
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 778-4000
E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com
- and -
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 682-3025
Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Haggar Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIA HAGGAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EUROMARKET DESIGNS, INC. d/b/a CRATE AND
BARREL; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-09557-CAS-FFM (C.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2018) alleges that the
Defendant's website, https://www.crateandbarrel.com is not fully or
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Euromarket Designs, Inc., doing business as Crate and Barrel, owns
and operates houseware and furniture stores in North America. The
company was founded in 1962 and is based in Northbrook, Illinois.
As of March 6, 1998, Euromarket Designs, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Otto (GmbH & Co KG). [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bobby Saadian, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12 th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Ridgell Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Andrea Ridgell filed an appeal from a court ruling in her
lawsuit entitled Andrea Ridgell v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-04916-PA-AFM, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.
The appellate case is captioned as Andrea Ridgell v. Frontier
Airlines, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-80170, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 15, 2018, Ms.
Ridgell sought certification of two classes of passengers defined
as:
* Nationwide Class:
All persons in the United States who have flown in one of
Defendants' aircraft that have experienced a bleed air
event. Specifically excluded from this Class are
Defendants, the officers, directors, or employees of
Defendants, any entity in which Defendants have a
controlling interest; and any affiliate, legal
representative, heir, or assign of Defendants. Also
excluded any federal, state, or local governmental entities,
any judicial officer presiding over this action and the
members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, and
any juror assigned to this action; and
* Flight 1630 Class:
All passengers in the United States who were on Frontier
Airlines Flight 1630 on June 2, 2017.
The case arises from "fume" events, which occur as the result of
the defective design and manufacture of Frontier Airline's fleet of
Airbus aircrafts. Fume events occur when the air inside the
passenger cabin of an aircraft becomes contaminated with pyrolised
compounds, such as engine oil, de-icing or hydraulic fluid. Such
events are caused by the "bleed" air system used in the Defendants'
aircrafts, which draws pre-heated compressed air from the engine
and pumps this air straight into the cabin after being cooled. The
Plaintiff alleges these causes of action on behalf of some or all
of the members of the classes: (1) strict products liability; (2)
breach of warranties; (3) negligence; (4) false imprisonment; (5)
negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiff-Petitioner ANDREA RIDGELL, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
29800 Agoura Road
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Telephone: (818) 991-8080
Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com
- and -
Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP
2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
E-mail: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
- and -
Kristi D. Rothschild, Esq.
ROTHSCHILD & ASSOCIATES, APC
27 W. Anapamu
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 845-1190
Facsimile: (805) 456-0132
E-mail: krothschild@kdrlawgroup.com
Defendant-Respondent FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., a Colorado
corporation, is represented by:
Natasha N. Mikha, Esq.
CONDON & FORSYTH LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite # 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 557-2030
E-mail: nmikha@condonlaw.com
- and -
Kevin Sutherland, Esq.
CLYDE & CO US LLP
101 Second Street, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 365-9800
E-mail: kevin.sutherland@clydeco.us
G&G METAL: Glenn Wyatt Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------
GLENN WYATT, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. G&G METAL SPINNERS, INC. and SCOTT
KAUFFMAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03767-SEB-DML (S.D.
Ind., Nov. 30, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor and Standards Act and
for violations of Indiana law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants provide services to the
manufacturing industry for the manufacture and fabrication of metal
products. The Defendants hired Wyatt during October of 2013, and
Wyatt worked most recently as a Quality Control Manager. Most
recently Wyatt earned $19.50 per hour when working as a Quality
Control Manager. Wyatt was a non-exempt employee who was entitled
to be paid time and a half for hours over forty worked in any
workweek. The Defendants regularly required Wyatt to work over
forty hours per week without paying him overtime pay. In
particular, Wyatt was scheduled to clock in at 7:00 a.m. and clock
out at 3:45 p.m. If Wyatt clocked in before 7:00 a.m., then his
start time would be rounded up to 7:00 a.m. If Wyatt clocked in at
7:00:01 a.m., then his start time would be rounded up to 7:30 a.m.
If Wyatt clocked out later than 3:45 p.m., then his clock out time
would be rounded back to 3:45 p.m., regardless if he worked
overtime hours.
The Plaintiff was not paid for the overtime hours worked because
the Defendants' time keeping system incorrectly inputted
Plaintiff’s hours into its system when it rounded his hours. On
or about June 18, 2018, Plaintiff informed Scott Kauffman, his
supervisor, that Mr. Kauffman was illegally rounding the amount of
hours he truly worked and not appropriately allocating his clock in
and clock out times to his paycheck. On or about June 28, 2018,
Defendants terminated Plaintiff's employment. On or about April 16,
2018, to the date of his termination, Defendants incorrectly
classified Plaintiff as an exempt employee when he was performing
non-exempt work, the Defendants knowingly, willfully, or with
reckless disregard carried out its illegal pattern or practice of
failing to properly pay wages and overtime compensation with
respect to Plaintiff and the Members of the Class, the lawsuit
says.
G&G Metal Spinners is a complete metal spinning manufacturer
leading the industry in heavy gauge metal.[BN]
Attorney for Plaintiff:
Ryan Sullivan, Esq.
BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC
8888 Keystone Crossing, Suite 1300
Indianapolis, IN 46240
Telephone: (317) 575-4108
Facsimile: (812) 424-1005
E-mail: rsullivan@bdlegal.com
GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Wants Property Tax Class Action Decertified
-------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Cooper, writing for The Brunswick News, reports that while
the plaintiffs' lawyer in a class action lawsuit regarding overpaid
property taxes claims to know roughly how much Glynn County owes,
county attorneys say there are "insurmountable barriers" to exact
calculations.
The first of three lawsuits claiming the county was improperly
applying the Scarlett Williams homestead exemption was filed in
2012. J. Matthew Coleman, the representative of the class action
members, said the first lawsuit was prompted by a higher than usual
tax bill from 2006.
"We started this in 2006 when I got my tax bill and it was twice as
large as I expected it to be . . . I went (to the Glynn County Tax
Commissioner's office) twice, at least three times to try to get an
understanding," Mr. Coleman said. "I went, law in hand, to show
them they were applying it wrong . . . They didn't think they were
applying it wrong. By the third conversation, there was no real
response. It was 'We've talked about it and discussed it,' and they
replied verbally, and that was all the action that could be taken
short of a lawsuit."
He didn't pursue it any further for several years, wanting to avoid
a legal battle.
"I let it go, I didn't think I wanted to go through this process. I
figured it would be long and drawn out because it has been. After
talking with a few friends who are attorneys, I decided it would be
time to start looking into it from that manner,"
Mr. Coleman said.
Two more lawsuits came in 2013 and 2014 from more residents who
claimed their exemption was applied improperly, and all three were
certified as class actions in 2015.
St. Simons Island attorney Jay Roberts represents more than 7,500
county residents included in the class. Earlier in the year, he
said the county owed somewhere around $15-17 million but has since
revised the estimate to $30-34 million and climbing as time
passes.
Senior Cobb County Superior Court Judge G. Grant Brantley ruled in
the county's favor in January, but his decision was partially
overturned by the Georgia Court of Appeals in March.
The appeals court overturned Grant's ruling that the county had
applied the exemption correctly, but affirmed that the residents
couldn't seek refunds outside of the previous three years as
stipulated in Georgia law.
The Georgia Supreme Court declined to hear the case in August,
making the appeals court's ruling final.
However, when the county began looking at how much each person
would need to be refunded, the county's lawyers claim tax office
staff found the task difficult.
"Almost immediately, it became apparent that performing class-wide
calculations of potential refunds would be impossible. Further, a
preliminary review of the county's records made clear that numerous
class members are not entitled to relief at all," the county's
attorneys write in a motion filed in Glynn County Superior Court.
Earlier in November the county filed a motion to decertify the
class. According to the motion, for each resident in the class, the
county would need to perform "individualized research and complex
calculations specific to that class member" to determine how much
to refund them.
In theory, the county's lawyers write, it should only require the
tax commissioner's office to correct the base year, recalculate
their property taxes for the years they request refunds and issue
the refund for the difference between that and what they actually
paid.
"With ten years' worth of classes, it would take five thousand
hours of work to perform this simplified calculation assuming an
average of five minutes to handle each class member's file," the
motion states, citing current Tax Commissioner Jeff Chapman.
Mr. Chapman was not tax commissioner when the lawsuit was
originally filed. He took office in January 2017.
In reality, the county would have to determine which members of the
class are actually entitled to a refund, the correct base year and
what other exemptions, if any, they had at the time.
"None of these questions can be answered without retrieving the
class member's individual file and performing labyrinth
calculations, and in some cases, they cannot be answered by
existing information at all," according to the motion.
Once a homestead exemption is granted, it's up to the resident to
alert the county if they are no longer eligible, the motion states,
and goes on to allege that many county residents don't notify the
county when they lose eligibility and are "incidentally
discovered," again citing Mr. Chapman.
According to the motion, Glynn County has seen several cases
citizens being granted a homestead exemption when they weren't
eligible.
The motion cited four instances of residents claiming an exemption
on rented properties and two in which residents held exemptions in
two counties, one going undiscovered for 12 years and another for
seven.
"Not only would the issuance of refunds to taxpayers who were not
actually entitled to the Scarlett Williams exemption be immoral and
unfair -- it would constitute an illegal gratuity," the motion
states.
It also states that other exemptions may diminish or eliminate
potential refunds, that determining the right base year is
complicated and needs to be done on a case-by-case basis.
"(Those) issues may be avoided only by the decertification of the
classes and the bringing of individual refund actions by aggrieved
taxpayers," the county's motion states. ". . . Defendant
respectfully requests that the court vacate its Jan. 7, 2015
class-certification order, deny plaintiffs' motion to amend the
class-certification order, and require the named plaintiffs to
proceed only on their own behalf."
Mr. Coleman, for his part, said the motion to decertify sounded
like the county trying to avoid paying refunds.
"It just goes against what I've heard on the radio and what I've
heard in the papers and what I've heard from my attorney. It
appears they're saying to the public they're ready to settle this
with the taxpayers but their actions don't reflect that," Coleman
said.
Decertifying the class may not bar its members from getting their
refunds, he said, but it would increase the burden on each
individual member.
"If they decertify the class, that would make it very difficult for
the class to get refunds because each member of the class would
have to go through the process with their own attorney," Mr.
Coleman said.
He doesn't plan to withdraw, however.
"I've never filed a lawsuit against a county, but I felt like I was
right as a taxpayer. I felt the bill was very clear as it was read
and it would be hard to misinterpret. But going up against the
county in the court system, we didn't have any expectations," Mr.
Coleman said. [GN]
GREENSKY INC: Faces Langere Suit over 60% Drop in Shares
--------------------------------------------------------
DAMIAN LANGERE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREENSKY, INC.; DAVID ZALIK; ROBERT PARTLOW;
JOEL BABBIT; GERALD BENJAMIN; JOHN FLYNN; GREGG FREISHTAT; NIGEL
MORRIS; ROBERT SHEFT; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; and DOES 1-25, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 655626/2018 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Nov.
12, 2018) is an action on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased Greensky Class A common stock to the May 25, 2018 initial
public offering, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Act of 1933.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Registration
Statement of the Defendants was negligently prepared, and as a
result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted
material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein,
and failed to make adequate disclosures required under the rules
and regulations governing the preparation of such documents.
Specifically, the Registration failed to disclose that the Company
had substantially changed its merchant business mix such that its
transaction fee percentage had been substantially diminished as of
the time of the IPO and that the Company would not only continue
this business mix shift but was in the process of accelerating it.
By November 6, 2018, the price of Greensky Class A shares had
fallen to $9.28 per share, 60% below the price at which $1 billion
worth of Greensky Class A shares had been sold to investors in the
IPO less than six months previously.
GreenSky, Inc., a technology company, provides point-of-sale
financing and payment solutions to merchants, consumers, and banks.
It offers a proprietary technology infrastructure that support the
full transaction lifecycle, including credit application,
underwriting, real-time allocation to bank partners, document
distribution, funding, settlement, and servicing functions. The
company was incorporated in 2017 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
- and -
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 674-4674
Facsimile: (312) 674-4676
- and -
W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 802-1486
Facsimile: (212) 602-1592
GROUPON INC: Suit Over Use of Instagram Photos Remain in Dist. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald A. Guzman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiff's
motion to remand the case, Christine Dancel, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Groupon, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18 C 2027 (N.D. Ill.).
Currently under consideration is the Plaintiff's motion to remand
on the ground that Groupon's removal was untimely. The
class-action complaint was originally filed in state court on Feb.
5, 2016, seeking relief on behalf of Illinois residents whose
Instagram images were used by Groupon without their consent.
On March 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an amended motion for class
certification, seeking to certify two classes: the Instagram Class,
comprising all persons who maintained an Instagram account and
whose photograph was used by Groupon for an Illinois business; and
the Personal Photo Subclass, comprising members of the Instagram
Class whose likeness appeared in any photograph acquired and used
by Instagram.
Within 30 days of the amended motion for class certification being
filed, Groupon removed the action pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA") and 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3). According
to Groupon, because the amended motion for class certification
eliminated the original class limitation to "Illinois residents,"
thus opening the class to individuals domiciled outside of
Illinois, the filing of that motion was when it first ascertained
that the requirement of minimal diversity necessary under CAFA was
met.
For her part, the Plaintiff contends that the original 2016
state-court complaint was removable despite the fact that the
alleged class was limited to Illinois residents. In particular,
she asserts that her proposed original class was limited to
Illinois residents, not Illinois citizens, and because diversity is
based on citizenship, not residency, Groupon could have removed the
case upon her initial filing in state court. In other words,
Groupon's apparent presumption that Illinois residents are
necessarily domiciled in (i.e., citizens of) Illinois was misplaced
and, according to the Plaintiff, Groupon should have removed the
case earlier.
Judge Guzman finds that the Plaintiff's position unpersuasive. He
says the 30-day removal clock is triggered by the Defendant's
receipt of a pleading or other paper that affirmatively and
unambiguously reveals that the case is or has become removable. As
noted, the Plaintiff's original class definition was limited to
Illinois residents. While it is possible that the putative class
members could have included individuals who were residents, but not
citizens, of Illinois, thus allowing for the possibility that
minimal diversity existed, the Plaintiff's class definition as
originally stated did not affirmatively and unambiguously establish
that fact.
The Plaintiff contends that statements she made in 2017 regarding
her intent to seek to certify a broader class put Groupon on notice
that her class might include some non-Illinois and non-Delaware
citizens, thus triggering the 30-day removal deadline. The Judge
disagrees. He finds that Groupon had no basis to know whether the
Plaintiff would, in fact, move to certify a broader class. The
removal statute's reference to "other papers" does not require
Groupon to speculate as to whether the Plaintiff would indeed
follow through on her assertions of enlarging the class in the
future. If anything, the Plaintiff's references to broadening the
class could have just as easily reinforced Groupon's understanding
that the class as originally defined did not include non-Illinois
or non-Delaware citizens.
For these reasons, Judge Guzman denied the Plaintiff's motion to
remand the case on the ground that the removal was untimely, as
well as her request for attorney's fees related to the removal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/Rp1vsS from Leagle.com.
Christine Dancel, Plaintiff, represented by Rafey S. Balabanian --
rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Ari Jonathan Scharg --
ascharg@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., Benjamin Harris Richman,
Edelson PC, Benjamin Scott Thomassen, Edelson P.C. & Jay Edelson --
jedelson@edelson.com -- Edelson PC.
Groupon, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Brian E. Cohen -- BCohen@novackmacey.com -- Novack and Macey LLP,
Christopher S. Moore -- cmoore@novackmacey.com -- Novack and Macey,
LLP & Eric Neal Macey -- emacey@novackmacey.com -- Novack and
Macey, LLP.
HEADCLICKS INC: Faces Class Action Over Himalayan Salt Lamps
------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Dorn, writing for New York Post, reports that Himalayan salt
lamps designed to purify air and improve sleep quality are a scam,
a Manhattan man claims in a new class-action lawsuit filed against
a company that makes the trendy lights.
Daniel Okoe paid $25 on Amazon for his set of two Amethya brand
lamps, according to the advertisement cited in Manhattan federal
court papers.
The maker of the lamps is a Connecticut-based company called
Headclicks Inc.
Mr. Okoe wants Headclicks Inc., to stop its "deceptive"
advertising. The company did not respond to messages. [GN]
HEALTH ACQUISTION: Faces Bazoe Suit in Kings County, New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Health Acquisition
Corp. The case is captioned as MARRIAFF BAZOE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH
ACQUISTION CORP., Defendant, Case No. 523061/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Kings
County, Nov. 12, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Francois
A. Rivera.
Health Acquisition Corporation., doing business as Allen Health
Care Services, provides home health care services. The Company
offers services which includes diabetes, dementia, hospice and
pediatric care, and live-in care services. Allen Health Care
Services serves patients in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by Virgina & Ambinder.
The Defendant is represented by:
LITTLER MENDELSON
290 Broadhollow Rd.
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 247-4701
HERTZ CORP: Hirsi Labor Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HASSAN HIRSI, an individual, Plaintiff, v. THE HERTZ
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, HERTZ TRANSPORTING, INC., a
Delaware corporation, FIREFLY RENT A CAR LLC, a Delaware company
and DTG OPERATIONS, INC., an Oklahoma corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00333 RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Settlement.
The Court on July 27, 2018 granted the parties' Stipulated Motion
for Certification of Settlement Class and Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement.
The Settlement Class previously conditionally certified by the
Court consists of all employees of The Hertz Corp., Hertz
Transporting, Inc., Firefly Rent A-Car, LLC, and DTG Operations,
Inc. who: (a) at any time during the period from Jan. 1, 2014, to
Oct. 31, 2015, reported to (i.e., clocked in and clocked out at) a
worksite within the City of SeaTac; (b) can be ascertained from
Hertz's records as having had a base hourly wage rate at any time
during this same period that was less than the minimum hourly wage
prescribed by the City of SeaTac's Ordinance Setting Minimum
Employment Standards for Hospitality and Transportation Industry
Employers, City of SeaTac Municipal Code Chapter 7.45; and (c)
prior to March 1, 2018, did not file a wage complaint against Hertz
with L&I pursuant to the 2006 Wage Payment Act, RCW 49.48.082-.087,
asserting a claim of underpayment of wages during the same period
premised upon an alleged violation of the Ordinance (provided,
however, that any person who filed, but timely withdrew, such an
L&I Wage Claim prior to March 1, 2018, is included in the Putative
Class).
Jugde Lasnik approved the Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable,
and adequate to the Settlement Class Members. He dismissed the
action and any and all settled claims with prejudice as to the
Plaintiff and all the Settlement Class Members, and without costs
or attorneys' fees to any Party except as provided under the terms
of the Settlement Agreement, the Final Judgment, and the Court's
Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and
Incentive Awards.
The Judge directed the Parties to proceed with the settlement
payment procedures specified under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, including without limitation those contained in Section
V of the Settlement Agreement.
He approved the proposed class action settlement. He ordered
Hertz, consistent and in accordance with the terms of the Parties'
Conditional Settlement Agreement, to: (a) fund the settlement, (b)
provide for the distribution of the Settlement Funds by the
Settlement Administrator, and (c) authorize the distribution of the
attorney's fees and incentive awards by the Settlement
Administrator, as provided in the Order Granting Motion for
Attorney's Fees and Incentive Awards of even date.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/5hmxv9 from Leagle.com.
Hassan Hirsi, an individual, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R.
Whitmore -- amber@whitmorelawfirm.com -- & Duncan Calvert Turner --
dturner@badgleymullins.com -- BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.
The Hertz Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Hertz Transporting,
Inc, a Delaware corporation, Firefly Rent A Car LLC, a Delaware
company & DTG Operations, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation,
Defendants, represented by Daniel P. Hurley --
daniel.hurley@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP, Mark Stephen Filipini
-- mark.filipini@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP & Patrick M. Madden
-- patrick.madden@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP.
HORTONWORKS INC: Sherry Balks at Merger Deal with Cloudera, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA SHERRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HORTONWORKS, INC., ROB BEARDEN, PAUL
CORMIER, PETER FENTON, MARTIN FINK, KEVIN KLAUSMEYER, JAY ROSSITER,
and MIKE VOLPI, the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-11036 (S.D.N.Y., Nov.
27, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding stockholder vote
on a proposed transaction and taking any steps to consummate the
proposed transaction unless and until material information is
disclosed to Hortonworks stockholders, or, in the event the
proposed transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting
from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.
According to the complaint, the case is a class action brought by
Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the other stockholders of
Hortonworks, Inc., except Defendants and their affiliates, against
Hortonworks and the members of Hortonworks' board of trustees for
their violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9, in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Hortonworks by Cloudera, Inc. On October 3, 2018, by
and among Hortonworks, Cloudera, and Surf Merger Corporation, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Cloudera, entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger and Reorganization pursuant to which Merger Sub will
merge with and into the Company and, as a result, the Company will
become a wholly owned subsidiary of Cloudera. Pursuant to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, each share of Hortonworks, other than
shares of Hortonworks common stock owned by Cloudera, Merger Sub,
or the Company, or by any direct or indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of Cloudera, Merger Sub, or the Company, will be
converted into the right to receive 1.305 shares.
On November 16, 2018, the Board authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4/A Amended
Registration Statement with the SEC, in violation of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. While Defendants are touting the
fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's stockholders
in the Proxy, they have failed to disclose material information
that is necessary for stockholders to properly assess the fairness
of the Proposed Transaction, thereby rendering certain statements
in the Proxy incomplete and misleading. Specifically, the Proxy
contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning the valuation analyses performed by the Company's
financial advisor, Qatalyst Partners LP to, in support of its
fairness opinion. It is imperative that the material information
omitted from the Proxy is disclosed to the Company's stockholders
prior to the forthcoming stockholder vote so that they can properly
exercise their corporate suffrage rights, the lawsuit says.
Hortonworks is a data software company based in Santa Clara,
California that develops, supports, and provides expertise on a set
of open-source software designed to manage data and processing for
things such as IOT, single view of X, and advanced analytics and
machine learning.[BN]
Counsel 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
ILLINOIS: Faces Class Action Over Solitary Confinement
------------------------------------------------------
Edith Brady-Lunny, writing for Pantagraph, reports that the
correspondence is a window into the depths of solitary confinement
in Illinois prisons.
Few days pass without letters being delivered to U.S. District
Court Judge Michael Mihm in Peoria from one or more of the 1,105
inmates held in segregation. Most of the mail deals with Judge
Mihm's 2016 order directing the Illinois Department of Corrections
(IDOC) to complete a major overhaul of mental health care for more
than 12,000 inmates on the agency's mental health caseload.
During court proceedings in the lawsuit filed in 2007, Judge Mihm
indicated he reads every letter he receives. After reading them,
many covering multiple, handwritten pages, Judge Mihm makes a
docket entry addressing the inmate's concerns.
The bulk of more than 70 letters sent to Judge Mihm the past two
months come from inmates at Pontiac's maximum-security prison that
operates the largest segregation unit in the state prison system.
The letters contain widespread allegations of abuse by correctional
officers and failures by IDOC to meet the standards for mental
health care outlined in a May 2016 agreement in the federal
lawsuit.
In a recent letter, Pontiac inmate Gerald Jones accuses staff of
knowingly placing mentally ill inmates into an exercise yard with
violent gang members. The practice that has resulted in injuries to
mentally ill prisoners started in September after Judge Mihm issued
a preliminary injunction forcing IDOC to comply with the court
order that included increased time outside segregation, according
to the letter.
Mr. Jones, who is serving a life sentence for murder, also alleges
that certain officers have been overheard talking about the
potential fights and making statements about how they are "looking
forward to seeing these fights and who wins." Bets are sometimes
placed by staff on which inmates will be willing to come into the
yard for what could be a dangerous encounter,
Mr. Jones states in his letter.
Mr. Jones' complaint, like many others received by Mihm, was
referred to Dr. Pablo Stewart, the court-appointed monitor for the
federal lawsuit. The doctor adds the inmate concerns to his list of
issues to be addressed during prison visits.
The team of attorneys for inmates also follows up on the letters,
said Alan Mills, executive director of Uptown People's Law Center,
one of the legal firms representing mentally ill prisoners.
"In general, the complaints are valid. The class action is not
designed to solve these individual issues. Rather, the hope is that
by fixing the systemic problems, we will eliminate most of these
individual issues," said Mr. Mills.
In cases where inmates may face an immediate danger, IDOC has
responded after the issue was brought to its attention by counsel
for inmates, said Mills.
Information in the letters also is used to support petitions from
lawyers for inmates asking that the terms of the settlement
agreement be enforced. Several inmates have testified about their
experiences at hearings in federal court.
Judge Mihm referred at least two letters he received in October to
Pontiac Warden Teri Kennedy for investigation. Both letters dealt
with alleged retaliation by staff of inmates who complained about
their mental health treatment.
A recent letter alleging sexual harassment during unsupervised
strip searches of an inmate also was referred to the warden.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local
494, the union that represents correctional officers at Pontiac,
could not be reached for comment on the allegations.
IDOC spokesperson Lindsey Hess said, "When a complaint is received
by a warden, it is reviewed and appropriate action is taken. Each
case is handled on an individual basis."
Judge Mihm referred an Oct. 2 letter to Menard Correctional Center
Warden Jacqueline Lashbrook.
In his six-page letter, Menard inmate Anthony S. White detailed
five suicide attempts he made between Aug. 31 and Sept. 10. Cuts
that required hospital trips for stitches and drug overdoses were
among the methods used by White in his attempts to die while on
crisis watch, according to the letter.
Mr. White, who is serving 30 years for attacking a guard and
attempting to escape from the Pontiac prison after he took a
guard's uniform, tried to hang himself Sept. 7 with a strip of
cloth removed from a jumpsuit.
"I cut three gashes in my left forearm, overdosed on 31 pills and
tied a ripped jumpsuit leg around my neck," stated Mr. White's
letter.
In its Nov. 13 proposal to address the permanent injunction, IDOC
asked the judge to adopt its previous order without any new
requirements or deadlines. Added mandates could interfere with
prison operations and go beyond the actions needed to achieve a
constitutional level of care, the state argued.
In their proposal for inmates held on crisis watch and segregation,
IDOC recommends inmates be offered a narrow range of care "to the
extent feasible allowing for appropriate operational discretion and
flexibility."
Lawyers for inmates are asking Judge Mihm to impose specific
deadlines for compliance with the court order. Limits would be
placed on the time mentally ill prisoners can be held in solitary
confinement without follow-up care. The state would have a year to
hire sufficient mental health staff.
A plan that spells out how the state will implement a plan should
be submitted within 45 days of the judge's final order, according
to the inmates' filing. [GN]
INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Required to Document Mold Before Remediation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lilly St. Angelo, writing for Indiana Daily Student, reports that a
federal judge granted a temporary restraining order on destruction
of evidence on Nov. 21 in the class action lawsuit against the
Trustees of IU regarding residence hall mold problems.
The temporary restraining order will require the University to
document mold through photographs or videos before removing the
mold through remediation processes.
The court also stated that the University and the plaintiffs,
students from Foster and McNutt Quads, are to communicate on how
the plaintiff's "supplied expert" can take samples of the mold
before remediation takes place. This was in response to the
plaintiff's claim that they had proposed to pay for a third-party
expert to take tape lifts and photographs of the mold before
remediation and the University had not accepted their proposals.
"Mold is evidence and it is being destroyed when rooms are
remediated," said Jon Noyes, one of two attorneys representing the
plaintiffs, in the hearing. "We can't test mold if it's already
cleaned up so we can't know what type of mold students are being
exposed to."
The party who initiated legal action includes seven named students,
and because of its class-action nature, an undetermined number of
other students are also involved.
Although students are the official plaintiffs, parents have been a
driving force in mold complaints.
The hearing was to determine if the plaintiff's request for a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction would be
necessary. The plaintiff requested the restraining order to stop
the University from making misleading or inaccurate statements to
students and to stop it from destroying evidence of mold before
preserving evidence of it.
The first request, which would have limited the University's
communications with students and parents because of plaintiff's
claim of IU producing misleading or inaccurate statements, was
denied. The court said there was not enough evidence to imply the
University has been misleading students, lying to them or coercing
them.
During the hearing, attorneys representing the students and parents
argued that IU has only been using air samples of mold spores to
determine if students can safely move back into rooms or remain in
rooms. Attorneys representing IU were able to prove this statement
wrong.
According to the court documents, the University has consistently
and repeatedly said that air sample scores are not the only
indicator used to determine if rooms are safe to inhabit and that
scores do not imply that the room is free from mold. The court said
the University's website has also provided accurate, appropriate
information to update students and parents throughout the
remediation process.
"We've attempted to address all the questions that students might
have," said Tom Barnard, one of the attorneys representing IU, in
the hearing.
The court's decision to grant the temporary restraining order on
the destruction of evidence was made on the basis that obtaining
evidence of mold is essential to the lawsuit as it will give the
plaintiff a fair opportunity to examine the truth of their claims
and prove the claims in further hearings.
The temporary restraining order will remain in effect until Dec. 5
or until a ruling on the plaintiff's request for a preliminary
injunction. The date for a hearing on the preliminary injunction,
which will result in a more permanent ruling on the plaintiff's
claims in the temporary restraining order request, has not yet been
set. [GN]
INTEGRATED DEVICE: Merger Docs Omit Important Info, Rosenblatt Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Rosenblatt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Integrated Device Technology, Inc., Gregory
L. Waters, Ken Kannappan, Umesh Padval, Gordon W. Parnell, Robert
A. Rango, Norm Taffe and Selena Loh Lacroix, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-01860, (D. Del., November 26, 2018), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of
Integrated Device Technology, Inc. by Renesas Electronics
Corporation, rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the
merger. The lawsuit also seeks rescissory damages, costs of this
action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys'
and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Integrated Device Technology's stockholders will receive $49.00 in
cash for each share.
According to the complaint, the merger documents omitted material
information, as well as the valuation analyses performed by J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC. Said disclosure of projected financial
information is material because it provides stockholders with a
basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and
allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses in
support of its fairness opinion.
Integrated Device Technology develops RF, high performance timing,
memory interface, real-time interconnect, optical interconnect,
wireless power and smart sensors for the communications, computing,
consumer, automotive and industrial segments. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
Wilmington, DE 19803
Tel: (302) 295-531
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
Berwyn, PA 19312
Tel: (484) 324-6800
Email: rm@maniskas.com
JOHN CHRISTNER: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Huddleston Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS HUDDLESTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHN CHRISTNER TRUCKING,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-549-GKF-FHM (N.D. Okla.), Judge
Gregory K. Frizzell of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
Huddleston, commenced the lawsuit against JCT in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California. According to the
allegations in Huddleston's complaint, JCT is a trucking company
that hauls products throughout the contiguous United States.
Huddleston alleges that JCT misclassified him and other truck
drivers as independent contractors when they were in fact employees
of JCT and therefore entitled to the protections of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the California Labor Code.
The complaint asserts 19 causes of action: (1) failure to pay wages
and minimum wage in violation of the FLSA; (2) failure to pay
minimum wage in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 200, 1182.11,
1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198; (3) failure to pay for all
hours worked in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 201, 202, 204,
and 221-23; (4) failure to authorize and permit and/or make
available meal and rest periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code
Sections 203, 223, 226.7, 512, and 1198; (5) failure to reimburse
for necessary business expenditures in violation of Cal. Lab. Code
Section 2802; (6) failure to maintain proper payroll records in
violation of Cal. Lab. Cde Section 1174; (7) failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code
Section 226; (8) coerced purchases in violation of Cal. Lab. Code
Section 450; (9) willful misclassification in violation of Cal.
Lab. Code Section 226.8; (10) waiting time penalties pursuant to
Cal. Lab. Code Sections 201-03; (11) unlawful business practices in
violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq.; (12)
unlawful sale of business opportunities in violation of 71 O.S.
Sections 806, 808, 819, 824; (13) deceptive and unfair trade
practices in violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, 15
O.S. Sections 752, et seq.; (14) deceptive trade practices in
violation of the Oklahoma Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA");
(15) constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation; (16)
unjust enrichment; (17) additional unlawful business practices in
violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq.; (18)
statutory penalties pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code Section 2699(a); and
(19) statutory penalties pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code Section
2699(f). Huddleston seeks to maintain his FLSA claim as a
collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and his
California state law claims as a class action pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
After JCT moved to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction
and improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to
the Northern District of Oklahoma, the court in the Eastern
District of California transferred the case to the district.
Thereafter, JCT filed the instant motion for judgment on the
pleadings. Huddleston filed a response opposing the motion, and
JCT filed a reply. Huddleston recently filed a notice of
supplemental authority, and JCT filed a response.
Judge Frizzell granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. He granted the motion with
respect to the Plaintiff's eighth, ninth, 14th, and 16th causes of
action. He otherwise denied the motion.
The Judge finds that Huddleston concedes that there is no private
right of action under the DTPA and that judgment is appropriate on
his unjust enrichment claim. Therefore, JCT is entitled to
judgment on the pleadings with respect to Huddleston's 14th and
16th causes of action.
He also finds that because there is no private right of action
under sections 226.8 and 450, JCT is entitled to judgment on the
pleadings with respect to Huddleston's eighth and ninth causes of
action. The ruling does not affect Huddleston's ability to assert
UCL and PAGA claims based on alleged violations of sections 226.8
and 450.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2L83tJX from Leagle.com.
Thomas Huddleston, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, John Henshaw & Clinton Selby, Plaintiffs,
represented by Carolyn H. Cottrell --
ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP, David Christopher Leimbach --
dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Michael J. Blaschke, Michael J Blaschke PC,
Michelle S. Lim Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP,
Mira P. Karageorge -- mkarageorge@gmail.com -- Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Rachel Lawrence Mor & Robert S.
Boulter -- rsb@boulter-law.com -- Law Offices of Robert S Boulter.
Robert Lewis, Roy Bittner, Salvador Ponce, Sergio M Cuevas Soto,
John Bright, David Podoll, Kenneth Snyder, Earl Sampson, Ronald
Dorman, Jeremy Musser, Brando Brewer, John Vanaken, Jami Boundinot,
Anthony Boccardi, Daniel Snyder, Anthony Turner, Kenneth Kimbley,
Shrandell Curry, Gary Lenihan, Helsie Vatthauer, Luther Starling,
Sean Price, Matthew Barrette, June Shastid, Roy Martin, Terry
Bailey, Eileen Fisher, Adrian Smith, Curtis Wiggins, Rodney Elwell,
Robert Martin, Raymond Borja, Tom Spafford, Curtis Anderson, Judith
Pratt, Bryan Wallace, Joel Lance Holbrook, Bradely Boardman, Robert
James, Edward St Jude, Timothy Schaefer, Todd Harroun, Marcus
Gillespie, Sidney Allen, Anthony Tennant, Denise Allen, Neiko
Gates, Don Voetberg, Maurice Brown, Charles Thomas, Erik Galloway,
Phillip McWhorther, Germaine Williams, Steven Hines, Shawntale
Strange, Joseph Rodriguez, Christian Clarke, Steven Walker, Anthony
Conners, Wade Israel, Ramon Fontes, Ladell Richmond, Troyan
Bedford, John McManess, Demetrius McQueen, Warren Ward, Toney
Bynum, Juan Perez-Garcia, Kamau Michael, Robert Thompson, Jaquon
Dick, Kendall Corner, Jason Cree, Tiffany Havens-Guthrie, Shonee
Jackson, Darvin Scott, Dennis Borrow, Cameron McDowell, Deaustin
Nixon, Davey Davis, Virgil Jones, Juan Vidito, George Brannon,
Franklin Breeden, Andrew Hampton, Terrance Washington, James
Murphy, Wilbur Brown, Edward Judson, Cleaven Hunter, Joseph
Heidelberg, Jacqueline Williams, Leroy Rushing, Adam Baker, James
Bourland, Virgil Moran, Henry Cherry, Robert Becker, Bobby
Borkowski, Terry Hiatt, Martavius Smith, Rene Vega, Deniss Veyette,
Jennifer Lynn, Matthew Proffer, Robert Williams, Clifton Hammock,
Caleb Lavi, Terrance Webb, Gregory Robinson, Antwon Smith, Curtis
Matthew, Joshua Malone, Randy Clark, Sandra Booker, Thomas Caffrey,
Nathan Harvey, Joshua Corse, Aaron Covington, Brandon Logan,
Douglas Meyer, Kelvin Harris, Jason LeJeune, William Dawdy, Earl
Turner, Lowell Fenton, Cheryl Chub, Clyde Williams, Earl Johns,
Peter Brown, Robert Garcia, Robert Quintin, Duane McConnell,
Raymond Alcala, Heather George, Dan Crombie, Jacob Nielger, Leon
Fells, John Cook, Roland C Chandler, Robert Grisby, Sean Underwood,
William Bittner, Enrico Paolo Javier, Thomas Bohne, III, Mariah
Jenkins, Jerry Thomas, Keith Mansfield, Margaret Shick, Mushtag
Zokari, Ryan Cooper, Darren Collins, Ellen Cannon, Michael Crowder,
John Baker, David Mattingly, Ronald Conway, Shona Harless, Vernie
Clifford Hudson, Jr, Amie Moegelin, Ron Cooper, Ronald Almy, Jr,
Charles Goldman, Homer Barrett, Mark Soukup, Irmantas Petravicius,
Anthony Barton, James Daniels, Jessie Chesteen, Robert Roberts,
Jamie Salisbury, Victor Francois, Eric Nation, Paul Carroll, David
Piearcy, Gene Aldridge, Wesley Wells, Ritchie King, Phillip Hester,
Norman Vann, Jason Gato, William Walters, Suzanna Maria Canchola,
Matthew Beck, William Brunelle, Lawrence McKinney, Patrick Ceiga,
Angela Williams, Richard Owens, George Cross, Robert Lake, Ronald
Catoe, Ronald Stevens, Dax James, Kenzie Townsend, Shannon Carson,
Larry Stapp, Cameron Carignan, Maurice Morehead, James D Ellis,
John Williams, Terrance Hardy, John D Graves, Jr, David Hairston,
Dante R Goins, Sr, George Nelson Miller, Dennis Vanmeter, David H
Waldron, Christopher Dover, Adrain Smith, Corrye Andrews, Luther N
Hines, Mark Simpkins, Ruben Smith, William Hull, Melissa Hamilton,
James Jackson, John Keith Thompson, Sr, Jonathan Lee, Eric S Peach,
Erick Reid, Christopher Jordan, Charles V Rodgers, Joe E Hill,
Garry G Pace, Robert A Wilkowski, Michael Fields, Juan Gomez-Rosa,
Andy Jesinger, Clinton Bready, Stanley Brown, Joseph Sherman, John
Leija, Jeff Ford, Jason Jenkins, Charles Schreckenbach, Anthony
Matuzak, Randal Light, Richard A Cox, John C Holder, Wayne McCann,
Willie Bell, Vernon Hawthorne, Al Rasheed Baskerville, Galen D
Cronin, David Morton, Steven Mason, Daniel Bayless, Taurean
Morsell, Gary Garrett, Debbie Cherry, Harry Aldridge, Marcus
Barkley, Earl Eugene Boen, Jr, Allen F Brush, Jr, Richard Budin,
LeBarron Coates, Bryna Content-Watkins, Richard Cook, John Damron,
Kelly Davis, David E Dennis, Abelardo Durazo, Jr, Jonathan
Endicott, Darren Farr, Ivan Fletcher, II, Victor Foreman, James
Franklin, Ricky E Franklin, Ivan French, Damon C Gaudet, Arman
Ghevondyan, DeAunte Hale, Mitchell Hall, Kyle Holder, Vincent
Howard, Jonathan R Jenkins, Dale Johnson, Tony Carlos Kimble,
Mickey Landrum, Curtis L Lewis, Jason W MacDonald, Clarence Nathan,
Gavin O'Connor-Keene, Michael C Paugh, John Pettigrew, Ramiro
Ramirez, Deon Redd, Cynthia Redding, Anthony Rice, Willie J Rogers,
Jr, Bobby Sloan, Ira Smith, Frank A Smith, Eddie Smith, III,
Richard Steen, Andre Story, Garrett K Taft, Catherine Tijerina,
David Tucker, Brian Wagner, Ryan Whitehead, Marcial Zambrano, Alice
Byrd, Robert Moore, Joseph Steele, Michael K Akins & Anthony
Edwards, Plaintiffs, represented by David Christopher Leimbach,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP.
Douglas D Burnett, II, Plaintiff, represented by Carolyn H.
Cottrell, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, David
Christopher Leimbach, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns
LLP, Michael J. Blaschke, Michael J Blaschke PC, Michelle S. Lim ,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Mira P. Karageorge,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP & Rachel Lawrence
Mor .
Edgard Alarcon, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Bobby Leon Latham, Jr
, Latham Wagner Steele Lehman, David Christopher Leimbach,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP & Rachel Lawrence
Mor .
All Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Blaschke,
Michael J Blaschke PC & Ori Edelstein, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP.
Frederick A Altherr, James H Cofield, Jr, Sherman Higgs, Laura
Lemon, Elliott Mergler, Alvis Mitchell, Jr, David Parrack,
Christopher Pelletier, Stephen Qualls, Joe N Spearman, Randall A
Tarwater, Arash Tehranchi, Scott Wollbrink, Patrick Burke, II,
Lance Calvert, Roger Clements, Morris F Culp, Jr, Jackie P
Davidson, Darren A Davis, Ross R Dicks, Jr, Reginal Douglas,
Richard Estridge, Jeremiah T Ferguson, Clifton Foster, Marcelino R
Garza, Daniel Lee Gowen, Randy Griffith, Marnell Guevara Santiago,
Anthony Johnson, Christopher Johnson, Kevin W Johnson, Vanetta
Johnson, Willis L Johnson, Sr, Brian Kelly, Michael Lake, Darrell
Lawler, Alton Lemley, Jr, Christopher A Little, Robert Maclean,
Timothy Wayne Martin, Thomas JS Maserang, Chairyl Rene Meadows,
Martha Moseley, Kazem Mousavi, Walid Omar, Jorge Ortiz, Sonya
Owens, Charles D Polk, Nancy A Ransom, Ricky Reed, James Robinson,
Jr, Julian Russell, John Simon, Jamaal Simpson, Willis James
Stephens, Curt Stevens, Sr, Daniel Tesla, Jason Torres Burgos,
Craig R Trotter, Clint Welch, Soven M Wiley, Leslie D Williams,
Bernadette Williams Brown, Aaron Collier, Jimmy L Copeland, Barbara
Crabtree, Anthony De La Fuente, Joshua Ewing, Stacey Garcia, Louis
Gentry, Cassius Gibson, Fred Kelly, Brian H Long, Elton Longstreet,
Christopher Marocco, Francisco Marquez, Keiftro Mickle, Stefen
Oakes, Jamie Wayne Persons, Georgina Ray, Michael Lee Taylor,
Tristin Vigil, Randy White, Eric Beavers, Daniel De La Garza, Joe W
Deason, Steven Denman, Brandon K Dunagan, Raymond Glaze, Andrew
Greene, Davonn Hawkins, David E Henderson, Bradley Johnson, Donald
R Law, Jr, Quentin Lee Mays, Robert Pressey, Garry D Reagan, Scott
A Tullock, Lloyd A Walker, Charles Wilson, Ervin Winn, Adam
Zimmerman, Kevin Behlmer, Timothy Bennett, David Grissler, Jeremy
Hill, Jose Porto Iglesias, Kenneth R Royal, Bud A Tackett, Arnold W
Wilson, Tony Dawkins, Donna Clark, Robert J Alexander, Charles
Bellamy, Jose Angel Cintron, Paul R Cooper, Michael Cotter, Devin
Cottrell, Kelvin Davis, Dacota Dossett, Richard Erdman, Ernest E
Haefner, Katie Harlow, Michael Hemingway, Michael T Holder,
Christopher Hood, Fernando Johnson, Darryl Jordan, Joseph
Lasenberry, Dylan McKinstry, William V Morris, David Newhouse,
Reggie Rawls, Christopher W Robertson, Christopher Rush, Randolph
Scott, Stacy Lee Shepherd, Willie Simmons, Christopher Staton,
Rashed F Strong, James Teigland, Samuel Thorton, John Bennett, Luis
Bigay, Patti Hodge, Lori LaRosa, David Lane, Shawn Seigler, Nancy
Amesbury, Dennis Ducre, Jason Hopkins, Noel Zaragoza, Tyson Lee
Earley, Roger Allen Epstein, Robert Evans, Terry Felice, Shawn
Franks, Steven Harlow, Robert M Herron, Sheila Knight, John
Madison, Anthony Perry, Scott C Rutherford, Maurice Saddler, Aaron
Thornton, James Tull, Steven Byrd, Larry Mumphrey Jr, Joe Salcido,
Shawn P Camp, Branden Green, Robert Murphy, Dennis Scott, Charles
Curry Whisenhunt, Richard Allen Robinson, III, Robert Atkinson,
Eugene Barnett, John Canon, Keith Carter, Jose Luis Cintron,
Richard Coleman, Richard Dilling, Sharon Sue Elkins, Thomas Ray
Hergenreder, Charles M Jones, Jr, Dawn Kelley, Ronald Singleton,
John Solliday, David Strange, Sandra Sullivan, Albert Wall,
Reginald Williams, Joshua Clark, Jimmy Finley, Jr, Pamela Lott,
Fred Maxwell, Yuri Di Biaggio, Arthur T Thomas, William E Williams,
Michael Earl Bailey, Marcus Johnson, Donald B Custer, Stephanie
Evans, John Keller, Cohlonee S Bacon, Robert F Sartori, Kenneth
Steele & David Thompson, Plaintiffs, represented by Michelle S. Lim
-- mlim@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP.
John Christner Trucking, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alaina
Catherine Hawley -- AHAWLEY@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin
Light Hanson & Feary, PC, Angela S. Cash , Scopelitis Garvin Light
Hanson & Feary, PC, Bobby Leon Latham, Jr. , Latham Wagner Steele
Lehman, Cheryl Anne Jackson , Latham Wagner Steele Lehman,
Christopher J. Eckhart , Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary, PC
& Megan E. Ross -- MROSS@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light
Hanson & Feary.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hernandez Sues Over False Tylenol Product Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-02422
(C.D. Calif., November 15, 2018), is brought against the Defendant
for violations of California False Advertising Law, Unfair
Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
The Plaintiff alleged that since 2005, the Defendant Johnson &
Johnson has misled and continues to mislead consumers about the
nature, quality, and effectiveness of its so-called rapid release
Tylenol products through its marketing and labeling. J&J explicitly
promises faster relief than before and goes to great lengths to
convince consumers that Tylenol rapid release gelcaps work faster
than other acetaminophen products.
The Plaintiff Eduardo Hernandez is a citizen and resident of Moreno
Valley, Riverside County, California.
The Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. is an Indiana foreign
corporation that maintains its principal place of business at 199
Grandview Road, Skillman, Somerset County, New Jersey 08558. The
relevant division of Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. is McNeil
Consumer Healthcare Division which is located at 7050 Camp Hill
Road, Fort Washington, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania 19034. The
Defendant produces, manufactures, markets, and distributes
over-the-counter products to families, children, and other
consumers worldwide, including analgesic or pain-relieving
medicines under the Tylenol brand name. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Crystal Foley, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
100 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1350
El Segundo, CA 90245
Tel: (310) 322-3555
Fax: (310) 322-3655
E-mail: cfoley@simmonsfirm.com
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Unjust Enrichment Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
class brought a federal complaint for conversion and unjust
enrichment, saying JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America sold
confidential information obtained from customer credit card
applications.
JUUL LABS: Viscomi et al. Suit Moved to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit MICHAEL VISCOMI; DAVID MASESSA MATTHEW
PEDECINE; and DAVID LECHTZIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JUUL LABS, INC; and PAX
LABS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-03760, was removed from
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on November 9, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-06808 to the
proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Saundra Brown
Armstrong.
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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
Russell D. Paul, 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
- and –
Aaron J. Freiwald, Esq.
FREIWALD LAW
1500 Walnut Street, 18th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 875-8000
E-mail: ajf@freiwaldlaw.com
JUUL LABS: Zampa Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Zampa, individually, and as guardian of her minor children
J.M., a minor, and J.M., a minor, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Juul Labs, Inc. formerly
known as: Pax Labs, Inc. formerly known as: Ploom Products, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 18-037507-CA-01 was
removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade County,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami) on Nov. 30, 2018. The Southern District of Florida
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-25005-KMW to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kathleen M. Williams. The
suit alleges personal injury violation.
Pax Labs is an American electronic vaporizer company founded in
2007 that markets the PAX vaporizers. The company developed the
JUUL e-cigarette; JUUL was spun out as a separate company in
2017.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: 223-5402
E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
Attorneys for Defendant:
George S. LeMieux, Esq.
GUNSTER YOAKLEY & STEWART
450 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 468-1339
Facsimile: (954) 523-1722
E-mail: glemieux@gunster.com
KANSAS: Incoming Governor Needs to Deal with Foster Care Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the incoming Kansas governor will
face a large task dealing with a struggling child welfare system
recently hit with a class-action lawsuit alleging conditions were
so poor that children suffered mentally or ran away from foster
homes.
The lawsuit filed in federal court alleges that children have been
trafficked for sex, sexually abused inside adoptive homes or raped
inside a child welfare office, The Wichita Eagle reported.
Lawmakers, experts and advocates say Democratic governor-elect
Laura Kelly must significantly invest in the state's Department for
Children and Families to improve the system. Ms. Kelly will become
governor on Jan. 14.
Ms. Kelly said the department will be "a high priority" for her
administration. She said the agency has lacked resources for almost
a decade.
"I will take the same approach to DCF, though, that we're going to
take to every agency, which is to during the transition time to dig
deep and figure out where the issues are, what's working, what's
not working, and then set a course for fixing whatever we find that
needs to be fixed," she said.
Many advocates said they believe Ms. Kelly's experience as a member
of a legislative task forced aimed at improving the child welfare
system will help her make progress on the issues.
"She really works on that task force," said Lori Burns-Bucklew, a
Kansas City attorney and accredited child welfare law specialist.
"She doesn't just show up."
The task force will deliver its recommendations in January and
could possibly provide lawmakers with a road map on how to improve
the system.
But Ms. Burns-Bucklew said Kelly faces a big challenge.
"She's inheriting an under-resourced system," she said. "This
system has been stripped bare over the years. They haven't just cut
to the bone. They've cut into the bone."
The task force has examined issues such as improving the agency's
outdated computer systems and its work force, which has seen high
turnover and high caseloads. [GN]
KING'S COUNTY, NY: Rosenfeld Suit Alleges Wiretapping Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Rosenfeld and Vincent Garcia, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tara Lenich, City of
New York, Lushawn M. Thompson, as administrator of estate of
Kenneth P. Thompson, Eric Gonzalez, Mark Feldman, William Schaefer,
Brian Donohue, William Power, Michael Dowling, Joseph Piraino, And
Robert Kenavan, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06720, (E.D. N.Y.,
November 26, 2018), seeks actual damages, disgorgement of any
illegally-made profits, statutory damages, preliminary and other
equitable or declaratory relief, punitive damages, reasonable
attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred,
prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded, restitution and all
other forms of equitable monetary relief and injunctive relief for
violation of the Wiretap Act.
King's County Supervisory Assistant District Attorney Tara Lenich
allegedly conducted an illegal wiretapping operation targeting
Assistant District Attorney Stephanie Rosenfeld and New York Police
Department Detective First Grade Jarret Lemieux. Rosenfeld is
Stephanie Rosenfeld's sister while Garcia is the uncle of Lemieux.
Both claim that they were engaged in several communications that
were intercepted and recorded.
Lushawn M. Thompson is the Administrator of the Estate of Kenneth
P. Thompson. From 2014 until his death on October 9, 2016, Kenneth
Thompson was the District Attorney for Kings County. Eric Gonzalez,
Mark Feldman, William Schaefer, Brian Donohue, William Power,
Michael Dowling, Joseph Piraino and Robert Kenavan all served with
the King's County District Attorney's Office. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard D. Emery, Esq.
Samuel Shapiro, Esq.
EMERY CELLI BRJNCKERHOFF & ABADYLLP
600 Fifth A venue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10020
Tel: (212) 763-5000
- and -
James I. Glasser, Esq.
Tadhg A.J. Dooley, Esq.
WIGGIN & DANA LLP
437 Madison Ave., 35th Floor
New York NY, 10022
Tel: (212) 490-1700
KNIGHT TRANSPO: Class of Truck Drivers in Martinez Suit Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT MARTINEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KNIGHT
TRANSPORTATION, INC. d/b/a ARIZONA KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC., and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-01730-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff and the putative class members were employed as truck
drivers by the Defendant. Their job responsibilities included
making deliveries of dry goods, produce, materials, and other
products to various businesses located throughout California. They
allege that they typically worked between 10 and 14 hours per day,
5 to 6 days per week, and 52 weeks per year.
According to the allegations of the complaint, the Defendant failed
to provide the class members with appropriate meal and rest breaks
as required under California law. Moreover, although the class
members were compensated based on a piece-rate formula, the
Defendants did not pay them a separate hourly wage to compensate
them for rest breaks and for performing non-driving tasks. Based
upon these allegations, the Plaintiff asserts multiple violations
of California wage and hour provisions.
The laintiff seeks to represent the class of all current and former
truck drivers employed by Defendant Knight Transportation, Inc.,
who advised the Defendant that they resided in Oregon, Nevada,
Arizona, Utah, and/or Colorado, who were paid in whole or in part
on a piece-rate basis, and who drove one or more routes of five
hours or more entirely within the State of California for the
Defendant during the Class Period from Sept. 30, 2012 through the
date of class certification.
The Plaintiff seeks certification only as to the first, second,
third, and sixth causes of action in the complaint. The parties do
not contest most aspects of the class certification. The Defendant
limits its opposition solely to the issue of predominance under
Rule 23(b)(3).
Judge Drozd finds that based on the existence of these records, a
class-wide determination of liability or damages would not be so
burdensome as to defeat predominance. Multiple courts have found
predominance under strikingly similar facts. Because of the system
of electronic records maintained by the Defendant, he finds that
determining the composition of the class would be straightforward
and provides no basis to deny class certification. Accordingly,
predominance is satisfied.
For the reasons set forth, the Judge granted the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification. He certified the class, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), of all current
and former truck drivers employed by Defendant Knight
Transportation, Inc., who advised the Defendant that they resided
in Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and/or Colorado, who were paid in
whole or in part on a piece-rate basis, and who drove one or more
routes of five hours or more entirely within the State of
California for the Defendant during the Class Period from Sept. 30,
2012 through the date of the entry of the Order.
Having found that the attorneys at Ackermann & Tilajef, P.C. and
HammondLaw, PC are qualified and adequate counsel, he appointed
Ackermann & Tilajef, P.C. and HammondLaw, PC as the Co-Class
Counsel for the Class. Hacing also found that Martinez will fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the Class, he appointed him
as the Class Representative.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer within 14 days of this
order regarding dissemination of a joint proposed notice of class
certification and opportunity to opt-out. In the event the parties
are unable to agree on a proposed notice, the parties may each
submit a proposed notice and a supporting brief, not to exceed five
pages in length, to the Court with within 21 days of the Order.
The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for
further proceedings consistent with the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2018 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2G898Rx from Leagle.com.
Robert Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Justin Ackermann
-- cja@ackermanntilajef.com -- Ackermann & Tilajef, PC. & Julian
Ari Hammond -- jhammond@hammondlawpc.com -- HammondLaw P.C..
Knight Transportation, Inc., an Arizona corporation, Defendant,
represented by Michael J. Hui -- mhui@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C., Richard H. Rahm -- rrahm@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C. & Kai-Ching Cha -- kcha@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C..
KPMG LLP: Certification Bids in Gender Discrimination Suit Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONNA KASSMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KPMG LLP,
Defendant, Case No. 11 Civ. 3743 (LGS) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Lorna G.
Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motions for Rule 23 class
certification and EPA collective certification; and (i) denied the
parties' Daubert motions and motions to strike.
The Plaintiffs bring the putative sex discrimination class action
against KPMG. They assert claims under the disparate impact and
disparate treatment provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 on behalf of a nationwide class of more than 10,000 female
KPMG employees, from 2009 to the present, and analogous claims
under New York state and city law on behalf of a New York subclass.
The Plaintiffs also seek second stage collective action
certification of the Equal Pay Act claims of 1,112 Opt-In
Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs filed the suit on June 2, 2011, claiming that KPMG
discriminates against thousands of women in their pay and
promotions. Less than three weeks later, the Supreme Court decided
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). Dukes makes
it extremely difficult for a gender discrimination suit to proceed
as a class action when the discriminatory treatment was the product
of local supervisors exercising their discretion in awarding pay
and promotions. See id. at 355.
Most of the conduct challenged in the lawsuit occurred after Dukes
provided a roadmap to avoid class certification of a nationwide
class asserting gender discrimination. Not surprisingly, during the
years since Dukes, with the instant lawsuit pending, KPMG has
utilized a decentralized system for determining pay and promotion
reminiscent of that used by Walmart in Dukes. KPMG also has been
attentive to gender disparities and workplace misconduct.
Although individual decisions are made by managers at the local
level, KPMG's overall system is not the product of accident or
happenstance. It is under the direction of a National Director of
Compensation Strategies, who -- with a staff of approximately 12
people -- is responsible for designing and implementing the firm's
employee compensation program and managing the firm's performance
recognition programs. The result, according to the Plaintiffs, is
a pay disparity between women and men of approximately 2.8%.
Although any statistically significant pay disparity on account of
gender would be improper, for context, the national disparity in
pay between women and men is 18%. KPMG counters that the
Plaintiffs' analysis and asserts that the Plaintiffs have provided
no statistical evidence of anything more than sporadic and isolated
within-job sex disparities in pay.
The proposed nationwide class consists of female Associates, Senior
Associates, Managers, Senior Managers/Directors and Managing
Directors employed within KPMG's Tax and Advisory Functions between
Oct. 30, 2009 through the date of judgment. The Plaintiffs held
Class Positions during the Class Period.
Kassman also seeks to certify a class of the same group of
employees employed by KPMG in the state of New York from June 2,
2008, through the date of judgment.
The Plaintiffs also seek second stage collective action
certification of the Equal Pay Act claims of 1,112 Opt-In
Plaintiffs who have been employed in class positions since March
16, 2009.
The parties have filed various motions to strike as well as Daubert
motions with respect to each other's experts. Among other things,
the Defendant moves to strike portions of the affidavits submitted
by 20 female KPMG employees on the basis that their statements (1)
are not supported by personal knowledge in violation of Rule 602;
(2) constitute inadmissible hearsay and/or (3) are contradicted by
their deposition testimony. It also moves to strike paragraph 27
of Attorney Tiseme Zegeye's Declaration as improper expert
testimony. The Plaintiffs move to strike portions of KPMG's
memorandum in opposition to the class certification that rely on
Dr. Bloom's reiteration of hearsay as facts. The parties have also
filed Daubert motions with respect to each other's experts.
Judge Scholfield denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
Dr. Stockdale and the Defendant's motion to exclude Dr. Hanges
because those experts are not relied upon in the Opinion. He also
denied the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude Dr. Banks' report as
unreliable is denied. To the extent that the Plaintiffs' arguments
raise methodological concerns about Dr. Banks' reports, those
concerns go to weight and not admissibility.
As to the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification, the Judge
holds that regardless of who is correct, under Dukes, the proposed
class cannot be certified; the Plaintiffs' argument, at its core,
still boils down to managers, who were left without meaningful
guidance, fell back on their own stereotyped views of women in
making pay and promotion decisions. The district court on remand
in Dukes called this a perfectly logical theory for liability, an
observation echoed by at least one other court, as in Moussouris v.
Microsoft Corp. Nevertheless, the argument leaves the Plaintiffs
right back where they started: challenging the Ddefendant's
practice of delegating discretion to local managers, which the
Supreme Court specifically held was not a specific employment
practice supplying a common question sufficient to certify a class.
The Plaintiffs provide insufficient evidence of "some glue"
holding together the reasons for the countless individual
employment decisions they challenge.
For these reasons, the Judge denied the class certification of a
Title VII class because the Plaintiffs have not shown a common
question sufficient to meet the Rule 23 standard enunciated in
Dukes. She also denied the class certification for the subclass
because Kassman provided no evidence specific to a New York class.
Finally, she denied the certification of an opt-in collective under
the Equal Pay Act because the Plaintiffs have not shown that
members of the proposed collective work at a single "establishment"
or that they are "similarly situated" to one another.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2Eo4Cwu from Leagle.com.
Donna Kassman, Individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly-situated female employees, Jeanette Potter, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated female employees,
Sparkle Patterson, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated female employees & Ashwini Vasudeva,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated female
employees, Plaintiffs, represented by Jeremy Heisler, Sanford
Heisler Sharp, LLP, Aimee Krause Stewart , Sanford Heisler Sharp,
LLP, Anne B. Shaver, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, David
W. Sanford -- dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- Sanford Heisler Sharp
LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Siegel, Sanford Heisler& Sharp, LLP,
Katie Mueting -- kmueting@sanfordheisler.com -- Sanford Heisler
Sharp, LLP, pro hac vice, Kelly Dermody, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Leigh Anne St. Charles, Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP,
Michael Ian Levin-Gesundheit, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, Michelle Lamy, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel
Geman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Saba Bireda,
Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, Thomas J. Henderson, Sanford Heisler
Sharp, LLP & Tiseme Gabriella Zegeye -- tzegeye@lchb.com -- Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.
Tina Butler, Heather Inman, Carol Murray, Cheryl Charity & Nancy
Jones, Plaintiffs, represented by Aimee Krause Stewart, Sanford
Heisler Sharp, LLP, Anne B. Shaver, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Jennifer Siegel, Sanford Heisler& Sharp, LLP, Katie
Mueting, Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, pro hac vice, Kelly Dermody,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Leigh Anne St. Charles,
Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, Michelle Lamy, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Saba Bireda, Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, Thomas J.
Henderson, Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP & Tiseme Gabriella Zegeye,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.
KPMG LLP, Defendant, represented by Chris R. Pace, Ogletree
Deakins, pro hac vice, Colleen M. Kenney, Sidley Austin LLP, pro
hac vice, Diane Marjorie Saunders --
diane.saunders@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Dearkins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, PC, Douglas R. Hart, Sidley Austin LLP, Eric G.
Hoffman, Sidley Austin LLP, John Gerson Levi, Sidley Austin LLP,
pro hac vice, Jonathan D. Lotsoff , Sidley Austin LLP, Melanie
Elizabeth Walker, Sidley Austin LLP, Peter O. Hughes --
peter.hughes@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak
& Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice, Stephanie Lauren Aranyos, Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash,Smoak & Stewart,P.C., Steven W. Moore --
steven.moore@ogletreedeakins.com -- Constangy, Brooks & Smith &
Prophete, LLC, pro hac vice & Wendy M. Lazerson --
WLAZERSON@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP.
LANNETT CO: Levi & Korsinsky to Lead in Strougo Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT STROUGO, v. LANNETT COMPANY, INC., et al, Civil
Action. No. 18-3635 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Mark A. Kearney of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (i) granted
the motion of Messrs. Soe Wong and Michael Hoeltzel for appointment
as the Lead Plaintiff group, Levi & Korsinsky LLP as the Lead
Counsel, and O'Kelly Ernst & Joyce, LLC, as the Liaison Counsel;
and (ii) denied the motion of IBEW Local 89 Pension Fund for
appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP as the Lead Counsel.
When two individual shareholders agreeing to jointly serve as the
lead Plaintiff for a class of shareholders in a securities fraud
case are challenged by a competing institutional investor as to
their adequacy to serve as a lead Plaintiff, the Court must examine
whether the way in which the two-person group formed or the manner
in which it is constituted may preclude the duo from serving as the
lead Plaintiff.
In 2004, Lannett signed an exclusivity agreement with its supplier
Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals set to expire on March 23, 2019. On
Feb. 7, 2018, Lannett announced financial and operating results for
the second fiscal quarter. In a press release, its CEO, Timothy C.
Crew, represented they expect their profitability on an adjusted
basis for the fiscal 2018 full year to slightly improve from their
previous guidance.
On May 7, 2018, Lannett announced its financial and operating
results for the third quarter and on an earnings call discussing
the results, Mr. Crew again addressed Lannett's relationship with
Jerome Stevens. On Aug. 20, 2018, it announced it would not renew
its distribution agreement with Jerome Stevens. It stock then
dropped more than $8, or more than 60%, causing losses for
Lannett's investors.
Strougo sued Lannett, Mr. Crew and Lannett's CFO/Treasurer Martin
P. Galvan on behalf of a class of similarly-situated individuals
who purchased Lannett securities between Feb. 7, 2018 and Aug. 17,
2018 for violating the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Mr.
Strougo alleges Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding Lannett's business, operational, and
compliance policies.
A two-person group of shareholders and an institutional fund now
move for appointment of the lead Plaintiff and the lead Counsel:
(1) individual shareholders Soe Wong and Michael Hoeltzel for
appointment as lead Plaintiff group, Levi & Korsinsky LLP as the
Lead Counsel and O'Kelly Ernst & Joyce, LLC, as the Liaison
Counsel; and (2) IBEW Local 89 Pension Fund for appointment as the
Lead Plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead the
Counsel.
IBEW argues only Messrs. Wong and Hoeltzel fail make a prima facie
case for adequacy under Rule 23 because they fail to satisfy the
additional factor we apply when the movant is a group. It argues
Messrs. Wong and Hoeltzel fail to declare they -- independent of
counsel -- decided to move as a group before seeking the counsel's
direction.
Judge Kearney disagrees with IBEW as the court of appeals does not
require this declaration. He finds that Messrs. Wong and Hoeltzel
make a prima facie showing of adequacy, subject to more detailed
review should they later move to certify a class of similarly
situated shareholders. Messrs. Wong and Hoeltzel (i) have the
largest financial interest in relief sought by the class, and each
man individually has a larger financial interest than IBEW; (ii)
satisfy the typicality and the adequacy requirements; and (iii) did
not aggregate their losses solely to achieve lead plaintiff status.
IBEW does not rebut the presumption of the lead Plaintiff.
The Judge declines to require an additional sworn statement to
demonstrate adequacy by a two-person group with detailed
declarations of promised vigilance and proof of the largest losses
by a significant margin; and declines to follow distinguishable
cases from other district courts.
As they are presumptive the Lead Plaintiffs and IBEW fails to rebut
the presumption, he will appoint Messrs. Wong and Hoeltzel the Lead
Plaintiffs and appoint their selected experienced counsel as the
Lead Counsel. They produced extensive documentation demonstrating
the counsel's experience, and IBEW has not challenged Messrs. Wong
and Hoeltzel's choice of the lead counsel and the liaison counsel.
In an accompanying order, Judge Kearney granted the motion of
Messrs. Soe Wong and Michael Hoeltzel and denied the motion of
IBEW.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://bit.ly/2QKZd8D from Leagle.com.
ROBERT STROUGO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID SEAMUS KASKELA --
skaskela@kaskelalaw.com -- KASKELA LAW LLC.
LANNETT COMPANY, INC., TIMOTHY C. CREW & MARTIN P. GALVAN,
Defendants, represented by DANIEL R. CELLUCCI --
dan.cellucci@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS, JAY P. LEFKOWITZ --
lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS, TERENCE Y. LEONG --
lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, ABRAHAM C. REICH --
areich@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD O'BRIEN & FRANKEL LLP,
MATTHEW DAVID LEE -- mlee@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP &
NATHAN HUDDELL -- nhuddell@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD
LLP.
SOE WONG & MICHAEL HOELTZEL, Movants, represented by RYAN M. ERNST
-- rernst@oelegal.com -- O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC & ADAM M. APTON
-- aapton@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP.
IBEW LOCAL 98 PENSION FUND, Movant, represented by NAUMON A. AMJED
-- namjed@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP & DANIELLE
S. MYERS -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP.
THOMAS KLEINMAN, ISAAC CORIAT SALTIEL, LI TAO & SHOUFENG LI,
Movants, represented by JACOB A. GOLDBERG --
jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM.
LAURA CHRISTY: Court Certifies Class in Zivkovic NYLL Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAVLE ZIVKOVIC, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LAURA CHRISTY LLC d/b/a VALBELLA,
LAURA CHRISTY MIDTOWN LLC, DAVID GHATANFARD, and GENCO LUCA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-553-GHW (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Gregory H.
Woods of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York
The Valbella restaurants are trendy, upscale eateries with three
locations in New York and Connecticut. The Plaintiffs in the
action are former and current "front-of-the-house" employees of the
Valbella restaurants in the Meatpacking District and Midtown
neighborhood of Manhattan. On Jan. 25, 2017, Pavle Zivkovic, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, commenced the wage
and hour litigation against the Defendants for alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL").
The Plaintiffs, former and current employees of the Valbella
Meatpacking and Valbella Midtown restaurants, assert that the
Defendants maintained company-wide policies that resulted in
minimum wage and overtime violations of the FLSA and minimum wage,
overtime, spread of hours, and wage notice violations of the NYLL.
All members of the proposed class were employed at one or both of
the Valbella restaurants as tipped, "front-of-the-house" employees,
including captains, servers, bussers, runners, bartenders and
barbacks. Zivkovic, the named Plaintiff, was an employee of both
restaurants. He alone raises two additional claims: a claim that
he was discriminated against on the basis of his national origin in
violation of the New York City Human Rights Law, and a claim that
Luca committed common law battery against him and that the
remaining Defendants are liable under the doctrine of respondent
superior.
Defendant Laura Christy answered the complaint on March 30, 2017.
On the same day, Defendants Laura Christy Midtown, Ghatanfard, and
Luca answered the complaint and asserted a counterclaim against
Zivkovic. On June 20, 2018, Defendant Laura Christy amended its
answer to include an affirmative defense based on a recent decision
by New York's Appellate Division First Department regarding
employer liability for wage notice requirements. The following
day, Defendants Laura Christy Midtown, Ghatanfard, and Luca amended
their answer for the same reason.
On Aug. 10, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the issue of whether Defendants Laura Christy and Laura
Christy Midtown are a single integrated enterprise under the FLSA
and NYLL. On Sept. 17, 2018, the Defendants filed their
opposition. On Oct. 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their reply.
The motion was denied on Nov. 20, 2018.
On Aug. 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
with regard to the NYLL claims. Concurrently with their motion for
class certification, they have filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the issue of whether Laura Christy and Laura Christy
Midtown are a single, integrated enterprise for FLSA and NYLL
purposes. Recognizing that the resolution of that question might
impact class certification, the Plaintiffs request that the Court
instead certifies two subclasses for the purposes of the motion,
one for each Valbella location.
The Defendants filed their opposition on Sept. 14, 2018 and the
Plaintiffs' filed their reply on Oct. 10, 2018.
Because the Plaintiffs have met all of Rule 23's class
certification requirements for each of the subclasses, Judge Woods
granted their motion for class certification for their NYLL claims.
The Judge finds that Zivkovic is an adequate representative to
advance the interests of each of the subclasses. He similarly
finds that the proposed alternative class representatives are
equally capable as serving as adequate representatives of the
class. The Class has additionally proposed opt-in Plaintiffs
Vojislav Knezevic Knezevic and Ricardo Sanchez, who, like Zivkovic,
have worked at both locations and can represent both subclasses.
Given that the Plaintiffs' counsel has extensive experience
litigating employment law cases in the District, including class
actions, and they have taken this case through the discovery
process, he appointed Joseph & Kirschenbaum, LLP as the class
counsel.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at
Dkt. No. 118.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://bit.ly/2zSkd3t from Leagle.com.
Pavle Zivkovic, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Lucas Colin Buzzard, Joseph & Kirshenbaum
LLP, Yosef Nussbaum -- jnussbaum@jhllp.com -- Joseph and
Kirschenbaum & Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum -- maimon@jhllp.com --
Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum.
Vojislav Knezevic, Ulas Geckil, Arben Buqaj, Imram Shonar, Adrian
Celmeta, Alejandra C Rindon, Rafael Moctesuma, Jesus Espinosa,
Diana Martha Michos, Fernando Marin, Julia Boyadjan, Ricardo
Sanchez & Ulas Konca, Plaintiffs, represented by Lucas Colin
Buzzard, Joseph & Kirshenbaum LLP & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and
Kirschenbaum.
Laura Christy LLC, doing business as Valbella, Defendant,
represented by Maria Louisa Bianco -- mbianco@dsblawny.com -- Dealy
Silberstein & Braverman, LLP & Milo Silberstein --
msilberstein@dsblawny.com -- Dealy Silberstein & Braverman, LLP.
Laura Christy Midtown LLC, Defendant, represented by Leonard I.
Spielberg, Harold, Salant, Strassfield & Spielberg, Milo
Silberstein, Dealy Silberstein & Braverman, LLP & Neal Sanford
Comer , Neal S. Comer, Attorney at Law.
David Ghatanfard & Genco Luca, Defendants, represented by Milo
Silberstein, Dealy Silberstein & Braverman, LLP & Neal Sanford
Comer, Neal S. Comer, Attorney at Law.
David Ghatanfard, Genco Luca & Laura Christy Midtown LLC, Counter
Claimants, represented by Milo Silberstein, Dealy Silberstein &
Braverman, LLP & Neal Sanford Comer, Neal S. Comer, Attorney at
Law.
Pavle Zivkovic, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Counter Defendant, represented by Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and
Kirschenbaum & Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph, Herzfeld,
Hester, & Kirschenbaum.
LENOVO GROUP: $8.3MM Spyware Suit Settlement Gets Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel R. Stoller, writing for Blooberg Law, reports that Lenovo
Group Ltd. can move ahead with an $8.3 million settlement to end a
class action that its ad software exposed customer laptops to
performance, privacy, and security problems.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted initial approval of the settlement Nov. 21, four months
after Lenovo and the consumer class filed with the court to end the
spyware action. The SuperFish software, which Lenovo began
installing in 2014, could access customer Social Security numbers,
financial data, and sensitive heath information, the court said.
Lenovo's issues highlight device-maker privacy and security
concerns when trying to capture the value of customer data. Many
companies install software, usually with user permission, that
tracks internet purchases and website traffic to deliver tailored
ads to consumers. But, without proper notice and consent, companies
can run into costly regulatory enforcement and consumer class
actions.
Class representatives Jessica Bennett, Richard Krause, Robert
Ravencamp, and John Whittle brought claims in 2015 under the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the federal Wiretap Act, and
California and New York consumer protection laws. Both sides
reached an agreement to settle the claims in April.
Lenovo is set to pay $7.3 million to the settlement fund, and
SuperFish will kick in another $1 million from a prior deal with
consumers over the spyware issue. None of the funds will revert
back to Lenovo or SuperFish and instead will go to "all persons who
purchased a Lenovo computer in the United States on which
VisualDiscovery was installed by Lenovo," U.S. Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. wrote Nov. 21.
The computer maker in 2017 reached a no-fault settlement with the
Federal Trade Commission and 32 state attorneys general over the
privacy incident. As part of the FTC deal, it promised to not
misrepresent features of installed software and undergo 20 years of
agency audits. Lenovo also paid $3.5 million to state authorities
under a separate agreement.
Pritzer Levine, Girard Gibbs, and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
represent the settlement class. SuperFish is represent by Fenwick
and West LLP. Lenovo is represented by Womble Carlyle Sandridge &
Rice PLLC and K&L Gates LLP.
The case is In re Lenovo Adware Litig., N.D. Cal., No. 15-md-02624,
preliminary approval 11/21/18. [GN]
LMG MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CONTRERAS-CHAVEZ; and ELEAZAR TORRES-FUERTE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LMG
MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a NEW SOUTH LANDSCAPE; and MARTY GIGNILLAT,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00212-RWS (N.D. Ga., Nov. 12, 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 Contreras-Chavez was employed by the Defendants as
crew leader. The Plaintiff Torres-Fuerte was employed as laborer.
LMG Management, Inc. d/b/a New South Landscape is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Georgia, engaged in
providing landscaping services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650
Atlanta, GA 30328
Telephone: (678) 330-2909
Facsimile: (678) 638-6201
E-mail: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Tapling & Sparks Sue over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
PETER TAPLING and DAVID SPARKS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant, Case No.: 8:18-cv-03703-TDC (D.
Md., Nov. 30, 2018), alleges that Defendant failed to secure and
safeguard its customers' personally identifiable information (PII)
such as the passport information, customers' names, mailing
addresses, and other personal information, as well as credit and
debit card numbers and other payment card data.
According to the complaint, Marriott International, Inc. is the
parent company of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC.
Starwood collected this information at the time customers
registered on its website, checked-in to one of its hotels, used
its loyalty program, and/or used it at one of its dining or retail
operations within its hotels. Starwood also failed to provide
timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class
Members that their Private Information had been stolen, as well as
precisely what types of information were stolen. When consumers
provided information in their Starwood accounts or checked in to
Starwood hotels, Starwood (now Marriott) collected and stored this
information, making it a treasure trove of useful information
attractive to hackers who used the information to profit and cause
damage, as was done here, to consumers.
Beginning in or around 2014 (and perhaps even earlier) and
continuing through November 2018, hackers exploiting
vulnerabilities in Starwood's network accessed the guest
reservation system at Starwood hotels and stole this data (the Data
Breach). On November 30, 2018, Marriott acknowledged an
investigation had determined that there was unauthorized access to
the Starwood guest reservation database, which contained guest
information relating to reservations at Starwood properties on or
before September 10, 2018.
Marriott has not finished identifying duplicate information in the
database, but believes it contains information on up to
approximately 500 million guests who made a reservation at a
Starwood property. For approximately 327 million of these guests,
the information includes some combination of name, mailing address,
phone number, email address, passport number, Starwood Preferred
Guest account information, date of birth, gender, arrival and
departure information, reservation date, and communication
preferences. For some, the information also includes payment card
numbers and payment card expiration dates.
Marriott could have prevented this Data Breach. Numerous other
hotel chains,including Hilton, Starwood (previously), Kimpton,
Mandarin Oriental, White Lodging (on two occasions), and the Trump
Collection, have been hit with similar data breaches. While many
retailers, banks, and card companies responded to recent breaches
by adopting technology that helps makes transactions and databases
more secure, Starwood and Marriott did not.
Marriott disregarded Plaintiffs' and Class Members' rights by
intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems
were protected, failing to take available steps to prevent and stop
the breach from ever happening, and failing to disclose to its
customers the material facts that it did not have adequate computer
systems and security practices to safeguard customers’ Private
Information, the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
Sally Handmaker, Esq.
Eric A. Kafka, Esq.
Julia A. Horwitz, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW
East Tower, 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
shguido@cohenmilstein.com
ekafka@cohenmilstein.com
jhorwitz@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street
Eleventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephine: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dlcfirm.com
akeller@dlcfirm.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
Megan E. Jones, Esq.
HAUSFELD
1700 K St. NW, Suite 650
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
mjones@hausfeld.com
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Walker Sues over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS WALKER 163 Dalma Drive Mountain View, California 94041 on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. (a Montgomery County, Maryland
Resident) 10400 Fernwood Road Bethesda, Maryland 20817 and STARWOOD
HOTELS AND RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC (a Montgomery County, Maryland
Resident) 10400 Fernwood Road Bethesda, Maryland 20817, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-03702 (D. Md, Nov. 30, 2018), seeks to
recover actual and statutory damages, restitution and disgorgement
as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful and unfair
business practices relating to data breach.
According to the complaint, on November 30, 2018, Marriott
International announced that it was subject to one of the largest
data breaches in our nation's history when the personal information
of up to 500 million hotel guests was exfiltrated from its Starwood
guest reservation database as part of an ongoing, four-year long
data breach. The information stolen in the breach includes names,
mailing addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, passport
numbers, Starwood Preferred Guest account information, dates of
birth, gender, arrival and departure information, reservation
dates, and communication preferences. For some, the information
also included payment card numbers and payment card expiration
dates.
During a four-year period, Marriott failed to detect the hackers'
presence, notice the massive amounts of data that were being
exfiltrated from its databases, or take any steps to investigate
the numerous other red flags that should have warned the company
about what was happening. As a result of Marriott’s failure to
protect the consumer information it was entrusted to safeguard, the
Plaintiff and class members have been exposed to fraud, identity
theft, and financial harm and, as detailed below, are subject to a
heightened, imminent risk of such harm in the future, the lawsuit
says.
Marriott is a multinational hospitality company that manages and
franchises a broad portfolio of hotels and lodging facilities.
Starwood is a subsidiary of Marriott.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:
Hassan Zavareei, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L. Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 973-0910
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
- and -
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
J. Austin Moore, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
vahle@stuevesiegel.com
moore@stuevesiegel.com
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Weinstein Sues over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA WEINSTEIN, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and
STARWOOD HOTEL & RESORTS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
8:18-cv-03704-GJH (D. Md., Nov. 30, 2018), alleges that Defendants
failed to implement, test, and maintain reasonable cybersecurity
measures to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members Personal
Information Identification.
According to the complaint, Marriott is a multinational hospitality
company that manages and franchises a broad portfolio of hotels and
lodging facilities. Starwood is a subsidiary of Marriott. Millions
of consumers have booked hotel rooms through Defendants and have
provided sensitive and personal information to Defendants in
connection with these bookings. Defendants have collected millions
of records containing sensitive and personal information.
Marriot announced that it had learned of the Data Beach on Sept. 8,
2018 when it "received an alert from an internal security tool
regarding an attempt to access the Starwood guest reservation
database in the United States" and that "there had been
unauthorized access to the Starwood networks since 2014." Moreover,
despite learning of the Data Breach in early September, Defendants
failed to notify Plaintiff and members of the Classes of the Data
Breach or their PII had been compromised for over 2 months. During
this time, Plaintiff and members of the Classes had no way of
knowing of the Data Breach and no ability to mitigate the harm
caused by the breach, the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorney for Plaintiff:
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Naumon J. Ahmed, Esq.
Melissa L. Troutner
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
namjed@ktmc.com
mtroutner@ktmc.com
MASTER OIL: Underpays Oil Technicians, Tounkara Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MAHAMADOU TOUNKARA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MASTER OIL CORP.; and AHMED
SHAFIQ, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06402 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2018)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation,
prejudgment interest, maximum liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff Tounkara was employed by the Defendants as lube and
oil technician.
Master Oil Corp. is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of New York. The company is engage in the
business of washing cars, oil change, and repair of vehicles. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jalila A. Bell, Esq.
11 Broadway, Suite 715
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (347) 596-1875
E-mail: jalilaabell@gmail.com
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Edwards Suit Alleges Exchange Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. McDermott International, Inc., David Dickson, and
Stuart Spence, Case No. 4:18-cv-04330 (S.D. Tex., November 15,
2018), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
This is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
acquired McDermott securities between January 24, 2018 and October
30, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Plaintiff alleges that throughout the class period, the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.
The Plaintiff Miriam Edwards purchased McDermott securities during
the Class Period.
The Defendant McDermott International, Inc. is incorporated under
the laws of Panama with its principal executive offices located in
Houston, Texas. McDermott's common stock trades on the New York
Stock Exchange under the symbol "MDR." McDermott purports to
provide engineering, procurement, construction, and installation
and technology solutions to the energy industry. McDermott
purportedly designs and builds infrastructure and technology
solutions to transport and transform oil and gas into a variety of
products.
The Defendant David Dickson was the President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company at all relevant times.
The Defendant Stuart Spence has been the Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company at all relevant times.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
Dallas, TX 75219
Tel: (214) 744-3000
Fax: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com
MDL 2804: Bennington Considers Joining Opioid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Therrien, writing for Bennington Banner, reports that a law
firm that is pressing lawsuits in Virginia and elsewhere against
opioid medication producers is talking to Bennington and other
Vermont communities about joining a similar class-action
initiative.
The Bennington Select Board is considering a proposal from Sanford
Heisler Sharp, LLP, a public interest litigation firm with offices
in Washington, New York, San Francisco and other U.S. cities, which
has been involved in a number of major class-action suits.
Town Manager Stuart Hurd confirmed the proposal but declined
further comment. He was expected to discuss the issue during the
board's meeting on Nov. 26.
Board members reportedly favor the proposal, in part because there
would be no upfront cost to the town, with the firm pressing the
suit on a contingency basis.
If approved, the town would be joining efforts on the part of
multiple cities and county governments to be compensated for the
effects of the opioid epidemic from companies involved in the
manufacture and distribution of such medications as OxyContin.
According to the proposal, Bennington would participate along other
willing Vermont communities, and indirectly with other governmental
entities around the nation, in what has become a nationwide effort.
Multiple suits seek to hold opioid manufacturers and other firms
responsible for an epidemic of addiction that many medical experts
blame in large part on the overprescribing of opioids for pain and
alleged fraudulent marketing activities to promote the medications
to the medical community.
The actions, which are being compared to those that led to major
settlements with the tobacco industry, beginning during the late
1990s, also include suits being pushed against similar defendants
by more than two dozen U.S. states, including Vermont and New
York.
A major difference would be that any damages awarded in the suits
on behalf of communities would go directly to those entities,
rather than be distributed through state governments.
Efforts also are under way to consolidate individual suits with the
same or similar defendants, complaints and claims. Sanford Heisler
Sharp currently is working with two other law firms in pursuing the
consolidation of suits on behalf of 11 counties and municipalities
in Virginia against numerous defendants, including Purdue Pharma,
Abbott Laboratories, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Mallinckrodt
Pharmaceuticals; Teva Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and
PBMs Express Scripts, Inc., CVS Health; and United Health Group
Inc.
Allegations include that the opioid epidemic has cost counties and
cities across Virginia hundreds of millions of dollars by
increasing the costs of law enforcement and court services, foster
care and child placement services.
Members of the group Fed Up Vermont brought up the idea of the town
joining in a suit during the board's Nov. 12 meeting, which
included a wide-ranging discussion of the opioid epidemic locally
and personal stories of addiction's devastating effects on
individuals and families.
During the meeting, Dr. G. Richard Dundas, medical director of the
Bennington Free Clinic, described how new pill forms of opioids,
such as OxyContin, were first marketed in the early 2000s to the
medical profession as having a low risk of causing addiction. But
he said an estimated 60 percent of people battling opioid addiction
began with prescribed medications.
He said that the number of opioid overdose deaths in the nation
reached 72,000 in 2017, and that there are an average of 10 per
year in the Bennington area.
He said physicians were encouraged to prescribe the pills and also
to focus more on a patient's perception of their level of pain.
Later, Dr. Dundas said, many people became addicted to opioids, and
when their prescriptions ran out often turned to heroin obtained on
the street as an alternative that is significantly cheaper.
Crime, including domestic violence and burglary, also has followed
the epidemic's wake, authorities have said, because addicts often
need to steal to obtain money to buy drugs, and personal
relationships typically are strained or destroyed in the pursuit of
illegal drugs.
Suits have been filed around the country against Purdue Pharma,
which created OxyContin in the mid-1990s, and other companies that
produce opioid medications or distribute them.
Allegations in these actions have included that the companies knew
of the dangers of addiction with opioid medication but promoted it
as having a low risk, convincing medical personnel to overprescribe
for injuries or conditions that in the past were treated in other
ways or with non-addicting medications.
A spokesman for Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, confirmed the
discussions with municipal officials in Vermont but declined to
comment in detail because talks are in the preliminary stages.
In addition to the opioid related-cases in Virginia, Sanford
Heisler Sharp has been involved with numerous gender or race
discrimination, wage and hour violation, consumer fraud and
whistleblower and qui tam suits. [GN]
METRO CHRYSLER: Faces Brutus Suit in Queens, New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metro Chrysler
Plymouth, Inc. The case is captioned as JEAN INES BRUTUS,
individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. METRO CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH, INC. D/B/A STAR CHRYSLER JEEP
DODGE RAM, Defendant, Case No. 716959/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty.,
Nov. 9, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Frederick D. R.
Sampson.
Metro Chrysler Plymouth Inc., doing business as Star Chrysler,
operates as a car dealer. The Company retails new and used cars,
SUVs, trucks, vans, parts, and accessories, as well as provides
financing and maintenance services. Star Chrysler serves customers
in the State of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP
40 Broad St., 7th Flr.
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
The Defendant is represented by MILMAN, LABUDA LAW GROUP,
Telephone: (516) 328-8899.
MICHAEL G. KELLY: Faces Class Action Over "Predatory" Contracts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allie Gross, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that a lawsuit
filed in federal court takes aim at Michael G. Kelly, one of the
top landowners in Detroit, over contracts for housing that the suit
calls "predatory."
The suit filed on Nov. 26 by Mantese Honigman and Michigan Legal
Services seeks class-action status and alleges that Mr. Kelly and
four other defendants lured unassuming and vulnerable Detroiters
into a "real estate bait and switch" in violation of the Truth in
Lending Act and the Home Ownership Equity Protection Act.
At the crux of the complaint is the use by Mr. Kelly -- and the
various LLCs associated with him such as Detroit Property Exchange
-- of contracts that seem to operate outside of federal
regulations, contracts Joe McGuire, an attorney at Michigan Legal
Services who focuses on housing issues in Detroit, says are
actually land contracts, which would have some consumer
protections.
"The question that this litigation raises," said Mr. McGuire, "is
can a property like Detroit Property Exchange get around the
regulations that were passed by Congress specifically to address
predatory lending, like this, simply by renaming the agreement to
something other than land contract?"
The Detroit Free Press reached out to Mr. Kelly for comment via the
Detroit Property Exchange but did not hear back.
Land contracts are popular home-buying tools in Detroit where
mortgages have historically been hard to come by. They often
operate in a nebulous legal space and leave little protections for
buyers (called vendees). They also often result in evictions.
But, according to Mr. McGuire, a general land contract pales in
comparison to the vague and confusing agreements Mr. Kelly uses in
his land deals.
"Often, when people hear about land contracts, if all they're used
to is your conventional mortgage, they are struck by how much worse
a land contract is in the way it's written,"
Mr. McGuire said. "They balk at the idea that you only get your
deed when it's paid all off, and that there is no appraisal
required, no inspection in the law. But these agreements (used by
Kelly) make land contracts look amazing."
According to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, the deals would work like this:
* Mr. Kelly (or one of his companies) would purchase homes,
often sight unseen, at the Wayne County Tax auction for a low
price. The homes are usually dilapidated.
* After attracting a potential buyer, Mr. Kelly (or one of his
companies) would have them sign an "ambiguous, opaque contract"
with a high interest rate.
* Under the contract, the purchaser would be under the
impression that after several years of payments they would own the
property, and that in the interim, as the future owner, they would
be responsible for fixing up the property.
* When the buyer "inevitably" got behind on payments "due to
their general lack of an ability to pay back the loan," Mr. Kelly
(or one of his companies) would evict the purchaser as a tenant,
rather than a land contract vendee, who would have more time to
catch up on payments before being evicted.
* The tenant's eviction would go unquestioned because of the
contract's "intentional use of ambiguous, confusing, cherry-picked
language." Adding to the chaos is the fact that purchasers would
have typically signed two documents when committing to the
property: a "Lease with Option" and "Real Estate Purchase
Agreement." One makes the customer a tenant; the other makes them a
purchaser -- together they created confusion.
* Once the "purchaser" had been evicted, the complaint alleged
that the scheme would begin again with a new potential buyer.
While the complaint states the deals were predicated on buyers
never actually getting the property, a land contract-like agreement
was used instead of a rental agreement because it was more
lucrative for the defendants.
Michigan law prohibits landlords from collecting a security deposit
greater than 1.5 times the monthly rent, but the seller of a land
contract can ask for a "nonrefundable down payment" at a cost far
greater to the purchaser.
"Defendant sold plaintiffs and the class members home ownership but
evicted them as tenants," the complaint said, noting that Detroit
Property Exchange, one of Mr. Kelly's businesses, has a ratio of
1.49 "evictions" for every property in their portfolio.
Ultimately, according to the complaint, the contracts acted as
"high-cost mortgages" and served to originate loans (the monthly
bills "buyers" received often had "loan numbers" on them).
Because of this, the complaint states, the Truth in Lending Act --
a 1968 federal law aiming to protect consumers in dealings with
lenders and creditors -- and the Home Ownership Equity Protection
Act -- a 1994 amendment to the Truth in Lending Act that tackles
abusive practices with high-interest rates -- should apply.
And because many of the potential buyers could not reasonably make
the monthly "rent-to-own" payments -- and no consumer financial
data was reasonably collected or analyzed -- the complaint states
the land contracts were ultimately predatory.
The four other defendants are entities Mr. Kelly uses for his land
contract business -- Detroit Property Exchange, Suena Homes Realty
LLC and Homes of Detroit LLC -- and Crystian Segura, a licensed
real estate agent and property manager for a Kelly real estate
company.
The representative plaintiffs are Natalie James, Jerome Day and
Carl Austin. All three entered into contracts with the defendants.
The complaint seeks class-action certification and the plaintiffs
are requesting a jury trial.
A costly route to home ownership
In the United States, land contracts -- also known as a contract
for deed -- were popularized between the 1930s and 1960s as a tool
for African-Americans who were prevented from accessing traditional
mortgage loans to buy homes.
It is estimated that in Chicago during the 1950s, 85 percent of
properties bought by African-Americans were purchased using land
contracts.
While land contracts have ebbed in popularity over the decades,
especially following the subprime foreclosure crisis that placed
constrictions on mortgage lending, they've seen a resurgence as a
tool for individuals who cannot obtain conventional home financing.
This is particularly the case in Detroit, but how many have been
issued over the years is not known because Michigan law does not
require land contracts to be filed with any governmental entity.
"Land contracts can be so pernicious -- there is no filing
requirement, there is just no regulation on them," Peter Hammer,
director of the Damon J. Keith Center for Civil Rights at Wayne
State University Law School, said this summer for an article on
property speculation in Detroit.
"They can just exist in this completely private space."
Under typical land contracts, the seller holds the deed to the
property until the contract -- a certain purchase price at an
interest rate over a series of years -- has been fulfilled. Despite
not having a legal title to the house, the buyer, or vendee, is
typically obligated to pay property taxes, obtain homeowners
insurance and make repairs.
Language within land contracts varies, but it typically includes,
as explained in the complaint, vague wording that favors the
seller.
"If the buyer defaults during the term of years, the contract
usually purports to allow the seller to cancel (or "forfeit") the
land contract, keep all payments made by the buyer and evict the
buyer through a forfeiture proceeding," the complaint explains.
Land contract forfeiture actions give a vendee 90 days to repay
what is owed (180 days if they've already paid 50 percent of the
purchase price by the time the case goes to court).
But Mr. Kelly has treated the agreements he has made as
tenant-evictions, the complaint states, which give tenants only 10
days to pay what is owed.
Ultimately, the complaint states, the agreements -- despite their
names -- are land contracts.
"The reason that these are land contracts, despite the fact that
they slapped a different name on top of it," Mr. McGuire said, "is
they operate exactly like land contracts."
He said that following the housing crisis, regulations were passed
targeting land contracts.
As a reaction, those utilizing them began to call them something
else.
"It's pretty common knowledge that this is what drove a lot of
these companies that were former land contract sellers to instead
start calling these contracts 'lease with option to buy' or 'rent
to own' instead of land contracts," Mr. McGuire said.
But, he added, "if you look at the paperwork Detroit Property
Exchange gives these customers, they have amortization schedules,
they have statements that refer to a loan number, they have (an)
interest rate and how it's being applied to the purchase price;
they even in one case . . . gave the customer the required IRS form
for writing off mortgage interest on income taxes," said McGuire.
"Everything they're giving the customer gives them the impression
that they're buying property," Mr. McQuire continued. "And . . .
from what I've heard, when the customer is going in, the agreements
are referred to as land contracts. You're told you're buying a
property."
They therefore should be subject to federal consumer protection
laws that require certain disclosures and evaluations around a
customer's ability to repay the loan, the complaint states.
Exploiting buyers
"For buyers, the land contract represents an opportunity to own
their homes," Josh Akers, assistant professor of Geography and
Urban Regional Studies at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, and
Eric Seymour, a postdoctoral research assistant at Brown
University, wrote in a 2018 paper on land contracts that the
complaint cites. "For unscrupulous agents, it is an opportunity to
profit through exploitation and eviction."
In 2017, efforts to regulate land contracts never came to be,
according to Lorray Brown, co-director of the Michigan Law Poverty
Program, who was working on draft legislation.
"The draft legislation never made it out of the work-group
meetings" as there was a lot of opposition "from the industry
folks," Ms. Brown said this summer, noting that she has seen a
number of private investors purchasing uninhabitable and
dilapidated foreclosed homes and selling them to consumers under
land contracts.
"These land contracts are predatory because they are set up to
fail," she said, explaining that the contracts often require
consumers to take on all of the obligations of a homeowner with
none of the rights.
"The terms of the contract require the consumer to fix up the
property within a reasonable time. Then there is usually a
provision that says if the consumer fails to comply with any of the
provisions, the contract will convert to a month-to-month tenancy
and the seller will terminate the contract. The seller then takes
back the property through eviction and the consumer loses all of
the money invested in repairing the property," Brown wrote.
Mr. Kelly, according to Mr. Akers, is one of the more
"sophisticated" speculators working in Detroit.
"He's not just engaged in a single practice like the one called out
here in the complaint, but he also purchases vacant land near
potential development sites, he finds wrinkles in land records.
He's notorious for purchasing parcels within parcels in the land
auction," Mr. Akers said, pointing to a 2011 Detroit News article
that detailed this unusual practice where Kelly has been known to
find anomalies in the tax auction -- single parcels within a
business's larger footprint -- and then scooping them up with the
intention of selling them back to the buisness at a premium. He
notably did this in 2006 with a parcel within a strip club's
parking lot. He bought the land for just over $1,000 and sold it
back to the club for $19,000.
Mr. Akers said Mr. Kelly owns roughly 500 properties in Detroit. At
the peak of his two-decades of buying properties in the Wayne
County Tax Auction, Kelly had more than 1,150 parcels, according to
the complaint.
"He's one of the earliest and most recurring characters in the
auction showing up in person for days with a team of people going
back and forth looking over things and just acquiring lots of
properties," said Mr. Akers. [GN]
MONSANTO COMPANY: Allens Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES ALLEN and SHERYL ALLEN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02006 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 29,
2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.
The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Capo Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR CAPO, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No.: 4:18-cv-01990-CDP (E.D. Mo., Nov. 28, 2018), seeks to
recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate
result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.
The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
Joseph B. Carnduff, Esq.
GORI JULIAN LAW
156 N. Main St.
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 659-9833
Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com
jcarnduff@gorijulianlaw.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Conns Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN CONN and TODD CONN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02008 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 29, 2018), seeks
to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.
The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Coviello Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN COVIELLO, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01984 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 27, 2018), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of
the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.
The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
Joseph B. Carnduff, Esq.
GORI JULIAN LAW
156 N. Main St.
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 659-9833
Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com
jcarnduff@gorijulianlaw.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Dailey Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN J. DAILEY JR., the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01994-SNLJ (E.D. Mo., Nov. 28, 2018),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.
The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Dugger Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
THERESA DUGGER, individually and on behalf of ULICE DUGGER,
(deceased), the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01998-SPM (E.D. Mo., Nov. 28, 2018), seeks to
recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate
result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.
The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Goodsons Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE A. GOODSON and WANDA M. GOODSON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.: 4:18-cv-01991-JAR (E.D. Mo., Nov.
28, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.
The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Griffiths Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNY W. GRIFFITH and SANDRA R. GRIFFITH, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01997-AGF (E.D.
Mo., Nov. 28, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by
Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.
The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Hildebrands Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDSAY R. HILDEBRAND and ZACHARY HILDEBRAND, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02003 (E.D. Mo.,
Nov. 29, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as
a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.
The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Neville Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
DOROTHY A. NEVILLE, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No.: 4:18-cv-02005-CDP (E.D. Mo., Nov. 29, 2018),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.
The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Triplett Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY TRIPLETT, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02009 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 29, 2018), seeks
to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.
The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MORTON BUILDINGS: Underpays Construction Workers, Helms Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CYREL HELMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MORTON BUILDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-01281 (M.D. Tenn., Nov. 12, 2018) is an action for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs as a
result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff Helms was employed by the Defendant as construction
worker.
Morton Buildings, Inc. designs, builds, and constructs post-frame
buildings, including residential, farm and agriculture, equestrian,
commercial, office, and community. The company was formerly known
as Interlocking Fence Company and changed its name to Morton
Buildings, Inc. in 1964. Morton Buildings, Inc. was founded in
1903 and is based in Morton, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emily S. Alcorn, Esq.
GILBERT McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
Franklin, TN 37067
Telephone: (615) 354-1144
Facsimile: (731) 664-1540
E-mail: ealcorn@gilbertfirm.com
- and -
Steve Rauls, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
NCAA: Sued by Former Football Players Over Head Injuries
--------------------------------------------------------
Tim Evans, writing for Indianapolis Star, reports that the National
Collegiate Athletic Association sacrificed the safety and
well-being of student athletes "in favor of profits and
self-promotion," according to a new federal lawsuit that claims the
organization failed to implement and enforce regulations to protect
athletes from the risks associated with head injuries.
The lawsuit was filed on November 21 by Vincent Circelli, Esq. --
vinny@cwylaw.com -- a Fort Worth, Texas, attorney representing
Jeffrey Williams and other former student athletes. Most are former
football players.
Circelli is seeking class action designation for the Williams
lawsuit and about 20 others recently filed in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana. According to Circelli, the
cases could result in damages running into the hundreds of millions
of dollars.
The Williams lawsuit also names the Heartland Collegiate Athletic
Conference. Williams played football for Anderson University in the
early 1990s and, according to the lawsuit, "suffered numerous
concussions ... and is now suffering from several symptoms
indicative of long-term brain and neurocognitive injuries" from his
college football career.
A similar lawsuit involving the late Cullen Finnerty, the NCAA's
winningest college football quarterback, was filed earlier this
year in Marion Superior Court.
A representative for the NCAA did not immediately respond to a
request for comment from IndyStar.
Indianapolis attorney Robert Dassow, Esq. who is representing
Finnerty's widow, was not available for comment on November 23.
The new cases add to the growing list of legal claims made against
the NCAA in connection with head injuries. The Indianapolis-based
organization previously agreed to a $75 million settlement of
another class-action concussions case, according to the Associated
Press. The money is being used to set up a 50-year, $70 million
medical monitoring program for college athletes and a new $5
million program "to research the prevention, treatment, and/or
effects of concussions."
But the settlement did not include funds for damages or treatment,
Circelli said. It also didn't preclude future concussion lawsuits
— and they've kept coming.
The new federal lawsuit filed on November 21 says NCAA officials
have known for years about the potential danger associated with
head injuries but "sacrificed player safety ... in favor of profits
and self-promotion."
"The NCAA was founded way back when there were deaths on the
football field due to gang tackling," Circelli explained. "Teddy
Roosevelt said, 'Hey, get the college presidents together. I don't
want to see football go away. We need to make safety changes to the
sport so we can keep it alive and thriving.'
"The founding principle was protecting player safety, specifically
football player safety. With the advent of TV dollars and huge
ticket revenues and everything else, I think the NCAA lost its way
and lost its purpose and put those big hits and big money TV deals
ahead of player safety."
The lawsuit says the NCAA was aware "by the early-1990s at the
latest" the number of concussions was increasing and occurring over
a broad range of sports.
"Despite this knowledge, the NCAA and its member conferences
suppressed and kept secret from student athletes information about
the extent of concussion injuries in NCAA college football and
their long-term consequences."
The NCAA and conferences failed to warn student athletes, the
lawsuit contends, "that even one concussion, never mind repeated
concussions, could likely result in long-term catastrophic injury
and death."
In the separate, unrelated lawsuit filed Aug. 27 in Marion Superior
Court, Finnerty's widow is seeking unspecified damages from the
NCAA in connection with her husband's death in 2013 at the age of
30.
Culllen Finnerty played one year at Division I University of Toledo
but transferred to Grand Valley State University. At Grand Valley,
a Division II program, Finnerty finished his college career with a
record of 51-4 -- winning more games than any starting quarterback
at any level of college football.
While playing at the two universities, the lawsuit alleges,
Finnerty "was knocked unconscious and sustained multiple
concussions and/or sub concussive impacts to the head." The
lawsuit says Finnerty began to suffer from paranoia, fatigue and
forgetfulness after college and died in a fit of paranoia during a
fishing trip.
The lawsuit says an autopsy determined Finnerty died from pneumonia
complicated by medication he was taking for a back injury and
chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disease
found in people with a history of repetitive brain trauma.
The NCAA failed in its "duty to educate ... football players on the
proper ways to evaluate and treat" traumatic brain injuries during
games and practices, the lawsuit claims, and instead concealed key
information from Finnerty and other NCAA football players.
Jennifer Finnerty's lawsuit also says the NCAA failed "to
implement, promulgate, or require appropriate and up-to-date
guidelines regarding the evaluation and treatment of TBIs" and
provide treatment for the latent effects.
"Mr. Finnerty relied upon the NCAA's authority and guidance to
protect his health and safety by treating and preventing
head-related injuries, including the effects of those head injuries
later on in his life," the lawsuit says.
"As compared to Mr. Finnerty, the NCAA was in a superior position
to know of and mitigate the risks of him sustaining concussions and
other TBIs while playing football at the University of Toledo and
Grand Valley State University. It failed to do so."
Although the NCAA has not responded to a request for comment from
IndyStar, it denied wrongdoing or liability in Finnerty's death in
an Oct. 24 court filing.
In that response to Finnerty's lawsuit, attorneys for the
organization ask for the case to be dismissed.
In its defense, the NCAA contends the lawsuit fails to state a
claim against the NCAA upon which relief may be granted. It says
the NCAA owed no legal duty to Cullen Finnerty or his wife and the
claim should be barred because Finnerty voluntarily participated in
football and assumed the risk or injury inherent in the sport.
The NCAA also argues Finnerty did not suffer any injury or damage
as a result of his return to play or the timing of his return; did
not take action to mitigate any damages; and did not suffer any
injuries approximately caused by any act or omission of the NCAA.
The case has been assigned to Marion Superior Judge Heather A.
Welch.[GN]
NORTH CAROLINA: Court Certifies Class in Buffkin Prisoners Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LLOYD BUFFKIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ERIK HOOKS, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18CV502 (M.D. N.C.), Magistrate Judge
Joe L. Webster of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina recommended that (i) the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify Class, and their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction be
granted.
The Plaintiffs, currently incarcerated by the North Carolina
Department of Public Safety ("DPS"), all have been diagnosed with
Hepatitis C Virus ("HCV") infection, a highly communicable disease
that scars the liver and presents risks of cancer, portal
hypertension, excruciating pain, and death. According to the
opinion of Dr. Andrew Muir, common methods of HCV transmission
include intravenous drug use and receipt of blood products or
organs before universal testing of donors. Initial exposure is
generally asymptomatic for those infected with HCV; however, nearly
80% of patients exposed to HCV will develop chronic HCV. During
the chronic infection phase, patients slowly develop scarring or
fibrosis of the liver, and may eventually lead to significant liver
scarring, called cirrhosis. At that stage, patients are at risk of
painful and life-threatening complications that often require
invasive and painful treatments. Additionally, all patients with
cirrhosis from HCV are at risk for the development of liver cancer
or hepatocellular carcinoma ("HCC"). If a patient is not treated
with direct-acting antiviral drugs ("DAAs") before cirrhosis
occurs, the patient's fibrosis may be irreversible.
In the instant action, the Plaintiffs have sought specific medical
treatment, DAAs, to treat their HCV infection. Notwithstanding
inmates infected with Hepatitis B or HIV, current DPS policy
permits only individuals with significant fibrosis to receive DAA
treatment. DPS uses a FibroSure test to determine a patient's
level of fibrosis; a score of F2 demonstrates significant fibrosis,
a score of F3 demonstrates severe fibrosis, and F4 is cirrhosis,
which is the most severe fibrosis. Inmates with a score of F2 or
higher are permitted to receive DAA treatment. As previously
indicated, the adequacy of the FibroSure test is poor, and even
those inmates with significant liver scarring may not receive DAA
treatment if certain contraindications are present. The Plaintiffs
argue that the restrictions in the DPS policy are not medically
justified.
The named Plaintiffs at the time of the filing of the Complaint,
all had been diagnosed with HCV and had not been treated for it.
They challenge the DPS Screening and Treatment Policy ("Policy
#CP-7") regarding the detection, evaluation, and treatment of HCV
in North Carolina's prisons. Currently Policy #CP-7 does not
provide for universal screening of all prisoners for HCV. DPS
relies upon a risk-based assessment in which prison medical
officials may order testing after consideration of certain risk
factors but there are no circumstances which require that anyone be
tested. The Plaintiffs argue that this risk-based assessment falls
short of the guidance from the AASLD/IDSA which constitute the
current standard of care for HCV screening. They argue that
because of DPS's risk-based assessment approach to HCV, there are
essentially thousands of prisoners who have HCV and who have not
been diagnosed.
As a result of DPS's current screening and treatment policies
regarding HCV, the Plaintiffs have alleged an Eighth Amendment
claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and a claim under the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). In conjunction with the
Complaint, the named Plaintiffs also filed a motion to certify
class.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class defined as all current and
future prisoners in DPS custody who have or will have chronic
hepatitis C virus, at least twelve weeks remaining on their
sentences, and have not received DAAs.
Additionally, they ask the Court to issue a preliminary injunction
ordering the Defendants to: (1) provide universal opt-out HCV
screening for all persons who are or will be in DPS custody; (2)
cease denying DAA treatment for the contraindications listed in
Policy #CP-7 (other than patient refusal); and (3) treat the
Plaintiffs and all members of their class with DAAs according to
the current standard of medical care set out in the AASLD/IDSA
Guidance, regardless of an individual's fibrosis level. The
Defendants have opposed both motions.
Magistrate Judge Webster recommended that the Plaintiff's Motion to
Certify Class be granted and the class be defined as all current
and future prisoners in DPS custody who have or will have chronic
hepatitis C virus and have not been treated with direct-acting
antiviral drugs. He finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
Rule 23(a) and .Rule 23(b)(2) requirements
He also recommended that Lloyd Buffkin and Robert Parham be named
as the class representatives and that their counsel be appointed as
the class counsel.
The Magistrate further recommended that the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Injunction be granted and a preliminary injunction be
issued ordering the Defendants to: (1) provide universal opt-out
HCV screening to all persons who are or will be in DPS custody; (2)
cease denying DAA treatment for the contraindications, other than
patient refusal, set out in Step 4a of DPS Policy #CP-7; and (3)
treat the Plaintiffs and all members of their class with DAAs
according to the current standard of medical care set out in the
AASLD/IDSA Guidance, regardless of an individual's fibrosis level.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://bit.ly/2Psnxr6 from Leagle.com.
LLOYD BUFFKIN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, KIM CALDWELL, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons & ROBERT PARHAM, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs,
represented by CHRISTOPHER A. BROOK -- cbrook@acluofnc.org --
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTH CAROLINA, CRISTINA M.
BECKER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTH CAROLINA, DANIEL K.
SIEGEL -- dsiegel@ncpls.org -- N. C. PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INC.,
EMILY E. SEAWELL -- eseawell@acluofnc.org -- ACLU OF NORTH CAROLINA
& MICHELE R. LUECKING-SUNMAN -- mlueckingsunman@ncpls.org -- NORTH
CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
ERIK HOOKS, individually and in his official capacity as Secretary
of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, ABHAY AGARWAL,
individually and in his official capacity as Acting Medical
Director, Department of Adult Correction, North Carolina Department
of Public Safety, KENNETH LASSITER, individually and in his
official capacity as Director of Prisons, Department of Adult
Correction, North Carolina Department of Public Safety, PAULA
SMITH, former medical director, Department of Adult Correction,
North Carolina Department of Public Safety, individually & NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendants, represented by
AMAR MAJMUNDAR, N. C. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CORRINE L. LUSIC, N.
C. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, JOSEPH FINARELLI, N. C. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, ANN W. MATTHEWS, N.C. DEPT. OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL & ORLANDO L. RODRIGUEZ, N.C. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE.
NOVANT HEALTH: Marshall Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yvette Marshall, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Novant Health, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00633, (W.D. D.C., November 26, 2018), bring this collective
action in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act resulting from deprivation of
their right to overtime compensation, including liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.
Defendant owns and operates 14 hospitals and more than 500
physician clinic locations, including outpatient surgery centers,
medical plazas, rehabilitation programs, diagnostic imaging
centers, and community health outreach programs.
Marshall works for Novant as an hourly paid, non-exempt registered
nurse at their Urgent Care center located at 9550 Rocky River Road,
Suite 150, Charlotte, North Carolina 28215. Defendant allegedly
failed to pay her the requisite overtime rate of 1.5 times their
regular rate for all hours worked more than 40 hours per week.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel: (312) 233 1550
Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
rstephan@stephanzouras.com
cmitchell@stephanzouras.com
OASIS OUTSOURCING: Namowitz Sues over Excessive Taxes
-----------------------------------------------------
MARCIA NAMOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OASIS OUTSOURCING HOLDINGS, INC.; KELLY
SERVICES, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-06404-JMA-ARL (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2018) is an action against
the Defendants for wrongfully and unjustly withholding the
incorrect amount of monies and overcharging the Plaintiff, and the
putative class, for monetary amounts pursuant to Employer State
Unemployment Taxes, Federal Unemployment Tax Act, and New York
State Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff Namowitz is a Private
Wealth Advisor with Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. where she
is a Certified Financial Planner, Chartered Retirement Planning
Counselor, and Accredited Domestic Partnership Advisor.
On March 2, 2000, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for payroll
services for her firm with the Defendants which, at one time,
contained a Division called Kelly National Payroll Services, Inc.
Between at least 2013 and 2016, the Defendants either overcharged
or wrongfully withheld monetary amounts of $28,255.91 pursuant to
the Employer State Unemployment Taxes, Federal Unemployment Tax
Act, and New York State Metropolitan Commuter Transportation
Mobility Tax. The Plaintiff demanded the return of the amount of
monies the Defendants overcharged or wrongfully withheld but the
Defendants failed to do so.
Oasis Outsourcing Holdings Inc. operates as a professional employer
organization that provides workforce solutions for businesses in
the United States. The company offers human resources services,
employee benefits, payroll administration, healthcare reform
support, and risk management services. Oasis Outsourcing Holdings
Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in West Palm Beach, Florida.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
JONES WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
60 East 42 nd Street, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (646) 459 7971
Facsimile: (646) 459 7973
E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
bwolf@legaljones.com
- and -
Marc E. Bengualid, Esq.
Etan C. Harris, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MARC E. BENGUALID, PLLC
330 West 38th Street, Suite 305
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 360-5516
E-mail: marc@bengualidlaw.com
etan@benguialid.com
OLYMPIC MASONRY: Underpays Masons, Cannon Suit Allege
-----------------------------------------------------
GARY CANNON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OLYMPIC MASONRY, LLC; ABC MASONRY, LLC;
PRIDE CONCRETE, LLC; and MATTHEW PRIDE, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-01277 (M.D. Tenn., Nov. 9, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum
wages and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.
Mr. Cannon was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid masonry
employee.
Olympic Masonry, LLC is a Tennessee limited liability company
engaged in the construction business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Nathan A. Bishop, Esq
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER & HOLT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
nbishop@jsyc.com
OVASCIENCE INC: Faces 2 Milindo Merger-Related Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
OvaScience, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 31, 2018, that
the company has been named as defendant in two merger-related class
action suits.
On November 5, 2018, OvaScience filed a final proxy statement,
prospectus and information statement (the "Definitive Proxy
Statement") with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC")
with respect to the special meeting of OvaScience's stockholders
scheduled to be held on December 4, 2018 in order to, among other
things, obtain the stockholder approvals necessary to complete the
planned Merger, pursuant to which, among other matters, and subject
to the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set forth in the
Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Millendo,
with Millendo continuing as a wholly owned subsidiary of OvaScience
and the surviving corporation of the Merger (the "Millendo
Transaction").
In connection with the Millendo Transaction, two putative
securities class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against OvaScience,
Christopher Kroeger, Richard Aldrich, Jeffrey D. Capello, Mary
Fisher, John Howe, III, Marc Kozin and John Sexton.
The complaints are respectively captioned as follows: Cuenca Aubets
v. OvaScience, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-10882 (filed November 20,
2018) ("Cuenca Aubets") and Kim v. OvaScience, Inc., et al., No.
1:18-cv-10939 (filed November 21, 2018) ("Kim").
The lawsuits allege that the Definitive Proxy Statement made false
and misleading statements and omissions in connection with the
Millendo Transaction, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.
The plaintiffs in Cuenca Aubets and in Kim each seek to represent a
class of all public stockholders of OvaScience. The Cuenca Aubets
lawsuit seeks, among other things, to enjoin the Millendo
Transaction unless OvaScience discloses certain information
requested by the plaintiff, unspecified damages, and attorneys'
fees.
The Kim lawsuit seeks, among other things, preliminary and
permanent injunctions of the Millendo Transaction unless OvaScience
discloses certain information requested by the plaintiff,
rescissory damages if the Millendo Transaction is consummated,
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. The company refers to
these actions as the "Stockholder Litigation."
The Company believes that no supplemental disclosures are required
under applicable laws. However, to avoid the risk of the
Stockholder Litigation delaying or adversely affecting the closing
of the Millendo Transaction and to minimize the expense of
defending the Stockholder Litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the Company is making certain disclosures
that supplement and revise those contained in the Definitive Proxy
Statement, which the company refers to as the "litigation-related
supplemental disclosures."
The litigation-related supplemental disclosures contained should be
read in conjunction with the Definitive Proxy Statement, which is
available on the Internet site maintained by the SEC at
http://www.sec.gov,along with periodic reports and other
information the Company files with the SEC.
The Company and the other named defendants deny that they have
committed or assisted others in committing any violations of law or
breaches of duty to Company stockholders, and expressly maintain
that they have complied with their fiduciary and other legal duties
and are providing the litigation-related supplemental disclosures
solely to try to eliminate the burden and expense of further
litigation, to put the claims that were or could have been asserted
to rest, and to avoid any possible delay to the closing of the
Millendo Transaction that might arise from further litigation.
A copy of the company's supplement to definitive proxy statement is
available at https://goo.gl/xdg2fL.
OvaScience, Inc., a fertility company, discovers, develops, and
commercializes fertility treatment options for women and families
struggling with infertility worldwide. OvaScience, Inc. was founded
in 2011 and is headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts. As of
December 7, 2018, OvaScience, Inc. was acquired by Millendo
Therapeutics, Inc., in a reverse merger transaction.
PAUL BLANCO: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Labor law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against Paul
Blanco's Good Car Company Oakkland and Paul Blanco's Good Car
Company Auto Group (Paul Blanco's), alleging that the company
failed to lawfully provide meal and rest periods and pay minimum
wages to their California employees working for the company. The
class action lawsuit against Paul Blanco's is currently pending in
the Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG18928257.
The lawsuit filed against Paul Blanco's alleges the DEFENDANT'S
meal period policies and practices were unlawful because PLAINTIFFS
and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were far too over-booked and
overworked to take a timely off-duty thirty (30) minute meal
period. The lawsuit further alleges that the failure of Paul
Blanco's to provide the legally required meal and rest period is
evidenced by the company's business records.
Additionally, the lawsuit alleges PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA
CLASS Members as a business expense, were required by DEFENDANT to
use their own personal cellular phones as a result of and in
furtherance of their job duties as employees for DEFENDANT but were
not reimbursed or indemnified by DEFENDANT for the cost associated
with the use of their personal cellular phones for DEFENDANT's
benefit.
Nicholas De Blouw, Esq.
Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP
Telephone: (800) 568-8020
Email: DeBlouw@bamlawca.com [GN]
PENNSYLVANIA: Settles Class Action Over Inmate Hep C Treatment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cherri Gregg, writing for KYW Newsradio, reports that the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections settled a federal class
action by agreeing to provide inmates access to an expensive
treatment for Hepatitis C.
"Hepatitis C is the most serious and deadly viral disease in the
United States," said David Rudovsky, a civil rights attorney
representing plaintiffs in a 2013 federal class action.
The suit demanded that the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
provide FDA-approved direct acting anti-viral treatment for
thousands of inmates suffering from Chronic Hepatitis C. The
treatment, which cures nearly 95 percent of Hep-C cases, with
minimal side effects, costs roughly $100,000 per patient five years
ago. The cost was one of the main reasons the DOC refused to
provide the treatment, except in the worst cases.
Trial was scheduled for December, but the DOC opted to settle the
case and agreed to treat all inmates with Hep-C over the next three
years.
"It's a great benefit for public health, it means the disease won't
be transmitted by them," says Mr. Rudovsky, noting that the price
of treatment has come down significantly. "On the outside, it is
the only treatment available."
The first wave of inmates, all who are at the most serious state of
Hepatitis C, will be treated within the next six months. Then 3,000
inmates, 1,500 a year between July 2019 and June 2021, will be
treated. The last 2,000 inmates will be treated by June 30, 2022.
A spokesperson for the DOC sent the following statement via email:
"Providing quality health care to all inmates is a priority of the
Department of Corrections. The DOC has worked hard to prioritize
direct acting antiviral (DAA) medication to eligible inmate
patients. In the few years that the new generation of medication
has been available, the DOC has already completed DAA treatment for
650 inmates with Hepatitis C who fell within the most serious
stages (F3/F4) of liver disease. In addition, the DOC is currently
providing DAA treatment to 105 individuals, including those in the
more moderate stages of the disease (F2).
To enhance its Hepatitis C treatment program, DOC began a
partnership with Temple University earlier this year.
Collaboration with Temple allows the inmate Hepatitis C patients to
access medical professionals in the Temple hospital system both
during their time of incarceration and as part of continuity of
care after release.
The proposed settlement represents the DOC's continued commitment
to prioritize treatment for Hepatitis C patients. Under the
Agreement, the DOC commits to continue to expand DAA medication
treatment to eligible inmates in the earliest stages of infection
(F1, F0) over the course of the next three years.
The budget for hepatitis C treatment within DOC for 2018-2019 was
$13.2 million. The average per patient treatment cost is now down
to about $20,000, but cases vary. That cost is expected to drop
again in 2019. We don't know the total in outlying years because of
the changing -- likely downward -- costs." [GN]
PETSMART INC: Court Okays 2nd Notice to New LePine Class Members
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Tacoma, authorized the sending of a second
notice to the 70 newly identified class members who were identified
after the Court's final approval of the Settlement in the case,
DEBORAH LEPINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PETSMART, INC, a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant, Case No.: 3:17-cv-05488-BHS (W.D. Wash.).
The Court preliminarily approved the additional settlement payment
of $125,000, in accordance with the finally approved Settlement
Agreement. It also preliminarily approved distribution of the
additional Settlement amount including: (i) $37,500 as attorneys'
fees to Class Counsel, representing 30% of the additional
Settlement Amount, the same percentage approved by the Court in its
Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; (ii)
litigation costs awarded to Class Counsel which will not exceed
$1,268.24; (iii) addministration costs not to exceed $1,000; and
(iv) the remaining balance to be paid to the Newly Identified Class
Members who do not opt-out of the secondary distribution, based on
the number of Groom Pay Periods worked by each Newly Identified
Class Members during the Class Period and calculated using a Groom
Pay Period value of $17.06.
Because the recently discovered Newly Identified Class Members were
not provided with notice of the Settlement, Jugde Settle ordered
that the notice will be provided in the same manner already
approved by the Court with respect to the initial Class Members:
a. Within 14 calendar days of the Order, the Defendant will
provide the information of the Newly Identified Class Members to
the Settlement Administrator.
b. Within 24 calendar days of this Order, the Settlement
Administrator will send the secondary Class Notice.
c. The Class Members will have 30 calendar days from the date
of the mailing to submit requests for exclusion or objections.
d. The Class Counsel will file a memorandum of points and
authorities in support of their motion for approval of additional
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses no later than Jan. 14,
2019, 14 calendar days before the end of the time within which the
Newly Identified Class Members may object to or opt out of the
settlement.
e. The Class Counsel will file a memorandum of points and
authorities in support of the final approval of the secondary
payments no later than Feb. 11, 2019, seven calendar days before
the final fairness hearing. The Final Fairness Hearing will be
held at 10:00 a.m. on Feb. 25, 2019.
The initial distributions of the $700,000 Settlement Amount will be
made pursuant to the schedule previously approved by the Court in
the Final Approval Order so that the Class Members who are
participating in the initial distribution can obtain relief without
further delay.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/p67i2k from Leagle.com.
Deborah LePine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by T. David Copley --
dcopley@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK, Tana Lin --
tlin@KellerRohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP & Julian Hammond --
jhammmond@hammondlawpc.com -- HAMMOND LAW, P.C.
PetSmart, Inc, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Chelsea D. Petersen -- CDPetersen@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE &
Emily A. Bushaw -- EBushaw@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE.
PINNACLE FOODS: Moreno Product Mislabeling Case Removed to C.D. Cal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Barbara Moreno individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pinnacle Foods Group LLC
and Does 1-25 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1827269, (Cal.
Super., October 19, 2018), was removed to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on November
26, 2018 under Case No. 18-cv-02473.
Moreno brings claims for fraud, unjust enrichment and breach of
implied and express warranty under California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law and California's
False Advertising Law.
Pinnacle Foods, Inc. -- http://pinnaclefoods.com/-- is a packaged
foods company headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey that
specializes in shelf-stable and frozen foods. Moreno purchased
their "Log Cabin Syrup" and claims that their product is
prominently labeled as "All Natural" despite containing synthetic
xanthan gum.
Defendant cites number of proposed class members, plaintiff class'
citizenship and the aggregate amount in controversy as basis for
removal. [BN]
Defendant is represented by:
Rachel E. K. Lowe, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1410
Tel: (213) 576-1000
Facsimile: (213) 576-1100
E-mail: rachel.lowe@alston.com
PIONEER CREDIT: Reizner Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALEX REIZNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PIONEER CREDIT RECOVERY, INC.; and JOHN DOES
1-25, Case No. 2:18-cv-16014-JLL-SCM (D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2018) seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect
a debt. The case is assigned to Chief Judge Jose L. Linares and
referred to Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion.
Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. provides collection services on
defaulted debt. Its services include non-tax government
collections; revenue recovery for court clients, including
collecting past due fines and fees, and court fines and fees; and
tax amnesty programs. It recovers a range of debt for various
levels of government ranging from federal agencies and cities to
counties. The company was founded in 1980 and is based in Arcade,
New York with additional offices in Florida, Indiana, and New
Jersey. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Navient Solutions, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Telephone: (973) 227-5900
Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
PREFERRED HOME: Underpays Customer Care Specialists, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA REKELHOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PREFERRED HOME HEALTH CARE & NURSING
SERVICES, INC. D/B/A ACELLERON MEDICAL PRODUCTS, Defendant, Case
No. 1877CV1664C (Mass. Cmmw., Essex Cty., Nov. 9, 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 Rekelhoff was employed by the Defendant as customer
care specialist.
Preferred Home Health Care & Nursing Services, Inc. d/b/a Acelleron
Medical Products provides medical and non-medical home health care
services in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The company was founded in
1987 and is based in Eatontown, New Jersey. It also has locations
in Galloway, Orange, Mt. Laurel, North Brunswick, Brick, and
Hackensack, New Jersey; and Bala Cynwyd and Bensalem, Pennsylvania.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Shafran, Esq.
Nicholas J. Schneider, Esq.
RUDOLPH FRIEDMAN LLP
92 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 723-7700
Facsimile: (617) 227-0313
E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com
nschneider@rflawyers.com
PURDUE PHARMA: Walter Sues over Sale of Prescription Opioid Drugs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMEL EILAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA INC.; THE
PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; INSYS THERAPEUTICS, 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.;
and AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-02894 (D. Colo., Nov. 9, 2018) alleges violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants manufacture, market,
sell, and distribute prescription opioids, which are powerful,
highly addictive narcotic painkillers. The Defendants have engaged
in a cunning and deceptive marketing scheme to encourage doctors
and patients to use opioids to treat chronic pain. In doing so, the
Defendants falsely minimized the risks of opioids, overstated their
benefits, and generated far more opioid prescriptions than there
should have been.
Purdue Pharma L.P. is engaged in the research, development,
production, and distribution of prescription and over-the-counter
(prescription and non-prescription) medicines and healthcare
products. It serves healthcare professionals, patients, and
caregivers in the United States and internationally. The company
has a strategic research collaboration agreement with Exicure Inc.
Purdue Pharma L.P. was formerly known as The Purdue Frederick
Company and changed its name to Purdue Pharma L.P. in January 1991.
The company was founded in 1892 and is based in Stamford,
Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colleen T. Calandra, Esq.
RAMOS LAW
3000 Youngfield Street
Wheat Ridge, CO 80215
Telephone: (303) 733-6353
Facsimile: (303) 865-5666
E-mail: colleen@ramoslaw.com
rebekah@ramoslaw.com
- and -
Ashley Keller, Esq.
Travis Lenkner, Esq.
Seth Meyer, Esq.
KELLER LENKNER, LLC
150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2570
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-5220
E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com
tdl@kellerlenkner.com
sam@kellerlenkner.com
- and -
William S. Consovoy, Esq.
Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq.
CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
Arlington, VA 22201
Telephone: (703) 243-9423
E-mail: will@consovoymccarthy.com
tom@consovoymccarthy.com
- and -
Michael H. Park, Esq.
CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 247-8006
E-mail: park@consovoymccarthy.com
RESIDENCE INN: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Arias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Marriott International, Inc., and Residence Inn by
Marriott filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled
Blanca Argelia Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-08818-RGK-JPR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.
The appellate case is captioned as Blanca Argelia Arias v.
Residence Inn by Marriott, et al., Case No. 18-80171, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent BLANCA ARGELIA ARIAS, individually and on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, is represented
by:
Ramin R. Younessi, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF RAMIN R. YOUNESSI A.P.L.C.
3435 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 480-6200
Facsimile: (213) 480-6201
E-mail: ryounessi@younessilaw.com
Defendants-Petitioners RESIDENCE INN BY MARRIOTT, a Delaware
limited liability company, and MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
Delaware corporation, are represented by:
William J. Dritsas, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 397-2823
E-mail: wdritsas@seyfarth.com
- and -
Brian Patrick Long, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 270-9600
E-mail: bplong@seyfarth.com
RIVERCHASE GALLERIA: Class Action Mulled Over Bradford Shooting
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessalyn Adams, writing for CBS42, reports that The Justice League
is calling for the Hoover Police Department to be held accountable
in the shooting death of 21-year-old Emantic Bradford Jr.
Protesters gathered outside the Galleria on Nov. 24, saying, "No
justice. No shopping."
"He was a great guy, he was very respectable, he was just a great
guy," says Bradford's aunt Katherine Jewell.
Bradford was shot by police in front of FootAction Thanksgiving
Day.
Hoover Police initially released that Bradford was a suspect in the
shooting of an 18-year-old and 12-year-old.
They've since released, Bradford did not shoot anyone.
That's why his family and protesters are seeking justice.
"Well they killed him, for no reason at all," says Ms. Jewell.
Protesters started outside at Macy's. They made their way through
the mall with signs and chants for justice.
"We want accountability first. An apology, along with a resignation
would be great, from the mayor, Chief of Police, as well as Captain
Rector, because he is the one who sent out the message," says
Le'Darius Hilliard, President of the Jefferson County Millenial
Democrats.
Mr. Hilliard says they are upset at how police portrayed Bradford,
and how the victim was treated in his death.
"It was a life . . A lifeless body in this mall, and it was totally
ignored, because six hours later the mall was back open for
business every business in there was open like nothing happened."
Protesters are calling for people to boycott shopping at the
Galleria and other establishments in Hoover.
They are also planning a class action lawsuit.
Protesters say they want all security footage, police body camera
footage, and personal videos turned over to police to be released
to the public.
Other protests are in the works.
Mr. Hilliard says they'll be at the next Hoover City Council
meeting.
Ben Crump, the nationally renowned civil rights attorney, will be
the attorney for the family of Emantic "E.J." Bradford. [GN]
RIVERFRONT LLC: Underpays Waitresses, Dore Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
ANDI DORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE RIVERFRONT LLC; JENNIFER LEBLANC; and
BRIAN RUSH, Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-01476 (W.D. La., Nov. 12,
2018) is an action against the Defendants to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and minimum wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff Dore was employed by the Defendants as waitress.
The Riverfront LLC is engaged in the restaurant business in
Abbeville, Louisiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
318 Harrison Ave., Suite 104
New Orleans, LA 70124
Telephone: (504) 267-0777
Facsimile: (504) 513-3084
E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com
ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Lax Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Alfred Lax, on behalf of himself and others a11 similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Roto-Rooter Services Company, and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18CV338652 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa
Clara Cty., November 30, 2018) seeks relief for unremedied
violations of California law, including, damages, reimbursements,
restitution, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees, as
appropriate, to members of the proposed class, and to victims of
the practices at issue, who have not been provided statutory rest
breaks, or separately compensated for rest breaks, even upon
termination as required by California Labor Code.
The complaint says the Defendant does not compensate technicians
for non-productive times, such as travel time between jobs,
equipment repair time, and van maintenance time. Because the
Defendant does not pay technician a separate hourly minimum wage
for this non-productive time, the Defendant fails to comply with
the California Labor Code.
The Defendant's policy with respect to not paying for all time
worked by technicians applied to all technicians in California
during the pertinent time period. As a result of this policy,
Defendants did not pay technicians for all time worked. As such,
Plaintiff, and those plaintiff seeks to represent, are entitled to
obtain the unpaid balance of full amount of the unpaid wages owed
to pursuant to California Labor Code, says the complaint.
Plaintiff is a current employee of Defendant. Plaintiff has worked
for Roto-Rooter as a non-exempt service technician for over a
decade. As a service technician, Plaintiff travels to customers'
locations in Defendant's vehicles to provide Defendant's services
to customer.
Defendant operates throughout the United States, including in
California, providing plumbing repair, sewer and drain services,
and water damage cleanup services to residential and commercial
customers.
The names and capacities of defendants as Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, are presently not to known Plaintiff, who therefore sues
these defendants by such fictitious names.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robin G. Workman, Esq.
Rachel E. Davey, Esq.
WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC
177 Post Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: (415) 782-3660
Facsimile: (415) 788-1028
Email: robin@workmanlawpc.com
rachel@workmanlawpc.com
ROWAN COMPANIES: Faces Jorgensen Suit over Proposed Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
SAM ATLE JORGENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROWAN COMPANIES PLC; WILLIAM E.
ALBRECHT; THOMAS P. BURKE; THOMAS R. HIX; JACK B. MOORE; SUZANNE P.
NIMOCKS; THIERRY PILENKO; JOHN J. QUICKE; TORE I. SANDVOLD; and
CHARLES L. SZEWS; Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10423 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 9, 2018) alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
According to the complaint, on October 30, 2018, the Defendants
authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading
preliminary proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, in violation of the Exchange Act that recommends
shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Merger.
While Defendants are touting the fairness of the Merger
Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy, they have
failed to disclose material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Merger, thereby rendering certain statements in the Proxy
incomplete and misleading. Specifically, the Proxy contains
materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i)
the valuation analyses performed by the Company's financial
advisor, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, in support of their fairness
opinion; and (ii) the background of the Proposed Merger.
Rowan Companies plc provides offshore oil and gas contract drilling
services to the oil and gas industry. The company operates in the
United States Gulf of Mexico, the United Kingdom, and Norwegian
sectors of the North Sea, the Middle East, and Trinidad. Rowan
Companies plc was founded in 1923 and is based in Houston, Texas.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 971-1341
Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
SAGE BRE NY: Discriminates Against Pregnant Workers, Cunya Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
BETSABE CUNYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAGE BRE NY NJ MANGER B LLC; HILTON
WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC.; BRE NE HOSPITALITY PROPERTY OWNER, LLC;
AND UNUM GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-6405 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 9,
2018) is an action against the Defendants' failure to provide
pregnant female employees with legally mandated short-term
disability benefit.
Sage Bre NY NJ Manger B LLC is a hotel management company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francisca D. Fajana, Esq.
Nathalia A. Varela, Esq.
LATINOJUSTICE PRLDEF
99 Hudson Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 219-3360
Facsimile: (212) 431-4276
E-mail: FFajana@latinojustice.org
NVarela@latinojustice.org
SANTA FE, NM: Petitions for Writ of Certiorari Filed in Moya Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Mariano Moya, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
the United States petitions for a writ of certiorari in the matter
entitled Mariano Moya, et al., Petitioners v. Robert Garcia,
Sheriff, Santa Fe County, New Mexico, et al., Case No. 18-689.
Responses are due on December 26, 2018.
The lower court case is styled Mariano Moya, et al. v. Robert
Garcia, Sheriff, Santa Fe County, New Mexico, et al., Case No.
17-2037, in United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought over alleged civil rights violations. The District Court
case is titled Moya, et al. v. Garcia, et al., Case No.
1:16-CV-01022-WJ-KBM, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico - Albuquerque.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners Mariano Moya, et al., are represented by:
Linda T. Coberly, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
35 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 558-8768
E-mail: lcoberly@winston.com
SCANA: Settles Class Action Over V.C. Summer Nuclear Project
------------------------------------------------------------
Tanita Gaither, writing for WIS, reports that SCANA and SCE&G
announced on Nov. 24 that they have reached an agreement with
plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against the utility following
the aborted V.C. Summer nuclear project in 2017.
The plaintiffs, Richard Lightsey, LeBrian Cleckley, and Phillip
Cooper, all filed suit months after SCANA abandoned the V.C. Summer
nuclear plant in Fairfield County in August 2017, citing that SCANA
and its partner Santee Cooper "actively concealed" any idea that
the nuclear project would fail.
The lawsuit also addressed other issues, including arguments
related to the Base Load Review Act and the large bonuses SCANA
executives obtained during that time.
"In reaching this agreement, we have been able to secure more than
$2 billion in relief and accountability for the people of South
Carolina," Former United States Attorney, and lead counsel for the
certified class, J. Preston Strom, Jr., said on the settlement. "We
thank the Attorney General's office for their hard work throughout
this case and particularly in securing the return of funds set
aside for executive bonus payments to the ratepayers."
Dominion Energy helped SCANA provide "financial resources necessary
to make this restitution," the release said.
Jim Stuckey, SCANA's Senior Vice President and General Counsel,
issued the following statement: "We are pleased that we were able
to achieve a mutually acceptable resolution of this matter so that
we can keep our focus on moving forward with the merger with
Dominion Energy."
The utility has agreed to a Common Benefit Fund, with the following
amounts to be distributed to the class members:
-- A credit of up to $2 billion in future electric rate relief
will inure to the benefit of the Common Benefit Fund in favor of
class members over a period of time established in the proceeding
pending before the Public Service Commission of South Carolina (the
PSC); and
-- A cash payment of $115,000,000.00, which will include the full
value of the SCANA rabbi trust funded in January 2018 that was
created in whole or in part for executive change-in-control
payments; and
-- Transfer of SCE&G owned real estate or sales proceeds from
the sale of real properties, including among others, the Ramsey
Grove Plantation; the original Charleston Gas & Light Building at
141 Meeting Street in Charleston; and certain Otarre properties in
Cayce.
But the settlement is not complete -- before any funds are
dispersed, it must be given a final approval and final order by the
South Carolina Public Service Commission's approval of the
SCANA/Dominion Energy merger.
SCANA and SCE&G deny the allegations made in the lawsuit but have
agreed to resolve this matter. The utility also tried to have the
lawsuits dismissed, but failed.
"The settlement reached is the result of countless hours of work by
our office seeking to make SCE&G customers whole for the
abandonment of the failed V.C. Summer nuclear project," South
Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said. "I am proud of the hard
work of my entire team in bringing about this result, starting with
the aggressive posture of Solicitor General Bob Cook regarding
constitutional issues related to the Base Load Review Act, and
continuing through tough settlement negotiations to bring
resolution to civil matters related to these issues."
All current and former SCE&G customers effected by the failed
nuclear plant will receive notification about their rights under
the settlement.
"Eligible settlement class members will receive compensation in the
form of a bill credit or a payment of an amount to be distributed
by a court-approved class action administrator. Upon the approval
of the settlement, the lawsuit will be dismissed by agreement and
the claims of SCE&G ratepayers will be resolved," the news release
says. [GN]
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Faces Class Action Over Union Dues
-----------------------------------------------------
Anamika Vaughan, writing for Willamette Week, reports that ten
public employees filed a class-action lawsuit demanding the return
of union dues deducted from their paychecks even after they left
the ranks of organized labor.
The class-action lawsuit, filed Nov. 20 in U.S. District Court in
Portland, is the second filed against Oregon unions by lawyers from
the Olympia, Wash.-based Freedom Foundation following a U.S.
Supreme Court decision that says union dues must be voluntary.
That decision in June, Janus v. AFSCME, ruled that unions cannot
deduct dues from nonmember wages unless the employee "affirmatively
consents to pay."
In September, lawyers from the Freedom Foundation and the
Virginia-based National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
filed suit on behalf of a dozen Oregon public employee union
members who want their dues refunded. That suit is ongoing.
This new lawsuit, like the last one, is an attempt to undercut the
fundraising and political power of Oregon labor unions, long the
strongest bulwark of Democratic Party politics. It names American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 75 and
Service Employees International Union 503 as defendants, along with
seven government agencies.
Oregon Public Broadcasting first reported the new class-action
lawsuit.
According to the new lawsuit, Anderson et al. v. SEIU et al.,
unions and government agencies are using the membership cards
signed by employees to justify continuing payments.
For example, when one public employee resigned from Oregon AFSCME
Council 75, the union accepted the resignation, but denied the
request to stop due payments:
"Notwithstanding conflicting provisions in your collective
bargaining agreement, as an act of good faith, AFSCME will ask the
employer to terminate your dues on 1/11/2019. This date is the open
period from the most recent membership card you signed."
Attorneys for the Freedom Foundation say that a membership card
signed before the Janus decision cannot count as an affirmative
waiver of first amendment rights. Union members couldn't have
waived their rights before they were first granted by the U.S.
Supreme Court decision, the suit argues.
"Janus thankfully puts the burden of proof on the union to prove a
worker actually wants to be a dues-paying member," said Aaron With,
Oregon Director of the Freedom Foundation in a statement. "Someone
forced to decide between union membership and an illegal penalty
like an agency fee cannot 'voluntarily' decide to become a union
member, nor can the workers be bullied into waiving rights they
don't realize they have because they have not yet been acknowledged
by courts."
A spokesperson for Oregon AFSCME Council 75 could not immediately
be reached for comment. [GN]
SOLARTE FOODS: Fuentes Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Min., Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Guillermo Fernando Fuentes Rodriguez and Wilson Miguel Marmolejos
Morel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Solarte Foods, Inc. dba Solarte Foods, Claudia Lizeth Solarte,
Sebastian Culma Solarte, and Paula Culma Solarte,, Case No.
1:18-cv-06528 (E.D. N.Y., November 15, 2018), seek to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the N.Y. Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs alleged that they worked for the Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and
overtime compensation for the hours that they worked.
The Plaintiff Guillermo Fernando Fuentes Rodriguez is an adult
individual residing in Queens County, New York. The Plaintiff was
employed by Defendants at Solarte Foods from approximately March
2018 until on or about November 6, 2018.
The Plaintiff Wilson Miguel Marmolejos Morel is an adult individual
residing in Bronx County, New York. Plaintiff Marmolejos was
employed by Defendants at Solarte Foods from approximately June
2018 until on or about November 4, 2018.
The Plaintiffs were employed as drivers and warehouse assistants at
the food products supplier located at 544 Park Avenue Suite B30,
Brooklyn NY 11205.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a food products supplier,
located at 544 Park Avenue Suite B30, Brooklyn NY 11205 under the
name "Solarte Foods". [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 317-1200
Fax: (212) 317-1620
SONIC CORP: Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Merger Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Corp. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on November 29, 2018, that the
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit over a merger transaction have
agreed to dismiss the case in light of the Company's filing of a
supplemental disclosure statement regarding the deal.
On September 24, 2018, Sonic, Inspire Brands, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, and SSK Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Inspire, entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or
waiver of certain conditions, Merger Sub will merge with and into
Sonic, with Sonic continuing as the surviving corporation and as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Inspire.
On October 29, 2018, a purported class action complaint relating to
the Merger was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma on behalf of a putative class of Sonic
stockholders, captioned Patrick v. Sonic Corp. et. al., Case No.
CIV-18-1063-G.
On November 1, 2018, a purported class action complaint relating to
the Merger was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of a putative class of Sonic
stockholders, captioned Franchi v. Sonic Corp. et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01724-UNA.
On November 2, 2018, a purported class action complaint relating to
the Merger was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of a putative class of Sonic
stockholders, captioned Federman v. Sonic Corp. et. al., Case No.
1:99-mc-09999.
On November 9, 2018, a purported class action complaint relating to
the Merger was filed in the District Court of Oklahoma County,
State of Oklahoma on behalf of a putative class of Sonic
stockholders, captioned Crawford v. Sonic Corp. et. al., Case No.
CJ-2018-6207.
Each of the Patrick Complaint, the Franchi Complaint and the
Federman Complaint alleges that the Preliminary Proxy Statement is
false and/or misleading and asserts claims for violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended and SEC Rule 14a-9 against Sonic and its directors.
In addition, the Patrick Complaint asserts claims for violations of
Regulation G promulgated under the Exchange Act against Sonic and
its directors.
The Crawford Complaint alleges material omissions in the Definitive
Proxy Statement and asserts a claim for breaches of fiduciary
duties against Sonic's directors and a claim for aiding and
abetting against Sonic and its directors.
Each complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing the Merger, damages and an award of plaintiffs' costs
and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' and expert fees
and expenses.
In connection with the Crawford Complaint, on November 9, 2018, the
plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to expedite discovery, which was
yet to be decided by the court. On November 19, 2018, Rigrodsky &
Long, P.A., counsel for plaintiffs in the Franchi Complaint, sent
to representatives of Shearman & Sterling LLP, counsel to Sonic, a
letter referencing disclosure allegations in the Complaints and
demanding that certain supplemental disclosures be made to the
Definitive Proxy Statement.
Sonic believes that the claims asserted in the Complaints are
without merit and no supplemental disclosure is required under
applicable law. However, in order to avoid the risk of adverse
effect or delay in connection with the Transactions and to minimize
the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and
without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Sonic has determined
to voluntarily supplement the Definitive Proxy Statement to address
claims asserted in the Complaints, and the plaintiffs in the
Complaints have indicated that they agree to voluntarily dismiss
the Complaints in light of, among other things, the supplemental
disclosure.
A copy of the Supplemental Disclosures is available at
https://goo.gl/1TCC9P.
Sonic Corp., through its subsidiaries, operates and franchises a
chain of drive-in restaurants in the United States. Sonic Corp. was
founded in 1953 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. As
of December 7, 2018, Sonic Corp. operates as a subsidiary of ARG
Holding Corporation.
SUJA LIFE: Suja Juices Contaminated with Lead, Wachs et al. Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
MADELEINE WACHS; and GABRIELA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUJA LIFE, LLC; WHOLE
FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC.; MRS. GOOCH'S NATURAL FOOD MAREKTS,
INC.; WHOLD FOODS MARKET, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Case No. 18STCV04528 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 9, 2018)
seeks to enjoin the sale of the Suja juices and obtain restitution
and monetary relief for the damages caused due to exposure of lead
in the Suja juices.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants
concealed the material fact that the Suja Juices contain the
chemical element lead, at levels above the safety threshold set the
State of California.
Suja Life, LLC produces and sells cold-pressed, organic, and
non-GMO juices. The company also provides smoothies, probiotic
water, probiotic vinegar juices, and kombuchas. Its products are
available through its online store; and through Amazon.com, and
grocery and natural foods stores in the United States. The company
was founded in 2012 and is based in San Diego, California with a
production facility in Philadelphia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andre K. Jardini, Esq.
K.L. Myles, Esq.
KNAPP PETERSEN & CLARKE
550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
Glendale, CA 91203-1922
Telephone: (818) 547-5000
Facsimile: (818)547-5329
E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com
klm@kpclegal.com
TERNIUM S.A.: Ulbright Sues over Misleading Financial Report
------------------------------------------------------------
RANDALL ULBRICHT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TERNIUM S.A., DANIEL AGUSTIN
NOVEGIL, MAXIMO VEDOYA, PABLO BRIZZIO, and PAOLO ROCCA, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06801 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2019), seeks
to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the case is is a federal 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 Ternium from May 1, 2014 through
November 27, 2018, both dates inclusive. Ternium was formed in 2005
by the consolidation of Siderar of Argentina, Sidor
of Venezuela, and Hylsa of Mexico. In 2008, Venezuela ordered the
nationalization of Sidor, a Venezuelan steel company. On May 7,
2009, Ternium sold its 59.7% stake in Sidor to Corporacion
Venezolana de Guayana, or CVG, a Venezuelan state-owned entity.
Ternium agreed to receive $1.97 billion USD for the sale of its
interest. It took several years -- from 2009 to 2012 -- for
Ternium to receive the money. Ternium's Code of Conduct. The
Company's Code of Conduct, effective as of November 5, 2013,
contained a heading, "Bribery is Strictly Prohibited." The Code of
Conduct further stated that "Ternium will not condone, under any
circumstances, the offering or receiving of bribes or any other
form of improper payments."
On April 30, 2014, after market hours, Ternium filed a Form 20-F
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 with the SEC (the "2013
20-F"), which provided the Company's year-end financial results and
position. The 2013 20-F was signed by Defendant Brizzio. The 2013
20-F also contained signed certifications pursuant to the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by Defendants Novegil and Brizzio
attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of
any material changes to the Company's internal controls over
financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud. On June 1,
2015, after market hours, Ternium filed a Form 20-F for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2014 with the SEC (the "2014 20-F"), which
provided the Company's year-end financial results and position. The
2014 20-F was signed by Defendant Brizzio. The 2014 20-F also
contained signed SOX certifications by Defendants Novegil and
Brizzio attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the
disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal
controls over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud.
On this news, shares in Ternium's stock fell $1.42 per share or
nearly 5% to close at $28.02 per share on November 27, 2018,
damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.
Ternium S.A. is a manufacturer of flat and long steel products with
production centers in Argentina, Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia and
the United States. It is the leading steel company in Latin America
with highly integrated processes to manufacture steel and
value-added products.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
sshepardson@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
TEXAS: May Have to Show Foster Care Improvements to Judge
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert T. Garrett, writing for Dallas News, reports that for years
to come, it appears the state of Texas will have to show a federal
district judge it's making several substantial improvements to
foster care.
Unless further scaled back on appeal, U.S. District Judge Janis
Graham Jack soon will roll out a far-reaching order that would
force the state to back up with data its contentions that it has
adequate staffing levels in three categories of state employees
that touch foster kids' lives -- caseworkers, abuse investigators
and licensing inspectors.
Failure to persuade the judge might not bring down her wrath in
time to affect the state budget that lawmakers will write in next
year's legislative session.
But Jack, who is in her early 70s, based in Corpus Christi and
already has assumed senior status, has signaled her passionate
commitment to the class-action lawsuit before her. Thus, she easily
could hover over legislators' and executive-branch officials'
deliberations for at least some future sessions as well.
Under her order, Texas also would have to rapidly improve
regulation of private entities that provide most foster care.
And it would have to greatly expand the capabilities of the state's
child-welfare databases. They must afford caregivers and protectors
of the children access to real-time information about safety
threats and emotional, physical and educational problems, according
to Jack.
She fine-tuned her initial order, issued in January, to comply with
an Oct. 18 decision by a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals. The panel upheld some portions of Jack's original
remedial plan but swept away others, calling them overreach.
In 2015, Jack ruled that immediate remedies are needed for the
state's "broken" long-term foster care system because it subjects
already vulnerable youths to mayhem and harm.
The Department of Family and Protective Services, the parent agency
of CPS, is the main defendant in the suit. It has been under fire
for letting children linger in foster care for years because their
birth families remain unsafe and no one wants to adopt them. The
agency too often yanks them from home communities and sends them
far away, causing new traumas, experts have said.
Besides manageable caseloads, Jack wants:
-- CPS' new sister agency, the Investigations Division, to more
quickly look into allegations that an abused child in
state-arranged foster care has suffered further maltreatment.
-- Clearer "lines of communication" on how such abuse is to be
reported.
-- The department and its contractors to do a more thorough job
of notifying a child's future foster parents and caregivers of
confirmed abuse -- especially sexual abuse -- that occurred while
the youngster was in state custody.
-- The department to submit, within 30 days of a final judgment,
a plan to "remediate missing and nonexistent medical and mental
health records" in children's electronic case files, following
recommendations by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
-- And a separate state agency, the Health and Human Services
Commission, would need to have enough residential child-care
licensing inspectors to satisfy Jack that the state is actively
searching patterns of violations by shoddy foster-care providers.
The class-action suit, affecting 12,000 children in long-term
foster care, was the brainchild of New York children's advocate
Marcia Robinson Lowry and two legal rights organizations she helped
create that champion abused and neglected children.
Lowry applauded Jack's revised order as offering a "clear pathway"
to much-needed improvements in what she has called a recalcitrant
state.
"This is a thorough, careful set of remedies all supported by the
circuit [court] decision that will finally protect the
constitutional rights of Texas children," she said.
State response
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose office defended the state
in the suit, has argued it should be thrown out. The state is
improving foster care on its own, Paxton, a Republican, argued.
"The [appeals] court's decision affirmed many of the changes the
state has made in our foster care system," Paxton spokeswoman
Kayleigh Lovvorn said. "While the program still faces challenges,
the 5th Circuit upheld significant parts of the program as
constitutional and stated that the injunction [by Jack] was
overbroad and impractical."
She and spokesmen for Gov. Greg Abbott and the state's protective
services and health and human services agencies, which like Abbott
are defendants in the case, declined to discuss what could come
next.
That includes whether the state will appeal and what requests for
more money and new programs Abbott's administration will submit to
the Legislature. It convenes Jan. 8.
Paul Yetter of Houston, a leading lawyer for the plaintiffs, said
it's possible the 5th Circuit panel and Jack will have signed off
on a final judgment by this month or early January -- in plenty of
time for lawmakers to act.
"Needless to say, we hope the state realizes that it's time to
start fixing its system and stop fighting the process," he said.
"The Legislature has a very clear idea right now of what they're
going to need to do, which is what the 5th Circuit put in its
opinion."
Court rejected some proposed remedies
Last January, Jack also proposed requirements designed to create a
better array of state-offered placements, install landlines for
abused foster children to use to report maltreatment, improve group
homes and prepare foster teens for adult living.
However, the 5th Circuit panel found that such requirements, while
shaped by laudable aspirations, went too far and aren't required by
the U.S. Constitution.
Still, Jack's surviving remedies could carry big price tags -- if
not next year, then in a future session.
Foremost among them is her demand that CPS conservatorship
caseworkers who oversee foster children should have manageable
caseloads.
In her latest proposal, Jack would stop CPS from counting adults
and "stages of service" in calculating the workloads. Only children
would be counted.
Judge Edith Brown Clement of Louisiana, joined in her majority
opinion by Judge Jerry Smith of Houston, tossed the caseload caps
that Jack originally proposed. They would be too inflexible and
hard to administer, Clement wrote.
But the appellate judges upheld Jack's findings that caseworkers --
as well as state employees who investigate abuse and inspect
foster-care facilities -- are overworked. That causes high turnover
and unconstitutionally unsafe conditions for youngsters, the panel
agreed. It said internally calculated and applied workload
standards, which the state would use to "inform its hiring goals,"
would be a valid requirement.
Urged by the plaintiffs to do so, Jack demanded that studies of
workloads that safely can be carried by the three categories of
state workers be conducted within four months. Within six months,
the protective-services department, which has the caseworkers and
investigators, and the Regulatory Services Division at the Health
and Human Services Commission, which has the inspectors, would have
to do three more things: Apply the new standards, use them in
distributing cases and let them begin to drive decisions on hiring
goals.
As a result, it may take time to see how the lawsuit affects state
funding and hiring of new workers. Two years ago, amid a crisis
over CPS' failures to make initial contacts with children named in
tips about maltreatment, which The Dallas Morning News disclosed,
Abbott and GOP legislative leaders approved pay raises and as many
as 828 new hires for CPS.
Child advocates' perspective
But child advocates, such as Kate Murphy of the nonprofit Texans
Care for Children, have said conservatorship workers' caseloads
remain well above levels recommended by national groups.
"Most of the progress in reducing caseloads has been among
caseworkers that investigate abuse and neglect [in the general
population] rather than caseworkers for children already removed
from their parents," she said.
Murphy and other advocates and foster-care providers said some
little-noticed Jack remedies that Clement's opinion validated could
be costly for budget writers next session.
They call for the protective services department to submit within
four months of a final judgment "a plan for an integrated computer
system." The system should allow those responsible for a foster
child to see all pertinent health care, educational and court
records, as well as caseworker records and the child's history of
abuse, Jack's proposed order said.
Since 2013, the department has spent $48 million trying to update
the Information Management Protecting Adults and Children in Texas,
or IMPACT, system, a confidential database that documents
everything from maltreatment allegations to a youngster's treatment
plans. But caseworkers complain it is clunky and antiquated.
"One of the things they've had a really hard time putting in a
centralized database is school records," Murphy said. "Some health
records are not centrally located, though they're supposed to be."
Madeline McClure, founder of Dallas-based TexProtects-Champions for
Safe Children, sharply criticized Clement's opinion.
She questioned how Clement and Smith could rule that impossibly
high caseloads for conservatorship workers constitute a
constitutional no-no — but not the state's much-criticized
placement system.
Under it, severely emotionally disturbed children from Dallas are
often assigned to residential treatment centers in the Houston area
because almost none exist in North Texas. That moves them far from
their schools, relatives and friends, critics note.
"The majority further demonstrates just how out of their depth they
are in this subject matter by stating that children who are abused
-- seriously enough to warrant a removal in one of the lowest
removal rates in the nation -- are not at an increased risk of
being exposed to severe psychological harm if they are subsequently
'moved from home to home,'" McClure said.
"If that isn't a violation of constitutional rights to due process,
but overworked caseworkers qualifies as a violation, I give up,"
she said. [GN]
UNILEVER US: Removed Zizumbo et al. Case to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------
Unilever United States, Inc. removed the case captioned JENNIFER
ZIZUMBO, CHANDRA ZUNDEL, and ADRIANNE ORDAZ, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., a Delaware corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. RG-18925345 (filed Oct. 19, 2018), from the
Alameda County Superior Court, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on Nov. 29, 2018. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:18-cv-07213-KAW to the proceeding.
The complaint was filed by Plaintiffs on behalf of a putative
nationwide class, defined as:
"all persons who, between October 15, 2014 and the present,
purchased, in the United States, any size bottle ICBINB Spray"
and on behalf of a California subclass, defined as:
"all members of the Class who made a ICBINB Spray purchase in
California.
The complaint alleges that the I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!
Spray (TM) label reads "0 calories" and "0 g fat" per serving, and
that accordingly Unilever "engages in false, unfair and deceptive
practices" because the product contains 1160 calories and 124 grams
of fat per 12-ounce bottle.
Unilever United States, Inc., a fast moving consumer goods company,
manufactures and sells food, refreshments, home, and personal care
products in the United States. The company sells its products
through its own sales force, as well as through independent
brokers, agents, and distributors to chain, wholesale, co-operative
and independent grocery accounts, food service distributors, and
institutions.[BN]
Attorneys for Defendant:
Claudia M. Vetesi, Esq.
Elizabeth Balassone, Esq.
Claire Bonelli, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Telephone: 415.268.7000
Facsimile: 415.268.7522
E-mail: CVetesi@mofo.com
EBalassone@mofo.com
CBonelli@mofo.com
UNITED RENTALS: Removes Elizarraz Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of RAMON ELIZARRAZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED
RENTALS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No.
18STCV00119) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on November 9, 2018. The clerk of court for the Central
District of California assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-09533-ODW-JC. The
case is assigned to Judge Otis D. Wright, II and referred to
Magistrate Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian.
United Rentals (North America), Inc. provides construction and
industrial equipment. The Company offers scaffolding, air
compressors, rollers, compactors, tile saws, mixers, dozers,
excavators, loaders, tillers, generators, trucks, welders, lasers,
vacuums, plumbing, and material handling equipment on rental basis.
United Rentals serves customers in the United States and Canada.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
411 North Central Avenue Suite 500
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
statavos@justicelawcorp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Paul Rodriguez, Esq.
Julie M Capell, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
865 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
Telephone: (213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
E-mail: paulrodriguez@dwt.com
juliecapell@dwt.com
UNITED STATES: Cross-Bid for Summary Judgment in Zhang Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HUASHAN ZHANG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Defendants, Case No.
15-cv-995 (EGS) (D. D.C.), Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (i) granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment; (ii)
denied USCIS' cross-motion for summary judgment; (iii) granted the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class (albeit with a modified class
definition); and (iv) denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to
amend the complaint.
Almost 30 years ago, Congress established the EB-5 Visa Program to
stimulate the economy and create jobs through foreign capital
investment. Under the Program, "alien investors" may become
eligible to immigrate to the United States in return for investing
certain qualifying amounts of capital in a commercial enterprise in
the United States.
The Plaintiffs in the case are individual alien investors whose
EB-5 visa petitions were denied by the agency that oversees the
Program: the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
("USCIS"). They allege that their petitions were denied based on
USCIS' flawed interpretation of its own regulation. As such, they
challenge USCIS' decisions to deny their petitions as arbitrary and
capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act
("APA"), and the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"). The
Plaintiffs also claim that USCIS exceeded its statutory authority
under the INA by denying their petitions and impermissibly applying
its interpretation retroactively. Finally, the Plaintiffs claim
that USCIS engaged in improper rulemaking without notice and
comment, also in violation of the APA.
Named Plaintiff Zhang is a citizen of the People's Republic of
China seeking to immigrate to the United States with his wife and
children. On Dec. 23, 2013, Mr. Zhang filed an I-526 petition
claiming that he fulfilled the minimum capital requirement by
investing $500,000 in cash in a new commercial enterprise in Las
Vegas, Nevada. On May 28, 2015, USCIS denied Mr. Zhang's I-526
petition, asserting that Mr. Zhang did not place the required
amount of capital at risk for the purpose of generating a return on
his investment.
Second named Plaintiff Mayasuki Hagiwara is a Japanese citizen
seeking to immigrate to the United States with his wife though the
EB-5 Program. On March 17, 2014, Mr. Hagiwara filed his I-526
petition with USCIS, asserting eligibility based on his $500,000
cash investment in a new commercial enterprise in Tonopah, Nevada.
Employing the same general reasoning as in Mr. Zhang's case, USCIS
denied Mr. Hagiwara's I-526 petition on March 27, 2015.
The Plaintiffs filed their complaint on June 23, 2015 and all
pending motions were ripe for review by June 2016. However, the
Court stayed the case in March 2017 when the parties indicated that
they were amenable to settlement assistance from the Court's
mediation program. Mediation efforts failed, and the pending
motions are ready for adjudication.
Pending before the Court are: (1) the Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment; (2) USCIS' cross-motion for summary judgment; (3)
the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class; and (4) the Plaintiffs'
motion to amend the complaint.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the class of all Form I-526
petitioners who: (1) invested cash in a new commercial enterprise
in an amount sufficient to qualify as an EB-5 investor; (2)
obtained some or all of the cash invested in the new commercial
enterprise through a loan; (3) filed a Form I-526 petition prior to
April 22, 2015 based on that investment; and (4) received or will
receive a denial of their I-526 petition on the ground that the
loan used to obtain the invested cash fails the collateralization
test described in the announcement made by USCIS during its April
22, 2015 EB-5 stakeholder engagement.
Judge Sullivan first considers the cross-motions for summary
judgment. He analyzes two of the Plaintiffs' four claims: (1) that
USCIS' interpretation of 8 C.F.R. Section 204.6, the EB-5
regulation, is erroneous because it contravenes the regulation's
plain meaning; and (2) that USCIS violated the APA because its
interpretation is a legislative rule promulgated without notice and
comment. Because he agrees with the Plaintiffs on these two
claims, he holds he needs not assess the Plaintiffs' two other
claims: (1) that USCIS' application of its interpretation has been
impermissibly applied retroactively; and (2) that USCIS'
interpretation is ultra vires and exceeds its statutory authority
conferred by the INA.
He finds that he cannot agree with USCIS that its interpretation is
not a legislative rule because it sensibly conforms to the words of
a statute or existing legislative rule. Indeed, the Judge has
already found that USCIS' interpretation does not conform to the
text of 8 C.F.R. Section 204.6(e). Similarly, he does not find
that USCIS' interpretation is merely a clarification of its
long-standing policy. USCIS' interpretation may well be
long-standing, but it is not a mere clarification of the governing
regulation. The interpretation modifies the plain meaning of the
EB-5 regulation, effectively amending the rule. As such, it is a
legislative rule. Because USCIS did not submit the non-exempt
interpretation for notice and comment, USCIS violated the APA.
The Plaintiffs request that the Court approves their petitions
outright. The Judge concludes that such a remedy is not
appropriate. This is especially the case in the field of
immigration, where there may be sensitive issues lurking that are
beyond the ken of the court. Therefore, the "course of prudence"
is to remand the case to USCIS for reconsideration of the class
members' petitions. USCIS' decisions to deny the class members'
petitions are therefore vacated and the denials are remanded to
USCIS for reconsideration consistent with the Memorandum Opinion.
Having determined that USCIS' interpretation of its regulation is
erroneous and violates the APA, the Judge must now evaluate the
Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification. He finds that
the Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a) and
Rule 23(b). He also finds that the representative members'
interests are aligned with the rest of the class, and that the
class counsel is more than competent to represent the class. The
counsel has decades of experience with both immigration litigation
and class actions.
Accordingly, Judge Sullivan finds that the Plaintiffs have
established that a class action is appropriate pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23. As such, he granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, albeit with two modifications to
the class definition.
First, the Plaintiffs limit the proposed class to all investors who
"filed a Form I-526 petition prior to April 22, 2015." The
Plaintiffs propose defining the class in this manner so all
proposed class members would benefit if the Court determines that
the collateralization rule cannot be applied retroactively (Count
II). The date is significant because USCIS publicly announced its
erroneous interpretation on April 22, 2015 and the Plaintiffs argue
that USCIS retroactively applied its interpretation to investors
who applied for an EB-5 visa prior to that announcement. However,
the Judge ultimately does not reach the Plaintiffs' retroactivity
claim because it concludes that USCIS' interpretation is plainly
erroneous and violates the APA. Therefore, because any denial
based on USCIS' interpretation is erroneous, the date limitation
strikes the Court as unduly arbitrary.
Second, the Judge amended the definition to clarify that only
investors who received a denial of their I-526 petition solely
based on the USCIS' interpretation are included in the class. The
class does not include investors who received denials for multiple
reasons.
As such, he certified the class of all Form I-526 petitioners who:
(1) invested cash in a new commercial enterprise in an amount
sufficient to qualify as an EB-5 investor; (2) obtained some or all
of the cash invested in the new commercial enterprise through a
loan; (3) filed a Form I-526 petition based on that investment; and
(4) received or will receive a denial of their I-526 petition
solely on the ground that the loan used to obtain the invested cash
fails the collateralization test described in the USCIS 2015 IPO
Remarks announcement.
Because the Judge granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment and motion to certify class, he holds he needs not
consider the pending motion to amend the complaint.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Sullivan (i) granted in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment; (i) denied USCIS'
cross-motion for summary judgment; (iii) granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class, albeit with a modified class definition;
and (iv) denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the
complaint.
The Judge vacated USCIS' decisions to deny the Plaintiffs' and the
class members' petitions and remanded the denials to USCIS for
reconsideration consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. The Clerk
of Court is directed to close the case, with such closure being
without prejudice to a motion to re-open following further USCIS
proceedings. An appropriate Order accompanies the Memorandum
Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2018 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2QIywkZ from Leagle.com.
HUASHAN ZHANG & MASAYUKI HAGIWARA, Plaintiffs, represented by
Edward F. Ramos, KURZBAN, KURZBAN, WEINGER, TETZELI, & PRATT, P.A.,
pro hac vice, Ira Jay Kurzban, KURZBAN, KURZBAN, WEINGER, TETZELI,
& PRATT, P.A., pro hac vice & John Patrick Pratt, KURZBAN, KURZBAN,
WEINGER, TETZELI, & PRATT, P.A.
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, JEH CHARLES
JOHNSON, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Department of Homeland Security, LEON RODRIGUEZ, Director, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services & NICHOLAS COLUCCI, Chief,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Immigrant Investor
Program, Defendants, represented by Glenn M. Girdharry, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Immigration Litigation, Kathryne Marie Gray,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division & Yamileth G. Davila,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION Office of
Immigration Litigation District Court Section.
UNITED STATES: Says Contempt Motion in H-2B Case "Meritless"
------------------------------------------------------------
Mindy Aguon, writing for The Guam Daily Post, reports that the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services contends a contempt motion is
"meritless" and a request for sanctions is "inappropriate,"
according to the federal government's brief in opposition of a
motion for contempt filed by the Guam Contractors Association.
The attorney representing GCA renewed a request on Nov. 3 for a
federal court order of contempt for USCIS' continued denial of H-2B
petitions from island businesses seeking permission to hire skilled
foreign workers for construction jobs and other temporary
specialized work projects on Guam. The plaintiffs' attorney, Jeff
Joseph, called it a "willful failure to comply."
A preliminary injunction imposed by Chief Judge Frances
Tydingco-Gatewood of the District Court of Guam earlier this year
required USCIS to reverse its previous denials of H-2B worker
petitions and stop the blanket denial of future petitions.
In its opposition motion, USCIS argued its denial decisions fully
comply with the court's permanent injunction order and that the
agency's adjudication of National Defense Authorization Act H-2B
petitions is "not evidence of purported noncompliance with the
court's permanent injunction order."
'Overreaching coercive sanctions'
Glenn Girdharry, assistant director at the U.S. Department of
Justice, stated the plaintiffs' request for "overreaching coercive
sanctions" is inappropriate.
"Plaintiffs have failed to present any clear and convincing
evidence that would support a finding of civil contempt against
USCIS," Mr. Girdharry wrote.
Mr. Joseph represents the GCA and 11 other Guam employers that
filed a class-action lawsuit against USCIS in October 2016 after
its yearlong, near-100 percent denial rate of all petitions for
skilled foreign workers under the H-2B visa program.
In his motion for contempt, Joseph wrote that of the 708
nonmilitary H-2B petitions filed by Guam employers with USCIS,
"zero had been approved, with 91 positions having no action taken
on them, and no communication from USCIS for over 90 days." [GN]
US FOODS: Flerlage Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Margaret Flerlage and Markus Murray, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. US Foods, Inc., Case No.
2:18-cv-02614 (D. Kans., November 15, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs,
and other similarly situated employees, for all hours worked and
overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a single workweek in
accordance with state/federal law.
The Plaintiff Flerlage is a resident of the State of Kansas. From
February 6, 2006 until July 5, 2018, the Plaintiff was employed by
the Defendant US Foods as an Order Selector at Defendant's
workplace located at 4725 NW U.S. Highway 24, Topeka, KS 66618.
The Plaintiff Murray is a resident of the State of Kansas. From
approximately May of 2015 until approximately November of 2017, the
Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant US Foods as an Order
Selector at Defendant's workplace located at 4725 NW U.S. Highway
24, Topeka, KS 66618.
The Defendant US Foods, Inc. is a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business
located at 9399 West Higgins Road, Suite 500, Rosemont, Illinois
60018. Defendant US Foods, Inc. owns and operates its Kansas
Business location, in which Plaintiff and the putative class
members were employed. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
Kathryn S. Rickley, Esq.
OSMAN & SMAY LLP
8500 W. 110th Street, Suite 330
Overland Park, KS 66210
Tel: (913) 667-9243
Fax: (866) 470-9243
E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com
krickley@workerwagerights.com
VIOLETTE'S CELLAR: Vilchez Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
DENIS VILCHEZ, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, vs. VIOLETTE’S
CELLAR, LLC, and ROBERTO HERNANDEZ, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06832 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks to recover
damages and equitable relief based upon willful violations that the
Defendant committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to her by: (i)
the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act; (ii) the
minimum wage provisions of the FLSA; (iii) the overtime provisions
of the New York Labor Law; (iv) the minimum wage provisions of the
NYLL; (v) the NYLL's requirement that employers pay their employees
an additional one hour’s pay at the minimum wage rate if an
employees' spread of hours worked exceeds ten in a workday; (vi)
the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees whose
duties include performing manual labor more than 25% of the time
with their earned wages not less frequently than on a weekly basis,
NYLL section 191(1)(a); (vii) the NYLL's requirement that employers
furnish employees with wage statements containing specific
categories of accurate information on each payday, NYLL section
195(3); and (viii) the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish
employees with a wage notice containing specific categories of
accurate information upon hire, NYLL section 195(1).
According to the complaint, Defendants employed Plaintiff to work
in their restaurant as a dishwasher from on or about August 11,
2017 until on or about December 14, 2017. Throughout his
employment, Plaintiff's primary duties consisted of washing dishes,
mopping the floor, cleaning the back of the house, and cutting
vegetables as needed. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, he spent
significantly more than 25% of his time performing manual work.
Throughout his employment, Defendants required Plaintiff to work,
and Plaintiff did work, six days per week. Specifically, on Monday,
Wednesday, Thursday, and Sunday, Plaintiff worked from 2:00 p.m. to
2:00 a.m., and on Friday and Saturday, Plaintiff worked from 2:00
p.m. to 3:00 a.m. Throughout the entirety of his employment, the
Plaintiff was not permitted to take a scheduled or uninterrupted
break during his shift. Accordingly, Defendants required Plaintiff
to work, and Plaintiff did work, seventy-four hours per week.
Throughout his employment, Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat weekly
salary of $180.00, which operated to compensate Plaintiff for his
first forty hours of work per week only, and which amounts to an
hourly rate of $4.50. Thus, throughout the entirety of his
employment, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at least at the
statutory minimum wage for all hours worked, or at any rate of pay,
let alone at the applicable rate of one and one-half times the
minimum wage rate, for any hours that Plaintiff worked over forty
in a week, the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Caitlin Duffy, 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
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Judge Approves $48MM Emissions Cheating Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer approved a $48 million
settlement on Nov. 28 for investors in American Depository
Receipts, who claim that Volkswagen made false and misleading
statements about its financial condition and regulatory compliance
in the emissions cheating scandal.
WEBSTAURANT STORE: Rogers Appeals W.D. Ky. Decision to 6th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Brittany Rogers filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Brittany Rogers v. The Webstaurant Store, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00075, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky at Owensboro.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Brittany Rogers v. The
Webstaurant Store, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-6229, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant BRITTANY ROGERS, on Behalf of Herself and All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Mark N. Foster, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
P.O. Box 192
Rockwood, TN 37854
Telephone: (865) 354-3333
E-mail: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com
Defendants-Appellees THE WEBSTAURANT STORE, INC., and TRICIA
WILKERSON are represented by:
Courtney Lauren Graham, Esq.
STRAUSE LAW GROUP
804 Stone Creek Parkway, Suite One
Louisville, KY 40223
Telephone: (502) 426-1661
E-mail: cgraham@strauselawgroup.com
WELBILT INC: Todd Fenton Sues over 26% Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------
TODD FENTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELBILT, INC.; HUBERTUS M. MUEHLHAEUSER;
JOHN O. STEWART; and HARESH SHAH, Defendants, Case No.
8:18-cv-02757 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 9, 2018) is an action on behalf of
all investors who purchased or acquired Welbilt common stock
between February 24, 2017, and November 2, 2018, seeking remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are
liable as a participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of
business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of
Welbilt common stock by disseminating materially false and
misleading statements and concealing material adverse facts. The
scheme: (i) deceived the investing public regarding Welbilt's
business, operations, management and the intrinsic value of its
securities and (ii) caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to
purchase Welbilt securities at artificially inflated prices.
On November 5, 2018, before the market open, Welbilt filed a
current report on Form 8-K with the SEC announcing non-reliance on
previously issued financial statements. Therein, the Company stated
in relevant part: "On November 3, 2018, the Audit Committee of the
Board of Directors of Welbilt, Inc., after considering the
recommendation of management and after consulting with
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company's independent registered
public accounting firm, determined that the Company's previously
issued consolidated financial statements as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2016 and the related report of PwC as it relates
to such period as included in the Company's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 should no longer
be relied upon because of prior period errors. The errors primarily
relate to the computation of income taxes associated with
intercompany distributions by foreign entities and intercompany
obligations in accordance with underlying agreements."
On this news, the price of the Company's common stock declined
$5.06 from a close on November 2, 2018, at $19.32 per share of
Welbilt common stock, to a close on November 5, 2018 at $14.26 per
share of Welbilt common stock, a drop of 26.19%.
Welbilt, Inc. designs, manufactures, and services hot and cold
category commercial foodservice equipment worldwide. The company
was formerly known as Manitowoc Foodservice, Inc. and changed its
name to Welbilt, Inc. in February 2017. The company was founded in
1902 and is headquartered in New Port Richey, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cullin O'Brien, Esq.
CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
6541 NE 21st Way
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
Telephone: (561) 676-6370
Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com
- and -
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 10 th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: ek@zlk.com
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Sued Over Unfair Overdraft Fee Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Faltis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Wintrust Financial Corporation dba Town Bank, Case No.
1:18-cv-07582 (N.D. Ill., November 15, 2018), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.
This is a civil action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and
declaratory relief from the Defendant Wintrust, arising from the
unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of $35
"Overdraft Fees" on accounts that were never actually overdrawn.
The Plaintiff Dennis Faltis is a natural person who resides in Lake
Geneva, Wisconsin. The Plaintiff has a personal checking account
with Wintrust Financial Corporation dba Town Bank, which is
governed by a Deposit Account Agreement.
The Defendant Wintrust Financial Corporation is a financial holding
company based in Lake Forest, Illinois that owns, operates,
controls, and manages 15 chartered community banks in northern
Illinois, southern Wisconsin, and northwest Indiana. Wintrust is
the second largest banking company in Chicago with nearly $30
billion in assets. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
Vess A. Miller, Esq.
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Tel: (317) 636-6481
Fax: (317) 636-2593
E-mail: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
WOODBOLT DISTRIBUTION: Kinder Files Suit Over Slack-filled Product
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Kinder, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Woodbolt
Distribution, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-02713-DMS-AGS (S.D. Cal., November 30, 2018) is an
action filed by the Plaintiffs over the Defendant's misleading
business practices with respect to the packaging and sale of it's
Cellucor C4 Pre-Workout powders sold in 30 and 60 serving size
containers.
The Plaintiff says the Defendant has packaged and sold its C4
Pre-Workout Powders in opaque packaging that conceals from
consumers the amount of product actually contained therein. The
Defendant's practice of approximately half-filling its C4 Pre-
Workout Powders' containers with powder inside of an opaque
container creates non-functional slack fill. The use of
non-functional slack fill allows the Defendant to lower their costs
by deceiving customers into paying a higher price for more product
than they truly receive. As a result, the Defendant has realized
sizable profits, the Plaintiff relates.
Plaintiff and other consumers have suffered injury-in-fact as a
result of Defendant's deceptive practices, including, without
limitation, out-of-pocket costs incurred in purchasing the
overvalued C4 Pre-Workout Powders, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Joseph Kinder is a California citizen who resides in Pine
Valley, California. In or around November 2017, Plaintiff purchased
a 13.8-ounce container of C4 Pre-Workout Powder from
BodyBuilding.com, an authorized retailer operating in San Diego
County.
Woodbolt Distribution, LLC is a corporation organized and in
existence under the laws of the State of Delaware and is registered
to do business in the State of California. Woodbolt Distribution,
LLC's corporate headquarters and principal place of business are
located at 3891 S. Traditions Dr., Bryan, TX 77807. Woodbolt
Distribution, LLC designs, tests, manufactures, markets,
distributes, and sells Cellucor C4 Pre-Workout Powder nationwide
and in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
Capstone Law APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
Email: Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
YAHOO INC: Judge Refuses to Approve Data Breach Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge derided a settlement related to the biggest data
breach in the history of the internet as inadequate on Nov. 29, but
said she remains undecided about whether to grant approval.
U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh said a $117 million settlement
between Yahoo and a huge class of up to 3 billion people was
insufficient.
"I know both parties are highly motivated to get the settlement
approved, but I have concerns," Judge Koh said during a contentious
hearing on Nov. 29. "I have not been able to figure out the total
estimated sum. It is very vague. One of the vaguest I've read."
While public announcements pegged the settlement figure at $50
million plus credit monitoring services, lawyers for both sides
accidentally disclosed the total figure during the hearing: $117.5
million.
"This is a much worse settlement than Anthem," Judge Koh said
later, referring to an earlier data breach case involving a much
smaller class that was settled for $115 million.
Judge Koh questioned whether $35 million in class attorney fees is
necessary, asked why only seven people were deposed, chastised the
plaintiffs for their seeming lack of curiosity about whether highly
placed executives like former CEO Marissa Mayer knew of the
breaches and whether there were other intrusions into Yahoo's user
database prior to the ones disclosed in the case.
"I'm disappointed that there doesn't seem to be any motivation to
get to the bottom of this," Judge Koh said. "It appears there's a
willful blindness or an attitude of ‘Let's settle this and get
out.' The motivation of this lawsuit should be to find out the full
extent of the potential damage and alert users so they can take
precautions like shutting down bank accounts or getting new credit
cards."
Part of Judge Koh's frustration stemmed from the expert testimony
of Mary France, an expert witness for the plaintiffs who said the
information security practices at Yahoo earlier this decade might
have allowed data breaches prior to the large one in 2013.
Yahoo attorney Anne Marie Mortimer said there was no evidence of a
breach prior to the ones already disclosed -- including one in
August 2013 that Yahoo believes may have affected all 3 billion of
its users at the time.
"The expert expressed concerns there were vulnerabilities earlier,
but there was no proof that any breach happened," she said.
Judge Koh was also miffed the proposed settlement contains no
specific requirements about how Yahoo responds to future security
breaches, particularly as the plaintiffs argued high-level
executives knew about security vulnerabilities but elected not to
spend money on more robust measures for financial reasons.
Such provisions went into the Anthem settlement, Judge Koh noted.
"The conduct of Yahoo in this case was more egregious because the
company knew data breaches occurred, but withheld information from
users – likely to make sure the sale to Verizon happened," Koh
said. "Anthem came clean immediately and gave credit monitoring to
those affected. They didn't have to get sued to give credit
monitoring."
Credit monitoring is part of the proposed Yahoo settlement, but
Judge Koh asked why it reimburses for only 15 hours of the time
they spend dealing with identity theft.
"The compensation is designed to take into account extensive damage
to users, but there has to be a cap," said John Yanchunis, attorney
for the plaintiffs. "There's only $50 million."
Both lawyers claimed comparisons to the Anthem case were off base,
saying the Anthem breach -- which included the theft of about 37.5
million medical records -- was different because the information
contained Social Security numbers and private medical information.
"There was no financial information or Social Security information
in the Yahoo user database," Mortimer said, adding the Yahoo breach
involved email addresses, databases, encrypted passwords and
answers to security questions.
But Judge Koh noted the thieves who stole from Yahoo sold the
information on the dark web for exorbitant sums and that emails
could have contained financial information or Social Security
numbers.
Mortimer said Yahoo used bitcoin to buy back the stolen information
from the thieves "out of an abundance of caution," but also said
some buyers passed because the data was considered too old to be
valuable.
In an earlier hearing, Judge Koh said she takes her responsibility
to protect settling class members seriously and has withheld
approval from other major settlements.
She will decide on approval of the settlement in the coming weeks.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc. continues to defend itself in a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits, 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.
AMETEK, Inc. states, "The Company (including its subsidiaries) has
been named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits.
Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business which was acquired
by the Company and do not involve products which were manufactured
or sold by the Company. In connection with these lawsuits, the
seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the Company against
these claims (the "Indemnified Claims").
"The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being
defended by, such seller. The seller has met its obligations, in
all respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe
such party would fail to fulfill its obligations in the future.
"To date, no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a
result of any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes that
it has good and valid defenses to each of these claims and intends
to defend them vigorously."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2Kkq5Xg
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Still Faces Talc-Related Suits at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. still defends itself against numerous personal
injury lawsuits related to asbestos-contaminated talc products,
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.
Avon Products states, "The Company has been named a defendant in
numerous personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging
that certain talc products the Company sold in the past were
contaminated with asbestos. Many of these actions involve a number
of co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including
manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other products
that, unlike the Company's products, were designed to contain
asbestos.
"We believe that the claims against us are without merit. We are
defending vigorously against these claims and will continue to do
so. To date, there have been no findings of liability against the
Company in any of these cases but we are unable to predict the
ultimate outcome of each case.
"Additional similar cases arising out of the use of the Company's
talc products are reasonably anticipated. At this time, we are
unable to estimate our reasonably possible losses, if any. Also,
in light of the inherent litigation uncertainties, potential costs
to litigate these cases are not known, but they may be significant,
though some costs will be covered by insurance."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2FBuSoJ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Still Defends PI Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC ("BNSF") is still a party to a
number of personal injury claims by employees and non-employees who
may have been exposed to asbestos, 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 Company states, "The heaviest exposure for certain BNSF
employees was due to work conducted in and around the use of steam
locomotive engines that were phased out between the years of 1950
and 1967. However, other types of exposures, including exposure
from locomotive component parts and building materials, continued
after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at BNSF by
1985.
"BNSF assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure on an
annual basis during the third quarter. BNSF determines its
asbestos liability by estimating its exposed population, the number
of claims likely to be filed, the number of claims that will likely
require payment and the estimated cost per claim. Estimated filing
and dismissal rates and average cost per claim are determined
utilizing recent claim data and trends.
"During the third quarters of 2018 and 2017, the Company analyzed
recent filing and payment trends to ensure the assumptions used by
BNSF to estimate its future asbestos liability were reasonable. In
the third quarter of 2018, management determined that the liability
remained appropriate, and no change was recorded. In the third
quarter of 2017, management recorded a decrease to the liability of
US$29 million. The Company plans to update its study again in the
third quarter of 2019.
"Throughout the year, BNSF monitors actual experience against the
number of forecasted claims and expected claim payments and will
record adjustments to the Company's estimates as necessary.
"Based on BNSF's estimate of the potentially exposed employees and
related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated that unasserted
asbestos claims will continue to be filed through the year 2050.
The Company recorded an amount for the full estimated filing period
through 2050 because it had a relatively finite exposed population
(former and current employees hired prior to 1985), which it was
able to identify and reasonably estimate and about which it had
obtained reliable demographic data (including age, hire date and
occupation) derived from industry or BNSF specific data that was
the basis for the study. BNSF projects that approximately 65, 80
and 95 percent of the future unasserted asbestos claims will be
filed within the next 10, 15 and 25 years, respectively."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2PMb7iG
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Accrues $38MM for DuPont Suits at Sep.30
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company had an accrual of US$38 million for
asbestos-related lawsuits pending against E.I. du Pont de Nemours
(DuPont) at September 30, 2018, 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 Company states, "Chemours, by virtue of its status as a
subsidiary of DuPont prior to the separation, is subject to or
required under the separation-related agreements executed prior to
the separation to indemnify DuPont against various pending legal
proceedings.
"In the separation, DuPont assigned its asbestos docket to
Chemours.
"At September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, there were
approximately 1,500 and 1,600 lawsuits pending against DuPont
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos, respectively.
These cases are pending in state and federal court in numerous
jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually set for trial. A
small number of cases are pending outside of the U.S. Most of the
actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between the
1950s and the 1990s.
"A small number of cases involve similar allegations by DuPont
employees or household members of contractors or DuPont employees.
Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal injury as a result of
exposure to DuPont products.
"At September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, Chemours had an
accrual of US$38 million related to this matter."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2BmIjED
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 29,323 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has 29,323 pending asbestos-related claims as of
September 30, 2018, 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 Company states, "Of the 29,323 pending claims as of September
30, 2018, approximately 18,000 claims were pending in New York,
approximately 100 claims were pending in Texas, approximately 400
claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 200 claims
were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which legislation or
judicial orders restrict the types of claims that can proceed to
trial on the merits.
"The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts
by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. The
Company further has pursued appeals of certain adverse jury
verdicts that have resulted in reversals in favor of the defense."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2PIuBFb
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Defends Suits at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., still faces asbestos-related
lawsuits pending in Louisiana state courts, 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 Company states, "We are one of several unrelated defendants in
lawsuits filed in Louisiana state courts alleging that defendants
manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing
asbestos and, in our case, allowed such drilling mud to have been
utilized aboard our drilling rigs. The plaintiffs seek, among
other things, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages. The manufacture and use of asbestos-containing drilling
mud had already ceased before we acquired any of the drilling rigs
addressed in these lawsuits. We believe that we are not liable for
the damages asserted in the lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our
1989 asset purchase agreement with Diamond M Corporation. We are
unable to estimate our potential exposure, if any, to these
lawsuits at this time but do not believe that our ultimate
liability, if any, resulting from this litigation will have a
material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2PKjR9a
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $461MM Liabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC has recognized asbestos-related reserves
of US$461 million at September 30, 2018, according to Duke Energy
Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2018.
The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous
claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related
to asbestos exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily
injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos
in connection with construction and maintenance activities
conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of
September 30, 2018, there were 160 asserted claims for
non-malignant cases with cumulative relief sought of up to US$43
million, and 63 asserted claims for malignant cases with cumulative
relief sought of up to US$19 million. Based on Duke Energy
Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution
of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount
claimed.
"Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of
US$461 million at September 30, 2018, and US$489 million at
December 31, 2017. These reserves are classified in Other within
Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities
on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are
based upon the minimum amount of the range of loss for current and
future asbestos claims through 2037, are recorded on an
undiscounted basis and incorporate anticipated inflation. In light
of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management
does not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and
medical costs that might be incurred after 2037 related to such
potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur
asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves.
"Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention. Duke Energy Carolinas'
cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance retention in
2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by
the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for
potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and medical
cost claim payments is US$764 million in excess of the self-insured
retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were US$553
million at September 30, 2018, and US$585 million at December 31,
2017. These amounts are classified in Other within Other
Noncurrent Assets and Receivables within Current Assets on the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas is
not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of
insurance claims. Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance
recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier
continues to have a strong financial strength rating."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2TvcbWD
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Defends Claims at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eaton Corporation plc 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 is still a subject to asbestos
claims from historic products which may have contained asbestos.
The Company states, "Eaton is subject to a broad range of claims,
administrative and legal proceedings such as lawsuits that relate
to contractual allegations, tax audits, patent infringement,
personal injuries, antitrust matters, and employment-related
matters. Eaton is also subject to asbestos claims from historic
products which may have contained asbestos. Insurance may cover
some of the costs associated with these claims and proceedings.
Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome
or cost of these matters, the Company believes they will not have a
material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Md65Az
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enbridge Energy Had $41MM Liabilities at Sept.30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. recorded US$41 million in
liabilities for environmental matters, including those associated
with asbestos-containing materials, 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 Company states, "As of September 30, 2018 and December 31,
2017, our consolidated statements of financial position included
US$16 million and US$23 million, respectively, in "Environmental
liabilities," and US$25 million and US$51 million, respectively, in
"Other long-term liabilities," that we have accrued for costs to
address remediation of contaminated sites, asbestos containing
materials, management of hazardous waste material disposal,
outstanding air quality measures for certain of our liquids assets
and penalties we have been or expect to be assessed. On May 31,
2018, we received a No Further Action letter from the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality and subsequently reduced our
Line 6B environmental accrual by US$28 million."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2DAmhzX
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garrett Motion to Pay 90% of Honeywell Payables
----------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Motion Inc. disclosed in its Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that under its Indemnification and
Reimbursement Agreement with Honeywell, the Company is obligated to
make payments related to Honeywell's asbestos liability payments
and accounts payable.
The Company states, "On October 1, 2018, Garrett Motion Inc. became
an independent publicly-traded company through a pro rata
distribution (the "Distribution") by Honeywell International Inc.
("Parent" or "Honeywell") of 100% of the then-outstanding shares of
Garrett to Honeywell's stockholders (the "Spin-Off").
"Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos related personal injury
actions mainly related to its legacy Bendix Friction Materials
("Bendix") business. The Bendix business, manufactured automotive
brake parts that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated
form. Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure
to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the
vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements. In
conjunction with Garrett's separation from Honeywell, certain
operations that were part of the Bendix business, along with the
ownership of the Bendix trademark, was transferred to Garrett.
"In connection with the Spin-Off, we also entered into an
Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement with Honeywell on
September 12, 2018. As of the Spin-Off date of October 1, 2018, we
are obligated to make payments to Honeywell in amounts equal to 90%
of Honeywell's asbestos-related liability payments and accounts
payable, primarily related to the Bendix business in the United
States, as well as certain environmental-related liability payments
and accounts payable and non-United States asbestos-related
liability payments and accounts payable, in each case related to
legacy elements of the Business, including the legal costs of
defending and resolving such liabilities, less 90% of Honeywell's
net insurance receipts and, as may be applicable, certain other
recoveries associated with such liabilities. Pursuant to the terms
of this Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement, we are
responsible for paying to Honeywell such amounts, up to a cap of an
amount equal to the Euro-to-U.S. dollar exchange rate determined by
Honeywell as of a date within two business days prior to the date
of the Distribution (1.16977 USD = 1 EUR) equivalent of US$175
million in respect of such liabilities arising in any given
calendar year. The payments that we are required to make to
Honeywell pursuant to the terms of this agreement will not be
deductible for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
"These Combined Interim Financial Statements, prepared for the
period during which the Business was still a part of Honeywell,
reflect an estimated liability for resolution of pending and future
asbestos-related and environmental liabilities related to these
businesses, calculated as if we were responsible for 100% of the
Bendix asbestos-liability payments. However, we note that this
recognition model in the Combined Interim Financial Statements will
differ from the recognition model to be presented in future
financials as a standalone company which will reflect the terms of
the Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement with Honeywell
signed on September 12, 2018, under which we are required to make
payments to Honeywell in amounts equal to 90% of Honeywell's
asbestos-related liability payments and accounts payable, primarily
related to the Bendix business in the United States, as well as
certain environmental-related liability payments and accounts
payable and non-United States asbestos-related liability payments
and accounts payable, in each case related to legacy elements of
the Business, including the legal costs of defending and resolving
such liabilities, less 90% of Honeywell's net insurance receipts
and, as may be applicable, certain other recoveries associated with
such liabilities.
"It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for
Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or stabilize
in the future.
"Our Combined Interim Financial Statements reflect an estimated
liability for resolution of pending and unasserted Bendix-related
asbestos claims. We have valued pending and unasserted
Bendix-related asbestos claims using average resolution values for
the previous five years. We update the resolution values used to
estimate the cost of pending and unasserted Bendix-related asbestos
claims during the fourth quarter each year.
"Such estimated cost of unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims
is based on historic claims filing experience and dismissal rates,
disease classifications, and resolution values in the tort system
for the previous five years. Asbestos costs and insurance
recoveries are recorded in Other expense, net.
"Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of pending and unasserted Bendix asbestos claims
reflects coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market. Based on
our ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance
receivables are recorded in the Combined Interim Financial
Statements simultaneous with the recording of the estimated
liability for the underlying asbestos claims. This determination
is based on our analysis of the underlying insurance policies, our
historical experience with our insurers, our ongoing review of the
solvency of our insurers, judicial determinations relevant to our
insurance programs, and our consideration of the impacts of any
settlements reached with our insurers."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2S7KIZw
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Still Defends 32 Lawsuits at Oct. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
GMS Inc.'s subsidiaries continues to face 32 pending
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits as of October 31, 2018,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 31, 2018.
The Company states, "The building materials industry has been
subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising from
alleged exposure to raw materials contained in building products as
well as claims for incidents of catastrophic loss, such as building
fires. As a distributor of building materials, we face an inherent
risk of exposure to product liability claims in the event that the
use of the products we have distributed in the past or may in the
future distribute is alleged to have resulted in economic loss,
personal injury or property damage or violated environmental,
health or safety or other laws.
"Such product liability claims have included and may in the future
include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design,
a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence,
strict liability or a breach of warranties. In particular, certain
of our subsidiaries have been the subject of claims related to
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products they distributed
prior to 1979.
"Since 2002 and as of October 31, 2018, approximately 983
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits have been filed and we
vigorously defend against them. Of these, 943 have been dismissed
without any payment by us, 32 are pending and only 8 have been
settled, which settlements have not materially impacted our
financial condition or operating results."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2rBpB6M
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Had US$845.1MM Liability at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc. had an undiscounted asbestos-related liability of US$845.1
million for pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be
filed over the next 10 years, 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 Company states, "We record a liability for pending asbestos
claims and asbestos claims estimated to be filed over the next 10
years. While it is probable that we will incur additional costs
for future claims to be filed against the Company, a liability for
potential future claims beyond the next 10 years is not reasonably
estimable due to the variables and uncertainties inherent in the
long-term projection of the Company's asbestos exposures and
potential recoveries. As of September 30, 2018, we have recorded
an undiscounted asbestos-related liability for pending claims and
unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of
US$845.1 million, including expected legal fees, and an associated
asset of US$389.4 million which represents estimated recoveries
from insurers, resulting in a net asbestos exposure of US$455.7
million."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2A7sWOP
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 25,000 Claims Pending at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc.'s subsidiaries had 25,000 pending asbestos-related claims
at September 30, 2018, 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 Company states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, including ITT LLC and
Goulds Pumps LLC, have been sued, along with many other companies
in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to
asbestos exposure. These claims generally allege that certain
products sold by our subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part
manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained
asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts may have contained
asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and
was non-friable. As of September 30, 2018, there were
approximately 25 thousand pending claims against ITT subsidiaries,
including Goulds Pumps LLC, filed in various state and federal
courts alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
Activity related to these asserted asbestos claims during the
period was as follows:
"Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or
Goulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure. Our
experience to date is that a majority of resolved claims are
dismissed without any payment from ITT subsidiaries. Management
believes that a large majority of the pending claims have little or
no value. In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in
large groups, the average cost per resolved claim can fluctuate
significantly from period to period. ITT expects more
asbestos-related suits will be filed in the future, and ITT will
continue to aggressively defend or seek a reasonable resolution, as
appropriate.
"Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation. Frequently,
the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not state
a specific claim amount. After filing a complaint, the plaintiff
engages defendants in settlement negotiations to establish a
settlement value based on certain criteria, including the number of
defendants in the case. Rarely do the plaintiffs seek to collect
all damages from one defendant. Rather, they seek to spread the
liability, and thus the payments, among many defendants. As a
result of this and other factors, the Company is unable to estimate
the maximum potential exposure to pending claims and claims
estimated to be filed over the next 10 years."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2A7sWOP
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,600 PI Cases at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc is still facing approximately 11,600 pending
asbestos-related cases as of September 28, 2018, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2018.
The Company states, "Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976,
the Company is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits
based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A
majority of the cases involve product liability claims based
principally on allegations of past distribution of products
containing asbestos. A limited number of the cases allege premises
liability based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos
while on the Company's property. Each case typically names dozens
of corporate defendants in addition to the Company. The complaints
generally seek monetary damages for personal injury or bodily
injury resulting from alleged exposure to products containing
asbestos. The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been
limited because it did not mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore,
in the Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims
have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the
courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial
court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue
to vigorously defend itself in these matters. When appropriate,
the Company settles claims; however, amounts paid to settle and
defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial. As of September
28, 2018, there were approximately 11,600 asbestos-related cases
pending against the Company.
"The Company estimates pending asbestos claims and claims that were
incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries, which
are recorded on a gross basis in the unaudited condensed
consolidated balance sheets. The Company's estimate of its
liability for pending and future claims is based on claims
experience over the past five years and covers claims either
currently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven years.
The Company believes that it has adequate amounts recorded related
to these matters. While it is not possible at this time to
determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these
asbestos-related proceedings, the Company believes, given the
information currently available, that the ultimate resolutions of
all known and anticipated future claims, after taking into account
amounts already accrued, along with recoveries from insurance, will
not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2OZtTy9
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Still Defends PL Suits at Sept. 30, 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2018, that it has been named as a defendant in
several multi-defendant asbestos related product liability
lawsuits.
The Company states, "In certain instances, the Company is
indemnified by a former owner of the product line in question. In
the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to
establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products.
The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes
that it will not incur any material liability with respect to these
claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2qWquGH
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Seeks Vote on Prepackaged Plan
--------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc., through its Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2018, has issued a press
release announcing that Maremont Corporation, a non-operating
subsidiary of Meritor, and Maremont's three wholly-owned,
non-operating subsidiaries, Maremont Exhaust Products, Inc., AVM,
Inc., and Former Ride Control Operating Company, Inc., will solicit
votes from asbestos claimants in favor of a "prepackaged" plan of
reorganization (the "Plan").
The Company states, "If the Plan is approved by voting asbestos
claimants, Meritor anticipates that Maremont and its subsidiaries
will voluntarily file cases under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
Among other things, the Plan is intended to permanently resolve all
current and future asbestos claims related to Maremont's historical
asbestos-related activities through the creation of a trust
pursuant to Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Meritor
and all of its other subsidiaries will continue to operate as usual
throughout the process undertaken by Maremont."
A full-text copy of Meritor's press release is available at
https://bit.ly/2PBDOtK
Maremont Corporation Takes Action to Achieve Equitable
and Permanent Resolution of Asbestos Claims
* Maremont will Seek to Establish Trust to Resolve Asbestos Claims
Under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and Begin
Solicitation of Prepackaged Plan of Reorganization
* Meritor and All Non-Maremont Subsidiaries Will Continue to
Operate as Usual
Meritor, Inc. (NYSE: MTOR), announced that Maremont Corporation,
a non-operating subsidiary, and Maremont's three wholly-owned,
non-operating subsidiaries, Maremont Exhaust Products, Inc., AVM,
Inc., and Former Ride Control Operating Company, Inc., have
initiated a process to equitably and permanently resolve all
asbestos liabilities related to the historic manufacturing
activities of Maremont and its subsidiaries. Meritor and all of
its other subsidiaries will continue to operate as usual throughout
the process undertaken by Maremont.
"The action undertaken by non-operating subsidiary Maremont has no
impact on Meritor's business operations, employees or customers,"
said Jay Craig, CEO and president of Meritor. "Meritor's financial
position is strong and we remain focused on serving customers,
driving operational excellence and achieving our M2019
objectives."
Craig continued, "By launching this process, Maremont is seeking a
constructive and equitable resolution to definitively address the
liabilities related to its historical asbestos-related
activities."
Maremont will solicit votes from asbestos claimants in favor of a
"prepackaged" plan of reorganization (the "Plan"). If the Plan is
approved by voting asbestos claimants, Maremont and its
subsidiaries will voluntarily file cases under Chapter 11 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Delaware. Among other things, the Plan is intended to
permanently resolve all current and future asbestos claims related
to Maremont's historical asbestos-related activities through the
creation of a trust pursuant to Section 524(g) of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code.
The current deadline for receipt of ballots from voting asbestos
claimants is January 18, 2019. Maremont and its subsidiaries
intend to petition for the voluntary Chapter 11 reorganization
shortly after the ballots are tallied. Once the Plan is confirmed
by the bankruptcy court and approved by the district court and all
other actions necessary to implement the Plan are completed,
Maremont expects to fund a 524(g) trust to address its current and
future asbestos claims and permanently enjoin any future lawsuits
related to such claims against, among others, Meritor and its
subsidiaries, and channel all such claims and demands to the 524(g)
trust.
Certain key terms of the Plan are as follows:
* Funding for the 524(g) trust will consist of a US$28 million
contribution by Meritor, repayment of an intercompany loan and the
contribution of Maremont's remaining assets, including its
insurance assets;
* An injunction that permanently protects Meritor and its
affiliates from future claims stemming from Maremont's historical
asbestos activities;
* All claims other than asbestos claims against Maremont and its
subsidiary debtors will be paid in full or reinstated; and
* Meritor's equity interests in Maremont will be cancelled. The
524(g) trust will own 100% of the equity interests in reorganized
Maremont.
Background on Asbestos Litigation
Maremont, a non-operating subsidiary of Meritor, manufactured
certain friction products containing asbestos from 1953 through
1977, when it sold its friction product business, and one of its
subsidiaries manufactured certain exhaust products containing
asbestos from 1954 to 1978, when it ceased using asbestos in such
products. Arvin Industries, Inc., a predecessor of Meritor,
acquired Maremont in 1986. Maremont and many other companies are
defendants in suits brought by individuals claiming personal
injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products.
There were approximately 1,700 and 2,800 active asbestos-related
lawsuits against Maremont and its subsidiary Maremont Exhaust as of
September 30, 2018 and September 30, 2017, respectively. Maremont
believes that establishing a 524(g) trust will ensure an equitable
and permanent resolution to all current and future asbestos claims
related to Maremont asbestos products.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 29 Cases at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. has 29 pending asbestos cases, 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.
Minerals Technologies states, "Certain of the Company's
subsidiaries are among numerous defendants in a number of cases
seeking damages for exposure to silica or to asbestos containing
materials. The Company currently has three pending silica cases
and 29 pending asbestos cases. To date, 1,493 silica cases and 54
asbestos cases have been dismissed, not including any lawsuits
against AMCOL or American Colloid Company dismissed prior to our
acquisition of AMCOL. Four new asbestos cases were filed during
the third quarter of 2018. No asbestos or silica cases were
dismissed during the period. Most of these claims do not provide
adequate information to assess their merits, the likelihood that
the Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such
liability, if any. Additional claims of this nature may be made
against the Company or its subsidiaries. At this time management
anticipates that the amount of the Company's liability, if any, and
the cost of defending such claims, will not have a material effect
on its financial position or results of operations.
"The Company has settled only one silica lawsuit, for a nominal
amount, and no asbestos lawsuits to date (not including any that
may have been settled by AMCOL prior to completion of the
acquisition). We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts
claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading
practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed
damage. The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of
these cases since inception continues to be insignificant. The
majority of the costs of defense for these cases, excluding cases
against AMCOL, are reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. pursuant to the terms
of certain agreements entered into in connection with the Company's
initial public offering in 1992. The Company is entitled to
indemnification, pursuant to agreement, for sales prior to the
initial public offering. Of the 29 pending asbestos cases, 24 of
the non-AMCOL cases are subject to indemnification, in whole or in
part, because the plaintiffs claim liability based on sales of
products that occurred either entirely before the initial public
offering, or both before and after the initial public offering. In
two of the three remaining non-AMCOL cases, the plaintiffs have not
alleged dates of exposure, and in the third remaining non-AMCOL
case, exposure is alleged to have been after the Company's initial
public offering in 1992. The remaining cases involve AMCOL only,
so no Pfizer indemnity is available. Our experience has been that
the Company is not liable to plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits
and the Company does not expect to pay any settlements or jury
verdicts in these lawsuits."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2KpHHkK
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oakfabco, CNA Agree to $12.4MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Oakfabco, Inc., filed a Second Amended Plan of Liquidation and
accompanying Disclosure Statement to disclose a settlement with
American Casualty Company, Continental Casualty Company and
Columbia Casualty Company (collectively, "CNA") and modify the
treatment of general unsecured claims and asbestos personal injury
claims.
The Debtor disclosed that in July 2017, the Debtor withdrew its
motion to approve the CNA settlement and thereafter rejected that
settlement agreement. The rejection of the CNA settlement agreement
resulted in an outbreak of litigation between the Debtor and the
Asbestos Claimants Committee on one side and CNA on the other side
regarding a variety of issues. The Debtor filed a motion for an
order for mediation of these various disputes, and an agreed order
granting that relief was entered on August 14, 2018. Retired U.S.
District Judge David Coar conducted the mediation on September 27,
2018, which resulted in an agreement to settle all disputes among
the Debtor, the Asbestos Claimants Committee, and CNA. Pursuant to
this new agreement, CNA agreed to a total settlement amount of
$12,408,079.80, an increase of $2,625,000 from the original
settlement amount.
As of October 31, 2018 the Debtor was holding approximately
$5,981,741 in Cash, plus
the right to receive a net payment of over $11.5 million from CNA
following consummation of its new settlement agreement.
Class 3: General Unsecured Claims are impaired. Allowed Claims of
General Unsecured creditors other than Asbestos PI Claims are
estimated to total approximately $280,000.
Holders of Allowed Class 3 General Unsecured Claims will receive a
distribution from the Debtor of their pro rata shares of the
General Unsecured Fund of $100,000 on account of their Claims. The
Plan provides for a release of claims against Frederick W. Stein,
the estate of William C. Stein and Barbara Stein by any Claimant
accepting payment on its Claim.
Class 4: Asbestos PI Claims, including the over 34,000 unresolved
Asbestos PI Claims, the vast majority of which have been asserted
in an unliquidated amount, are impaired. Class 4 includes Oakfabco
Asbestos PI Claims, most of which have not been liquidated, as well
as Indirect Asbestos PI Claims, Derivative Liability Asbestos PI
Claims and Direct Action Claims. All Asbestos PI Claims will be
liquidated according to the Plan and Trust Distribution Procedures.
Holders of Allowed Asbestos PI Claims shall receive a distribution
on their Claims in the amounts to be determined by the Liquidating
Trust through the application of Trust Distribution Procedures.
Class 5: Interests are impaired. All outstanding Interests shall be
cancelled on the Effective Date.
On the Effective Date, the Debtor will transfer the Trust Assets to
the Liquidating Trust. The Trust Assets shall include, without
limitation: Excess Cash; all rights under Approved Asbestos
Insurance Settlement Agreements; the Asbestos Insurance Rights; and
the Qualified Settlement Fund. The assets in the Liquidating Trust
shall be administered for the benefit of the Holders of Asbestos PI
Claims.
A full-text copy of the Second Amended Disclosure Statement dated
November 29, 2018, is available at:
http://bankrupt.com/misc/ilnb18-1527062-740.pdf
CNA is represented by:
David Christian, Esq.
David Christian Attorneys LLC
3515 West 75th Street, Suite 208
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Tel: (312) 273-1807
Email: dchristian@davidchristianattorneys.com
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Posts $108MM Reserves at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation's gross asbestosis and
environmental claim reserves amounted to US$108 million as of
September 30, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.
The Company's net asbestosis and environmental claim reserves
amounted to US$89.6 million as of September 30, 2018.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2A86uoF
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Onorato Fails to Satisfy Highland Minimum Contacts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Third District
reverses the trial court's order denying Highland Stucco and Lime
Products, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction because the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the "minimum
contacts" federal constitutional due process requirement.
The plaintiffs Silverio Onorato and Faye Onorato filed a products
liability action against Highland and several other defendants
alleging that Onorato developed mesothelioma from his exposure from
1972 to 1976 to asbestos-containing products that were
manufactured, distributed, and/or sold by the defendants in the
state of Florida.
The plaintiffs are relying on specific jurisdiction in order to
satisfy personal jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm
jurisdiction. In the first amended complaint, the plaintiffs
alleged that Onorato developed mesothelioma as a result of being
exposed in Florida to products containing asbestos manufactured by
Highland. Because the complaint alleges that Highland committed a
tortious act in Florida, thus, satisfying specific jurisdiction
under section 48.193(1)(a)(2), the burden shifted to Highland to
contest the allegations by affidavit or other proof, or to claim
that the federal minimum contacts requirement was not satisfied.
Highland submitted the sworn affidavit of Frederick M. Atkinson in
support of its motion to dismiss. In his affidavit, Atkinson
averred that Highland never transacted any business in Florida;
never negotiated, entered into, or performed a contract in Florida;
never owned, used, or possessed real property in Florida; never
contracted to insure any person, property, or risk in Florida;
never maintained a place of business in Florida; never registered
to do business in Florida; never had a registered agent in Florida;
never obtained bank accounts, offices, post office boxes, telephone
numbers, or any other business facilities in Florida; and never
advertised in any Florida publication, radio station, or television
station. Atkinson's affidavit also states that Highland did not
directly solicit business within Florida; had no connection with
Florida arising from any action or conduct; never purposely
directed conduct toward Florida; and never manufactured,
distributed, sold, supplied or installed any asbestos-containing
products in Florida.
Because Highland adequately contested the allegations, the burden
then shifted back to the plaintiffs to refute the evidence
submitted by Highland. The Court determines that the plaintiffs
conducted no jurisdictional discovery and the only evidence they
submitted to rebut Atkinson's affidavit was: (1) an unauthenticated
advertisement from a 1959 trade journal for Highland Hi-Sorb
acoustical plaster distributed by Highland of Florida; (2) an
unauthenticated article in the same 1959 trade journal that
references a plant in Fort Lauderdale operated by Highland of
Florida; and (3) testimony given by Atkinson in a 2000 California
case. In the 2000 California case, Atkinson specifically testified
that all of Highland's sales were made to building material dealers
who would usually pick the products up at the plant. However, on
occasion, Highland would deliver the products to the dealers, but
this did not occur often because the company had only one truck and
primarily sold to dealers within a sixty-mile radius of its plant
in Van Nuys, California. Highland contends that nothing in
Atkinson's testimony serves to refute the affidavit that Atkinson
filed in this case.
The Court finds that Highland was a California corporation that
dissolved in 2009. Highland of Florida, at best, was a Florida
corporation that dissolved in 1964, approximately eight years
before Onorato's alleged exposure to stucco products containing
asbestos, and Onorato has failed to show any connection or
relationship between the two corporations. Nothing in the record
suggests that the two corporations shared a corporate identity.
Further, even if the plaintiffs had established that the Florida
entity was a subsidiary of Highland, the Court explains that the
mere presence of a subsidiary in Florida, without more, is
insufficient to subject a non-Florida corporate parent to Florida's
long-arm jurisdiction. More importantly, even if the plaintiffs had
satisfied specific jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm
jurisdiction, the Court concludes that they still failed to
establish that Highland, not Highland of Florida, had sufficient
minimum contacts with Florida, such that extending jurisdiction
does not offend constitutional due process.
The Court concludes that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of
satisfying the constitutional due process prong of the personal
jurisdiction analysis. Accordingly, the Court reverses the trial
court's order denying Highland's motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction.
The appealed case is Highland Stucco and Lime Products, Inc.,
Appellant, v. Silverio Onorato and Faye Onorato, Appellees, Case
No. 3D18-792, (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.).
GrayRobinson, P.A., and Jack R. Reiter --
jack.reiter@gray-robinson.com -- for appellant.
Rebecca S. Vinocur; Simmons Hanly Conroy and William Kohlburn --
bkohlburn@simmonsfirm.com -- (Salt Lake City, UT), for appellees.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sanchez Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William Alsup of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California remands the case styled Delight
Sanchez, individually and as successor in interest to David P.
Sanchez, deceased; David Sanchez, an individual; and Dion Sanchez,
an individual, Plaintiffs, v. Air & Liquid Systems, Corporation, et
al., Defendants, No. C 18-03704 WHA, (N.D. Cal.) to the Superior
Court of California for the County of Alameda.
The complaint asserts asbestos-related wrongful death claims by
plaintiffs Delight Sanchez, the widow of decedent David P. Sanchez,
and Dion and David Sanchez, decedent's sons. Sanchez was diagnosed
with mesothelioma in September 2017 and died two months later due
to his exposure, according to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs allege that decedent David P. Sanchez was exposed to
asbestos while serving aboard the USS Tortuga in the United States
Navy from 1956 to 1959. Plaintiffs further allege that the products
with which decedent came into contact were manufactured by
defendants.
Defendants are companies that manufactured products containing
asbestos during the relevant time period. Plaintiffs' wrongful
death claims stem primarily from design defect and failure-to-warn
allegations.
In June 2018, defendant Aurora Pump Company removed the action from
Alameda County Superior Court.
Plaintiffs seek remand to state court. At oral argument on the
motion to remand, supplemental briefing on the question of whether
there is evidence the United States Navy directed defendant to use
asbestos in its products was ordered.
Aurora contends that the products in question were in accordance
with the demands of the United States Navy, both in terms of design
and warning requirements. Aurora argues such specifications present
a colorable argument that it is a government contractor who is
therefore immune from state tort law. As such, Aurora contends
removal was proper. As evidence, Aurora submitted two documents
issued by the United States Military: MIL-P-17639 (1953) and
MIL-P-17640 (1954).
The Court finds that Aurora's government-contractor defense does
not rise to the level of a colorable federal defense. The defense
applies "only when the Government, making a discretionary,
safety-related military procurement decision contrary to the
requirements of state law, incorporates this decision into a
military contractor's contractual obligations, thereby limiting the
contractor's ability to accommodate safety in a different fashion."
In support of its government contractor defense, Aurora submitted
two documents issued by the United States Military: MIL-P-17639
(1953) and MIL-P-17640 (1954). Each document included language
stating that "pump casing joints shall be made up using compressed
asbestos sheet gaskets." Thus, Aurora's evidence shows that the
military approved the use of asbestos in its pumps.
To establish conformity with the Navy's specifications, Aurora must
show "extensive government involvement in the design, review,
development, and testing of a product" and "extensive acceptance
and use of the product following production." Aurora must make this
showing by a preponderance of the evidence. The complaint proceeds
on the premise that Aurora's pumps conformed to the specifications,
so this requirement will be met; otherwise plaintiff has no case.
However, Aurora must also prove it warned the United States about
"the dangers in the use of the equipment that were known to the
supplier but not the United States." Where "a contractor does not
offer any evidence that it proposed a warning to the government,"
the contractor "cannot rely on a hypothetical assertion that such
an effort would have been futile."
The Court sustains Plaintiffs' observation that MIL-P-17639 (1953)
included language stating that, "the use of materials differing in
properties from those specified. . . will be considered when the
contractor shows the necessity for such substitution, the material
is readily obtainable, and provided that the material is
satisfactory to the bureau or agency concerned." Moreover, Aurora
has not furnished evidence showing that the Navy would have
rejected alternatives to asbestos. Thus, the Court concludes that
Aurora could have disposed of its duty to warn against the harms of
asbestos had they used an alternate material in manufacturing their
pumps.
Aurora argues it was relieved of its duty to warn the Navy about
potential asbestos hazards because the Navy was already aware of
these hazards. The Court posits that knowledge by some in the Navy,
by itself, does not excuse Aurora's failure to warn. The Court
notes that Aurora has submitted nothing showing it was unaware of
the dangers of asbestos while the government was fully aware of the
risks. Because this element is not met, the Court concludes that
Aurora has failed to assert a colorable federal defense, it does
not and need not reach the causal nexus element.
Delight Sanchez, individually and as successor in interest to David
P. Sanchez, deceased, David Sanchez, an individual & Dion Sanchez,
an individual, Plaintiffs, represented by Benno Behnam Ashrafi ,
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Carlos Jorge Enrique Guzman , Weitz &
Luxenberg, P.C., Michael Thomas Reid , Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.,
Robert Allen Green , Weitz and Luxenberg, P.C. & Tyler Robert Stock
, Weitz Luxenburg.
Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, a subsidiary of Ampco-Pittsburgh
Corporation, individually and as successor by merger to Buffalo
Pumps, Inc., individually and successor in interest to Buffalo
Forge Company, Defendant, represented by Glen R. Powell --
gpowell@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP.
Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Haley Lanell Hansen
, CMBG3 Law LLC, W. Joseph Gunter , CMBG3 Law LLC, Christine Dianne
Calareso , CMBG3 Law LLC & Gilliam Fipp Stewart , CMBG3 Law LLC.
Blackmer Pump Company & Warren Pumps, LLC, individually and as
successor in interest to Quimby Pump Company, Defendants,
represented by James P. Cunningham --
james.cunningham@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP.
BW/IP, Inc., individually and as successor in interest to byron
jackson pump Co., Defendant, represented by Emily M. Cunningham --
ecunningham@foleymansfield.com -- Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Dennis
Michael Young -- dyoung@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield,
Keith Michael Ameele -- kameele@foleymansfield.com -- Foley &
Mansfield PLLP & Nicole Denine Brown Yuen --
nyuen@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.
CLA-VAL Co., a division of Griswold Industries, Defendant,
represented by Charles H. Kanter -- ckanter@ptwww.com -- Palmieri,
Tylerm Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP & John Russell Lister --
jlister@ptwww.com -- Palmieri Tyler Wiener Wilhelm Waldron.
Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Geoffrey M. Davis --
Geoffrey.Davis@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin
-- peter.soskin@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP.
Elliott Company, also known as, Goulds Pumps, Inc. & ITT
Corporation, individually and as successor in interest to Foster
Engineering Company and Bell & Gossett Company, Defendants,
represented by Amy Jo Talarico -- amy.talarico@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy --
joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP &
Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr. -- michael.eagan@morganlewis.com -- Morgan
Lewis and Bockius LLP.
Flowserve US, Inc., individually and as successor in interest to
Edward Valve, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel James Kelly --
daniel.kelly@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP & Ronald Q. Tran
-- ronald.tran@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP.
FMC Corporation, individually and as successor in interest to
Northern Pump Company, f/k/a Northern Fire Apparatus Company,
Chicago Pump Company and Peerless Pump Company, Defendant,
represented by Eric Dean Sentlinger -- esentlinger@pondnorth.com --
Pond North LLP, Gregory Scott Rosse -- grosse@pondnorth.com -- Pond
North LLP & Harrison Scott Smith -- hsmith@pondnorth.com -- Pond
North LLP.
Gardner Denver, Inc, formerly known as, Defendant, represented by
Charles W. Jenkins, Jr. -- cjenkins@cwjlaw.com -- Law Offices of
Charles W. Jenkins, APC.
IMO Industries, Inc., sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to Delaval Steam Turbine Company and Delaval,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey --
bbailey@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP.
SYD Carpenter, Marine Contractor, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Arpi Galfayan -- agalfayan@prindlelaw.com -- Prindle, Amaro, Goetz,
Hillyard, Barnes and Reinholtz LLP & Jeremy David Milbrodt --
jmilbrodt@prindlelaw.com -- Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes
& Reinholtz LLP.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Ct. Restores Trial Court's DeLisle Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2018, that it is considering further appellate options after the
Supreme Court of Florida reversed and remanded with instructions to
reinstate the trial court's judgment in the Richard DeLisle case.
The Company states, "On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale,
Florida state court jury in the Richard DeLisle claim found the
Company responsible for 16% of an US$8 million verdict. The trial
court denied all parties' post-trial motions, and entered judgment
against the Company in the amount of US$1.3 million. The Company
appealed and oral argument on the appeal took place on February 16,
2016. On September 14, 2016 a panel of the Florida Court of
Appeals reversed and entered judgment in favor of the Company.
Plaintiff filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for rehearing
and/or certification of an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court,
which the Court denied on November 9, 2016. Plaintiffs
subsequently requested review by the Supreme Court of Florida.
Plaintiffs' motion was granted on July 11, 2017. Oral argument
took place on March 6, 2018. On October 15, 2018, the Supreme
Court of Florida reversed and remanded with instructions to
reinstate the trial court's judgment. The Company is considering
its further appellate options."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2PIuBFb
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two CIRCOR Units Still Defend Suits at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2018, that asbestos-related product liability
claims continue to be filed against two of its subsidiaries: Spence
Engineering Company, Inc. and CIRCOR Instrumentation Technologies,
Inc.
The Company states, "Asbestos-related product liability claims
continue to be filed against two of our subsidiaries: Spence
Engineering Company, Inc. ("Spence"), the stock of which we
acquired in 1984; and CIRCOR Instrumentation Technologies, Inc.
(f/k/a Hoke, Inc.) ("Hoke"), the stock of which we acquired in
1998. Due to the nature of the products supplied by these
entities, the markets they serve and our historical experience in
resolving these claims, we do not expect that these
asbestos-related claims will have a material adverse effect on the
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the
Company."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2r1aiUk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Faces 750 Active Cases at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation continues to face 750 active
asbestos-related cases involving approximately 2,300 plaintiffs as
of September 30, 2018, 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 Company states, "As of September 30, 2018, U.S. Steel was a
defendant in approximately 750 active cases involving approximately
2,300 plaintiffs. The vast majority of these cases involve
multiple defendants. At December 31, 2017, U.S. Steel was a
defendant in approximately 820 cases involving approximately 3,315
plaintiffs. As of September 30, 2018, about 1,540, or
approximately 67 percent, of these plaintiff claims are currently
pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers
of plaintiffs. Based upon U.S. Steel's experience in such cases,
we believe that the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately
assert claims against U.S. Steel will likely be a small fraction of
the total number of plaintiffs.
"Historically, asbestos-related claims against U.S. Steel fall into
three groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were exposed
to asbestos on the premises of U.S. Steel facilities; (2) claims
made by persons allegedly exposed to products manufactured by U.S.
Steel; and (3) claims made under certain federal and maritime laws
by employees of former operations of U.S. Steel.
"The amount U.S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not
material to U.S. Steel's financial condition. However, U.S. Steel
is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related
claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1) the rates
at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of
bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos
claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4)
uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease
process with each claim, and (5) any new legislation enacted to
address asbestos-related claims. Despite these uncertainties,
management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters
will not have a material adverse effect on U.S. Steel's financial
condition, although the resolution of such matters could
significantly impact results of operations for a particular
quarter."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2QYJUpJ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Defends Less Than 225 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Univar Inc. had fewer than 225 asbestos-related claims as of
September 30, 2018 for which the Company has liability for defense
and indemnity pursuant to indemnification obligation, 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.
Univar states, "The Company is subject to liabilities from claims
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. The claims
result primarily from an indemnification obligation related to
Univar USA Inc.'s ("Univar") 1986 purchase of McKesson Chemical
Company from McKesson Corporation ("McKesson"). Univar is also a
defendant in a small number of asbestos claims. As of September
30, 2018, there were fewer than 225 asbestos-related claims for
which the Company has liability for defense and indemnity pursuant
to the indemnification obligation. The volume of such cases has
decreased in recent quarters. Historically, the vast majority of
the claims against both McKesson and Univar have been dismissed
without payment. The Company does incur costs in defending these
claims. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of
these matters, it does not believe, based upon currently available
facts, that the ultimate resolution of any of these matters will
have a material effect on its overall financial position, results
of operations or cash flows. However, the Company cannot predict
the outcome of any present or future claims or litigation and
adverse developments could negatively impact earnings or cash flows
in a particular future period."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2FCGPKE
*********
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 ***