/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190110.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 10, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 8 Headlines ACCC INSURANCE: Whitfield Files Suit in Mississippi AIRPORT INN: Sandra Aguiar Files Class Action ALL NIPPON: Feb. 10 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ALL YEAR MANAGEMENT: Fischler Files Suit under ADA in New York ALLURA USA: Friday Sues over Defective Fiber Cement Siding AMAZON.COM, LLC: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Stewart Claims ANA RECOVERY: Cheesman Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA ANVIL NY LLC: Diaz Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages and Unpaid Tips APHRIA INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action APHRIA INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone X Series Screen Size ARIA ASIAN: Violates FLSA, Zhang Suit Says BADCOCK HOME: Class Certification in Wilson TCPA Suit Denied BANK OF AMERICA: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss ICFA's Galvan Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Sued by Chiang Over Inaccurate Credit Reports BLUE APRON: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bids in Sciabacucchi Suit BLUE HILLS: Parshall Class Action Suit Dismissed BOJANGLES' INC: Franchi Seeks to Halt Walker Parent Merger BUTTS COUNTY, GA: COOSA Nation Files Tort Class Suit CAL-MAINE FOODS: Still Defend Egg Products Suit by Kraft et al. CALIFORNIA ADDICTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dortch Alleges CANARY: Faces Class Action in New York Over Monitoring Fee CENTRAL PARK BOATHOUSE: Reyes Seeks Minimum Wages and OT Pay CHAPPAQUA CENTRAL: Pacher Files Class Action COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Feb. 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set COLORADO BOXED BEEF: Faison Seeks Unpaid Wages CONAGRA BRANDS: Briseno Class Action Suit Still Ongoing CONAGRA BRANDS: Continues to Defend Rosenblatt Class Action CONAGRA BRANDS: Karlson Sues over Savings Plan Benefits CONAGRA BRANDS: Parties Agree to Dismiss Investors' Suit CONAGRA BRANDS: Still Defends Negrete Suit in California DELICIOUS HOSPITALITY: Fischler Files Suit under ADA in New York DEUTSCHE BANK: 3d Cir Affirms Rulings in Salvati Suit DOLLAR TREE: Settlement in Nakooka Labor Suit Has Prelim Approval EFINANCIAL, LLC: Willis Sues Unwanted Cellular Telephone Calls ENERGEN RESOURCES: To Produce Royalty Owners' Info in Ulibarri Suit ENTREVOICE VIRTUAL: Hobbs & Jackson Sue over Telemarketing Calls EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Friedman Files Consumer Credit Class Action EQUINIX LLC: Hanna to Recover Overtime Pay, Wage Differentials EVERETT FINANCIAL: Cowen Sues for Breach of Employment EXPEDIA INC: Faces Church Class Suit Over Inflated Taxes & Fees FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE: Yargeau Files Suit in Massachusetts FEDEX GROUND: Court Denies Certification of Carrow Class of Drivers FLINT, MI: Rosenthal Appeals Ruling in Waid Suit to 6th Circuit FORD MOTOR: Bid to Stay Distribution of Notices in Van Suit Denied FRENCH CONNECTION: Diaz Brings ADA Class Action in NY GIMME COFFEE: Diaz Files Suit under ADA in S.D. New York GLOBAL CONNECTIONS: Borozny Files Suit under ADA in Florida GLOBAL CREDIT: Geisinsky Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach HEALTH CAROUSEL: Schwendeman Seeks Overtime Pay & Benefits HIG CAPITAL: Court Narrows Claims in Klein Suit HIGHLINE RESIDENTIAL: Olsen Brings ADA Class Action HITO RESTAURANT: Zhang Suit Asserts FLSA Violation HONEST & QUALITY: Underpays Construction Workers, Li & Kang Claim INTERNATIONAL SPEEDWAY: Faces Firemen S Retirement Suit in Florida JUST AN OVEN: Violates Disabilities Act, Fischler Suit Asserts KELAI CORP: Violates FLSA, Feng Suit Asserts LABORERS' WELFARE: Faces Jimenez Labor Suit in N.D. Illinois LATIN GROUP: Romero Seeks Overtime Pay for Kitchen Staff LEVAIN BAKERY: Files Diaz Class Action Asserting ADA Breach LOST DOG: Settlement in Diaz Suit Over Unpaid OT Has Prelim Okay LUGG INC: Aggrieved Employee Files Class Action LYFT INC: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Wickberg Suit MARRIOTT INT'L: Fails to Secure Customers' Private Info, Aigen Says MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Taylor Sues over Starwood Data Breach MASONITE CORP: Dellatore Sues Over Monopoly of Molded Doors MONSANTO COMPANY: Weavers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup NCR CORP: Galasso Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay NORDSTROM INC: Faces Amy Suit in Central District of California OCEAN FINANCIAL: Lussoro Files Suit for Breach of Contract OHR PHARMA: Awaits Court Decision on Bid to Strike N.Y. Suit ON TRAC INC: Court Endorses Approval of Price FLSA Suit Settlement ORCHIDS PAPER: Court Enters Order of Dismissal in Pollock Suit PANALPINA INC: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Portuondo Suit Claims PENNYMAC FINANCIAL: Denial of Arbitration Bids in Smigelski Upheld PPG INDUSTRIES: Lamartz and Bass Seek Overtime Pay PRIMERITUS FINANCIAL: Boudreau Sues for Breach of Employment RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Sued over Debt Collection Practices RED HAT: Agreement to Dismiss IBM Merger Suits Reached RED HAT: Kent Balks at Merger Deal with IBM ROYAL DUTCH: Faces Fuentes Suit over No Poach Agreements SABRINA USA: Faces Zhang Suit Over FLSA Violation SAFEMARK SYSTEMS: Gorss Motels Appeals Judgment to 11th Cir. SAHARA DREAMS: Amended Kwan FLSA Suit Dismissed SCHWAN'S HOME: Lundbom Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages SEQUIUM ASSET: Giometti Files Suit in S.D. Calif. STATE FARM: Can Compel Replies to Discovery Request in MAO-MSO Suit STEW LEONARD'S: Franklin Sues over Sale of Fish Products TD AMERITRADE: Seeks 8th Circuit Review of Ruling in Klein Suit TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Faces Colburn Suit in District of Maryland TEXAS: Does 1-7 Appeal N.D. Texas Decision to Fifth Circuit TOYOTA MOTOR: Denia Hedge Sues over Wage and Hour Violations TRIPROP CLEARWATER: Borozny Files Suit under ADA in Florida UNITED MOTORS: Marsh Seeks Minimum Wages for Sales Reps UNITED STATES: Akins Files Suit in Court of Federal Claims UNITED STATES: DOD Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Kuang Suit VERIZON WIRELESS: Hudson Seeks Unpaid Wages for Sales Reps VILLAGE AUTO WASH: Oviedo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation WALMART TRANSPORTATION: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in Luna FCRA Suit WM RESTAURANT: Zhang Files Suit for FLSA Violation ********* ACCC INSURANCE: Whitfield Files Suit in Mississippi --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ACCC Insurance Company over an insurance contract. The case is styled as Janice Whitfield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCC Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00892-CWR-LRA (S.D. Miss., December 28, 2018). ACCC Insurance Company is an Insurance company in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald E. Stutzman , Jr., Esq. THE STUTZMAN LAW FIRM, PLLC 106 Luckney Station Road, Suite B Flowood, MS 39232 Tel: (769) 208-5683 Fax: (601) 202-3022 Email: rstutzman@stutzmanlawfirm.com AIRPORT INN: Sandra Aguiar Files Class Action --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Airport Inn Inc. in the New York Supreme Court, Nassau County on December 18, 2018. The case is styled as Sandra Aguiar, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Airport Inn Inc., d/b/a Clarion Hotel and Conference Center, Alka Patel, Hitesh Patel and any other related entities, Defendants, Case No. 603675/2018. Airport Inn Inc. owns and operates hotels. The company is based in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. ONE OLD COUNTRY ROAD, STE.347 CARLE PLACE, NY 11514 Tel: (516) 873-9550 The Defendant is represented by: CAMPOLO MIDDLETON & MCCORMICK 4175 VETERANS HIGHWAY #400 RONKONKOMA, NY 11779 Tel: (631) 738-9100 ALL NIPPON: Feb. 10 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------- The following is being released by the law firms of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP and Hausfeld, LLP. There is a lawsuit against All Nippon Airways Company, Limited ("ANA") over the price of airline tickets. Settlements were previously reached with 12 Settling Defendants. The lawsuit continues against the Non-Settling Defendant, ANA. The Court has approved the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of a "class," or group of people. The Court has not decided that ANA did anything wrong; rather, the case is currently scheduled to go to trial. Purchasers included in the Class(es) have rights and may be impacted by the outcome of this lawsuit. The Plaintiffs are asking for money and other benefits from ANA. There is no money available now and no guarantee that there will be. The lawsuit claims that the Defendants agreed to fix prices on tickets for transpacific air travel. As a result, ticket purchasers may have paid more than was necessary. ANA denies any liability, although it has pled guilty to fixing the prices of certain discounted tickets. The lawyers for the Classes will have to prove their claims in Court. There are two Classes included in the lawsuit. Generally, purchasers may be included if: (1) they bought a ticket for air travel from ANA or Japan Airlines between February 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007 and paid a fuel surcharge OR they purchased a ticket between January 1, 2000 and April 1, 2006 for a Satogaeri or "homecoming" fare; and (2) the ticket included at least one flight segment originating in the U.S. to Japan. There are specific exclusions; please review the Class definitions carefully at the website, www.AirlineSettlement.com. Travel agents are only included if they bought tickets for their personal use. The Court has appointed a group of attorneys to represent the Classes as "Class Counsel." Purchasers don't have to pay Class Counsel or anyone else to participate. Instead, if Class Counsel gets money or benefits for the Classes, they may ask for attorneys' fees and costs. Class Members may hire their own lawyer to appear in Court for them at their own expense. If Class Members do nothing, they will be bound by the Court's decisions. To stay in the Class(es), they do not have to do anything. If money or benefits are obtained, they will be notified about how to ask for a share. If Class Members want to keep the right to individually sue ANA apart from this class action, they must exclude themselves from the Class(es) by February 10, 2019. The detailed notice describes how Class Members can exclude themselves. If Class Members exclude themselves, they cannot get money or benefits from this lawsuit if any are awarded. Class Members can register at the website to be kept informed about the outcome of this case. For more information & a detailed notice, please call 1-800-439-1781 or visit www.AirlineSettlement.com. ALL YEAR MANAGEMENT: Fischler Files Suit under ADA in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- All Year Management LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. All Year Management LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07372 (E.D. N.Y., December 27, 2018). All Year Management, a New York-based real estate development firm, has owned, managed and developed dozens in real estate since its founding.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com ALLURA USA: Friday Sues over Defective Fiber Cement Siding ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHN W. FRIDAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ALLURA USA LLC, PLYCEM USA LLC D/B/A ALLURA, PLYCEM USA, INC., ELEMENTIA USA, INC., and ELEMENTIA S.A.B. De. C.V., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02701-JWL-TJJ (D. Kan., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory relief in connection with defective fiber cement siding designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised, produced, distributed, sold, and delivered by Defendants, asserting unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchant ability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendants have misrepresented and continue to misrepresent the nature, quality, and effectiveness of their Siding through their marketing, advertising, and other representations. For example, Defendants explicitly guarantee that their Siding will last at least 50-years; however the Siding begins to manifest premature failure within the first 5 years after installation. The Defendants represent that the Siding will be free from manufacturing defects in material and workmanship. But, the Siding is not free from all manufacturing defects in material and workmanship. The fiber cement Siding is made with excessive amounts of fly ash, causing the Siding to be too brittle for use as an exterior building product. The Defect, while present from at least the point of sale, is latent and, thus, is not discoverable to consumers until later when manifestations of the Defect appear. Manifestations include, but are not limited to the Siding cracking, chipping, flaking, breaking, splitting, and failing to perform as promised. The damages, if left unrepaired, create paths for leakage into the home, causing additional damage to framing, insulation, and other property in the home, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Class: Brittany A. Boswell, Esq. Mitchell Breit, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY 112 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016-7416 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: bboswell@simmonsfirm.com mbreit@simmonsfirm.com AMAZON.COM, LLC: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Stewart Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- KYLE STEWART, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMAZON.COM, LLC, AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., and ON THE GO EXPRESS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05807-WMR (N.D. Ga., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks all available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act, in connection Defendants' unlawful scheme to attempt to avoid responsibility for paying its drivers in accordance with federal wage and hour laws by attempting to contract out that responsibility to third-party Delivery Service Providers, such as Defendant On the GO Express, LLC. According to the complaint, while Amazon controls the work activities, conditions and management of the Drivers, and tracks each package that is delivered by its Drivers using Amazon's sophisticated "Rabbit" technology, it denies that it is a joint employer of Plaintiff and Drivers. The Drivers who deliver Amazon's packages but are paid through On the Go, are paid a day rate and not paid for all time worked, including overtime that is required to deliver hundreds of Amazon packages each day.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed FLSA Collective: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 43 SE Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net - and - Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4620 E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net crodriguez@bm.net - and - Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3600 Facsimile: (215) 567-2310 E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com ANA RECOVERY: Cheesman Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT CHEESMAN v. ANA RECOVERY, LLC, and PATRICK AIKEN, Individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-17282 (D.N.J., December 17, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated seeking recovery of overtime pay from the Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. ANA Recovery, LLC, is a New Jersey limited liability company with its business address listed in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey. Patrick Aiken has been an owner, partner, officer and/or manager of Defendant ANA. The Defendants own, operate or manage an automotive towing service, roadside assistance and heavy truck towing service based from their headquarters in Somers Point, New Jersey, and from a second location in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: Aglenn@jaffeglenn.com jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com ANVIL NY LLC: Diaz Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages and Unpaid Tips ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALBERTO DIAZ, ALEJANDRO CONTRERAS and VINCENT SETTECASI, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ANVIL NY LLC; 29 BEDFORD LLC d/b/a DITCH PLAINS; WEST BROADWAY MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a LAND MARC; TW AT COLUMBUS CIRCLE LLC d/b/a LANDMARC; MARC MURPHY; PAMELA SCHEIN MURPHY; and any other related entities, Case No. 525279/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., December 17, 2018), seeks to recover compensation, including unpaid minimum wages and unpaid tips and gratuities owed to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees in the Defendants' restaurant and catering venues located in the state of New York. Anvil NY LLC is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York with its headquarters and principal place of business located at 218 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 12, in Montclair, New Jersey. 29 Bedford LLC, doing business as Ditch Plains, is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of New York with its headquarters and principal place of business located at 29 Bedford Street, in New York City. West Broadway Management, LLC, doing business as Land Marc, is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of New York with its headquarters and principal place of business located at 179 West Broadway, in New York City. TW at Columbus Circle LLC, doing business as Landmarc, is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of New York with its headquarters and principal place of business located at 10 Columbus Circle, 3rd Floor, in New York City. The Individual Defendants are officers, managers and/or owners of BenchMarc. The Defendants jointly employed the Plaintiffs and putative class members and jointly owned and/or operated the entity commonly known as "BenchMarc," which operated catered events at the Defendants' Land Marc Tribeca, Ditch Plains, and Columbus Circle locations and at off-premises locations in the state of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: 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 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com APHRIA INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Aphria Inc. ("Aphria" or the "Company") (NYSE: APHA) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and indexed under 18-cv-11427, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise, acquired Aphria securities between October 18, 2018, and December 3, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Aphria securities between October 18, 2018, and December 3, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have until February 4, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Aphria is headquartered in Leamington, Canada. The Company produces and sells medical cannabis in Canada and internationally. The Company offers sativa, indica, and hybrid medical marijuana products, as well as cannabis oils. It serves patients and health professionals. The Company also sells its products online. On January 29, 2018, the Company announced its acquisition of Nuuvera Inc. ("Nuuvera") for approximately C$826 million, which was completed on March 23, 2018 (at a reduced price valued at approximately C$425 million). Announcing the acquisition, the Company touted Nuuvera as "a leading, global cannabis company with a strong presence in Europe, Africa and the Middle East[.]" Then, on July 17, 2018, the Company issued a press release announcing its planned expansion into Latin America and the Caribbean, through a massive transaction whereby Aphria acquired Scythian Biosciences Inc. ("Scythian") for approximately C$280 million, in cash and Company stock. According to various public statements by the Company and media reports, Andy DeFrancesco ("DeFrancesco"), controller of the Delavaco Group ("Delavaco"), a purported private equity fund, participated in the founding investment of Aphria. DeFrancesco and the Delavaco Group have purportedly invested or advised on every Aphria equity financing. 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) Aphria engaged in numerous fraudulent acquisitions and transactions in order to provide undisclosed benefits to its insiders; (ii) Aphria substantially overpaid for the assets it acquired in 2018, which in reality had questionable value or were worthless; (iii) Aphria acquired these assets from undisclosed related parties, including Andy DeFrancesco; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On December 3, 2018, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published an article entitled "Aphria: A Shell Game with a Cannabis Business on the Side," alleging that "Aphria is part of a scheme orchestrated by a network of insiders to divert funds away from shareholders into their own pockets." The article cited a thorough, on-the-ground investigation into Aphria's latest investments and described in detail the poor quality and questionable value of those investments. Following publication of the Hindenburg article, Aphria's stock price fell $1.85 per share, or roughly 23.4%, to close at $6.05 per share on December 3, 2018. Then, on December 4, 2018, the Financial Post published an interview with DeFrancesco to address the allegations described above. DeFrancesco seemingly confirmed his participation in the transactions, stating that the use of shell companies was not unusual in private equity transactions and defending the quality of the assets. On this news, Aphria's stock price fell an additional $1.54 per share, or 25.45%, to close at $4.51 per share on December 4, 2018. Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Telephone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980 Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] APHRIA INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/aphria/)disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Aphria Inc. (NYSE:APHA) common stock during the period between November 2, 2018 and November 30, 2018 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the Southern District of New York and is captioned Curkan v. Aphria Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-11428. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Aphria common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/aphria/. The complaint charges Aphria and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Aphria is a cannabis company based in Ontario, Canada. The complaint alleges that Aphria and its senior executives issued materially false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company's acquisition of cannabis-related assets in Latin America and the Caribbean (the "Acquisition"). As a result, Aphria common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Then, on December 3, 2018, analyst firms Hindenburg Research and Quintessential Capital Management issued a report and presentation that charged defendants with orchestrating a series of self-dealing transactions via the Acquisition in order to secretly funnel tens of millions of dollars' worth of Aphria assets to Company insiders and their affiliates in exchange for assets that were worth a fraction of their purported value (if anything). The report and its accompanying presentation encompassed collectively over 100 pages and included extensive corroborating evidence for the findings of fact contained therein, including on-site visits and photographs of the acquired assets and associated properties in the various host countries, interviews with personnel associated with the assets acquired in the Acquisition, government records, proprietary analysis and fact-gathering, and a review of additional supporting source material. On this news, the price of Aphria stock plummeted, dropping approximately 25% to close at $6.05 per share on December 3, 2018 on unusually large volume of over 35 million shares. On December 3 and December 4, 2018, Aphria issued statements denying the findings contained in the Report. However, Aphria's response failed to substantively address many of the issues of malfeasance and self-dealing that the Report had raised. On this news, the price of Aphria stock again fell approximately 25% to close at $4.51 per share on December 4, 2018 on abnormally large volume of over 29 million shares. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Aphria common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Website: www.rgrdlaw.com Telephone: (484) 258 – 1585 (888) 715 – 1740 Email: djr@rgrdlaw.com SRudman@rgrdlaw.com DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com [GN] APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone X Series Screen Size -------------------------------------------------------------- Allen Cone, writing for UPI, reports that Apple is accused of lying about its iPhone X series' screen size and pixel count, according to a lawsuit.' In the suit filed on Dec. 14 in U.S. District Court of Northern California, two plaintiffs are seeking class-action status, alleging Apple falsely advertised specifications in its iPhone X, iPhone XS and iPhone XS Max devices. Apple didn't respond to a request for comment by Cnet on the suit filed on Dec. 14. According to the 55-page lawsuit, Apple uses non-screen areas like the notch and corners in advertising the screen sizes. The latest versions of the iPhones aren't "all screen" as marketed. For example, iPhone X's screen size was "only about 5.6875 inches" compared with the 5.8 inches' advertised size. The resolution is listed as 2436x1125 pixels but in actuality it is about 10 percent less at 2195 x 1125, according to the lawsuit. The products don't contain true pixels with red, green and blue subpixels in each pixel and instead are "fake" ones, according to the complaint. Instead Apple allegedly uses a "pentile" structure where five subpixels are arranged in a diamond shape. Also, the iPhone X allegedly only has two subpixels per pixel, which is less than advertised, according to the complaint said. In fact an older model, the iPhone 8 Plus, has a higher-quality screen than iPhone X. The specification sheet of any iPhone explains dimensions, including whether it has a notch. For the screen size, Apple has this caveat: "when measured as a standard rectangle shape, the screen is 5.85 inches diagonally (actual viewable area is less)." In March, customers sued the company in 59 separate lawsuits over a software tweak that lowers some older iPhones' speed. And in June, plaintiffs sued Apple for $5 million in damages over the screen of Apple Watch's tendency to "crack, shatter or detach from the body of the watch." [GN] ARIA ASIAN: Violates FLSA, Zhang Suit Says ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aria Asian Corp. The case is styled as Yu Zhang, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aria Asian Corp. doing business as: Aria Asian Fusion Sushi, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12330 (S.D. N.Y., December 29, 2018). The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Aria Asian Corp. is a Sushi restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. BADCOCK HOME: Class Certification in Wilson TCPA Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, VICTORIA WILSON, Plaintiff, v. BADCOCK HOME FURNITURE, Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-02739-T-02AAS (M.D. Fla.), Judge William F. Jung of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, denied (i) the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification; and (ii) the motions to strike and exclude. In 2013, Customer L. purchased furniture at a store in Tampa operated by the Defendant. To make the purchase on credit, Customer L. provided personal information to Defendant, including his phone number. Three years later, Customer L.'s account became delinquent and the Defendant made automated calls to the provided number to inquire about the debt. During the time frame of the calls, the Plaintiff's grandmother was the subscriber of the number and the Plaintiff was the user of the phone. The wireless carrier was Metro PCS/T-Mobile. The Defendant called the Plaintiff at least 30 times and left at least 12 pre-recorded voice messages. The Plaintiff claims she attempted to tell the Defendant to stop calling, though her phone records show no outgoing calls to any of the numbers the Defendant used to call the Plaintiff's number or to the number identified in the voice messages as the call-back number. On Nov. 15, 2017, she picked up a call from the Defendant for the first time and advised the caller that the number was wrong. The Defendant has not called since then, although the lawsuit was served shortly thereafter. The Plaintiff filed her Complaint on Nov. 13, 2017, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). She seeks to certify a class, which would include (1) all persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) the Defendant placed a non-emergency telephone call (4) using substantially the same system(s) that were used to telephone the Plaintiff (5) from March 6, 2014 through the present and (6) where the Defendant's call records report a wrong number associated with said cellular telephone number. The Defendant opposes the motion, arguing that the Plaintiff lacks Article III standing and that the proposed class does not satisfy the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Jung finds that even if the Plaintiff's purported class satisfies the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a), he has serious concerns about the proposed class' ascertainability and that the questions of law or fact common to the class members do not predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Having also determined that the Plaintiff does not satisfy Rule23(b)(3), the Judge says he needs not address the remaining requirements. He denied the requested class certification. The Judge also denied the motions to strike and exclude for the reasons stated at the hearing. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/TnmNsa from Leagle.com. Victoria Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Geoffrey E. Parmer -- Geoff@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com -- The Consumer Protection Firm, PLLC, Heather Helaine Jones, The Consumer Protection Firm, PLLC, William Peerce Howard -- Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com -- The Consumer Protection Firm, PLLC & Keith J. Keogh -- Keith@keoghlaw.com -- Keogh Law, LTD. Badcock Home Furniture, Defendant, represented by Christopher L. DeCort -- cdecort@jclaw.com -- Johnson & Cassidy, P.A., John Eamon Johnson -- jjohnson@jclaw.com -- Johnson & Cassidy, P.A. & James Jeffrey Burns, Johnson & Cassidy, P.A.. BANK OF AMERICA: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss ICFA's Galvan Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSEFA and DOMINGO GALVAN, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 18 C 200 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Harry D. Leinenweber of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (i) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike, and (ii) granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Bank of America ("BOA") seeking damages as a result of BOA's alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act ("ICFA"). They also claim Unjust Enrichment. The gravamen of their claim is that BOA charged them a "Legal Order Fee" for responding to a garnishment proceeding filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County seeking to garnish their BOA savings account and that it did not refund the fee after the Circuit Court reversed the garnishment and ordered the fee returned. The Circuit Court reversed the garnishment because the Plaintiffs claimed a so-called "wild card" exemption to the garnishment authorized by Illinois law. BOA has moved to dismiss the Complaint alleging that it, as a national banking institution, has a right to charge such a legal order fee when responding to a garnishment. In support, it attached to its Motion the opinion of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC") and its savings account agreement with the Plaintiffs which authorizes the charging of such a fee. In response, the Plaintiffs move to strike these exhibits as documents not referenced in the Complaint and thus outside the four corners of the Complaint, citing Levenstein v. Salafsky, 164 F.3d 345, 347 (7th Cir. 1998). The Plaintiffs also contend in their response brief that the garnishment froze their checking account where their Social Security payments were deposited rather than their savings account in violation of Illinois law. Judge Leinenweber denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to strike certain documents in BOA's Motion to Dismiss. He finds that the OCC letter is not evidence but is a record memorializing an agency's interpretation of the statute and regulations that it administers and may be considered the same as any source of law. The OCC has determined that national banks are authorized to charge service fees for the garnishment process and a court may consider such a determination. A bank that is subject to a garnishment is obligated to answer the interrogatories served on it correctly, file them with the clerk of court, serve notice on the parties, and follow the orders of the court. If the bank mistakenly fails to freeze the asset, it could lead to liability to the judgment creditor. A charge of $125 is not unreasonable, although whether it is or not does not bear on the issue of alleged violation of the ICFA. The Judge granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. He holds that a claim of violation of the Consumer Fraud Act may be based on either deceptive conduct or unfair conduct. In the case, there is no deceptive conduct. The Plaintiffs agreed to the fees in a clearly disclosed written agreement. T he amount of the fees is not unfair because the Plaintiffs had a choice -- i.e., go with a bank that maintained lower fees—and they do not claim that they had a lack of choice. Assuming BOA is guilty of violating a state court order, the Judge finds that the correct procedure would be to request an order of contempt from the Circuit Court. Failure to return a $125 fee in violation of a state court order does not constitute fraudulent conduct, nor does it justify a federal lawsuit. Finally, he holds that the Plaintiffs cannot also maintain a claim for unjust enrichment. Unjust enrichment does not constitute an independent cause of action but is a condition that may be brought about by unlawful or improper conduct as defined by law, such as fraud, duress or undue influence, or based on a contract implied in law. In the case, there is no fraud, duress, or undue influence and the parties have a contract so there is no basis for a contract implied in law. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/xd2N1b from Leagle.com. Domingo Galvan, Individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated & Josefa Galvan, Individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Glen Joseph Dunn, Jr. -- gdunn@gjdlaw.com -- Glen J. Dunn & Associates, Jeffrey Grant Brown -- jeff@jgbrownlaw.com -- Jeffrey Grant Brown, P.C. & Angel Petrov Bakov -- abakov@gjdlaw.com -- Glen Dunn & Associates, Ltd. Bank of American, N.A., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Jeanne Ireland -- eireland@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice & Ross Jacob Corbett -- rcorbett@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn, LLP. BANK OF AMERICA: Sued by Chiang Over Inaccurate Credit Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- GARY CHIANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA and EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-17287-BRM-LHG (D.N.J., December 17, 2018), is brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act alleging that Experian has failed to follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum accuracy of credit reports it prepared concerning the Plaintiff and others by reporting a balance above zero for accounts listed as discharged in bankruptcy. Mr. Chiang also alleges that Experian has negligently and recklessly disseminated false information regarding his credit. He further alleges that Experian and Bank of America have failed to investigate credit report inaccuracies in response to his disputes. Bank of America is a nationally chartered banking association with its principal offices located at 100 N. Tryon Street, in Charlotte, North Carolina. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., is a corporation incorporated in the state of Florida with its principal place of business located in Costa Mesa, California. Experian is one of the largest credit reporting agencies in the United States, and is engaged in the business of assembling and disseminating credit reports concerning hundreds of millions of consumers. Experian is a "consumer reporting agency" as defined by the FCRA, and is regularly engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and dispersing information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Marcus, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com BLUE APRON: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bids in Sciabacucchi Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MATTHEW SCIABACUCCHI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW B. SALZBERG, JULIE M.B. BRADLEY, TRACY BRITT COOL, KENNETH A. FOX, ROBERT P. GOODMAN, GARY R. HIRSHBERG, BRIAN P. KELLEY, KATRINA LAKE, STEVEN ANDERSON, J. WILLIAM GURLEY, MARKA HANSEN, SHARON MCCOLLAM, ANTHONY WOOD, RAVI AHUJA, SHAWN CAROLAN, JEFFREY HASTINGS, ALAN HENDRICKS, NEIL HUNT, DANIEL LEFF, and RAY ROTHROCK, Defendants, and BLUE APRON HOLDINGS, INC., STITCH FIX, INC., and ROKU, INC., Nominal Defendants, C.A. No. 2017-0931-JTL, Judge J. Travis Laster of the Court of Chancery of Delaware (i) granted the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and (ii) denied the Defendants' motions for summary judgment. On June 1, 2017, nominal Defendant Blue Apron filed a registration statement with the SEC for its shares of common stock and launched an initial public offering. Blue Apron is a Delaware corporation. Before filing its registration statement, it adopted a charter-based Federal Forum Provision. On Sept. 1, 2017, nominal Defendant Roku filed a registration statement with the SEC for its shares of common stock and launched an initial public offering. Roku is a Delaware corporation. Before filing its registration statement, it adopted a charter-based Federal Forum Provision. On Oct. 19, 2017, Stitch Fix filed a registration statement with the SEC for its shares of common stock and launched an initial public offering. Stitch Fix is a Delaware corporation. Before filing its registration statement, it adopted a charter-based Federal Forum Provision. Roku and Stitch Fix adopted substantively identical provisions that unless the Company consents in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the federal district courts of the United States of America will be the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act of 1933. Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in any security of the Corporation will be deemed to have notice of and consented to the provision. Blue Apron hedged a bit. Its provision states that the federal district courts of the United States of America shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the sole and exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act of 1933. Except for this phrase, its provision tracked the other two. Plaintiff Sciabacucchi bought shares of common stock under each nominal defendant's registration statement, either in the initial public offering or shortly thereafter. He therefore could sue under Section 11 of the 1933 Act to address any material misstatements or omissions in the registration statements. He likewise could sue under Section 12(a)(1) to enforce the 1933 Act's registration requirements. The Plaintiff potentially could sue under Section 12(a)(2) over a material misstatement or omission in a prospectus.39 On Dec. 29, 2017, Sciabacucchi filed the action. His complaint named as Defendants 20 individuals who signed the registration statements for Blue Apron, Stitch Fix, and Roku and who have served as their directors since they went public. His complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the Federal Forum Provisions are invalid. On March 20, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved the split in federal authority over SLUSA's implications for the jurisdictional and removal provisions in the 1933 Act. The justices held that class actions filed in state court which asserted violations of the 1933 Act could not be removed to federal court. After the decision, under the federal regime, a plaintiff wishing to sue under the 1933 Act could maintain an action in either state or federal court. The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment. Judge Laster explains that the development of the law governing forum-selection provisions indicates that the nominal defendants cannot use the Federal Forum Provisions to specify a forum for 1933 Act claims. Under existing Delaware authority, a Delaware corporation does not have the power to adopt in its charter or bylaws a forum-selection provision that governs external claims. The Federal Forum Provisions purport to regulate the forum in which parties external to the corporation (purchasers of securities) can sue under a body of law external to the corporate contract (the 1933 Act). They cannot accomplish that feat, rendering the provisions ineffective. Based on the foregoing, the Judge entered judgment for the Plaintiff and denied the Defendants' motions for summary judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/3zNe5p from Leagle.com. Kurt M. Heyman -- kheyman@hegh.law -- Melissa N. Donimirski -- mdonimirski@hegh.law -- HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLP Wilmington, Delaware; Jason M. Leviton -- jason@blockesq.com -- Joel A. Fleming -- joel@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, Boston, Massachusetts; Counsel for Plaintiff. William B. Chandler III -- wchandler@wsgr.com -- Randy J. Holland -- rholland@wsgr.com -- Bradley D. Sorrels, Lindsay Kwoka Faccenda -- lfaccenda@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C., Wilmington, Delaware; Boris Feldman , David J. Berger , WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C., Palo Alto, California; Counsel for Defendants Katrina Lake, Steven Anderson, J. William Gurley, Marka Hansen, Sharon McCollam, Anthony Wood, Ravi Ahuja, Shawn Carolan, Jeffrey Hastings, Alan Hendricks, Neil Hunt, Daniel Leff, Ray Rothrock, and Nominal Defendants Stitch Fix, Inc. and Roku, Inc. Catherine G. Dearlove -- dearlove@rlf.com -- Sarah T. Andrade -- andrade@rlf.com -- RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Michael G. Bongiorno, WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, New York, New York; Timothy J. Perla, WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Boston, Massachusetts; Counsel for Defendants Matthew B. Salzberg, Julie M.B. Bradley, Tracy Britt Cool, Kenneth A. Fox, Robert P. Goodman, Gary R. Hirshberg, and Brian P. Kelley, and Nominal Defendant Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. BLUE HILLS: Parshall Class Action Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------ Blue Hills Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on January 4, 2018, 2018, that the lawsuit entitled, Paul Parshall v. David J. Houston Jr. et. al., has been dismissed at the request of plaintiff. On December 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned Paul Parshall v. David J. Houston Jr. et al., naming each Blue Hills director (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"), and Blue Hills as defendants. The Complaint identified Blue Hills as a nominal defendant. The Complaint alleged that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plaintiff and himself and all Blue Hills stockholders other than the named defendants and their affiliates. The relief sought by the Complaint included preliminary and permanent injunction from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the proposed merger, rescission and rescissory damages if the proposed merger is completed, and damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees. By letter to Plaintiff's counsel dated December 27, 2018, counsel for Blue Hills responded to the Complaint, setting forth in detail why the claims raised in the Complaint lacked merit and urged Plaintiff to withdraw the Complaint immediately. On December 28, 2018, the Complaint was dismissed at the request of Plaintiff. In addition, on January 3, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel informed counsel for Blue Hills that Plaintiff would not pursue an action with respect to the claims set forth in the Complaint. Blue Hills Bancorp, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for Blue Hills Bank that provides financial services to individuals, families, small to mid-size businesses, government, and non-profit organizations in Massachusetts. Blue Hills Bancorp, Inc. was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Norwood, Massachusetts. BOJANGLES' INC: Franchi Seeks to Halt Walker Parent Merger ---------------------------------------------------------- Adam Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bojangles', Inc., William A. Kussell, Steven J. Collins, John E. Currie, Christopher J. Doubrava, Tommy L. Haddock, Robert F. Hull, Jr., Starlette Johnson, James R. Kibler, Mark A. Rowan and Steven M. Tadler, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-0981 (D. Del., December 13, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the proposed merger of Bojangles' with Walker Parent, Inc. through its wholly-owned subsidiary Walker Merger Sub, Inc., rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, Bojangles' stockholders will receive $16.10 per share. Bojangles' is a restaurant operator and franchisor specializing in Southern recipes serving biscuit breakfast sandwiches, hand-breaded bone-in chicken, d another various sides. The complaint says the proxy statement filed in connection with the merger contains projections for Bojangles' free cash flow for fiscal years 2018 through 2023, but fails to disclose how these projections were determined and failed to disclose unlevered free cash flows for that same time period. Said statement also provide details of the analysis performed by Merrill Lynch and Houlihan Lokey. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484) 324-6800 Email: rm@maniskas.com BUTTS COUNTY, GA: COOSA Nation Files Tort Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Butts County Georgia. The case is styled as COOSA Nation of North America USA, Dr Monique Y Tate also known as: Sahani Ugidahli also known as: Principal Chieftess Blue Feather, Lamar Perryman also known as: Cate Honvnwv also known as: Principal Chief Red Man, Taliyah Mahli also known as: Chieftess Raging Wind and Myel Tate-Benson also known as: Chieftess Ahniwidu, Plaintiffs v. Butts County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Stewart County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Fulton County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Dekalb County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Randolph County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Quitman County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Bartow County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Muscogee County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Chattahoochee County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Webster County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Seminole County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Chatham County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, District Attorney Cherokee County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Mcintosh County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Coweta County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Athens-Clarke County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Augusta-Richmond County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Putnam County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Dougherty County Georgia and its Commissioners, Mayors, Cities or Municipal Corporations and Unincorporated Areas, Governor of the State of Georgia as the representative of all private and public corporations in the counties and cities of the State of Georgia and their departments, agencies, personnel and employees, in their individual, corporate and official capacities, Secretary of the State of Georgia as the representative of all private and public corporations in the counties and cities of the State of Georgia and their departments, agencies, personnel and employees, in their individual, corporate and official capacities, General Assembly of the State of Georgia as the representative of all private and public corporations in the counties and cities of the State of Georgia and their departments, agencies, personnel and employees, in their individual, corporate and official capacities, Department of Education as the representative of all private and public corporations in the counties and cities of the State of Georgia and their departments, agencies, personnel and employees, in their individual, corporate and official capacities, Commissioner of Georgia Doe as the representative of all private and public corporations in the counties and cities of the State of Georgia and their departments, agencies, personnel and employees, in their individual, corporate and official capacities, Department of Natural Resources as the representative of all private and public corporations in the counties and cities of the State of Georgia and their departments, agencies, personnel and employees, in their individual, corporate and official capacities, Commissioner of Georgia DNR as the representative of all private and public corporations in the counties and cities of the State of Georgia and their departments, agencies, personnel and employees, in their individual, corporate and official capacities and Georgia Council on American Indian concerns as the representative of all private and public corporations in the counties and cities of the State of Georgia and their departments, agencies, personnel and employees, in their individual, corporate and official capacities, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00471-TES (M.D. Ga., December 27, 2018). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as torts to land with respect Indian Tribal Rights. Butts County is a county located in the central part of the U.S. state of Georgia. As of the 2010 census, the population was 23,655. The county seat is Jackson. The county was created on December 24, 1825. Butts County is included in the Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE. CAL-MAINE FOODS: Still Defend Egg Products Suit by Kraft et al. --------------------------------------------------------------- Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended December 1, 2018, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 4, 2019, that the District Court has heard oral argument on the renewed motions for summary judgment but has not issued a ruling. On September 25, 2008, the Company was named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. The cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "District Court"), in three groups of cases -- the "Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action", the "Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action" and the "Non-Class Cases." The Company has settled all of the Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action cases and the Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action cases. The Company also has settled all Non-Class cases except for the claims of certain plaintiffs who sought substantial damages allegedly arising from the purchase of egg products (as opposed to shell eggs). On November 7, 2018, the Company agreed to settle all claims brought by one of these plaintiffs, Conopco, Inc. on a confidential basis and for an amount that does not have a material impact on the Company's financial condition or results. The settlement is, however, reflected in the company's results of operations along with certain other legal settlements and expenses. The Court entered a final judgment dismissing Conopco's claims against the Company on November 21, 2018. The remaining plaintiffs are Kraft Food Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The Kellogg Company. These egg products plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and are attacking certain features of the UEP animal-welfare guidelines and program used by the Company and many other egg producers. On September 6, 2016, the District Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice all claims based on the purchase of egg products. That ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and on January 22, 2018, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case to the District Court. Even though the appealing egg-products plaintiffs had asked the Third Circuit to remand the case for trial, the Third Circuit declined, instead remanding the case for further proceedings, including the suggestion that the District Court determine whether the egg-products plaintiffs had sufficient evidence of causation and damages to submit the case to a jury. On March 5, 2018, defendants filed a motion in the District Court seeking leave to file a motion for summary judgment in light of the remand statements in the Third Circuit's opinion. Plaintiffs opposed that motion, and on March 26, 2018, the defendants filed a reply in support of the motion. On July 16, 2018, the court granted the defendants' motion for leave and on August 17, 2018, defendants filed their motions for summary judgment and requested oral argument. The plaintiffs filed their responses on September 21, 2018, and sur-replies on October 19, 2018, and the defendants filed their replies on October 12, 2018. On December 19, 2018, the District Court heard oral argument on the renewed motions for summary judgment but has not issued a ruling. The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining case as vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes are meritorious and provable. While management believes that the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of the settlements and rulings described above, there is still a reasonable possibility of a material adverse outcome in the remaining egg antitrust litigation. At the present time, however, it is not possible to estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if any, to the Company because of this remaining case. Adjustments, if any, which might result from the resolution of these remaining legal matters, have not been reflected in the financial statements. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. produces, grades, packages, markets, and distributes shell eggs. The company offers specialty shell eggs, such as nutritionally enhanced, cage free, organic, and brown eggs under the Egg-Land’s Best, Land O' Lakes, Farmhouse, and 4-Grain brand names, as well as under private labels. The company was founded in 1957 and is based in Jackson, Mississippi. CALIFORNIA ADDICTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dortch Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- LATOYA DORTCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ADDICTION CENTER; AARON BROWER; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2018-01035151-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Nov. 29, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as behavioral health technician. California Addiction Center LLC, provides drug and alcohol addiction treatment services for individuals and families. It provides treatment services to assist individuals with their substance abuse and mental health issues. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian R. Short, Esq. Dorota A. James, Esq. SHORTLEGAL, APC 350 10th Ave., Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 272-0720 Facsimile: (619) 839-3129 E-mail: Brian@ShortLegal.com E-mail: Dorota@ShortLegal.com CANARY: Faces Class Action in New York Over Monitoring Fee ---------------------------------------------------------- AJ Dellinger, writing for Digital Trends, reports that there are plenty of smart home security cameras out there, and it can be hard to differentiate between the bunch to figure out which one is best for you. Jeff Reifman of Portland, Oregon was looking for the right camera for his home and stumbled on Canary, a security startup that offered a camera with the promise of no monthly fees or subscriptions. Then, according to Mr. Reifman, the company started charging a monthly fee for features that were once free. Now he and a group of other consumers are suing. In a class-action lawsuit filed by Mr. Reifman and other Canary customers in the United States District Court in New York, the company is accused of pulling a bait and switch. In court documents, the consumers claim they purchased Canary devices that promised no additional fees other than the cost of buying the device. That changed come October 2017, when several formerly free features required a monthly payment to access. That included the ability to watch previously recorded videos. "Plaintiffs and other consumers purchased the Products reasonably believing that all key features included with their initial purchase would remain available without any future cost," the lawsuit says. "Had Plaintiffs and other consumers known that Canary would remove the Product's features and place them behind a paywall, they would not have purchased the Products or would have paid significantly less for the Products." In a blog post written by Mr. Reifman in 2017, he claims the sudden decision to put security features behind a paywall essentially rendered the camera useless. He was no longer able to access more than a "preview" of prior recordings, and a night mode feature that made it possible to see action in the house after dark was also shut down. According to Mr. Reifman, without paying a $120 annual fee to once again have access to those elements, the cameras were little more than expensive paperweights. Canary does offer some features for free still, including 30-second video clips after motion is detected, one day video history, and 24/7 live check-ins. For the full video clips, 30 days of saved footage, and a heap of other features like two-way conversations through the camera, users have to pay a $10 per month fee for Canary membership. Canary has not yet commented publicly about the lawsuit. [GN] CENTRAL PARK BOATHOUSE: Reyes Seeks Minimum Wages and OT Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ ERIK LEON REYES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CENTRAL PARK BOATHOUSE, LLC (D/B/A THE LOEB BOATHOUSE), DEAN POLL, MICHAEL AMORE, and RONNY DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11900 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2018), seeks minimum wage and overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a former employee of Central Park Boathouse, LLC. The Defendants own, operate, or control an American restaurant, located at Park Drive North, E 72nd St, New York, NY 10021 under the name "The Loeb Boathouse". The Plaintiff was employed as a food runner and barback at the restaurant. 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 the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff also seeks to recover front and back pay, compensatory and punitive damages for violations of his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the Plaintiff suffered discrimination and harassment by Defendant Michael Amore and Ronny Doe because of his national origin and his gender and sex.[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 CHAPPAQUA CENTRAL: Pacher Files Class Action --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chappaqua Central School District in the New York Supreme Court, Westchester County on December 14, 2018. The case is styled as Michele Pacher, Dr. Michael Kirsch, Margery Kirsch his wife, Mark Soss, Carol Fisher his wife, Dr. Frederick Wilhelm, William Huppuch, Margaret Huppuch his wife, and similarly situated retired Chappaqua Central School District administrative employees and their spouses, Plaintiffs v. Chappaqua Central School District, Defendant, Case No. 70408/2018. The Chappaqua Central School District is a K-12 public school district serving students in Chappaqua, New York, and Millwood, New York, as well as parts of Pleasantville, New York, and Mount Kisco, New York. The current superintendent of schools is Dr. Christine Ackerman.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Wendy S. Deforge, Esq. 8 Airport Park Blvd Latham, NY 12110-6420 The Defendants appears PRO SE. COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Feb. 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE COBALT INTERNATIONAL ENERGY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Lead Case No. 4:14-cv-3428 (NFA) SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who, during the period between March 1, 2011 and November 3, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period") purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Cobalt International Energy, Inc. ("Cobalt"), Cobalt 2.625% Convertible Senior Notes due 2019, and/or Cobalt 3.125% Convertible Senior Notes due 2024 (collectively, "Cobalt Securities"), and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlements; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached three proposed settlements, that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action against the "Settling Defendants," including: (A) The Private equity sponsors who invested in Cobalt prior to its initial public offering and sold certain Cobalt Securities during the Class Period, certain individuals designated to the Cobalt board of directors by the Sponsor Defendants, and a sponsor-affiliated underwriter of certain Cobalt Securities offerings during the class period for $146,850,000 in cash (the "Sponsor/GS&Co. Settlement"); (B) The other underwriters of Cobalt Securities offerings during the class period for $22,750,000 in cash (the "Underwriter Settlement"); and (C) Cobalt and certain of its former officers and directors for $220,000,000, that is payable exclusively from the proceeds of litigation to recover on liability insurance policies preserved through Cobalt's plan in bankruptcy (the "Cobalt Settlement"). The projected recovery in the Cobalt Settlement is between $4,200,000 and $165,700,000. The total recoveries from the Sponsor/GS&Co., Underwriter and Cobalt Settlements (the "Settlements") should total between $173,800,000 and $335,300,000 (the "Settlement Fund"). A hearing will be held on February 13, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Nancy F. Atlas at the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, United States Courthouse, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, TX 77002, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlements should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Settling Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the respective Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement governing each Settlement (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. Each of the three proposed Settlements stands alone and none is contingent on the Court's approval of the other Settlements. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlements, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re Cobalt International Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq, P.O. Box 4109, Portland, OR 97208-4109, 1-877-440-0638. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.CobaltSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlements, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than April 4, 2019. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlements but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than January 23, 2019, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action with respect to the Settling Defendants and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlements. Any objections to the proposed Settlements, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than January 23, 2019, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Cobalt, the other Settling Defendants or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlements, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlements should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10171 (212) 894-7200 aentwistle@entwistle-law.com David R. Stickney, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130-3582 1-800-380-8496 settlements@blbglaw.com Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: In re Cobalt International Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o Epiq P.O. Box 4109 Portland, OR 97208-4109 877-440-0638 www.CobaltSecuritiesLitigation.com By Order of the Court COLORADO BOXED BEEF: Faison Seeks Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------- JEQUAN FAISON, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. COLORADO BOXED BEEF CO., a Florida For Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-03049-JSM-AAS (M.D. Fla., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standard Act. According to Defendant's website -- http://www.ColoradoBoxedBeef.com/-- the Defendant operates and engages in the food industry by procuring, distributing, selling and marketing protein products to its customers. Defendant' s website also indicates they are a leading distributer of refrigerated and frozen products such as beef, pork, poultry, lamb, veal, seafood, cheese, vegetables, lunch meat, and other various dry products. Finally, Defendant's website states the company serves leading independent and chain retailers, cruise lines, food service distributors, amusement parts, and the United States Military throughout the United States and internationally. Due to the Defendant's policies and procedures, Plaintiff, and others who were similarly situated, were deprived of overtime wages for overtime hours actually worked by compensating Plaintiff, and others who were similarly situated, on a per load or per load percentage basis without regard to the number of hours worked in total for the workweek. Defendants' policies and conduct violate the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees, such as Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, to be compensated for their overtime work at a rate of one and one-halftimes their regular rate of pay. See 29 U.S.C. section 207(a), the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Matthew R. Gunter, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 N. Orange Ave., Ste. 1600 P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 867-4791 E-mail : mgunter@forthepeople.com CONAGRA BRANDS: Briseno Class Action Suit Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- ConAgra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 3, 2019, for the quarterly period ended November 25, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from a putative class action suit entitled, Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. Conagra Brands said, "We are party to a number of putative class action lawsuits challenging various product claims made in the Company's product labeling." These matters include Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., in which it is alleged that the labeling for Wesson(R) oils as 100% natural is false and misleading because the oils contain genetically modified plants and organisms. In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted class certification to permit plaintiffs to pursue state law claims. The Company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed class certification in January 2017. The Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the decision and the case has been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. ConAgra Brands said, "While we cannot predict with certainty the results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or business." ConAgra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery & Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice segments. Conagra Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. CONAGRA BRANDS: Continues to Defend Rosenblatt Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 3, 2019, for the quarterly period ended November 25, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Jordan Rosenblatt v. Pinnacle Foods Inc. et al. On August 15, 2018, a purported stockholder of Pinnacle Foods Inc. ("Pinnacle") filed a complaint in a putative class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Jordan Rosenblatt v. Pinnacle Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 2018-0605 (the "Rosenblatt Action"). The Rosenblatt Action alleges that the directors of Pinnacle breached their fiduciary duty of disclosure by filing a preliminary proxy statement that contained materially incomplete and misleading information. The Rosenblatt Action further alleges that Pinnacle, Conagra, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the directors' alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The Rosenblatt Action seeks, among other things, to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, rescission of the merger or an award of rescissory damages should the merger be consummated, an award of damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Conagra and Pinnacle believe the Rosenblatt Action is without merit and intend to vigorously defend it. Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery & Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice segments. Conagra Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. CONAGRA BRANDS: Karlson Sues over Savings Plan Benefits ------------------------------------------------------- BART KARLSON, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the CONAGRA BRANDS RETIREMENT INCOME SAVINGS PLAN, the Plaintiff, vs. CONAGRA BRANDS INC.; CONAGRA BRANDS INC. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE; CONAGRA BRANDS APPEALS COMMITTEE; WILLIAM RYAN EGAN; and DOES NO. 1-10, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08328 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 19, 2018), alleges that Defendants wrongfully denied millions of dollars in benefits to a large number of participants to the ConAgra Brands Retirement Income Savings Plan and their beneficiaries, and violated their fiduciary and other legal duties, pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Defendants base their denial on a "reinterpretation" of the Plan that violates the Plan's clear language, as well as the way Defendants have interpreted and applied the Plan for years. The Defendants' purported "reinterpretation" of the Plan was motivated by their desire to save money. The Plan had more than $1.4 billion in assets as of December 2015 and almost 13,000 participants. Defendants are the Plan's fiduciaries: the Plan Sponsor ConAgra Brands Inc.; ConAgra Brands Inc. Employee Benefits Administrative Committee f/k/a ConAgra Foods, Inc. Employee Benefits Administrative Committee; ConAgra Brands Appeals Committee; William Ryan Egan; and DOES No. 1-10, who are or were members of the Administrative Committee and/or Appeals Committee at any of the pertinent times and whose names are currently unknown. Karlson is one of the terminated employees and was a Plan participant, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiff: Mitchell L. Marinello, Esq. Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq. Mitchell L. Marinello, Esq. Richard G. Douglass, Esq. NOVACK AND MACEY LLP 201 Filbert Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 429-5272 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com mmarinello@novackmacey.com - and - Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 201 Filbert Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 429-5272 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com CONAGRA BRANDS: Parties Agree to Dismiss Investors' Suit -------------------------------------------------------- ConAgra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 3, 2019, for the quarterly period ended November 25, 2018, that the parties in the consolidated class action suit involving the company's acquisition of Pinnacle Foods Inc., stipulated to the dismissal of the consolidated stockholder lawsuits. Certain litigation matters were filed in connection with our acquisition of Pinnacle Foods Inc. On August 7, 2018, a purported stockholder of Pinnacle filed a complaint in a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Alexander Rasmussen v. Pinnacle Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12501. On August 9, 2018, a purported stockholder of Pinnacle filed a complaint in a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Robert H. Paquette v. Pinnacle Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12578. On August 9, 2018, a purported stockholder of Pinnacle filed a complaint in a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Wesley Lindquist v. Pinnacle Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12610. On September 12, 2018, the Court consolidated the three New Jersey Actions (the "Consolidated Actions"), each of which alleged that Pinnacle's preliminary proxy statement, filed with the SEC on July 25, 2018, omitted material information with respect to the merger, rendering it false and misleading and thus that Pinnacle and the directors of Pinnacle violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act as well as Rule 14a-9 under the Exchange Act. The Consolidated Actions further alleged that the directors of Pinnacle violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and sought to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement unless Pinnacle disclosed the allegedly material information that was allegedly omitted from the proxy statement, an award of damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On September 27, 2018, Pinnacle filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission containing supplemental disclosures that substantially mooted the claims raised in the Consolidated Actions regarding the sufficiency of the disclosures in the proxy statement. On October 4, 2018, the parties stipulated to dismissal of the Consolidated Actions. ConAgra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery & Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice segments. ConAgra Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. CONAGRA BRANDS: Still Defends Negrete Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------- ConAgra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 3, 2019, for the quarterly period ended November 25, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from a putative class action suit entitled, Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al. Conagra Brands said, "We are party to matters challenging the Company's wage and hour practices." These matters include a number of putative class actions consolidated under the caption Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California and/or federal law at several current and former Company manufacturing facilities across the State of California. ConAgra Brands said, "While we cannot predict with certainty the results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or business." ConAgra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery & Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice segments. Conagra Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. DELICIOUS HOSPITALITY: Fischler Files Suit under ADA in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- Delicious Hospitality, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Delicious Hospitality, LLC doing business as: Charlie Bird, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12366 (S.D. N.Y., December 31, 2018). Delicious Hospitality, LLC is engaged in the restaurant industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017-6705 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com DEUTSCHE BANK: 3d Cir Affirms Rulings in Salvati Suit ----------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court orders in the case, GENE W. SALVATI; ROSALIND DAVIS; HARRY DAVIS; BRIAN D. MURPHY, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO, a subsidiary of Deutsche Bank, AG; BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS SERVICING, a subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A.; ONEWEST BANK FSB; MCCABE WEISBERG CONWAY, PC, a law firm and debt collector Antonello Boldrini, Appellant, Case No. 18-2280 (3d Cir.) The background of the class action is described in Salvati v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., N.A., 575 F. App'x 49 (3d Cir. 2014), in which the Court remanded for further proceedings on some of the named Plaintiffs' claims. Following its remand, the District Court entered an order preliminary certifying a settlement class and preliminarily approving a class action settlement. The settlement class included certain persons who received certain mortgage foreclosure complaints from McCabe Weisberg & Conway, P.C. Following a notice and opt-out period and a hearing, the District Court entered its final order certifying the class and approving the settlement. The District Court also dismissed the action with prejudice. Appellant Antonello Boldrini is a member of the settlement class who neither opted out nor objected to the settlement. About a month after the District Court approved the settlement, however, Boldrini filed a motion seeking exclusion from the class. In that motion, he admitted that he received timely notice of the proposed class and proposed settlement in an envelope addressed to him and stamped "important information about class action settlement." He claimed, however, that he thought it was "advertising/junk mail, etc." and that he put it aside without reading it until he decided to "reorganize paperwork" after the settlement had been approved. McCabe opposed Boldrini's motion on the ground that he did not claim lack of notice but only that he had not read it, which was not a basis to release him from the already approved settlement. The District Court apparently agreed and denied Boldrini's motion on March 17, 2017. Boldrini did not appeal. One year later, Boldrini filed with the District Court a motion for relief from that ruling under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). He did not rely on any newly discovered evidence, changed circumstances, or new law. Instead, he asserted without explanation that he sold his property in November 2009 (though he still resided there), and he raised conclusory claims of unspecified fraud. T he District Court denied that motion on April 2, 2018. Boldrini then filed a motion for reconsideration of that ruling. He attached a Truth In Lending Act "rescission notice" that he executed on March 2018 purporting to rescind a mortgage loan on the basis of fraud. The District Court denied the motion on May 9, 2018. In doing so, it explained that Boldrini had not raised any ground for Rule 60(b) relief or reconsideration and that his inclusion in the class was a result of his own failure to read his mail, not of any fraud. Boldrini filed another motion for reconsideration and, by text-only order entered May 10, 2018 the District Court denied that motion too. Boldrini appeals pro se from that order. McCabe has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely, and Boldrini has filed a motion to "amend" his notice of appeal along with an amended notice of appeal challenging the District Court's orders as well. The Court finds that it has jurisdiction to review the District Court's order denying Boldrini's Rule 60(b) motion and its orders denying reconsideration of that ruling. It does so for abuse of discretion, and it perceives none. It holds that Boldrini's Rule 60(b) motion could be read as attempting to invoke Rule 60(b)(3) and Rule 60(b)(6), but he made no showing that his inclusion in the settlement class was the result of fraud or some extraordinary circumstance rather than his admitted failure to read his properly labeled mail. Nor did his motions for reconsideration raise anything warranting relief under Rule 59(e). Boldrini's arguments on appeal, which he has raised for the first time on appeal, relate to extraneous or irrelevant matters and do not require discussion. For these reasons, the Court holds that the appeal presents no substantial question and affirmed the judgments of the District Court. It also denied McCabe's motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely, and Boldrini's motion to amend his notice of appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/TEawRy from Leagle.com. DOLLAR TREE: Settlement in Nakooka Labor Suit Has Prelim Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LOVELY NAKOOKA and ELVA REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-03955-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the parties' renewed joint motion for conditional certification of a settlement class, preliminary approval of the parties' proposed settlement, approval of the notice to be sent to the class about the settlement, and the setting of a date for the hearing on final approval of the settlement. The Court denied the original joint motion based on a number of concerns, including an unacceptably low recovery per class member, an unduly broad release, and a number of other significant problems. The denial was without prejudice, and the parties' renewed motion fixes to a satisfactory degree the problems that doomed the original request. Judge Donato finds that (i) the proposed class satisfies the requirements of a settlement class; (ii) the Settlement falls within the range of possible approval as fair, adequate and reasonable, and appears to be the product of arm's-length and informed negotiations and to treat all the Class Members fairly; and (iii) the parties' proposed notice plan is constitutionally sound. For these reasons, the Judge granted the parties' Settlement Agreement, as revised and presented to the Court, preliminary approval. The Judge certified, solely for the purpose of entering a settlement in the matter, the class of all non-exempt hourly store employees employed by Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., in California, during the period from July 13, 2013, to Dec. 13, 2018, and excluding those individuals who already have resolved the claims asserted in the Action, whether by settlement or adjudication. Any Class Member who elects not to participate in the Settlement has until 75 days after the mailing of the Class Notice to submit his or her election not to participate in the Settlement. Any Class Member who wishes to object to the Settlement has until 75 days after the mailing of the Class Notice to mail to the Clerk of Court and the counsel for the parties his or her written objection. The Class Counsel is directed to file their motion for awards of the Class Representative Payments and the Class Counsel Fees and Costs Payment by March 25, 2019. Any Class Member who wishes to object to the requests for the Class Representative Payment or the Class Counsel Fees and Expenses Payment has until 75 days after the mailing of the Class Notice to file with the Clerk of Court and serve on counsel for the parties his or her written objection, pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Class Notice. Judge Donato appointed (i) Rust Consulting, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator; (ii) Plaintiffs Lovely Nakooka and Elva Reyes as the Class Representatives; and (iii) Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Reed W.L. Marcy, Hallie Von Rock, Carey A. James, and Brent A. Robinson of Aiman-Smith & Marcy as the Class Counsel. He directed that the Class Notice will be disseminated according to the notice plan described in the Settlement Agreement and substantially in the form submitted by the parties. Proof of distribution of the Class Notice will be filed by the parties in conjunction with the motion for an order granting final approval of the Settlement. He also directed (i) Dollar Tree to provide to the Settlement Administrator not later than 45 days after the date of this order the Class Members' Data as specified by the Settlement Agreement; and (ii) the Settlement Administrator to create a dedicated website to provide information about the Settlement and the process to object or submit elections not to participate, which will include key filings regarding the Settlement, and mail the approved Class Notice by first-class mail to the Class Members not later than 15 days after receipt of the Class Members' Data. A final approval hearing will be held on July 18, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. Accordingly, the parties will follow the following schedule: a. Feb. 4, 2019 - Dollar Tree to provide to Settlement Administrator with a spreadsheet containing Class Member contact information - 45 days after order granting preliminary approval) b. Feb. 19, 2019 - Settlement Administrator to mail Class Notice to all Class Members (15 days after receiving Class Member information from Dollar Tree) c. March 25, 2019 - Date by which the Class Counsel will submit its motion for Class Representative Payments and Class Counsel Fees and Expenses Payment d. May 6, 2019 - Last day for Class Members to file with the Court objections regarding the Settlement or the Class Representative Payments and the Class Counsel Fees and expenses Payment (75 days after Settlement Administrator mails Class Notice to all Class Members) e. May 6, 2019 - Last day the for Class Members to submit a valid election not to participate in Settlement (75 days after Settlement Administrator mails Class Notice to all Class Members) f. May 20, 2019 - Date by which Settlement Administrator will provide parties with a list of all Class Members who submitted timely and valid elections not to participate in the Settlement (14 days after the deadline for submission of elections not to participate in Settlement) g. July 18, 2019 - Final Approval and Fairness hearing (at 10:00 a.m.) A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/2WWGzE from Leagle.com. Lovely Nakooka, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Elva Reyes, Plaintiffs, represented by Brent A. Robinson -- bar@asmlawyers.com -- Aiman-Smith & Marcy, Hallie Von Rock -- hvr@asmlawyers.com -- Aiman-Smith & Marcy, Randall Bruce Aiman-Smith -- ras@asmlawyers.com -- Aiman-Smith & Marcy, Reed W.L. Marcy -- rwlm@asmlawyers.com -- Aiman-Smith & Marcy & Carey A. James -- caj@asmlawyers.com -- Aiman-Smith and Marcy. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey D. Wohl -- jeffwohl@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, Paul Andrew Holton -- paulholton@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, Ryan David Derry -- ryanderry@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP & William Tucker Page, Paul Hastings LLP. EFINANCIAL, LLC: Willis Sues Unwanted Cellular Telephone Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- TROY WILLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EFINANCIAL, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case 1:18-cv-01706-LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal., Dec. 17, 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, and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. According to the complaint, beginning in or around April 2018, the Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -2205, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's products. 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 (866) 912-4744 confirmed to be Defendant's number. The 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 25 227(b)(1)(A). Further, Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -2205 was added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about January 15, 2014. The Defendant placed multiple calls soliciting its business to Plaintiff on his cellular telephone ending in -2205 in or around April 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. Efinancial, LLC operates as an insurance company. The Company offers term and whole life, dental, mental health care, vision, and auto insurance products.[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: 866-598-5042 Facsimile: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com abacon@ toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com ENERGEN RESOURCES: To Produce Royalty Owners' Info in Ulibarri Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GERALD ULIBARRI, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, v. ENERGEN RESOURCES CORP., Defendant/Counter Claimant, Civ. No. 18-294RB/SCY (D. N.M.), Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico granted the Plaintiff's motion to compel the Defendant to produce royalty owners' addresses and telephone numbers. The Plaintiff has filed a class action against the Defendant that seeks royalty payments allegedly due in connection with leases on numerous natural gas wells. In an effort to obtain information he argues is relevant to the class certification, the Plaintiff has moved to compel Defendant to produce royalty owners' addresses and telephone numbers. The Defendant resists such production, arguing that the Plaintiff's motion to compel is untimely and, even if it were not, the information the Plaintiff requests is unjustified because it intrudes on the privacy of the individuals Plaintiff intends to contact; is not necessary, reliable, or proportional to the needs of the case; and is duplicative and less current than information the Plaintiff is already obtaining in a separate lawsuit. Applying the Rule 6 factors, Magistrate Judge Yarbrough finds excusable neglect. First, while generally noting that the class certification discovery deadline was Nov. 30, 2018, the Defendant identifies no unfair prejudice. Second, the length of delay does not threaten to severely impact the judicial proceedings. The length of delay is less than one month, no trial date has been set and Plaintiff's motion for class certification is not due until Feb. 28, 2019. Third, the Plaintiff has asserted a sufficient reason to excuse the delay. Fourth, the Plaintiff acted in good faith. Finally, based on the Plaintiff's asserted reason for his late filing, an absence of bad faith, and an absence of prejudice, he finds good cause exists to permit the late filing. The Magistrate Judge agrees with Judge Ritter's determination that the addresses and telephone numbers of the royalty owners are relevant to issues of class certification, including numerosity and ascertaining which royalty owners are members of the proposed Class. Nonetheless, in addition to arguments Judge Ritter already considered, Defendant presents the additional argument that the Plaintiff does not need the information requested because it is duplicative and less current than information Judge Ritter ordered Southland to provide the Plaintiff. The Defendant, however, stops short of representing that, without exception, its contact information pertains to the same individuals identified in Southland's discovery. Thus, it appears that the Defendant's information may at least supplement the information Judge Ritter ordered Southland to provide the Plaintiff. Because the Defendant has not asserted, much less established, that production of the information sought would be burdensome, it is appropriate for the Defendant to provide the contact information the Plaintiff requests. He also agrees with, and adopts with slight modification, Judge Ritter's Order in Ulibarri v. Southland Royalty Company, LLC, Case No. 16-cv-215-RB-JHR. Specifically, the Court orders the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff's counsel the addresses and telephone numbers of all its royalty owners within seven days of the date of the Order. The Court orders the Plaintiff to then observe the same limitations on the use of this information that Judge Ritter imposed in his Oct. 16, 2018 Order in Ulibarri v. Southland Royalty Company. In addition, the Court orders the Plaintiff to cross-reference the information Southland has provided with information Defendant has provided to determine if the same individuals are on both lists. If the Plaintiff has not yet contacted an individual who is on both lists, the Plaintiff should discuss both cases with that individual simultaneously so that he only contacts that individual once. Given that the Plaintiff untimely filed his motion to compel, Magistrate Judge Yarbrough will not shift costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 -- each party must bear its own costs related to the Plaintiff's motion to compel. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/G3Fs3r from Leagle.com. Gerald Ulibarri, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by A. Michael Chapman -- mchapman@ncg-law.com -- Newbold Chapman & Geyer, P.C., George Barton -- gab@georgebartonlaw.com -- Law Offices of George Barton, P.C. & Stacy Burrows -- stacy@georgebartonlaw.com -- Law Offices of George A. Barton, PC. Energen Resources Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradford C. Berge -- bberge@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP, Christopher A. Chrisman -- cachrisman@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP, pro hac vice & Lauren R. Caplan -- lrcaplan@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP, pro hac vice. Energen Resources Corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by Christopher A. Chrisman, Holland & Hart LLP, pro hac vice & Lauren R. Caplan, Holland & Hart LLP, pro hac vice. Gerald Ulibarri, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons, Counter Defendant, represented by A. Michael Chapman, Newbold Chapman & Geyer, P.C., George Barton, Law Offices of George Barton, P.C. & Stacy Burrows, Law Offices of George A. Barton, PC. ENTREVOICE VIRTUAL: Hobbs & Jackson Sue over Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- KEITH HOBBS and JEREMY JACKSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ENTREVOICE VIRTUAL SOLUTIONS, INC., and JOSELYN CORNEJO, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00247-CDL (M.D. Ga., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices of Defendants. The Plaintiffs alleges that Entrevoice and its CEO, Ms. Joselyn Cornejo, who participated in the automatic telephone dialing and authorized its use, made automated telemarketing calls to the Plaintiffs and other putative class members without their prior express written consent. The Plaintiffs and putative class members never consented to receive these calls. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Entrevoice and Ms. Cornejo, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated: Steven H. Koval, Esq. THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC 3575 Piedmont Road Building 15, Suite 120 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 513-6651 Facsimile: (404) 549-4654 E-mail: shkoval@aol.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Friedman Files Consumer Credit Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information Services, LLC. The case is styled as Anshel Friedman, other individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Home Point Financial Corporation, Equifax Information Services, LLC, Stonegate Mortgage Corporation and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07380 (E.D. N.Y., December 27, 2018). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax Information Services LLC collects and reports consumer information to financial institutions. The company was formerly known as Equifax Credit Information Services Inc. and changed its name to Equifax Information Services LLC in June 2004. The company was incorporated in 1937 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Equifax Information Services LLC operates as a subsidiary of Equifax Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Harris Kohn, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com EQUINIX LLC: Hanna to Recover Overtime Pay, Wage Differentials -------------------------------------------------------------- Foaad Hanna, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equinix LLC and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18CV339365, (Cal. Super., December 13, 2018) seeks redress for Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages and failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements under Unfair Business Practices statures of the California Business and Professions Code, the California Labor Code and Welfare Commission Orders. Equinix -- https://www.equinix.com/ -- is an IBX data center offering colocation services where Hanna worked as a website engineer in about 2003 until on or about March 28, 2018, when Plaintiff was terminated. Hanna claims overtime for hours rendered over 40 per week and off-the-clock work including shift differential wages. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531-4214 Facsimile: (831) 634-0333 - and - Larry W. Lee, Esq. Kristen M. Agnew, Esq. Nick Rosenthal, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 488-6555 Fax: (213) 488-6554 EVERETT FINANCIAL: Cowen Sues for Breach of Employment ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Everett Financial Inc. The case is styled as Randall Cowen and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff v. Everett Financial Inc. and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00247289-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., December 27, 2018). The lawsuit was filed for breach of employment. The Case Management Conference on this case is set for June 27, 2019, at 8:00 am. Everett Financial, Inc., doing business as Supreme Lending, owns and operates mortgage banker. It offers traditional, government, loan purposes, amortization, property types, and specialty loans. The company was founded in 1997 and is based in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Justice Law Corporation 411 N Central Ave, Ste 500 Glendale, CA 91203-2095 Tel: (818) 230-7502 Fax: (818) 230-7259 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com EXPEDIA INC: Faces Church Class Suit Over Inflated Taxes & Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH CHURCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EXPEDIA, INC., EAN.COM, LP, TRAVELSCAPE, LLC and HOTELS.COM L.P., Case No. 2:18-cv-01812 (W.D. Wash., December 17, 2018), arises from the alleged falsely-inflated "Taxes & Fees" or "Tax" charges collected by the Defendants from customers. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a nationwide class of all similarly situated individuals and entities, who have booked and paid for hotel rooms obtained through the Defendants using Reservations.com's Web site and call centers. He alleges that contrary to Reservations.com's representations and/or the expectations of consumers, the "Taxes & Fees" charged by the Defendants are not the actual taxes and fees remitted to governmental authorities but contain additional amounts surreptitiously added by the Defendants (the "tax overcharge"). Expedia, Inc., is a publicly-traded online travel company headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. EAN.com, LP, is a Delaware limited partnership headquartered in Dallas, Texas, that operates as Expedia Affiliate Networks. A subsidiary of Expedia, EAN contracts with third-party travel companies, including Reservations.com, to provide the third parties with hotel room inventory obtained through separate agreements between Expedia and the hotels. The third-party company (here, Reservations.com) hosts the Web site, does its own marketing of its services, and earns a commission on the transaction (here, in the form of a $14.99 charge per room per night). Travelscape, LLC, is an Expedia subsidiary headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada, that does business as Expedia Travel. Travelscape contracts with hotel properties for room inventory at wholesale prices; on information and belief, that inventory is offered to consumers through multiple channels, including Expedia Web sites (such as expedia.com and hotels.com), as well as third-party Web sites such as reservations.com. Travelscape administers payments for reservations made through third-party hotel reservation suppliers that contract with EAN, including Reservations.com. Hotels.com L.P. is an Expedia subsidiary headquartered in Dallas, Texas. In addition to offering hotel reservations and other travel products on its own Web site, on information and belief it also provides room inventory to Reservations.com and/or collects monies paid for room reservations sold by Reservations.com, as evidenced by the fact that a Hotels.com phone number was listed on the credit card bill for the Plaintiff's Reservations.com booking.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Andrew Volk, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com andrew@hbsslaw.com - and - James L. Ward, Jr., Esq. Ranee Saunders, Esq. MCGOWAN, HOOD & FELDER, LLC 321 Wingo Way, Suite 103 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 388-7202 Facsimile: (843) 388-3194 E-mail: jward@mcgowanhood.com rsaunders@mcgowanhood.com - and - Ian W. Freeman, Esq. John P. Linton, Jr., Esq. WALKER, GRESSETTE, FREEMAN & LINTON, LLC 66 Hasell Street Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 727-2200 Facsimile: (843) 727-2238 E-mail: freeman@wgfllaw.com linton@wgfllaw.com FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE: Yargeau Files Suit in Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------ Kimberly Yargeau has filed a class action lawsuit against Federal Housing Finance Agency. The case is styled as Kimberly Yargeau, on behalf of herself and all others so similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, Federal National Mortgage Association and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-12652-TSH (D. Mass., December 28, 2018). The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is an independent federal agency created as the successor regulatory agency of the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB), the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development government-sponsored enterprise mission team, absorbing the powers and regulatory authority of both entities, with expanded legal and regulatory authority, including the ability to place government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) into receivership or conservatorship.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd S. Dion, Esq. Law Office of Todd S. Dion 15 Cottage Avenue, Suite 202 Quincy, MA 02169 Tel: (401) 965-4131 Fax: (401) 535-1231 Email: toddsdion@msn.com FEDEX GROUND: Court Denies Certification of Carrow Class of Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Michael CARROW, Michael FENNELL, and Nicholas STEFANOU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Civil No. 16-3026 (RBK/JS) (D. N.J.), Judge Robert B. Kugler of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiffs, a group of delivery drivers, allege that Defendant FedEx misclassified them as independent contractors when they were actually employees. This misclassification allegedly resulted in unlawful deductions from the Plaintiffs' wages under the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"). Defendant FedEx is a national company that picks up and delivers packages. It relies on truck and van drivers in New Jersey like the Plaintiffs to provide these services for its customers. The case concerns the precise relationship between the Defendant and these drivers. According to Nathan Mollenhauer, a region Senior Manager in the Defendants' Contractor Relations Department, the Defendant entered into contracts known as Operating Agreements ("OA") with individuals and incorporated companies until 2010. Mollenhauer states that before May 2010, the Defendant considered individuals who entered OAs with he Defendant in their individual capacities to be independent contractors. After 2010, however, the Defendant only contracted with incorporated businesses. By June 2011, about a year into the proposed Class Period, every New Jersey business with which Defendant contracted for pickup and delivery services was an incorporated business. These incorporated businesses are known as Contracted Service Providers ("CSPs"), whose "Officers" ordinarily signed the OA on the CSP's behalf. According to Mollenhauer, under the OA, all of a CSPs' drivers are required to be employees of those CSPs and not the Defendant, and the Defendant did not classify any of the drivers as independent contractors. The Plaintiffs appear to dispute this contention, stating that the Defendant uniformly classified every Ground and Home Delivery driver as an independent contractor. They drove for the Defendant under OAs. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant "micro-manages" their activities through the terms of the OA in such a way that the Plaintiffs are really the Defendant's employees. Under the OA, the Defendant has not paid any individual for pickup and delivery services since transitioning to the all-incorporated model, which completed in June 2011; since that time, Defendant has made all payments to the incorporated CSP entities. Under the OA, however, the Defendant does not appear to have authority to make deductions from the pay of any individual who worked for a CSP. Rather, according to Mollenhauer, each CSP decides "when, how, and how much to pay their drivers, helpers, and other employees. When asked about the deductions reflected in their paychecks or W2 forms, Plaintiffs Carrow, Fennell, and Stefanaou all testified that the CSPs that wrote their checks did not deduct amounts from their wages beyond normal employment taxes. Nevertheless, the Plaintiffs declare that all contractors had the same deductions taken from their pay. Based on the OA's alleged micro-managing and other alleged representations surrounding the Plaintiffs' contracting, the Plaintiffs brought the suit, contending that the Defendant misclassified them as independent contractors when they were actually employees under the NJWPL. In a previous Opinion, the Court dismissed several claims but declined to dismiss the Plaintiffs' NJWPL claim. The Court explained that the NJWPL did not require an entity to render payment directly to a person to qualify as an employer, and that the Court needed to "analyze beyond the contract formed between the Defendant and the corporate entities formed by the Plaintiffs in order to determine whether the Plaintiffs were employees," a determination that was not proper at the motion to dismiss stage. The Plaintiffs now seek to certify a class to pursue this NJWPL claim for allegedly wrongful wage deductions. They seek to certify a class of all persons who: (1) entered into a FedEx Ground or Home Delivery Operating Agreement, either personally or through a corporate entity; (2) drove a vehicle on a full-time basis to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement in any week from April 13, 2010 to June 1, 2017; (3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of New Jersey; and (4) who first signed an Operating Agreement after Oct. 15, 2007, or excluded themselves from the certified class in Tofaute v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., No. 05-595 (N.D. Ind.). The Defendant disputes the Plaintiffs' ability to satisfy each portion of Rule 23, including the predominance requirement. Whether the issue in the matter is properly characterized as one of ascertainability, numerosity, predominance, or a combination, Judge Kugler finds that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden to obtain class certification. The Plaintiffs offer no analysis, guidance, or methodology to determine whether putative class members experienced the same allegedly improper wage deductions. Their briefs offer only conclusory assertions—without the benefit of record citation -- that the Plaintiffs and putative class members were "subject to the same types of deductions. He says the Plaintiffs' declarations offer similarly threadbare assertions that all contractors had the same deductions taken from their pay. These conclusory assertions do not actually permit the Court to engage in the rigorous analysis required to determine if facts or evidence exist to discern whether all putative class members experienced the same wage deductions in a way that meets the various aspects of Rule 23. While such evidence may exist and ultimately suffice, the Plaintiffs' "take-our-word-for-it" approach does not. In addition, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' briefs fail to suggest that common or objective records exist from which it can be determined whether a CSP reacted to the Defendant's settlement payment deductions by passing them down to the putative class members in the form of wage deductions. In fact, the Defendant suggests that such records may not exist. It contends that under the OA, it has no power to make a deduction from the wages of any individual who worked for a CSP. Because it was each CSP, ostensibly through its Officer, that determined when, how, and how much to pay in wages to an individual who worked for a CSP, and none of the corporate entities that employed the Plaintiffs, for instance, took any deductions from wages beyond the employment taxes, the Defendant contends that "the only way to know" if a putative class member experienced the wage deductions that the Plaintiffs seek to recover is "to ask each one." The Plaintiffs do not clearly respond to this argument. Although the Court takes no position on whether this is actually "the only way to know" who experienced the wage deductions at issue, the Judge notes that it is the Plaintiffs' burden to properly support their claim. Yet they have not. Accordingly, he denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/I4itQP from Leagle.com. MICHAEL CARROW, MICHAEL FENNELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED & NICHOLAS STEFANOU, Plaintiffs, represented by ANTHONY L. MARCHETTI, Jr. -- amarchetti@marchettilawfirm.com -- MARCHETTI LAW, P.C. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, represented by JEFFREY IRA KOHN -- jkohn@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MEYERS, LLP. FLINT, MI: Rosenthal Appeals Ruling in Waid Suit to 6th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Adam Rosenthal filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Luke Waid, et al. v. Rick Snyder, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-10444, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 26, 2018, several parties have filed appeals from various decisions issued in the lawsuit. Richard Dale Snyder is sued in his official capacity as Governor of the state of Michigan. The state of Michigan is sued in its capacity of operating the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. The lawsuit is one of the eight cases consolidated for all purposes, including trial, in the case captioned In re Flint Water Cases, Case No. 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM (E.D. Mich.). The Plaintiffs seek recovery from the Defendants for alleged injuries, damages and losses suffered by the Plaintiffs as a result of exposure to the introduction of lead and other toxic substances from the Defendants' ownership, use, management, supervision, storage, maintenance, disposal and release of highly corrosive water from the Flint River into the drinking water of Flint, Michigan. The appellate case is captioned as Luke Waid, et al. v. Rick Snyder, et al., Case No. 18-2426, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by: Julie H. Hurwitz, Esq. GOODMAN AND HURWITZ, PC 1394 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 567-6170 E-mail: jhurwitz@goodmanhurwitz.com - and - Deborah A. LaBelle, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH A. LABELLE 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104-0000 Telephone: (734) 996-5620 E-mail: deblabelle@aol.com - and - Emmy L. Levens, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS AND TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500-W Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: elevens@cohenmilstein.com - and - Cary S. McGehee, Esq. Michael L. Pitt, Esq. Beth M. Rivers, Esq. PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER & RIVERS 117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398-9800 E-mail: cmcgehee@pittlawpc.com mpitt@pittlawpc.com brivers@pittlawpc.com - and - Paul Francis Novak, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC Fisher Building 3011 W. Grand Boulevard Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: (313) 800-4170 E-mail: pnovak@weitzlux.com - and - Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC 719 Griswold, Suite 620 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 800-4168 E-mail: gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com Defendant-Appellant ADAM ROSENTHAL is represented by: James William Burdick, Esq. HERTZ SCHRAM PC 1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 300 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Telephone: (248) 335-5000 - and - Lisa L. Dwyer, Esq. THE STEINGOLD & DWYER LAW GROUP 400 Monroe Street, Suite 280 Detroit, MI 48225 Telephone: (313) 962-0000 FORD MOTOR: Bid to Stay Distribution of Notices in Van Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CHRISTIE VAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-8708 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiffs' motion to stay the distribution of notices of the Ford/EEOC conciliation claims awards to the putative class members. The Plaintiffs are women who currently are employed or who were employed at one of two Chicago-area Ford Motor facilities -- the Chicago Assembly Plant and the Chicago Stamping Plant. The Plaintiffs have filed a 123-count second amended complaint on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons, alleging sexual harassment and hostile work environment, gender/sex discrimination, race discrimination, retaliation, national origin discrimination, failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act, battery, and assault. On Aug. 1, 2017, the Defendant and the EEOC entered into a conciliation agreement, which sets forth a detailed claims process under which all women and African Americans who were employed at the Plants at any time between Jan. 1, 2010 to Aug. 1, 2017 are eligible to receive monetary compensation from a settlement fund of at least $7.75 million, and up to $10.125 million. Pursuant to that process, the claimants may complete and return claim forms to learn the amount of monetary relief, if any, available. Once claimants know the amount they would receive through the claims process, they may decide whether they wish to settle their claims pursuant to the claims process or pursue other avenues of relief. The EEOC-negotiated claim form explains that by accepting a monetary payment, if awarded under the process, the claimants will waive their right to have theirclaims heard by a court or by a jury, and will not thereafter be able to bring or recover through a lawsuit relating to claims of sexual harassment against the Defendant. The claim form advises claimants that they will be required to sign a release to receive an award. The claim form provides contact information for an individual at the EEOC who is available to answer "any questions" that claimants may have concerning the matter. In October 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking to prevent the issuance of claims forms under the Conciliation Agreement, arguing that the forms would sow confusion among members of the proposed class in the case and requesting that the mailing be stayed until the Court ruled on their (then-unfiled) class certification motion. Judge Coleman denied the Plaintiffs' motion, concluding that the Plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary requirements for seeking preliminary injunctive relief. The claim forms were then mailed. Approximately 1,260 individuals submitted claim forms for evaluation, including 736 women. Under the terms of the Conciliation Agreement, the settlement administrator must mail award notices and releases to persons who were determined to be entitled to monetary relief within 30 days of receiving the final award list. On Sept. 27, 2018, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice. Soon after, on Nov. 7, 2018, the settlement administrator received the final award list. On Nov. 9, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification, which will be fully briefed as of mid-February 2019 under the parties' agreed briefing schedule. On the same day, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion, which seeks an order staying the claims process and distribution of notices of claims awards until the Court rules on the class certification and/or permitting a court-approved notice to be sent to prospective claimants, including putative class members, in advance of any payments under the EEOC process. As noted at oral argument, the Defendant anticipates that notices will be mailed on Dec. 20, 2018. The award notices will be accompanied by a release and, under the Conciliation Agreement, awardees have 60 days from the date of the notices to decide whether to accept their awards and, if so, to return their completed releases. The Conciliation Agreement explains that the releases will have no impact on individuals' ability to file a future charge or complaint of discrimination, speak about their work environment, or participate in future EEOC proceedings. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' motion to stay should be denied because the Plaintiffs lack standing to interfere with the claims process established through the EEOC conciliation process. Judge Dow finds that in the absence of a certified class, the named plaintiffs in a putative class action lack standing to seek injunctive relief on behalf of anyone but themselves. Perhaps recognizing this problem, the Plaintiffs contend that even if they lack standing to seek relief on behalf of putative absent class members, they can seek relief on their own behalf, as they all have participated in the EEOC conciliation process. According to Plaintiffs, a stay is necessary to make sure that those participating in the EEOC conciliation process are being adequately informed of their rights and options. But insofar as the request for relief is limited to the Plaintiffs themselves, the Judge finds that each is represented by the counsel and thus has had every opportunity to be informed of her rights and options. In short, relief to benefit the named Plaintiffs would be redundant and ineffectual and relief to anyone else lies outside the scope of any complaint that the Plaintiffs have standing to bring. Although the Plaintiffs' request for a stay fails for lack standing, that is not its only shortcoming. The Judge holds that even if the Plaintiffs had standing to seek injunctive relief on behalf of the putative class members, they cite no statute or case law even suggesting that the Court has authority to interfere with the EEOC conciliation process. There is a disconnect between the relief sought in the pending motion to stay (intervention in the EEOC's conciliation process) and the relief sought in the lawsuit (class certification followed by a finding of liability on the merits of the claims in the complaint). To be sure, both named Plaintiffs and the absent putative class members retain the option of pursuing their claims in the Court and seeking any relief that the Court has authority to provide. Similarly, successful claimants in the EEOC process who are unhappy with the amount of their award are free to reject it and remain in this action. However, the Plaintiffs have not identified any authority for the Court to intervene in the separate conciliation process being conducted pursuant to the EEOC's congressional mandate. In the alternative to a stay, the Plaintiffs seek permission to send court-approved, pre-certification notices to female conciliation claimants and putative class members to inform them of their options and rights. The Judge is not persuaded that the notice requested by the Plaintiffs would be appropriate in the present circumstances. By contrast, their briefing makes clear that the notice they wish to transmit in this instance concerns a step in the EEOC conciliation process, not a step in the action. At present, the action concerns only the interests of the 31 named Plaintiffs, only one of whom has submitted a claim in the EEOC process. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's alternative request for notice to putative class members also is denied. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Dow denied the Plaintiffs' motion to stay the distribution of notices. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/JKlUGu from Leagle.com. Helen Allen, Charmella Leviege, Maria Price, Christie Van, Jacqueline Barron, Theresa Bosan, Shranda Campbell, Keturah Carter, Michelle Dahn, Tonya Exum, Jeannette Gardner, Arlene Goforth, Christine Harris, Orissa Henry, Lawanda Jordan, Danielle Kudirka, Terri Lewis-Bledsoe, Constance Madison, Cephani Miller, Miyoshi Morris, Stephanie Szot, Shirley Thomas-Moore, Rose Thomas, Toni Williams, Bernadette Clyburn, Angela Glenn, Ladwyna Hoover, Latricia Shanklin, Antoinette Sullivan, Derricka Thomas & Nichea Walls, Plaintiffs, represented by Keith L. Hunt -- khunt@huntassoclaw.com -- Keith L. Hunt & Associates, P.C., Antonio Maurizio Romanucci -- aromanucci@rblaw.net -- Romanucci & Blandin, LLC, Bhavani Keeran Raveendran, Romanucci & Blandin Llc, Bradley Edwin Faber -- bfaber@huntassoclaw.com -- Hunt & Associates, P.C., Bryce Thomas Hensley, Romanucci & Blandin, Llc, Nicolette A. Ward, Romanucci & Blandin, Llc & Stephan David Blandin -- sdb@rblaw.net -- Romanucci & Blandin. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Kathleen M. Nemechek -- knemechek@berkowitzoliver.com -- Timothy Scott Millman -- tmillman@berkowitzoliver.com -- at Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt LLP; Eugene Scalia -- escalia@gibsondunn.com -- Thomas Michael Johnson -- tjohnson@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; Karen Kies DeGrand -- karen.degrand@dbmslaw.com -- Mark Howard Boyle -- mark.boyle@dbmslaw.com -- Zach T. Bowles -- zach.bowles@dbmslaw.com -- at Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLC. Brittney Carlisle, Respondent, represented by Keith L. Hunt, Keith L. Hunt & Associates, P.C. MS. DAWN FARON, Intervenor, represented by Christopher Cooper -- cooperlaw3234@gmail.com -- Law Office of Christopher Cooper, Inc.. FRENCH CONNECTION: Diaz Brings ADA Class Action in NY ----------------------------------------------------- French Connection Group, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. French Connection Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12384 (S.D. N.Y., December 31, 2018). French Connection Group, Inc. offers apparel. The Company designs and manufactures bags, jeans, t-shirts, shirts, shoes, skirts, dresses, sweaters, jackets, leggings, and trousers. French Connection Group operates globally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal GIMME COFFEE: Diaz Files Suit under ADA in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- Gimme Coffee, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gimme Coffee, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12382 (S.D. N.Y., December 31, 2018). Gimme Coffee Inc. roasts and distributes coffee. The company also operates espresso bars. Gimme Coffee Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Ithaca, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal GLOBAL CONNECTIONS: Borozny Files Suit under ADA in Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- Global Connections, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Austin Borozny, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Global Connections, Inc., a Florida limited liability company and East Shore International enterprises, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-03102-WFJ-JSS (M.D. Fla., December 28, 2018). Global Connections, Inc. operates as a travel agency and a property management company in the United States and internationally. It specializes in the management and rental of vacation condominiums and homes. The company was founded in 1997 and is based in Overland Park, Kansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq. The Advocacy Group, LLC 200 SE 6th St Ste 504 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3424 Tel: (954) 282-1858 Fax: (844) 786-3694 Email: jkerr@advocacypa.com GLOBAL CREDIT: Geisinsky Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Credit & Collection Corp. The case is styled as Yisroel Geisinsky on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07409 (E.D. N.Y., December 27, 2018). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Global Credit & Collection Inc. provides customer and account receivable management services. The company also offers business process outsourcing services that include Email transmissions, telephone operator services, social network management, letters and fax, call backs, voicemail message processing, internal escalation and resolution management, exceptions, payment processing and order and messenger, credit verifications, inventory management, enabling, documents filing, database management, online chats, satisfaction surveys, complaints and congratulations handling, franchise and retail store support, and portability of services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. Adam J. Fishbein, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Tel: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com HEALTH CAROUSEL: Schwendeman Seeks Overtime Pay & Benefits ---------------------------------------------------------- CONNIE SCHWENDEMAN, an individual on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HEALTH CAROUSEL, LLC; HEALTH CAROUSEL TRAVEL NETWORK, LLC; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-07641 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages under the California Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is a California-wide class action and nationwide FLSA collective action against Defendants for (1) failing to include the value of housing and meal, and incidental benefits in the regular rate of pay when calculating overtime; (2) failing to pay all wages owing at time of discharge; and (3) failing to furnish accurate itemized wage statements.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Matthew B. Hayes, Esq. Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq. HAYES PAWLENKO LLP 595 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 303 Pasedena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 808-4357 Facsimile: (626) 921-4932 E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com HIG CAPITAL: Court Narrows Claims in Klein Suit ----------------------------------------------- Judge Andre Bouchard of the Court of Chancery of Delaware granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, MELVYN KLEIN, Plaintiff, v. H.I.G. CAPITAL, L.L.C.; H.I.G. SURGERY CENTERS, LLC; H.I.G. BAYSIDE DEBT & LBO FUND II; BCPE SEMINOLE HOLDINGS LP; BAIN CAPITAL INVESTORS, LLC; BAIN CAPITAL PRIVATE EQUITY, LP; MICHAEL DOYLE; MATTHEW LOZOW; ADAM FEINSTEIN; TERESA DELUCA; and BRENT TURNER, Defendants, and SURGERY PARTNERS, INC., Nominal Defendant, C.A. No. 2017-0862-AGB (Del. Ch.). In May 2017, Surgery Partners, Inc. and its controlling stockholder (HIG) simultaneously entered into three interrelated transactions. First, Surgery Partners agreed to purchase National Surgical Healthcare from a third party. Second, HIG agreed to sell its 54% common stock stake in Surgery Partners to an affiliate of Bain Capital Private Equity, LP for a per-share price that reflected a premium over the market price at the time. Third, Surgery Partners agreed to issue to Bain shares of a newly created class of Series A preferred stock that voted with its common stock, paid a 10% dividend, and contained other allegedly attractive terms, including a conversion feature that already was "near" or "in" the money. Critically, each of the three transactions was conditioned on the others. This meant that the sale of HIG's control position to Bain would not happen unless Bain was satisfied with the terms of the Series A preferred stock. This created a dynamic whereby HIG allegedly was incentivized to provide Bain favorable terms on the Series A preferred stock in order to maximize the price at which HIG could liquidate and exit its investment in Surgery Partners. In December 2017, a few months after the three transactions closed, a stockholder plaintiff (Melvyn Klein) filed the action challenging the fairness of the Series A preferred stock issuance to Bain. His complaint focuses on the incentives HIG and Bain had to "scratch each other's back" and criticizes the process surrounding the deal negotiations, including that (i) Bain used the same counsel and accounting advisor as Surgery Partners during the negotiations, (ii) Surgery Partners did not utilize a special committee to exclude HIG's representative on the board from negotiations concerning the Series A preferred stock despite the conflict HIG faced with respect to selling its control position to Bain, (iii) no stockholder other than HIG had any say in approving any of the transactions, and (iv) Surgery Partners' financial advisor did not provide a fairness opinion concerning the consideration paid for the Series A preferred stock and stood to benefit from the transactions by providing financing for Surgery Partners' acquisition of National Surgical Healthcare in addition to receiving an advisory fee on the deal. Klein's complaint asserts eight claims. The Complaint contains eight claims. Counts I-IV are pled as direct claims and Counts V-VIII are pled as derivative claims. The legal theories underlying each of the four direct claims mirror each of the four derivative claims. Counts I and V assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the Director Defendants for "entering into the Transactions without ensuring that the Bain Capital Share Issuance was entirely fair. Counts II and VI assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Bain and HIG as an alleged control group at the time the Transactions were agreed to" for entering into the Bain Capital Share Issuance, a conflicted transaction that was not entirely fair. Counts III and VII assert, in the alternative to the breach of fiduciary duty claims asserted against HIG in Counts II and VI, respectively, claims for breach of fiduciary duty against HIG as "the sole controlling stockholder" for causing the Company to enter into the Bain Capital Share Issuance, a conflicted transaction that was not entirely fair. Counts IV and VIII assert, in the alternative to the breach of fiduciary duty claims asserted against Bain in Counts II and VI, respectively, that Bain aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by HIG and the Director Defendants. On March 5, 2018, the Defendants filed their opening briefs in support of motions they had filed several months earlier to dismiss the Complaint under Court of Chancery Rules 12(b)(6) and 23.1. On April 17, 2018, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed DeLuca and Feinstein from the action without prejudice. On Sept. 17, 2018, a few days after oral argument on the pending motions, the court entered an order approving a stipulation the parties had filed to dismiss Lozow and Turner from this action with prejudice only as to the plaintiff in the action.48 Judge Bouchard concludes that six of the claims must be dismissed but that the other two will survive. First, he rejects the Plaintiff's contention that his admittedly derivative claims fall within the paradigm our Supreme Court recognized in Gentile v. Rossette1 for asserting claims "dually" as both direct and derivative claims, thus all of the direct claims must be dismissed. Second, the Plaintiff has pled sufficient particularized facts to raise a reasonable doubt about the independence and disinterestedness of a majority of the directors on Surgery Partners' board when the complaint was filed, thus the Plaintiff is excused for failing to make a demand on the board. Third, the complaint states derivative claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty against HIG as Surgery Partners' controlling stockholder on the theory that it received a unique benefit and was conflicted in connection with the transactions, thereby presumptively triggering entire fairness review of the Series A preferred stock transaction, and (ii) aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against Bain. based on the foregoing, Judge Bouchard granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Counts I-IV, VI, and the unjust enrichment aspect of Count VIII are dismissed with prejudice, and Count V is dismissed in the manner set forth. Count VII and the aiding and abetting aspect of Count VIII both survive. The Counsel are directed to confer and to submit an implementing order within 10 business days. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/neZ7k9 from Leagle.com. Kurt M. Heyman -- kheyman@hegh.law -- and Melissa N. Donimirski -- mdonimirski@hegh.law -- HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Jason M. Leviton -- jason@blockesq.com -- and Joel A. Fleming -- joel@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, Attorneys for Plaintiff. Stephen C. Norman -- snorman@potteranderson.com -- and Jaclyn C. Levy -- jlevy@potteranderson.com -- POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; David B. Hennes -- David.Hennes@ropesgray.com -- Martin J. Crisp -- Martin.Crisp@ropesgray.com -- and Paul S. Kellogg -- Paul.Kellogg@ropesgray.com -- ROPES & GRAY LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Nominal Defendant Surgery Partners, Inc. and Defendant Michael Doyle. Elena C. Norman -- enorman@ycst.com -- and Benjamin M. Potts -- bpotts@ycst.com -- YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendants H.I.G. Bayside Debt & LBO Fund II, H.I.G. Capital, LLC, and H.I.G. Surgery Centers, LLC. David E. Ross -- dross@ramllp.com -- and S. Michael Sirkin -- msirkin@ramllp.com -- ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Yosef J. Riemer -- yosef.riemer@kirkland.com -- Devora W. Allon -- devora.allon@kirkland.com -- and Alexandra Strang -- allie.strang@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendants Bain Capital Investors, LLC, Bain Capital Private Equity, LP, and BCPE Seminole Holdings LP. HIGHLINE RESIDENTIAL: Olsen Brings ADA Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Highline Residential, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Highline Residential, LLC doing business as: Ensemble, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12397 (S.D. N.Y., December 31, 2018). Highline Residential is a brokerage that was started in 2012 in New York City by three principals. Highline Residential, through its in-house teams, offers real estate services including all necessary ancillary services in renovation, construction, property management, online marketing, and much more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com HITO RESTAURANT: Zhang Suit Asserts FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hito Restaurant, Inc. The case is styled as Yu Zhang, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hito Restaurant, Inc. doing business as: Masago Sushi, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12331 (S.D. N.Y., December 29, 2018). The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Hito Restaurant, Inc. is a sushi restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. HONEST & QUALITY: Underpays Construction Workers, Li & Kang Claim ----------------------------------------------------------------- XIAO YUAN LI, and YEON SOO KANG, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HONEST & QUALITY, CORP., and KINAM HAN, the Defendants, Case No. 719448/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks to recover wages and benefits which Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive for work they performed on various public works contracted with such government entities such as New York City Housing Authority. According to the complaint, Honest & Quality, Corp. was subcontracted by Arcadia Electronical Co. Inc. to perform various construction work such as apartment parking lot renovation, for the NYCHA at the sites of the Public Work Projects in New York. The Plaintiffs were paid in an amount that was below the prevailing rate of wages in violation of New York Labor Law.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Ken H. Maeng, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 30th Avenue, Suite 10G Telephone: (718) 353 8588 Facsimile: (718) 353 6288 INTERNATIONAL SPEEDWAY: Faces Firemen S Retirement Suit in Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against International Speedway Corporation in Florida Volusia County Circuit Court on December 14, 2018. The case is styled as Firemen S Retirement System of St Louis on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. James C France, Lesa France Kennedy, Brian Z France, Gregory S Motto, Larry Aiello Jr, J Hyatt Brown, William P Graves, Christy F Harris, Sonia Maria Green, Morteza Hosseini Kargar, Larry Woodard, International Speedway Corporation and Nascar Holdings Inc, Defendants, Case No. 2018-32105-CICI. The docket states the case type as Shareholder derivation. International Speedway Corporation is a corporation whose primary business is the ownership and management of NASCAR and IndyCar race tracks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip John Snyderburn, Esq. 2250 LUCIEN WAY STE 140 MAITLAND, FL Tel: 32751-7014 JUST AN OVEN: Violates Disabilities Act, Fischler Suit Asserts -------------------------------------------------------------- Just An Oven Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Just An Oven Corp. doing business as: Frank Restaurant, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12386 (S.D. N.Y., December 31, 2018). Just An Oven Corp is in the American Restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017-6705 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com KELAI CORP: Violates FLSA, Feng Suit Asserts -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kelai Corp. The case is styled as Shanggang Feng, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kelai Corp. doing business as: Jef Chinese, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12329 (S.D. N.Y., December 29, 2018). The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Kelai Corp. is a simple Chinese restaurant & takeout, selling a long menu of standard dishes & Shanghai fare.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. LABORERS' WELFARE: Faces Jimenez Labor Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against Laborers' Welfare Fund of the Health and Welfare Department of the Construction and General Laborers' District Council of Chicago and Vicinity. The case is captioned as ZUYIN JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LABORERS' WELFARE FUND OF THE HEALTH AND WEFARE DEPARTMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CHICAGO AND VICINITY; CHICAGO LABORERS' WELFARE PLAN; LOCAL 225 OF THE LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA; CHICAGO LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL RETIREE HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, ALSO KNOWN AS: CHICAGO LABORERS' WELFARE FUND; and LOCAL 225 OF THE LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07886 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 29, 2018). The case is assigned to Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr. Construction and General Laborers' District Council of Chicago and Vicinity serves participants covered by collective bargaining agreements between the Union and contributing employers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Johanna J. Raimond, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHANNA J. RAIMOND LTD. 431 S. Dearborn St., #1002 Chicago, IL 60605 Telephone: (312) 235-6959 E-mail: jraimond@raimondlaw.com LATIN GROUP: Romero Seeks Overtime Pay for Kitchen Staff -------------------------------------------------------- JUAN H. ROMERO, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, vs. LATIN GROUP, INC. d/b/a LATIN CAFE, and ELISIA SUAREZ MORE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-25319-CMA (S.D. Fla., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a cook from on or about January 2001 through on or about June 22, 2018. As a cook, Plaintiff's job duties required of him by Defendants, along with the other kitchen staff, included, but were not limited to, preparing and cooking different menu items. The the Defendants have employed several other similarly situated employees like Plaintiff (i.e. cook, prep cooks, dishwashers, etc.) who have not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly, from the filing of this complaint back three years, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorney For Plaintiff: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71 st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 LEVAIN BAKERY: Files Diaz Class Action Asserting ADA Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Levain Bakery, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Levain Bakery, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12392 (S.D. N.Y., December 31, 2018). Levain Bakery is a retail bakery that opened in 1995 and is located at 167 West 74th Street, on the Upper West Side neighborhood of Manhattan, New York City. In June 2000, a second retail location was opened for seasonal business at 354 Montauk Highway, Wainscott, in the Hamptons area of eastern Long Island. A third store is located in the Harlem neighborhood of Manhattan, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal LOST DOG: Settlement in Diaz Suit Over Unpaid OT Has Prelim Okay ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, VICTOR DIAZ, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOST DOG PIZZA, LLC, DANIEL WARREN LYNCH, and JEFF SMOKEVITCH, Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-cv-2228-WJM-NYW (D. Colo.), Judge William J. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement. Diaz brings the lawsuit against the Defendants alleging non-payment of overtime to workers at Lost Dog Pizza, doing business as Brown Dog Pizza, a restaurant in Telluride, Colorado, in violation of the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, and the Defendants jointly ask the Court to preliminarily approve their proposed settlement of class and FLSA claims, to approve a proposed Rule 23 class notice, and set a final fairness hearing and related deadlines. Judge Martinez finds that as drafted and presented to the Court, the proposed settlement agreement appears to be the product of serious negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not grant improper preferential treatment to the class representatives, and generally falls within the range of possible judicial approval. It also contains a cy pres provision that would distribute unclaimed funds to a third party were the Court to finally approve the proposed settlement agreement. The parties' joint proposal includes a cy pres provision that provides that any settlement checks not negotiated within 90 days of issuance will be deemed "unclaimed funds" and forwarded by the class administrator to the Tri County Health Network, a Section 501(c)(3) organization based in Southwestern Colorado. In supplemental briefing requested by the Court, the Plaintiff explains that the Tri-County Health Network provides workers' rights services to the immigrant community in Telluride, Colorado (where the pizzeria is located). Specifically, Tri-County Health Network conducts workers' rights workshops for immigrant laborers who work in the service industry in the area and assist individual immigrant workers with work-related disputes. The organization recently received a grant from the Colorado Bar Association to provide translation and interpretation services to aid local lawyers and Spanish-speaking immigrant workers. The Judge finds that Tri-County Health Network provides resources and support for individuals in the same community as those who seek to vindicate their claims through this class action. He thus preliminarily finds that the cy pres award is fair, reasonable, and adequate. For these reasons, he granted the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement and preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement. He also preliminarily approved the form and contents of notice to be given to the Class. A redline version and a clean version of the Court-approved notice are attached to the Order. Judge Martinez directed the Settlement Administrator to complete distribution of the Court-approved notice, in both English and Spanish, to all the Class Members by Dec. 31, 2018. The parties will effect notice to Class Members as follows: (i) no later than Dec. 27, 2018, the Plaintiff will file a notice docketing a Spanish language translation of the Court-approved notice and opt-out form; and (ii) no later than Dec. 31, 2018, the Plaintiff will mail the final notice and opt-out form, incorporating the Court's modifications, in both English and Spanish to all Class Members via first-class U.S. Mail. Further, Plaintiff will FILE a Notice of Completion of Mailing notifying the Court when the mailing has been completed. The mailing of the class notice form will commence a 90-day notice period and any objections to the Settlement Agreement must be post-marked or received by the Settlement Administrator no later than March 31, 2019. The Class Members who wish to be excluded must provide written notice of their desire to be excluded to the Settlement Administrator by March 31, 2019. Any Class Member wishing to object to the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement will file their objection in writing with the Court and the parties by March 31, 2019. The counsel for the parties will promptly file any such objection, and an English translation if applicable, with the Court. The counsel for the parties may file a response to any objections filed as part of or contemporaneous with the parties' application for final settlement approval. The Plaintiffs' counsel may communicate with the Class Members regarding their objections and may advise the Court of any Class Members who have communicated that they wish to withdraw their objections. Objections may be withdrawn only with the Court's approval. The Parties' motion seeking final approval of the settlement, including the counsel's final request for attorneys' fees and costs, and any incorporated responses to objections received, will by filed with the Court and served on any timely objectors no later than April 15, 2019, 30 days before the fairness hearing. Any written responses to the motion will be filed with the Court no later than April 30, 2019, 15 days before fairness hearing. These deadlines for Court filings do not alter the obligation to comply with the 90-day period for submitting any written objections, as set out. A fairness hearing is scheduled for May 15, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/Xepdsn from Leagle.com. Victor Diaz, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brandt Powers Milstein -- brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com -- Milstein Law Office. Lost Dog Pizza, LLC, Daniel Warren Lynch & Jeff Smokevitch, Defendants, represented by Juli Elizabeth Lapin -- juli@rwolaw.com -- Robinson Waters & O'Dorisio, P.C.. LUGG INC: Aggrieved Employee Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LUGG, Inc. a Delaware corporation. The case is styled as Kenny Aubrey, in a representative capacity, and on behalf of all similarly situated current and former and/or aggrieved employees of defendants in the state of California, Plaintiff v. LUGG, Inc., Defendant, Case No. CGC18572439 filed on December 31, 2018 in California Superior Court. Lugg, Inc. provides store-to-home delivery services of purchased goods to consumers . The company also offers on demand relocation services for homes, donations, and storages; junk removal; and pick up and delivery services for used goods. The company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. LYFT INC: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Wickberg Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ERIC WICKBERG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LYFT, INC., Civil Action No. 18-12094-RGS (D. Mass.), Judge Richard D. Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Lyft's motion to compel arbitration. Wickberg is the Plaintiff in the putative class action brought against Lyft. The Complaint alleges that Lyft misclassified him and the other potential class members as independent contractors, rather than employees, and avoided paying them the minimum wage and overtime. Lyft is a ridesharing platform that uses a smartphone application to connect riders with available drivers for a fee. Wickberg is a Massachusetts resident who has driven for Lyft since September of 2017. When he enrolled online as a driver with Lyft on Jan. 28, 2017, Wickberg clicked a checkbox that stated that he agrees to Lyft's Sept. 30, 2016 terms of services. The words "Lyft's terms of services" were highlighted in pink and hyperlinked to the written terms. Among other provisions, the terms provided in capital letters that drivers must submit claims against Lyft to binding and final arbitration on an individual bais, not as a plaintiff or class member in any class, group or representative action or proceeding. On May 3, 2018, Wickberg reaffirmed acceptance of a nearly identical arbitration provision posted by Lyft on Feb. 6, 2018. However, on May 20, 2018, Wickberg wrote to Lyft's General Counsel stating that he would like to opt out of arbitration with respect to claims that are not part of a pending settlement action. Lyft now moves to stay the action and compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to strike the class allegations. Wickberg argues that the agreement to arbitrate is invalid because the Sept. 30, 2016 terms were not reasonably communicated. He further argues that there is no valid agreement to arbitrate because he did not unambiguously manifest assent" to the Sept. 30, 2016 terms. Wickberg also maintains that he opted out of the arbitration agreement because of his May 20, 2018 letter to Lyft's General Counsel, which stated that he "would like to opt out of arbitration with respect to claims that are not part of a pending settlement action. Judge Stearns determined that the layout and design of Uber's registration screen rendered the hyperlinked "Terms of Service & Privacy Policy" insufficiently conspicuous. By contrast, Lyft's display of the arbitration agreement conforms to what the First Circuit held would be a conspicuous and enforceable agreement. He also finds that Wickberg entered into a valid arbitration agreement with Lyft by affirmatively assenting to reasonably communicated terms. It is, therefore, reasonable to enforce" the arbitration agreement. Finally, he finds that Wickberg did not effectively opt out of the Sept. 30, 2016 terms because he did not so notify Lyft in writing within the required 30 days of his acceptance of that agreement. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Sterns granted Lyft's motion to compel arbitration. The Clerk will stay the case pending arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/3HPaCI from Leagle.com. Eric Wickberg, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon E. Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. Lyft, Inc., Defendant, represented by James D. Smeallie -- jd.smeallie@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, R. James Slaughter -- rslaughter@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew E. Silvia -- Andrew.Silvia@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, David J. Santeusanio -- david.santeusanio@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, LLP & Erin E. Meyer -- emeyer@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP. MARRIOTT INT'L: Fails to Secure Customers' Private Info, Aigen Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT AIGEN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-25285-KMW (S.D. Fla., December 17, 2018), alleges that Marriott failed to secure and safeguard its customers' credit and debit card numbers and other payment card data and other personally identifiable information, which Marriott collected at the time the Plaintiff and Class members made hotel reservations at its properties. On November 30, 2018, Marriott made a public announcement that it had "determined that there was unauthorized access to" its guest reservation and database system on or before September 10, 2018, and that there may have been unauthorized access as early as 2014 (the "Data Breach"). This unauthorized access was designed to retrieve PCD and PII from Marriott guests, according to the complaint. Marriott International, Inc. is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, and is a multinational, diversified hospitality company that manages and franchises a broad portfolio of hotels and related lodging facilities. Marriott is one of the largest hotel chains in the world with more than 6,700 properties in 129 countries and territories worldwide, accommodating over 1.1 million rooms. Marriott operates 30 hotel brands, including Marriot, Starwood, and The Ritz-Carlton. Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, LLC, is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, and is a fully owned subsidiary of Marriott. Starwood branded properties 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, as well as Starwood branded timeshares.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roy K. Altman, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. One SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300 Miami, FL 33301 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 E-mail: raltman@podhurst.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Taylor Sues over Starwood Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- BONNIE TAYLOR, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. 10400 Fernwood Road Bethesda, MD 20817, and STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC One Star Point Stamford, CT 06902, the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-03913-GJH (D. Md., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks to recover damages as a result of customer data breach. On November 30, 2018, Marriott International -- the world's largest lodging company -- announced the second largest data breach in history. An unauthorized party had copied data for 500 million guests, including guests' names, birthdates, passport numbers, mailing addresses, phone numbers, encrypted payment card numbers and expiration dates ("Payment Data"), and other personal information from Starwood's guest database. Worse still, hackers appear to have had access to the Starwood Database for at least four years, going back to 2014, and the hackers may have gained access to the keys to decrypt Payment Data during that time. That the cybercriminals have both copied and exported guests' Personal Information over the past four years is a near certainty. Once hackers gain access to a poorly secured database, such as the Starwood Database, they typically leverage the target’s own server resources to collect, encrypt, and export the data. While Marriott announced the detection of one large encrypted file, the fact that hackers have had unfettered access to the Starwood Database for four years suggests that there will be further revelations about the scope of the Starwood Breach. Marriott International acquired Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide in September 2016 in a $13.6 billion transaction, creating the world's largest lodging company. But even before Marriott International completed its acquisition of Starwood, it had cause to be aware that Starwood's systems were vulnerable to attack. In November 2015 -- just two weeks after the Marriott-Starwood merger was announced -- Starwood publicly disclosed that its point of sale ("POS") infrastructure had been infected with malware for eight months. It is unknown when Marriott International first learned of the POS infection or the Starwood Breach. Despite this red flag, Marriott International failed to sufficiently investigate Starwood's cybersecurity, leaving its guests exposed to cybercriminals for three more years. Marriott International did not detect the Starwood Breach until September 10, 2018. The scope of the Starwood Breach is staggering in and of itself, but Marriott's failure to implement reasonable cybersecurity safeguards to protect guests’ Personal Information is particularly egregious. Marriott failed to detect and report publicly hackers’ presence in Starwood's systems for four years, even though it had reported previous cybersecurity incidents during the same period. Marriott International’s failure to adequately investigate Starwood's cybersecurity before the merger closed, and ongoing failure to take steps to protect its guests' personal information in the years following the merger, has permanently and irrevocably endangered the credit, identity, and safety of 500 million Starwood guests. According to the complaint, the Starwood Breach exposed an unprecedented range of Personal Information which may be exploited by cybercriminals to devastating effect. For example, passport numbers, when combined with some other forms of Personal Information exposed by Marriott, can be used to access individual travel histories through the United States Department of Homeland Security website, or leveraged to acquire real identity documents using stolen information, bypassing anti-counterfeiting measures. Had Marriott's guests known that its cybersecurity was inadequate and that their information was exposed, many guests, including Plaintiff Taylor, would have chosen other lodgings, and would have changed the type of information provided to Marriott.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Susan R. Podolsky, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN R. PODOLSKY 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (571) 366-1702 Facsimile: (703) 647-6009 E-mail: spodolsky@podolskylaw.com - and - Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1600 Oakland, CA 94607 E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com Telephone: (415) 445-4003 Facsimile: (415) 445-4004 MASONITE CORP: Dellatore Sues Over Monopoly of Molded Doors ----------------------------------------------------------- Allison Dellatore and Craig Weitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Masonite Corporation and Jeld-Wen, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00861, (E.D. Va., December 13, 2018), alleges violations of federal antitrust laws arising from the monopoly over the US supply of doorskins and interior molded doors brought about by the acquisition of a number of smaller residential interior door manufacturers by Jeld-Wen and Masonite, thus eliminating the check on competition. Defendants are the only suppliers of interior molded doorskins to third-party interior molded door manufacturers in North America and are also the only two vertically-integrated interior molded door manufacturers in the United States. Plaintiffs purchased residential interior molded doors from the defendants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 424-7570 Fax: (703) 591-0167 Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com casey@kellyandcrandall.com - and - Hollis Salzman, Esq. Kellie Lerner, Esq. William V. Reiss, 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 Email: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com WReiss@RobinsKaplan.com NShaikh@RobinsKaplan.com - and - K. Craig Wildfang, Esq. Geoffrey H. Kozen, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 Facsimile: (612) 339-4181 Email: KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com GKozen@RobinsKaplan.com - and - Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. Tai S. Milder, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100 Mountain View, CA 94040 Telephone: (650) 784-4040 Facsimile: (650) 784-4041 Email: ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com TMilder@RobinsKaplan.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Weavers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ RAY F. WEAVER and JOYCE E. WEAVER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02110 (E.D. Mo., Dec. 19, 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 NCR CORP: Galasso Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------- Joel Galasso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NCR Corporation and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-07515, (N.D. Cal., December 13, 2018), Defendants, seeks recovery of penalties and wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission orders. NCR Corporation -- https://www.ncr.com/ -- is a Georgia-based company that makes self-service kiosks, point-of-sale terminals, automated teller machines, check processing systems, barcode scanners and business consumables. Galasso was employed as a Project Leader in NCR's location in Alameda, providing services to customers and assisting customers by providing "go live" support, post-installation support and answer telephone calls. He would regularly work in excess of 48 hours per work week without being paid overtime premium, says the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Kelsey L. Kuberka, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@ toddflaw.com kkuberka@toddflaw.com NORDSTROM INC: Faces Amy Suit in Central District of California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nordstrom, Inc. The case is captioned as DUNCAN AMY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORDSTROM, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02122-DOC-DFM (C.D. Cal., Nov. 29, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge David O. Carter and referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. Nordstrom, Inc., a fashion retailer, provides apparel, shoes, cosmetics, and accessories for women, men, young adults, and children in the United States and Canada. Nordstrom, Inc. was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael W. Olson, Esq. Wesley K Polischuk, Esq. Daniel S Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 Facsimile: (949) 720-1292 OCEAN FINANCIAL: Lussoro Files Suit for Breach of Contract ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ocean Financial Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Audrey Lussoro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ocean Financial Federal Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-07400 (E.D. N.Y., December 27, 2018). The lawsuit was filed for Breach of Contract. Ocean Financial Credit Union offers savings & checking, loans, cards, and home banking to New York's Catholic community and members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Greg Coleman Law PC 800 S Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Tel: (865) 247-0080 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. Brown, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Ste. 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Tel: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Kaliel PLLC 1875 Connecticut Avenue 10th Flr. Washington, DC 20009 Tel: (202) 350-4783 Fax: (202) 871-8180 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Patrick Sidney Almonrode, Esq. Brown, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Tel: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com OHR PHARMA: Awaits Court Decision on Bid to Strike N.Y. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ OHR Pharmaceutical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 3, 2019, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that a decision on the motion to strike the securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York is pending. On January 5, 2018, the Company reported topline data from the MAKO study which did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint. The MAKO study evaluated the efficacy and safety of topically administered squalamine in combination with monthly Lucentis(R) injections for the treatment of wet-AMD. As a result of the company's announcement of negative results from the MAKO Study, its stock price declined substantially. On February 14, 2018, a securities class action litigation was brought against the Company, Dr. Jason Slakter, Sam Backenroth, and Irach Tarapowela in federal district court in the Southern District of New York. An amended securities class action complaint was filed on August 7, 2018, by lead plaintiffs George Lehman and Insured Benefit Plans, Inc. The company dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. On September 17, 2018, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On November 13, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to strike exhibits appended to the motion to dismiss. A decision on the motion to strike is pending, and the motion to dismiss will then be fully briefed based on a schedule to be determined by the court. OHR Pharmaceutical said, "This litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management's resources and attention, which could harm our business and the value of our common stock." OHR Pharmaceutical, Inc., a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company, focuses on the development of novel therapies for the treatment of ophthalmic diseases. OHR Pharmaceutical, Inc. is headquartered in New York, New York. ON TRAC INC: Court Endorses Approval of Price FLSA Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DANIEL TIMOTHY PRICE, ET AL., v. ON TRAC INC. OF TENNESSEE, Civil Action No. 6:17-cv-00519 (W.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Hanna of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division, recommended that the joint motion for Court approval of the parties' settlement agreement be granted. The instant action presents a bona fide dispute over Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") provisions, including whether the Plaintiffs can prove how many hours they actually worked, whether they were properly paid for overtime hours worked, whether the Defendant's alleged violations were made in good faith and on reasonable grounds, and whether the Defendant's alleged FLSA violations were willful. The case was litigated for a year and a half with discovery, motion practice, meetings between the counsel to review documents and discuss the merits of the claims, and a successful settlement conference with the Court, which was held on Oct. 22, 2018. The issues raised by the parties are sufficient for the Court to find that genuine uncertainty as to the outcome of the litigation existed for each side, and a bona fide dispute existed in the case. The parties reached a settlement in the case, which was conditionally certified as a collective action under the FLSA. As a result, they filed a joint motion for court approval of their settlement agreement. The parties also provided the Court with a copy of their settlement agreement for in camera review. The parties have agreed to individual settlement amounts for each of the Plaintiffs and an amount to compensate their counsel for his efforts on behalf of the Plaintiffs. All parties have agreed that the Plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to an amount of attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs that is less than 33% of the total amount to be paid in settlement of the claims. Having reviewed the settlement agreement carefully, Magistrate Judge Hanna finds that no evidence of fraud or collusion behind the settlement and that the proposed award in the case is fair and reasonable. For these reasons, he recommended that the proposed settlement be approved, and accordingly, that the Court grants the joint motion for court approval of the settlement on the terms and conditions set forth in the parties' settlement agreement. He further recommended that the claims asserted by the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice, and the case be closed, subject to the Court retaining jurisdiction for ninety days to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement agreement, if necessary. Because the parties have agreed on the payment of the settlement funds and attorneys' fees and there have been no objections to the settlement filed in the record, the Magistrate shortened the time period for objections. The parties have five days to serve and file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed legal conclusions reflected in this Report and Recommendation. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Report & recommendation is available at https://is.gd/BaHqPT from Leagle.com. Daniel Timothy Price, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, David Anthony Cox, Troy Ephraim Michele', Sr & Phillip Dale Barker, Plaintiffs, represented by Kenneth D. St. Pe, Law Office of Kenneth D St Pe. On Trac Inc of Tennessee, Defendant, represented by Robert J. David, Jr. -- rjd@juneaudavid.com -- Juneau David & Sarah Elaine Stephens -- ses@juneaudavid.com -- Juneau David. ORCHIDS PAPER: Court Enters Order of Dismissal in Pollock Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Orchids Paper Products Company said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on January 4, 2018, that a court overseeing the putative class action suit by Paul R. Pollock has entered an order dismissing the Action as moot. On August 31, 2017, Paul R. Pollock, a stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action (the "Action") in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") against Orchids Paper Products Company (the "Company") and its Board of Directors (the "Board") alleging that provisions in the Company's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as amended (the "Charter") and Amended and Restated Bylaws, as amended (the "Bylaws") allowing for the removal of directors "only for cause" violated Section 141(k) of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Action sought to remove such "for cause" provisions, which were claimed to violate Delaware law. On December 14, 2017, the Board approved a revision to the Bylaws solely to delete the provision specifying that directors are removable only for cause. On April 30, 2018, the Company held its Annual Meeting, at which time the stockholders of the Company approved an amendment to the Charter to provide that directors are removable by the stockholders of the Company with or without cause upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the outstanding shares of Common Stock. These amendments to the Bylaw and Charter effectively mooted the Action. On May 21, 2018, the Court entered an order dismissing the Action as moot, and retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of ruling on the plaintiff's anticipated application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. The parties subsequently agreed to a payment of a mootness fee by the Company to plaintiff's counsel of $50,000 in full satisfaction of their claim for attorneys' fees and expenses. The Court has not been asked to review or approve, and will pass no judgment on, this payment. Orchids Paper Products Company manufactures and sells tissue products for at-home and away from home markets in the United States. Its products include paper towels, bathroom tissues, and paper napkins. Orchids Paper Products Company was founded in 1976 and is based in Pryor, Oklahoma. PANALPINA INC: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Portuondo Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ ALAIN PORTUONDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PANALPINA, INC. d/b/a PANALPINA (FLORIDA), INC.; FRANK HERCKSEN; ROBERT J. ERNEST; ALEXANDER HOTZ; and THAYNE WORSLEY, Defendants, Case No. 81415138 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., Nov. 29, 2018) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as quality consultant analyst. Panalpina, Inc. provides intercontinental air and ocean freight forwarding and logistics services and supply chain management solutions. The company was founded in 1923 and is based in Morristown, New Jersey. Panalpina, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Panalpina World Transport Holding Ltd. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com PENNYMAC FINANCIAL: Denial of Arbitration Bids in Smigelski Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, RICHARD SMIGELSKI, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PENNYMAC FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. C081958 (Cal. App.), Judge Jonathan K. Renner of the Court of Appeals of California for the Third District, Sacramento, affirmed the trial court's orders denying successive petitions to compel arbitration of a dispute with a former employee, Plaintiff and respondent Smigelski. On his first day of work, Smigelski signed a document entitled, "Employee Agreement to Arbitrate." The employee agreement acknowledges receipt of another document entitled, Mutual Arbitration Policy ("MAP"). The MAP, which Smigelski denies having received, similarly requires mandatory binding arbitration of disputes, for all employees, regardless of length of service. The MAP covers all disputes relating to or arising out of an employee's employment with PennyMac, including wage or overtime claims or other claims under the Labor Code. PennyMac adopted the MAP in 2008. On Sept. 11, 2015, Smigelski provided notice to the Labor Workforce and Development Agency ("LWDA") and PennyMac of his intent to pursue a cause of action for civil penalties under PAGA. On Nov. 17, 2015, Smigelski filed a complaint asserting a single cause of action under PAGA. The complaint, which was styled as a Representative Action, alleged that PennyMac miscalculated overtime for hourly employees and failed to provide accurate, itemized wage statements. The complaint did not assert any individual claims and only sought to recover civil penalties under PAGA. PennyMac filed a petition to compel arbitration of the complaint pursuant to the employee agreement and MAP (together, the arbitration agreement) in February 2016. he trial court denied PennyMac's petition in a minute order dated March 3, 2016, which was incorporated into a formal order entered on March 11, 2016. On March 10, 2016, Smigelski filed a first amended complaint adding several non-PAGA causes of action to the original complaint. The first amended complaint, which is the operative pleading, alleges individual and putative class claims for unpaid overtime under sections 510 and 1194, penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements under section 226, waiting time penalties under section 203, and violations of the Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. The first amended complaint seeks unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, and damages according to proof, in addition to civil penalties under PAGA. PennyMac responded to the first amended complaint with a motion for reconsideration and a second petition to compel arbitration. The motion sought reconsideration of the order denying the first petition to compel arbitration on the ground that the filing of the first amended complaint constituted a "new and different" fact or circumstance within the meaning of subdivision (a) of section 1008 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition sought to compel arbitration on the now familiar ground that the arbitration agreement requires arbitration of all claims, including PAGA claims, and any unenforceable PAGA waiver could be severed. The second petition to compel arbitration also argued, again, that the arbitration agreement delegates questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Smigelski opposed the motion and petition, arguing that the filing of the first amended complaint was not a new and different fact or circumstance within the meaning of the reconsideration statute, and did not change the fact that the PAGA waivers were impermissible and the arbitration agreement unenforceable. Smigelski additionally argued that the second petition to compel arbitration was merely a repeat of the first, and should be rejected for the reasons stated in the trial court's order denying that petition. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration by written order dated April 22, 2016. It finds that Smigelski's act of filing the first amended complaint containing new claims is not a new or different fact or circumstance which would allow the Court to reconsider its previous order denying PennyMac's first petition to compel arbitration. The trial court denied PennyMac's second petition to compel arbitration the same day, stating that, even if the Court were to find that a successive petition were permitted as a result of the first amended complaint being filed, it extensively addressed and rejected these arguments in denying the original petition and it simply rejects the arguments for the reasons previously discussed. PennyMac appeals from the orders denying its first and second petitions to compel arbitration. It does not appeal from the order denying its motion for reconsideration. On appeal, PennyMac argues the trial court erred in denying the petitions to compel arbitration for a number of reasons, many of which appear to build upon one another in ways that are not always easy to discern. PennyMac's argument can be reduced to four principal contentions: (1) the arbitration agreement does not contain invalid PAGA waivers, (2) any illegal aspects of the arbitration agreement should be severed, and the rest of the agreement enforced, (3) the parties delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and (4) the FAA preempts any state law precluding employers from requiring employees to waive their right to a judicial forum for PAGA claims as a condition of employment. Judge Renner finds that PAGA plaintiffs need not satisfy class action requirements. The differences between representative and class actions, which have been part of the legal landscape since Arias, inform his understanding of the parties' arbitration agreement. Giving the terms of the employee agreement their settled legal meaning, and giving meaning to each term to avoid surplusage, the Judge is convinced the waiver of the right to bring a "representative" claim entails something more than a mere recapitulation of the waiver of the right to bring a claim on a "class basis." He therefore rejects PennyMac's attempt to read an ambiguity into the terms of the waiver. Having rejected PennyMac's contention that the waiver is ambiguous, he likewise rejects the related contention that the purported ambiguity should be construed in a manner that renders the arbitration agreement enforceable. As a general proposition, ambiguous terms should be construed, where reasonable, in favor of arbitration. But that rule does not apply where, as in the case, the terms of the agreement do not lend themselves to a lawful interpretation. He therefore concludes that the arbitration agreement must be construed as waiving both the right to bring class action claims and the right to bring representative PAGA claims. In the absence of any enforceable agreement to arbitrate individual PAGA claims, the arbitration agreement can only be viewed as requiring a complete waiver of the right to bring PAGA claims. The Judge also concludes that the arbitration agreement as a whole is unenforceable by virtue of the severability provisions. Because the arbitration agreement has been found to be unenforceable, PennyMac cannot compel arbitration of any of Smigelski's causes of action, including causes of action that would otherwise be arbitrable. That PennyMac must now litigate non-PAGA causes of action is the result, not of the trial court's error, but its own drafting decisions. Finally, PennyMac argues the FAA requires us to enforce the parties' purported agreement to arbitrate PAGA claims. The Judge assumes for the sake of argument that PennyMac has carried its burden of establishing the existence of such an agreement. Even so assuming, PennyMac's argument lacks merit, he says. PennyMac's preemption argument, like much of its appeal, is foreclosed by Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Renner affirmed the orders denying PennyMac's petitions to compel arbitration. Smigelski is awarded his costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/LxVBZf from Leagle.com. PPG INDUSTRIES: Lamartz and Bass Seek Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------- DARRIONNE LAMARTZ and ROBERT BASS, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFFS, vs. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case No. 4:18-cv-00936-JM (E.D. Ark., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated overtime compensation for all hours that Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated worked in excess of 40 per workweek, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FLSA and AMWA by not including the non-discretionary bonuses of Plaintiffs and other salaried non-exempt and hourly employees in their regular rate when calculating their overtime pay. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant at Defendant's facility in Alexander and Defendant's pay practices were the same for all salaried non-exempt and hourly-paid employees at the Alexander facility. The pay practices that violate the FLSA and AMWA was a centralized human resources policy implemented uniformly from Defendant's corporate headquarters ,the lawsuit says. PPG Industries, Inc. is an American Fortune 500 company and global supplier of paints, coatings, and specialty materials. With headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, PPG operates in more than 70 countries around the globe.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Chris Burks, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com PRIMERITUS FINANCIAL: Boudreau Sues for Breach of Employment ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Primeritus Financial Services Inc. for breach of employment. The case is styled as John Boudreau on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Primeritus Financial Services Inc, Chris McGinness and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00247272-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., December 27, 2018). Primeritus Financial Services, Inc. provides outsourced repossession management and skip tracing services. Its operations include automotive finance collections, skip tracing, recovery, remarketing, and title services to the auto finance industry; and the transportation of collateral units to the auction for remarketing and liquidation needs. The company offers its services through a network of certified agents in the United States and Puerto Rico. Primeritus Financial Services, Inc. was formerly known as ASR Nationwide and changed its name to Primeritus Financial Services, Inc. in February 2012. The company was founded in 2012 and is based in Nashville, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alejandro P. Gutierrez, Esq. 5450 Telegraph Road, Suite 200 Ventura, CA 93003 Tel: 805-647-5976 RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Sued over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ CHANTELLE ELLIOT, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-16654-WJM-MF (D.N.J., Nov. 29, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge William J. Martini and referred to Magistrate Judge Mark Falk. Receivables Performance Management, LLC provides financial and accounts receivables management services. The Company offers outsourcing, telemarketing, pre-collection, and in bound and out bound services. Receivables Performance Management serves healthcare, commercial, retail, and financial industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102b Rutherford, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 507-6300 E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com RED HAT: Agreement to Dismiss IBM Merger Suits Reached ------------------------------------------------------ Red Hat, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 4, 2019, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2018, that an agreement has been reached whereby the lawsuits over the proposed IBM merger would be dismissed as moot in exchange for supplemental disclosures filed by the Company. Three putative class action complaints were filed against Red Hat and its board of directors relating to the Merger with IBM. As of January 4, 2019, the company received the following complaints, each filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware: Charles Orgel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Red Hat, Inc., et al. (filed December 18, 2018), Michael Kent, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Red Hat, Inc., et al. (filed December 19, 2018) and Christopher Nunn Bishop, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Red Hat, Inc., et al. (filed December 21, 2018) (together, the "Actions"). The complaints in the Actions allege that the Proxy Statement omits purportedly material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, rendering the Proxy Statement false and misleading. On January 4, 2019, the parties reached an agreement whereby the Actions would be dismissed as moot in exchange for supplemental disclosures filed by the Company. Those supplemental disclosures were filed by the Company on the same day. Plaintiffs in the Actions have reserved the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees for causing the filing of the supplemental disclosures. Red Hat, Inc. provides open source software solutions to develop and offer operating system, virtualization, management, middleware, cloud, mobile, and storage technologies to various enterprises worldwide. RED HAT: Kent Balks at Merger Deal with IBM ------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RED HAT, INC., JAMES M. WHITEHURST, NARENDRA K. GUPTA, SOHAIB ABBASI, STEVE ALBRECHT, CHARLENE BEGLEY, KIM HAMMONDS, WILLIAM S. KAISER, KEVIN M. MURAI, and ALFRED W. ZOLLAR, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02022-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 19, 2018), alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement. The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on October 28, 2018 , pursuant to which Red Hat, Inc. will be acquired by International Business Machines Corporation and Socrates Acquisition Corp. On October 28, 2018, Red Hat's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with IBM. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Red Hat's stockholders will receive $190.00 in cash for each share of Red Hat common stock they hold. On December 12, 2018, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction for January 16, 2019, omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says. Red Hat, Inc. is an American multinational software company providing open-source software products to the enterprise community. Founded in 1993, Red Hat has its corporate headquarters in Raleigh, North Carolina, with other offices worldwide.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com ROYAL DUTCH: Faces Fuentes Suit over No Poach Agreements -------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR FUENTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC; SHELL OIL COMPANY; PENNZOIL-QUAKER STATE COMPANY; and JIFFY LUBE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-05174-AB (E.D. Pa., Nov. 29, 2018) alleges that the Defendants' no-poach provisions in the agreement violates the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants incorporated a clause in to its standard franchise agreements prohibiting the Defendants from soliciting or hiring existing employees of the Defendants shops. The Defendants franchisees also agreed that they have the unilateral power to terminate their franchises upon a franchisees' default, which includes franchisees' failing to comply with the No-Poach Clause. Royal Dutch Shell plc explores for crude oil and natural gas worldwide. The company operates through Integrated Gas, Upstream, and Downstream segments. Royal Dutch Shell plc was founded in 1907 and is headquartered in The Hague, the Netherlands. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Marcio W. Valladares, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com mvalladares@forthepeople.com - and – Kevin Clancy Boylan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 446-9795 E-mail: cboylan@forthepeople.com - and – Michael L. Schrag, Esq. Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Joshua J. Bloomfield, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: mls@classlawgroup.com ehg@classlawgroup.com jjb@classlawgroup.com - and – George W. Sampson, Esq. SAMPSON DUNLAP LLP 1001 4th Ave., Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98154 Telephone: (206) 369-3962 E-mail: George@sampsondunlap.com SABRINA USA: Faces Zhang Suit Over FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sabrina USA Inc. The case is styled as Yu Zhang, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sabrina USA Inc. doing business as: Yumi Sushi, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12332 (S.D. N.Y., December 29, 2018). The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sabrina USA Inc. is considered by many as having the best and freshest sushi available in the area.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. SAFEMARK SYSTEMS: Gorss Motels Appeals Judgment to 11th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as, Gorss Motels, Inc., et al, the Plaintiff, v. Safemark Systems, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 18-15232-F (11th Cir.), is an appeal filed with the U.S Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from a district court decision granting summary judgment to Defendant The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned Gross Motels, Inc., and E & G, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Safemark Systems, LP, Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-1638-Orl-31DCI. (M.D. Fla.). The case arises out of two facsimile advertisements sent to Gorss in 2013 (the Gorss Faxes) and a third sent in 2015 to E & G (E & G Fax). All three faxes advertised goods offered by the Defendant, Safemark. Safemark admits having sent the Gorss Faxes or, more particularly, having arranged to have those faxes sent to Gorss but denies responsibility for the sending of the E & G Fax. In 1998, Gorss entered into a franchise agreement with Super 8 Motels, Inc., which is now known as Super 8 Worldwide, Inc. (SWI). Prior to the 2013 Wyndham Global Conference, using contact information supplied by WSSI, Safemark arranged to have two faxes sent to a number of franchisees, including Gorss. Safemark does not dispute that Gorss received the two faxes at issue on September 4, 2013 and September 6, 2013. Safemark argues that the Gorss Faxes were not unsolicited and therefore sending them did not violate the TCPA because Gorss had given permission to (1) receive faxes and (2) receive advertisements from Approved Suppliers. As to the first point, Gorss provided its fax number to SWI in conjunction with its registration for the 2012 Wyndham Global Conference and on other occasions, such as on a Contact Form it submitted in 2010. As to the second, Safemark relies on Gorss's franchise agreement. Safemark argues that by agreeing that SWI affiliates could offer assistance in purchasing items for the facility, such as through the Approved Supplier program, and by providing its fax number to SWI, Gorss was giving its permission to receive advertisements, by fax, from affiliates such as Approved Suppliers. Gorss generally denies that any entity had permission to send it fax advertisements and argues that the TCPA requires that permission be given to the entity actually responsible for sending the fax, and that it did not give such permission to Safemark. The E & G Fax was sent in 2015 by a third-party vendor, WestFax, at the direction of WSSI. It contained advertisements for a total of five Approved Suppliers, including Safemark. Safemark contends that it did not authorize WSSI to send the E & G Fax and therefore it cannot be held responsible for it under the TCPA. Safemark makes the same argument in regard to E & G that it made in regard to Gorss, i.e., that sending the E & G Fax did not violate the TCPA because E & G had given its permission to receiv1e such advertising faxes. E & G entered into a franchise agreement in 1997 with Hotel Franchising Limited Partnership, which is now known as Wingate Inns, L.P. The District Court finds that the same result applies to E & G as to Gorss: E & G gave its permission to receive advertising faxes in regard to the Approved Supplier program, and therefore no reasonable factfinder could determine that the E & G fax was unsolicited. Accordingly, Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendant, Safemark Systems, L.P., is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 15, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaxq7o3l from Leagle.com. The Eleventh Circuit previously granted Plaintiffs' Petition for Permission to Appeal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) on June 15, 2018, which appeal the Eleventh Circuit has docketed under General Docket Number 18-12511-C.[BN] Gorss Motels, Inc., a Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons & E & G, Inc., a West Virginia corporation, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs, represented by Ryan M. Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca & Ross M. Good -- rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, pro hac vice. Safemark Systems, LP, Defendant, represented by Amy Leigh Baker -- amy.baker@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP & Joseph L. Francoeur -- joseph.francoeur@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser LLP, pro hac vice. SAHARA DREAMS: Amended Kwan FLSA Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------- In the case, CHUI-FAN KWAN also known as CONNIE KWAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SAHARA DREAMS CO. II INC., doing business as DREAM HOTEL DOWNTOWN, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-4058 (RA) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff Chui-Fan Kwan brings the putative class action and collective action against nine Corporate Defendants and six Individual Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). She alleges that she was employed by the Defendants to work at the Dream Hotel Downtown in Manhattan, first as a room attendant and then as a floor manager. While employed at the Dream Hotel Downtown, the Plaintiff alleges, she was denied overtime compensation and was not paid for all of the hours she worked. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that, as a room attendant, she was paid as if she worked from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. with a one-hour lunch break, even though she regularly worked past 4:30 p.m. and took lunch breaks as short as 16 minutes. In addition, the Plaintiff alleges that, as a floor manager, she regularly worked 30 minutes past her shift and was denied overtime compensation due to the Defendants' misclassification of her as an exempt managerial employee. On May 30, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the initial complaint in the action and on March 14, 2018, she filed the Amended Complaint. In the Amended Complaint, she does not identify her direct employer. Instead, she alleges that she was employed by all 15 Defendants -- nine Corporate Defendants and six Individual Defendants-- who are officers and directors of some of the named corporate entities. The Plaintiff asserts that the Corporate Defendants are all members of a luxury hotel chain doing business as Dream Hotel Group, which is a single and joint employer and has had a high degree of interrelated and unified operation, and shares common management, centralized control of labor relations, common ownership, common control, common website, common business purposes and interrelated business goals. As to the Individual Defendants, the Plaintiff alleges that each "(1) had the power to hire and fire employees, (2) supervised and controlled employee work schedules and conditions of employment, (3) determined employee rates and methods of employment, and (4) maintained employee records. Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), principally contending that the Amended Complaint failed to plausibly allege that Defendants were her "employers" under the FLSA and the NYLL. Judge Abrams finds that the Plaintiff does not allege that employees of the Corporate Defendants were subjected to the same employment policies, supervised by the same individuals, or paid by the same people using the same payroll methods. In short, the Amended Complaint fails to provide factual support for its conclusory allegations of centralized operations and control, and entirely leaves out the relationship that the Plaintiff, as employee, had to the locations besides the one location at which the Plaintiff actually worked. Because the Amended Complaint does not plausibly allege that the Corporate Defendants comprise a single integrated enterprise, and further fails to allege that any one of the nine Corporate Defendants functioned as the Plaintiff's employer, the motion to dismiss will be granted as to the Corporate Defendants. The Plaintiff also fails to plausibly allege that any of the six Individual Defendants is her employer. The Judge finds that the Plaintiff merely alleges that the Individual Defendants were officers and directors of some of the named corporate entities and that each (1) had the power to hire and fire employees, (2) supervised and controlled employee work schedules and conditions of employment, (3) determined employee rates and methods of employment, and (4) maintained employee records. Such conclusory recitations of the prongs of the economic reality test, absent any specific factual allegations of control, are insufficient to plausibly allege that the Individual Defendants were the Plaintiff's employers. The motion to dismiss will accordingly be granted as to the Individual Defendants as well. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Abrams granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend the Amended Complaint. He denied the Defendants' letter motion for oral argument. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions pending at docket entries 42, 45, 47, 48, 51, 52, and 55. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/lnZIKl from Leagle.com. Chui-Fan Kwan, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by John Troy -- troylaw@troypllc.com -- Troy Law, PLLC. Sahara Dreams Co. II Inc., formerly known as Sahara Dreams Limited, Sahara Dreams LLC, doing business as Dream Hotel Downtown, Sahara Hampshire Hotel Management LLC, doing business as Dream Hotel Midtown, Sahara Hampshire Hotel Management Co. II Inc., doing business as Sahara Hampshire Hotel Management Co. Inc., Hampshire Hotels Manhattan LLC, doing business as Days Inn Hotel, Hampshire Hotels Group II, LLC, doing business as Hilton Garden, Hampshire Hotels Group, LLC, doing business as Days Inn Hotel, Hampshire Hotels & Resorts, LLC, doing business as Dream Hotels, Dream Hotel Group, LLC, doing business as Hilton Garden, Sant Singh Chatwal, Vikram Chatwal, Jay Stein, Rabinder Pal Singh, David Kuperberg & Sandeep Wadhwa, Defendants, represented by Felicia Sue Ennis -- fse@robinsonbrog.com -- Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene Genovese & Gluck PC & Arnold Mitchell Greene -- amg@robinsonbrog.com -- Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene Genovese & Gluck PC. SCHWAN'S HOME: Lundbom Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA LUNDBOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SCHWAN'S HOME SERVICE, INC., and SCHWAN'S COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. Case 3:18-cv-02187-SI (D. Ore., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Schwans's Home Service., Inc., and Schwan's Company in transmitting unsolicited autodialed SMS text message advertisements to her cellular telephone and the cellular telephone of numerous other consumers across the country, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, between in or about July 2018 through November 2018, and at all hours of the day, the Defendant transmitted or caused to be transmitted, by itself or through and intermediary or intermediaries, numerous SMS and/or MMS text message advertisements to the 3075 Number without Plaintiff's "prior express written consent", the lawsuit says. Schwan's Home Service, Inc. provides online grocery delivery services in the United States. It provides fruits and vegetables, meats, seafood, meals, pizza, sides, snacks and appetizers, ice-creams, desserts, and breakfasts. Schwan's Home Service, Inc. was formerly known as Schwan's Sales Enterprises, Inc. and changed its name to Schwan's Home Service, Inc. in 2002. The company was founded in 1952 and is based in Marshall, Minnesota. Schwan's Home Service, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of The Schwan Food Company, Inc.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816 6603 E-mail: jmurray@terrellmarshall.com bterrell@terrellmarshall.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. David W. Hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Ste 900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357 2107 Facsimile: (305) 200 8801 SEQUIUM ASSET: Giometti Files Suit in S.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Todd Giometti, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02895-BEN-KSC (S.D. Cal., December 28, 2018). Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC is a debt collection agency. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Hyde & Swigart 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Tel: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com STATE FARM: Can Compel Replies to Discovery Request in MAO-MSO Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, a Delaware entity; MSP RECOVERY, LLC, a Florida entity; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida entity; and MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Company, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-1537 (C.D. Ill.), Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division, (i) granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash or Modify Third Party Subpoenas, and (ii) granted the Defendant's Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Request. The Plaintiffs are assignees of claims for reimbursement from Medicare Advantage Organizations ("MAOs"), first-tier entities, and downstream entities that offer or manage Medicare Advantage ("MA") plans for Part C Medicare Beneficiaries. The Defendant is an insurance company that provides no-fault casualty insurance to its insureds. Casualty Policies sometimes include coverage for medical expenses incurred as a result of a covered loss. Pursuant to federal law, Casualty Insurance Medical Coverage is primarily liable for covered medical expenses and Medicare coverage is secondary, including coverage by Medicare Advantage Organizations. Medicare and Medicare Advantage Organizations may make conditional payments to cover medical expenses, but the Casualty Insurer, such as State Farm, must reimburse the conditional payments pursuant to the terms set forth in the applicable statutes and regulations. The Plaintiffs allege "first-tier entities" and "downstream entities" may bring actions to recover reimbursements for conditional payments. They allege that they are Medicare Service Organizations Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs, as assignees of Medical Advantage Organization claims for reimbursement of conditional payments (either directly and through first-tier or downstream entities), seek to bring a nationwide class action against State Farm for unpaid reimbursements due for conditional payments of all Medicare Advantage Organizations, first-tier entities, and their assignees. The Plaintiffs seek to be the class representative of this nationwide class action. The alleged class is all Medicare Advantage Organizations, First Tier Entities, or their assignees, that provide benefits under Medicare Part C, in the United States of America and its territories, who made payments for a Medicare beneficiary's medical items and services within the last six years from the filing of the complaint where the Defendant: (1) is the primary payer by virtue of having a contractual obligation to pay for the items and services that are required to be covered by the policy of insurance of the same Medicare Beneficiaries that are also covered by an MA plan; (2) failed to pay for the items and services or otherwise failed to reimburse Medicare Advantage Organizations, First Tier Entities, or their assignees for the items and services that were provided for medical items and services related to the claims on behalf of the Medicare Beneficiaries. The Plaintiffs allege two individuals as exemplar claims for reimbursement. Both exemplar claims involved injuries to a State Farm insured with Casualty Insurance Medical Coverage. The two individuals are identified as O.D. and C.S. who were both injured in an automobile accident covered by the State Farm's Casualty Insurance Medical Coverage and by State Farm Casualty Policy Medical Coverage. The parties are currently conducting discovery on the issue of class certification. On Sept. 14, 2018, State Farm served the Plaintiffs with interrogatories and requests for production of documents. The Counsel for the Plaintiffs responded by email stating that he thought State Farm's discovery requests were premature and asking for an additional 21 days. On Oct. 29, 2018, State Farm issued four Subpoenas that are the subject of the Motion: a. State Farm issued a Subpoena to the Florida Department of Financial Services, as the receiver for Florida Healthcare Plus, Inc. The Subpoena seeks production of 27 categories of documents related to the following topics: (1) Florida Healthcare Plus, Inc.'s relationship with: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; the Plaintiffs; O.D., including all payments and related documents for claims for O.D. from 2013 through 2015, inclusive; first-tier and downstream entities; (2) Florida Healthcare Plus, Inc.'s internal procedures for evaluating and paying claims; (3) documents related to claims for reimbursements from insurers or others that may be liable to reimburse conditional payments; and (4) documents related to any audit of the systems and methodologies of the Plaintiffs. b. State Farm issued a Subpoena to SummaCare, Inc. This Subpoena seeks 26 categories of documents similar to the Subpoena issued to Florida Department of Financial Services, except that certain requests related to C.S. rather than O.D., and this Subpoena did not refer to the Settlement Agreement. c. State Farm issued a Subpoena to RD Legal Finance, LLC. RD is one of two members of Plaintiff MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC. This Subpoena seeks production of documents related to RD's relationship with the Plaintiffs, including documentation of ownership or other interest, communications, and documents exchanged with the Plaintiffs. The Subpoena also seeks governing documents of RD and the identity of the members of RD and the percentage ownership interest of each member. d. State Farm issued a Subpoena to VSP MSP Recovery Partners, LLC. VSP is the sole member of Plaintiff MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC. This Subpoena seeks documents similar to the documents sought from RD. On Nov. 7, 2018, State Farm's counsel again emailed the Plaintiffs' counsel to ask for the Plaintiffs' discovery response. The Plaintiffs had not yet responded to State Farm's discovery requests. State Farm's counsel stated that he sent the email as a good faith effort to meet and confer to resolve the dispute. The Plaintiffs' counsel did not respond. On Nov. 13, 2018, the Plaintiffs their motion to quash all four Subpoenas described. State Farm opposes the motion. On Nov. 15, 2018, State Farm filed Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Request. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Their counsel states that the Plaintiffs have now provided written responses to State Farm's interrogatories and have begun a rolling document production. The Plaintiffs state that they await the Court's entry of an ESI protocol order. Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins finds that the fact discovery on class certification issues was scheduled to close on Nov. 30, 2018, although State Farm has asked for an extension. State Farm is entitled to pursue discovery in any manner allowed by the Rules. Given the short timeframe and the lack of documents production by the Plaintiffs, the Subpoenas are a reasonable option to secure relevant information before the end of fact discovery on this phase. If the Plaintiffs can demonstrate to the Court that they have produced responsive documents that are also documents sought by the Subpoenas, the Magistrate will consider relieving the Subpoena respondents from producing a second copy of the specific documents. Otherwise, he will not bar State Farm from using available discovery methods to secure relevant non-privileged information. The Plaintiffs ask for additional time to respond to the Subpoenas. The Magistrate agrees that 15 days is not enough time to produce the documents. He will give the Subpoena respondents until Dec. 31, 2018 to produce the responsive documents. With respect to the motion to compel, the Magistrate finds that Rule 26 imposes on the Plaintiffs the burden of showing that producing requested ESI is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If the Plaintiffs could not comply with the 30-day production requirement of Rule 34, or if they wanted to establish a protocol for ESI production, they should have contacted State Farm to work out these issues or filed a motion for a protective order. They did not. He therefore, orders the Plaintiffs to produce the responsive documents by Jan. 15, 2019. The Plaintiffs are also ordered to produce by Jan. 15, 2019, a privilege log that meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A) identifying any documents withheld on claims of privilege. Finally, the Magistrate directs State Farm to file by Jan. 15, 2019, a statement of fees and expenses incurred in connection with filing the motion to compel along with any supporting evidence. The Plaintiffs are directed to file by Feb. 7, 2019, any objections to State Farm's statement of expenses and attorney fees along with any supporting evidence. The Court will then rule on an award of expenses and fees. For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins allowed in part hthe Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash or Modify Third Party Subpoenas. He modified the Subpoenas to give the Subpoena respondents until Jan. 15, 2019, to produce the requested documents. He allowed the Defendant State Farm's Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests. The Plaintiffs are ordered to produce the responsive non-privileged documents by Jan. 15, 2019. The Plaintiffs and the Subpoena respondents are also required to produce by Jan. 15, 2019, a privilege log that meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A) identifying any documents withheld on claims of privilege. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 19, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/OGSKuD from Leagle.com. MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, MSP Recovery, LLC, a Florida entity & MSPA Claims 1, LLC, a Florida entity, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher L. Coffin -- ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com -- PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN LLP, Robert Brent Wisner -- RBWisner@BaumHedlundLaw.com -- BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, Adam M. Foster -- AFoster@BaumHedlundLaw.com -- BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, Courtney L. Stidham -- cstidman@pbclawfirm.com -- PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN LLP & David M. Hundley , HUNDLEY LAW GROUP, P.C. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L. Coffin, PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN LLP, David M. Hundley, HUNDLEY LAW GROUP, P.C. & Robert Brent Wisner, BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by David Matthew Allen -- mallen@carltonfields.com -- CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT P.A., Joseph Anthony Cancila, Jr. -- jcancila@rshc-law.com -- RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP, Patrick D. Cloud -- pcloud@heylroyster.com -- HEYL ROYSTER VOELKER & ALLEN, Benjamine Reid -- breid@carltonfields.com -- CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT P.A. & James P. Gaughan -- jgaughan@rshc-law.com -- RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP. STEW LEONARD'S: Franklin Sues over Sale of Fish Products -------------------------------------------------------- Shelby Franklin, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Stew Leonard's Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-07237 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of Stew Leonard's, Inc. with respect to the labeling and sale of fish products labeled as "red snapper" and "sockeye salmon" throughout the State of New York. According to the complaint, a recent report by the Office of the New York Attorney General demonstrates that a large percentage of Defendant's fish Products are mislabeled and thus not what they are claimed to be. Products labeled by Defendant as red snapper and sockeye salmon in fact are substituted with cheaper, less environmentally sustainable, or less healthy fish. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated relied on Defendant's labeling when purchasing the Products. Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products over and above other fish Products because they believed that they were red snapper, and not a different snapper fish of an inferior grade and quality. Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products over and above other fish Products because they believed that they were sockeye salmon, and not Coho salmon, a fish of inferior grade and quality. Given that Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products based on Defendant's misrepresentations that they were red snapper and sockeye salmon, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid. Stew Leonard's is a chain of six supermarkets in Connecticut and New York State, which Ripley's Believe It or Not! deemed "The World's Largest Dairy" and Fortune magazine listed as one of the "100 Best Companies to Work For".[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Janine Pollack, Esq. Jeremy Francis, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com pollackj@thesultzerlawgroup.com francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Jeffrey Brown, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW P.C. Jeffrey Brown, Esq. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com TD AMERITRADE: Seeks 8th Circuit Review of Ruling in Klein Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Gerald Klein, et al. v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00396-JFB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha. The appellate case is captioned as Gerald Klein, et al. v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 18-3689, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants appealed the District Court's class certification order. That appellate case is entitled Gerald Klein, et al. v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 18-8013. The Hon. Joseph F. Bataillon has certified a class consisting of: All clients of TD Ameritrade between September 15, 2011 and September 15, 2014 who placed orders that did not receive best execution, in connection with which TD Ameritrade received either liquidity rebates or payment for order flow, and who were thereby damaged (the "Class"). The complaint alleges that, when routing client orders to various market centers, the Defendants did not seek best execution, and instead routed clients' orders to market venues that pay TD Ameritrade, Inc. the most money for order flow. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Company's order routing practices. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appendix is due on January 28, 2019; -- Brief of Appellants TD Ameritrade, TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation and Frederic J. Tomczyk is due on January 28, 2019; -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant; and -- Appellant reply brief is due 21 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Gerald J. Klein, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated, and Roderick Ford are represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & RIVAS, LLC 211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 E-mail: kcarroll@ldgrlaw.com - and - Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & RIVAS, LLC Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 546-0100 E-mail: ek@zlk.com ckupka@zlk.com - and - Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 E-mail: nkulesa@zlk.com stornatore@zlk.com - and - Nicholas Porritt, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com - and - Patrice D. Ott, Esq. Gregory Carl Scaglione, Esq. KOLEY JESSEN P.C., L.L.O. 800 One Pacific Place 1125 S. 103rd Street Omaha, NE 68124-0000 Telephone: (320) 654-4100 E-mail: patrice.ott@koleyjessen.com greg.scaglione@koleyjessen.com Defendants-Appellants TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, TD Ameritrade, Inc., and Frederic J. Tomczyk are represented by: Victoria H. Buter, Esq. Thomas Harlan Dahlk, Esq. KUTAK ROCK LLP The Omaha Building 1650 Farnam Street Omaha, NE 68102-0000 Telephone: (402) 346-6000 E-mail: vicki.buter@kutakrock.com Tom.Dahlk@KutakRock.com - and - Robert N. Hochman, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60603-0000 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 E-mail: rhochman@sidley.com - and - Eamon Paul Joyce, Esq. Alex J. Kaplan, Esq. Daniel A. McLaughlin, Esq. Jonathan Warren Muenz, Esq. Robert Pietrzak, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019-0000 Telephone: (202) 839-5300 E-mail: ejoyce@sidley.com ajkaplan@sidley.com dmclaughlin@sidley.com jmuenz@sidley.com rpietrzak@sidley.com TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Faces Colburn Suit in District of Maryland ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Texas Roadhouse, Inc. The case is captioned as GAYNELL COLBURN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEXAS ROADHOUSE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03661-RDB (D. Md., Nov. 29, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Richard D. Bennett. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates casual dining restaurants in the United States and internationally. The company operates and franchises Texas Roadhouse and Bubba's 33 restaurants. As of October 29, 2018, it owned and operated approximately 575 restaurants. Texas Roadhouse, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is based in Louisville, Kentucky. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. David Hoskins, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF E DAVID HOSKINS LLC 16 E. Lombard Street, Suite 400 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 662-6500 Facsimile: (410) 662-7800 E-mail: davidhoskins@hoskinslaw.com - and - Kathleen Hyland, Esq. Hyland Law Firm, LLC 16 E Lombard Street, Suite 400 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 777-5396 Facsimile: (410) 777-8237 E-mail: kat@lawhyland.com - and - R. Bruce Carlson , Jr. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com TEXAS: Does 1-7 Appeal N.D. Texas Decision to Fifth Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs John Does 1-7 filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled John Does 1-7 v. Greg Abbott, et al., Case No. 3:18-CV-629, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas. The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights. The appellate case is captioned as John Does 1-7 v. Greg Abbott, et al., Case No. 18-11620, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JOHN DOES 1-7, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Terence Estes-Hightower, Esq. ESTES-HIGHTOWER, P.L.L.C. 16770 Imperial Valley Drive Houston, TX 77060 Telephone: (214) 334-2260 Defendants-Appellees GREG ABBOTT, Governor of the State of Texas, and STEVEN MCCRAW, Colonel, Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, are represented by: Michael Abrams, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711-2548 Telephone: (512) 463-2120 E-mail: Michael.Abrams@texasattorneygeneral.gov TOYOTA MOTOR: Denia Hedge Sues over Wage and Hour Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ DENIA HEDGE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING, INDIANA, INC. and AEROTEK, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00246-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks to recover damages from Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Hedge brings this class and collective action lawsuit against Defendants to address class-wide wage and hour violations committed by Defendants against their hourly-paid employees. Hedge also brings claims against Defendants for their class-wide breach of contract. Hedge will serve as class representative of current and former employees of Defendants who were victims of Defendants' class-wide wage violations and Defendants’ class-wide breach of contract. The Defendants utilize numerous policies to avoid paying their employees all earned overtime wages. For example, the Defendants are and have been underpaying their employees' wages on a class-wide basis as a result of a facility-wide policy or scheme in which Defendants fail and refuse to pay employees from their first principal work activity each day until their last principal work activity. All hourly-paid employees of Defendants were similarly subjected to Defendants' unlawful compensation scheme that required their hourly paid production employees to perform significant work prior to the official scheduled start time of each shift and to perform significant work after the official scheduled end of each shift. Defendants have not been paying their employees for this additional work time, the lawsuit says. TMMI operates an automobile factory in Princeton, Gibson County, Indiana. Aerotek is a staffing agency that works with companies, including Defendant TMMI, that require large volume work forces. Aerotek has employees who work onsite at these companies, including at TMMI’s facility in Princeton, Indiana, where Hedge and putative class members work or worked. The Defendants employ and employed a staff of hourly-paid production team members, including Plaintiff at TMMI's facility in Princeton, Indiana.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Robert J. Hunt, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT, LLC 1905 South New Market Street, Ste. 220 Carmel, IN 46032 Telephone: (317) 743-0614 Facsimile: (317) 743-0615 E-mail: rob@indianawagelaw.com TRIPROP CLEARWATER: Borozny Files Suit under ADA in Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- Triprop Clearwater LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Austin Borozny, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Triprop Clearwater LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-03098-SCB-JSS (M.D. Fla., December 27, 2018). TRIPROP CLEARWATER LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq. The Advocacy Group, LLC 200 SE 6th St Ste 504 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3424 Tel: (954) 282-1858 Fax: (844) 786-3694 Email: jkerr@advocacypa.com UNITED MOTORS: Marsh Seeks Minimum Wages for Sales Reps ------------------------------------------------------- LEE MARSH on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED MOTORS LTD. d/b/a LIBERTY AUTO PLAZA, the Defendant, Case No.: 1:18-cv-08330 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. According to the complaint, Liberty is a Nissan, Kia and Volkswagen dealership selling new and used automobiles. See https://www.libertyautoplaza.com/ (last visited December 18, 2018). In one or more individual work weeks during the applicable statute of limitations, the Plaintiff and other sales persons were paid by Defendant on a work week basis pursuant to a draw against commission compensation agreement. In one or more individual work weeks during the Class Period. Similarly, in one or more individual work weeks, other sales persons were paid less than the minimum wage required by the FLSA and IMWL. In one or more work weeks during the Class Period, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff the federal minimum wage for all time he was suffered or permitted to work.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 UNITED STATES: Akins Files Suit in Court of Federal Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- William Akins brought a class action lawsuit against the US government in the US Court of Federal Claims on December 27, 2018. The case is styled as William Akins, individually, and each on behalf of a class of all other person similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USA, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01980-MCW. The lawsuit arises under the Tucker Act. The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean. Major Atlantic Coast cities are New York, a global finance and culture center, and capital Washington, DC. Midwestern metropolis Chicago is known for influential architecture and on the west coast, Los Angeles' Hollywood is famed for filmmaking.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Behar, Esq. Behar Behar 490 Sawgrass Corp. Pkwy, Suite 300 Sunrise, FL 33325 Tel: (954) 990-8639 Email: ab@beharbehar.com UNITED STATES: DOD Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Kuang Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants United States Department of Defense and James Mattis filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Jiahao Kuang, et al. v. DOD, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-03698-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 10, 2018, the Hon. Judge John S. Tigap entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of: "all persons who (i) are lawful permanent residents of the United States; (ii) have signed an enlistment contract with the U.S. military; and (iii) pursuant to Defendants' October 13 memo, have not been permitted to begin initial entry training, commonly referred to as "boot camp," pending completion of their Military Service Suitability Determination and National Security Determination"; 2. denying the DoD's motion to dismiss; 3. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction; and 4. enjoining Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and any other person or entity subject to their control or acting directly or indirectly in concert or participation with Defendants from taking any action continuing to implement the October Memo and directing Defendants to return to the pre-October 13, 2017 practices for the accession of Lawful Permanent Residents into the military. The appellate case is captioned as Jiahao Kuang, et al. v. DOD, et al., Case No. 18-17381, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Opening brief and excerpts of record are due not later than January 11, 2019; -- Answering brief is due on February 8, 2019, or 28 days after service of the opening brief, whichever is earlier; and -- optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JIAHAO KUANG and DERON COOKE, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, are represented by: Sameer Ahmed, Esq. Michael Kaufman, Esq. Jennifer Lee Pasquarella, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1313 West Eighth Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-5284 E-mail: sahmed@aclusocal.org mkaufman@aclusocal.org jpasquarella@aclusocal.org - and - Christine Patricia Sun , Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 343-0783 E-mail: csun@aclunc.org - and - Colleen Carlton Smith, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 12670 High Bluff Drive San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 523-5400 E-mail: colleen.smith@lw.com - and - Peter A. Wald, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: peter.wald@lw.com Defendants-Appellants UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE and JAMES MATTIS, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense of the United States Department of Defense, are represented by: Stuart Justin Robinson, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 436-6635 E-mail: stuart.j.robinson@usdoj.gov VERIZON WIRELESS: Hudson Seeks Unpaid Wages for Sales Reps ---------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Hudson, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Verizon Wireless Texas, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-03319-N (N.D. Tex., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to be paid for all the time he worked as an inside sales representative working in a call center. He answered customer calls regarding Verizon's wireless accounts and plans. The Plaintiff was paid hourly plus commissions. Defendant's policy, however, was to not pay Plaintiff and the Class Members for the time they spent outside the call centers on a company provided cell phone. The hours worked by the inside sales representatives outside the call center were not accurately tracked or counted towards total hours worked and no overtime as paid for these hours. Because Defendant did not accurately track and pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours, the Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200 Southlake, TX 76092 Telephone: 817 416-5060 Facsimile: 817 416-5062 E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com VILLAGE AUTO WASH: Oviedo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ DEIVID DARIO VELEZ OVIEDO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. VILLAGE AUTO WASH LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, d/b/a VILLAGE AUTO WASH, ALEX RODRIGUEZ, and TETERBORO AUTOMALL, INC. d/b/a/ TETERBORO CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE RAM, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-17414 (D.N.J., Dec. 19, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the collective class worked, or currently work, as non-exempt employees at Village Auto Wash. Alex Rodriguez owns and controls Village Auto Wash, an auto cleaning and detailing service. As part of its regular business practice, Defendants have intentionally, willfully and repeatedly harmed Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective by engaging in a pattern and/or policy of violating the FLSA. This policy and/or policy includes, failing to pay employees the applicable overtime rate for all time worked in excess of 40 hours per week; and failing to keep accurate records of hours worked by employees as required by the FLSA, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jason Rozger, Esq. BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP 80 Pine Street, 33 rd Floor New York, NY 10005 - and - Jacob Aronauer, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 WALMART TRANSPORTATION: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in Luna FCRA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Leonard Luna filed an appeal from court rulings issued in the lawsuit styled Leonard Luna v. Walmart Transportation LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-05141-TLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit (assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00331) was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas (Fayetteville) on July 13, 2018. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The appellate case is captioned as Leonard Luna v. Walmart Transportation LLC, Case No. 18-3698, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript is due on or before January 28, 2019; -- Appendix is due on February 7, 2019; -- Brief of Appellant Leonard Luna is due on February 7, 2019; -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant; -- Appellant reply brief is due 21 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Leonard Luna, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Maria Adrianne De Castro, Esq. Aashish Y. Desai, Esq. DESAI LAW FIRM PC 3200 Bristol Street Suite 650 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 614-5830 Facsimile: (949) 271-4190 E-mail: adrianne@desai-law.com aashish@desai-law.com Defendant-Appellee Walmart Transportation, LLC an Arkansas Corporation, is represented by: James Norman Boudreau, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 2700 Two Commerce Square 201 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 988-7833 E-mail: boudreauj@gtlaw.com - and - Robert J. Herrington, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 586-7700 Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com - and - Karen P. Freeman, Esq. Nathan A. Read, Esq. MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 4206 South J.B. Hunt Drive Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 464-5682 E-mail: kfreeman@mwlaw.com nread@mwlaw.com WM RESTAURANT: Zhang Files Suit for FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WM Restaurant Corp. The case is styled as Yu Zhang, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WM Restaurant Corp doing business as: Water Moon, Defendant, Case No. 31:18-cv-12333 (S.D. N.Y., December 29, 2018). The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The new MW restaurant serves food with influences from two of Hawaii's most beloved kitchens, Alan Wong's and Zippy's.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. ********* 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 2019. 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 ***