/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/181217.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, December 17, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 251 Headlines 24 WEST FOOD: Reyes Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime 3M COMPANY: Ackerman Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ABC CORP: Placido Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages AECOM: Singletary Seeks Overtime Pay AFORTUS FINANCIAL: Naiman Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls ALLSUP'S CONVENIENCE: Smith Seeks Overtime Compensation AMERICAN FAMILY: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Anderson Suit AMERICAN YACHT: Illegally Keeps Employees' Gratuities, Suit Claims ANDERSEN CORPORATION: Luna Suit Moved to N.D. California APPTIO INC: Scarantino Balks at Merger Deal with Vista Equity ARCIMOTO INC: 1st Amended Complaint in Consolidated Suit Underway ASUS COMPUTER: Sued over Misrepresentation of USB Laptops Prices BANK OF AMERICA: Bids for Certification in Fernandez Suit Denied BANK OF AMERICA: Removed Veritas Case to District of New Jersey BANK OF AMERICA: Uong et al Suit Moved to C.D. California BERGHOFF INTERNATIONAL: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Perry Says BESURE HOME: Amaya Seeks Minimum Wage and OT Pay for Caregivers BIG BUBBA'S: Linneberger Seeks Back Wages, Damages BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: Records Phone Calls, Treihart Says CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Castillo Suit Moved to District of Nevada CHAMPION PETFOODS: Removed Shaker Case to E.D. Michigan CHEETAH MOBILE: Marcu Sues over Misleading Financial Report CHULA VISTA: Sold Discounted Access to Condo Units, Suit Claims CITIBANK NA: Revitch Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA COCA-COLA COMPANY: Geffner Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment to 2nd Cir. COLE COUNTY, MO: Class Certification Sought in Turtle Island Suit CONN'S INC: 5th Cir. Dismisses Appeal in Texas Securities Suit CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Illegally Sends Text Ads, LaRock Suit Claims CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Orozco Sues over Debt Collection Practices CRUISES & TOURS: Spotts Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages CURO GROUP: Share Prices Inflated, Yellowdog Partners Claims DASTMALCHI LLC: Faces Palermo Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing DAXI SICHUAN: Zang Seeks Overtime Pay DIMICHELE ENTERPRISES: Thompson Seeks Overtime Pay DOMINO'S PIZZA: Removes Silva Case to Central Dist. of California EAST CAPITOL: Wins Prelim. Nod of Settlement in Kinard Suit ECA: Terminates Employees without Proper Legal Notice, Suit Says EDUCATION CORP: Sued over Mass Layoff without Written Notice ERIC KIM: Yu et al Seeks Overtime Wages ESA MANAGEMENT: Liggins Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California ESTES FORWARDING: Kirkland Suit Moved to N.D. California FAIRWAY INDEPENDENT: Valdez Suit Moved to S.D. California FINA: Sued over Control of International Swimming Competitions FINISAR CORP: Class Certification Bid in Securities Suit Underway FLORIDA COMMUNITY: Stewart Sues over Debt Collection Practices FOOD LION: Ratcliffe Moves to Certify Asst. Store Managers Class GC SERVICES: Ocampo's Renewed Bid for Class Certification Denied HD SUPPLY: Shareholders Class Suit in Georgia in Discovery Stage HYPERION BIOTECHNOLOGY: Smith Suit Moved to C.D. California HYUNDAI MOTOR: Musgrave Sues Over Wiring Defect in Vehicles ILLINOIS INSTITUTE: Conceals Accreditation Status, Suit Says IMPERVA INC: Scarantino Sues Over Thomas Bravo Merger INLAND PRODUCTS: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices INTERFAITH MEDICAL: Made Unlawful Pay Deductions, Okeke Says JPMORGAN CHASE: Manipulates Metals Futures Contracts, Serri Says JULIAN SPENCE: Heberle's Cert. Bid Denied; Hearing on Dec. 20 KATHERINE'S CATERING: Underpays Service Staff, Tansey et al. Claim KELLOGG COMPANY: Smith Suit Transferred to W.D. Michigan KOREAN VETERANS: Man Kyu Choi Files RICO Class Action in Calif. LA MESA, CA: Suenishi Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages LOS ANGELES, CA: Zissa Seeks Overtime Pay for Social Workers MANDARIN ORIENTAL: Olsen Files ADA Suit in New York MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: McGrath Sues over Data Breach MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Perkins Sues over Data Breach MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Raab Sues over Data Breach MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sciascia et al. Sue over Data Breach MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sisbarro Sues Over Massive Data Breach MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sprowl et al Sue over Data Breach MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sundius-Rose Sues over Data Breach MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Taylor Sues Over Data Security Breach MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Trager Sues over Data Breach MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Turner Sues over Data Breach MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Van Dam Sues over Data Breach MAXHOME, LLC: Vail Seeks Overtime Compensation MDL 2617: Arnold Wants Suit to Be Included in Data Breach MDL MDL 2741: Anderson Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Barbour Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Hiatt Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Hogan Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Kruppa Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Lis Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Riordan Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Strong Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2804: Eiland vs. Purdue Pharma over Opiates Consolidated MDL 2871: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 2 Crop Insurance Lawsuits MEDLEY CAPITAL: RICO Suits in Virginia & Pennsylvania Ongoing MIDLAND CREDIT: Koch Moves to Certify Michigan Class Under FDCPA MONSANTO COMPANY: Samaniego Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Stadter Brothers Sues over Xtend Crop System NATION WASTE: Sued by Johnson for Not Paying Drivers Overtime Pay NATIONAL ACCREDITING: Meaders Seeks Overtime Pay NORTH 6TH PLACE: Mendez Sues over Job Related Injuries NUTS' N MORE: Faces Morrison Class Suit in NY for Fraud OLAM SPICES: Beltran et al. Suit Moved to E.D. California OLNICK ORGANIZATION: Violates Disabilities Act, Olsen Suit Says PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Butts Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois PUERTO MADERO: Souyris Seeks Overtime Pay for Servers RAYDON CORP: Sued over Employee Stock Ownership Plan Losses RH INC: Appeal in California Securities Class Suit Underway RICH'S CAR WASH: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Rosales Suit ROADRUNNER TRANS: Faces Gomez Suit in California State Court SAN DIEGO CORP: Leyva Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA SANTANDER CONSUMER: Removed Reid Case to District of Massachusetts SEIKO EPSON: Allegedly Disabled Printers through Firmware Update SEMPER BLUE: Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay SKC ENTERPRISES: Conditional Certification Bid in Davis Suit Nixed SMITH DEBNAM: Faces Cavin FDCPA Suit in North Carolina SODEXO INC: Rivera Suit Moved to Central District of California STATE-OWNED ASSETS: Cole Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Louisiana STOYANOV & HYMAS: Fabricant Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls STRAX WELLNESS: Carnevali Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages TD BANK: Perks Sues over Multiple Non-Sufficient Funds Fees TOA USA: McCracken Seeks Overtime Pay for Servers TOYOTA MOTOR: Cuts Support for Entune Audio System, Auyeung Claims TRANSPORTATION MEDIA: Failed to Pay Sales Reps OT Pay, Suit Says TRAVELEX CURRENCY: Website not Accessible to Blind, Nixon Says TREMONT CONSTRUCTION: Mt Hawley Files Insurance-related Suit UNITED STATES: S.M.S.R Sues Over Asylum Eligibility Policy WELLS FARGO: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Varga Class Suit WELLTOWER INC: Hoffman Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Suit WHITE CASTLE FOOD: Cothron Sues over Collection of Biometric Data WS ENERGY: Medina Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay YETI COOLERS: Sued over Deceptive Rambler Colster Product YORK RISK: Oliver Sues over Unauthorized Text Message Calls YORKVILLE MANSION: Elena Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages ZALE DELAWARE: Lovette Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California ********* 24 WEST FOOD: Reyes Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime --------------------------------------------------- SANTIAGO REYES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 24 WEST FOOD CORP. d/b/a FOOD DYNASTY SUPERMARKET, ABDEL K. ABUZAHRIEH, MOHAMMED ABUZAHRIEH, and HIKMAT ABUZAHRIEH, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10878 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime premium pay pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a former supermarket employee at Defendants' supermarket located in Bronx, New York. The Plaintiff was not paid minimum wages for all hours worked and was not paid overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. The Plaintiff also brings claims for unpaid spread-of-hours premiums and for failure to provide proper wage notices and wage statements pursuant to NYLL and the supporting regulations. The Plaintiff brings his FLSA claims on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees of Defendants and his NYLL claims on behalf of himself and a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class of all non-management employees working for Defendants in New York, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative FLSA Collective and Class: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC www.peltongraham.com 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 3M COMPANY: Ackerman Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against 3M Company was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington (Case No. 2:18-cv-00117) to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston) on Dec. 7, 2018. The District of South Carolina court Clerk assigned Case No.: 2:18-cv-03311-RMG tob the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard M Gergel. The Plaintiffs and the Putative Class seek recovery from all Defendants for injuries, damages, and losses suffered by the Plaintiffs, each of whom suffered injuries as a direct and proximate result of exposure to and consumption of PFC-contaminated water from their drinking water supplies, in an amount to be determined at trial, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. The case is captioned as CHRISTINA ACKERMAN; SUSAN BAKOS; PHYLLIS BERGMAN; CHARLES BLAKE; SUSIE BUSH; GLENN CALLENDER; JACQUELINE CALLENDER; JUSTIN CALLENDER; JERRI CARVER; BARBARA COLLINS; BRUCE CORBETT; CHRISTY CORBETT; CHARLES DAVIS; TERESA DAVIS; JULIE DIBBLE; CHAD EVANS; KRISTIN EVANS; JOHN EYRE; VINCENT FIATTARONE; CHERYL FRENCH; STEVEN FRENCH; ASHLEY GENZEL; COURTNIE GILLETTE, Individually and as Next Friend for her minor child, P.G.; MICAH GILLETTE, Individually and as Next Friend for his minor child, P.G.; HELENE HATCH; BRITTANY HENSLEY, Individually and as Next Friend for her minor child, L.H.; JORDAN HENSLEY, Individually and as Next Friend for his minor child, L.H.; BILL HIGGINS; JAKEN HUECHE; DENNIS HUNLEY; HEATHER HUNLEY, Individually and as Next Friend for her minor children, P.H. and T.H.; JOANNE HUNLEY; SHAWN HUNLEY; ANITA JARUIS; JENNIFER JOHNSON, Individually and as Next Friend for her minor children, L.J. and Q. J.; SEAN JOHNSON, Individually and as Next Friend for his minor children, L.J. and Q.J.; DIANA KNEFF; STEVEN KANAGA, Individually and in his capacity as Executor of the ESTATE OF MILLWEE HOLLER-KANAGA; RICHARD LINK, Individually and as Next Friend for his minor child, G.L.; TERRI LINK; JOSEPH MARTINEZ; JOHN MITSCHKE; YANG MITSCHKE; DONNA O’BRIEN; JEREMY OWNBY; CORY PASSINETTI; EMMA PASSINETTI, Individually and as Next Friend for her minor child, A.P.; JANAE PASSINETTI, Individually and as Next Friend for her minor children, E.P., J.P., K.P., M.P., and T.P.; JASON PASSINETTI; DONNA PETERSON; DELBERT REIBER; Individually and as Next Friend for his minor children, A.R. and C.R.; MARSHALL REIBER; SARRA REIBER; GARRET RUPERT, Individually and as Next Friend for his minor children, C.R., K.R., and K.R.; HEATHER RUPERT, Individually and as Next Friend for her minor children, C.R., K.R., and K.R.; LEWIS SCHWINN; BRADLY SHRUM; CORY SHRUM; JAN SHARDELL SHRUM; JULIE SHRUM, Individually and as Next Friend for her minor child, W.S.; JALEY SIMMONS, Individually and as Next Friend for her minor children, K.T. and K.T.; CHRIS TAYLOR, Individually and as Next Friend for his minor children, K.T. and K.T.; PAMELA WILLIAMS; ANTHONY ABEL; SAMANTHA BARCUS; MICHAEL BUYONAVICH; JACKIE COLBURN; JOEL ERWIN; JENNIFER FOLAND; EARL FORSMAN, Individually and in his capacity as Trustee for the EARL N. AND JANET L. FORSMAN TRUST; JANET FORSMAN, Individually and in her capacity as Trustee for the EARL N. AND JANET L. FORSMAN TRUST; ANTHONY GALLEGOS; HELEN GALLEGOS; DEBRA GEHRET; ROBIN GIPSON; AMY HAVENS, Individually and as Next Friend for her minor child, J.H.; DONNA JOHNSON; DOUGLAS JOHNSON; MICHAEL JOHNSON; KEIRSTIN JONES; TINA JONES; KENNETH KELLER; JILL LINK; CHRIS MCCULLOCH; SHARON MCCULLOCH; TODD MCINNIS; HEATHER PETRO; MATTHEW PETRO; LUANN STEPHENSON; WILLIAM STEPHENSON; WILLIAM URDRIAN; and FRANCELINA WALKER; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., successor in interest to THE ANSUL COMPANY; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; and NATIONAL FOAM, INC., the Defendants. Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Breean L. Beggs, Esq. Andrew S. Biviano, Esq. Mary Elizabeth Dillon, Esq. PAUKERT AND TROPPMANN, PLLC 522 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 560 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (509) 232-7760 - and - Paul J. Napoli, Esq. Patrick Lanciotti, Esq. Tate J. Kunkle, Esq. Aaron Modiano, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC 360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 397-1000 Attorneys for Tyco Fire Products LP formerly known as: Ansul Company successor in interest to: Liam J Montgomery, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY 725 Twelfth Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 434-5030 E-mail: lmontgomery@wc.com - and - John Ray Nelson, Esq. FOSTER PEPPER PLLC - SPO 618 West Riverside Avenue, Suite 300 Spokane, WA 99201-5102 Telephone: (509) 777-1604 Facsimile: (509) 777-1616 E-mail: john.nelson@foster.com Attorneys for Buckeye Fire Equipment Company: Michael Carpenter, Esq. 516 South New Hope Road Gastonia, NC 28054 Telephone: (704) 865-4400 - and - Brook L. Cunningham, Esq. RANDALL & DANSKIN PS 601 W Riverside Avenue, Suite 1500 Spokane, WA 99201-0653 Telephone: (509) 747-2052 Facsimile: (509) 624-2528 E-mail: blc@randalldanskin.com Attorneys for National Foam Inc.: James Milton Nelson, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG 1201 K Street, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 442-1111 E-mail: nelsonj@gtlaw.com ABC CORP: Placido Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Hector Placido and Geovany Lopez, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ABC Corp. d/b/a Kin Khao Thai Kitchen, Jakrapop Panurach a/k/a Pop, and Bin "Doe" (Legal Name Unknown), Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06864 (E.D. N.Y., December 3, 2018) is an action brought by Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated employees, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiffs, the correct minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the complaint. Plaintiffs allege pursuant to the FLSA, that they are entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, reimbursement for expenses relating to tools of the trade, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post- judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs further allege pursuant to New York Labor, Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR") and New York Common law that they are entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, unpaid "Spread of Hours" premium, unpaid agreed upon wages, compensation for failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring and failure to provide paystubs in violation of the NYLL, liquidated damages equal to the sum of unpaid minimum, unpaid spread of hours premium, and unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the NY Wage Theft Prevention Act, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff Placido is a resident of Manhattan and is employed as a delivery and cleaning worker by Defendants, with its principal place of business at 2200 Amsterdam Ave, New York, NY 10032, from on or about December 2017 until present. Plaintiff Geovany Lopez is a resident of the Bronx and is employed as a delivery, food preparer and cleaning worker by Defendants, with its principal place of business at 2200 Amsterdam Ave, New York, NY 10032, from on or about December 2017 until present. Corporate Defendant, ABC Corp. d/b/a Kin Khao Thai Kitchen, is a domestic business corporation organization and existing under the laws of the State of New York and maintains its principal place of business at 2200 Amsterdam Ave, New York, NY 10032. ABC Corp. d/b/a Kin Khao Thai Kitchen, is a business or enterprise engaged in interstate commerce employing more than 2 employees and earning gross annual sales over Five Hundred Thousand Dollars.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lorena P. Duarte, Esq. 136-20 38th Ave., Suite #10G Flushing, NY 11354 Phone: (718) 353-8588 Direct Line: (718) 353-8522 Email: lduarte@hanglaw.com AECOM: Singletary Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------ JERRY SINGLETARY, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs AECOM, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00372 (E.D. Wash., Nov. 30, 2018), alleges that AECOM failed to pay Singletary, and other workers like him, overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 49.46 et seq. (RCW), Washington's Minimum Wage Act, and any relevant regulations and/or rules adopted by the Washington. According to the complaint, instead, AECOM pays Singletary, and other workers like him, the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek. AECOM further failed to pay Singletary, and other workers like him, for all rest breaks, meal breaks in violation of Washington Wage Laws. AECOM paid Singletary at the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek. Rather than receiving time and half as required by the FLSA, Singletary only received "straight time" pay for overtime hours worked, the lawsuit says. AECOM is an American multinational engineering firm that provides design, consulting, construction, and management services to a wide range of clients. AECOM has approximately 87,000 employees, and is number 164 on the 2018 Fortune 500 list.[BN] Attorney for Jerry Singletary, et al.: Nicholas D. Kovarik, Esq. PISKEL YAHNE KOVARIK, PLLC 522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 700 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: 509-321-5930 Facsimile: 509-321-5935 E-mail: nick@pyklawyers.com AFORTUS FINANCIAL: Naiman Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ SIDNEY NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AFORTUS FINANCIAL, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-07266 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy and causing him to incur unnecessary and unwanted expenses. According to the complaint, beginning in or around April 2018, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on his cellular telephone numbers ending in -3945 and -5502, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services. The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system' as defined by 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone 24 numbers (844) 814-5432, (844) 371-1201, and (650) 279-8800 confirmed to be Defendant's numbers. Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). The Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Further, Plaintiff's cellular telephone numbers ending in -3945 and -5502 were added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about June 25, 2005 and on or about July 27, 2003, the lawsuit says. Afortus Financial offers debt elimination, insurance, investment & retirement planning services to ensure your financial security and independence.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 323 306-4234 Facsimile: 866 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com abacon@ toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com ALLSUP'S CONVENIENCE: Smith Seeks Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------- MELINDA SMITH, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons, the Plaintiff, vs. ALLSUP'S CONVENIENCE STORES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00235-D (N.D. Tex., Dec. 7, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a store manager from February of 2016 until July 16, 2018. Smith's duties included, but were not limited to, making employee work schedules, working the register and tending to customers, ordering products for the store, making bank deposits and completing daily reports and paperwork. Although Plaintiff's title was "manager," she had limited authority and did not have the ability to hire or fire, and did not have any say over personnel matters, which were handled by her supervisor and/or from the home office. During her tenure with the Defendant as a manager, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff was paid on a salary basis and and was not paid an overtime premium for hours worked over 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant knew of, approved of, and benefited from Plaintiff's regular and overtime work. The Defendant knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out its illegal pattern or practice regarding overtime compensation with respect to Plaintiff. Allsup's, sometimes misspelled as Allsups, is a privately owned chain of convenience stores that serves New Mexico and Texas, with one store in Frederick, Oklahoma. It is a 24-hour chain selling fuel under the Shell, Alon, ConocoPhillips, Exxon and "Allsup's On the Go" brands.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiff: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: 713 868-3388 Facsimile: 713 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com - and - Vijay Pattisapu, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: 713-868-3388 Facsimile: 713-683-9940 E-mail: vijay@buenkerlaw.com AMERICAN FAMILY: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Anderson Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Garth Anderson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Garth Anderson v. American Family Insurance Company, Case No. 5:15-cv-00475-MTT, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. The appellate case is captioned as Garth Anderson v. American Family Insurance Company, Case No. 18-14772, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 1, 2018, the Hon. Marc T. Treadwell granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. AFIC moved for summary judgment on the claims of Plaintiff Garth Anderson. The motion is granted, and Mr. Anderson's claims are dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, his motion to certify class and the parties' Daubert motions are moot, according to the Order. The lawsuit is one of several putative class action cases filed in the Court by insureds, all represented by the same lawyers, who claim that their insurers have failed to pay for the diminished value their homes suffered as the result of a loss that is otherwise covered by their insurance policies. In this context, the Court noted, diminished value has a very specific meaning: the loss in value of a property notwithstanding full repairs due to an intangible stigma owing to the circumstances of the loss. Judge Treadwell opined that Mr. Anderson has not presented any evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find that AFIC is liable to him for failure to pay for diminished value due to stigma. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- The appellant's brief is due on or before December 26, 2018; -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of the appellant's brief; -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or before December 13, 2018, as to Appellee American Family Insurance Company.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant GARTH ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, is represented by: C. Cooper Knowles, Esq. ANDREW KNOWLES & PRINCENTHAL 260 Peachtree St. NW, Suite 502 Atlanta, GA 30303-1201 Telephone: (404) 524-4000 E-mail: cknowles@akpfirm.com - and - Richard Kopelman, Esq. KOPELMAN SITTON LAW GROUP, LLC 3405 Piedmont Rd., NE Atlanta, GA 30305-1745 Telephone: (404) 261-6141 E-mail: richard@kopelmansitton.com - and - Adam Patrick Princenthal, Esq. PRINCENTHAL & MAY, LLC 750 Hammond Dr., Bldg. 12, Suite 200 Sandy Springs, GA 30328 Telephone: (678) 534-1980 E-mail: adam@princemay.com - and - Clinton W. Sitton, Esq. MARTIN & JONES 3353 Peachtree Rd. NE, Suite 510 Atlanta, GA 30326-1053 Telephone: (404) 257-1117 E-mail: cws@m-j.com Defendant-Appellee AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Michael S. McCarthy, Esq. Heather Carson Perkins, Esq. D. Lucetta Pope, Esq. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 1700 Lincoln St., Suite 3200 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 607-3670 E-mail: michael.mccarthy@faegrebd.com heather.perkins@FaegreBD.com lucetta.pope@FaegreBD.com - and - Collier West McKenzie, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF COLLIER WEST MCKENZIE 435 2nd St., 5th Floor Macon, GA 31201 Telephone: (478) 745-2821 - and - Robert Claude Norman, Jr., Esq. JONES CORK, LLP 435 2nd St., 5th Floor Macon, GA 31201 Telephone: (478) 745-2821 E-mail: bob.norman@jonescork.com AMERICAN YACHT: Illegally Keeps Employees' Gratuities, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ VICTOR VILLASIN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. AMERICAN YACHT CLUB; DAVID A. SCHWARTZ-LEEPER; and any other related entities, the Defendants, Case No. 608975/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 5, 2018), seeks compensation, including gratuities that the plaintiffs were deprived of, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs under the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of unlawfully retaining employees' gratuities at all of Defendants' restaurant and catering venues located in New York. A reasonable customer would believe that the Service Charge was in fact a gratuity for Plaintiff and similarly situated service employees. The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of failing to pay the Service Charge to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees and instead retained the money for their own benefit in violation of Labor Law Article 6 section 196-d, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Named Plaintiff & Putative Class: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 ANDERSEN CORPORATION: Luna Suit Moved to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case, John Luna as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Renewal by Andersen and Andersen Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV337047, was removed from the Santa Clara County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose) on Dec. 3, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 5:18-cv-07304-NC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Andersen Corporation is an international window and door manufacturing enterprise employing approximately 12,000 people at more than 30 manufacturing, logistic centers and company owned retail locations. Andersen is a private company with its headquarters in Bayport, Minnesota.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Danielle Leigh Manning, Esq. Marc Lawrence Godino, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2722 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com dmanning@glancylaw.com mgodino@glancylaw.com - and - Mark Samuel Greenstone, Esq. GREENSTONE LAW APC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9156 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com - and - Michael Joe Jaurigue, Esq. JAURIGUE LAW GROUP 300 West Glenoaks Blvd., Suite 300 Glendale, CA 91202 Telephone: (818) 630-7280 Facsimile: (888) 879-1697 E-mail: michael@jlglawyers.com Attorneys for Defendants: Ronald Q Tran, Esq. Lance Douglas Wilson, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP One Market Plaza Steuart Tower, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 617-2234 Facsimile: (415) 617-2409 E-mail: ronald.tran@tuckerellis.com lance.wilson@tuckerellis.com APPTIO INC: Scarantino Balks at Merger Deal with Vista Equity ------------------------------------------------------------- LOUIS SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. APPTIO, INC., SUNNY GUPTA, TOM BOGAN, PETER KLEIN, JOHN MCADAM, MATT MCILWAIN, REBECCA JACOBY, RAJEEV SINGH, and KATHLEEN PHILIPS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01938-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 6, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed transaction, and in the event Defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages. According to the complaint, the action stems from a proposed transaction announced on November 11, 2018, pursuant to which Apptio, Inc. will be acquired by affiliates of Vista Equity Partners. On November 9, 2018, Apptio's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Bellevue Parent, LLC and Bellevue Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Apptio's stockholders will receive $38.00 in cash for each share of Apptio common stock they hold. On November 21, 2018, defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement, the lawsuit says. Apptio is a Bellevue, Washington-based company founded in 2007 that develops technology business management software as a service applications. Apptio enterprise apps are designed to assess and communicate the cost of IT services for planning, budgeting and forecasting purposes.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Gina M. Serra, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com ARCIMOTO INC: 1st Amended Complaint in Consolidated Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arcimoto, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended: September 30, 2018, that the plaintiffs in the consolidated Switzer and Mendelson lawsuit have filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint. On March 11, 2018, the Company was served with a lawsuit entitled John R Switzer vs W.R. Hambrecht & Co. LLC et al., Case Number: CGC-18-564904, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court in the State of California. In this action, the Company has been named as a defendant along with five individuals who were directors and/or executive officers at the time of the completion of the Company's Regulation A offering on September 21, 2017. The action is styled as a putative class action, alleged on behalf of all those who purchased the Company's common stock in its Regulation A offering. The plaintiff has alleged violations of Section 12(a)(2) and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and is seeking damages in an unspecified amount to be proven at trial. In addition, on March 28, 2018, the Company was served with another lawsuit entitled Jay Mendelson v. Arcimoto, Inc. et al., Case Number CGC-18-565324, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court in the State of California. In that action, which is styled as a putative class action, the Company has also been named as a defendant along with the same individuals who were directors and/or executive officers at the time of the completion of the Company's Regulation A offering on September 21, 2017. The allegations and claims made in the Mendelson action are substantially similar to those of the Switzer action and the plaintiff also is seeking damages in an unspecified amount to be proven at trial. The two actions were consolidated into a single lawsuit on May 28, 2018. Arcimoto said, "The Company believes that the consolidated lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims in court." On July 30, 2018, counsel for the Company filed a demurrer to the consolidated complaint, seeking its dismissal. By Order dated September 19, 2018, the San Francisco Court sustained in part and denied in part the demurrer. On September 28, plaintiffs in that case filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint. Arcimoto further stated, "The Company denies the substantive claims and allegations made in that amended pleading, and shall continue to assert a vigorous defense." Arcimoto, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells three-wheeled electric vehicles. The company was formerly known as WTP Inc and changed its name to Arcimoto, Inc. in December 2011. Arcimoto, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Eugene, Oregon. ASUS COMPUTER: Sued over Misrepresentation of USB Laptops Prices ---------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD BREKHUS, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, the Defendant, Case No. CGC-18-571553 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 26, 2018), seeks compensatory damages -- in the amount of the price premium paid (i.e., the difference between the price consumers paid for the Purported USB Laptops and the price they would have paid but for Defendant's misrepresentations), in an amount to be proven at trial using econometric or statistical techniques such as hedonic regression or conjoint analysis -- for fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation; violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; false advertising; negligent misrepresentation; unfair, unlawful, and deceptive trade practices; breach of express warranty; and violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. This case concerns laptop computers that were marketed and sold by ASUS as including Universal Serial Bus ("USB") 3.0 "Gen 1" ports. ASUS specifically marketed, advertised and represented to consumers that the USB ports of the Purported USB 3.0 Laptops were capable of transferring data at rates of 5 gigabits (Gb) per second. ASUS's representations are false. As Plaintiff discovered after purchasing a Purported USB 3.0 Laptop advertised with a data transfer rate of 5Gb/s, the USB ports are incapable of transferring data at anywhere near the speeds advertised. Rather, the USB ports are capable of transferring data at a rate of only about 2,160 megabits/second -- less than half as fast as advertised. In fact, the USB ports on the Purported USB 3.0 Laptops are not really USB 3.0 ports. The USB 3.0 specification states that Gen 1 USB 3.0 hosts must be capable of transferring data at a "SuperSpeed" rate of 5 gigabits/second. As stated above, the USB ports of the Purported USB 3.0 Laptops-even when operating at their highest speeds -- only transfer data at less than half of the required 5 gigabits/second rate, the lawsuit says. ASUS is an international manufacturer of products that include notebooks, netbooks, motherboards, and graphics cards.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Adam J. Gutride, Esq. Seth A. Safier, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 789-6390 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: adam@gutridesafier.com seth@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com BANK OF AMERICA: Bids for Certification in Fernandez Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald denied two motions for certification filed by Plaintiffs Jose Fernandez, Alex Yong, and Joshua Boswell in their lawsuit titled Jose Fernandez, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-06104-MWF-JC (C.D. Cal.). Judge Fitzgerald opines that the Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification (the "Certification Motion") is denied in its entirety because the Plaintiffs fail to present clear evidence of any specific policy governing the employment status (exempt versus non-exempt) of Bank of America's lending officers. Rather, Judge Fitzgerald notes, the Plaintiffs rely on a common incentive plan, which does not speak to if or how lending officers were misclassified. Thus, individualized determination about each class member's exemption status is likely to overwhelm common issues. Judge Fitzgerald also denied in its entirety the Motion for FLSA Conditional Certification and for an Order Circulating 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) Notice (the "FLSA Motion"). Judge Fitzgerald explains that the Plaintiffs fail to establish that they are "similarly situated" to other members of the proposed collective action. Determining whether lending officers are "exempt" or "non-exempt" from the FLSA requirement for overtime compensation involves a highly individualized inquiry into daily job responsibilities of each lending officer, Judge Fitzgerald points out. Plaintiffs Jose Fernandez and Alex Yong initiated this action on August 17, 2017. On April 6, 2018, this action was consolidated with Boswell v. Bank of America Corp., et al., No. 2:17-cv-6120-MWF (RAOx). The Putative Lead Plaintiffs were previously employed by Bank of America: Plaintiff Boswell as a mortgage loan officer from September 2015 to March 2017, Plaintiff Yong as a mortgage lending officer from October 2013 to September 2014, and Plaintiff Fernandez as a mortgage originator from September 2013 to October 2014. In the Certification Motion, the Plaintiffs seek to represent one class and one subclass of California employees, defined as: 1. The Class: All current and former California residents who worked for Defendant at its financial centers selling or originating mortgages at any time beginning August 17, 2013 through the date notice is mailed to the Class; and 2. The Overtime Subclass: All current or former California residents who worked for Defendant at its financial centers selling or originating mortgages at any time beginning August 17, 2013 through the date notice is mailed to the Class, and who were classified as exempt from overtime. In the FLSA Motion, the Plaintiffs next seek to represent one nationwide class of similarly situated individuals, defined as: 1. The Class: All persons who currently or formerly worked for [Bank of America] at its financial centers in the United States of America selling or originating mortgages at any time beginning August 17, 2014 until the date of judgment after trial, and who were classified as exempt from overtime.[CC] BANK OF AMERICA: Removed Veritas Case to District of New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- Bank of America, N.A. and Bank of America Corp. removed case captioned as CHRIS VERITAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BANK OF AMERICA CORP. and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., the Defendants, Case No. ESX-L-006242-18, from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Dec. 3, 2018. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-16775 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges violation of New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A. sections 34:11-56(a) et seq. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants failed to pay overtime, failed to keep, make, preserve, maintain, and furnish accurate records of time worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, and failed to furnish each of them their wage and hour records showing all wages earned and due for all work performed for labor or services rendered. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a putative class of allegedly similarly situated employees, seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Defendants Bank of America, N.A. and Bank of America Corp.: Jeffrey I. Kohn, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 E-mail: jkohn@omm.com BANK OF AMERICA: Uong et al Suit Moved to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case, Duc Uong and Tony Nguyen on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Bank of America, National Association, a Delaware Corporation, Brett Robinson, an individual residing in the State of California, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 30-02018-01004646, was transferred from the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana) on Dec. 7, 2018. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:18-cv-02169 to the proceeding. The suit alleges Labor-related violation. Bank of America, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank offers saving and current account, investment and financial services, online banking, mortgage and non-mortgage loan facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. Attorneys for Defendants: Adam Paul KohSweeney, Esq. O'Melveny and Myers LLP Two Embarcadero Center 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com BERGHOFF INTERNATIONAL: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Perry Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Deana Perry, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BergHOFF International, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-04552 (S.D. Tex., December 3, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages from Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The complaint says BergHOFF violated the FLSA by employing Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees for a workweek longer than forty hours but refusing to compensate them for their employment in excess of forty hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they are or were employed. BergHOFF further violated the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate time and pay records for Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees, adds the complaint. Deana Perry is an individual who resides in Harris County, Texas and who was employed by BergHOFF during the last three years. BergHOFF International, Inc. is a Florida corporation that is not registered agent to transact business in Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. Bridget Davidson, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 BESURE HOME: Amaya Seeks Minimum Wage and OT Pay for Caregivers --------------------------------------------------------------- SHELMY AMAYA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BESURE HOME HEALTH SERVICES INC. (D/B/A BESURE HOME HEALTH SERVICES), VALRIE HENRY, and JAZMIN RODRIGUEZ, the Defendants, Case No. 161230/2018 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2018), alleges that Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by state law and regulations. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants. The Defendants own, operate, or control a home health services center, located at 736 Allerton Avenue, Suite 207, Bronx, NY 10467 under the name "Besure Home Health Services". While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff Amaya provided services to homebound, ailing elderly and/or disabled clients at their homes, including but not limited to, personal care services, such as assistance with dressing, bathing and personal grooming, lifting and transferring bed-ridden and/or immobile clients, cooking and serving food, changing diapers and toileting, cleaning, such as mopping, sweeping, cleaning the bathrooms, doing laundry, making appointments, escorting clients to the doctor, making transportation arrangements and taking out garbage. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff Amaya appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES , P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com BIG BUBBA'S: Linneberger Seeks Back Wages, Damages -------------------------------------------------- Doug Linneberger Plaintiff v. Big Bubba's LLC and Eric Khozindar dba Big Bubba's Bail Bonds, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-03179-M (M.D. Fla., December 2, 2018) is an action for overtime wage theft under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff filed the case on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees to recover back wages, an equal amount of liquidated/double damages, attorney fees, interest, and costs. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly-paid employee. He regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek, and the Defendants did not pay him an overtime premium of at least one and one-half times his regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The complaint asserts that the Defendants' actions were willful. Defendants understood the obligation to pay hourly employees an overtime premium for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, and elected not to pay overtime wages, it adds. Plaintiff Doug Linneberger is an individual who resides in Wood County, TX. Big Bubba's LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Texas. Eric Khozindar is an individual who is a citizen of the State of Texas and resides in Dallas County. Khozindar maintains or has maintained assumed name certificates for Big Bubba's Bail Bonds in Dallas County, Tarrant County, and Collin County, TX; and Big Bubba's Bail Bonds II in Dallas County and Collin Dallas County, TX.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barry S. Hersh, Esq. Hersh Law Firm, PC 3626 N. Hall St., Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75219-5133 Phone: (214) 303-1022 Fax: (214) 550-8170 Email: barry@hersh-law.com BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: Records Phone Calls, Treihart Says ---------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY T. TREIHART, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION dba DRIVETIME CAR SALES COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-02540 (S.D. Cal., Dec. 3, 2018), alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant intentionally recorded a communication transmitted between a cellular radio telephone and a landline telephone without Plaintiff's consent as prohibited by California Penal Code section 632.7(a). On or around April 7, 2016, Defendant called Plaintiff on his cellular telephone ending in 1740. When Plaintiff answered the telephone, Defendant's representative identified as "Shannon" labeled the call a courtesy call and wanted to go over account information and dealership experience. At no time during the call did Defendant's representative inform Plaintiff that the call was being recorded. The Plaintiff did not consent to the call being recorded without his knowledge. Defendant records all of its telephone calls, including the call to Plaintiff, the lawsuit says. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation, a licensed third-party servicer, services loans for DriveTime and other affiliated finance companies in the United States. It provides car and vehicle loans to customers. Bridgecrest was formerly known as DT Acceptance Corporation and changed its name to Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation in April 2016. The company was founded in 2003 and is based in Phoenix, Arizona. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation operates as a subsidiary of DriveTime Automotive, Inc.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Jason A. Ibey, Esq. Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com jason@kazlg.com nicholas@kazlg.com CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Castillo Suit Moved to District of Nevada ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Justin Castillo as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Caesars Entertainment Corporation and Desert Palace, LLC, doing business as: Caesars Palace Hotel & Casino, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-05781, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (Las Vegas) on Dec. 3, 2018. The District of Nevada Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-02297-GMN-NJK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Gloria M. Navarro. The suit alleges Telephone Consumer Protection Act violation. Caesars Entertainment Corporation, is an American gaming corporation based in Paradise, Nevada that owns and operates over 50 casinos and hotels, and seven golf courses under several brands. In 2013, it was the fourth-largest gaming company in the world, with annual revenues of $8.6 billion.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Danielle Leigh Manning, Esq. Marc Lawrence Godino, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: INFO@GLANCYLAW.COM - and - Mark Samuel Greenstone, Esq. GREENSTONE LAW APC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9156 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 - and - Michael Joe Jaurigue, Esq. JAURIGUE LAW GROUP 300 West Glenoaks Blvd., Suite 300 Glendale, CA 91202 Telephone: (818) 630-7280 Facsimile: (888) 879-1697 Attorneys for Defendants: Matthew T. Murchison, Esq. Melanie Marilyn Blunschi, Esq. Adam J. Tuetken, Esq. Natalie Hardwick Rao, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC, DC 20004-1304 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 Facsimile: (202) 637-2201 CHAMPION PETFOODS: Removed Shaker Case to E.D. Michigan ------------------------------------------------------- Champion Petfoods removed case captioned case RAMY SHAKER, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA, INC. and CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, Case No. 18-013670-NP (filed October 19, 2018), was removed from the Michigan Circuit Court for the County of Wayne to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Michigan on Nov. 19, 2018. The Eastern District of Michigan Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-13603-LJM-DRG to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that Champion deceptively marketed its Acana and Orijen brand pet foods as "Biologically Appropriate" and "designed to nourish dogs and cats according to their evolutionary adaptation to a diet rich and diverse in fresh meat and protein" when the products allegedly contained "heavy metals and toxins.", pursuant to the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.[BN] Attorney for Defendants: John J. O'Shea, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOHN J. O'SHEA, P.L.C. 18000 Mack Avenue Grosse Pointe, MI 48230 Telephone: (313) 884-2000 Facsimile: (313) 884-2265 E-mail: oshealaw@att.net CHEETAH MOBILE: Marcu Sues over Misleading Financial Report ----------------------------------------------------------- ADRIAN MARCU, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHEETAH MOBILE INC., SHENG FU, and VINCENT ZHENYU JIANG, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11184 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Cheetah securities between April 26, 2017, and November 27, 2018, both dates inclusive. The Company provides its advertising customers, which include direct advertisers and mobile advertising networks through which advertisers place their advertisements, with direct access to highly targeted mobile users and global promotional channels. The Company also provides value-added services to its mobile application users through the sale of in-app virtual items on selected mobile products and games. The Company was formerly known as Kingsoft Internet Software Holdings Limited and changed its name to Cheetah Mobile Inc. in March 2014. Cheetah was incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Beijing, People's Republic of China. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Cheetah's apps had undisclosed imbedded features which tracked when users downloaded new apps; (ii) Cheetah used this data to inappropriately claim credit for having caused the downloads; (iii) the foregoing features, when discovered, would foreseeably subject the Company's apps to removal from the Google Play store; (iv) accordingly, Cheetah's Class Period revenues were in part the product of improper conduct and thus unsustainable; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 26, 2018, BuzzFeed News reported that certain Cheetah apps then available in the Google Play store were exploiting user permissions as part of an ad fraud scheme. The BuzzFeed News article stated that Cheetah's apps "tracked when users downloaded new apps and used this data to inappropriately claim credit for having caused the download." BuzzFeed News reported that two of Cheetah's apps were removed from the Google Play store after publication of the article. On this news, Cheetah's American depositary receipt ("ADR") price fell $3.32, or nearly 37%, over the next two trading sessions, closing at $5.48 on November 27, 2018. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says. Cheetah Mobile Inc is a Chinese mobile Internet company headquartered in Beijing, China. Being the creator to some of the most popular global mobile apps, it has more than 634 million monthly active users as of Jan 2017.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20 th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42 nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com CHULA VISTA: Sold Discounted Access to Condo Units, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH SARTIN, KENNETH RICHE, TONY EDWARDS, ROBERT SILBERMAN, and SCOTT WILLOCK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CHULA VISTA, INC., CVR MANAGEMENT, LLC, MICHAEL KAMINSKI, MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH, LLP, and NANCY HAGGERTY, ESQ., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01890-JPS (E.D. Wisc., Nov. 30, 2018), alleges that Defendants are engaged in a scheme to take financial advantage of condominium unit owners at the Chula Vista Resort & Waterpark, including, but is not limited to: (i) the unlawful conversion of Plaintiffs' property without paying Plaintiffs due consideration; (ii) requiring Plaintiffs to pay inflated condominium assessments, which are used for Defendants' exclusive benefit; and (iii) fraudulently overcharging Plaintiffs for maintenance, repair, and miscellaneous improvements. According to the complaint, the Chula Vista Defendants operate the Chula Vista resort and oversee rental of the condominium units. Rather than operate the resort in Plaintiffs' best interests, as they are legally obligated to do, the Chula Vista Defendants use Plaintiffs' condominium units for their own personal and pecuniary gain. Most insidiously, the Chula Vista Defendants sell "Club" memberships to the general public, which allow Club members to receive massive rental discounts on Plaintiffs' condominium units. While the Chula Vista Defendants collect millions of dollars in Club membership fees and dues by selling discounted access to Plaintiffs' condominium units, they do not give Plaintiffs any portion of the Club membership fees and dues. The Plaintiffs never authorized the Chula Vista Defendants to sell discounted access to their condominium units through The Club program, nor did Plaintiffs authorize the Chula Vista Defendants to keep all proceeds therefrom. Additionally, the Chula Vista Defendants force Plaintiffs to pay inflated assessments on their condominium units, for which Plaintiffs receive minimal, if any, benefit. Instead, the Chula Vista Defendants use the money from these inflated assessments for their own financial gain. The Chula Vista Defendants also profit off of Plaintiffs by fraudulently overcharging them for routine maintenance, repair, and miscellaneous improvements in their condominium units. Rather than enjoy the expected rental income on their condominium units, Plaintiffs have lost substantial amounts of money as a direct result of Defendants' unlawful activity, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Steven A. Hart, Esq. Brian Eldridge, Esq. HART MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE, LLC 22 W. Washington St., Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312 955 0545 E-mail: shart@hmelegal.com beldridge@hmelegal.com CITIBANK NA: Revitch Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JEREMIAH REVITCH, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated v. CITIBANK, N.A., Case No. 3:17-cv-06907-WHA (N.D. Cal.), seeks certification of this class: All persons in the United States who (1) between March 17, 2014, through August 21, 2018; (2) were called on their cellular telephone by Defendant or its agent/s using its Aspect Unified dialer; and (3) where such person was not listed in Defendant's records as the intended recipient of the calls. The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Mr. Revitch also asks the Court to appoint him as class representative, and to appoint Bursor & Fisher, P.A., as class counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on February 7, 2019, at 8:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Thomas A. Reyda, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jsmith@bursor.com ykrivoshey@bursor.com treyda@bursor.com COCA-COLA COMPANY: Geffner Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment to 2nd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Evan Geffner and Ivan Babsin filed an appeal from a court ruling from the District Court's opinion and order, and judgment, issued on October 31, 2018, in their lawsuit styled Geffner, et al. v. The Coca-Cola Company, Case No. 17-cv-7952, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of New York's Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Law, False Advertising Law, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, restitution, and breach of express and implied warranties. The Plaintiffs allege that Coca-Cola's marketing Diet Coke as "diet" is false, misleading, and unlawful. The appellate case is captioned as Geffner, et al. v. The Coca-Cola Company, Case No. 18-3548, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Evan Geffner, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public; and Ivan Babsin, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, are represented by: Abraham Melamed, Esq. DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC 1 Penn Plaza New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (303) 929-3903 E-mail: abe@dereksmithlaw.com Defendant-Appellee The Coca-Cola Company is represented by: Catherine Williams, Esq. PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 336-2000 E-mail: cawilliams@pbwt.com COLE COUNTY, MO: Class Certification Sought in Turtle Island Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Turtle Island Foods, SPC, doing business as The Tofurky Company; and The Good Food Institute v. Mark Richardson, in his official capacity as Cole County Prosecuting Attorney and on behalf of all Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys, Case No. 2:18-cv-04173-FJG (W.D. Mo.), move the Court for certification of a Defendant Class. In this action, the Plaintiffs challenge recent amendments to Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 265.494(7) that make "misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry" a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by incarceration up to one year and a fine up to $1,000. Through this law, the Missouri legislature intended to -- and has -- criminalized the use of the word "meat" and meat-related terminology in the marketing and packaging of plant-based meat products, the Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs asserts that the challenged provision is enforced by the individual prosecuting attorneys throughout Missouri.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony E. Rothert, Esq. Jessie Steffan, Esq. ACLU OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION 906 Olive Street, Suite 1130 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 652-3114 E-mail: trothert@aclu-mo.org - and - Gillian R. Wilcox, Esq. ACLU OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION 406 W. 34th Street, Suite 420 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 470-9933 E-mail: gwilcox@aclu-mo.org - and - Matthew Liebman, Esq. Amanda M. Howell, Esq. Alene Anello, Esq. ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 525 E. Cotati Ave. Cotati, CA 94931 Telephone: (707) 795-2533 E-mail: mliebman@aldf.org ahowell@aldf.org aanello@aldf.org - and - Jessica Almy, Esq. THE GOOD FOOD INTITUTE 1380 Monroe St. NW, #229 Washington, DC 20010 Telephone: (866) 849-4457 E-mail: jessicaa@gfi.org CONN'S INC: 5th Cir. Dismisses Appeal in Texas Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Conn's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2018, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2018, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has dismissed the appeal in the consolidated securities class action suit entitled, In re Conn's Inc. Securities Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548. The company and two of its former executive officers were defendants in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the "Court"), captioned In re Conn's Inc. Securities Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548 (the "Consolidated Securities Action"). The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects. They alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and sought to certify a class of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Conn's common stock or call options, or sold or wrote Conn's put options between April 3, 2013 and December 9, 2014. The complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought. On June 30, 2015, the Court held a hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. At the hearing the Court dismissed Brian Taylor, a former executive officer, and certain other aspects of the complaint. In May 2016, the Court issued a ruling that dismissed 78 of 91 alleged misstatements. In late June 2017 the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and shortly thereafter, Defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Fifth Circuit"). The Fifth Circuit granted leave to appeal on August 21, 2017. On June 14, 2018, the parties filed a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement for the Consolidated Securities Action. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement terms and stayed the Consolidated Securities Action on June 28, 2018. The $22.5 million settlement was funded solely by proceeds from the company's insurance carriers. As part of the settlement, the company, along with the other executive officer defendants, have denied and continue to deny any wrongdoing giving rise to any liability or violation of the law, including the U.S. securities laws, as well as each and every one of the claims alleged by plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action. The Court held a final settlement approval hearing on October 11, 2018 and that same day the Court signed its Final Order and Judgment approving the terms of the settlement of the Consolidated Securities Action. On November 16, 2018, after no appeal from the Final Order and Judgment was filed and the settlement became final, the company filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the Fifth Circuit appeal. The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal on November 15, 2018. Conn's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of durable consumer goods and related services in the United States. The company operates through two segments, Retail and Credit. Conn's, Inc. was founded in 1890 and is headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas. CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Illegally Sends Text Ads, LaRock Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- MEMARY LAROCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONTEXTLOGIC, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-07177 (N.D. Cal., November 27, 2018), accuses the Defendant of violating the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The lawsuit arises from the Defendant's alleged illegal actions in transmitting unsolicited SMS text message advertisements to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone and the cellular telephones of numerous other consumers across the country who, like the Plaintiff, have never enrolled in the Defendant's services. ContextLogic, Inc., is an Internet marketing company headquartered in San Francisco, California. The Defendant operates several e-commerce Web sites, including the Web sites located at Wish.com and all subdomains thereto.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Hall, Esq. Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 766-3534 Facsimile: (415) 402-0058 E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com fhedin@hedinhall.com CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Orozco Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUAN OROZCO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-00624-RWS-JDL (E.D. Tex., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks to recover damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, Convergent is engaged in the business of a collection agency, using the mails and telephone to collect consumer debts originally owed to others. The Plaintiff suffered actual harm by being the target of the Defendants’ misleading debt collection communications. Defendants violated the Plaintiff's right not to be the target of misleading debt collection communications. The Defendant used materially false, deceptive, misleading representations and means in its attempted collection of Plaintiff's alleged debt. Defendant's communications were designed to cause the debtor to suffer a harmful disadvantage in charting a course of action in response to the Defendant's collection efforts. The Plaintiff has suffered damages including but not limited to, fear, stress, mental anguish, emotional stress and acute embarrassment. Plaintiff and putative class members are entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, including declaratory relief and damages, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiff: Joel S. Halvorsen, Esq. HALVORSEN KLOTE 680 Craig Road, Suite 104 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 451-1314 Facsimile: (314) 787-4323 E-mail: joel@hklawstl.com CRUISES & TOURS: Spotts Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTIN SPOTTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CRUISES & TOURS WORLDWIDE, LLC D/B/A DREAM VACATIONS, a Florida Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-62976-BB (S.D. Fla., Dec. 6, 2018), seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals, and seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Defendant is a travel agency. To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. On or about August 6, 2018, Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 7211. Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., selling Plaintiff travel agency services and/or cruises. The information contained in the text message advertises Defendant's cruise specials, which Defendant sends to promote its business. The Plaintiff received the subject texts within this judicial district and, therefore, Defendant's violation of the TCPA occurred within this district. At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express written consent to be contacted using an ATDS, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1 st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305-975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com CURO GROUP: Share Prices Inflated, Yellowdog Partners Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ YELLOWDOG PARTNERS, LP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CURO GROUP HOLDINGS CORP., DONALD F. GAYHARDT, WILLIAM BAKER, and ROGER W. DEAN, the Defendants, Case 2:18-cv-02662 (D. Kan., Dec. 5, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, upon announcement of the Company's disappointing 2018 third quarter financial results and revised 2018 full-year guidance, the price of the Company's shares was decimated. As illustrative, CURO stock closed at $22.87 on October 24, 2018, the last day of the Class Period. After the truth was revealed, on October 25, 2018, the Company's shares closed sharply downward at $15.18 -- a staggering loss of $7.69 per share. CURO provides short-term credit to underbanked consumers in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. In the United States, it operates under two principal brands, "Speedy Cash" and "Rapid Cash." In the United Kingdom, CURO operates online as "Wage Day Advance" and "Juo Loans." In Canada, the Company's stores are branded "Cash Money" and it offers "LendDirect" installment loans online and at certain stores. CURO offers "Single-Pay Loans," "Unsecured Installment Loans," "Open-End Loans" and "Secured Installment Loans." This case concerns Defendants' materially false and misleading statements, including on-going financial guidance, relating to CURO's efforts to transition its Canadian inventory of products from Single-Pay Loans to Open-End Loans. In this regard, throughout the Class Period, Defendants materially misrepresented to investors the deleterious effect that the up-front loan loss provisioning in connection with the transition was having on the Company's financial performance and 2018 full-year Company guidance. Because CURO's Open-End Loans had a materially lower lending yield than the Single-Pay Products, and the portfolio of Open-End Loans was still immature and unseasoned, the up-front loan loss provisioning for these loans was far greater than publicly revealed (and the yield far lower). This caused the Company to materially overstate its 2018 projected financial results, including CURO's adjusted EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization), net revenue and operating earnings. As a result of these misrepresentations, CURO stock traded at artificially inflated price levels throughout the Class Period As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, Yellowdog and the Class purchased CURO common stock at artificially inflated prices, causing economic harm and damage to Yellowdog and the Class.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Ryan C. Hudson, Esq. Larkin E. Walsh, Esq. REX A. SHARP P.A. 5301 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 901-0419 E-mail: rhudson@midwest-law.com lwalsh@midwest-law.com - and - Ashley C. Keller, Esq. Travis D. Lenkner, Esq. Seth A. Meyer, Esq. U. Seth Ottensoser, Esq. KELLER LENKNER LLC 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270 Chicago, IL 60606 Telphone: (312) 741-5222 E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com tdl@kellerlenkner.com sam@kellerlenkner.com so@kellerlenkner.com DASTMALCHI LLC: Faces Palermo Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing -------------------------------------------------------------- Alicia Palermo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dastmalchi LLC d/b/a Vanity Planet, a California Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02144 (C.D. Cal., December 3, 2018) is an action against the Defendant to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant is a company that sells beauty and health products. To promote its services, Defendant engages in aggressive unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, says the complaint. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this action, was a resident of Hillsborough County, Florida. Defendant is a California limited liability company whose principal office is located at 4490 Von Karman Ave, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Defendant directs, markets, and provides its business activities throughout the United States, including throughout the states of California and Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com DAXI SICHUAN: Zang Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------- Zhongzhi Zang, individually and on behalf of all other Employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff(s), vs. DAXI SICHUAN INC. d/b/a DAXI RESTAURANT, Shihai Liu, John Doe No. 1-10 and Jane Doe No. 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06910 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 5, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff(s): Hui Chen, Esq. HUI CHEN AND ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 136-20 38th Ave., Suite 9E Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 463-2666 E-mail: hui.chen@alum.cardozo.yu.edu DIMICHELE ENTERPRISES: Thompson Seeks Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------- JIM THOMPSON, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DIMICHELE ENTERPRISES, INC., NICOLE DIMICHELE; and DEAN DIMICHELE, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00903-SWW (E.D. Ark., Dec. 5, 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, Defendants tracked Plaintiff's working hours using a time clock system in Defendants' restaurant that employees, including Plaintiff, used to record their working hours by physically clocking in at the beginning of their shifts and out at the end of their shifts. The time clock used by Defendants to track the working hours of Plaintiff and other hourly employees regularly failed to accurately record hours worked. The Plaintiff was at times unable to clock in at the time he arrived and began working, but rather often had to wait until a manager arrived at work to clock him in. As a result, the clock-in time reflected on the time clock was later than the time that Plaintiff actually began working. This was true of other hourly employees for Defendants as well. As a result of Defendants' failure to accurately record hours worked by Plaintiff and other hourly employees, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other hourly employees proper minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked each week. Defendants failed to pay and have yet to pay to Plaintiff his last paycheck after his employment with the Defendants was terminated by Defendants on November 22, despite Plaintiff making lawful demand upon Defendants that they do so both within and after the seven days following Plaintiff's last day of employment, the lawsuit says. Dimichele Enterprise is in the management consulting services industry in North Little Rock, Arizona.[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 DOMINO'S PIZZA: Removes Silva Case to Central Dist. of California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Domino's Pizza LLC removes case captioned EDDIE SILVA on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff. vs. DOMINO'S PIZZA, a Michigan Corporation, and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 30-2018-8 01027517-CU-OE-CXC (Filed Oct. 23, 2018), from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, top the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 30, 2018). The Central District of California Court clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-10047 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges eight causes of action against Domino's: (1) violation of the California Private Attorney General Act; (2) failure to provide meal breaks; (3) failure to provide rest breaks; (4) failure to separately pay all wages for work performed; (5) failure to reimburse for work expenses; (6) failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements; (7) waiting time penalties; and (8) unfair business practices under the UCL. Domino's Pizza, Inc., branded as Domino's, is an American pizza restaurant chain founded in 1960. The corporation is headquartered at the Domino's Farms Office Park in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and incorporated in Delaware. In February 2018, the chain became the largest pizza seller worldwide in terms of sales.[BN] Attorneys for Defendant: Margaret A. Keane, Esq. Eric Ortiz, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 Telephone: 415 836 2500 Facsimile: 415 836 2501 E-mail: margaret.keane@dlapiper.com eric.ortiz@dlapiper.com EAST CAPITOL: Wins Prelim. Nod of Settlement in Kinard Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Timothy J. Kelly grants preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release in the lawsuit styled MILDRED KINARD, EARLENE WHEELER, VICKY BORDEAUX, and DONALD ROBINSON v. EAST CAPITOL FAMILY RENTAL, L.P., A&R MANAGEMENT, INC., and KETTLER MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-01935-TJK (D.D.C.). The Settlement Class is defined as: All tenants who were residents at Capitol Gateway Family Rental in one of the Units for any period of time between January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015. The Court approves the Class Notice, Claim Form, Reminder Postcards and the Class Notice Procedure. The Claims Administrator -- Settlement Services, Inc. -- shall mail the Class Notice, Claim Form, and Reminder Postcards to the Settlement Class in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Judge Kelly appoints the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class and appoints their counsel as Class Counsel. The Court will conduct a final fairness hearing on April 10, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.[CC] ECA: Terminates Employees without Proper Legal Notice, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEBI TOWNSEND, CHELSEA SMITH, HOLLY S. DANIELS, JENNIFER D. GERVAIS and SHELLEY HENDERSON, individually and as class representatives for all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, vs. EDUCATION CORPORATION OF AMERICA, BRIGHTWOOD CAREER INSTITUTE, BRIGHTWOOD COLLEGE, ECOTECH INSTITUTE, GOLF ACADEMY OF AMERICA and VIRGINIA COLLEGE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01941-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 7, 2018), seeks to recover receive payments owed to Plaintiffs under ECA's compensation and benefit plans, actual payroll checks for payment of wages/salary, vacation benefits, deferred compensation and bonuses, including incentive bonuses, severance and retention bonuses, that were subsequently not honored or paid. According to the complaint, the action is brought by former employees of Education Corporation of America and its wholly owned subsidiaries Brightwood Career Institute, Brightwood College, Ecotech Institute, Golf Academy of America and Virginia College who were terminated without proper legal notice, as part of, or as a result of, campus shutdowns and/or mass layoffs at various facilities, including but not limited to, campuses located in Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were terminated by ECA on or about December 5, 2018. The Plaintiffs, and the members of the class they seek to represent, failed to receive proper advance notification of their terminations, in violation of the WARN Act and/or state wage and employee laws. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, and other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendants and who were terminated without cause, as part of, or as the result of, campus closings ordered by Defendants and who were not provided 60 days advance written notice of their terminations by Defendants, as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the lawsuit says. ECA owns and operated private institutions of higher education throughout the The ECA Subsidiaries are wholly-owned subsidiaries of ECA, a Delaware corporation, which operates from campuses throughout the United States. ECA exercised direct control over the ECA Subsidiaries and made the decision to terminate employees of the ECA Subsidiaries without proper notice, severance, benefits or payment for earned wages, bonuses and other compensation.[BN] Attorneys for Class Plaintiffs and the Putative Class: Sally E. Veghte, Esq. KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG LLP 919 Market Street, Suite 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 552-5503 E-mail: sveghte@klehr.com Charles A. Ercole, Esq. EDUCATION CORP: Sued over Mass Layoff without Written Notice ------------------------------------------------------------ JERRELL SMITH and R. DAILEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. EDUCATION CORPORATION OF AMERICA, the Defendant, Case No.: 1:18-cv-01937-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 6, 2018), seeks to recover 60 days' wages and benefits, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 2104 from Defendant. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were employees of Education Corp and were terminated on or around December 5, 2018, as part of a mass layoff and/or plant closing without being given 60 days advance written notice. On that date, Defendant announced that it was permanently discontinuing its operations and, on or about that date, terminated approximately 3,000 other similarly situated employees without 60 days advance written notice, as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The mass layoffs or plant closings at the Facilities resulted in "employment losses," as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. section 2101(a)(2) for at least fifty of Defendant's employees as well as more than 33% of Defendant's workforce at the Facilities, excluding "part-time employees," as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. section 2101(a)(8). The Plaintiffs and the Class Members were terminated by Defendant without cause on their part, as part of or as the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoffs or plant closings ordered by Defendant at the Facilities, the lawsuit says. Education Corporation of America, headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, is a privately held company that operated proprietary colleges across the United States. Included were three schools with 31 campuses, plus one online school and four affiliated businesses.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative Class: Christopher D. Loizides, Esq. LOIZIDES, P.A. 1225 King Street, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 654-0248 E-mail: loizides@loizides.com - and - Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 3rd Avenue, 25 th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 E-mail: jar@outtengolden.com rsr@outtengolden.com ERIC KIM: Yu et al Seeks Overtime Wages --------------------------------------- SHENG WEI YU, KENICHI MURAKI, WEI JIE YU, and AIMEE LACADEN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ERIC KIM, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-07001 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and/or attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, Defendant has willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiffs, minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, proposed FLSA Collective and potential Rule 23 Class Plaintiffs: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com ESA MANAGEMENT: Liggins Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, Adrienne Liggins individually and on behalf of others similarly situated and aggrieved, the Plaintiff, vs. ESA Management LLC, a Delaware corporation and Extended Stay America-Anaheim Convention Center a business entity of unknown form, the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-01807, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Dec. 6, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 3:18-cv-07367-JCS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joseph C. Spero. The suit asserts employment discrimination claims.[BN] Attorneys for Adrienne Liggins, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated and aggrieved: Joshua D. Boxer, Esq. Matthew John Matern, Esq. Roy Karngwon Suh, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 30266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: jboxer@maternlawgroup.com MMatern@maternlawgroup.com rsuh@maternlawgroup.com Attorneys for Defendant ESA Management LLC: Lindbergh Porter, Jr., Esq. Ebunoluwa O. Olaleye, Esq. Kurt R Bockes, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 Facsimile: (415) 399-8490 E-mail: lporter@littler.com dolaleye@littler.com kbockes@littler.com ESTES FORWARDING: Kirkland Suit Moved to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Giselle Kirkland, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Estes Forwarding Worldwide, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. CGC-18-569316, was removed from San Francisco Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Dec. 4, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 3:18-cv-07324-LB. The suit alleges Fair Credit Reporting Act violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler. Estes Forwarding Worldwide, LLC provides domestic and international freight forwarding services.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com - and - Howard Scott Leviant, Esq. William Matthew Pao, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: scott@setarehlaw.com william@setarehlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant: Garrett Voorhees Jensen, Esq. CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 622-1661 Facsimile: (949) 622-1669 FAIRWAY INDEPENDENT: Valdez Suit Moved to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case, Susana Valdez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Fairway Independent Mortgage Corporation, a Texas corporation and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-02018-00053677-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Dec. 6, 2018. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-02748-CAB-KSC to the proceeding. The suit alleges labor-related violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo. Fairway Independent offers financing options and mortgage advice. The company offers range of residential loan programs.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Ali Sarah Carlsen., Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 E-mail: acarlsen@aegislawfirm.com Attorneys for Defendant: Christopher W. Decker, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: christopher.decker@ogletreedeakins.com FINA: Sued over Control of International Swimming Competitions -------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS A. SHIELDS, MICHAEL C. ANDREW, and KATINKA HOSSZU, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE NATATION (FINA), Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-07393 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 7, 2018), seeks both injunctive relief against FINA's enforcement of its anti-competitive "unauthorised relations" (sic) rules and damages to compensate Plaintiff for real financial harm FINA's efforts already have caused. The Plaintiffs bring this action against FINA to prevent and address clear antitrust violations arising from FINA's complete control, by unlawful means, over the promotion and organization of international swimming competitions and its efforts to ensure that FINA, and only FINA, can determine what swimming athletes will be paid for their efforts. FINA calls itself the world's governing body for all aquatic sports. As the authorized gatekeeper to the Olympic Games' aquatic events, there can be no doubt that, as it boasts on its own website, FINA "controls the development" of competitive swimming and diving disciplines. The case is specifically about swimming; about whether FINA's control over swimming opportunities -- at least as exercised outside of the Olympic Games and FINA's own competitions -- amounts to an unlawful restraint of the ability of the athletes, on whose bodies FINA's income and power depend, to earn what they would command in a market free of FINA's iron grip. This case is also about whether FINA -- entrenched in and fearful of losing total control over lucrative swimming competitions -- unlawfully wields its dominant influence to prevent 19 outside organizations from expanding opportunities for hundreds of world-class swimmers and their millions of fans across the world. FINA does so in a manner that not only restricts FINA's competitors in the market for the promotion of top-tier international swimming competitions from entering the market, but also restricts opportunities for sponsors, event broadcasters, licensees, and other related ancillary businesses that would benefit from an increased number of top-tier international swimming competitions. And this case is about whether FINA's unreasonable market restraints and consolidated market power have unlawfully restricted the ability of the world's top-tier swimmers from enjoying expanded opportunities to exploit their own hard work, rather than having to continue to suffer the FINA-controlled exploitation of their lifetimes' worth of training and labor. Recognizing the damage its actions caused to the swimmers that FINA depends upon and apparently attempting to assuage swimmers' anger, FINA suddenly announced it would increase prize money available to swimmers competing in the FINA World Swimming Championships (25m), a short-course competition set for December 11-16, 2018, featuring top-5 tier swimmers competing in the type of races most similar to those planned by ISL. In other words, the mere threat of ISL’s market entry has already increased pay for swimmers in the market in which FINA has been unlawfully suppressing competition, which demonstrates one element of anti-competitive harm -- depressed swimmer compensation -- that FINA's illegal stranglehold has imposed on the market.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class: Neil A. Goteiner, Esq. C. Brandon Wisoff, Esq. Matthew S.L. Cate, Esq. Aviva J. Gilbert, Esq. Hilary C. Krase, Esq. FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP 235 Montgomery Street, 17 th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 Facsimile: (415) 954-4480 E-mail: ngoteiner@fbm.com bwisoff@fbm.com mcate@fbm.com agilbert@fbm.com hkrase@fbm.com - and - Richard M. Heimann, Esq. Eric B. Fastiff, Esq. Valerie D. Commenencia Ortiz, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com efastiff@lchb.com vcomenenciaortiz@lchb.com FINISAR CORP: Class Certification Bid in Securities Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Finisar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended October 28, 2018, that the plaintiff in the consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has filed a new motion for class certification. Several securities class action lawsuits related to the Company's March 8, 2011 earnings announcement alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased stock between December 2, 2010 through March 8, 2011. The named defendants are the Company and Jerry Rawls, its former Chief Executive Officer and former Chairman of the Board, and Eitan Gertel, its former Chief Executive Officer. To date, no specific amount of damages has been alleged. The cases were consolidated, lead plaintiff was appointed and a consolidated complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case. On January 16, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and granted the lead plaintiffs leave to amend the consolidated complaint. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on February 6, 2013. Thereafter, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss the case. On September 30, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, and plaintiff appealed. On January 8, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment in part for further proceedings in the District Court. On July 15, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint in the District Court. On August 19, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss. On May 1, 2017, the District Court denied the motion and a case scheduling order has been issued. On December 5, 2017, the District Court issued an order denying class certification. On February 1, 2018, the plaintiff filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the denial of class certification and, on July 13, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition for permission to appeal. On October 10, 2018, the plaintiff filed a new motion for class certification, which the Company will oppose. Finisar Corporation provides components and subsystems to networking equipment manufacturers, data center operators, telecom service providers, consumer electronics, and automotive companies in the United States, China, Malaysia, and internationally. Finisar Corporation was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. FLORIDA COMMUNITY: Stewart Sues over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- CLARK STEWART, on behalf of himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FLORIDA COMMUNITY LAW GROUP, P.L. the Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-02111-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla., Dec. 7, 2018), seeks to recover damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff's alleged obligation arises from a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services that are th subject of the transaction were incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes -- namely, the replacement of Plaintiff's residential roof. Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due asserted to be owed, another. In connection with the collection of the Debt, Defendant filed lawsuit against Plaintiff dated Oct. 10, 2018. The lawsuit requires Plaintiff to respond within 20 days after service. The lawsuit does not explain the apparent contradiction between the requirement to respond within 20 days and the consumer's right to dispute the Debt within 30 days, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiff: Alex D. Weisberg, Esq. WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP PA 5846 s. Flamingo Rd., Ste. 290 Cooper City, FL 33330 Telephone: (954) 212-2184 Facsimile: (866) 577-0963 E-mail: aweisberg@afclaw.com FOOD LION: Ratcliffe Moves to Certify Asst. Store Managers Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled TERRY RATCLIFFE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FOOD LION, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-01177 (M.D. Tenn.), asks the Court to enter an order: (1) conditionally certifying a proposed collective of Assistant Store Managers who worked at any Food Lion location in the United States between March 17, 2015 and the present and whom Food Lion classified as exempt (the "Collective"); (2) ordering Food Lion, LLC to produce contact information for all potential Collective members; and (3) authorizing the issuance of the proposed Court-Authorized Notice, Consent to Join Form, and Reminder Notice to all Collective members.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Deirdre Aaron, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com daaron@outtengolden.com - and - Laura Iris Mattes, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: imattes@outtengolden.com - and - Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC 2002 Richard Jones Rd., Suite B-200 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com - and - Jason Conway, Esq. CONWAY LEGAL, LLC 1700 Market Street, Suite 1005 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 278-4782 Facsimile: (215) 278-4807 GC SERVICES: Ocampo's Renewed Bid for Class Certification Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Robert M. Dow, Jr., denies the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled JOSE LUIS OCAMPO v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 1:16-cv-09388 (N.D. Ill.). The Plaintiff is given until January 7, 2019, to file any motion for substitution. The case is set for further status hearing on January 10, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. On September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit against GCS and GC Services International, LLC, bringing one count under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Specifically, the Plaintiff claims that the August 18, 2016 collection letter violated Section 1692g(a)(1) and Section 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In his memorandum opinion and order, Judge Dow opines that based on the Plaintiff's deposition testimony, the Court is not satisfied of the Plaintiff's ability and willingness to vigorously prosecute the action. To begin, Judge Dow says, the Plaintiff lacks a fundamental understanding of the class action process and his responsibilities as a class representative. "In fact, Plaintiff did not appear to know even what a class action is." "He also did not know what a class representative is or the duties a class representative owes to the class," Judge Dow notes. "He could not say why he filed this lawsuit," Judge Dow adds, among other things.[CC] HD SUPPLY: Shareholders Class Suit in Georgia in Discovery Stage ---------------------------------------------------------------- HD Supply, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2018, for the quarterly period ended October 28, 2018, that the shareholders' putative class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is now in discovery. On July 10, 2017 and August 8, 2017, shareholders filed putative class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging that HD Supply and certain senior members of its management (collectively, the "defendants") made certain false or misleading public statements in violation of the federal securities laws between November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017, inclusive (the "original securities complaints"). Subsequently, the two securities cases were consolidated, and, on November 16, 2017, the lead plaintiffs appointed by the Court filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") against the defendants on behalf of all persons other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017, inclusive. The Amended Complaint alleges that defendants made certain false or misleading public statements, primarily relating to the Company's progress in addressing certain supply chain disruption issues encountered in the Company's Facilities Maintenance business unit. The Amended Complaint asserts claims against the defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and seeks class certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as unspecified monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and other costs. On September 19, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The matter is now in discovery. HD Supply, Inc. operates as an industrial distribution company in North America. The company operates in two segments, Facilities Maintenance and Construction & Industrial. The company was formerly known as The Home Depot Supply, Inc. and changed its name to HD Supply, Inc. in December 2006. HD Supply, Inc. is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. HD Supply, Inc. is a subsidiary of HD Supply Holdings, Inc. HYPERION BIOTECHNOLOGY: Smith Suit Moved to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as KENNETH SMITH, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HYPERION BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC., and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.: BC 720939, was removed from the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Nov. 30, 2018. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 2:18-cv-10043 to the proceeding. The suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violation. Hyperion Biotechnology, Inc. offers research programs to military, government, and private sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Attorneys for Defendants: Negin Iraninejadian, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS PC 725 South Figueroa Street 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E—mail: negin.iraninejadian@jacksonlewis.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Musgrave Sues Over Wiring Defect in Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------------- Rick Musgrave, David Krakauer, Jonathan Raiskin, and Alexis Salvadore, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Hyundai Motor Company, Kia Motors America, Inc., and Kia Motors Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-07313-EDL (N.D. Cal., December 3, 2018) asserts claims against Defendants for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs also bring claims under consumer protection statutes of California, Florida, and New Jersey, including the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Business & Professions Code the California False Advertising Law, California Business & Professions Code ("FAL"), the Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Defendants Hyundai Motor America, Inc. ("HMA"), Hyundai Motor Company ("HMC"), Kia Motors America, Inc. ("KMA"), and Kia Motors Corporation ("KMC") are the manufacturers of vehicles sold under the Hyundai and Kia brands throughout the United States. Defendants designed, manufactured, imported, distributed, marketed, and/or sold the vehicles throughout the United States. Defendants also provided – and continue to provide – service and maintenance for the vehicles through their extensive network of authorized dealers and service providers nationwide. The Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have wrongfully and intentionally concealed a wiring defect in certain Kia and Hyundai models1 ("the Class Vehicles") which can cause electrical shortages that may result in a spontaneous fire during normal operation of the Class Vehicles. Defendants have also actively concealed and failed to disclose the Wiring Defect to consumers, despite their knowledge that the Class Vehicles were defective and not fit for their intended purpose of providing consumers with safe and reliable transportation at the time of the sale and thereafter, including during scheduled maintenance. The Plaintiffs further note that Defendants have not repaired the Wiring Defect, have not offered Class Vehicle owners a suitable repair or replacement free of charge, and have not offered to reimburse all Class Vehicle owners and leaseholders the costs they incurred relating to diagnosing and repairing the Wiring Defect. As a result, Defendants have wrongfully and intentionally transferred the cost of repair of the Wiring Defect to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes by fraudulently concealing the existence of the Wiring Defect. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants breached their express and implied warranties through which they promised to, inter alia, (1) provide Class Vehicles fit for the ordinary purpose for which they were sold; and (2) repair and correct manufacturing defects or defects in materials or workmanship of any parts they supplied, including the Wiring Defect. Because the Wiring Defect was present at the time of sale, lease, or service of the Class Vehicles, Defendants are required to repair and/or replace the Class Vehicles pursuant to the terms of the warranties. Plaintiff Rick Musgrave is a citizen of the state of California and resides in Pacheco, California. Plaintiff Musgrave is the owner of a 2011 Kia Sorento SX, which is subject to the Wiring Defect. Plaintiff David Krakauer is a citizen of the State of New Jersey and resides in Lincoln Park, New Jersey. Plaintiff is the owner of a 2013 Hyundai Sonata, which is subject to the Wiring Defect. Plaintiff Jonathan Raiskin is a citizen of the State of Florida and resides in New Port Richey, Florida. Plaintiff is the owner of a 2013 Hyundai Sonata, which is subject to the Wiring Defect. Plaintiff Alexis Salvadore is a citizen of the State of Florida and resides in Greenacres, Florida. Plaintiff is the owner of a 2013 Hyundai Sonata, which is subject to the Wiring Defect. Hyundai Motor Company is a South Korean corporation with its principal place of business in Seoul, South Korea. HMC is the parent corporation of HMA, a wholly-owned subsidiary. HMC, through its various entities – including HMA – designs, manufactures, markets, distributes and sells Hyundai automobiles in California, Florida, New Jersey and throughout the United States through a network of dealerships that are the agents of HMA and HMC. Hyundai Motor America, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business located at 10550 Talbert Avenue, Fountain Valley, California 92708. HMA does business in California, Florida, New Jersey and throughout the United States. HMA is a wholly owned U.S. subsidiary of HMC, and it engages in business, including the advertising, marketing and sale of Hyundai automobiles nationwide. HMA is HMC's U.S. sales and marketing division, which oversees sales and other operations across the United States. HMA distributes Hyundai vehicles and sells these vehicles through its network of dealerships that are the agents of HMA and HMC. Money received from the purchase of a Hyundai vehicle from a dealership flows from the dealer to HMA and ultimately to HMC. Kia Motors Corporation is a South Korean corporation with its principal place of business in Seoul, South Korea. KMC is the parent corporation of Defendant KMA, a wholly-owned subsidiary. KMC and HMC, through their various entities – including KMA – design, manufacture, import, market, distribute and sell Kia automobiles in California, Florida, New Jersey, and throughout the United States. Kia Motors America, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business at 111 Peters Canyon Road, Irvine, California 92606. KMA does business in California, Florida, New Jersey, and throughout the United States. KMA is the wholly owned subsidiary of KMC and serves as KMC's U.S. sales and marketing division, which oversees sales and other operations across the United States. KMA distributes Kia vehicles and sells these vehicles through its network of more than 755 dealerships that are the agents of KMA, KMC, and HMC. Money received from the purchase or lease of a Kia vehicle from a dealership flows from the dealer to KMA and ultimately to KMC and/or HMC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com fklorczyk@bursor.com jsmith@bursor.com - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: scott@bursor.com ILLINOIS INSTITUTE: Conceals Accreditation Status, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ EMMANUEL DUNAGAN, JESSICA MUSCARI, ROBERT J. INFUSINO, and STEPHANIE PORRECA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF ART-CHICAGO, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF ART-SCHAUMBURG, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF ART, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; DREAM CENTER FOUNDATION, a California non-profit corporation; DREAM CENTER EDUCATIONAL HOLDINGS, LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability company; and JOHN DOES 1-10, in their individual capacity, the Defendants, Case No. 2018CH15216 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Dec. 6, 2018), alleges that Defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act. According to the complaint, on March 3, 2017, DCF entered into an agreement to purchase IIA from its then-owner, Education Management Corporation ("EDMC"). At the time of the purchase, HA, and all its campuses, were accredited by the Higher Learning Commission ("HLC"), a private, non-profit accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education. On January 20, 2018, the transfer of control of HA schools from EDMC to DCF and its subsidiaries went into effect. On that date, IIA's campuses-including HA-Chicago, located in Chicago, IL, and HA-Schaumburg, located in Schaumburg, IL-lost their status as accredited institutions of higher education. Defendants did not inform IIA students at any time after agreeing to purchase IIA that IIA campuses could lose their accreditation, and, in direct defiance of HLC's instruction, did not inform students when the loss of accreditation happened. For at least five months thereafter, Defendants made false and misleading representations to Named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated students regarding IIA's accreditation status, including, in widely disseminated materials, that IIA campuses "remain accredited." Defendants' misrepresentations violated the ICFDPA and Illinois common law. Defendants also concealed from Plaintiffs and other similarly situated students for those same five months that HA had lost its status as an accredited institution of higher education. Defendants' concealment likewise violated the ICFDPA and Illinois common law. The Plaintiffs discovered the truth about IIA's lack of accreditation between approximately June 20, 2018 and July 10, 2018, when they returned from break to start the summer quarter. Defendants continued to make false and misleading representations after July 9, 2018, including that IIA was likely to reobtain accreditation and that credits earned since IIA lost accreditation would be deemed fully accredited once IIA's accreditation was ultimately reinstated. IIA' s accreditation was never reinstated. Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions of material facts regarding IIA's lack of accreditation violate the ICFDPA and Illinois common law and have caused substantial harm to Plaintiffs and over 1,000 similarly situated students, the lawsuit says. AII is an institution of higher education in operation since 1916, which is comprised of multiple campuses, and offers bachelor's and associate degrees for several programs, including culinary mis, design, fashion, and media arts.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq Cassandra P. Miller, Esq EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603-1824 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com IMPERVA INC: Scarantino Sues Over Thomas Bravo Merger ------------------------------------------------------ Richard Scarantino, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Imperva, Inc., Allan Tessler, Christopher Hylen Albert Pimentel, James Tolonen, Randall Spratt, and Roger Sippl, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01913-UNA (D. Del., December 3, 2018) is a complaint for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on October 10, 2018, pursuant to which Imperva, Inc. will be acquired by affiliates of Thoma Bravo, LLC: Imperial Purchaser, LLC and Imperial Merger Sub, Inc. On October 10, 2018, Imperva's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Thoma Bravo. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Imperva's stockholders will receive $55.75 in cash for each share of Imperva common stock they hold. On November 13, 2018, defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement, says the complaint. Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times relevant hereto, the owner of Imperva common stock. Imperva is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices at 3400 Bridge Parkway, Redwood Shores, California 94065. Imperva's common stock is traded on the NasdaqGS under the ticker symbol "IMPV". Imperva is a party to the Merger Agreement. Allan Tessler is Chairman of the Board of the Company. Christopher Hylen is President, Chief Executive Officer, and a director of the Company. Albert Pimentel, James Tolonen, Randall Spratt, and Roger Sippl are directors of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com INLAND PRODUCTS: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------- Mongkol Mahavongtrakul, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Inland Products, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-07261-JSC (N.D. Cal., November 30, 2018) is a proposed class action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, against Inland, seeking redress for the Company's unjust, unfair, and deceptive practices in misrepresenting the capacity of its products in violation of state law during the applicable statute of limitations period. According to the complaint, portable electronic devices (PEDs) have made it convenient for consumers to constantly stay in communication with colleagues, friends, and loved ones, and to immediately access information. However, like any electronic device, PEDs require power and their internal batteries must be periodically recharged. To address the needs of consumers to use PEDs during travel, or when the consumer otherwise lacks access to an electrical outlet, the portable charger industry emerged. A portable charger, often called a power bank is a small, portable power source consumers can use to recharge their PEDs during travel. Inland manufactures, markets, and distributes for sale nationwide to consumers a number of Power Banks under the ProHT label. Inland does so by prominently representing the Products' capacities as measured in mAh. Unfortunately for consumers, testing has shown the Products' actual capacity is substantially lower than what Inland represents, notes the complaint. By deceiving consumers about the Products' capacity, Inland is able to sell more of, and charge more for, the Products than it could if they were labeled accurately. Furthermore, Inland is incentivized to mislead consumers to take market share away from competing products, thereby increasing its own sales and profits, says the complaint. Plaintiff Mongkol Mahavongtrakul is a resident of Martinez, California. Plaintiff purchased the Products at Fry's Electronics in Contra Costa County, California, most recently in November 2017. Inland Products, Inc. is organized under the laws of the State of California with its principle place of business at 1410 E. Walnut Avenue, Fullerton, California 92831.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. Jean M. Sedlak, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 298-3290 Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com jsedlak@fbfglaw.com - and – Laurence D. King, Esq. Mario M. Choi, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 350 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772- 4707 Email: lking@kaplanfox.com mchoi@kaplanfox.com INTERFAITH MEDICAL: Made Unlawful Pay Deductions, Okeke Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Theophilus Okeke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Interfaith Medical Center, Laray Brown, individually and as officer, director, shareholder, and/or principal of Interfaith Medical Center, and Charles Lawrence individually and as officer, director, shareholder, and/or principal of Interfaith Medical Center, Defendants, Case No. 524200/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., December 3, 2018) is an action for damages and other legal and equitable relief from Defendants for violation of the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act. Plaintiff Okeke brings this action, pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Article 9, on behalf of a class of persons who are and were employed by Defendants as Per Diem Physicians during the past 6 years through the final date of the disposition of this action, who were subjected to a 1 hour meal break deduction per workday from their paychecks despite working through the purported break time in violation of the NYLL and are entitled to recover: unlawful deductions of earnings, liquidated damages, interest, attorney fees and costs, pursuant to the NYLL, and such other and further relief as the Court finds necessary and proper. In addition to Plaintiff Okeke's class allegation, Plaintiff Okeke brings this action for Defendants' failure to issue him the requisite wage statements pursuant to the WTPA and is entitled to recover: penalties, attorney's fees, and such other and further relief as the Court finds necessary and proper, says the complaint. Plaintiff Okeke was an employee within the meaning of the NYLL and domiciled in Nassau County, New York. Defendant Interfaith is organized under the laws of the state of New York and has its principal place of business in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq. Matthew L. Berman, Esq. Alexander M. White, Esq. Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516)203-7180 Fax: (516) 706-0248 JPMORGAN CHASE: Manipulates Metals Futures Contracts, Serri Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARK SERRI, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JOHN EDMONDS, and JOHN DOE Nos. 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11458 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2018), alleges that Defendants unlawfully and intentionally manipulated prices of gold, silver, platinum, and palladium ("precious metals") futures contracts and options on such contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the Commodity Exchange, Inc. (COMEX) from approximately January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2015 in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. sections 1, et seq. and the common law. According to the complaint, the Defendants are a group of precious metals traders and the bank that employed them during the Class Period. On November 6, 2018, the United States Department of Justice announced that Defendant John Edmonds pleaded guilty in federal court in the District of Connecticut on October 9, 2018 to one count of conspiracy to commit write fraud, commodities fraud, commodities price manipulation, and spoofing and one count of commodities fraud for his scheme to manipulate the market for precious metals futures contracts. As a result of his unlawful conduct, Defendant Edmonds faces a maximum combined term of imprisonment for his criminal conduct of 30 years and a fine that is the greater of (1) twice his gross gain resulting from the offenses; (2) twice the gross loss resulting from the offenses; or (3) $250,000. The DOJ press release indicated that Defendant Edmonds executed his manipulation scheme with other trading partners employed at Defendant JP Morgan Chase & Co., including more senior traders, and with the knowledge and consent of his immediate supervisors. Specifically, Defendants manipulated the prices of NYMEX platinum and palladium and COMEX silver and gold futures and options contracts during the Class Period using a technique called "spoofing" (explained infra) whereby Defendants routinely placed electronic orders to buy and sell such futures contracts with the intent to cancel those orders before execution. These spoof orders injected materially false and illegitimate signals of supply and demand into the market and were intended to induce other market participants to trade at futures prices that were made artificial as a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct. Defendants' spoof orders were intended to, and did in fact, artificially move the prices of NYMEX and COMEX precious metals futures and options contracts during the Class Period in a pre-determined direction that was favorable to Defendants, but unfavorable to Plaintiff and the proposed Class. As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and members of the Class have suffered damages and injury-in-fact due to having transacted at artificial prices for precious metals futures contracts and options on those futures contracts, to which Plaintiff and the Class would not have been subject, but for the unlawful conduct of the Defendants as alleged. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. is an American multinational investment bank and financial services company headquartered in New York City. JPMorgan Chase is the largest bank in the United States, and the second largest bank in the world by total assets, with the amount of $2.534 trillion.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff Mark Serri and the Proposed Class: Hollis Salzman, Esq. Kellie Lerner, Esq. Bernard Persky, Esq. Nahid A. Shaikh, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: 212-980-7400 Facsimile: 212-980-7499 E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com BPersky@RobinsKaplan.com NShaikh@RobinsKaplan.com - and - K. Craig Wildfang, Esq. Thomas J. Undlin, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: 612-349-8500 Facsimile: 612-339-4181 E-mail: KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com TUndlin@RobinsKaplan.com - and - Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100 Mountain View, CA 94040 Telephone: 650-784-4040 Facsimile: 650-784-4041 E-mail: ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com - and - Steven R. Goldberg, Esq. 225 Liberty Street, Suite 1020A New York, NY 10281 Telephone: 212-845-5100 Facsimile: 212-845-4197 E-mail: Sgoldberglaw@verizon.net JULIAN SPENCE: Heberle's Cert. Bid Denied; Hearing on Dec. 20 ------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on November 29, 2018, in the case titled Kevin Heberle v. Julian Spence, Case No. 1:18-cv-02288 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso. The minute entry states that: -- Motion hearing was held; -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied as moot; -- For the reasons stated on the record, the Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification is denied; and -- Status hearing is set for December 20, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.[CC] KATHERINE'S CATERING: Underpays Service Staff, Tansey et al. Claim ------------------------------------------------------------------ KAITLYN TANSEY and SARAH CAUDILL, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated employees, the laintiffs, vs. KATHERINE'S CATERING AND SPECIAL EVENTS, INC., KATHERINE'S CATERING DETROIT, LLC, KATHERINE'S CATERING ROYAL OAK, LLC, KATHERINE'S CATERING OAKLAND COUNTY, LLC, KATHERINE'S CATERING CANTON, LLC, KATHERINE'S CATERING OF BRIGHTON, LLC, and KATHERINE H. FARRELL, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-13800-JEL-MKM ECF (E.D. Mich., Dec. 7, 2018), seeks unpaid wages and all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. According to the complaint, Defendants provide full-service, special-events catering to customers throughout southeast Michigan in connection with corporate events, weddings, and other social events. In addition to providing catering services at remote locations, Defendants also operate two venues in Canton and Wixom, Michigan, respectively. Defendants employ approximately 75 employees at any given time. Defendants produce over 2,500 events annually and, according to their website, "since 1985, the Katherine's team has produced over 65,000 events." According to Defendants' website, "our service staff will exude steadfast hospitality and graciousness at every turn." The service staff members employed by Defendants to work the catering events include hourly Event Supervisors, Servers, Bartenders, and Food Runners. All of Defendants' service staff members began their employment in a training program where they are provided with a "C.A.T.E.R. Card," which contained a training checklist for their supervisors to sign off as the service staff members are trained on certain tasks. Until the C.A.T.E.R. Card was completed, See https://www.katherines.com/about-us/ (last visited December 7, 2018). The service staff members were paid $10.00 per hour and were not permitted to accept gratuities/tips nor participate in any gratuity/tip pools. Upon completion of the C.A.T.E.R. Card, the service staff members turned their Cards into Defendants and began working as full-fledged service staff members. From this point, the service staff members also began earning a higher hourly rate, plus gratuities/tips, and were eligible to participate in the gratuity/tip pools. Many of Defendants' service staff members worked in multiple service staff positions throughout their employment (i.e. Event Supervisors, Servers, Bartenders, and Food Runners) depending on Defendants' needs for each catering event. All of Defendants' service staff members, including Plaintiffs, recorded their work hours by either clocking in and out through Defendants' electronic timekeeping system or by submitting written time cards to Defendants' Human Resources office. All of Defendants' service staff, including Plaintiffs, earned a flat hourly rate plus any gratuities/tips received from patrons. They customarily and regularly received more than $30 per month in gratuities/tips. For example, Defendants employed Plaintiff Tansey as an hourly Server at $14.50 per hour (plus gratuities/tips) and as an hourly Event Supervisor at $14.50 per hour (plus gratuities/tips). Likewise, Defendants employed Plaintiff Caudill as an hourly Server at $12.00 per hour (plus gratuities/tips) and as an hourly Bartender at $12.00 per hour (plus gratuities/tips). All of Defendants' service staff, including Plaintiffs, and regardless of the service staff position in which they worked, were paid in the similar manner by Defendants, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jesse L. Young, Esq. KREIS ENDERLE, P.C. 8225 Moorsbridge, P.O. Box. 4010 Kalamazoo, MI 49003-4010 Telephone: (269) 324-3000 E-mail: jyoung@kehb.com KELLOGG COMPANY: Smith Suit Transferred to W.D. Michigan -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Kellog Co. was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (Case No. 2:17-cv-01914) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan (Southern Division) on Dec. 3, 2018. The Western District of Michigan Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 1:18-cv-01341-PLM-RSK to the proceeding. The Michigan case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Paul L. Maloney. This case is brought to remedy the failure of Defendants to pay Plaintiff and other employees who were required to visit retail stores and merchandise Kellogg products on shelves and displays and who were paid on a salary basis without compensation at the rate of time and one-half for all hours worked more than 40 in a workweek as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, including without limitation Retail Sales Representatives, Territory Managers, Retail Sales Managers, and Kellogg Sales Representatives. Kellogg Company, doing business as Kellogg's, is an American multinational food-manufacturing company headquartered in Battle Creek, Michigan, United States. The case is captioned as BRIAN SMITH, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated persons, Scotty Poarch, David W Phillips, Daniel P Muesenfechter, Richard Bush, Andrew Brown, Renato Linsangan, Scott Chwascinski, Charles Aaron Gee, Gregory Ratliff, Jay J. Ammer, Gary Feeney, Felix Gregory, William Vehlewald, Terrie Steele, Philip J. Gluszak, Kevin W. Johnson, Kyle Leikam, Elizabeth LaMasse, Charles R. Sewell, Jonathan Jakubiak, Brian A Mack, Shelley Goddard, Amy Spadaro, Raudel Medina, Carman Payne, Andy Alvarado, Regina Coshatt, Ralph Barrish, Larry Knab, Sheila Simpson, Dorothy E Soppleland, Brian J Bloom, Richard Abbott, Robert Graham, Albert Boudreaux, Roseann Miracola, David Barnes, Richard E. Carns Sean Fefie, Darrell Godbee, Thoetis L. Ramsey, Theresa M. Sozzo Mark Young, Bryan Malone, William H Sing, Robert Nichols, Ralph Alexander, Carl R Haas, Jennifer L Holman, Linda Giguere, Philip Talento, Lonnie Williams, David Whelan, William Callaway, Mark Schanzenbach, Rich Mag, David Fletcher, Timothy W Siegrist, James C Keillor, John Theodore, Kenneth Henrick, Timothy Altman, Tina M Krycia, Michael J. Shirey, Melody English, Greg Snider, John F Ahart, Donald H Link, Tammy Brewer, Shenodh Yousef, Deborah A Schutt, Jesus Varela, Ronald Eibner, Jim Hoos, Charles Williamson Lance Turner, Keith Rulka, Joseph Simao, Darrell Parrish, Matthew Smith, Kenneth Baker, Anthony Bouchard, Razza Oreste, John Sloan Albert Byrd, Jr., Maurizio Dolce, Andrew Lescinsky, Brian Heber Jeff Elia, Kenneth D Uder, Daniel Reller, Donald Aubrey, Scott Chwascinski, Christian Sanchez, John Apostolou, Jamie Phillips Amanda Surko, Chad Brooks, Brian Feeley, Daniel Becker, Cyndi Watson, Mario Espaillat, Haniel Santiago, Daniel Ramseth Alice Donovan, Roger Pillitteri, Dustan Gill, Barbara McGinnis Logan J. Hartman, Donald A Malmgren, Shannon K Webb, Cynthia Daniels, Travis M Anderson, Kathy Black, Frank Pimental Joseph Markiewicz, Natalie Leatherwood, James L Lowery, Keith Young, John Schmidt, Paul Turner, David C. Phillips, Jeffrey M. Sitarek, David C. Prohow, Todd Bruck, Joseph Berres, Billy Roberts, Justin Van Wyk, John Furby, Carlada Christian, Kimberly A Gilford, Kenneth R Leather, Patrick Sullivan, Mark Heger, Johnny Padgett, Kelly-Anne Tremper, James D. Hess, Douglas C Merrill, Terri L. Saunders, Kristy Bond, Jeffrey J. Curley, Alfreda Gatewood, Mary C. Keeley, Dylan Harris, Jason C. Trahan, Bryan M. Duntz, Raymond Kwan, Marcus Mason, Mark LaRue, Michael Gaddy and Lauren Miller Reeves, the Plaintiffs, vs. KELLOGG COMPANY and KELLOGG SALES COMPANY, the Defendants.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and and the FLSA Class: Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq. Alex Dumas, Esq. Matthew Thomas Dunn, Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC 260 Fair St. Kingston, New York 12401 Telephone: (845) 255-9370 Facsimile: (845) 255-8649 E-mail: msweeney@getmansweeney.com adumas@getmansweeney.com - and - Christian J. Gabroy, Esq. GABROY LAW OFFICES The District at Green Valley Ranch 170 S. Green Valley Parkway, Suite 280 Henderson, NV 89012 Telephone: (702) 259-7777 Facsimile: (702) 259-7704 E-mail: Christian@gabroy.com Attorneys for Defendants: Christiana L. Signs, Esq. James Norman Boudreau, Esq. Tami D. Cowden, Esq. James M Nelson, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 2700 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 988-7868 Facsimile: (215) 717-5232 KOREAN VETERANS: Man Kyu Choi Files RICO Class Action in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Korean Veterans Association of the U.S.A. Western Region, et al. The case is styled as Man Kyu Choi an individual and a member of the Korean Veterans Association of the USA Wester Region, similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Korean Veterans Association of the U.S.A. Western Region, Jae Kook Wee an individual, Jae Kwon Kim an individual, Dae In Lim an individual, Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-10048-PSG-AFM (C.D. Cal., Nov. 30, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The KWVA is a veterans' service organization which seeks to preserve the interest in the welfare of Korean War veterans and their families.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se: Man Kyu Choi, Esq. 2975 Wilshire Boulevard No. 358 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (310) 938-8785 PRO SE LA MESA, CA: Suenishi Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Deborah Suenishi, and Peter Meredith, on behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of La Mesa, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02730-CAB-BGS (S.D. Cal., December 3, 2018) is an action seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, attorney's fees and costs under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The complaint says each of the plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours in many seven-day work weeks. Plaintiff Deborah Suenishi worked more than 40 hours in 45 work weeks since November 29, 2015. Plaintiff Peter Meredith worked more than 40 hours in more than 50 work weeks since November 29, 2015. The plaintiffs who have consented to join this case have also worked more than 40 hours in many seven-day work weeks during the three years preceding the filing of this complaint. During the work weeks that the plaintiffs worked overtime (i.e., more than 40 hours), the City failed to correctly pay overtime to the plaintiffs as required by the FLSA. Specifically, the City failed to pay at least four hours of overtime in weeks that the plaintiffs worked more than 44 hours, the complaint relates. The City's violation of the FLSA was "willful" because, based on information and belief, the City took no affirmative action to assure compliance with the FLSA requirements, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are employees or former employees of the City of La Mesa. City of La Mesa is the employer of the plaintiffs and those similarly situated. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, are unknown to plaintiffs, who therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Conger, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. CONGER 16236 San Dieguito Road, Suite 4-14 P.O. Box 9374 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Phone: (858) 759-0200 Facsimile: (858) 759-1906 Email: congermike@aol.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Zissa Seeks Overtime Pay for Social Workers ------------------------------------------------------------ JUDITH ZISSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a legal subdivision of the State of California, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-10174 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 6, 2018), seeks unpaid wages, including overtime, declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief, including restitution under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brings this collective action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals who have worked for the County of Los Angeles, Department of Children and Family Services, as Children's Social Workers. The Plaintiff and members of the putative Collective are current and former non-exempt CSWs. They work tirelessly to make sure that children are safe in Los Angeles County. They investigate allegations of abuse, develop case plans to ensure that children are safe in their homes, monitor children and families to ensure health, safety, and compliance with case plans, arrange and facilitate placements outside the home, supervise parental interactions, and complete paperwork, case notes, and court reports. The Plaintiff and members of the putative Collective work long hours performing these important duties. They are scheduled to work 40 hours per week, but they often work up to 50 hours per week and even more. Caseloads are assigned on operational needs, and not on a realistic assessment of how much work a CSW can handle. The burdens of the heavy caseloads are magnified by the important and sensitive nature of the work. However, DCFS and its managers make it impossible for CSWs to obtain pay for the extra work. As a general rule, overtime must be pre-approved by the CSW’s manager. The CSW must complete a County form and obtain manager approval before working the extra time. However, the process is time-consuming and cumbersome, and requests are met with refusals and resistance from DCFS. DCFS managers regularly refuse overtime requests by asking that CSWs "flex" their time - working more than their scheduled hours when they have a heavy workweek, and making up for it by working less than their scheduled hours in other weeks. If they request overtime, CSWs are questioned and even belittled by DCFS managers for not completing the job within the scheduled hours. Due to budgetary concerns, overtime hours are closely scrutinized, managers are evaluated on their ability to cut down overtime, and requests for overtime are widely disfavored. CSWs fear negative repercussions for simply requesting overtime pre-approval. As a result of these policies, practices, and procedures, DCFS denies, discourages and suppresses CSW requests for overtime pre- approval, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Collective: Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com MANDARIN ORIENTAL: Olsen Files ADA Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mandarin Oriental (New York) Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mandarin Oriental (New York) Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06850 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 2, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mandarin Oriental, New York, is a five-star hotel located in Manhattan's Time Warner Center at Columbus Circle in New York City, managed by Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group. A part of the multi-use Time Warner Center development, the hotel opened in December 2003. In addition to the 248 guestrooms and suites, the hotel provides services for 64 residences. The hotel has received many national and international awards, and operates one of only two Forbes Five-Star spas in Manhattan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: McGrath Sues over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- DENNIS MCGRATH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., ARNE M. SORENSON, KATHLEEN KELLY OBERG, and BAO GIANG VAL BAUDUIN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06845 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2018), 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 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 Marriott from November 9, 2016 through November 29, 2018, both dates inclusive. On September 23, 2016, Marriott announced it had completed its over $13 billion acquisition of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. On November 9, 2016, Marriott filed a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016 with the SEC (the "3Q 2016 10-Q"), which provided the Company's financial results and position. The 3Q 2016 10-Q was signed by Defendant Bauduin. The 3Q 2016 10-Q contained signed certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") by Defendants Sorenson and Oberg 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 November 30, 2018, before market hours, Marriott reported a potential data breach involving the personal information of 500 million guests. According to the release, there had been unauthorized access to the Starwood network since 2014. On this news, shares in Marriott's stock fell $6.81 or over 5.5% to close at $115.03 per share on November 30, 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. Marriott operates, franchises, and licenses hotel, residential, and timeshare properties worldwide.[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 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Perkins Sues over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- DALLAS PERKINS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12477 (D. Mass., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks to redress Marriott's unlawful and negligent disclosure of millions of consumers' confidential personal identifying information ("PII"), including their names, addresses, passport details, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth, gender, and credit card numbers with expiration dates in violation of Massachusetts’ consumer protection law, MASS. GEN. LAWS 93A section 1, the consumer protection laws of states with materially identical terms, and common law. According to the complaint, Marriott failed to fulfill its legal duty to protect consumers' PII which was stored in its systems. Marriott's willful, reckless, and negligent disregard for its obligations to safeguard individuals' PII resulted in a massive data breach that has been occurring since at least 2014, exposing hundreds of millions of consumers' PII ("Data Breach" or "Breach"). Marriott is the largest hotel chain in the world, with more than 6,500 properties located in 127 countries and territories globally. Marriott owns and operates a variety of hotel, lodging, and hospitality brands, including hotels under its Starwood brands, which include W Hotels, St. Regis, Sheraton Hotels & Resorts, Westin Hotels & Resorts, Element Hotels, Aloft Hotels, The Luxury Collection, Tribute Portfolio, Le Meridien Hotels & Resorts, Four Points by Sheraton, and Design Hotels. Hundreds of millions of customers have made reservations and stayed at Marriott properties around the globe. When booking reservations at a Marriott property, including its Starwood brand properties, customers provide Marriott with sensitive PII, including their names, addresses, passport numbers and details, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth, gender, and credit card numbers with expiration dates. Booking hotel reservations, and thus, collecting the PII of its customers, is therefore at the heart of Marriott’s business. Despite promises that it is committed to safeguarding guests' PII, in a November 30, 2018 statement, Marriott revealed that data for approximately 500 million guests was exposed in a hack that has allowed unauthorized access to its Starwood Hotels reservation database since 2014, and that hackers have actively copied and encrypted information from this database, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Classes: D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP. 445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 Facsimile: (914) 908-6709 E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com - and - Daniel S. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 Facsimile: (949) 720-1292 E-mail: drobinson@robinsonfirm.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Raab Sues over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- SUSAN GOLDFINE RAAB, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. and STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08007 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 5, 2018), alleges that Marriott and Starwood failed to secure and safeguard its guests' names, phone numbers, email addresses, passport numbers, dates of birth, credit card numbers and credit card expiration dates (Personal Identifying Information). According to the complaint, Starwood collected Plaintiff and Class Members' Personal Identifying Information at the time guests registered on its website, checked-in to one of its hotels, enrolled in its loyalty program (SPG Loyalty Program), and used a dining or retail service within its property. Beginning in 2014 (or perhaps even earlier) and continuing through November 2018, cyber criminals exploited vulnerabilities in Marriott and Starwood's network and stole guests' Personal Identifying Information (Data Breach). On November 30, 2018, Marriott disclosed that the massive Data Breach potentially exposed the personal data of 500 million guests. It is the second biggest corporate data breach in history. Despite the staggering magnitude of this breach, Marriott claimed it did not discover it until November 19, 2018. Cyber criminals have had four full years of unencumbered access to personal and confidential information of hundreds of millions of guests before Marriott even notified its guests. Marriott has publicly acknowledged that the Data Breach resulted, at least in part, from vulnerabilities in a database containing sensitive information it gleaned from guests at its Starwood-branded hotels, noting in an 8-K filed on November 30, 2018 that it was "devoting the resources necessary to phase out Starwood systems and accelerate the ongoing security enhancements to [its] network." The opportunities that any such faults created for cyber criminals were greatly enhanced by Marriott's systemic incompetence and uninterested approach to data security. Indeed, Marriott failed to employ sufficient security measures to avoid the Data Breach despite the fact that Starwood -- which Marriott acquired in 2016 and whose database it admitted to have been compromised in the Data Breach -- had reported a data breach relating to 54 of its hotels in November of 2015. Despite this data breach, as well as numerous other high-profile data breaches at other major American corporations (including Equifax and Target) during the four years between the initial breach and its discovery, Marriott took no steps to assure that its systems were secure, the lawsuit says. Marriott is a worldwide operator, franchisor, and licensor of hotel, residential, and timeshare properties under numerous brand names at different price and service points. On September 23, 2016, Marriott completed the acquisition of Starwood through a series of transactions, after which Starwood became an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Marriott. Through Starwood, Marriott operates hotels and/or resorts as well as other timeshare properties under the following brands: Westin, Sheraton, Luxury Collection, Four Points by Sheraton, W Hotels, St. Regis, Le Meridien, Aloft, Element, Tribute Portfolio and Design Hotels.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Michael J. Freed, Esq. Steven A. Kanner, Esq. Douglas A. Millen, Esq. Brian M. Hogan, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 Facsimile: (224) 632-4521 E-mail: mfreed@fklmlaw.com skanner@fklmlaw.com dmillen@fklmlaw.com bhogan@fklmlaw.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sciascia et al. Sue over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ JOELY SCIASCIA, 9340 Lake Serena Dr. Boca Raton, FL 33496; MICHELE EMANUELE, 1065 2 ND Ave. New York, NY 10022; and MICHELLE PLOTSKER, 27 Preston Drive Livingston, NJ 07039, Individually and on Behalf of all others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. 10400 Fernwood Rd. Bethesda, MD 20817 (Resident of Montgomery County, Maryland); and STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC, 10400 Fernwood Rd. Department 955.23 Bethesda, MD 20817 (Resident of Montgomery County, Maryland), the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-03773-PWG (D. Md., Dec. 7, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information ("PII") of up to approximately 500 million of their customers, including passport numbers of up to 327 million of these customers which Marriott's Starwood division collected and maintained. According to the complaint, the Defendants maintain and operate a customer reservation and rewards database which they refer to as the "Starwood guest reservation database." This is separate from the guest reservation system Marriott uses for guest reservations for its non-Starwood properties. Starwood used the "Starwood guest reservation database" as its guest reservation system before Starwood was acquired by Marriott in 2016, and it continued to be used after the acquisition. On November 30, 2018, Marriott disclosed that it had suffered an extremely significant data breach. It stated that "on September 8, 2018, it received an alert from an internal security tool regarding an attempt to access the Starwood guest reservation database in the United States." Marriott learned during the investigation "that there had been unauthorized access to the Starwood network since 2014" and discovered that an unauthorized party had copied and encrypted PII. On November 19, 2018, Marriott was able to decrypt the PII and determined that the contents were from the Starwood guest reservation database. Marriott, in its announcement of November 30, stated that it believed the corrupted data base had information on up to approximately 500 million guests who made a reservation at a Starwood property. For approximately 327 million of these guests, the PII includes some combination of name, mailing address, phone number, email address, passport number, Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) account information, date of birth, gender, arrival and departure information, and reservation date. The PII of the Plaintiffs, and the other customers who used Starwood's reservation system they seek to represent was compromised due to Defendants' acts and omissions and their failure to properly protect their customer's PII. Defendants could have prevented this Data Breach. The Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and the other Nationwide Class and Subclass members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the Starwood data systems were protected, failing to disclose to their customers the material fact that Starwood and/or Marriott did not have adequate security practices to safeguard the PII that Starwood customers had disclosed to Defendants with the understanding they would be secure; failing to take available steps to prevent and stop the breach from ever happening; and failing to monitor and detect the breach on a timely basis. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiffs and the other Nationwide Class and Subclass members have been exposed, in all likelihood, to criminals for misuse of their PII, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Adam L. Van Grack, Esq. Theodore B. Kiviat, Esq. Robb A. Longman, Esq. LONGMAN & VAN GRACK, LLC 10411 Motor City Drive, Suite 750 Bethesda, MD 20817 Telephone: (301) 291-5027 Facsimile: (301) 291-5028 E-mail: avangrack@lvglawfirm.com tkiviat@lvglawfirm.com rlongman@lvglawfirm.com - and - Mark Levine, Esq. Howard Longman, Esq. Melissa R. Emert, Esq STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45 th Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 687-7230 Facsimile: (212) 490-2022 E-mail: mlevine@ssbny.com hlongman@ssbny.com memert@ssbny.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sisbarro Sues Over Massive Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Sisbarro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriot International, Inc. and Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-03727-GJH (D. Md., December 3, 2018) arises out of a massive data breach in which Marriott breached its duty to secure and safeguard its customers' sensitive personal, demographic, and financial data—including, but not limited to, names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, passport numbers, hotel reward account information, dates of birth, information regarding arrival and departure, reservation dates, communication preferences, and credit card numbers and expiration dates and failed to provide clear, conspicuous, and timely notice to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class and Subclasses that their information had been compromised. On November 30, 2018, more than ten weeks after it had "received an alert from an internal security tool" regarding an unauthorized attempt to access the guest reservation database for certain Marriott affiliated hotels in the United States, Marriott disclosed to the public that its systems were subject to one of the largest data breaches in the nation's history. Shockingly, Marriott's investigation of the Data Breach revealed that the unauthorized access began occurring over four years ago in 2014 and had remained undetected and unaddressed until November 2018. During the approximately four-year period between the initial breach and its discovery, a hacker or hackers took advantage of glaring weaknesses and vulnerabilities in Marriott's systems to steal the Personal Information of approximately 500 million individuals who had stayed at certain Marriot-affiliated hotels during that period, says the complaint. For approximately four years, Marriott failed to detect the hackers' presence, notice the massive amounts of data that were being exfiltrated from its database, or take any steps to investigate the numerous red flags that should have warned the Company about what was happening, it adds. Accordingly, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other members of the proposed Nationwide Class, asserts claims against Marriott for negligence, negligence per se, violation of Maryland's consumer protection statute, unjust enrichment, and for a declaratory judgment. Plaintiff also asserts claims on behalf of himself and various Subclasses for violation of numerous state statutes relating to consumer protection, data security, and data breach notification. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of each of the other members of the Class and Subclasses, seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, monetary and statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and all other relief as may be just and proper as provided under law or by equity. Plaintiff Justin Sisbarro is a resident and citizen of Baltimore, Maryland. Plaintiff has stayed at Marriott properties and hotels at least twenty times in the last four years. Marriott is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters at 10400 Fernwood Road, Bethesda, Maryland. Marriott is a worldwide operator, franchisor, and licensor of hotel, residential, and timeshare properties under numerous brand names at different price and service points. One of the largest hotel chains on the planet, it operates approximately 6,520 properties worldwide, including 4,839 properties in North America alone. On September 23, 2016, Marriott completed the acquisition of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC, formerly known as Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC, which has its principal place of business in Connecticut, is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Marriott, formerly known as Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., which Marriott acquired in September of 2016. Starwood Hotels operated by Marriott include: W Hotels, St. Regis, Sheraton Hotels & Resorts, Westin Hotels & Resorts, Element Hotels, Aloft Hotels, The Luxury Collection, Tribute Portfolio, Le Méridien Hotels & Resorts, Four Points by Sheraton and Design Hotels, as well as Starwood-branded timeshare properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq. Kyle J. McGee, Esq. Michael D. Bell, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE Phone: 302-622-7000 Fax: 302-622-7100 Email: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com kmcgee@gelaw.com mbell@gelaw.com - and - Martin E. Wolf, Esq. Richard S. Gordon, Esq. Benjamin H. Carney, Esq. GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY CHTD. 100 W. Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 100 Towson, MD 21204 Phone: 410-825-2300 Fax: 410-825-0066 Email: mwolf@GWCfirm.com rgordon@GWCfirm.com bcarney@GWCfirm.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sprowl et al Sue over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- JAMES SPROWL and PHILIP S. FRIEDMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant,Case No. 8:18-cv-03691-PJM (D. Md., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks equitable relief and damages resulting from Defendant's failure to adequately protect customers' personal identification information. According to the complaint, on or about November 30, 2018, Marriott revealed publicly that its reservations database for Starwood properties, which include Sheraton, Westin and St. Regis hotels, among others, had been hacked and that up to 500 million guests could be affected. According to Marriott, an unauthorized party had accessed the database since 2014 and the breach included names, email addresses, phone numbers, passport numbers, birthdays, and payment information. The Plaintiffs have made reservations with Starwood properties during the relevant time period, and upon information and belief have had their personal identification information ("PII" or "Private Information") stolen. According to Marriott, it received an alert on September 8, 2018 from an internal security tool that there had been an unauthorized attempt to access its Starwood guest reservation database. Marriott subsequently learned through investigation that there had been unauthorized access to the Starwood network since 2014, and that an unauthorized party has copied and encrypted information, and taken steps towards removing On November 19, 2018, Marriott decrypted the information and determined that the contents were from the Starwood guest reservation database. That database contains reservation information for W Hotels, St. Regis, Sheraton Hotels & Resorts, Westin Hotels & Resorts, Element Hotels, Aloft Hotels, The Luxury Collection, Tribute Portfolio, Le Meridien Hotels & Resorts, Four Points by Sheraton, and Design Hotels that participate in the Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) program. Starwood branded timeshare properties are also included. Although its investigation is ongoing, Marriott believes that the Breach involved information on up to approximately 500 million guests who made a reservation at a Starwood property. According to Marriott, for approximately 327 million of these guests, the information included some combination of name, mailing address, phone number, email address, passport number, Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) account information, date of birth, gender, arrival and departure information, reservation date, and communication preferences, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Gary E. Mason, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW | Ste 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: 202-640-1168 Facsimile: 202-429-2294 E-mail: Gmason@wbmllp.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: 513-345-8297 Facsimile: 513-345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: 215-592-1500 Facsimile: 215-592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sundius-Rose Sues over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- MARY ANN SUNDIUS-ROSE, 39 Birchwood Lane Boonton Township, New Jersey 07005; NANCY MOLESWORTH 220 Riverside Blvd., Apt 5F New York, NY 10069, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC., 10400 Fenwood Road Bethesda, Maryland 20817, Case No. 8:18-cv-03696-PX (D. Md., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief requiring Defendant to, inter alia, implement and maintain reasonable and effective security practices. According to the complaint, the Defendant is a global provider of lodging with more than 6,700 properties across 130 countries and territories. In 2016, Defendant finalized its merger with Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, LLC, another global hotel chain including brands such as Westin Hotels and Resorts and Sheraton. In merging Starwood into Defendant's Marriott brand, Defendant continued to maintain separate guest reservation databases for Marriott and Starwood hotels. When making reservations with Starwood-branded hotels, customers are required to provide extensive Sensitive Personal Information (SPI). On November 30, 2018, Defendant announced that it had discovered that there had been unauthorized access to the Starwood guest reservation database, which contains information on approximately 500 million of guests, since 2014. The Defendant also announced that a forensic investigation of the Data Breach showed that SPI for approximately 327 million guests, including names, mailing addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, passport numbers, Starwood Preferred Guest account information, dates of birth, gender, arrival and departure information, reservation dates, communication preferences and payment card numbers and expiration dates, had been copied and encrypted. The SPI of Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes which Defendant failed to protect and allowed to be accessed and taken by thieves can be and is used to perform identify theft, make fraudulent charges, and open unauthorized new accounts, Defendant also admitted in its announcement that breach on September 8, 2018, though it was first alerted to this data it delayed informing its customers of the breach for over 80 days until November 30, 2018. The Defendant has made public statements apologizing for the Data Breach but has not made any effort to assist or recompense affected customers apart from offering a one-year subscription to "WebWatcher," which Defendant claims monitors internet sites where SPI is shared and generates an alert for subscribers if evidence of their personal information is found. The Plaintiffs are individuals who provided their SPI to Defendant as part of their purchase of lodging, and whose SPI has been compromised as a result of the Defendant's failure to maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to safeguard their SPI, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: John B. Isbister, Esq. Daniel S. Katz, Esq. TYDINGS & ROSENBERG LLP One East Pratt Street, Suite 901 E-mail: jisbister@tydingslaw.com dkatz@tydingslaw.com - and - Janine L. Pollack, Esq. Michael Liskow, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 351 w. 54th St., Suite lC New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (212) 969-7810 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: liskowm@thesultzerlawgroup.com pollackj @thesultzerlawgroup. com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Erich P. Schork, Esq. Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com e.schork@b arnowlaw.com j.blake@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Taylor Sues Over Data Security Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS TAYLOR, KAREN MARKUS-HANDIS, and KIRK HUDDLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03724-GJH (D. Md., December 3, 2018) arises from one of the largest data security breaches in U.S. history. On November 30, 2018, Marriott announced that an unauthorized party had gained access to its Starwood Guest Reservation Database and copied the 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 payment card numbers and expiration of 500 million guests. Shockingly, Marriott's announcement revealed that the unauthorized access to its Database began in 2014 and, thus, had gone on (allegedly) undetected for four years. The Data Breach affects all guests who stayed at a Starwood property, which includes W Hotels, St. Regis, Sheraton Hotels & Resorts, Westin Hotels & Resorts, Element Hotels, Aloft Hotels, The Luxury Collection, Tribute Portfolio, Le Meridien Hotels & Resorts, Four Points by Sheraton and Design Hotels, and even Starwood-branded timeshare properties. And the victims of the Breach are not limited to those customers enrolled in Marriott's SPG program. According to Marriott, "regardless of whether you are an SPG member, if you made a reservation on or before September 10, 2018 for a Starwood property, information you provided may have been involved". Again, the scope of the Data Breach cannot be understated: there are half a billion victims of Marriott's security failures. As the result of Marriott's failure to reasonably secure its Database, cybercriminals obtained the Personal Information of 500 million customers, including Plaintiffs and the other Class members, exposing them to an increased risk of fraud and identity theft, and causing them injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, the lost value of their Personal Information, and the lost time and expense necessary to protect themselves against the foreseeable fraud and identity theft that Marriott's conduct caused. Plaintiffs and Class members are further damaged as their Personal Information remains in Marriott's possession, without adequate protection, says the complaint. Plaintiff Chris Taylor resides in Baltimore, Maryland and is a citizen of the state of Maryland. Plaintiff is a Starwood Preferred Guest whose American Express credit card is linked to his Starwood Preferred Guest account. Plaintiff has stayed at Starwood properties throughout the Class Period. Plaintiff Chris Taylor resides in Baltimore, Maryland and is a citizen of the state of Maryland. Plaintiff is a Starwood Preferred Guest whose American Express credit card is linked to his Starwood Preferred Guest account. Plaintiff has stayed at Starwood properties throughout the Class Period. Kirk Huddles resides in Baltimore, Maryland and is a citizen of the state of Maryland. Plaintiff is a Starwood Preferred Guest whose American Express credit card is linked to his Starwood Preferred Guest account. Plaintiff has stayed at Starwood properties throughout the Class Period. Marriott International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principle place of business at 10400 Fernwood Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20817. Marriott's securities trade on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "MAR".[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: STEVEN D. SILVERMAN, Esq. JOSEPH F. MURPHY, JR., Esq. ANDREW C. WHITE, Esq. WILLIAM N. SINCLAIR, Esq. SILVERMAN THOMPSON SLUTKIN & WHITE LLC 201 N. Charles Street, 26th Floor Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: 410/385-2225 Fax: 410/547-2432 Email: ssilverman@mdattorney.com jmurphy@mdattorney.com awhite@mdattorney.com bsinclair@mdattorney.com - and - STUART A. DAVIDSON, Esq. CHRISTOPHER C. GOLD, Esq. DORY P. ANTULLIS, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: 561/750-3000 Fax: 561/750-3364 Email: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com cgold@rgrdlaw.com dantullis@rgrdlaw.com - and - SAMUEL H. RUDMAN, Esq. WILLIAM J. GEDDISH, Esq. MARK S. REICH, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631/367-7100 Fax: 631/367-1173 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mreich@rgrdlaw.com wgeddish@rgrdlaw.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Trager Sues over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- JOSIAH TRAGER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03745 (D. Md., Dec. 5, 2018), alleges that Marriott failed to secure and safeguard its guests' names, phone numbers, email addresses, passport numbers, dates of birth, credit card numbers and credit card expiration dates (Personal Identifying Information). According to the complaint, on November 30, 2018, Marriott disclosed that the massive Data Breach potentially exposed the personal data of 500 million guests. It is the second biggest corporate data breach in history. Despite the staggering magnitude of this breach, Marriott claimed it did not discover it until November 19, 2018. Cyber criminals have had four full years of unencumbered access to personal and confidential information of hundreds of millions of guests before Marriott even notified its guests. Marriott has publicly acknowledged that the Data Breach resulted, at least in part, from vulnerabilities in a database containing sensitive information it gleaned from guests at its Starwood-branded hotels, noting in an 8-K filed on November 30, 2018 that it was "devoting the resources necessary to phase out Starwood systems and accelerate the ongoing security enhancements to [its] network." The opportunities that any such faults created for cyber criminals were greatly enhanced by Marriott's systemic incompetence and uninterested approach to data security. Indeed, Marriott failed to employ sufficient security measures to avoid the Data Breach despite the fact that Starwood -- which Marriott acquired in 2016 and whose database it admitted to have been compromised in the Data Breach -- had reported a data breach relating to 54 of its hotels in November of 2015. Despite this data breach, as well as numerous other high-profile data breaches at other major American corporations (including Equifax and Target) during the four years between the initial breach and its discovery, Marriott took no steps to assure that its systems were secure, the lawsuit says. Marriott is a worldwide operator, franchisor, and licensor of hotel, residential, and timeshare properties under numerous brand names at different price and service points. On September 23, 2016, Marriott completed the acquisition of Starwood through a series of transactions, after which Starwood became an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Marriott. Through Starwood, Marriott operates hotels and/or resorts as well as other timeshare properties under the following brands: Westin, Sheraton, Luxury Collection, Four Points by Sheraton, W Hotels, St. Regis, Le Meridien, Aloft, Element, Tribute Portfolio and Design Hotels.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and Putative Class: Andrew D. Freeman, Esq. Neel K. Lalchandani, Esq. BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP 120 E Baltimore Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 962 1030 Facsimile: (410) 385 0869 E-mail: adf@browngold.com nlalchandani@browngold.com - and - Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. Katrina Carroll. Esq Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com bgreenberg@litedepalma.com kshamberg@litedepalma.com - and - Joseph LoPiccolo, Esq. John N. Poulos, Esq. POULOS LOPICCOLO PC 1305 South Roller Road Ocean, New Jersey 07712 Telephone: lipiccolo@pllawfirm.com Facsimile: poulos@pllawfirm.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Turner Sues over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- HOPE TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL and STARWOOD HOTELS AND RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC, INC., Case No. 8:18-cv-03763-RWT (D. Md., Dec. 6, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from engaging in further negligent, deceptive, unfair, and unlawful business practices. According to the complaint, on November 30, 2018, Marriott, parent company of Starwood, announced a massive data breach compromising the personal information of a half billion people whose information Defendants stored in the Starwood guest reservation database. The information taken includes names, phone numbers, mailing and e-mail addresses, passport numbers, Starwood Preferred Guest account data, dates of birth, gender, arrival and departure information, reservation dates, and communication preferences. For some, the information taken also includes payment card numbers and expiration dates. That Defendants failed to detect or prevent this data breach is particularly astonishing, Plaintiff contends. According to Marriott, the hackers first accessed Starwood's systems in 2014 and Defendants did not detect them until September 2018. During that same period, Starwood failed to prevent numerous breaches, including a payment card data breach at approximately 100 of its properties. Despite these obvious danger signs, the Defendants still failed to adequately secure the Starwood reservation system, a massive database that should have been protected by the most sophisticated security controls available. As a result of Defendants' failure to protect the customer information they hoarded, Plaintiff and others already have suffered fraud, identity theft, and financial harm, and many millions more now are subject to a heightened, imminent risk of such harm, the lawsuit says. Marriott is a global hotel conglomerate. According to its 2017 Annual Report, Marriott owns 1,959 properties and operates another 4,432 franchised and licensed properties, for a combined total of over 1,200,000 rooms in its portfolio. Marriott hotels include well-known brands such as Marriott, Ritz-Carlton, Courtyard, and Residence Inn.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: William H. Murphy III, Esq. Jessica H. Meeder, Esq. MURPHY, FALCON & MURPHY, P.A. One South Street, 23rd Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 951-8744 Facsimile: (410) 539-6599 E-mail: hassan.murphy@murphyfalcon.com jessica.meeder@murphyfalcon.com - and - Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. David M. Berger, Esq. Amanda Karl, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com dmb@classlawgroup.com amk@classlawgroup.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Van Dam Sues over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- MACKENZIE VAN DAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-03725 (D. Md., Dec. 3, 2018), seeks to recover damages arising out of a security breach of Marriott's reservation database for its Starwood properties. This action is brought on behalf of all persons residing in the United States whose personal information was compromised or stolen as a result of the Data Breach. According to an official statement by Marriott released on November 30, 2018, the Data Breach began in or around 2014 and may have compromised the personal information of as many as 500 million customers, including their names, email addresses, phone numbers, passport numbers, birthdays, and payment information. The Plaintiff has made reservations and stayed at Starwood properties during the relevant time period, and has had her personal and financial information compromised and possibly stolen. Despite a heightened awareness of the threat of such a data breach following numerous similar large-scale events in recent years, Marriott failed to take reasonable measures to protect the personal and financial information of Plaintiff and the Proposed Class, allowing hackers to take over guests' accounts for unlawful purposes. Marriott is a worldwide operator of hotel properties. In September 2016, Marriott completed a merger with Starwood in which Starwood became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Marriott. On November 30, 2018, Marriott, for the first time, disclosed that its Starwood guest reservation database had been hacked. In its statement on the incident, Marriott reported that it received an alert from an internal security tool on September 8, 2018, which revealed an "attempt to access" the Starwood guest reservation database in the United States. Marriott further stated that, after investigating this alert, it determined on November 19, 2018, that some third parties had gained unauthorized access to the Starwood database and all of the information stored. Marriott further reported that its investigation revealed that the unauthorized access to the Starwood database may have first occurred in 2014, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Cary Joshi, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1054 31 st Street, NW Suite 230 Washington DC 20007 Telephone: 202-436-2101 Facsimile: 202-463-2103 E-mail: CJoshi@baileyglasser.com - and - Robert G. Rikard, Esq. RIKARD & PROTOPAPAS LLC 1329 Blanding Street Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 978-6111 Facsimile: (803) 978-6112 E-mail: rgr@rplegalgroup.com - and - Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE A Professional Law Corporation 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 4610 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 523-2434 Facsimile: (504) 523-2464 E-mail: jpeiffer@pwcklegal.com MAXHOME, LLC: Vail Seeks Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------- KATHERYN VAIL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFF, vs. MAXHOME, LLC, the DEFENDANT, Case No. 4:18-cv-04631 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 7, 2018), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, as a result of Defendant's 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. According to the complaint, the Defendant has willfully and intentionally committed violations of the FLSA. The Defendant violated the FLSA by not including the non-discretionary bonuses or commissions of Plaintiff and other Rehashes in their regular rate when calculating their overtime pay the lawsuit says. MaxHome is a home improvement company serving residents throughout the Houston, New Orleans, and Baton Rouge areas.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Josh 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: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com MDL 2617: Arnold Wants Suit to Be Included in Data Breach MDL ------------------------------------------------------------- Marie Arnold asks the Court to consolidate her lawsuit captioned MARIE ARNOLD v. ANTHEM INC., Case No. 5:18-CV-02981 LHK (N.D. Cal.), to the multidistrict litigation entitled In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litigation, MDL No. 5:15-md-02617-LHK (N.D. Cal.). Anthem was cyber attacked and breached on January 29, 2015, which resulted in the compromise of around 80 million customers' personal information, health record, SSN, address, and etc. The Plaintiff alleges that she and her family were harmed and they suffered emotional distress, and public humiliation and defamation from the breach. The Court will commence a hearing on January 3, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., to consider the Motion. Marie Arnold of San Ramon, California, appears pro se.[CC] MDL 2741: Anderson Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled BRENDA ANDERSON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01827, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Dec. 4, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-07317-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Anderson case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 MDL 2741: Barbour Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled WILLIAM BARBOUR, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01871 (Filed Nov. 1, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Dec. 4, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-07321-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Barbour case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: 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 MDL 2741: Hiatt Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Jan Hiatt, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01879, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 30, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-07273-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Hiatt case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Eric Davis Holland, Esq. HOLLAND, GROVES, SCHNELLER AND STOLZE 300 North Tucker Blvd., Suite 801 St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: (314) 241-8111 Facsimile: (314) 241-5554 E-mail: eholland@allfela.com - and - Jessica L. Richman, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 6 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, NY 11050 Telephone (516) 723-4627 Facsimile (516) 723-4727 E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com MDL 2741: Hogan Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled MARTHA HOGAN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01822, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 20, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-07060-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Hogan case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 MDL 2741: Kruppa Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled ALEXANDER KRUPPA and DINAH KRUPPA, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01825, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Dec. 3 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-07310-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Kruppa case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 MDL 2741: Lis Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled WILLIAM LIS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01920 (Filed Nov. 13, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Dec. 6, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-07369-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Lis case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207-2950 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com MDL 2741: Riordan Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled VICKIE RIORDAN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01920 (Filed Nov. 13, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Dec. 6, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-01918 to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Riordan case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207-2950 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com MDL 2741: Strong Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled MARIE STRONG, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01824, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Dec. 3, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-07309-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Strong case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 MDL 2804: Eiland vs. Purdue Pharma over Opiates Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, Amel Eiland individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Purdue Dharma LIP., Purdue Dharma Inc.; Cephalic Inc.; Neva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Neva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Aramco Inc.; Or tho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Jansen Pharmaceutical Inc., now known as Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Undo Health Solutions Inc.; Undo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergen PL, formerly known as: Activist PL; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Activist Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc.; Activist Dharma, Inc., formerly known as: Watson Dharma, Inc.; Activist LLC; Maeterlinck PL; Maeterlinck LLC; McPherson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; Counterinsurgency Drug Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02894, was transferred from the US. District Court for the District of Colorado, to the US. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on Nov. 30, 2018. The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-op-46283-DAP to the proceeding. The Eiland case is being consolidated with ML 2804 in re: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The ML was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multi district Litigation on December 5, 2017. These cases concern the alleged improper marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various prescription opiate medications into cities, states and towns across the country. Responding plaintiffs' positions on centralization vary considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or potential tag-along actions support centralization. Plaintiffs in 15 actions or potential tag-along actions oppose centralization altogether or oppose transfer of their action. In addition to opposing transfer, the State of West Virginia suggests that the ML Panel delay transferring its case until the Southern District of West Virginia court decides its motion to remand to state court. Third party payer plaintiffs in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania potential tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers Health and Welfare Fund) oppose centralization of third participatory actions. Western District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case. Northern District of Illinois tag-along Plaintiff City of Chicago asks the Panel to defer transfer of its action until document discovery is completed. The Presiding Judge in the ML is Sarah S. Vance, United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:17-MD-02804-PAD.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Colleen Therese Calandra, Esq. RAMOS LAW, LLC 3000 Youngfield Street, Suite 200 Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 Telephone: (303) 733-6353 Facsimile: (303) 865-5666 E-mail: Colleen@ramoslaw.com MDL 2871: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 2 Crop Insurance Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: DRY BEAN REVENUE PROTECTION CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION, MDL No. 2871, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the Plaintiff's motion for centralization of two actions. These two actions are: * In the Eastern District of Michigan - ACKERMAN, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-11779; and * In the District of Minnesota - ELBERT, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:18-01574. Plaintiffs in the two actions listed on Schedule A move under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Eastern District of Michigan. This litigation consists of two actions pending in the Eastern District of Michigan and the District of Minnesota, as listed on Schedule A. Responding defendants support centralization in the Eastern District of Michigan. After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance concludes that Section 1407 centralization would not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Both of the actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that actions by the federal defendants precluded plaintiffs from presenting recoverable claims under the Dry Bean Revenue Endorsement of their crop insurance for the year 2015. In identical complaints, plaintiffs seek review of the federal defendants' actions under the Administrative Procedure Act and, in fact, all plaintiffs' claims originally were pending in a single action in the Eastern District of Michigan. But she finds proponents have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the need for centralization. Just two actions are pending in this litigation, and the parties are represented by common counsel in each. The Panel has held that "centralization under Section 1407 should be the last solution after considered review of all other options." The parties have not addressed whether they have considered alternatives to Section 1407 centralization, and it appears feasible for the involved parties and courts to cooperate informally to coordinate any overlap in pretrial proceedings and minimize the potential for inconsistent rulings. Additionally, the resolution of these actions will involve only very limited pretrial proceedings. Discovery, if any, will be limited, as these cases will be decided on the administrative record, and motion practice will consist of motions regarding that record and dispositive motions. While plaintiffs have sought to supplement the record, any overlap in additional discovery can be coordinated among the limited number of counsel, parties, and courts. In these circumstances, the Judge does not find that centralization is warranted. For these reasons, Judge Vance denied the motion for centralization of the two actions. A full-text copy of the Court's December 6, 2018 Order is available at https://bit.ly/2La5uoV MEDLEY CAPITAL: RICO Suits in Virginia & Pennsylvania Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Medley Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2018, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend class action suits in Virginia and Pennsylvania alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of the alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan. The Company, Medley LLC, MDLY, Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube were named as defendants, along with other various parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned as Royce Solomon, Jodi Belleci, Michael Littlejohn, and Giulianna Lomaglio v. American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark Curry, MacFarlane Group, Inc., Sol Partners, Medley Opportunity Fund, II, LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, DHI Computing Service, Inc., Middlemarch Partners, and John Does 1-100, filed on December 15, 2017 and amended on March 9, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No. 4:17-cv-145 (hereinafter, "Class Action 1"). Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned George Hengle and Lula Williams v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed February 13, 2018, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, as Case No. 3:18-cv-100 ("Class Action 2"). Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned John Glatt, Sonji Grandy, Heather Ball, Dashawn Hunter, and Michael Corona v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed August 9, 2018 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No. 4:18-cv-101 ("Class Action 3") (together with Class Action 1 and Class Action 2, the "Virginia Class Actions"). Medley Opportunity Fund II LP was also named as a defendant, along with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Christina Williams and Michael Stermel v. Red Stone, Inc. (as successor in interest to MacFarlane Group, Inc.), Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Mark Curry, Brian McGowan, Vincent Ney, and John Doe entities and individuals, filed June 29, 2018 and amended July 26, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as Case No. 2:18-cv-2747 (the "Pennsylvania Class Action") (together with the Virginia Class Actions, the "Class Action Complaints"). The plaintiffs in the Class Action Complaints filed their putative class actions alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of the alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan. The claims against Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube (in Class Action 1, as amended); Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation (in Class Action 2 and Class Action 3); and Medley Opportunity Fund II LP (in the Pennsylvania Class Action), allege that those defendants in each respective action exercised control over, or improperly derived income from, and/or obtained an improper interest in, American Web Loan's payday lending activities as a result of a loan to American Web Loan. The loan was made by Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in 2011. American Web Loan repaid the loan from Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in full in February of 2015, more than 1 year and 10 months prior to any of the loans allegedly made by American Web Loan to the alleged class plaintiff representatives in Class Action 1. In Class Action 2, the alleged class plaintiff representatives have not alleged when they received any loans from American Web Loan. In Class Action 3, the alleged class plaintiff representatives claim to have received loans from American Web Loan at various times from February 2015 through April 2018. In the Pennsylvania Class Action, the alleged class plaintiff representatives claim to have received loans from American Web Loan in 2017. By orders dated August 7, 2018 and September 17, 2018, the Court presiding over the Virginia Class Actions consolidated those cases for all purposes. On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 3 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of their claims, without prejudice, against Medley Opportunity Fund II, LP and Medley Capital Corporation. On October 22, 2018, the parties to Class Action 2 settled. On October 29, 2018, the plaintiffs in Class Action 2 stipulated to the dismissal of their claims against all defendants in Class Action 2 (including Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation), with prejudice. Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube never made any loans or provided financing to, or had any other relationship with, American Web Loan. The Company, Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, MDLY, Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube are seeking indemnification from American Web Loan, various affiliates, and other parties with respect to the claims in the Class Action Complaints. The Company, Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, MDLY, Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube believe the alleged claims in the Class Action Complaints are without merit and they intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. Medley Capital Corporation is a business development company. The fund seeks to invest in privately negotiated debt and equity securities of small and middle market companies. The company is based in New York, New York. MIDLAND CREDIT: Koch Moves to Certify Michigan Class Under FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DANIEL M. KOCH, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-14038-TGB-EAS (E.D. Mich.), asks the Court to certify this class: All persons with a Michigan address, whom Midland Credit Management, Inc., sent between December 15, 2016 and January 5, 2018, and they received a letter that included the language, "The law limits how long you can be sued on the debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it. If you do not pay the debt, we may continue to report it to the credit reporting agencies as unpaid." Mr. Koch, individually and on behalf of a proposed class of 20,462 Michigan persons, has alleged that omissions in the Defendant's form letter seeking to collect a time barred debt, violated provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Mr. Koch also asks the Court to appoint him as class representative and to appoint Curtis C. Warner, Esq., as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis C. Warner, Esq. WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC 350 S. Northwest Hwy., Suite 300 Park Ridge, IL 60068 Telephone: (847) 701-5290 E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal The Defendant is represented by: Joseph N. Tucker, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 101 South Fifth Street, Suite 2500 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 540-2360 E-mail: joseph.tucker@dinsmore.com - and - Jason M. Renner, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 900 Wilshire Drive, Suite 300 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 203-1632 E-mail: jason.renner@dinsmore.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Samaniego Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------------- GRACIELA SAMANIEGO, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02018 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 30, 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: Stadter Brothers Sues over Xtend Crop System -------------------------------------------------------------- STADTER BROTHERS PARTNERS, EUGENE STADTER AND RICHARD STADTER, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY; BASF CORPORATION; BAST SE, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02155 (S.D. Ill., Dec. 7, 2018), alleges that Defendants conspired to and did inadequately warn, and to omit and conceal the risks, especially volatility, from the public, weed scientists, and persons who would be using the Xtend Crop System, in order to and with the intent of increasing damage to non-resistant crops and driving up fear-based demand for dicamba-resistant seed and correspondingly, more dicamba herbicides. According to the complaint, the action is brought by farmers who have suffered damage as a result of the design, development, promotion, and sale of a genetically engineered trait conferring resistance to dicamba expressly for the purpose of spraying dicamba herbicide over the top of growing plants as part ofa dicamba-based crop system. Defendants knew that dicamba, highly volatile and prone to drift, is ruinous to susceptible non-dicamba resistant plants and crops. Not only did Defendants release their dangerous system onto the market, creating high risk of harm, but everything they did and failed to do increased that risk, all but ensuring damage to non-dicamba resistant plants and crops. That damage in fact served Defendants' purpose of pressuring farmers to purchase dicamba-resistant seed out of self-protection. Defendants created and carried out a scheme ecological disaster for their financial gain and to the detriment of the very persons they knew would be harmed, the lawsuit says. Monsanto designs, develops, manufactures, licenses, and sells biotechnology, chemicals, and other agricultural products, including herbicides and seed genetically modified to produce crops resistant thereto. These include Roundup Ready 2 Xtend Soybean ("Xtend soybeans"), Bollgard II XtendFlex Cotton ("Xtend cotton") and a herbicide known as XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology@ ("XtendiMax"). Along with BASF SE and BASF Corporation, Monsanto developed, and also licenses and sells a genetically engineered trait in soybean and cotton seed, and seed containing that trait, for intended use with dicamba herbicide, marketed and sold in states including those alleged in this action.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Don M. Downing, Esq. GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C. 701 Market Street, Suite 800 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: 314 241-5620 Facsimile: 314 241-4140 E-mail: dclowning@grgpc.com NATION WASTE: Sued by Johnson for Not Paying Drivers Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL JOHNSON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATION WASTE, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-04476 (S.D. Tex., November 27, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiff and other waste disposal drivers were not paid for all hours worked or the proper amount of overtime for all hours worked over 40 hours each workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Nation Waste, Inc., is a Texas for-profit company, licensed to and doing business in Texas. The Company's registered agent for services of process is Maria Rios of Houston, Texas. NWI provides roll-off containers (dumpsters) in multiple capacities, as well as portable restrooms, and compactors and balers for virtually any waste, refuse, and recycling requirements for the Greater Houston and Austin area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. George Schimmel, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-128 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com geordie@a2xlaw.com NATIONAL ACCREDITING: Meaders Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------ DONNA K. MEADERS , on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL ACCREDITING AGENCY FOR CLINICAL LABORATORY SERVICE, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07928 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff is a current employee who performs accreditation coordinator duties that include collecting data and paperwork from universities and hospitals and serving as a liaison between those seeking accreditation and the accreditors, and who was compensated as a salary-exempt employee and denied overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. All other unnamed Plaintiff known and unknown , are past or present employees who work or worked for Defendant and were improperly classified as salary exempt and denied overtime for work in excess of 40 hours in a work week, the lawsuit says. The Defendant provides accreditation and evaluation services to hospital and university research programs.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiff, and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known or unknown: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 NORTH 6TH PLACE: Mendez Sues over Job Related Injuries ------------------------------------------------------ VICTOR MENDEZ, the Plaintiff, vs. NORTH 6TH PLACE PROPERTY OWNER LLC, the Defendants, Case No.: 524154/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 3, 2018, seeks damages, including compensatory damages, against the Defendant in a sum of money having a present value which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction in this matter. According to the complaint, on September 1, 2017, while the Plaintiff, was lawfully upon Defendant's premise's in connection with his employment with RCM Construction he was caused to sustain serious, severe and permanent personal injuries as a result of the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of the defendants. That it was the duty of the defendants to furnish the plaintiff with a reasonably safe place within which to do and perform the work required of him upon said building and to provide him with suitable and proper safety equipment. The defendants breached their non-delegable duty to furnish the plaintiff with safe laddering and safety devices as required by the labor law of the State of New York and more particularly sections 200, 240 and 241 of the New York State labor law. The conduct of the defendants as aforesaid was wanton, willful and with conscious disregard for the rights, safety and wellbeing of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The plaintiff contends that the his action falls within one or more of the exceptions enumerated by Section 1602 of the CPLR. The plaintiff was seriously injured and disabled; he suffered severe, painful and permanent injuries to various parts of his person; he continues to be seriously injured and disabled; he will continue to be seriously injured and disabled for a long time to come; and will he was required to receive hospital and medical treatment and attention for his injuries and was unable to and shall continue to be unable to pursue his usual pursuits, activities and employment all to his damage, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Michael Caliguird, Esq. BADER & YAKAITIS LLP 1430 Broadway, Suite 1802 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 465-1110 NUTS' N MORE: Faces Morrison Class Suit in NY for Fraud --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nuts' N More LLC. The case is styled as Aurora Morrison on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nuts' N More LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11192 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 30, 2018). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Nuts' N More LLC is a peanut butter company that manufactures peanut butter from the finest nuts and protein.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group, PLLC 30 East 39th Street 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com OLAM SPICES: Beltran et al. Suit Moved to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case, Thomas Beltran, Mario Martinez, Maria Claudia Obesto Cota, Juan Rivera, Mariana Ramirez, and Alexander Solorio individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Olam Spices and Vegetables, Inc. also known as: Olam West Coast, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.: 15CECG02993, was removed from the Fresno County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California – (Fresno) on Dec 10, 2018. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-01676-LJO-SAB to the proceeding. The suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Olam Spices & Vegetables Inc. processes and supplies vegetables and spices. The company offers fresh, dehydrated, frozen, and pureed products.[BN] Attorneys for Thomas Beltran, Mario Martinez, Juan Rivera, Mariana Ramirez: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Ave., Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com Attorneys for Maria Claudia Obesto Cota and Alexander Solorio: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP 8889 Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com Attorneys for Defendant: Susan K. Hatmaker, Esq. HATMAKER LAW GROUP 7522 N. Colonial Ave., Ste. 105 Fresno, CA 93711 Telephone: (559) 374-0077 Fax: (559) 374-0078 E-mail: susan@hatmakerlaw.com OLNICK ORGANIZATION: Violates Disabilities Act, Olsen Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Olnick Organization, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Olnick Organization, Inc. doing business as: Lenox Terrace, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11202 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 2, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Olnick Organization, Inc. owns, develops, and manages residential, retail, office, and hotel properties in New York. It also offers residential renting and buying services. The company's retail portfolio includes retail spaces, parking garages, club facilities, and stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017-6705 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Butts Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Erskine Butts individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07922 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 30, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts. It serves customers through account representatives. The company was incorporated in 1996 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC operates as a subsidiary of PRA Group, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander James Taylor, Esq. Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com - and - Marwan R. Daher, Esq. Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com - and - Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq. Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com - and - James C. Vlahakis, Esq. Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com PUERTO MADERO: Souyris Seeks Overtime Pay for Servers ----------------------------------------------------- JEAN C. SOUYRIS, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff(s), vs. PUERTO MADERO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, d/b/a PM FISH & STEAK HOUSE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-25036-RNS (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2018), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, PM Fish & Steak House is an Argentinian restaurant located at 1453 S. Miami Avenue, Miami, FL 33130. The Plaintiff was hired to work as a server. For the relevant time of employment, the Plaintiff was paid at the approximate rate $11.37 an hour plus tips. While employed by Defendant, the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours every week period. Nevertheless, he was not paid for overtime hours, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiff: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com RAYDON CORP: Sued over Employee Stock Ownership Plan Losses ----------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE WOZNICKI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RAYDON CORPORATION, DONALD K. ARIEL, DAVID P. DONOVAN, THE ESOP COMMITTEE OF THE RAYDON CORPORATION EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, LUBBOCK NATIONAL BANK, the Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-02090-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla., Dec. 5, 2018), seeks to restore losses to Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), disgorge any profits through the use of Plan assets, and to obtain other remedial and appropriate equitable relief in order to redress violations and enforce the provisions of Title I of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff's claims arise out of a transaction on September 30, 2015 in which Defendants sold 100% of the stock of Raydon Corporation to the ESOP for $60,500,000, and subsequent breaches by the fiduciaries of the ESOP. The Transaction was not designed to be in the best interests of the ESOP participants; the selling shareholders failed to disclose material information to the Trustee, Defendant Lubbock National Bank; and Defendant Lubbock National Bank failed to perform adequate due diligence and caused the ESOP to pay in excess of fair market value. As a result of violations of ERISA's fiduciary rules by the fiduciaries entrusted with their Plan, Plaintiff and the Class have not received all of the hard-earned retirement benefits or the loyal and prudent management of the ESOP to which they are entitled, the lawsuit says. Raydon Corporation develops and manufactures simulation training products and solutions. It specializes in gunnery, maneuver, and critical task training.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Sam J. Smith, Esq. Loren B. Donnell, Esq. BURR & SMITH, LLP 111 2nd Avenue N.E., Suite 1100 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (813) 253-2010 E-mail: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com ldonnell@burrandsmith.com - and - Daniel Feinberg, Esq. FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP 2030 Addison Street, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 269-7998 E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com - and - R. Joseph Barton, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 1735 20th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 734-7046 E-mail: joe@blockesq.com RH INC: Appeal in California Securities Class Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- RH said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2018, for the fiscal year ended October 30, 2018, that the company filed a petition with the U.S. Court Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to appeal the grant of class certification in the case entitled, In re RH, Inc. Securities Litigation. On February 2, 2017, City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees’ Retirement Trust filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against the Company, Gary Friedman, and Karen Boone. On March 16, 2017, Peter J. Errichiello, Jr. filed a similar class action complaint in the same forum and against the same parties. On April 26, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions. The consolidated action is captioned In re RH, Inc. Securities Litigation. An amended consolidated complaint was filed in June 2017 asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). The complaint asserts claims purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Company common stock from March 26, 2015 to June 8, 2016. The alleged misstatements relate to statements regarding the roll out of the RH Modern product line and the Company's inventory levels. The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages, and other appropriate relief, including an award of costs and attorneys' fees. On February 26, 2018, the Court filed an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint and the case is in discovery. On October 11, 2018, the court certified the class. On October 25, 2018, the Company filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit to appeal the grant of class certification. RH said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, the Company and its officers intend to vigorously defend the claims and believe the complaint lacks merit." RH, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer in the home furnishings. It offers products in various categories, including furniture, lighting, textiles, bath ware, décor, outdoor and garden, tableware, and child and teen furnishings. RH was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Corte Madera, California. RICH'S CAR WASH: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Rosales Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Barry W. Ashe denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit captioned DIXON ROSALES v. RICH'S CAR WASH, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-03104-BWA-JCW (E.D. La.). Considering that a Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is premised on the allegations contained in the amended complaint, which has been dismissed and is thus no longer the operative complaint in this action, and is not supported by evidence in the record at this juncture, the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied as premature without prejudice to refiling with supporting evidence gained through class-related discovery, according to the Court's order. The Court finds that there is good cause to extend the deadline for seeking class certification established by Local Rule 23.1(B) and will fix such a deadline after reviewing the parties' status reports. Judge Ashe ordered the counsel for each party to electronically file by December 7, 2018, a status report not to exceed five pages in length, double-spaced, and should: (1) provide the status of discovery; (2) discuss when the plaintiff will be ready to re-file his motion for class certification with supporting evidence gained through discovery; (3) identify anticipated motions (other than motions in limine); (4) provide the parties' views about when the case will be ready for trial; (5) explain the status of settlement negotiations; and (6) identify any non-routine issue to be addressed.[CC] ROADRUNNER TRANS: Faces Gomez Suit in California State Court ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc. The case is styled as Fernando Gomez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc. a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. CGC18571755 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 3, 2018). Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. provides asset-right transportation and asset-light logistics services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. 249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Tel: (562) 590-5550 Fax: (562) 590-8400 Email: info@mahoney-law.net SAN DIEGO CORP: Leyva Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeronimo Leyva, Jose Hernandez, and Miguel Leyva, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. San Diego Corp. d/b/a Extra Supermarket and John Does #1-10, Case No. 2:18-cv-16488 (D.N.J., November 28, 2018), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiffs and the class are entitled to: (i) unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law; and (ii) liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA because the Defendants' violations lacked a good faith basis. San Diego Corp., doing business as Extra Supermarket, is a New Jersey corporation with a principal place of business in Newark, New Jersey. The Doe Defendants represent the owners, officers, directors, members, or managing agents of Extra Supermarket. The Defendants owned and operated a supermarket under the name Extra Supermarket located at 327 Lyons Avenue, in Newark, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Stein, Esq. David Nieporent, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com dnieporent@samuelandstein.com SANTANDER CONSUMER: Removed Reid Case to District of Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------------ Santander Consumer USA Inc. removes case captioned as Amanda Reid individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Santander Consumer USA Inc., the Defendant, Case (not provided), to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) on Nov. 30, 2018. The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-12470-WGY to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William G. Young. Santander Consumer specializes in automotive financing for dealers and consumers.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Raven Moeslinger, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C. 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 338-9400 E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com Attorneys for Defendant Santander Consumer USA Inc.: Michael T. Grant, Esq. LeClair Ryan, P.C. 60 State Street, 23rd Flr. Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 502-5728 Facsimile: (617) 502-5738 E-mail: michael.grant@leclairryan.com SEIKO EPSON: Allegedly Disabled Printers through Firmware Update ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN SUMMER on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION and EPSON AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06837 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2018), asserts that the Defendants allegedly disabled printers through firmware update, causing damage to the printers in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. section 1030. The lawsuit also contends that Epson's conduct violates Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, because Epson has monopoly power over the Epson printer ink market and monopolized -- or attempted to monopolize with a dangerous probability of success -- this market through its restriction on the use of third-party ink cartridges. Epson also violated New York State's deceptive practices act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section 349, and common law trespass to chattels. All of these actions have impacted consumers across the country who purchased Epson printers and installed the firmware update. According to the complaint, Epson sells their own brand of ink cartridges to use with Epson-branded printers and encourages consumers to purchase Epson's brand of ink. Other companies also compete to sell ink cartridges to these same consumers, often selling the same Epson-brand ink cartridges refilled with new ink but at substantially lower prices. For example, Epson-brand ink for the Epson Expression XP-630 Small-in-One Printer (the "EpsonXP-630") sells for about $19 for a single XL capacity cartridge on Epson's website. Meanwhile, other companies sell compatible third-party ink for as little as $21 for three XL capacity cartridges. Consumers such as Plaintiff have preferred to use third-party ink with their Epson printers due to the lower cost and have successfully done so for years. However, Epson decided to prevent consumers from using third-party ink. As early as the end of 2016, Epson started informing users that they needed to update their printer's firmware. Surprisingly, this firmware update actually made their printers less functional: printers that successfully used third-party ink before the update now began displaying an error message that the "Ink cartridge is not recognized. Please replace the cartridge," preventing consumers from printing anything. The Plaintiff and other consumers have now been injured because their printers have been purposefully disabled to the use of third-party ink. If Plaintiff and other consumers want to continue using their Epson printers, they have no choice after installing the firmware update but to purchase the more-expensive Epson-brand ink, the lawsuit says. Epson, is a Japanese electronics company and one of the world's largest manufacturers of computer printers, and information and imaging related equipment, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class: Patricia I. Avery, Esq. Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq. Fei-Lu Qian, Esq. Sean M. Zaroogian, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 - and - Richard J. Vita, Esq. VITA LAW OFFICES PC 100 State Street, 9th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: 617-426-6566 Facsimile: 617-249-2119 E-mail: rjv@vitalaw.com SEMPER BLUE: Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------ JOSHUA SPRINGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SEMPER BLUE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00968-BP (W.D. Mo., Dec. 7, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wage and overtime compensation, and related penalties and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Defendant's policy and practice is to deny minimum wages and overtime pay to security staff at its various locations. Defendant's failure to pay employees their earned wages and overtime compensation violates the FLSA. Plaintiff previously worked at Defendant's place of business in Kansas City, Missouri, from approximately October 2014 to October 2018. Semper Blue provided security services to third parties throughout the Kansas City metropolitan area and other metropolitan areas throughout the country, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Andrew B. Protzman, Esq. Ben Stelter-Embry, Esq. PROTZMAN LAW FIRM , LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2430 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 421-5100 Facsimile: (816) 421-5101 E-mail: andy@protzmanlaw.com ben@protzmanlaw.com SKC ENTERPRISES: Conditional Certification Bid in Davis Suit Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned CINDY DAVIS, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SKC ENTERPRISES INC., dba RENT ONE, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00036-DPM (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Marshall Jr., entered an order on Nov. 13, 2018 denying Davis' motion for conditional certification without prejudice as premature.[CC] SMITH DEBNAM: Faces Cavin FDCPA Suit in North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers, LLP. The case is styled as Donna Cavin individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00995 (M.D. N.C., Nov. 30, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers, LLP, established in 1972, is a midsize North and South Carolina law firm with its main office in Raleigh, NC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef C. Culik, Esq. FAIRVIEW LAW 6000 Fairview Rd., Ste. 1200 Charlotte, NC 28210 Phone: (980) 999-3557 Fax: (980) 999-3537 Email: jc@fairview-law.com SODEXO INC: Rivera Suit Moved to Central District of California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Estevan Rivera, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. Sodexo, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; SDH Education West LLC, a Delaware LLC; and SDH Education West LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 18STCV00292, was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana) on Nov. 30, 2018. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:18-cv-02130 to the proceeding. The suit alleges labor related violation.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Attorneys for Defendants: Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 101 California Street 48th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 856-7000 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com STATE-OWNED ASSETS: Cole Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Louisiana ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Lori Cole and Shawn Cole et al individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00562, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Norther District of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) on Nov. 30, 2018. The Eastern District of Louisiana Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-11407-EEF-JCW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Eldon E. Fallon. The State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council is a special commission of the People's Republic of China, directly under the State Council. It was founded in 2003 through the consolidation of various other industry-specific ministries.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Arnold Levin, Esq. LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut St., Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com - and - Darren M. Tawwater, Esq. Larry A. Tawwater, Esq. TAWWATER LAW FIRM, PLLC One Leadership Square 211 N. Robinson, Ste. 1950 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 319-7300 E-mail: dtaw@tawlaw.com - and - James Victor Doyle , Jr., Esq. DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC 2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650 Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 533-9500 Facsimile: (205) 332-1362 E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com - and - Russ M. Herman, Esq. HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC 820 O'Keefe Avenue New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 581-4892 E-mail: rherman@hhklawfirm.com STOYANOV & HYMAS: Fabricant Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STOYANOV & HYMAS d/b/a 411 LOCALS, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-10045 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy and causing him to incur unnecessary and unwanted expenses. According to the complaint, beginning in or around August 2018, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -0058, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services. The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone number (805) 979-4398 confirmed to be Defendant's number. Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). The Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Further, Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -0058 was added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about June 2008. The Defendant placed multiple calls soliciting its business to Plaintiff on his cellular telephone ending in -0058 in or around August 2018. Such calls constitute solicitation calls pursuant to 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(c)(2) as they were attempts to promote or sell Defendant's services. The Plaintiff received numerous solicitation calls from Defendant within a 12-month period. The Defendant continued to call Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA., the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 323 306-4234 Facsimile: 866 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com abacon@ toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com STRAX WELLNESS: Carnevali Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTANY CARNEVALI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STRAX WELLNESS CENTER, LLC d/b/a STRAX REJUVENATION, a Florida limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-62985-WPD (S.D. Fla., Dec. 6, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited text messages promoting its plastic surgery services, and to obtain redress for all persons similarly injured by its conduct under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Strax Rejuvenation is a plastic surgery clinic that performs breast augmentation, breast lift, breast reduction, liposuction, fat transfer, tummy tuck, facelift, eyelid, brachioplasty, thigh lift, hair graft, vaginal rejuvenation, and mommy makeover surgeries. To increase its sales, Strax Rejuvenation markets its surgery services by sending unsolicited text messages to consumers, including to consumers registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. Strax Rejuvenation does not attempt to obtain consent from consumers before texting them regarding its surgery services using an automatic telephone dialing system. And that is precisely what happened to Plaintiff, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff Brittany Carnevali and all others similarly situated: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com TD BANK: Perks Sues over Multiple Non-Sufficient Funds Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- MARY JENNIFER PERKS, an individual, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TD BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case 1:18-cv-11176-DAB (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2018), concerns TD Bank's unlawful business practice of imposing multiple Non-Sufficient Funds Fees ("NSF Fee") on a single consumer transaction. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all similarly situated consumers against TD Bank arising from a specific fee generation practice that violates the Bank's contracts and/or is deceptive. The Deposit Account Agreement permits TD Bank to charge a $35 NSF Fee when it determines a customer's account contains insufficient funds to pay a transaction and it rejects the charge. According to the complaint, through the imposition of NSF Fees the Bank makes hundreds of millions of dollars annually. TD Bank NSF Fees fall disproportionately on racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and the young, many of whom regularly carry low bank account balances. Ms. Perks does not dispute the Bank’s right to reject a transaction and charge a single NSF Fee, but TD Bank unlawfully maximizes its already profitable NSF Fees with deceptive practices that also violate its contract. Specifically, TD Bank unlawfully assesses multiple NSF Fees on a single Automated Clearing House (ACH) transaction or check transaction. ACH transactions require the party making a payment or money transfer to provide the party's account number and TD Bank's routing number. In TD Bank's sole and undisclosed view, each time the Bank unilaterally resubmits an ACH transaction or check for payment after a having been rejected for insufficient funds, it becomes a new, unique item that is subject to another NSF Fee. But TD Bank's Deposit Agreement never even hints that this counterintuitive result could be possible. Moreover, the premise is far from obvious as a matter of common sense and becomes even less so when one considers that TD Bank's own bank statements refer to the re-attempted items as "RETRY PAYMENTS" -- i.e., mere iterations of the same initial item, not items ex nihilo. TD Bank's Deposit Agreement and Personal Fee Schedule indicate that only a single NSF Fee will be charged per "item," however many times the request for payment is resubmitted. An electronic item resubmitted after an initial return for insufficient funds cannot and does not fairly become a new, unique item for fee assessment purposes. TD Bank also breaches its duty of good faith and fair dealing when it charges multiple NSF Fees on a single transaction. Specifically, TD Bank abuses its contractual discretion by (a) resubmitting transactions when it knows full well that a customer's account lacks sufficient funds, and (b) charging NSF Fees upon resubmission. This practice not only violates TD Bank's contracts and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing but is also unfair and deceptive under the consumer protection law of New York (where Ms. Perks is a citizen and resides and banks with TD Bank). Ms. Perks and other TD Bank customers have been injured by these practices. On behalf of herself and the Classes, Ms. Perks seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief for TD Bank's breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New York consumer protection statute. TD Bank, N.A., is a U.S. national bank and subsidiary of the Canadian multinational Toronto-Dominion Bank.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes: James J. Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, 10 th Floor Washington, D.C. 20009 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielpllc.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com ltoops@cohenandmalad.com vmiller@cohenandmalad.com TOA USA: McCracken Seeks Overtime Pay for Servers ------------------------------------------------- MEGAN MCCRACKEN and CHRISTOPHER J. LAILIOS, individually and on behalf of all other plaintiffs similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TOA USA CORP d/b/a T.O.A. HUNTINGTON TOA GROUP LLC d/b/a T.O.A. FARMINGDALE, TOA SAYVILLE LLC, d/b/a T.O.A. SAYVILLE, and FAN CHEN, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06819 (E.D.N.Y, Nov. 30, 2018), seeks to recover minimum pay and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, Ms. McCracken was hired by Defendants on or around May 29, 2018 as a server. She was a non-exempt employee who is entitled to premium pay for hours worked in excess for 40 per week. As such, McCracken was paid at a rate of $7.50 per hour. Further, she was paid at a rate of $13.00 per hour for every hour worked in excess of 40 per week – a rate below proper overtime rate, the lawsuit says. TOA (USA), LLC was founded in 2000. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing of motor vehicle parts and accessories.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiffs: Saul D. Zabelle, Esq. ZABELL & COLLOTTA P.C. Bohemia NY 11716 Telephone: (631) 589-7242 Facsimile: (631) 563 7475 E-mail: Szabelle@laborlawsny.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Cuts Support for Entune Audio System, Auyeung Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ RAYMOND AUYEUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC. a California Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH15221 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Dec. 6, 2018), is a class action complaint on behalf of Plaintiff and other consumers who purchased vehicles equipped with an Entune Premium Audio System from Defendant. The Plaintiff and other Class members purchased the Entune Premium System at the time they purchased vehicles from Toyota with the promise that they would be able to use specific software applications including Pandora, OpenTable, and Facebook Places. However, Defendant unfairly discontinued and ceased supporting the Applications after Plaintiff and the Class specifically paid for a system that would allow them to use such Applications and after they relied on Defendant's representations that they would be able to utilize the Applications, resulting in concrete harms to Plaintiff and the Class, the lawsuit says. Toyota is a manufacturer and seller of automobiles and associated technologies and services. In an effort to further increase its profitability, Toyota offers consumers various optional premium upgrades at the time it sells its vehicles, directly marketing and warranting such upgrades to consumers.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. David L. Gerbie, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60601 E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com TRANSPORTATION MEDIA: Failed to Pay Sales Reps OT Pay, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- COLIN W. MURRAY, individually & on behalf of all similarly situated v. TRANSPORTATION MEDIA, INC. d/b/a BENCH CRAFT COMPANY, Case No. 1:18-cv-03036 (D. Colo., November 27, 2018), alleges claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff him and all similarly situated sales representatives proper overtime. Transportation Media, Inc., doing business as Bench Craft Company, is an Oregon company. The Company is registered with the Colorado Secretary of State as a foreign company doing business in the State. The Defendant operates throughout the United States and Canada and has principal place of business in Denver, Colorado. The Defendant is an advertising company. Specifically, the Defendant is in the business of selling advertising at golf courses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. John Gadd, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF W. JOHN GADD, P.A. 2727 Ulmerton Rd., Suite 250 Clearwater, FL 33762 Telephone: (727) 524-6300 E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com TRAVELEX CURRENCY: Website not Accessible to Blind, Nixon Says -------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD NIXON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TRAVELEX CURRENCY SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06919 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2018), seeks to put an end to systemic civil rights violations committed by Defendant, against sight-impaired, disabled individuals, as is under Title III of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), within the State of New York and across the United States. According to the complaint, the The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to access and read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all individuals with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20/200. Some blind individuals who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million individuals in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Plaintiff commences this civil rights action against the Defendants for the Defendants' failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Because the Defendants' website is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendants' website will thus become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired persons, the lawsuit says. Travelex Currency Services, Inc. provides foreign currency exchange services. The company was incorporated in 1983 and is based in New York, New York.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 971-9474 Facsimile: (718) 865-0943 E-mail: Jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com TREMONT CONSTRUCTION: Mt Hawley Files Insurance-related Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tremont Construction Company, Inc et al. The case is styled as Mt Hawley Insurance Company, Plaintiff v. Tremont Construction Company Inc., Windward Point at Seaside Farm Owners Association Inc., Doris Hughes individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Bill Donovan individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-03240-RMG (D. S.C., Nov. 30, 2018). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract. Tremont Construction Company Inc was founded in 1983. The company's line of business includes the construction of single-family homes. Windward Point is a 3 story luxury condominium just minutes away from the beach. The property is located just off the Isle of Palms Connector right in the center of Seaside Farms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Terence Williams, Esq. Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP (Cola) Meridian Building 17th Floor 1320 Main Street Columbia, SC 29201 Phone: (803) 255-9597 Email: blake.williams@nelsonmullins.com - and - C Mitchell Brown, Esq. Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough PO Box 11070 Columbia, SC 29211 Phone: (803) 799-2000 Fax: (803) 256-7500 Email: mitch.brown@nelsonmullins.com - and - Charles R Norris, Esq. Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough PO Box 1806 Charleston, SC 29402 Phone: (843) 720-4303 Fax: (843) 720-4352 Email: charles.norris@nelsonmullins.com - and - Robert W Whelan, Esq. Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough (Ch) 151 Meeting Street Sixth Floor Charleston, SC 29401 Phone: (843) 853-5200 Email: robert.whelan@nelsonmullins.com UNITED STATES: S.M.S.R Sues Over Asylum Eligibility Policy ---------------------------------------------------------- S.M.S.R and R.S.P.S., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition, Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States, Matthew Whitaker, in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General of the United States, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, Lee Francis Cissna, in his official capacity as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Kevin K. McAleenan, in his official capacity as Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Ronald D. Vitiello, in his official capacity as Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, James McHenry, in his official capacity as Director of Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02828-RDM (D.D.C., December 3, 2018) seeks to challenge the Government's categorical bar on asylum eligibility for individuals and families entering the United States outside approved ports of entry along the southern border. According to the complaint, the immigration laws, consistent with the United States' international agreements, reflect Congress's commitment to aid persons fleeing persecution regardless of their point of entry: "any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States," "whether or not a designated port of arrival" and "irrespective of such alien's status," has the right to apply for asylum. On November 9, 2018, directly countermanding that and and without using the notice and comment procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act, the Acting Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security issued an interim final rule providing that any individuals, subject to a presidential proclamation, is restricted entry through the southern border pursuant to the Immigrations and Nationality Act. The next day, the President signed a Proclamation suspending the entry of all entering the United States without inspection at the southern border with Mexico. Taken together, the Rule and Proclamation create an unlawful "mandatory bar on eligibility for asylum," that operated against many of those who need it most: migrants fleeing prosecution and violence across the southern border of the United States. Such asylum seekers are disproportionately compromised of women, children, LGBT individuals, and other vulnerable populations at risk of violence in their home countries, says the complaint. Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue an order declaring that the Rule Proclamation violate the INA, the APA, and the Constitution, and enjoining their enforcement and implementation across the United States. Because Plaintiffs S.M.S.R and R.S.P.S. are at risk of deportation, and Plaintiffs RAICES and CAIR coalition also will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction against the Rule, Plaintiffs are moving for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction contemporaneous with filling this Complaint. Plaintiff S.M.S.R. is a young mother from Honduras seeking asylum in the United States. Plaintiff R.S.P.S., the minor son of S.M.S.R., is a boy from Honduras seeking asylum in the United States. CAIR Coalition is a nonprofit legal services and advocacy organization with its principal place of business in the District of Columbia. CAIR Coalition provides direct legal services to migrant men, women, and children at risk of detention and deportation in the Washington, DC metropolitan area and beyond, including with respect to the credible fear interviews in the course removal procedures, asylum application, and adversarial proceedings in immigration courts. RAICES is a nonprofit legal services and advocacy organization with offices in San Antonio, Austin, Corpus Christi, Dallas, Fort Worth and Houston, Texas. Founded in 1986 as the Refugee Aid Project, RAICES has grown to become the largest immigration legal services provider in Texas. Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States. On November 9, 2018, he issued the Proclamation. He is sued in his official capacity. Matthew Whitaker is sued in his official capacity as the putative Acting Attorney General of the United States. Kirstjen M. Nielsen is sued in her official capacity as the Secretary of Homeland Security. Lee Francis Cissna is sued in his official capacity as the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Kevin K. McAleenan, is sued in his official capacity as the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Ronald D. Vitiello, is sued in his official capacity as the Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. James McHenry is sued in his official capacity as the Director of Executive Office for Immigration Review. U.S. Department of Justice is a cabinet-level department of the federal government responsible for enforcement of the laws of the United States. U.S. Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet-level department of the federal government responsible for enforcing the immigration laws of the United States. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is the sub-agency of DHS responsible for conducting interviews of asylum applicants through its asylum officers. U.S. Customs and Border Protection is the sub-agency of DHS responsible for the initial processing and detention of noncitizens who are apprehended at or near U.S. borders. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is the sub-agency of DHS responsible for carrying out removal orders and overseeing immigration detention in the United States. Executive Office for Immigration Review is the sub-agency of DOJ. It is responsible for conducting limited review of negative credible fear determinations made.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal K. Katyal, Esq. T. Clark Weymouth, Esq. Craig A. Hoover, Esq. Justin W. Bernick, Esq. Coleen Roh Sinzdak, Esq. Zachary W. H. Best, Esq. Mitchell P. Reich, Esq. Elizabeth Hagerty, Esq. Kaitlin Welborn, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 2004 Phone: (202) 637-5600 Facsimile: (202) 637-5910 Email: neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com t.weymouth@hoganlovells.com craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com justin.bernick@hoganlovells.com coleen.sinzdak@hoganlovells.com zachary.best@hoganlovells.com mitchell.reich@hoganlovells.com elizabeth.hagerty@hoganlovells.com kaitlin.welborn@hoganlovells.com - and - Manoj Govindaiah, Esq. Curtis F.J. Doebbler, Esq. 1305 N. Flored Street San Antonio, TX 78212 Phone: (210) 222-0964 Facsimile: (210) 212-4856 Email: manoj.govindaiah@raicestexas.org curtis.doebbler@raicestexas.org WELLS FARGO: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Varga Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Linda Moravec Varga filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Linda Varga v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-09650-DMG-KS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint alleges that Wells Fargo intentionally violated its duties under a provision in its own standard loan documents known as Section 4(F). Section 4(F) requires the bank to deliver certain mandatory consumer protections, including the phone number and title of a "single point of contact", who can answer any questions from a borrower, before the effective date of any increases in the interest rates or payments on such ARM's. The purpose of the provision is to provide borrowers with personnel who can assist them with alternatives to foreclosure. The complaint alleges that Wells Fargo intentionally did not comply with the provision 4(F) that Wells Fargo itself drafted, so that it could thwart the consumer protections contained in such provision. Such an alleged intentional non-compliance by Wells Fargo, according to the complaint, resulted in the illegal collection by Wells Fargo of many millions or billions of dollars, and the loss of thousands of borrowers' homes, which may have been saved had they received the consumer protection benefits intended to be afforded by Section 4(F) and its "single point of contact" requirement. The appellate case is captioned as LINDA MORAVEC VARGA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a National Association; DOES, 2-10, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees, and WELLS FARGO AND COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case No. Case No. 18-56572, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- January 25, 2019 -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1; -- February 25, 2019 -- Appellees' answering brief and excerpts of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1; and -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and served within 21 days of service of the appellees' brief, pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.[BN] WELLTOWER INC: Hoffman Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Welltower Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on December 4, 2018, that the plaintiffs in Allyn Hoffman, et al. v. Mark S. Ordan, et al., have agreed to dismiss their complaint with prejudice as moot and the Company has also agreed to a negotiated payment in full. On July 26, 2018, the company completed the acquisition of Quality Care Properties Inc. ("QCP"), pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated as of April 25, 2018, by and among the Company, Potomac Acquisition LLC ("Potomac"), a Delaware limited liability company and subsidiary of the Company, QCP, and certain of QCP's subsidiaries. In accordance with the Merger Agreement, the company acquired all of the outstanding shares of QCP common stock in an all-cash merger (the "Merger"), with QCP shareholders receiving $20.75 of cash for each share of QCP common stock, and all existing QCP debt was repaid upon closing. In connection with the Merger, on July 19, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Allyn Hoffman, et al. v. Mark S. Ordan, et al. was filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland against the members of QCP's Board of Directors (the "Litigation"). The complaint alleges that the members of QCP's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, damages, and an order declaring invalid and unenforceable, and enjoining QCP from enforcing, Article XIV of QCP's Amended and Restated Bylaws, which designates the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, or, if that Court does not have jurisdiction, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division, as the sole and exclusive forum for, among other actions, any action asserting a claim for breach of any duty owed by any director or officer or other employee of QCP to QCP or to the stockholders of QCP or any standard of conduct applicable to the directors of QCP (the "Exclusive Forum Bylaw"). The company believes that the claims asserted in the Litigation are without merit. However, in order to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company has determined that it will cause QCP and any former QCP officers or directors to enforce the Exclusive Forum Bylaw only to the extent that it designates the Maryland Circuit Courts, or, if those Courts do not have jurisdiction, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division, as the sole and exclusive forum for actions subject to the Exclusive Forum Bylaw ("Covered Actions"), and not to the extent that it requires Covered Actions to be filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. Welltower said, "In exchange for the Company's agreement to cause QCP not to enforce the Exclusive Forum Bylaw to require the filing of Covered Actions in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss their complaint with prejudice as moot and the Company has also agreed to a negotiated payment in full satisfaction of any claim for attorneys' fees and expenses that plaintiffs and their counsel might otherwise have. This payment is not material to the business or financial condition of the Company." Welltower Inc., an S&P 500 company headquartered in Toledo, Ohio, is driving the transformation of health care infrastructure. The company invests with leading seniors housing operators, post-acute providers and health systems to fund the real estate infrastructure needed to scale innovative care delivery models and improve people's wellness and overall health care experience. WHITE CASTLE FOOD: Cothron Sues over Collection of Biometric Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- LATRINA COTHRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WHITE CASTLE FOOD PRODUCTS, LLC D/B/A WHITE CASTLE, and CROSS MATCH TECHNOLOGIES, INC., the Defendants, Case No.: 2018CH15233 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Dec. 6, 2018), seeks to redress and curtail Defendants' unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs sensitive biometric data. According to the complaint, when White Castle hires an employee, he or she is enrolled in its DigitalPersona employee database using a scan of his or her fingerprint. White Castle uses the DigitalPersona employee database to distribute their employees' paystubs on a weekly basis. While many employers use conventional methods for payroll (direct deposit or paper check), White Castle's employees are required to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric device to retrieve their paystubs. Biometrics are not relegated to esoteric corners of commerce. Many businesses -- such as Defendants -- and financial institutions have incorporated biometric applications into their workplace in the form of biometric authenticators, and into consumer products, including such ubiquitous consumer products as checking accounts and cell phones. Unlike ID badges -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes White Castle's employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a database containing fingerprints or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed -- like in the recent Yahoo, eBay, Equifax, Uber, Home Depot, MyFitnessPal, Panera, Whole Foods, Chipotle, Omni Hotels & Resorts, Trump Hotels, and Facebook/Cambridge Analytica data breaches or misuses -- employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and private information, the lawsuit says. White Castle Food Products, LLC is a food retailer that processes and distributes fast food products in retail stores and restaurants nationally. Cross Match Technologies, Inc. is a technology company that provides software and hardware that tracks and monitors employees' biometric data to companies worldwide.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312 233.1550 Facsimile: 312 233.1560 E-mail: Aficzko@stephanzouras.com WS ENERGY: Medina Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------- MANUEL MEDINA, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons, the Plaintiff, vs. WS ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00431 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 3, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Mr. Manuel Medina worked for Defendant as an operator from February 17, 2018 until October 4, 2018. Medina's duties included, but were not limited to, running operations in the torque and test division, testing stresses on pipes and other machinery, and related duties. Mr. Medina carried out the same work done by the other individuals who were on his crew and actually participated frequently in the field work being done. Mr. Medina spent the majority of his time working outside and in the field. During his tenure with the Defendant, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff is and was paid in various ways. Initially, Plaintiff was paid on a pure salary basis for the first five months of work. After that time, Plaintiff was paid a salary and a bonus. Plaintiff was not paid time and one half for hours worked over forty at any time. There was no clear mutual understanding that Defendant was paying Plaintiff for all hours worked on a fluctuating basis, the lawsuit says. WS Energy Services was founded in 2010. The company's line of business includes providing oil and gas services.[BN] Attorney for Manuel Medina: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, Texas 77018 Telephone: 713 868-3388 Facsimile: 713 683-9940 E-mail: tpadgettlaw@gmail.com YETI COOLERS: Sued over Deceptive Rambler Colster Product --------------------------------------------------------- LANCE PEROUTKA, NIKKI PRIBOW and OTIS FUNG, individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Yeti Coolers, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06827 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2018), seeks to remedy deceptive and misleading business practices of Defendant with respect to the marketing and sales of the Yeti Rambler Colster product throughout the States of Wisconsin and New York, and throughout the United States. According to the complaint, the Product is purportedly designed and marketed as a drastic improvement over standard can and bottle coolers that keep consumers' drinks cold. Defendant claims that the Product keeps drinks cold "so long that you'll have to re-think your understanding of a few natural laws." The Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes the Product using a marketing and advertising campaign centered around claims that widely appeal to outdoorsmen and women, fishermen and hunters alike. It claims the Product's so-called "Load-and-Lock Gasket" technology secures drinks in place and fits cans and bottles "like a glove -- a glove with double-wall vacuum insulation," and that its "No Sweat Design keeps your hands dry while your drink stays cold." However, Defendant's advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading because the Product does not in fact fit cans and bottles "like a glove." Rather, the Product's design actually permits cans and bottles to easily slip out of the casing while consumers attempt to drink. The friction created when the Load-and-Lock technology is used with certain aluminum cans produces metal shavings which can be ingested by the consumer and/or produce a metallic taste. The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated relied on Defendant's misrepresentations that the Product would fit standard 12 oz. cans and bottles without slipping out of the Product when purchasing the Product. The Plaintiffs and Class Members paid a premium for the Product over and above comparable cooler products that purport to keep beverages cold. Given that Plaintiffs and Class Members paid a premium for the Product based on Defendant's misrepresentations, Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid. Defendant's conduct violated and continues to violate, inter alia, Wisconsin Statute section 100.18, New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350, the consumer protection statutes of all 50 states, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Defendant breached and continues to breach its express and implied warranties regarding the Product. Defendant has been and continues to be unjustly enriched through its continued marketing and sale of the Product. Despite the Product having the problems, Defendant markets it as a significant improvement in holding cans and bottles, the lawsuit says. Yeti is an Austin, Texas-based manufacturer of outdoor lifestyle products such as ice chests, vacuum-insulated stainless-steel drinkware, soft coolers, and related accessories.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Jacob E. Miota, Esq. MIOTA LAW LLC 1400 E. Olive Street Milwaukee, WI 53211-1828 Telephone: 414 973.9305 Facsimile: 414 386.4675 E-mail: jmiota@miotalaw.com - and - Michael C. Lueder, Esq. HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC 301 N Broadway, Suite 400 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 Telephone: 414 455 7676 Facsimile: 414 273 8476 E-mail: mlueder@hansenreynolds.com YORK RISK: Oliver Sues over Unauthorized Text Message Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY OLIVER, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC., a New York corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH14581 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Nov. 26, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's practice of making unauthorized text message calls to consumer's cellular telephones, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. According to the complaint, in an attempt to streamline its claim management services, Defendant, an insurance adjustment and claims agency, engaged in an invasive and unlawful form of communication through the transmission of unauthorized text message calls to the cellular telephones of consumers throughout the nation. By effectuating these unauthorized text message calls, the Defendant and its agents have violated the called parties' statutory rights and have caused consumers actual harm, not only because consumers were subjected to the aggravation and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies unauthorized automated text messages, but also because consumers, like Plaintiff, must frequently pay their cell phone service providers or incur a usage allocation deduction from their calling plans for the receipt of such messages, notwithstanding that the text messages were made in violation of specific legislation on the subject, the lawsuit says. York Risk Services Group, Inc. provides claims and risk management services in the United States and internationally.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Facsimile: (312) 275-7895 E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com YORKVILLE MANSION: Elena Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- ERIC RIVERA ELENA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. YORKVILLE MANSION INC. (D/B/A THE MANSION), JOHN PHILIPS, PHILIP PHILIPS, JOHN DOE, and FRANKLIN GUERRERO (A.K.A. FRANK), the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10862 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants. The Defendants own, operate, or control an American restaurant, located at 1634 York Ave, New York, NY 10028. The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker at the restaurant. However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to bringing up products from the basement to the kitchen for the cooks, organizing and stocking big inventory orders such as vegetables, peeling potatoes and onions, cleaning the bathroom, cleaning the kitchen, wiping down surfaces, mopping and sweeping the kitchen, taking out trash and taking construction materials upstairs into the building (non-tipped duties). The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES , P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: failace@employmentcompliance.com ZALE DELAWARE: Lovette Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit captioned Gordon Henry Lovette individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Zale Delaware, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.: 37-02018-00055549-CU-NP-CTL, was moved from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Dec. 3, 2018. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 3:18-cv-02727-L-RBB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge M. James Lorenz. The suit alleges violations related to Contract Product Liability claims. Zale Delaware, Inc., doing business as Piercing Pagoda, operates a network of jewelry retail kiosks in various shopping malls in the United States and Puerto Rico.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com Attorneys for Defendant: Dhruv Mohan Sharma, Esq. McGlinchey Stafford 18201 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 350 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 381-5900 Facsimile: (949) 271-4040 E-mail: dsharma@mcglinchey.com ********* 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 ***