/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190115.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 15, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 11 Headlines 8 CHELSEA: Balderas Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations AGODA COMPANY: Wins Summary Judge Bid in Phan TCPA Suit AH-441 ERIE: Stegemann Files Suit Over Security Deposits AIR MEDICAL: Sued for Withholding Employees' Rightful Compensation ALLIED COLLECTION: Baumann Files FDCPA Suit in Colorado AMAZON INC: Beats Class Action, Joint Employer Issue Remains APHRIA INC: Feb. 4 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline APHRIA INC: Kessler Topaz Files Class Action Lawsuit ARASHI MAHALO: Abante Rooter Suit Alleges TCPA Violation ARKANSAS: Dismissal of Wilson Counterclaim vs DHS Affirmed ASSET PROTECTION: Bazile Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ASSURANCE IQ: Accused by Lo Suit of Invading Privacy Under TCPA ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Must Face Lawsuit Over Video Lottery Terminals BANNER BANK: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Bolding FLSA Suit BAY AREA REGIONAL: Cooper Suit Asserts WARN Act Violation BLACK BOX: Adie Files Securities Class Suit CANADA: Law Firms Mull Class Actions Over Mefloquine Side Effects CENTRAL FREIGHT: Accused by Branch Suit of Age Discrimination CITY OF INDUSTRY: $8.5MM FLSA Class Settlement Has Final Approval COMBERMERE ENTERTAINMENT: Cooner Files Suit under ADA in New York COMCAST CORPORATION: Lacy Suit Asserts TCPA Violation CONDUENT STATE: 9th Cir. Affirms Remand of Kendrick COX COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Ehrman Suit CREDENCE RESOURCE: Abdullah-Ezzani Sues Over FDCPA Violations CSX TRANSPORTATION: Boquette Suit Alleges FMLA Violation CYTOSPORT INC: Appeals Class Certification Order in Clay Suit DELAWARE: Inmates' Civil Rights Suit Removed to Del. Dist. Ct. DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Bailey Files FDCPA Suit in Alabama DOVER DOWNS: Faces Finley Securities Suit Over Twin River Merger E&L ROLLING GATES: Saldivar Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages EL EDEN: Cordero Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages ENHANCED RECOVERY: McCluskey Seeks to Certify Class Under FDCPA ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Kramer Files Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Walker Files FCRA Suit in Mississippi EXCEL FOOD: Suy Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages FITNESS SPECIALIST: Marin-Viveros Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages FKA DISTRIBUTING: Martinez Suit Asserts ADA Breach FLUOR ENTERPRISES: Mixon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages FRANKLIN CREDIT: Minearo Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection GINZA 685 INC: Lin Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages GLASSDOOR INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Says GOOGLE INC: Location Tracking, User Data Class Actions Combined HIGHLANDS PHYSICIANS: Attorneys Present Closing Arguments HOSPITALITY VENTURES: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Tom Suit INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Students' Class Action Over Mold Ongoing INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Suit Over Dormitory Mold Remanded to State Ct. INMATE SERVICES: 8th Circuit Appeal Filed in Stearns Suit IVO TANKU TAPANG: Faces Class Action Over Terrorist Acts KENTUCKY: Court Awards $222K Attorney's Fees to Inmate Class KIA: Vehicle Owners File Class Action Over Engine Fires KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS: Duran Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal. KUSHNER COMPANIES: Settles Tenants' Class Action for $88K L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Kent Files Suit Over Sale to Harris Corp. LIBERTY MUTUAL: Wash. Court Enforces Lebanon Settlement Ruling LIVANOVA PLC: Sorin Group Appeals Ruling in Baker Injury Suit MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces DeLoss Suit in Maryland Over Data Breach MARRIOTT INT'L: Skinner Sues Over Data Breach MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Bell Suit Alleges Negligence MEDENVIOS HEALTHCARE: Felix Sues for Invasion of Privacy MEMPHIS, TN: Must Depose Ex-Head of Police Sex Crimes Unit MESSERLI & KRAMER: Certification of Class Sought in Bauer Suit MOINIAN LLC: Fischler Files Suit under ADA in New York MONSANTO CO: Peabody Sues Over Herbicide Exposure MONTAFON LLC: Pequero Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay MOTION RECRUITMENT: Faces Diaz Suit Over ADA Violation NCAA: Phillips Appeals Ruling in Livers FLSA Suit to 3rd Cir. NEWFIELD EXPLORATION: Franchi Balks at Merger Deal with Encana NISSAN NORTH: Bashaw Sues Over Defective Emergency Braking System NOBILIS HEALTH: Feb. 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set NORTHLAND GROUP: Court OKs Dismissal of Rodriguez FDCPA Suit OC COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Ruling in Soto Suit to Ninth Circuit OTTAKRING INC: Victoriano Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages PARKWOOD ENTERTAINMENT: Violates ADA, Conner Suit Says PAVERS AND ROAD BUILDERS: Palumbo Seek Prelim. OK of Class Accord PENNSYLVANIA: Third Cir. Appeal Filed in Pelino Prisoner Suit PERRIGO COMPANY: Masih Sues Over Share Price Drop SAMSONITE COMPANY: Stohs Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages SEERSUCKER INC: Chiqui Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations SEVERSON & WERSON: Faces Duarte Wage and Hour Suit in Calif. SHREE RADHE: Kennedy Files Suit under ADA in Florida SKINNER SERVICES: Seeks 1st Cir. Review of Order in Pineda Suit STANDARD INTERNATIONAL: Gonzalez Suit Asserts Civil Rights Breach STARBUCKS COFFEE: Sullivan Asserts ADA Class Suit in NY STATE COLLECTION: Born Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation STATE FARM: $250MM Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay STRAIGHT LINE: Abante Rooter Suit Alleges TCPA Violation TANGA INC: Faces Diaz Suit Asserting ADA Violation TESLA INC: Judge Reconsidering Lead Plaintiff Appointment TMPL HOLDINGS: Mondello Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA TOPHATTER INC: Violates ADA, Diaz Suit Asserts TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in XLE Suit UNITED STATES: Class Action Over Army Discharge Reviews Okayed UNITED STATES: Liviz Appeals D. Mass. Decision to First Circuit UNITED STATES: Migrant Kids Mental Health Care Class Action OK'd VICTIM SERVICES: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Solberg Suit VILLAGEONE SPACE: Olsen Files Suit under ADA in New York VUZIX CORP: Securities Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed WATERSTONE MORTGAGE: Werner's Bid to Compel Arbitration Denied WELLS FARGO: Keller Rohrback Investigates HAMP Faulty Calculation WORLD MARKETING: Former Employees Class Certified in Carroll Suit WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: Couch Sues Over Fraudulent Sale of VOIs XPO LOGISTICS: Feb. 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ********* 8 CHELSEA: Balderas Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations --------------------------------------------------------- Vidal Balderas, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 8 Chelsea Corp. dba Riko Peruvian Cuisine, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-11149 (S.D. N.Y., November 29, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that throughout his employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was never paid the overtime premium of one-and-one-half times his regular rate of pay for his hours worked in excess of 40 per week, as required under the FLSA and NYLL. The Plaintiff Vidal Balderas was employed by the Defendants to work as a dishwasher at "Riko Chelsea" located at 409 8th Avenue, New York, NY 10001. The Defendants operate Riko Restaurants as a single integrated enterprise. Specifically, Riko Restaurants are engaged in related activities, share common ownership and have a common business purpose. Riko Restaurants are engaged in the same business of operating Peruvian restaurants in New York City. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 AGODA COMPANY: Wins Summary Judge Bid in Phan TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting Defendant's pre-certification motion for summary judgment in the case captioned AN PHAN, Plaintiff, v. AGODA COMPANY PTE. LTD., Defendant. Case No. 16-cv-07243-BLF. (N.D. Cal.). On four separate occasions after booking travel on Defendant Agoda Company Pte. Ltd.'s website, Plaintiff An Phan received a text message from Agoda that read "Good news! Your Agoda booking number is confirmed. Manage your booking with our free app http://app-agoda.com/GetTheApp." The Plaintiff filed this putative class action asserting a single cause of action: violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). In its motion for summary judgment, Agoda argues that the Court should grant summary judgement on Phan's sole claim, for violation of the TCPA, for three reasons: (1) Phan provided the required level of consent under the TCPA because the text messages he received did not contain advertising and were not telemarketing; (2) Phan waived his rights to assert his TCPA claim by agreeing to Agoda's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy and by continuing to make bookings with Agoda after receiving the allegedly unlawful text messages and (3) Phan agreed to a Singapore choice of law and venue clause in the Terms of Use. Requirements Under the TCPA The three elements of a TCPA claim are: (1) the defendant called a cellular telephone number (2) using an automatic telephone dialing system (3) without the recipient's prior express consent. As to the third element, consent is an affirmative defense on which the defendant bears the burden of proof. The type of consent required depends on the content of the message. If the text message includes or introduces an advertisement or constitutes telemarketing, the sender is required to obtain prior express written consent" of the recipient. To constitute advertising, the text message must contain material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services. To constitute telemarketing, the text message must be for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services. Application of the TCPA to the Text Messages Received by Phan Though a claim under the TCPA has three elements, Agoda does not dispute that Phan satisfies the first two elements of the TCPA claim, that Agoda sent text messages to Phan's cellular phone using an automatic telephone dialing system. Instead, Agoda's motion for summary judgment argues that it wins on the third element, because it has successfully established an affirmative defense of consent. Agoda argues in its motion that the text messages were neither advertising nor telemarketing, but instead were merely transactional because they served only two purposes: (1) to confirm that Phan's bookings were reserved with the third party hotel and (2) to direct Phan to the app to locate and modify the booking prior to the completion of his stay. Phan, by contrast, argues that the messages were advertising or telemarketing, and not merely transactional, because the business transaction was completed at the time of booking, rendering the app-download link superfluous. In making their arguments, both parties analogize to and distinguish manifold cases in this Circuit and others. A review of this case law is instructive here. In Aderhold II, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that the text message at issue was not telemarketing. The plaintiff in that case had signed up for a car-sharing service and immediately received a text message prompting him to enter an activation code into a link emailed to him. See Aderhold v. Car2go N.A., LLC (Aderhold I), No. C13-489-RAJ, 2014 WL 794802, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 27, 2014). The district court concluded that the message was not telemarketing because it served the limited purpose of allowing the plaintiff to complete his registration. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that diversion to the defendant's website was sufficient to render the message telemarketing simply because the website also contained promotions for the defendant's services. In affirming, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that the message contain[ed] no content encouraging purchase of the defendant's services and was directed instead to completing the registration process. Similarly in Herrick v. QLess, Inc., the Court held that two messages related to plaintiffs' wait times at certain establishments were advertisements. 216 F.Supp.3d 816, 817 (E.D. Mich. 2016). The first message encouraged the plaintiffs to sign up for an app that would allow them to see their wait in real time, control when [they] get served & find more places with no lines link and, the second message both informed them that their wait was over and included a link to the defendant's website. The court held the messages were advertising because they advertised a `free' app for the purpose of conveying the quality of [defendant's] products and services and soliciting plaintiffs to recruit more business customers. In so holding, the Court rejected the defendant's argument that the free nature of the app rendered it merely informational. However, the Herrick court did not explicitly consider whether the transaction at issue, namely, the plaintiffs' wait was ongoing or had otherwise concluded. In light of this case law and the requirements of the TCPA, this Court holds that the text messages Agoda sent to Phan were neither advertising nor telemarketing. The content of the messages reinforces this conclusion. The text messages read: "Good news! Your Agoda booking number is confirmed. Manage your booking with our free app http://app-agoda.com/GetTheApp."The plain language of the text messages is limited to (1) confirming the booking a purpose no court cited by Phan has found constitutes advertising or telemarketing and (2) encouraging Phan to manage his] booking via the app. These two purposes directly related to Phan's transaction with Agoda. This language distinguishes this case from Haagen-Dazs, 2017 WL 4536422, at *1-*2, where the app link was included without an attendant function relevant to the transaction, and from Herrick, 216 F. Supp. 3d at 817-18, where the app link in the first message was included, in part, to find more places with no lineand the website link in the second message was included without an attendant function relevant to the transaction. And the inclusion of the link to the app is not enough to warrant holding that these messages were advertising under the TCPA. Though the app may fairly be considered a product or service of Agoda, the messages simply cannot be said to advertise the commercial availability of this product or service under the law. The app is readily analogized to Agoda's website, as the two platforms have substantially similar processes for booking travel and most if not all of the same functions. The court in Aderhold I, Aderhold v. Car2go N.A., LLC (Aderhold I), No. C13-489-RAJ, 2014 WL 794802, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 27, 2014)., rejected the argument that inclusion of a link to a website that contained promotions was sufficient to render the messages advertising or telemarketing. The same is true for the app. Even though it contains certain promotions the app was included to facilitate, complete, or confirm a commercial transaction, making the link to it fully germane to the transaction. Put simply, Agoda was not advertising the app's commercial availability. To hold otherwise would run headlong into the decisions in this Circuit and others holding that inclusion of the link to a defendant's website, without more, does not render a message advertising or telemarketing. The Court holds that the messages at issue here were neither advertising nor telemarketing as defined by the TCPA. As such, Agoda needed only Phan's express consent prior to sending the messages. There is no dispute that Agoda received such consent because Plaintiff voluntarily provided his phone number and agreed to Agoda's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which made clear that such messages would be sent. Accordingly, Agoda's motion for summary judgment is granted on its only claim, for violation of the TCPA. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 13, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y86la8ue from Leagle.com. An Phan, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Joe Jaurigue -- michael@jlglawyers.com -- Jaurigue Law Group, Alfredo Torrijos -- alfredo@asstlawyers.com -- Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Torrijos LLP, Mike M. Arias -- mike@asstlawyers.com -- Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Torrijos LLP & Ryan A. Stubbe -- ryan@jlglawyers.com -- Jaurigue Law Group. Agoda Company Pte. Ltd., a Singapore Private Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Teresa Lauren Harrold Michaud -- teresa.michaud@bakermckenzie.com -- Baker & McKenzie LLP, Anne M. Kelts -- anne.kelts@bakermckenzie.com -- Baker McKenzie & Barry Jay Thompson, Baker McKenzie. AH-441 ERIE: Stegemann Files Suit Over Security Deposits -------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT STEGEMANN, & JENNIFER STEGEMANN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. AH-441 ERIE, LLC, GROUP FOX, INC., ONTERIE CO-INVESTOR, LLC, & VILLAGE GREEN HOLDING, LLC, Case No. 2018CH15991 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., December 26, 2018), is brought on behalf of a proposed class consisting of: all tenants of the Building, who gave a security deposit for rental of a dwelling unit at the Building and still had that security deposit held for that unit in and around December 29, 2016, when Transferor or its agent(s) transferred security deposits for the Building to Successor or its agent(s) and who did not receive written notification within 14 days after the date of transfer of the name and address of the new financial institution where security deposits were held. The property at 448 E. Ontario Ave. ("Building") in Chicago is a multi-unit residential apartment building. Until and in Dec. 29, 2016, Onterie Co-Investor, LLC ("Transferor") was a person in whom was vested all or part of the legal title to the Building, or all or part of the beneficial ownership and a right to present use and enjoyment of the Building. In and after December 29, 2016, AH-441 Erie, LLC ("Successor") has been a person in whom is vested all or part of the legal title to the Building, or all or part of the beneficial ownership and a right to present use and enjoyment of the Building.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Silverman, Esq. MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD. 225 W. Washington, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 775-1015 Facsimile: (312) 256-2055 E-mail: mark@depositlaw.com AIR MEDICAL: Sued for Withholding Employees' Rightful Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nikki Murdock and Les McGee, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Air Medical Group Holdings, Inc. d/b/a AirMedCare Network; and Global Medical Response, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00005-BRW (E.D. Ark., January 3, 2019) is an action arising from Defendants' failure to abide by the contractual compensation provisions by improperly withholding rightful compensation from Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. The Defendants sell memberships to their AirMedCare Network to citizens across the United States. Members of Defendants' network are entitled to transport by an AirMedCare Network provider for medical conditions deemed to be life-or-limb threatening or that could lead to permanent disability, and members will receive no out of pocket expenses for their flights. The Defendants send out direct mail letters to potential customers located within the MSMs' territories. When this process began, if someone purchased a membership through this direct mailer, the purchase was included in that MSM's Total Revenue Dollars. The direct mailers often included the MSM's name even though the MSM did not mail them. Rather than adhering to their own contract and continuing this process, Defendants began a pattern and practice of failing to include all memberships within the MSM's Total Revenue Dollars. In January of 2018, Defendants mailed approximately 39,979 direct mail letters to customers in Plaintiff Murdock's designated territory. In May of 2018, Defendants mailed approximately 85,542 direct mail letters to customers in Plaintiff Murdock's territory. Defendants failed to give Plaintiff Murdock any credit towards her Total Revenue Dollars for the membership purchases obtained through the direct mail letters. In January of 2018, Defendant mailed approximately 36,405 direct mail letters to customers in Plaintiff McGee's designated territory. In April of 2018, Defendant mailed approximately 115,066 direct mail letters to customers in Plaintiff McGee's territory. Defendant failed to give Plaintiff McGee any credit towards his Total Revenue Dollars for the membership purchases obtained through the direct mail letters. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs and the Class Members have received and continue to receive improperly reduced compensation while Defendants increase their own revenues. Moreover, the Defendants are improperly withholding payment earned by their employees, failing to abide by their own contract, and have caused and are continuing to cause significant harm to Plaintiffs and Class Members, says the complaint. Plaintiff Nikki Murdock is employed by Defendant as a membership sales manager. She began her employment November 13, 2009. Plaintiff Les McGee is employed by Defendant as a membership sales manager. He began his employment August 15, 2014. Air Medical Group Holdings, Inc. d/b/a AirMedCare Network("AMGH") is a corporation with its headquarters located in Dallas, Texas. AMGH is the largest independent provider of emergency air medical services in the world. AMGH operates through its six subsidiaries: Air Evac Lifeteam, Guardian Flight, Med-Trans Corporation, REACH, AirMed International and Lifeguard. Air Medical Group Holdings, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Global Medical Response, Inc. Global Medical Response, Inc. is a corporation with its headquarters located in Greenwood Village, Colorado. Global Medical Response, Inc. is a medical transportation company formed by combining Air Medical Group Holdings, Inc. and American Medical Response, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul Byrd, Esq. Joseph Gates, Esq. Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC 415 N. McKinley St. Ste. 210 Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: (501) 420-3050 Fax: (501) 420-3128 Email: paul@paulbyrdlawfirm.com joseph@paulbyrdlawfirm.com - and - W. Dee Miles, III, Esq. C. Lance Gould, Esq. Leslie L. Pescia, Esq. Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. P.O. Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103 Phone: (334) 269-2343 Fax: (334) 954-7555 Email: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com lance.gould@beasleyallen.com leslie.pescia@beasleyallen.com ALLIED COLLECTION: Baumann Files FDCPA Suit in Colorado ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Collection & Credit Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Macushla Baumann, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00020 (D. Colo., January 3, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Allied Collections and Credit Bureau is a mid-sized, accounts receivable management and control firm which was established in 1982.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. RC Law Group, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com AMAZON INC: Beats Class Action, Joint Employer Issue Remains ------------------------------------------------------------ Bloomberg Law reports that Amazon.com Inc. is free from class claims in a delivery driver's lawsuit seeking wages, overtime, and relief for other alleged labor violations, but the company didn't settle a question that could expose it and other major businesses to significant liability. The California driver can't seek class status because the proposed class members—current and former joint employees of Amazon and various staffing companies that were subject to the company's delivery guidelines—didn't have enough in common, a federal judge ruled Dec. 6. Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California also seemed to leave room for a finding that Amazon is a "joint employer" of Jasmine Miller, along with a company called 1-800 Courier. Although the case is being reviewed under California labor law, a joint employment finding would mean both Amazon and the courier company are Miller's formal employers, a precedent that would implicate any major business that regularly uses contracted or subcontracted labor in California and any state with similar 'joint employer' laws. Miller's working conditions as an alleged joint employee of Amazon and staffing company 1-800 Courier might not match the working conditions of drivers at other Amazon contractors that are alleged to be jointly employed, according to the judge. She therefore failed a test for class action status that says all the putative class members need to have faced essentially the same conditions and experiences. The driver was represented by Cohelan Khoury & Singer and Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron APLC. Amazon was represented by Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. Neither firm responded to requests for comment. 'Joint Employer' Question Persists Amazon was less successful in defeating the driver's substantive allegations, many of which survived the online retailer's motion to dismiss. The worker is moving forward with allegations that she was denied minimum wages, overtime wages, meal breaks, rest periods, and accurate wage statements. Chesney gave Miller until Jan. 4, 2019, to amend her class complaint. The judge added that a "question likely exists as to whether Amazon is in fact a joint employer"—an issue that's typically settled by assessing how much control one business has over the working terms and conditions of employees at a different company. Amazon had contested some of Miller's factual evidence for the joint employer allegation in a previous motion, including that "she drove a vehicle and wore a uniform with 'Amazon's logo"'; that Amazon controlled her schedule through "electronic devices it issued," and had the power to discipline and terminate. But Amazon is no longer challenging the "sufficiency of Miller's allegations that 1-800 Courier and Amazon" were her joint employers, Chesney wrote in a footnote. The company is facing lawsuits in other jurisdictions seeking to hold it liable as a joint employer of contractor's workers. Many other companies -- most notably McDonald's LLC -- are keeping a keen eye on the issue. Federal laws were reinterpreted by President Barack Obama's administration to make it easier to hold multiple companies as joint employers. President Donald Trump's nominees at the federal labor board and Department of Labor have indicated they might change those standards in 2019. [GN] APHRIA INC: Feb. 4 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ---------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until February 4, 2019 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Aphria Inc. (NYSE: APHA), if they purchased the Company's securities between July 17, 2018 and December 4, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. What You May Do If you purchased securities of Aphria and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-apha/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by February 4, 2019. About the Lawsuit Aphria and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On December 3, 2018, Hindenburg Research reported in an article entitled an article, "Aphria: A Shell Game with a Cannabis Business on the Side," that an extensive investigation revealed that "Aphria is part of a scheme orchestrated by a network of insiders to divert funds away from shareholders into their own pockets" and detailing the questionable value of its investments. On this news, the price of Aphria's shares plummeted. The case is Gloschat v. Aphria Inc. et al, 18-cv-11427. Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Website: www.ksfcounsel.com Telephone: 1-877-515-1850 Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] APHRIA INC: Kessler Topaz Files Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Aphria Inc. (NYSE: APHA) ("Aphria") on behalf of purchasers of Aphria securities between July 17, 2018 and December 4, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Important Deadline: Investors who purchased Aphria securities during the Class Period may, no later than February 4, 2019, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this action please visit www.ktmc.com/aphria-securities-class-action. According to the complaint, Aphria produces and sells medical cannabis. The Class Period commences on July 17, 2018, when Aphria announced its plans to acquire "industry-leading companies in Colombia, Argentina, Jamaica and a right of first offer and refusal in respect of Brazil through a definitive share purchase agreement with Scythian Biosciences, Inc." According to the complaint, on December 3, 2018, Quintessential Capital Management and Hindenburg Research published a report alleging, among other things, that Aphria's recent acquisitions in Latin America were part of a series of transactions designed to enrich Aphria insiders and that these acquisitions lacked established operations and/or licenses to operate in the cannabis industry. Following this news, Aphria's share price fell $1.85 per share, or over 23%, to close at $6.05 per share on December 3, 2018. Then, on December 4, 2018, Aphria denied the claims made in the report stating, among other things, that it had received "financial advice and a fairness opinion from Cormark Securities Inc., [Aphria]'s independent and qualified financial advisor, that the consideration to be offered by Aphria in respect of the transaction was fair from a financial point of view, to Aphria." Following this news, Aphria's share price fell $1.54 per share, or over 25%, to close at $4.51 per share on December 4, 2018. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants failed to disclose that: (1) the Latin American assets acquired by Aphria lacked adequate licenses to operate and were overvalued; (2) the acquisition of the Latin American assets would enrich Aphria's Chief Executive Officer and other insiders at the expense of shareholders; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about Aphria's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299–7706 or (610) 667–7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com. Aphria investors may, no later than February 4, 2019, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (888) 299-7706 (610) 667-7706 Email: abell@ktmc.com jmaro@ktmc.com [GN] ARASHI MAHALO: Abante Rooter Suit Alleges TCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Abante Rooter and Plumbing, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arashi Mahalo, LLC dba Bizfundingfinder, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 4:18-cv-07311 (N.D. Calif., December 3, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants negligently, knowingly and willfully contacted the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the TCPA and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy. The Plaintiff Abante Rooter and Plumbing is a corporation of the State of California with principal place of business in the county of Alameda. The Defendant Arashi Mahalo is a loan provider. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 Tel: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com ARKANSAS: Dismissal of Wilson Counterclaim vs DHS Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Arkansas issued an Opinion affirming the Circuit Court's Order dismissing Appellant's Counterclaim in the case captioned DENA WILSON, Appellant, v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Appellee. No. CV-17-830. (Ark.). Appellant Dena Wilson appeals the Pulaski County Circuit Court's order dismissing her counterclaim for declaratory and injunctive relief against appellee Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS). DHS petitioned the circuit court for an ex parte order of investigation alleging that it had received a report that Wilson had physically abused her minor child, I.W. DHS asserted that it had a duty under the Child Maltreatment Act to interview and examine Wilson and I.W. For reversal, Wilson argues that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider the counterclaim because DHS was entitled to sovereign immunity. DHS moved to dismiss the counterclaim pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and to vacate the order of investigation. DHS argued that the counterclaim was procedurally improper and that Wilson could have challenged the order by applying for a stay pending a hearing, as is authorized under the Child Maltreatment Act. The court entered an order denying Wilson's constitutional claims and granting DHS's motion to dismiss her counterclaim and vacate the order of investigation. On appeal, Wilson does not challenge the circuit court's denial of her claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. Instead, she argues that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear her counterclaim because DHS was entitled to sovereign immunity under article 5, section 20 of the Arkansas Constitution. She contends that the circuit court's order addressing the merits of her claims was void, that the order should be reversed, and that her case should be dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction. DHS asserts several bases on which this court may affirm the circuit court's order. DHS argues that (1) Wilson failed to preserve any sovereign-immunity argument; (2) Wilson had already obtained the relief she sought below, dismissal of the order of investigation, and the relief she seeks on appeal, dismissal of her counterclaim, so a decision by this court would have no practical legal effect on any controversy; and (3) sovereign immunity did not apply to prohibit the circuit court from considering the counterclaim. The Court agrees with DHS that Wilson failed to preserve her sovereign-immunity argument and affirm on this basis. Article 5, section 20 of the Arkansas Constitution states that the State of Arkansas shall never be made defendant in any of her courts. As Wilson notes, the Court have held that the legislature does not have the power to waive this constitutional provision by statute. However, contrary to Wilson's argument, the Court have also held that sovereign immunity is not a matter of subject-matter jurisdiction that may be addressed for the first time on appeal. Here, neither party asserted to the circuit court that DHS was entitled to sovereign immunity. In fact, Wilson expressly argued to the contrary at the hearing on the State's motion to dismiss on the basis of sovereign immunity and DHS stated in its amended response to the counterclaim that it had no objection on the basis of jurisdiction. The issue was not raised by either Wilson or DHS at any stage of the lawsuit, nor was it ruled on by the circuit court. Accordingly, the Court is unable to address the sole issue raised by Wilson on appeal, and the Court therefore affirm the circuit court's order of dismissal. Affirmed. A full-text copy of the state Supreme Court's December 13, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7yz92p3 from Leagle.com. Churchwell Law Offices, by: Joseph Churchwell, 214 Hobson Avenue, Hot Springs, AR, 71913, for appellant. Jerald A. Sharum , Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee. ASSET PROTECTION: Bazile Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Philip Bazile, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Asset Protection Group LLC dba APG Security Services & Sterling Investigative Services, Case No. 1:18-cv-06820 (E.D. N.Y., November 30, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, minimum wages, overtime compensation, spread of hours compensation, and uniform maintenance pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff and members of the putative class and collective are all victims of the Defendant's common policy and plan to violate the FLSA and NYLL by failing to pay its security guards for all hours worked, including overtime hours, pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL. The Plaintiff Philip Bazile resides in the State of New York and was employed by Defendant from approximately October 2018 to the present as a security guard. The Defendant Asset Protection Group LLC dba APG Security Services & Sterling Investigative Services, is a foreign limited liability company incorporated under the laws of the State of New Jersey with its principal place of business at 116 North Broadway, 2nd Floor, South Amboy, New Jersey 08879. Defendant also operates a security agency under the name APG Security. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd Ambinder, Esq. Jack Newhouse, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 943-9080 Fax: (212) 943-9082 ASSURANCE IQ: Accused by Lo Suit of Invading Privacy Under TCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON LO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASSURANCE IQ, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-01858 (W.D. Wash., December 26, 2018), alleges that the Defendant negligently and/or intentionally contacted the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading his privacy. Assurance IQ, Inc., is a corporation existing under the laws of the state of Washington. The Company is a home insurance agency in Bellevue, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio S., #101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Must Face Lawsuit Over Video Lottery Terminals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael MacDonald, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that an intriguing court case that alleges Crown-owned video lottery terminals are inherently deceptive and violate the Criminal Code has reached a critical milestone in Newfoundland and Labrador. And the outcome of the case could have implications for VLT gaming across Canada. The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal has cleared the way for a class-action lawsuit to go ahead, rejecting arguments for dismissal from the Atlantic Lottery Corp., which operates in all four Atlantic provinces. "VLTs are inherently deceptive, inherently addictive and inherently dangerous when used as intended," says a statement of claim filed in 2012. The lawsuit was certified as a class action in early 2017. Among other things, it alleges VLTs should be considered illegal because they don't fit the Criminal Code definitions for slot machines, fair games of chance or lottery schemes. More importantly, the plaintiffs allege VLTs more closely resemble a gambling card game known as three-card monte, which at first glance appears to be a straight-forward test of tracking one of three cards as they are moved about. The lawsuit argues the sleight-of-hand tricks used in this con game are not unlike the manipulative electronic programming VLTs use to create "cognitive distortions" about the perception of winning. Toronto-based lawyer Kirk Baert, who represents plaintiffs Douglas Babstock and Fred Small, said the appeal court accepted that as a potential legal argument. "The point of having this provision in the Criminal Code . . . was to prevent people from being deceived by charlatans and tricksters who use sleight-of-hand to make people lose their money," Mr. Baert said in an interview. "Our point is that technology has evolved, and this is just the same thing -- but it's being done through a machine instead of a human being at a table or at a carnival." None of the allegations has been proven in court. The Atlantic Lottery Corp. has insisted the highly regulated electronic games are decided only by chance. In its ruling, the appeal court effectively rejected the plaintiffs' claims that the use of VLTs violate the federal Competition Act and a British law from 1710 known as the Statute of Anne, which was aimed at preventing deceitful gaming but fell into disuse. The corporation has yet to say whether it will seek an appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada. Aside from Messrs. Babstock and Small, who are both retirees, those included in the class action are as many as 30,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador who paid the lottery corporation to gamble on VLT games any time after April 2006. The lawsuit is seeking damages equal to the alleged unlawful gain obtained by the corporation through VLT revenue. As well, the plaintiffs are seeking an injunction that would bar the corporation from using VLTs, based on the assertion that the terminals do not constitute a permitted lottery under federal law. If the lawsuit is successful, similar claims could be filed across Canada. Citing a third-party study, the lawsuit says the odds of winning the $500 maximum prize from a VLT in Newfoundland and Labrador are roughly 270,000 to 1, which would mean a long-term player would likely lose about $30,000 before hitting the jackpot. The statement of claim goes on to allege VLTs employ what is called "subliminal priming" to induce players to hyper-focus "and to create a dangerous dissociative mental state, wherein players cannot make rational decisions to continue to play or not." The goal is to leave players "mesmerized," in the same way those duped by the three-card monte ruse can hardly believe their eyes, Mr. Baert said. "It's predetermined that you will lose," he said. "The more you play, the more you lose." [GN] BANNER BANK: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Bolding FLSA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Banner Bank filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Kelly Bolding, et al. v. Banner Bank, Case No. 2:17-cv-00601-RSL, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Robert S. Lasnik (i) granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Responses; and (ii) denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' request for an evidentiary hearing. The Court has also granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs are current and former mortgage loan officers, real estate commissioned loan officers, and/or residential lenders ("MLOs") employed by Defendant Banner Bank and other financial institutions acquired by Banner Bank. The Plaintiffs allege that MLOs are required to work and have worked "off the clock" without compensation. The Court conditionally certified a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") based on the Plaintiffs' substantial allegations that putative class members were the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan. The appellate case is captioned as Kelly Bolding, et al. v. Banner Bank, Case No. 18-80192, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents KELLY BOLDING, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated; MICHAEL MANFREDI, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated; and SARAH WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Scott C.G. Blankenship, Esq. Richard Goldsworthy, Esq. THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S. 1000 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 343-2700 E-mail: sblankenship@blankenshiplawfirm.com rgoldsworthy@blankenshiplawfirm.com Defendant-Petitioner BANNER BANK, a Washington Corporation, is represented by: Kenneth E. Payson, Esq. Ryan Coby Hess, Esq. Sheehan H. Sullivan Weiss, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 757-8126 E-mail: kenpayson@dwt.com ryanhess@dwt.com sulls@dwt.com BAY AREA REGIONAL: Cooper Suit Asserts WARN Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------- BETTY COOPER, CHRISTINE CHAMPAGNE, CLEMETEAN WILLIAMS, NAKIA HOLMES JUPITER, DOMINIQUE COLEMAN, KEIA WALKER, LATONJA JONES, BRITTANY DUPAR, CAROL WALKER, and BARBARA JACKSON, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. BAY AREA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER LLC, MEDISTAR SLN GP LLC, and MONZER HOURANI, Case No. 4:18-cv-04818 (S.D. Tex., December 21, 2018), is a civil action brought pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 for failing to provide written notice, including 60 days' advance written notice. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to give the required WARN Act written notice to the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals in connection with a recent Mass Layoff and/or Plant Closing at the Defendants' single site of employment/operational units in Webster, Texas, at which the Plaintiffs and the Class Members were employed during the relevant time period. Bay Area Regional Medical Center, LLC, is a Texas corporation located at 200 Blossom St., in Webster, Harris County, Texas. Medistar SLN GP, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Houston, Texas. Monzer Hourani is a Texas resident and is the director and manager of Bay Area and the President of Medistar. Bay Area and Medistar are both 100% owned by Hourani through subsidiary corporations. The Defendants Bay Area and Medistar operated BARMC in Webster, Texas. BARMC owns and operates a nine-story acute-care hospital with 248 beds.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd Slobin, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net rprieto@eeoc.net - and - Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com BLACK BOX: Adie Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------- James Adie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Black Box Corporation et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-02537 (C.D. Calif., November 30, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin the expiration of a tender offer by AGC Networks Pte. Ltd. through Host Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of BBX Inc., to acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of Black Box (the "Proposed Transaction"). On November 11, 2018, Black Box, AGC, Parent, BBX Intermediate, and Merger Sub entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, whereby each stockholder of Black Box common stock will receive $1.08 per share in cash. The Plaintiff alleged that on November 21, 2018, in order to convince Black Box stockholders to tender their shares, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/ Recommendation Statement with the SEC. The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Black Box. The Defendant Black Box is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at 1000 Park Drive, Lawrence, Pennsylvania 15055 with a branch regional office at 7950 Cherry Ave, Fontana, CA 92335. The Company is a technology solutions provider dedicated to helping customers build, manage, optimize, and secure their IT infrastructure. Black Box common stock is traded on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "BBOX." The Individual Defendants are members of the Company's board of directors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Bower, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC 600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170 Culver City, CA 90230 Tel: (213) 446-6652 Fax: (212) 202-7880 E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.com CANADA: Law Firms Mull Class Actions Over Mefloquine Side Effects ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gloria Galloway, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that military veterans who were ordered to take the anti-malarial drug mefloquine while on deployment and believe they suffered harmful side effects are being urged to sue the federal government for compensation. Two different law firms are about to commence legal action. Howie, Sacks and Henry (HSH), a personal-injury firm based in Toronto, is preparing to launch individual suits on behalf of any current or former member of the military who was required to take mefloquine on any deployment and believes he or she has experienced a debilitating impact. And Larmer Stickland, lawyers based in North Bay, Ont., plan to soon file papers in a proposed class-action suit for veterans of the Somalia mission of the early 1990s who were part of an improperly conducted clinical trial of the drug. A suit launched in 2000 on behalf of the Somalia vets was dismissed in April because it took too long to be heard. But Justice Robbie Gordon, the Ontario Superior Court judge who threw out that case, said in his ruling that "dismissal for delay does not preclude a subsequent class proceeding by another representative." Larmer Strickland has found another lead plaintiff and is preparing to proceed. HSH, meanwhile, is collecting names of potential clients, along with their medical records, and intends to begin filing statements of claim early in the New Year. "We're going to launch a lawsuit on behalf of each individual member or veteran who was forced to take mefloquine and is now facing brain injury issues due to the neurotoxicity of the drug that they were never warned about," said Paul Miller, a partner with the firm. "This could include the people who were in Somalia, and anyone who has ever taken mefloquine." By taking the government to court as individuals as opposed to being part of a class action, plaintiffs have the opportunity to give direct instructions to their lawyer and to have their own day in court, Mr. Miller said. The military did not respond to requests for comments about the lawsuits. The Canadian Forces conducted a review of the drug in 2016. It concluded there is no evidence that mefloquine causes long-lasting problems. But the military also decided at that time that alternative drugs were the preferred options for soldiers who deploy to countries where malaria is a risk. Health Canada updated the warning labels for mefloquine that same year to emphasize that certain side effects can persist for months after the drug has been discontinued, and may be permanent in some patients. Soldiers who have taken mefloquine have complained about a wide range of mental-health issues including depression, aggressive behaviour, poor concentration, social isolation and suicidal thoughts. Earlier in 2018, a U.S. army sergeant blamed the drug for his massacre of 16 villagers in Afghanistan in 2012. In 2017, the Irish government settled a case with one of its former soldiers who says he was suffering the neurological effects of having consumed mefloquine. And, in this country, veterans have asked the government to reopen an inquiry into the 25-year-old killing of a Somali teenager by Canadian soldiers who were taking the drug. John Dowe was in Somalia with the Canadian Forces when the teen was beaten to death. He says he is aware of both legal actions and says the two sets of lawyers will compare notes to ensure they do not overlap each other's work. Mr. Dowe says he is still dealing with the effects of the mefloquine he took in Somalia, on top of his post-traumatic stress disorder which has some similar symptoms including hypervigilance, anxiety and insomnia. [GN] CENTRAL FREIGHT: Accused by Branch Suit of Age Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------- ALBERT BRANCH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, INC., Case No. 6:18-cv-02185-JA-DCI (M.D. Fla., December 21, 2018), is brought to remedy civil rights violations in the form of age discrimination pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. The Plaintiff was employed by Central's predecessor, Wilson Trucking, beginning on or about June 16, 1969. When Central purchased Wilson Trucking, Branch became an employee of Central. He was terminated without prior notice on or about August 25, 2017. He was 66 years of age at the time of his termination and his position was Manager of Loss Prevention. Mr. Branch contends that Central also violated the Older Workers Benefits Protections Act and, hence, the ADEA, by attempting to use waivers to insulate itself from ADEA liability arising out of its discriminatory termination program. Central is a corporation with its principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas, doing business in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. Central, a less-than-truckload general commodities carrier, provides transportation services to emerging businesses. The Company maintains a fleet of tractors, trailers, and delivery trucks; and specialty equipment, lift gate trucks at various terminals, and trailers to transport rods and pipes for oilfield operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Sharman, Esq. THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC 11175 Cicero Dr., Suite 100 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Telephone: (678) 242-5297 Facsimile: (678) 802-2129 E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com - and - Amanda S. Thompson, Esq. SALTER THOMPSON LAW, P.C. 2860 Piedmont Road, Suite 215 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 247-0107 Facsimile: (404) 920-4342 E-mail: amanda@stlaborlaw.com CITY OF INDUSTRY: $8.5MM FLSA Class Settlement Has Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division, issued an Opinion granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion For Final Approval Of Collective and Class Action Settlement in the case captioned LAUREN BYRNE et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF INDUSTRY HOSPITALITY VENTURE, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. EDCV 17-527 JGB (KKx). (C.D. Cal.). The Court is satisfied that the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement were the result of good faith, arms' length settlement negotiations between competent and experienced counsel for both Plaintiffs and Defendants. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following opt-out settlement classes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 that were preliminarily certified by virtue of the Court's October 30, 2017 and November 7, 2017: a. All current and former exotic dancers who worked at any Spearmint Rhino, Dames N Games and/or Blue Zebra location in the State of California from any time starting four years prior to February 3, 2017 until the date the case resolves. b. All current and former exotic dancers who worked at any Spearmint Rhino location in the State of Florida from any time starting five years prior to February 3, 2017 until the date the case resolves. c. All current and former exotic dancers who worked at any Spearmint Rhino location in the State of Idaho from any time starting three years prior to February 3, 2017 until the date the case resolves. d. All current and former exotic dancers who worked at any Spearmint Rhino location in the State of Iowa from any time starting three years prior to February 3, 2017 until the date the case resolves. e. All current and former exotic dancers who worked at any Spearmint Rhino location in the State of Kentucky from any time starting three years prior to February 3, 2017 until the date the case resolves. f. All current and former exotic dancers who worked at any Spearmint Rhino location in the State of Minnesota from any time starting three years prior to February 3, 2017 until the date the case resolves. g. All current and former exotic dancers who worked at any Spearmint Rhino location in the State of Oregon from any time starting three years prior to February 3, 2017 until the date the case resolves. h. All current and former exotic dancers who worked at any Spearmint Rhino location in the State of Texas from any time starting three years prior to February 3, 2017 until the date the case resolves. For purposes of settlement only, the Plaintiffs also seek final certification of the following opt-in settlement class pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA: a. All current and former exotic dancers who worked at any Spearmint Rhino, Dames N Games and/or Blue Zebra location in the United States from any time starting three years before February 3, 2017 to the present. The Court finds, for purposes of settlement only, that the FLSA Settlement Class, as defined above, satisfies the requirements to be maintainable as a settlement collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and that those members of the FLSA Settlement Class who opted into the settlement class as defined in the Settlement Agreement constitute the Final FLSA Settlement Class, as defined in the Settlement Agreement. The Court approves the proposed Settlement Agreement and finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate with respect to the Defendants, Plaintiffs and all members of the Settlement Classes. The Court finds that sufficient investigation, research and litigation have been conducted such that counsel for the parties are able to evaluate their respective risks of further litigation, including the additional costs and delay associated with the further prosecution of this action. The Court further finds that the Settlement Agreement has been reached as the result of intensive, arms'-length negotiations, including mediation with an experienced third-party neutral. Class Counsel is awarded 20% plus costs and expenses ($1,700,000 plus costs and expenses of $19,646.86 for a total of $1,719,646.86) from the total Settlement Amount ($8,500,000.00) for fair and reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred in the prosecution of this litigation. Service Payments are approved for Plaintiffs Byrne, Bracy, and Disla, in the amount of $2,500.00 each, due to their performance of substantial services for the benefit of the Settlement Classes. Such Service Payments are to be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount, as specified in the Settlement Agreement. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 13, 2018 Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/yceks9a4 from Leagle.com. Lauren Byrne, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Melinda Arbuckle -- marbuckl@baronbudd.com -- Baron and Budd PC, Ricardo J. Prieto, Shellist Lazarz Slobin LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel J. Moorhead -- smoorhead@napolilaw.com -- Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Todd Slobin, Shellist Lazarz Slobin LLP, pro hac vice, Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Jennifer R. Liakos, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC & Salvatore Badala, Napoli Shkolink PLLC. Bambie Bedford & Jennifer Disla, Plaintiffs, represented by Samuel J. Moorhead, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC & Melinda Arbuckle, Baron and Budd PC. Santa Barbara Hospitality Services, Inc., The Spearmint Rhino Companies Worldwide, Inc., Spearmint Rhino Consulting Worldwide, Inc. & Santa Barbara Hospitality Services, LLC, Defendants, represented by John M. Kennedy, Garrell Law PC & Peter E. Garrell, Garrell Law PC. Adriana Ortega, Interested Party, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-Riordan PC. COMBERMERE ENTERTAINMENT: Cooner Files Suit under ADA in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- Combermere Entertainment Properties, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Combermere Entertainment Properties, LLC and Roc Nation LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00058 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019). Combermere Entertainment Properties, LLC is an entity registered at New York County. Combermere entertainment properties, LLC located at the address 1901 avenue of the stars suite 700 Los Angeles, California, 90067. the Company was incorporated on November 12, 2005.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com COMCAST CORPORATION: Lacy Suit Asserts TCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Douglas Lacy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Comcast Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-05007 (W.D. Wash., January 4, 2019) seeks damages and other equitable and legal remedies resulting from Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Since January, 2018, Comcast has repeatedly called Mr. Lacy's cellular phone about a Comcast account that does not belong to him. Comcast used an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") and an artificial or prerecorded voice to make these calls. Plaintiff began receiving Comcast's calls shortly after he got a new cellular phone number in January, 2018. Mr. Lacy has not been a Comcast customer since 2013 and did not consent to receive calls from Comcast five years after he terminated his Comcast subscription. Plaintiff informed Comcast that it has the wrong number and asked Comcast to stop calling him. Comcast, nevertheless, continues to make calls to Plaintiff's cellular phone without his consent, says the complaint. Plaintiff Douglas Lacy resides in Spanaway, Washington. Comcast is a Pennsylvania corporation with headquarters at One Comcast Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2838.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Phone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com jmurray@terrellmarshall.com - and – Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Simon S. Grille, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 Email: dgirard@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com CONDUENT STATE: 9th Cir. Affirms Remand of Kendrick --------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an Opinion affirming the judgment of the District Court granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the case captioned SUMATRA KENDRICK, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CONDUENT STATE AND LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC., FKA Xerox State and Local Solutions, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and BAY AREA TOLL AUTHORITY, a California public corporation; GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, a California public corporation, Defendants. No. 18-16988. (9th Cir.) to the state court. This is an appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), from an order granting plaintiffs' motion to remand to the state court. They brought the action against the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) and the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District (GGB), both entities of the state of California, and against Conduent State and Local Solutions, Inc. (Conduent), a private company that has contracted with the state entities to operate the bridge's toll system. Plaintiffs' principle claims allege defendants are in violation of California privacy statutes prohibiting the collection of personal data. Although the district court found that most of the requirements for maintaining the case in federal court under CAFA were met, including the size of the class and the amount in controversy, it ruled that the principal defendants were not subject to CAFA jurisdiction. Conduent argues that the case against it belongs in federal court because the district court's conclusion that Conduent is a state actor was flawed. Conduent points to the language of a CAFA exception that provides CAFA does not apply to proposed classes where the primary defendants are states, state officials or other governmental entities against whom the district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief. A district court shall have jurisdiction over a class action when: (1) the amount in controversy exceeds five million, and (2) any class member is a citizen of a state different from any defendant. The California agencies, BATA and GGB, were undisputedly state entities, and the district court concluded that Conduent was as well, because it was exercising the authority of the state with respect to the alleged violation of plaintiffs' privacy rights. In this appeal Conduent argues the district court erred because it relied on 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 case law to determine that Conduent was a state actor, and that the district court failed to address the language of CAFA's statutory exception relating to other governmental entities against whom the District Court may be foreclosed from ordering relief. Conduent's position is that as a private entity it is outside the scope of Section 1332(d)(5)(A). It accurately points out that Section 1983 cases are not controlling because the Section 1983 state actor analysis looks to an actor's role and conduct while the CAFA inquiry goes to the nature of the entity itself. The district court's exclusive reliance on Section 1983 case law was not appropriate. The issue is whether Conduent may be considered an instrumentality of the state. To determine whether an entity is able to invoke such immunity our Court has said we generally look to a number of factors: (1) whether a money judgment would be satisfied out of state funds, (2) whether the entity performs central governmental functions (3) whether the entity may sue or be sued (4) whether the entity has the power to take property in its own name or only the name of the state and (5) the corporate status of the entity. On this record, Conduent satisfies the second factor of performing a central government function and it has not asserted that it lacks any of the other characteristics. Conduent performs the government function of processing bridge tolls, collecting fines and imposing penalties in the name of the state. This record does not reflect whether it may satisfy the other factors. We have observed, however, that the Mitchell factors are not particularly useful when applied to a private entity because a private entity cannot be an arm of the state when the relationship to the sovereign is only by contract. Here, the Plaintiffs contend the relationship is more than contractual because the state has enacted a special statutory scheme for the collection of bridge tolls and has recognized the entities with whom the state contracts for such purposes as an issuing agency. Our case law provides no clear answer as to whether Conduent qualifies as a governmental entity within the meaning of CAFA. Conduent contends that even if it is a government entity, it waived any immunity it might have had by removing the case to federal court. In deciding whether the governmental entity exception applies, however, the existence or waiver of immunity is not the issue; the only issue is whether the entity is such that a claim of immunity may be made. The plaintiffs correctly contend that the result is required by provisions of CAFA calling for local actions to be heard in state court. The local controversy exception is one of several exceptions to CAFA removal jurisdiction. The provision instructs that a district court is required to decline jurisdiction over a class action when: (1) more than two-thirds of the proposed plaintiff class(es) are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed, (2) there is at least one in-state defendant against whom significant relief is sought and whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the proposed class, (3) the principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct of each defendant were incurred in the state of filing, and (4) no other class action asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants has been filed within three years prior to the present action. The exception's purpose is to ensure that class actions with a local focus remain in state court rather than being removed to federal court because state courts have a strong interest in resolving local disputes. Shortly after Kelly filed her case in state court as a putative class action, it was removed to federal court, where Kelly voluntarily dismissed the case as to her claims only. When this, the Kendrick case, was filed in state court, Kelly became a plaintiff in it. When the Kendrick case in turn was removed to federal court, the district court ordered it joined with the remainder of the Kelly case as a related case. So when the district court remanded this case to state court, it remanded one case that included all the parties and potential parties to both the Kelly and Kendrick actions. The district court properly ruled that the case against Conduent, the toll collector, belongs in state court with the California entities that manage the bridge's maintenance and operation. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's December 13, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9gro4c5 from Leagle.com. COX COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Ehrman Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Cox Communications California, LLC, Cox Communications, Inc. and CoxCom, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled David Ehrman v. Cox Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:18-cv-01125-JVS-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit (assigned Case No. 30-02018-00992300-CU-MC-CXC) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the District Court on June 22, 2018. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James V. Selna. Cox Communications is an American privately owned subsidiary of Cox Enterprises providing digital cable television, telecommunications and Home Automation services in the United States. The appellate case is captioned as David Ehrman v. Cox Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-80195, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent DAVID EHRMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jamin S. Soderstrom, Esq. SODERSTROM LAW PC 3 Park Plaza, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 667-4700 Facsimile: (949) 424-8091 E-mail: jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com Defendants-Petitioners COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., COXCOM, LLC and COX COMMUNICATIONS CALIFORNIA, LLC, are represented by: Richard R. Patch, Esq. Scott Christensen Hall, Esq. Philip D.W. Miller, Esq. Katharine Tracy Van Dusen, Esq. COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS, LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 391-4800 Facsimile: (415) 989-0663 E-mail: rrp@cpdb.com ef-sch@cpdb.com ef-pdm@cpdb.com ef-ktv@cpdb.com CREDENCE RESOURCE: Abdullah-Ezzani Sues Over FDCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- ALI ABDULLAH-EZZANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CREDENCE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:18-at-01866 (C.D. Cal., December 20, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibit debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices. Credence Resource Management, LLC, is a debt collection company. The Company regularly attempts to collect debts alleged to be due another. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com CSX TRANSPORTATION: Boquette Suit Alleges FMLA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Boquette, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CSX Transporation, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-02762 (N.D. Ohio, November 29, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Family Medical Leave Act. The Plaintiff and the class he seeks to represent are current and former employees of CSXT who were eligible for and properly utilized FMLA leave during their employment for CSXT and were then improperly denied attendance bonuses and were not afforded "Good Attendance Credit" under the Defendant's absenteeism policy. The Plaintiff, Tyson Boquette, is an individual residing at 1886 Weil Road, Perrysville, Ohio 44864. At all times material herein, Boquette was employed by CSXT as a Conductor and Engineer. The Defendant CSXT is a corporation engaged as a common carrier by rail in interstate commerce, owning, operating, and maintaining an interstate railroad system including tracks and other facilities. The Defendant's corporate headquarters is located at 500 Water Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Thompson, Esq. Neal E. Shapero, Esq. Abby L. Botnick, Esq. SHAPERO ROLOFF CO., LPA U.S. Bank Centre 1350 Euclid Ave., Suite 1350 Cleveland, OH 44115 Tel: (216) 781‐1700 Fax: (216) 781‐1972 E-mail: athompson@shaperoroloff.com nshapero@shaperoroloff.com abotnick@shaperoroloff.com CYTOSPORT INC: Appeals Class Certification Order in Clay Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant CytoSport, Inc., filed an appeal from the District Court's September 7, 2018 order granting, in part, class action certification in the lawsuit titled Chayla Clay, et al. v. CytoSport, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00165-L-AGS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego. The appellate case is captioned as Chayla Clay, et al. v. CytoSport, Inc., Case No. 18-56662, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge M. James Lorenz granted in part (i) the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and (ii) the Defendant's motion to exclude Dr. Elizabeth Howlett's testimony for purposes of class certification only. Judge Lorenz certified these classes: (a) A nationwide class comprising of all persons in the United States who, within four years of the filing of the action, purchased the Defendant's Cytosport Whey Isolate Protein Drink; Monster Milk: Protein Power Shake; Genuine Muscle Milk: Protein Nutrition Shake; and Muscle Milk Pro Series 40: Mega Protein Shake. The class is certified for purposes of prosecuting violations of UCL and FAL, to the extent the claims are based on the protein content statements on product labels; (b) A nationwide class comprising of all persons in the United States who, within four years of the filing of the action, purchased the Defendant's Muscle Milk: Lean Muscle Protein Powder; Muscle Milk Light: Lean Muscle Protein Powder; Muscle Milk Naturals: Nature's Ultimate Lean Muscle Protein; Muscle Milk Gainer; High Protein Gainer Powder Drink Mix; Muscle Milk Pro Series 50: Lean Muscle Mega Protein Powder (14 oz. to 10 lbs. products); and Monster Milk: Lean Muscle Protein Supplement (2.06 and 4.13 lbs. products). The class is certified for purposes of prosecuting violations of UCL and FAL, to the extent the claims are based on the "lean" statements on product labels; (c) All persons residing in California who, within four years of the filing of th action, purchased the Defendant's Cytosport Whey Isolate Protein Drink; Monster Milk: Protein Power Shake; Genuine Muscle Milk: Protein Nutrition Shake; and Muscle Milk Pro Series 40: Mega Protein Shake. The class is certified for purposes of prosecuting violations of UCL, FAL and CLRA, to the extent the claims are based on the protein content statements on product labels; (d) All persons residing in California who, within four years of the filing of the action, purchased the Defendant's Muscle Milk: Lean Muscle Protein Powder; Muscle Milk Light: Lean Muscle Protein Powder; Muscle Milk Naturals: Nature's Ultimate Lean Muscle Protein; Muscle Milk Gainer; High Protein Gainer Powder Drink Mix; Muscle Milk Pro Series 50: Lean Muscle Mega Protein Powder (14 oz. to 10 lbs. products); and Monster Milk: Lean Muscle Protein Supplement (2.06 and 4.13 lbs. products). The class is certified for purposes of prosecuting violations of UCL, and FAL, to the extent the claims are based on the "lean" statements on product labels; (e) All persons residing in Florida who, within four years of the filing of the action, purchased the Defendant's Cytosport Whey Isolate Protein Drink; Monster Milk: Protein Power Shake; Genuine Muscle Milk: Protein Nutrition Shake; and Muscle Milk Pro Series 40: Mega Protein Shake. The class is certified for purposes of prosecuting violations of the FDUTPA, to the extent the claim is based on the protein content statements on product labels; (f) All persons residing in Florida who, within four years of the filing of this action, purchased the Defendant's Muscle Milk: Lean Muscle Protein Powder; Muscle Milk Light: Lean Muscle Protein Powder; Muscle Milk Naturals: Nature's Ultimate Lean Muscle Protein; Muscle Milk Gainer; High Protein Gainer Powder Drink Mix; Muscle Milk Pro Series 50: Lean Muscle Mega Protein Powder (14 oz. to 10 lbs. products); Monster Milk: and Lean Muscle Protein Supplement (2.06 and 4.13 lbs. products). The class is certified for purposes of prosecuting violations of the FDUTPA, to the extent the claim is based on "lean" statements on product labels; and (g) All persons residing in Michigan who, within six years of the filing of this action, purchased the Defendant's Cytosport Whey Isolate Protein Drink; Monster Milk: Protein Power Shake; Genuine Muscle Milk: Protein Nutrition Shake; and Muscle Milk Pro Series 40: Mega Protein Shake. The class is certified for purposes of prosecuting violations of the MCPA, to the extent the claim is based on protein content statements on product labels. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant CytoSport, Inc.'s opening brief is due on February 19, 2019; -- Appellees Chayla Clay, Erica Ehrlichman, Logan Reichert and Chris Roman's answering brief is due on March 21, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees CHAYLA CLAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, as class representative for the nationwide and California classes; ERICA EHRLICHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, as class representative for the nationwide and Michigan class; LOGAN REICHERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, as class representative for the nationwide and Florida classes; and CHRIS ROMAN, class representatives for the nationwide classes and class representative for the California classes, are represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq. FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1333 E-mail: trk@classactionlaw.com jrk@classactionlaw.com - and - Jason J. Thompson , Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com Defendant-Appellant CYTOSPORT, INC., a California Corporation, is represented by: Aaron Daniel Van Oort, Esq. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 90 South Seventh Street, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 766-8138 E-mail: aaron.vanoort@faegrebd.com DELAWARE: Inmates' Civil Rights Suit Removed to Del. Dist. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Robert L. Adger, Calvin L. Allen, Henry J. Anderson, Nathaniel Bagwell, Fenel D. Baine, Donald F. Bass, Joseph N. Bennett, Dymere T. Berry, Samuel B. Bishop, Marquis Boyer- Smith, John Boyer, Kevin C. Brathwaite, Alan Brooks, Jarad Brown, Michael A. Brown, Justin L. Burrell, Luis G. Cabrera, Fred T. Caldwell, Alonzo I. Cannon, Ivan Carabello, Michael A. Carello, Aaron K. Carter, Robert W. Chandler, Frederick O. Clifton, Donald Cole, Curtis M. Collins, Kenjuan Congo, Brian Conley, Chris E. Craig, Joseph Crumpler, Maurice Cruz- Webster, Pablo A. Damiani- Melendez, Jamel Daniels, Jermaine Dickerson, Greg Dickson, Krishan Dillard, Antwan L. Douglas, Steven Drake, Deshawn D. Drumgo, John R. Dupree, Kurt Dupree, Jeffrey R. Fogg, David D. Foreman, Kyair J. Fullman, Monir A. George, Charles T. Getz, Regent J. Goddard, Victor Grantham, Kelly L. Hand, Theodore Harris, Cornell L. Hester, Shaquille K. Jackson, Antoine Jones, Michael E. Keyser, Claude Lacomb, James Lawhorn, Alfred M. Lewis, Jr., Andrew D. Long, Dana B. Martin, Tyrone Mathis, John C. Mayhew, Richard D. Mccane, Kevin Mccray, David Mccullough, Edward Mclaughlin, Marvin Mencia, Lawrence L. Michaels, John E. Miller, Keith J. Miller, Tony Mozick, Lamont L. Norman, Anthony J. Ortiz, Donald D. Parkell, Ezra S. Pendleton, Hassan J. Perry, Christopher Porter, Millard E. Price, Mark C. Purnell, Louis W. Rittenhouse, Andre A. Rivera, Marcus Rosser, Ben Roten, Ron Roundtree, Larry J. Sartin, Raymond Q. Sawyer, Daniel E. Schultz, Joshua D. Sears, Sylvester C. Shockley, Luis Sierra, Ryan Sinclair, David R. Smith, Wade T. Smith, Ronald L. Snead, Russell E. Steedley, Lamont E. Stevenson, Darrin L. Swiggett, Nigel C. Skyes, Gerard E. Szubielski, Henry R. Taylor, Jr., Elwood E. Teagle, Orin L. Turner, Gabriel J. Wallace, Joseph Wallace, Lionel M. Walley, Howard A. Walsh, James G. Wells, Michael L. Wells, Christopher H. West, Keenan Wheeler, Eubanks White, Eugene W. Wiggins, Dennis O. Williams, Ronaldo Williams, Cliff Wilson, Raymond H. Wood, Richard Woodard, Robert L. Worley, for themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Governor John Carney, Former Commissioner Robert Coupe, Commissioner Perry Phelps, Warden Dana Metzger, Warden David Pierce, Warden Timothy Radcliff, Deputy Warden Phil Parker, Deputy Warden James Scarborough, Major Jeffrey Carruthers, Captain Bruce Burton, Lt. Justin Atherholt, Lt. Nathan D. Atherholt, Lt. Jason T. Coviello, Lt. George J. Gill, Lt. Melvin Harris, Iii, Lt. Karen Hawkins, Lt. Sean R. Milligan, Lt. James Satterfield, Lt. Larry Savage, Lt. Charles D. Sennett, Jr., Lt. Teddy D. Tyson, Sgt. Wilfred Beckles, Sgt. Lawrence O. Coverdale, Sgt. Todd Scott Drace, Sgt. John R. Faulkner, Sgt. Ronald Frederick, Sgt. Vincent E. Hazzard, Sgt. Vincent May, Sgt. Kevin R. Mckenna, Sgt. Robert Mock, Sgt. Charles H. Radcliffe, Sgt. Dennis P. Russell, Cpl. Nathaniel C. Payton, Cpl. Dale Lee Rains, Michael J. Arabia, Paul O. Barone, Joshua A. Connor, William Estrada, Norman Figueroa, Jr., Brett Foraker, Lance N. Green, Richard L. Griffith, Michael Chester Landon, Joshua Peppers, Thomas Patrick Runyon, Jr., Joshua D. Stewart, Abigail West, Timothy R. Young and Aaron Forkum, Defendants, Case No. N18C-10-00340 filed in Delaware Superior Court on October 31, 2018, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on December 27, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-02048. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are inmates at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna DE who were illegally abused, mistreated and tortured by their supervisors, denied healthcare, education, rehabilitation and recreational options. They claim damages and injunctive relief under the Civil Rights Act. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen A. Hampton, Esq. GRADY & HAMPTON 6 North Bradford Street Dover, DE 19904 Tel: (302) 678-1265 Email: sahampton@gradyhampton.com Defendants are represented by: C. Malcolm Cochran , IV Chad Michael Shandler, Esq. Christine Dealy Haynes, Esq. Katharine Lester Mowery, Esq. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, PA One Rodney Square, Suite 600 920 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 651-7506, 658-6541, 651-7508, 651-7623 Email: cochran@rlf.com shandler@rlf.com haynes@rlf.com mowery@rlf.com - and - James Darlington Taylor, Jr. SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2300 P.O. Box 1266 Wilmington, DE 19899 Tel: (302) 421-6863 Email: James.taylor@saul.com DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Bailey Files FDCPA Suit in Alabama ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified Consultants Inc. The case is styled as Abbiegeal Bailey a/k/a Abbie Bailey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Diversified Consultants Inc d/b/a Diversified Central Inc. and Pinnacle Credit Services LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-00013-TMP (N.D. Ala., January 3, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts. Diversified Consultants inc. is a business specializing in Accounts Receivable Management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David I Schoen, Esq. 2800 Zelda Road, Suite 100-6 Montgomery, AL 36106 Tel: (334) 395-6611 Fax: (917) 591-7586 Email: DSchoen593@aol.com DOVER DOWNS: Faces Finley Securities Suit Over Twin River Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY D. FINLEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DOVER DOWNS GAMING & ENTERTAINMENT, INC., PATRICK J. BAGLEY, TIMOTHY R. HORNE, DENIS MCGLYNN, JEFFREY W. ROLLINS, R. RANDALL ROLLINS, and HENRY B. TIPPIE, Case No. 1:18-cv-12111 (S.D.N.Y., December 21, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by filing a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement in connection with the acquisition of Dover Downs by Twin River Worldwide Holdings, Inc. On July 22, 2018, and later amended on October 8, 2018, Dover Downs, Twin River, Double Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Twin River ("Merger Sub I"), and DD Acquisition LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Twin River ("Merger Sub II"), entered into a transaction agreement (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which Merger Sub I will merge with and into Dover Downs, with Dover Downs surviving the merger as an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Twin River. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each share of Dover Downs common stock and class A common stock (together, the "Dover Downs Stock") will be cancelled and converted into the right to receive a number of validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable shares of common stock of Twin River equal to the quotient obtained by dividing (1) the aggregate number of shares of Twin River common stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger, on a fully diluted, as-converted basis, multiplied by 0.07787658, by (2) the aggregate number of shares of Dover Downs Stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger, on a fully diluted, as-converted basis, plus cash in lieu of any fractional shares (the "Merger Consideration"). Dover Downs is a Delaware corporation, with its principal executive offices located in Dover, Delaware. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Dover Downs is a public holding company that has two wholly owned subsidiaries: Dover Downs, Inc. and Dover Downs Gaming Management Corp.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 Facsimile: (212) 202-7880 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com E&L ROLLING GATES: Saldivar Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages ------------------------------------------------------- Maximo Saldivar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. E&L Rolling Gates Corp. and Maria Morales and Pedro Morales, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-0054 (E.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019) is an action against Defendants to recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiffs' employment. As a result of the violations of Federal and New York State labor laws, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages. Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies the Court deems appropriate. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from February 2016 until August 2018. Plaintiff's primary duties were as a door and window setter, and laborer, and performing other miscellaneous duties. Although Plaintiff worked approximately 55 or more hours per week during his employment by Defendants, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the PLSA and NYLL, asserts the complaint. The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by both the NYLL and the FLSA. The Defendants also willfully failed to keep accurate payroll records as required by both NYLL and the FLSA, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Maximo Saldivar residing at 181 Chestnut Street, Brooklyn, New York 11208, was employed by Defendants E&L Rolling Gates Corp. from in or & around February 2016 until in or around August 2018. E&L Rolling Gates Corp. is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive office at 92-48 77th Street, Woodhaven, New York 11421. It is a corporation authorized to do business under the laws of New York. Maria Morales is the Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, an agent and owns and/or operates E&L Rolling Gates Corp. Pedro Morales is the Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, an agent and owns and/or operates E&L Rolling Gates Corp.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. Helen F. Dalton & Associates, PC Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 1141 S Phone: 718-263-9591 Fax: 718-263-9598 EL EDEN: Cordero Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Maria Ester Cordero, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. El Eden, Corp. and Marisol Ferrer, Case No. 1:18-cv-24990 (S.D. Fla., November 29, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wage compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Throughout her employment with El Eden, the Plaintiff routinely worked for El Eden an average of eleven and one half hours per day, for a total of sixty-nine hours per week, forty regular hours and twenty-nine hours overtime. Notwithstanding, the Defendants willfully and intentionally failed/refused to pay to Plaintiff the federally required minimum and overtime rates for all hours he worked. The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt Caregiver for the Defendants from July 1, 2017 through May 2018. The Defendants own and operate an assisted living facility in Miami County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Monica Espino, Esq. ESPINO LAW 2655 S. Le Jeune Road, Suite 802 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Tel: (305) 704-3172 Fax: (305) 722-7378 E-mail: me@espino-law.com ENHANCED RECOVERY: McCluskey Seeks to Certify Class Under FDCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled RICHARD MCCLUSKEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-02696-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla.), seeks to certify this class: (i) All persons with addresses in Florida (ii) to whom Defendant sent, or caused to be sent, a letter in the form of Exhibit A (iii) attempting to collect an obligation owed to DirecTV or allegedly owed to DirecTV (iv) which as shown by the nature of the alleged debt, Defendant's records, or records of the original creditor, was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes (v) on which the last payment was made five or more years prior to the date of mailing of the letter. Mr. McCluskey also asks the Court to appoint him as class representative, and to appoint his attorneys as class counsel. The lawsuit is a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class action against ERC.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Florin, Esq. FLORIN LEGAL, P.A. 6936 W. Linebaugh Ave., Suite 101 Tampa, FL 33624 Telephone: (813) 404-1203 Facsimile: (813) 354-3619 E-mail: SFlorin@FlorinLegal.com - and - Richard K. Peck, Esq. ELKIN-PECK, PLLC 12515 Spring Hill Drive Spring Hill, FL 34609 Telephone: (352) 835-7977 E-mail: litigation@elkinpeck.com - and - Jeremiah E. Heck, Esq. LUFTMAN, HECK & ASSOCIATES, LLP 580 E. Rich Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 224-1500 E-mail: jheck@lawlh.com The Defendant is represented by: Scott S. Gallagher, Esq. Richard Rivera, Esq. SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP 50 North Laura St, Suite 2600 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 598-6111 E-mail: ssgallagher@sgrlaw.com rrivera@sgrlaw.com ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Kramer Files Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enterprise Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Steve Kramer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, Defendant, Case No. CGC19572530 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 3, 2019). Enterprise Holdings, Inc. is a private holding company headquartered in the Clayton suburb of St. Louis, Missouri, United States. It is the parent company of car rental companies Enterprise Rent-A-Car, National Car Rental, Alamo Rent a Car, the ELCO Chevrolet/Cadillac car dealership, and Enterprise CarShare.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. Reese LLP 100 W. 93rd St Sixteenth Floor New York, NY 10025 EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Walker Files FCRA Suit in Mississippi ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information Services, LLC. The case is styled as Cynthia Walker, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00005-CWR-LRA (S.D. Miss., January 3, 2019). 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: Curtis Ray Hussey, Esq. CURTIS R. HUSSEY, LLC 10 N. Section Street, No. 122 Fairhope, AL 36532 Tel: (251) 928-1423 Fax: (866) 317-2674 Email: gulfcoastadr@gmail.com EXCEL FOOD: Suy Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL DAVID COXOLCA SUY and CRISPIN TORRES SAENZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. EXCEL FOOD CORP. (D/B/A NU-SUSHI), KYOTO OF JAPAN, INC. (D/B/A NU SUSHI), THEAM YIP LEE, PAI LING LEE, and FENG ZHENG, Case No. 1:18-cv-12103 (S.D.N.Y., December 21, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Excel Food Corp., doing business as Nu-Sushi, is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York and maintained its principal place of business in New York City. Kyoto of Japan, Inc., doing business as Nu-Sushi, is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York and maintained its principal place of business in New York City. The Individual Defendants serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporations. The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a Japanese restaurant, located at 76 Pearl St., in New York City the name "Nu-Sushi."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com FITNESS SPECIALIST: Marin-Viveros Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ricarddo Marin-Viveros, Edgar Pablo, Javier Campos, and Francisco Sarinana, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Fitness Specialist, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Fernando Silva, individually, and Kristy Zientek, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00104 (N.D. Ill., January 6, 2019) is an action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay proper overtime compensation to the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees of the Defendants. The Defendants routinely, and as a matter of practice and policy, required the Plaintiffs to work more than 40 hours per week, but then failed and refused to pay the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class members overtime compensation at the requisite statutory rate, i.e., one-and-one-half times the Plaintiffs' respective, regular hourly wage rates. Upon information and belief, the Defendants continue this practice through the present, notes the complaint. According to the complaint, the Defendants also routinely and as a matter of practice and policy paid the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class members less than the applicable minimum wage in certain weeks during their employment. The Plaintiffs are individuals domiciled within Illinois and reside within the Northern District of Illinois. Fitness Specialist, Inc. is an Illinois corporation. Fernando Silva is an individual who, upon information and belief, is domiciled in Illinois and resides within the Northern District of Illinois. Kristy Zientek is an individual who, upon information and belief, is domiciled in Illinois and resides within the Northern District of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul Luka, Esq. MENDOZA LAW, P.C. 120 S. State Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 Fax: (312) 508-6010 Email: paul@alexmendozalaw.com FKA DISTRIBUTING: Martinez Suit Asserts ADA Breach --------------------------------------------------- FKA Distributing Co. LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. FKA Distributing Co. LLC doing business as: Jam Audio, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00035 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019). FKA Distributing Co. LLC manufactures personal health, wellness, and electronics for customers worldwide. The company provides back, neck, foot, sports recovery, and handheld massagers; air purifiers, humidifiers, and replacement filters and accessories; footbaths, paraffin baths, essential oils, and scent diffusers; and parts and accessories. It also offers diagnostics products, such as blood pressure monitors, fitness monitors, and rapid relief products. The company's brand portfolio includes The House of Marley, HMDX Audio, and JAM Audio. It markets and sells its products through retailers in the United States, as well as online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 44 Court Street Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11217 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com FLUOR ENTERPRISES: Mixon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Wade Mixon on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00018-B (N.D. Tex., January 4, 2019) was filed over Defendant's failure to pay overtime to employees at the rate of time and one half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Class Members overtime pay at the rate required by the Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA), asserts the complaint. The Defendant violated the FLSA by paying the Plaintiff and Class Members an hourly rate of pay for all hours worked without an additional premium for those hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. Plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, all unpaid wages and other damages owed under the FLSA as a collective action. Plaintiff Wade Mixon is an individual residing in Martinez, Georgia. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a field engineer from approximately April 2016 to October 2017. Fluor Enterprises, Inc. is a foreign company organized under the laws of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com FRANKLIN CREDIT: Minearo Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection ----------------------------------------------------------- Peter Minearo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Franklin Credit Management Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00010-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal., January 3, 2019) is an action in response to Defendant's attempts to unlawfully and abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff incurred a mortgage on his house. In 2006, Plaintiff incurred a second mortgage from Key Bank, the original creditor of the Debt. In 2008, Plaintiff made his last payment on the Debt. Sometime thereafter, but before February 23, 2018, Plaintiff sold his house through a short sale. In or around 2010, Defendant was assigned, placed, or otherwise transferred Plaintiff's Debt. On February 23, 2018 -- approximately 10 years after Plaintiff's last payment on the Debt -- Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection letter. This collection letter was the first communication that Plaintiff had with Defendant. The letter advised Plaintiff that after he calls an Agent, "we will send you a settlement and account disclosure to sign. We request that you return the signed settlement agreement and account disclosure along with settlement payment to us by your expected settlement date". Within five days after its initial communication (i.e., the foregoing letter) with Plaintiff, Defendant did not make any of the disclosures. The letter did not advise Plaintiff that he did not have an obligation to pay the debt nor did the letter mention Plaintiff's account was beyond the statute of limitation. Further, despite the age of the debt, the letter did not disclose that Defendant could not sue Plaintiff to collect the debt. All violations by Defendant were knowing, willful, and intentional, and Defendant did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid these violations, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in the City of San Diego, State of California. Defendant is a Delaware corporation that manages loans through all stages of delinquency including collections.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Yana A. Hart, Esq. Hyde & Swigart, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com yana@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Albert R. Limberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALBERT R. LIMBERG 3667 Voltaire Street San Diego, CA 92106 Phone: (619) 344-8667 Facsimile: (619) 344-8657 Email: alimberg@limberglawoffice.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com GINZA 685 INC: Lin Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- JIA WANG LIN, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GINZA 685 INC d/b/a Kouzan; DAN HONG SHI, Case No. 1:18-cv-12202-AJN (S.D.N.Y., December 26, 2018), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wage and unpaid overtime wages; (2) liquidated damages; (3) out of pocket expenses to delivery experts on the road; (4) liquidated damages; (5) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and/or (6) attorney's fees and cost. Ginza 685 Inc., doing business as Kouzan, is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York with a principal address at 685 Amsterdam Avenue, in New York City. The Individual Defendants are officers, directors, managers and/or majority shareholders or owners of the Corporate Defendant. The Defendants operate Kouzan, a Japanese restaurant located on the Upper West Side. Opened in 2007, Kouzan offers both traditional and inventive Japanese cuisine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com GLASSDOOR INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------- Glassdoor, 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. Glassdoor, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00075 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019). Glassdoor, Inc. operates an online jobs and career community. It offers job listings, as well as access to user-generated content, including salary reports, ratings and reviews, benefits and company reviews, CEO approval ratings, interview questions and reviews, office photos, and more. The company allows employers to post jobs and job seekers to find jobs in the areas of administrative, business, construction, consultant, consultant, engineering, finance, healthcare, IT, sales, shipping, and software sectors. Its online community service is also available through its mobile application on iOS and Android platforms.[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 GOOGLE INC: Location Tracking, User Data Class Actions Combined --------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Guthrie, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that separate class action lawsuits focused on Google's location tracking mechanism amid claims that the tech titan unlawfully stored user location information have been combined into a single suit in California. According to TopClassActions, U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila approved a consolidation of six proposed Google class action lawsuits in order to "promote efficiency and avoid the possibility of inconsistent judgments." The lawsuits claim that to completely block Google from saving location data, a user would have to disable the "web and app activity" setting in their account. Google reportedly failed to inform users about the setting, nor did it disclose that the setting was "crucial" in the company's power to track and store user data. "Google improperly baited users into using its applications and functionalities without worrying about their privacy by representing to users that they could control Google's access to their location data and allowing them to opt out of giving Google their location data, then Google switched users into allowing it to collect their location data," one of the Google tracking class actions stated. The U.S. Supreme Court waved that red flag in a separate case where chief justice John Roberts commented that when a third party has access to the information stored on one's cell phone, that entity "achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone's user." The backstory The genesis of the Google suit started with an investigation by the Associated Press (AP), in which computer science researchers at Princeton University were able to create a visual map of the movements of the study's subject as he moved around with his Android phone that had Location History toggled off. The map included the subject's "train commute on two trips to New York and visits to the High Line park, Chelsea Market, Hell's Kitchen, Central Park, and Harlem. To protect his privacy, The AP didn't plot the most telling and frequent marker -- his home address." Following the Associated Press' scrutiny, Google updated its disclosures. However, plaintiffs in the Google class action lawsuits claim that this was "too little, too late and does not absolve the company of liability." The AP's findings were confirmed by Vanderbilt University computer science professor Douglas C. Schmidt in a separate study. "Google counts a large percentage of the world's population as its direct customers, with multiple products leading their markets globally and many surpassing 1 billion monthly active users," Schmidt concluded. "A major part of Google's data collection occurs while a user is not directly engaged with any of its products. And while such information is typically collected without identifying a unique user, Google distinctively possesses the ability to utilize data collected from other sources to de-anonymize such a collection." The data that Google collects Since Google found itself under the heat lamp on the matter, it's seemingly doing its best to make sure users know what data they're allowing the company to collect and use. When "Web & App Activity" is on, Google saves information like: Searches and other things you do on Google products and services, like Maps Your location, language, IP address, referrer, and whether you use a browser or an app Ads you click, or things you buy on an advertiser's site Information on your device like recent apps or contact names you searched for Websites and apps you use Your activity on websites and in apps that use Google services Your Chrome browsing history Do you have an Android phone? The magnitude of Google's data collection is significant, especially on Android mobile devices where it's estimated that those devices send 10 times more data to Google than iPhones. And when you multiply that data times the two billion active monthly users that connect to the world using that platform, the data net that Google casts is vast. Google might argue that it's codependent on Android since it's the ecosystem for many related products ranging from wristwatches to coffee machines. Nonetheless, Google's ability to give or deny data collection is squarely on users' shoulders. If any of this unnerves you as an Android owner, the best next step to take is following Google's guide to data collection for Android. iPad and iPhone users should also double-check their Google data collection settings, as should anyone who relies on a desktop or laptop for connecting to the internet. [GN] HIGHLANDS PHYSICIANS: Attorneys Present Closing Arguments --------------------------------------------------------- Lurah Spell, writing for Bristol Herald Courier, reports that attorneys for Highlands Physicians Inc. and Wellmont Health System spent nearly seven hours presenting closing arguments on Dec. 17 to a 13-member jury over an $83 million class-action lawsuit. HPI and 2,100 people, including at least 1,500 doctors, filed the suit against Wellmont in 2016 alleging that Wellmont breached contract, fiduciary duty and a network access agreement and owes payments to providers. In 1993, Bristol's hospital -- Wellmont's predecessor -- and Highlands Physicians formed what is now called Highlands Wellmont Health Network. Both own 50 percent of the network with the power to elect half of the network's directors, according to the suit. Dec. 17 was the 13th day of the trial, which failed to wrap up as scheduled. The jury was set to begin deliberations on Dec. 17. Mediation toward a settlement after the second week of the trial failed. The suit also accuses Wellmont of deceiving, defaming and lying to HPI; failing to disclose decisions intended to harm the network and HPI; tortious interference with business advantages and contracts; and intentional misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment that caused HPI to suffer damages. J. Ford Little, attorney for Wellmont, argued that HPI doesn't have a case because its attorneys relied on testimony from Brant Kelch, HPI's executive director, who they believe isn't an independent, unbiased and objective expert witness; failed to provide proper evidence and supporting documents for damages; failed to have HPI members testify about losing money; failed to provide financial statements that show monetary losses; and failed to provide self-insured employer contracts detailing cost-savings program opportunities. Mr. Little also said HPI's suit against Wellmont is "without merit" and should have been filed against Cigna and some of HPI's members instead of Wellmont because they're the actual perpetrators of the allegations in the suit. Little added that he and Wellmont's team of attorneys believe there is "no basis" for damages to be awarded to HPI, but if the jury finds there is, HPI should only be awarded, at the most, around $1.1 million for breach of contract and breach of network access agreement. The lawsuit, Mr. Little said, is similar to a failed lawsuit HPI filed against United Healthcare in 2016. Gary Elden, attorney for HPI, argued that Wellmont "cut a deal" with Cigna that excluded HPI physicians, effectively "selling out" to save money on the contract. The lawsuit claims that Wellmont had been "secretly negotiating" with Cigna -- one of Highlands Wellmont Health Network's "biggest payors." "Wellmont's goal was to create a 'Wellmont-focused network' that would steer more business to Cigna while allowing Cigna to reduce its rates in the Tri-Cities area at the expense of HPI's physicians," the suit states. Mr. Elden said the bulk of damages sought are related to Wellmont's dealings with Cigna. He also argued that Wellmont is preventing HPI from improving the health of its employees and those covered by Medicare to benefit its "bottom line." In addition to seeking millions in punitive and compensatory damages, attorney fees, costs and interest, the suit asks that judicial rulings be made to clarify Wellmont and HPI's mutual contractual and fiduciary obligations. [GN] HOSPITALITY VENTURES: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Tom Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Wai Man Tom filed an appeal from a court ruling in his lawsuit titled Wai Tom v. Hospitality Ventures LLC, et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00098-FL, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Raleigh. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 2, 2019, Judge Louise W. Flanagan (i) denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion for conditional and class certification; (ii) denied the Plaintiff's motion to seal, and (iii) granted in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and denied the Defendants' motion for hearing. Former named Plaintiff Brandon Kelly commenced the action on February 21, 2017, asserting claims on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against the Defendants, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA"), based upon their alleged failure to pay adequate wages and overtime compensation, as well as alleged acts of retaliation, while operating a restaurant in Cary, North Carolina named An Asian Cuisine, between 2014 and January 2017. Kelly sought damages for unpaid minimum wages; overtime compensation; liquidated and statutory damages; further damages and other relief for retaliation; as well as fees, costs, and interest. The appellate case is captioned as Wai Tom v. Hospitality Ventures LLC, et al., Case No. 18-2509, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on February 4, 2019; and -- Response Brief is due on March 6, 2019.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant WAI MAN TOM is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. Travis Andrew Gasper, Esq. BRAZIEL LAW OFFICES 1801 North Lamar Street Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com Gasper@l-b-law.com - and - Gilda Adriana Hernandez, Esq. Emma Jean Smiley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ 1020 Southhill Drive Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com esmiley@gildahernandezlaw.com Defendants-Appellees HOSPITALITY VENTURES LLC, d/b/a Umstead Hotel and Spa; SAS INSTITUTE, INC.; and NC CULINARY VENTURES LLC, d/b/a An Asian Cuisine, are represented by: Kevin Michael Ceglowski, Esq. Susanna Knutson Gibbons, Esq. POYNER SPRUILL LLP P. O. Box 1801 Raleigh, NC 27602-1801 Telephone: (919) 783-2853 E-mail: kceglowski@poynerspruill.com sgibbons@poynerspruill.com - and - Jordan Fishman, Esq. John Robert Hunt, Esq. Arch Y. Stokes, Esq. STOKES WAGNER, ALC 1 Atlantic Center 1201 West Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 766-0076 Facsimile: (404) 766-8823 E-mail: jfishman@stokeswagner.com jhunt@stokeswagner.com astokes@stokeswagner.com INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Students' Class Action Over Mold Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Becca Costello, writing for Indiana Public Media, reports that Indiana University will work with privately-owned apartment properties to accommodate housing needs for returning students. The Bloomington campus will be short more than 2,000 beds this when it shuts down two dorms for renovation. IU was already planning to shut down and renovate McNutt and Foster residence halls. But significant mold problems over the past few months prompted officials to move up that timeline -- the dorms will now close in May. That means about 2,300 beds are unexpectedly off the table for the 2019 school year. IU spokesperson Chuck Carney says they're reserving dorm rooms for incoming freshmen, so returning students will have to live elsewhere. IU will partner with privately-owned apartment properties so those students can still apply for housing through the university. "The housing cost options will be comparable to residence halls, they'll be billed through bursar accounts, there won't be any extra fees that you might have if you just booked an apartment on your own," he says, adding that all of the units will be near a shuttle or bus route to make access to campus easy. Mr. Carney says they hope to be able to accommodate all new and returning students through these partnerships. He says it's not yet clear whether these agreements will cost the university any money. "What we're most interested in is trying to make this as good an experience for the students as possible," he says. "So, we'll worry about the cost as it comes." IU has welcomed a record number of first-year students for six of the past seven academic years. University officials will not reduce the number of students accepted this year due to housing, Mr. Carney says. McNutt and Foster are expected to reopen by 2020, and Mr. Carney says capacity issues should be resolved then. Mr. Carney declined to estimate how much IU has spent on mold remediation so far, and he says the costs are still coming in as work continues through the spring semester. "It will cost what it costs," Mr. Carney says. "While we know it's not going to be cheap, we know we have to do what needs to be done and that's part of the reason we've accelerated the renovation of McNutt and Foster." The mold problems in the two dorms sparked more than 1,700 remediations so far, and IU reimbursed students living in the buildings with a $3,000 Bursar credit. IU also faces a class action lawsuit from seven freshmen students that alleges it didn't do enough to address the mold. The lawsuit says IU has been misleading in its communications about the mold. [GN] INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Suit Over Dormitory Mold Remanded to State Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the case captioned JADEN THOMAS, RYAN BRAVERMAN, KATIE DEDELOW, JAKE RAMSEY, ISABELLA BLACKFORD, MICHAEL DUKE, LINDSAY FREEMAN individuals, each on behalf of himself/herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY, Defendant. Case No. 1:18-cv-03305-TWP-DML. (S.D. Ind.) to the Monroe Circuit Court. The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty of habitability, and declaratory judgment on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated IU students. The Plaintiffs do not contest that (1) minimal diversity exists; and (2) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds five million dollars. The Defendant's initial burden of establishing that CAFA jurisdiction exists has been satisfied. However, the Plaintiffs argue, the interests of justice exception to CAFA jurisdiction warrants remand of the case back to state court. The Plaintiffs' proposed class involves all individuals who resided at IU residential dormitories for the Fall, 2018 Semester and were exposed to and suffered injury due to mold that was present in the IU residential dormitory where that individual resided. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their officers, directors and employees. The Defendant argues that this proposed class is a fail-safe class, and thus, it is impossible to readily ascertain who is actually a class member and what percentage of putative class members are citizens of Indiana. The Defendant asserts that, because the actual class members and their citizenship cannot be readily ascertained, any determination of citizenship and percentage of citizenship would be impermissible guesswork. By the Defendant's own stipulation, the citizenship of students residing in Foster and McNutt dormitories consisted of 33-47% Indiana citizens, and those figures could be used for all individuals who resided at IU residential dormitories for the Fall 2018 semester. In its prior Order, the Court informed the parties that it could define the class for purposes of applying the jurisdictional considerations of Section 1332(d)(3) as all individuals who resided at IU residential dormitories for the Fall 2018 Semester. Having this fair notice from the Court, the Defendant still stipulated to a citizenship percentage of 33-47% Indiana citizens. The Defendant cannot have it both ways, asserting that the citizenship of the two dorms' residents is representative of the proposed class as a whole in order to invoke the Court's jurisdiction in the first place, and then later asserting that the Court cannot determine citizenship of the proposed class based upon the citizenship of all the residents of the two dorms. To remove this case to federal court and establish jurisdiction, the Defendant alleged the citizenship of the proposed class members based upon the citizenship of the students residing in the two dorms, asserting 53% of the students were from outside Indiana. Later, the Defendant stipulated that between 33% and approximately 47% of the two dorms' residents were Indiana citizens, and these percentages were representative of all individuals who resided at IU's dormitories for the Fall 2018 semester. The Court concludes that this is sufficient evidence to determine for CAFA jurisdictional purposes that greater than one-third but less than two-thirds of the proposed class members are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed. Thus, the threshold requirement for the interests of justice exception is met. National or Interstate Interest The first factor to consider under the interests of justice exception to exercising CAFA jurisdiction is whether the claims asserted involve matters of national or interstate interest. The Defendant asserts this case involves national and interstate interests because IU is a university that has a nationwide and international reach with students from all over the country and the world. It is a nationally recognized university, and an adverse ruling in this case could affect its standing and recruiting ability across the country. The Plaintiffs assert that when everything connects to the forum state, this first factor's consideration is not a close one. They argue that everything in this case connects to Indiana. The dormitories at the center of this litigation are in Indiana. The putative class members are students at IU, living in IU's dorms in Indiana. Each of the putative class members is in privity with IU. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs'. The claims asserted involve mold remediation in IU's dormitories located exclusively in Indiana. The claims involve a breach of contract under lease agreements for living in IU's dormitories in Indiana. While many students at IU come from states across the country and countries around the world, that does not transform the claims asserted into national or interstate (or international) matters. Rather, the claims involve local concerns over the habitability of college dorm rooms for students who chose to move to and study at IU in Indiana. The Court determines that this first factor favors remanding the case to state court. Governing State Law The Plaintiffs claims breach of contract, breach of implied warranty of habitability, and declaratory judgment are governed by Indiana statutory and common law. No other states' laws will apply in this case. The Plaintiffs assert that the second factor focuses on whether the forum State court will be applying its own laws or the law of other states and not whether the federal court is able to apply forum state law, thus, the Defendant's argument is irrelevant. The Court again agrees with the Plaintiffs. This factor does not ask whether the federal court is capable of applying state law. Rather, the factor considers whether the claims asserted will be governed by the forum state's laws or by the laws of other states. The laws of Indiana govern the claims in this matter, as acknowledged by the Defendant, and thus, this factor also weighs in favor of remand. Pleading the Action to Avoid Federal Jurisdiction The Plaintiffs point to the Tenth Circuit case of Speed when discussing this factor. This factor favors retention in federal court when the plaintiff has deliberately defined the prospective class or the relief sought in order to frustrate removal under CAFA. The Plaintiffs' proposed class is defined naturally to encompass all students living in IU dorms who have been affected by the mold issues. The class definition has not been limited in a way to avoid federal jurisdiction. This factor asks whether the Plaintiffs pled their class claims in a way to avoid federal CAFA jurisdiction, not whether the pleadings satisfy the jurisdictional requirements for CAFA. The Defendant's position conflates this factor with the Defendant's initial burden of establishing that CAFA jurisdiction exists. Nothing in the record suggests that the Plaintiffs pled their class action in a manner seeking to avoid federal jurisdiction, and the Defendant has not argued such. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of remand. Nexus Among the Forum, Class Members, Harm, and Defendant Under the fourth factor, the Court considers whether the action was brought in a forum with a distinct nexus with the class members, the alleged harm, or the defendants. The Defendant acknowledges "there is arguably a distinct nexus between the parties and the forum state of Indiana.The Defendant provides no other argument or analysis about this factor. The named Plaintiffs and the putative class members are students of IU and currently live in Indiana, specifically in Monroe County where the case was originally filed. The Defendant is an Indiana political subdivision located in Monroe County. The mold infestation at the heart of this case is located in Monroe County. The harms giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Monroe County. Thus, the Court concludes that there is a strong and distinct nexus among the forum where the case was originally filed, the class members, the alleged harm, and the Defendant. Remand is warranted under this factor. Concentration of State Citizenship The Defendant asserts that the demographics of the residents of Foster and McNutt Dormitories show several states besides Indiana have significant representation in the putative class. Of the students living in these dormitories, 47% are Indiana citizens, 15.83% are Illinois citizens, 5.44% are New Jersey citizens, 4.50% are California citizens, 3.44% are New York citizens, 2.91% are Ohio citizens, and 4.30% are international citizens. Therefore, of the students living in these dormitories, 83.42% are citizens of Indiana, five other states, and other countries. The Defendant argues that these statistics show that the putative class members are not widely dispersed among several states for purposes of this factor, so the Court should retain jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs assert that other courts have rejected the five percent argument advanced by the Defendant. The 5% figure in the Senate Report is solely an example of when plaintiffs are widely dispersed among different States, not a mandatory threshold for evaluating dispersion. Courts look in particular at whether any other state has an interest in the litigation on par with the forum state. The number of citizens of Indiana in the proposed class is substantially larger than the number of citizens from Illinois, New Jersey, or any of the other states. Additionally, the citizenship of the non-forum members of the proposed class is dispersed among a substantial number of states. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of remand. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 13, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd5z735e from Leagle.com. JADEN THOMAS, RYAN BRAVERMAN, KATIE DEDELOW, JAKE RAMSEY, ISABELLA BLACKFORD, MICHAEL DUKE & LINDSAY FREEMAN, individuals, each on behalf of himself/herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jacob R. Cox, COX LAW OFFICE, Jonathon Noyes, WILSON KEHOE & WININGHAM & William E. Winingham, WILSON KEHOE & WININGHAM. THE TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY, Defendant, represented by Ann O. McCready -- amccready@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Frank J. Deveau -- fdeveau@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Melissa A. Macchia -- mmacchia@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Scott R. Alexander -- salexander@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP & Thomas A. Barnard -- tbarnard@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP. INMATE SERVICES: 8th Circuit Appeal Filed in Stearns Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Danzel Stearns filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Danzel Stearns v. Inmate Services Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00339-BRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-2707 KJM CKD P) to the Eastern District of Arkansas. The class action is filed on behalf of the inmates transported by the Defendant on or after November 7, 2014, who were forced to remain in the Defendant's vehicle for more than 48 continuous hours. The class includes subclasses of inmates who were transported within the State of California by the Defendant and its agents or employees for certain periods of time. The appellate case is captioned as Danzel Stearns v. Inmate Services Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-3707, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Danzel Stearns, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, is represented by: Paul J. James, Esq. JAMES, CARTER & PRIEBE, LLP 500 Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1414 E-mail: pjj@jamescarterlaw.com - and - Mark E. Merin, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN 1010 F Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 443-6911 E-mail: mark@markmerin.com Defendant-Appellee Inmate Services Corporation is represented by: Joshua C. Ashley, Esq. Jamie Huffman Jones, Esq. FRIDAY ELDREDGE & CLARK LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-0000 Telephone: (501) 376-2011 E-mail: jashley@fridayfirm.com jjones@fridayfirm.com - and - Chuck Gschwend, Esq. Mark Mayfield, Esq. WOMACK PHELPS PURYEAR MAYFIELD & MCNEIL, P.A. P.O. Box 3077 Jonesboro, AR 72403-0000 Telephone: (870) 932-0900 E-mail: cgschwend@wpmfirm.com mmayfield@wpmfirm.com - and - John T. McLandrich, Esq. Terence L. Williams, Esq. MAZANEC, RASKIN & RYDER CO., L.P.A. 100 Franklin's Row 34305 Solon Road Cleveland, OH 44139 Telephone: (440) 248-7906 E-mail: jtm@mrrlaw.com twilliams@mrrlaw.com - and - Ross Emerson Webster, Esq. GLANKLER BROWN, PLLC 6000 Poplar Avenue, Suite 400 Memphis, TN 38119 Telephone: (901) 525-1322 E-mail: rwebster@glankler.com IVO TANKU TAPANG: Faces Class Action Over Terrorist Acts -------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that in a federal class action, John and Jane Doe claim that Ivo Tanku Tapang, "from what he presumes is a safe harbor hiding place at his San Jose residence," is directing terrorist acts in Cameroon through the Ambazonia Defense Forces, a separatist movement, which killed the Does' family members, and others. A copy of the Complaint is available at https://is.gd/LeAt2w The case is Doe, et al. v. Tapang, Case No. 18-cv-07721 (N.D. Cal.). KENTUCKY: Court Awards $222K Attorney's Fees to Inmate Class ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, Frankfort, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs' Request for an Interim Award of Attorneys' Fees in the case captioned ANTONIO ARRIOLA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al., Defendants. Civil No. 3:17-cv-00100-GFVT. (E.D. Ky.). The Plaintiffs in this matter are a certified class of current and former inmates in the care and custody of Defendants Commonwealth of Kentucky, Kentucky Department of Corrections (KDOC), and Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet (the Cabinet). Here, the Plaintiffs have already succeeded on the merits of the case: Judge Shepherd determined the Defendants had acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and granted the Plaintiffs declaratory and injunctive relief. The Defendants do not argue that the Plaintiffs are the prevailing party. They contest, however, that because the Plaintiffs did not bring a Section 1983 claim in their initial complaint, and instead added it in their Sixth Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs should only be allowed to recover attorneys' fees beginning in November 2017, the date of filing the Sixth Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs initially requested compensation for a total of 1,009.6 hours (687.2 attributed to attorney Gregory A. Belzley and 322.4 attributed to Camille A. Bathurst) at a rate of $220.50 per hour. They also requested an award of costs in the amount of $6,313.38. Mr. Belzley and Ms. Bathurst each filed an affidavit, including their itemized expenses and hours spent on this matter. The Defendants claim this calculation is generally unreasonable, but do not include many specific objections. To determine reasonable attorney's fees, a Court must first determine the lodestar amount, which is the attorney's reasonable hourly rate multiplied by the number of proven hours reasonably expended. Belzley has practiced law for twenty-eight years, and he has represented plaintiffs in civil rights litigation for twenty-two years. Ms. Bathurst has practiced law for twenty-seven years, and she has represented plaintiffs in civil rights litigation for eight years. Prior to opening their own practice, both attorneys practiced for well-respected and experienced law firms in Kentucky. The rate of $220.50 per hour is significantly less than fees charged by attorneys in non-PLRA cases. Defendants do not contest this rate and the Court finds it to be reasonable. The Court can identify three primary objections the Defendants make to the reported hours billed by Mr. Belzley and Ms. Bathurst. First, the Defendants specifically object to the time billed for traveling to Shelbyville. The Plaintiffs acknowledge the error and agree that time should be reduced from 3.7 hours to 1.5 hours. Thus, the Court reduces Mr. Belzley's total hours from 687.2 to 685 hours. After reducing Mr. Belzley's total hours to 685, multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate of $220.50, the Court determines the Plaintiffs' lodestar amount for Mr. Belzley to be $151,042.50. Because the Defendants did not have specific objections to Ms. Bathurst's accounting, her total billed 322.4 hours, multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate of $220.50 results in a lodestar amount of $71,089.20. The Court declines to reduce either of those lodestar amounts based on unsuccessful pleadings or motions. Thus, the total amount of attorneys' fees owed by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs is $222,131.70. Because the Court finds the costs requested by the Plaintiffs to be reasonable and necessary to the litigation, the total amount of costs owed by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs is $6,313.38. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 13, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8nuenq5 from Leagle.com. C. Cleveland Gambill, Special Master, pro se. Antonio Arriola, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Keath Bramblett, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Christopher Hopper, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Walter A. Noland, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Donald Roberts, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & David Voyles, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Camille Bathurst -- camillebathurst@aol.com -- Belzley Bathurst, Attorneys, Gregory Allen Belzley -- gbelzley@aol.com -- Belzley Bathurst, Attorneys & Aaron Joseph Bentley -- abentley3B@gmail.com -- Belzley, Bathurst & Bentley. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Commonwealth of Kentucky Cabinet for Justice and Public Safety, Commonwealth of Kentucky Corrections Department, J. Michael Brown, Individually, LaDonna Thompson, Individually, Chris E. Cropp, Individually & John Tilley, Individually, Defendants, represented by Angela T. Dunham , Office of Legal Services-KY Justice & Public Safety Cabinet. KIA: Vehicle Owners File Class Action Over Engine Fires ------------------------------------------------------- Jake Lingeman, writing for Autoweek, reports that a group of Kia and Hyundai owners have filed a class-action lawsuit against the automakers over an alleged defect that could, and has, caused noncollision fires. Back in October, the Center for Auto Safety demanded a recall of cars using the so-called Theta II engine. The turbocharged Theta II four-cylinder engine finds a home in the 2011-14 Kia Sorento, Kia Optima, Hyundai Sonata and Hyundai Santa Fe, as well as the 2010-15 Kia Soul. More than 350 consumer complaints have been filed to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as a result of the automakers' "concealment of the defect," according to the suit, which can be read here. According to an Automotive News report, NHTSA is probing "the timeliness and scope of the carmakers' recalls relating to manufacturing errors" in the powerplant. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York has opened a criminal investigation into the matter as well. Hyundai and Kia have already recalled about 1.6 million cars from 2011-2014 related to the problem. According to Automotive News, the lawsuit "argues that a defect restricts oil flow to core engine parts, causing premature wear and failure and eventually resulting in engine seizure and fire." Hyundai said in a statement: "Over the past three years, we have held numerous meetings with DOT and NHTSA representatives, and proactively discussed and identified possible safety items for NHTSA's evaluation, including the engine recalls," Hyundai Motor said in the statement. "NHTSA has been fully briefed and kept apprised of these recalls and low rates of associated noncollision fires." [GN] KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS: Duran Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned David Duran, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Knights of Columbus, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-05855, (E.D. N.Y., September 21, 2018) was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on December 26, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-02882. Duran seeks to recover unpaid overtime, an additional amount as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as part of the lay-off for violations of the Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act, Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Knight of Columbus is a Catholic fraternal society that sells insurance to Catholics across the nation. Duran worked as an insurance agent. He claims to have incurred business-related expenses that were not reimbursed. Defendant also deducts money for licensing, laptops and business insurance from his pay and failed to provide wage statements, asserts the Plaintiff.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. David G. Greco, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 Email: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org dgreco@nicholaslaw.org - and - Stephen Michael Frayne, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 3090 Glascock Street, Suite 101 Oakland, CA 94601 Tel: (510) 479-1081 Defendant is represented by: Aaron A. Buckley, Esq. PAUL PLEVIN SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON, LLP 101 West Broadway, Ninth Floor San Diego, CA 92101-8285 Tel: (619) 744-3642 Email: abuckley@paulplevin.com KUSHNER COMPANIES: Settles Tenants' Class Action for $88K --------------------------------------------------------- Sara e. Teller, writing for Legal Reader, reports that the preliminary outcome of a class action lawsuit filed against Kushner Companies back in August 2017 on behalf of five former tenants of 89 Hicks Street over the illegal deregulation of rent-stabilized units in the building has finally been announced. The watchdog group Housing Rights Initiative (HRI) alleged that when Kushner Companies bought the building in 2014 (previously owned by Jehovah's Witnesses followed by Brooklyn Law School), it was legally obligated to make the apartments rent-stabilized. HRI based this on the fact that the Hicks Street building dates back to before 1974 and had more than six units. Yet, the development company only registered 10-percent of the units as rent-stabilized. The class action suit further alleged Kushner Companies underwent a "deceptive, systematic and pervasive pattern of misconduct to skirt rent stabilization laws," according to court documents, and may have successfully gotten its tenants to pay as much as $1 million in overcharged rent payments. The tenants have been awarded $88,419 total in damages, which is an average of $17,684 per defendant, along with interest. HRI says it believes the tenants affected by the overpayments are owed over $1 million in rent reductions and refunds, and that Kushner Companies neglected to provide rent refunds to former tenants as required by law. "Therefore, the case will proceed," according to HRI. HRI founder, Aaron Carr, calls Kushner's actions "bare-faced greed," and a "sordid attempt to avert accountability and get a rapid return on its investment." "Kushner Companies is engaged in a process I call the 'weaponization of construction,'" added 15th District of the New York City Council member Ritchie Torres, a Democrat. "There is a straight line that runs from falsified building permits to harassment of tenants to the loss of affordable housing units." Shortly after the case was filed in 2017, Kushner Companies took action to address the allegations at the building by re-stabilizing all of the illegally deregulated units and issuing more than $100,000 in refunds to class representatives, while providing reductions averaging several hundred dollars per month. "Once the issue was brought to my client's attention, it immediately and voluntarily acted in good faith to address the issue," said Deborah Riegel, an attorney at Rosenberg and Estis who is representing Kushner in the case. "Not only did my client make refunds to the existing tenants, and in some cases former tenants, but it also registered the units as rent stabilized. Rather than wait for an adjudication, as some owners have chosen to do, my client proceeded expeditiously to remedy the issues raised." Following the recent announcement and preliminary resolution of the case, Carr stated, "Kushner Companies giving back some of what it stole is an admission of guilt and its failure to give back everything it stole is an admission of greed . . . Kushner Companies got caught with two hands in the cookie jar and responded to the lawsuit by taking only one hand out. The good news is, we are half way there." [GN] L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Kent Files Suit Over Sale to Harris Corp. ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Kent, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. L3 Technologies, Inc., Christopher E. Kubasik, Robert B. Millard, Claude R. Canizares, Thomas A. Corcoran, H. Hugh Shelton, Lewis Kramer, Rita S. Lane, Lloyd W. Newton, Vincent Pagano, Jr., Anne E. Dunwoody, Harris Corporation and Leopard Merger Sub Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00025-UNA (D. Del., January 4, 2019) is an action that stems from a proposed transaction announced on October 14, 2018 pursuant to which L3 Technologies, Inc. will be acquired by Harris Corporation and Leopard Merger Sub Inc. On October 12, 2018, L3's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Harris Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Harris's stockholders will receive 1.3 shares of Parent common stock for each share of L3 they own. On December 14, 2018, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The complaint asserts that the Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration Statement. Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times relevant hereto, the owner of L3 common stock. L3 is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices at 600 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10016. L3's common stock is traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "LLL". L3 is a party to the Merger Agreement. Christopher E. Kubasik is President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company. Robert B. Millard, Claude R. Canizares, Thomas A. Corcoran, Anne E. Dunwoody, Lewis Kramer, Rita S. Lane, Lloyd W. Newton, Vincent Pagano, Jr. and H. Hugh Shelton are directors of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (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 Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Wash. Court Enforces Lebanon Settlement Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Washington issued an Opinion affirming the Court of Appeals' judgment granting Defendant's Motion for Interlocutory Discretionary Review in the case captioned CHAN HEALTHCARE GROUP PS, a Washington professional services corporation, Petitioner, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, foreign insurance companies, Respondents. No. 95416-0. (Wash.). In this case, the state Supreme Court is asked to determine if the full faith and credit clause requires Washington courts to enforce an Illinois class action judgment by dismissing a subsequent local action based on the same facts. Lebanon Chiropractic Clinic, an Illinois medical provider, brought a nationwide consumer protection class action against Liberty Mutual Insurance in Illinois. This suit was resolved in a settlement that was approved by an Illinois trial court and entered as a judgment. Chan Healthcare Group, a Washington medical provider, received reasonable notice of the suit and neither opted out of the class nor objected to the entry of judgment. Chan now seeks to collaterally challenge the Illinois judgment in the state's courts, arguing the interests of the Washington class members were not adequately represented in the Illinois action. The state Supreme Court ruled that Chan fails to show its due process rights were violated. Thus, the full faith and credit clause requires the Court to enforce its sister court's judgment. Chan appealed, alleging the commissioner improperly granted review and the Court of Appeals applied too narrow a standard to collateral challenges. Chan sued Liberty for failing to pay its reasonable bills as required by the state's casualty insurance statutes, RCW 48.22.095.005(7), and engaging in an unfair practice under Washington's Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW. Liberty moved for summary judgment based on an Illinois trial court's previous approval of a nationwide class action settlement of all claims against Liberty and the other defendants arising from the same bad acts Chan now alleges here. Chan argued that its claims were not released by the Illinois settlement of Lebanon's nationwide class action on the theory that the interests of Washington class members were not adequately represented in the Illinois action and thus the settlement was unenforceable against them. The Court of Appeals commissioner granted Liberty's motion for interlocutory discretionary review and the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the Illinois settlement was owed full faith and credit. The Court of Appeals adopted a three-part test: (1) whether the specific due process objection was before the sister state court, (2) whether the parties presented briefing on the objection, and (3) whether the sister state court ruled on the objection. Chan appealed, alleging the commissioner improperly granted review and the Court of Appeals applied too narrow a standard to collateral challenges. INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW Chan argues the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider the King County Superior Court's ruling and did not rely on RAP 2.3. The Court disagrees. Read as a whole, the commissioner's ruling granting interlocutory discretionary review suggests that the King County Superior Court committed probable error by declining to give full faith and credit to the Illinois trial court's ruling. The scope of review under the full faith and credit clause is a threshold question and the commissioner sustainably concluded that the King County Superior Court's ruling conflicted with Nobl Park, LLC of Vancouver v. Shell Oil Co., 122 Wn.App. 838, 95 P.3d 1265 (2004). FULL FAITH AND CREDIT The King County Superior Court determined that Chan's release of claims in the Illinois settlement was not entitled to full faith and credit in Washington courts. The United States Constitution requires that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the. judicial proceedings of every other state. The purpose of the full faith and credit clause is to mitigate the risk that two or more States will exercise their power over the same case or controversy and to avoid the uncertainty, confusion, and delay that necessarily accompany relitigation of the same issue. Judgments in class action lawsuits are entitled to full faith and credit absent a due process violation or jurisdictional defect. Chan was an absent class member, and due process requires at a minimum that an absent plaintiff be provided with an opportunity to remove itself from the class by executing and returning an `opt out' or `request for exclusion' form to the court. Chan does not dispute it received notice of the sister court's proceedings and was given a fair opportunity to be heard. Due process also requires that absent class members be adequately represented by the named plaintiff. Here, the Illinois trial court received Kerbs' objections to the settlement, held a fairness hearing, and determined Plaintiff Lebanon Chiropractic Clinic and Class Counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. Chan claims Lebanon did not adequately represent its interests. The Court disagrees for three reasons. First, Chan does not show Lebanon failed to prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the entire class. Second, Chan fails to show a difference in the scope of relief under the respective consumer protection laws made it so Lebanon had an insurmountable conflict of interest with other class members. Finally, Chan fails to show subclasses were required under Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 627, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L. Ed. 2d 689 (1997). Chan argues that under Amchem, subclasses are mandatory when a class settlement includes distinct groups of class members. Chan's reliance on Amchem is misplaced, as the facts of that case are readily distinguishable from those before us. Amchem involved class members and named plaintiffs who had been exposed to asbestos or had a family member who had been exposed, but who differed in their injuries in that many had already manifested injury from the exposure while others had not. Chan has not convinced the Court that Washington plaintiffs were not adequately represented in the Lebanon court. Therefore, Chan has failed to overcome the presumption in favor of giving full faith and credit to the determination of the Illinois trial court. Accordingly, the state Supreme Court rules that the Court of Appeals commissioner did not improperly grant interlocutory review, and the Illinois judgment is entitled full faith and credit in Washington courts. The Court affirms and remand back to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's December 13, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7hnlp22 from Leagle.com. David Elliot Breskin, Breskin Johnson & Townsend PLLC, 1000 Second Avenue Suite 3670, Seattle, WA, 98104. Cynthia J. Heidelberg, Breskin, Johnson & Townsend, 1000 2nd Ave Ste 3670, Seattle, WA, 98104-1053, Counsel for Petitioner(s). Philip Albert Talmadge, Talmadge/Fitzpatrick/Tribe, 2775 Harbor Ave Sw, Third Floor Ste C, Seattle, WA, 98126-2138. John Michael Silk, Wilson Smith Cochran Dickerson, 901 5th Ave Ste 1700, Seattle, WA, 98164-2050, Manuel Berrelez, Vinson & Elkins, LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue Suite 3700, Dallas, TX, 75201-2975, Counsel for Respondent(s). Hyland Hunt, Attorney at Law, 300 New Jersey Ave Nw Ste 900, Washington, DC, 20001-2271, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. Alan D. Copsey , Office of the Attorney General, Po Box 40100, 1125 Washington St Se, Olympia, WA, 98504-0100, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Attorney General of the State of Washington. LIVANOVA PLC: Sorin Group Appeals Ruling in Baker Injury Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Sorin Group Deutschland GMBH and Sorin Group USA Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Edward Baker, et al. v. Livanova PLC, et al., Case No. 1-16-cv-00260, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs Edward Baker and Jack Miller commenced this action by filing a complaint on February 12, 2016. The Plaintiffs submitted an Amended Complaint on March 21, 2016, asserting a medical monitoring claim and a declaratory judgment claim against the Sorin Defendants and their holding company. The Plaintiffs allege that the putative class was exposed to nontuberculous mycobacterium through a Sorin 3T Heater-Cooler System used to regulate their blood temperature during open heart surgeries at WellSpan York Hospital and Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. The appellate case is captioned as Edward Baker, et al. v. Livanova PLC, et al., Case No. 18-3777, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees EDWARD BAKER and JACK MILLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Paola Pearson, Esq. David S. Senoff, Esq. Sol H. Weiss, Esq. ANAPOL WEISS 130 North 18th Street One Logan Square, Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-1130 E-mail: ppearson@anapolweiss.com dsenoff@anapolweiss.com sweiss@anapolweiss.com Defendants-Appellants SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND GMBH and SORIN GROUP USA INC. are represented by: Mark E. Gebauer, Esq. Magda S. Patitsas, Esq. Adam M. Shienvold, Esq. ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT LLC 213 Market Street, 8th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 237-6052 E-mail: mgebauer@eckertseamans.com mpatitsas@eckertseamans.com ashienvold@eckertseamans.com - and - Jeffrey P. Justman, Esq. Aaron D. Van Oort, Esq. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 90 South 7th Street 2200 Wells Fargo Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 766-7000 E-mail: jeff.justman@faegrebd.com aaron.vanoort@faegrebd.com MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces DeLoss Suit in Maryland Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- GERALD DELOSS, SARA HOWE and ANNIE SEBERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. and STARWOOD HOTELS AND RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-03960 (D. Md., December 21, 2018), seeks actual damages and compensatory damages arising from a data breach. On November 30, 2018, Marriott International announced that it was subject to one of the largest data breaches in the nation's history when the personal and confidential information of up to 500 million hotel guests was exfiltrated from its Starwood guest reservation database as part of an ongoing, four-year long data breach. The information stolen in the breach includes names, mailing addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, passport numbers, Starwood Preferred Guest account information, dates of birth, gender, arrival and departure information, reservation dates, and communication preferences. For some, the information also included payment card numbers and payment card expiration dates. Marriott International, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Maryland. Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, LLC, is organized under the laws of Maryland with its principal place of business in Connecticut. Marriott is an American multinational hospitality company with more than 6,500 properties globally. Marriott acquired Starwood in 2016 for $13.6 billion. Starwood includes the hotel brands 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 timeshare properties.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven A. Skalet, Esq. Craig L. Briskin, Esq. MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 822-5100 Facsimile: (202) 822-4997 E-mail: sskalet@findjustice.com cbriskin@findjustice.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. Eric S. Taubel, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com etaubel@gustafsongluek.com MARRIOTT INT'L: Skinner Sues Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------- Kirk Skinner and John Turgeon-Schramm, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriott International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02131 (D. Conn., December 26, 2018), seeks actual, statutory, punitive, exemplary and/or multiple damages, disgorgement, restitution, preliminary or other equitable or declaratory relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and such other and favorable relief resulting from negligence and breach of contract. Marriott's Starwood guest reservation database suffered a massive security breach that began in or around 2014, compromising personal and financial information belonging to up to 500 million customers. Marriott operates Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide. Turgeon-Schramm and Skinner provided Defendants their payment cards containing their personal information for the rental of Starwood hotel rooms. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com - and - Erin Green Comite, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 Email: ecomite@scott-scott.com - and - Hal Cunningham, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 Email: hcunningham@scott-scott.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. Arielle Wagner, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Tel: (412) 322-9243 Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com jetzel@carlsonlynch.com aswagner@locklaw.com - and - Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Katie M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. Arielle Wagner, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Email: khriebel@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com aswagner@locklaw.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Bell Suit Alleges Negligence ---------------------------------------------------- Harry Bell and Edward Claffy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marriott International, Inc., Case No. 8:18-cv-03684 (D. Md., November 30, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of confidence and violation of Maryland's Consumer Protection Act. This case involves the data breach Marriott announced on November 30, 2018, wherein the information of up to 500 million guests was exposed due to a flaw in Marriott's reservation system and database systems dating back to 2014, which allowed hackers and other nefarious actors to take over guests' accounts and siphon off information for unsavory and illegal purposes. This Class Action Complaint is filed on behalf of all persons in the United States, whose passport information and personal information ("PII") was compromised in the data breach. The Plaintiff Harry Bell is a resident and citizen of West Virginia. The Plaintiff has stayed at Marriott properties and hotels for decades, entrusting Marriott with aggregating PII for this time period. The Plaintiff Edward Claffy is a resident and citizen of Illinois. Plaintiff Claffy has stayed at Marriott properties and hotels for at least the last eight years, entrusting Marriott with and aggregating PII for this time period. Defendant Marriott, Inc., is a corporation with its principal executive offices located at 10400 Fernwood Rd, Bethesda, Maryland 20817 (Montgomery County). Marriott's securities trade on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "MAR." Marriott is one of the largest hotel chains in the World. Upon information and belief, approximately 500 million people have stayed at Marriott and Marriott-owned properties since 2014. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William H. Murphy III, Esq. Jessica H. Meeder, Esq. MURPHY, FALCON & MURPHY, P.A. One South Street, 23rd Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 Tel: (410) 951-8744 Fax: (410) 539-6599 E-mail: hassan.murphy@murphyfalcon.com jessica.meeder@murphyfalcon.com MEDENVIOS HEALTHCARE: Felix Sues for Invasion of Privacy -------------------------------------------------------- Margarita Fe1ix, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. MedEnvios Healthcare, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG19001249 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., January 3, 2019) asserts that the Defendant intentionally and surreptitiously recorded and/or monitored telephone calls made or routed to Defendant's toll-free telephone numbers, as well as outbound calls to California residents such as Plaintiff. Defendant recorded and/or monitored calls without warning or disclosing to inbound callers and recipients of outbound calls that their calls might be recorded or monitored. The Defendant's policy and practice of recording and/or monitoring, without the consent of all parties, Defendant's telephone conversations with California residents who, while physically located in California, called one or more of Defendant's toll-free numbers or received a call from Defendant violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), says the complaint. Plaintiff Margarita Felix is an individual and a resident of California. MedEnvios Healthcare, Inc. is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida and is headquartered in Miami, Florida without a principal place of business in California. Defendant systematically and continuously does business in California and with California residents. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities ofdefendants sued herein as Does l through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues those defendants by those fictitious names.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric A. Grover, Esq. Alexander S. Vahdat, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone: (415) 543-1305 Facsimile: (415) 543- 7861 Email: eagrover@kellergrovcr.com avahdat@kellergrover.com - and - Scot Bernstein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 447-0100 Facsimile: (916) 933-5533 Email: swampadero@sbemsteinlaw.com MEMPHIS, TN: Must Depose Ex-Head of Police Sex Crimes Unit ---------------------------------------------------------- Linda A. Moore, writing for Memphis Commercial Appeal, reports that a judge has ruled the city of Memphis must make available for deposition the former head of the Memphis Police Department's sex crimes unit, who will answer questions about policies and procedures for the unit. The ruling comes amid a lawsuit by three sexual assault victims over the city's handling of rape kits. The city had filed a motion that asked Shelby County Circuit Court Judge Gina Higgins to squash the deposition of Deputy Chief Don Crowe, which was originally scheduled for Dec. 20. However, Higgins ruled that the city must make Mr. Crowe available to be questioned by the plaintiffs as part of the discovery in the case. The rape kit backlog The lawsuit was filed in 2014 after a 2013 disclosure from former Memphis Police Director Toney Armstrong that more than 12,000 rape kits had not been tested. The city has chiseled away at that number and its most recent report shows that by September, analysis had been completed on 98 percent of those untested rape kits. Efforts have been underway for a while to get the police officer "most in charge" of managing the rape kits to testify, said plaintiffs' attorney Daniel Lofton. "The court said the deposition does have to go forward and that he is going to be required to appear under oath and testify about the problem," Mr. Lofton said. Specifically, the plaintiffs want Crowe to produce "all policies of the sex crime department" concerning the handling of rape kit evidence from 1996-1998, 2002-2004 and 2009-2011, Mr. Lofton said in court. "That is all we need. That's it," he said. City asks for limitations on deposition But attorney Jonathan Lakey, who represents the city, told Higgins that in another deposition Mr. Lofton went beyond the agreed upon parameters. He asked Judge Higgins to include limitations on Crowe's deposition in her court order. "I'm trying to ensure that we have an appropriate and efficient deposition," Mr. Lakey said. The class-action status of the lawsuit is still pending certification. Both Mr. Lakey and Robert Meyers, the attorneys for the city, declined comment after the hearing. [GN] MESSERLI & KRAMER: Certification of Class Sought in Bauer Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Jossette Bauer moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled JOSSETTE BAUER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MESSERLI & KRAMER, P.A. and JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00002 (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff says. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com MOINIAN LLC: Fischler Files Suit under ADA in New York ------------------------------------------------------ Moinian 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. Moinian LLC doing business as: Oskar, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00092 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019). Moinian LLC doing business as Oskar is into the real estate 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 MONSANTO CO: Peabody Sues Over Herbicide Exposure ------------------------------------------------- Rickey Peabody, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00318 (E.D. Ark., December 26, 2018), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs, expert fees, disbursements and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting this action, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate and such other relief resulting from 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 (R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Peabody used Roundup beginning in or around 2000 as part of his employment with various agricultural companies. He eventually developed Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2017 as a direct and proximate result of his long-term exposure to Roundup. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. It is the world's leading producer of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, a broad-spectrum herbicide used to kill weeds and grasses known to compete with commercial crops grown around the globe. Plaintiff is represented by: Sean T. Keith, Esq. Mason L. Boling, Esq. MILLER, BUTLER, SCHNEIDER & PAWLIK, PLLC 224 S. 2nd St., Rogers, AR 72756 Tel: (479) 621-0006 Fax: (479) 631-6890 Email: skeith@arkattomeys.com mboling@arkattomeys.com MONTAFON LLC: Pequero Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- AMIN LAFRANCO PEQUERO, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals v. MONTAFON LLC d/b/a MONT BLANC 52, and BALZ EGGIMANN, and MARIA LOHMEYER, individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-12187 (S.D.N.Y., December 26, 2018), is a civil action brought by the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff and the collective class work or have worked as cooks, prep cooks, salad makers, dishwashers, and delivery people for Mont Blanc 52. Montafon LLC is a domestic business corporation, doing business as Mont Blanc 52, having its principal place of business located at 334 West 52nd St., in New York City. Mont Blanc 52 is a restaurant located in New York City. Mont Blanc is owned by Balz Eggimann and managed by Maria Lohmeyer. Mont Blanc is a stylish Swiss eatery & cocktail bar with fondue, raclette & classic continental entrees plus brunch.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323-6980 E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com MOTION RECRUITMENT: Faces Diaz Suit Over ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ Motion Recruitment Partners LLC 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. Motion Recruitment Partners LLC doing business as: Jobspring Partners, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00085 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019). Motion Recruitment Partners LLC operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides direct hire placement, recruitment process outsourcing, and IT staffing services. Motion Recruitment Partners serves manufacturing, technology, banking, and healthcare companies in North America.[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 NCAA: Phillips Appeals Ruling in Livers FLSA Suit to 3rd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Taurus Phillips filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled LAWRENCE "POPPY" LIVERS, on his own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated persons, et al. v. NCAA, et al., Case No. 2-17-cv-04271, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff Livers alleges that Defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Villanova University, and dozens of other NCAA member schools, violated his right to be paid as an employee of the Defendants, acting jointly, for his participation on the Villanova football team as a Scholarship Athlete. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of individuals termed the Scholarship Athlete Collective, comprised of all recipients of athletic scholarships under Athletic Financial Aid Agreements that require participation in NCAA athletics at NCAA Division I member schools. The Plaintiff asserts a single claim under the Minimum Wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against all the Defendants. The appellate case is captioned as Taurus Phillips v. NCAA, et al., Case No. 18-3797, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee LAWRENCE POPPY LIVERS, on his own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated persons, and Plaintiff-Appellant TAURUS PHILLIPS, on his own behalf on behalf of similarly situated persons, are represented by: Paul L. McDonald, Esq. P L MCDONALD LAW LLC 1800 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 238-3835 E-mail: paul@plmcdonaldlaw.com Defendant-Appellee NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION is represented by: Naveen Kabir, Esq. Steven B. Katz, Esq. Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Esq. Philip J. Smith, Esq. CONSTANGY BROOKS SMITH & PROPHETE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 909-7775 E-mail: nkabir@constangy.com skatz@constangy.com skroll-rosenbaum@constangy.com psmith@constangy.com - and - John E. MacDonald, Esq. CONSTANGY BROOKS SMITH & PROPHETE LLP 989 Lenox Drive, Suite 206 Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: (609) 357-1183 E-mail: jmacdonald@constangy.com - and - Donald S. Prophete, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC 4520 Main Street, Suite 400 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 471-1301 E-mail: donald.prophete@ogletreedeakins.com Defendants-Appellees BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY, DREXEL UNIVERSITY, LAFAYETTE COLLEGE and LEHIGH UNIVERSITY are represented by: William J. Anthony, Esq. Vincent E. Polsinelli, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 677 Broadway, 9th Floor Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (518) 512-8700 E-mail: William.Anthony@jacksonlewis.com Vincent.Polsinelli@jacksonlewis.com - and - Stephanie J. Peet, Esq. Michael D. Ridenour, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1350 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 319-7802 E-mail: stephanie.peet@jacksonlewis.com Michael.Ridenour@jacksonlewis.com NEWFIELD EXPLORATION: Franchi Balks at Merger Deal with Encana -------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NEWFIELD EXPLORATION COMPANY, LEE K. BOOTHBY, STEVEN W. NANCE, PAMELA J. GARDNER, EDGAR R. GIESINGER, ROGER B. PLANK, THOMAS G. RICKS, JUANITA M. ROMANS, JOHN W. SCHANCK, J. TERRY STRANGE, J. KENT WELLS, ENCANA CORPORATION, and NEAPOLITAN MERGER CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02020-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 19, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction announced on November 1, 2018, pursuant to which Newfield Exploration Corporation will be acquired by Encana Corporation. On October 31, 2018, Newfield's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Encana. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Newfield's stockholders will receive 2.6719 shares of Parent common stock for each share of Newfield they own. On December 4, 2018, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says. Newfield Exploration Company is a petroleum, natural gas, and natural gas liquids exploration and production company organized in Delaware and headquartered in Houston, Texas.[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 NISSAN NORTH: Bashaw Sues Over Defective Emergency Braking System ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cathy Bashaw, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Nissan North America, Inc. and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Case No. 4:18-cv-07292 (N.D. Calif., November 30, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranties in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Plaintiff Cathy Bashaw is a citizen of the State of New York and resides in Plattsburgh, New York. In or around the Fall of 2016, Plaintiff leased a 2017 Nissan Rogue SL AWD from a Nissan-authorized dealer, Huttig Nissan of Plattsburgh, New York, for her personal or household use. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants wrongfully and intentionally concealed one or more defects in the Class Vehicles' front distance sensor, an integral component of the vehicles' Forward Emergency Braking systems (the "FEB Defect"). The FEB Defect can cause the FEB system to falsely engage. The FEB Defect can cause the Class Vehicles to detect non-existent obstacles, thereby automatically triggering the brakes and causing the Class Vehicles to abruptly slow down or come to a complete stop in the middle of traffic. The Defendant Nissan North America is a California corporation with its principal place of business located at 983 Nissan Drive, Smyrna, TN 37167. NNA does business in throughout the United States. NNA engages in business, including the design, manufacturing, advertising, marketing, and sale of Nissan automobiles nationwide, including throughout New York and California. The Defendant Nissan Motor Co. is a Japanese corporation headquartered in Yokohama, Japan. NMC is the parent corporation of NNA. NMC, through its various agents and subsidiaries designs, manufactures, markets, distributes and sells Nissan automobiles in California and multiple other locations in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Tel: (925) 300-4455 Fax: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jsmith@bursor.com fklorczyk@bursor.com NOBILIS HEALTH: Feb. 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. on Dec. 17 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Nobilis Health Corp. (NYSE: HLTH) securities between May 8, 2018 and November 15, 2018 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until February 12, 2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) Nobilis' accounts receivable was overstated; (2) Nobilis' revenue was overstated; (3) as a result of the required adjustments, Nobilis' quarterly report would not be timely filed; (4) Nobilis would not be in compliance with NYSE listing requirements; and (5) due to the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Nobilis' business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased Nobilis securities during the Class Period or continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. --http://wwww.bespc.com-- is a New York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. [GN] NORTHLAND GROUP: Court OKs Dismissal of Rodriguez FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned FRANK RODRIGUEZ, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NORTHLAND GROUP, LLC, Defendant. Civil Action No. 18-7692(FLW). (D.N.J.). This putative class action suit against Defendant Northland Group, LLC, arises out of Plaintiff Frank Rodriquez's (Plaintiff) claim that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), by sending a debt-collection letter that failed to adequately notify Plaintiff of his rights to dispute a debt. In connection with the present case, the FDCPA requires debt collectors to provide the consumer with a written notice containing certain information regarding the debt allegedly owed within five days of initial communication. Section 1692g In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated Section 1692g by failing to clearly and effectively convey to Plaintiff that any disputes must be in writing, instead implying that such disputes may be made verbally. Specifically, the Plaintiff maintains that by using the word if, the validation notice, included in the debt collection letter, is confusing to the least sophisticated debtor. Section 1692g(a) provides that a debt collector is required to include the following information within five days after the initial communication with a consumer: (1) The amount of the debt(2) The name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;(3) A statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector(4) A statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgement against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgement will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and(5) A statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the third-fay period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. The Plaintiff takes issue with the word "if" used in the notice. The Plaintiff argues that the first sentence of the notice does not direct the debtor to submit a dispute in writing, and he further contends that the next two sentences, despite referencing an "in writing" requirement, are nonetheless couched in permissive terms. In other words, the Plaintiff posits that such language leaves the door open for the debtor to conclude that a written dispute is merely an option, but not required. In support of his position, the Plaintiff cites two recent decisions in this district which found identical validation notices violative of the FDCPA. The Plaintiff cites two recent decisions in this district, Cadillo v. Stoneleigh Recovery Assocs., LLC,No. 17-7472, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210870 (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2017) and Poplin v. Chase Receivables, Inc., No. 18-404, which found identical validation notices violative of the FDCPA. In Cadillo and Poplin, the courts reasoned that using the word "if" in the validation notice could confuse the least sophisticated consumer as to whether a written response was required. Both courts were concerned that by employing such permissive language, a consumer could believe that either a written or oral response is sufficient to dispute the debt. While the reasoning of Cadillo and Poplin is well taken, the Court respectfully disagrees. This is not the first time the Court have confronted this issue. Previously, the Court held in Borozan v. Fin. Recovery Servs., No. 17-11542, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104691 (D.N.J. Jun. 22, 2018), that a validation notice identical to the one here did not violate the FDCPA. The Court reasoned, which explanation equally applies here, that by using the word unless in the first sentence, the notice informs the consumer of the consequences if he or she fails to dispute the debt. Then, the remainder of the notice provides instructions on how to dispute the debt and the effect of disputing a debt. Under the least sophisticated debtor standard, the consumer is presumed to have read the whole letter. Next, the Plaintiff argues that the placement of the phrase, "We look forward to hearing from you" after the validation notice further misleads a consumer into calling Defendant to dispute his or her debt. Having already determined that the validation notice did not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation in connection with the collection of Plaintiff's debt, Plaintiff's argument is unconvincing. Contrary to the Plaintiff's position, the phrase, read in conjunction with the rest of the letter, does not come close to suggesting to a least sophisticated debtor that he or she should contact Defendant in the event the debt is to be disputed. Instead, the phrase, where it is placed, merely invites the consumer to call to resolve, not dispute, the account; the phrase neither explicitly invites the consumer to call to dispute a debt, nor threatens or encourages the consumer to waive his or her statutory rights to challenge the validity of the debt. Similar language used in debt collection letters had been found to be appropriate under the FDCPA. Here, the phrase, "We look forward to hearing from you," is not placed or intertwined within the statutory required notice concerning a disputed debt. Rather, it is a general invitation to call about resolving not disputing the debt, and in a separate closing paragraph. To read the phrase at issue into the previous paragraph, which uses language nearly identical to that which is required by Section 1692g(a), would be a "bizarre and idiosyncratic interpretation of the letter as a whole. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under Section 1692g. Section 1692e The Plaintiff's Section 1692e claim is premised on the same allegations as his Section 1692g claim regarding the debt collection letter. Because the Plaintiff's Section 1692g claim fails, correspondingly, his Section 1692e claim also fails. Section 1692e(10) prohibits the use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer. Indeed, when allegations under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(10) are based on the same language or theories as allegations under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g, the analysis of the Section 1692g claim is usually dispositive. Even if it were not dispositive, the language used in the debt collection letter is not a false representation or deceptive, because the language cannot be reasonably read to have two or more different meanings, one of which is incorrect. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 13, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yde48pyx from Leagle.com. FRANK RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by ARI HILLEL MARCUS -- Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN LLC & YITZCHAK ZELMAN -- Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus Zelman, LLC. NORTHLAND GROUP, LLC, Defendant, represented by ANDREW JOSHUA BLADY -- ablady@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL. OC COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Ruling in Soto Suit to Ninth Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant O.C. Communications, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Desidero Soto, et al. v. O.C. Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00251-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of current and former non-exempt hourly employees of OCC working as Technicians. The lawsuit concerns OCC's alleged violation of Federal and California labor laws. Throughout the relevant time period, OCC eschewed its obligations under the FLSA by not paying the Plaintiffs and proposed Collective members proper wages, including minimum and overtime wages, the Plaintiffs allege. The appellate case is captioned as Desidero Soto, et al. v. O.C. Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-17425, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by January 22, 2019; -- Transcript is due on February 19, 2019; -- Appellant O.C. Communications, Inc.'s opening brief is due on April 1, 2019; -- Appellees Steeve Fondrose, Lorenzo Ortega, Desidero Soto and Steven Stricklen's answering brief is due on April 30, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DESIDERO SOTO, STEVEN STRICKLEN, STEEVE FONDROSE and LORENZO ORTEGA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Shanon Jude Carson, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: scarson@bm.net - and - Sarah Rebecca Schalman-Bergen, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3053 E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net - and - Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. David Christopher Leimbach, Esq. Todd M. Schneider, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com tschneider@schneiderwallace.com Defendant-Appellant O.C. COMMUNICATIONS, INC., is represented by: Jeffrey Joseph Mann, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1255 Treat Boulevard Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: (925) 932-2468 E-mail: jmann@littler.com - and - Barbara A. Blackburn, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2520 Venture Oaks Way Sacramento, CA 95833-3294 Telephone: (916) 830-7200 E-mail: bblackburn@littler.com OTTAKRING INC: Victoriano Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Cirilo De Jesus Victoriano, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ottakring Inc. (d/b/a Sel Et Poivre), Christian R Schienle, and Pamela N. Schienle Dumich, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-12199, (S.D. N.Y., December 26, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid minimum, overtime and spread-of-hours wages and redress for Defendants' failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants own, operate, or control a French restaurant, located at 853 Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10065 under the name "Sel et Poivre" where Victoriano was employed as a delivery driver. He was required to spend a considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped duties, thus Defendants were not entitled to take a tip credit because his non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday. He also worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked including the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours the Plaintiff worked, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com PARKWOOD ENTERTAINMENT: Violates ADA, Conner Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- Parkwood Entertainment LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Parkwood Entertainment LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00053 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019). Parkwood Entertainment is an American management and entertainment company founded by American singer Beyonce in 2010. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com PAVERS AND ROAD BUILDERS: Palumbo Seek Prelim. OK of Class Accord ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled MARK PALUMBO, ROSARIO PRATO, MAURICIO MARTINEZ, and JOSEPH OVILE as participants and/or former participants of the Pavers and Road Builders District Council Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Apprenticeship, Skill Improvement and Safety Fund and the United Plant and Production Workers Local 175 Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, and Apprenticeship, Skill Improvement and Safety Fund, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated v. ANTHONY FASULO, ALBERT ALIMENA, DOMINICK AGOSTINO, JOHN PETERS, ROBERT CHEVERIE, FRANCISCO FERNANDEZ, JAMES KILKENNEY, PHILIP FAICCO, VINCENT MASINO, ANTHONY ROBIBERO and KEITH LOSCALZO and/or their successors, in their capacity as present and former Trustees of the Pavers and Road Builders District Council Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Apprenticeship, Skill Improvement and Safety Fund and the PAVERS AND ROAD BUILDERS DISTRICT COUNCIL PENSION FUND WELFARE FUND, and APPRENTICESHIP, SKILL IMPROVEMENT AND SAFETY FUND, Case No. 07-CV-797 (PKC)(RML) (E.D.N.Y.), move the Court for an order: 1. preliminarily certifying the requested Class for purposes of the Settlement; 2. appointing Jennifer S. Smith, Esq., and Alan Pollack, Esq., of the law firm of Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene Genovese & Gluck PC, and David New, Esq., and Benjamin Karfunkel, Esq., of New and Karfunkel PC as Class Counsel; 3. granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement; 4. approving the form and manner of giving notice to members of the Settlement Class; and 5. scheduling a fairness hearing.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alan M. Pollack, Esq. Jennifer S. Smith, Esq. ROBINSON BROG LEINWAND GREENE GENOVESE & GLUCK P.C. 875 Third Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 603-6300 Facsimile: (212) 956-2164 E-mail: amp@robinsonbrog.com jss@robinsonbrog.com - and - David W. New, Esq. Benjamin A. Karfunkel, Esq. NEW AND KARFUNKEL, P.C. 1129 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 215 West Caldwell, NJ 07006 Telephone: (862) 210-8220 Facsimile: (862) 210-8361 E-mail: dnew@newandnewlaw.com bkarfunkel@newandnewlaw.com PENNSYLVANIA: Third Cir. Appeal Filed in Pelino Prisoner Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Vito A. Pelino filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Vito Pelino v. Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 2-18-cv-01308, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges violation of Prisoner Civil Rights. The appellate case is captioned as Vito Pelino v. Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 18-3771, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellant VITO A. PELINO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, at Greene SCI, in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania, appears pro se.[BN] PERRIGO COMPANY: Masih Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------- Charles Masih, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Perrigo Company PLC, Murray S. Kessler, Ronald L. Winowiecki, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00070 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Defendant common stock between November 8, 2018 and December 20, 2018, inclusive. This action is brought on behalf of the Class for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Class Period begins on November 8, 2018, when Perrigo filed its Form 10-Q for the period ended September 29, 2018. Pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Individual Defendants signed certifications with the November 8, 2018 10-Q attesting that they reviewed the report, that it does not contain untrue statements, that it fairly represents the financial condition of the company, and that the company's internal controls are effective. However, the Defendants' statements were materially false and misleading, asserts the complaint. The truth was revealed on December 20, 2018. Following this, Perrigo's stock price fell drastically, from $52.36 at close on December 20, 2018 to $37.03 at close on December 21, 2018, a drop of more than 29%, says the complaint. Plaintiff Charles Masih is an individual residing in the City of Germantown, in the State of Maryland. Plaintiff acquired and held shares of the Company at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and has been damaged by the revelation of the Company's material misrepresentations and material omissions. Perrigo Company plc is an Irish-registered manufacturer. The Company's stock trades on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "PRGO". Murray S. Kessler has been the President and Chief Executive Officer of Perrigo since October 8, 2018. Ronald L. Winowiecki has been the Chief Financial Officer of Perrigo since February 20, 2018. Prior thereto, he served as the Acting Chief Financial Officer of Perrigo since February 2017.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP 445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Tel: 914-298-3281 Fax: 914-824-1561 Email: Gblankinship@fbfglaw.com - and - Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Jacob A. Walker, Esq. Nathaniel Silver, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 398-5600 Fax: (617) 507-6020 Email: jeff@blockesq.com jake@blockesq.com nate@blockesq.com SAMSONITE COMPANY: Stohs Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Leann Stohs on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Samsonite Company Stores, LLC and Does 1 through 10; inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG19001392 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., January 4, 2019) seeks recovery of all allowable compensation and other sums including unpaid minimum and overtime wages, penalties/premium pay for missed meal and rest periods, restitution and restoration of sums owed and property unlawfully withheld, statutory penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiff was employed by Samsonite as an hourly non-exempt employee in a mercantile occupation. According to the complaint, the Defendants had a policy and practice of failing to include non-discretionary bonuses in an employee's regular rate in order to determine the correct overtime rate, resulting in unpaid overtime compensation. The Defendants provided managers and supervisors a non-discretionary production bonus known as a "Retail Incentive" that is based on sales goals set for each store. Non-discretionary bonuses must be included when calculating an employee's regular rate in order to determine the correct overtime rate. The Defendants failed to include the Retail Incentive bonus in the regular rate, leading to an incorrect overtime rate, resulting in unpaid overtime to Plaintiff and other putative class members in violation of Labor Code, the complaint asserts. The Defendants also had a policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and other putative class members for all hours worked by failing to pay them any wages, including minimum wage, for compensable time spent working, including telephone calls outside of normal working hours. Plaintiff and other putative class members had to respond to telephone calls after hours from various delivery companies that deliver their products to Samsonite's off-site storage locations, says the complaint. Plaintiff Leann Stohs is an adult who worked for Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee. She first worked for Samsonite as an hourly supervisor and then as an hourly Assistant Store Manager from approximately February 2010 through September 6, 2018, at a retail store located in Barstow, California. Samsonite Company Stores, LLC is an Indiana limited liability company doing business throughout California and is a "person" as defined by California Labor Code. In addition, it is an "employer" as that term is used in the California Labor Code and in the California Industrial Welfare Commission's Orders regulating wages, hours, and working conditions. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued as Does 1 through l 0, inclusive, and therefore sue those Defendants by those fictitious names.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric A. Grover, Esq. Robert W. Spencer, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone: (415) 543-1305 Facsimile: (415) 543-7861 Email: eagrover@kellergrover.com rspencer@kellergrover.com SEERSUCKER INC: Chiqui Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Manuel Chiqui, Raul Tolentino, Enrique Tolentino, and Andres Perez, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Seersucker, Inc., Wilma Jean Inc., Smith Canteen, Inc., Robert Newton, and Kerry Diamond, Case No. 1:18-cv-06777 (E.D. N.Y., November 29, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege that they were not paid proper overtime compensation by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs are each residents of Kings County, New York. The Plaintiffs worked as a cook, kitchen helper and food preparer for the Defendants' restaurants. The Defendants own and operate the restaurants known as "Seersucker," "Wilma Jean," and "Nightingale 9" located in New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue - 61st Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com SEVERSON & WERSON: Faces Duarte Wage and Hour Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ ANDY DUARTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SEVERSON & WERSON, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 30-2018-01039417-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., December 20, 2018), alleges that the Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code. Mr. Duarte accuses the Defendants of failing to provide meal periods, to permit rest breaks, to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and to pay all wages due upon separation of employment. The Defendants operate a law firm in California. The Plaintiff is unaware of the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 E-mail: swong@aegislawfirm.com khaque@aegislawfirm.com jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com SHREE RADHE: Kennedy Files Suit under ADA in Florida ---------------------------------------------------- Shree Radhe, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Patricia Kennedy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Shree Radhe, LLC, a limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60013-BB (S.D. Fla., January 3, 2019). Shree Radhe LLC filed as a Florida Limited Liability in the State of Florida on Tuesday, February 17, 2015 and is approximately four years old, as recorded in documents filed with Florida Department of State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn Llamar Marquise Hairston , Sr., Esq. 2525 Ponce De Leon Blvd Suite 300 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Tel: (305) 200-8784 Email: Shawn@HairstonLaw.com SKINNER SERVICES: Seeks 1st Cir. Review of Order in Pineda Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Thomas Skinner and Skinner Services, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Pineda, et al. v. Skinner Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-12217-FDS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks payment of wages, including earned but allegedly unpaid compensation for straight time hours worked, overtime premiums, and hourly minimum wages due to manual laborers under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Pineda, et al. v. Skinner Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-2251, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JOSE PINEDA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; JOSE MONTENEGRO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; MARCO LOPEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and JOSE HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Nathan P. Goldstein, Esq. OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR JFK Federal Building, Room E-375 Boston, MA 02203-0000 Telephone: (617) 603-1415 - and - Jasper Jacob Groner, Esq. Nicole Hera Horberg Decter, Esq. Paige Walker McKissock, Esq. Alexander Sugerman-Brozan, Esq. SEGAL ROITMAN LLP 33 Harrison Ave., 7th Floor Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 603-1434 E-mail: jgroner@segalroitman.com ndecter@segalroitman.com pmckissock@segalroitman.com abrozan@segalroitman.com Defendants-Appellants SKINNER SERVICES, INC., d/b/a Skinner Demolition, and THOMAS SKINNER; and Defendants DAVID SKINNER, ELBER DINIZ and SANDRO SANTOS are represented by: Gregory J. Aceto, Esq. Michael Brandon Cole, Esq. ACETO BONNER & PRAGER PC 1 Liberty Sq., Suite 410 Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 728-0888 E-mail: aceto@abplawyers.com mcole@abplawyers.com STANDARD INTERNATIONAL: Gonzalez Suit Asserts Civil Rights Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Standard International Management, LLC. The case is styled as Jesus Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Standard International Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00076 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as violation of Civil Rights. Standard International Management LLC owns and operates as a hotel. The Company offers rooms, food, drinks, meeting and events facilities, spa, and online tracking services. Standard International Management serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nolan Keith Klein, Esq. Law Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A. 39 Broadway, Ste. 2250 New York, NY 10006 Tel: (646) 560-3230 Fax: (877) 253-2691 Email: klein@nklegal.com STARBUCKS COFFEE: Sullivan Asserts ADA Class Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------- Starbucks Coffee Company is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Starbucks Coffee Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00060 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019). Starbucks Corporation is an American coffee company and coffeehouse chain. Starbucks was founded in Seattle, Washington in 1971. As of 2018, the company operates 28,218 locations worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group, PLLC 30 East 39th Street 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com STATE COLLECTION: Born Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------- Rose Born, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. State Collection Service, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00374 (E.D. Wash., November 30, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Washington Collection Agency Act, and Washington's Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant routinely identifies itself to consumers in telephone communications as "State Collection Service", omitting the only reference that the debt collector may be a company and not affiliated with an actual state. The Plaintiff Rose Born was a resident of the state of Washington, residing within the territorial jurisdiction area of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The Defendant State is a Wisconsin-based business primarily engaged in the business of collecting debts on behalf of creditors in the state of Washington and elsewhere. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk D. Miller, Esq. KIRK D. MILLER, P.S. 421 W. Riverside Avenue, Ste. 660 Spokane, WA 99201 Tel: (509) 413-1494 Fax: (509) 413-1724 STATE FARM: $250MM Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay ---------------------------------------------------------------- CollisionWeek reports that U.S. District Judge David Herndon gave final approval of the $250 million settlement between plaintiffs and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company that was announced in September. The settlement in Hale et. al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et. al. brings to a close the litigation that originally began two decades ago over the insurer's specification of non-OEM parts on collision repair estimates that then turned into a case on campaign finance for a state Supreme Court Justice. [GN] STRAIGHT LINE: Abante Rooter Suit Alleges TCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Abante Rooter and Plumbing, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Straight Line Source Inc., Merchant Advance Express Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 4:18-cv-07230 (N.D. Calif., November 29, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants negligently, knowingly and willfully contacted the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the TCPA and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy. The Plaintiff Abante Rooter and Plumbing is a corporation of the State of California with principal place of business in the county of Alameda. The Defendant Straight Line Source Inc. is a credit card merchant services company. The Defendant Merchant Advance Express Inc. is a financial services company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 Tel: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com TANGA INC: Faces Diaz Suit Asserting ADA Violation -------------------------------------------------- Tanga, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit in New York. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tanga, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00073 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019). The lawsuit was filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.[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 TESLA INC: Judge Reconsidering Lead Plaintiff Appointment --------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that less than a month after he appointed a client of Levi & Korsinsky's to lead a securities class action against Tesla and CEO Elon Musk, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen signaled he's having second thoughts about his decision. Levi & Korsinsky was facing a January deadline to file an amended complaint on behalf of Tesla investors who allege they were defrauded by Musk's infamous Twitter claim to have secured financing to take his company private at $420 per share. But in a docket entry on Dec. 13, Judge Chen stayed the deadline for the amended complaint and told Levi & Korsinsky to wait until he has had a chance to decide the merits of two motions asking him to reconsider the appointment of the firm's client as lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky represents an individual Tesla investor, Glen Littleton, who claims to have lost $3.5 million in Tesla investments as a result of Musk's tweet and subsequent statements. Judge Chen selected Littleton and his lawyers after a hearing in November in which several candidates to lead the case emphasized the potential conflicts for traditional long investors and Tesla short sellers. In his order appointing Littleton, the judge said the Levi & Korsinsky lawyer was well suited to represent all kinds of Tesla investors -- longs, shorts and options traders -- because he held a variety of Tesla positions. Within days of Mr. Littleton's appointment, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein moved for reconsideration. On behalf of their client, an individual investor named Dany David, the firms argued that Littleton actually made money on Tesla trades in the timeframe allegedly tainted by Musk's tweet. Littleton's lawyers could only claim a loss on their client's investment, according to the Robbins Geller and Lieff Cabraser motion, by counting losses on securities he bought before the notorious tweet and sold during the class period. According to the reconsideration motion, Judge Chen's order appointing Littleton to serve as lead plaintiff "erroneously determined that Mr. Littleton was not a net seller/net gainer based on his options and short positions. In fact, Mr. Littleton is a net seller/net gainer precisely because of those positions, and should not have been appointed lead plaintiff." The David reconsideration motion was quickly followed by a second motion asking Judge Chen to rethink the appointment. The second motion, filed by Kahn Swick & Foti for a fund called Bridgestone Investment, argued that Judge Chen should not have considered Littleton's argument that the fund's purchase of call options projecting a $450-per-share price for Tesla stock could not have been motivated by Musk's tweet about a $420-per-share deal. Littleton, according to the Bridgestone filing, claimed losses on precisely the same sort of investment. So, according to Bridgestone, since its alleged total losses exceeded Littleton's total losses, and both claimed losses based on call options purchased before Musk's tweet, Judge Chen should have selected Bridgestone. It's quite rare for shareholders' firms immediately to ask judges to reconsider their lead plaintiff and lead counsel selections. But Judge Chen didn't dismiss the arguments out of hand. Instead, he instructed Levi & Korsinsky to respond to the motions – and then put off the deadline for filing an amended complaint. In its response to the motion by Robbins Geller and Lieff Cabraser, Levi & Korsinsky said sellers like Littleton are part of the class. "Both purchasers and sellers of options may have suffered losses as a result of defendants' fraud and should be represented by the lead plaintiff," the brief said. "As Littleton suffered losses both purchasing and selling options, as well as buying stock, and from both long and short positions, he provides this representation." The brief also said Robbins Geller and Lieff Cabraser were reviving arguments they'd already made before Judge Chen picked Littleton as lead plaintiff. Those arguments "therefore should be easily denied by the court, which has already considered and correctly rejected" them. Nor did Bridgestone raise any new arguments in its motion for reconsideration, according to Levi & Korsinsky's separate response to the motion by Bridgestone's lawyers at Kahn Swick. Judge Chen picked Littleton, the filing said, because he held different sorts of positions in Tesla and could represent the interests of long, short and options investors. Bridgestone only held a short position, the response said, so it "is neither adequate nor typical of a class consisting in substantial part of investors who lost money from short positions." Judge Chen said he would decide whether to hold a hearing on the reconsideration motions after he's had a chance to read the briefs. Investors said at the lead plaintiff hearing in November that Tesla's exposure could top $1 billion in the class action, though Tesla's lawyers at Fenwick & West said they plan to move to dismiss the allegations. Ms. Frankel emailed Nicholas Porritt and Adam Apton of Levi & Korsinsky for comment on the reconsideration motions but didn't hear back. [GN] TMPL HOLDINGS: Mondello Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEREK MONDELLO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TMPL HOLDINGS LLC, 99th AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC, individually and D/B/A TMPL GYM, DAVID BARTON, individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-12211 (S.D.N.Y., December 26, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation for the Plaintiff and his similarly situated coworkers. TMPL Holdings LLC is a domestic limited liability company, duly existing by virtue of the laws of the state of New York that does business in New York. 99th Avenue Holdings, LLC, doing business as TMPL Gym, is a limited liability company that does business in the state of New York. The Individual Defendant is a founder, director, officer or manager of the Corporate Defendants. The Defendants operate TMPL Gym, a fitness gym in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abraham Z. Melamed, Esq. DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC 1 Penn Plaza, Suite 4905 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 587-0760 E-mail: abe@dereksmithlaw.com TOPHATTER INC: Violates ADA, Diaz Suit Asserts ---------------------------------------------- Tophatter, 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. Tophatter, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00074-JGK (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019). Tophatter, Inc. operates a virtual auction house that conducts live online auctions every day where buyers and sellers can interact, chat, and transact in various categories. The company allows users to compete in fleeting, 90-second auctions and win deals on jewelry, electronics, beauty, and fashion. The company also offers its services through an application. Tophatter, Inc. was formerly known as Blippy Inc. and changed its name to Tophatter, Inc. in January 2013. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is based in San Francisco, California.[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 TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in XLE Suit ---------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (SAC) under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(f) in the case captioned YAN MEI ZHENG-LAWSON, YUANTENG PEI, and JOANNE E. FERRARA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A., INC., Defendants. Case No. 17-cv-06591-BLF. (N.D. Cal.). The Plaintiffs seek to represent a Nationwide class, as well as New York, California, and Pennsylvania subclasses, of individuals who purchased or leased the XLE, XLE Hybrid, or SE models. While the named Plaintiffs bought only the XLE model, they argue that they may represent consumers of the XLE Hybrid and SE models who were misled by the same misrepresentation, in the same brochures, regarding inclusion of auto on/off headlights as a standard feature. The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for breach of express warranty (Counts III, IV, and V) and their claims for breach of state consumer protection statutes (Counts I, II, VI, VII, IX, and X). The Defendants also seek dismissal of Plaintiff Pei's claim under California's Secret Warranty Law (Count VIII) and his claim for unjust enrichment (Count XI). Breach of Express Warranty In Counts III, IV, and V, the Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of express warranty under the laws of California, New York, and Pennsylvania. The claims are based on brochures that the Plaintiffs allege they saw and relied on in deciding to purchase their vehicles. The Plaintiffs have cured this deficiency by attaching the brochures they viewed to the SAC. Exhibit A is a hard copy brochure that was available in dealerships and Exhibit B is a brochure that was available on the Internet. The brochures described the Rav 4 models offered for sale in 2016, listing each model's features in bullet point fashion. The brochures listed the auto on/off headlights feature among the Exterior Features on the XLE, XLE Hybrid, and SE models. The auto on/off feature was not listed among the Options available for purchase. Plaintiffs understood the brochures to represent that the auto on/off headlights were provided as standard features of the XLE, XLE Hybrid, and SE models. They paid a higher price for the XLE model because they wanted the auto on/off headlights feature, which was not offered as standard on the lower priced LE model. When the Plaintiffs received their vehicles, however, they were not equipped with the auto on/off headlights feature. In fact, the Plaintiffs discovered that none of the standard versions of the 2016 Toyota Rav 4 XLE, XLE Hybrid, and SE models sold in the United States were equipped with the auto on/off headlight feature. These allegations are sufficient to plead the terms of the express warranty and its breach. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as to the express warranty claims. Consumer Protection Statutes In Counts I, II, VI, VII, IX, and X, the Plaintiffs assert violations of the consumer protection laws of California, New York, and Pennsylvania. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants' brochures misled the Plaintiffs into believing that the vehicles they purchased were equipped with automatic on/off headlights when in fact the vehicles did not have that feature. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Where claims brought under California's consumer protection statutes are grounded in fraud, they must satisfy Rule 9(b). Rule 9(b) does not apply to certain of the Plaintiffs' claims under New York and Pennsylvania consumer protection statutes. This difference in pleading standards has no practical effect here, because the Plaintiffs' allegations do satisfy Rule 9(b). The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants were jointly responsible for creating, publishing, and disseminating marketing materials, including the brochures the Plaintiffs viewed. The Plaintiffs attach copies of the brochures to the SAC. The Plaintiffs explain that they understood the brochures to represent that the standard versions of the XLE, XLE Hybrid, and SE models were equipped with the auto on/off headlights feature. The Plaintiffs relied on the representations in the brochures in deciding to purchase the XLE model. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants knew that the standard versions of the XLE, XLE Hybrid, and SE models did not contain the auto on/off headlights feature. And finally, the Plaintiffs allege that they were injured because they bought higher end models at higher prices than they otherwise would have paid based on their belief that the models would have the auto on/off feature. These allegations are repeated throughout the SAC with additional details regarding each named Plaintiff's experiences. The Court concludes that the allegations are sufficient to satisfy Rule 9(b). Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as to the consumer protection claims. California's Secret Warranty Law Count VIII is asserted by Plaintiff Pei under California' Secret Warranty Law, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1795.90, et seq. Under the California Secret Warranty Law, a manufacturer shall, within 90 days of the adoption of an adjustment program, notify by first-class mail all owners or lessees of motor vehicles eligible under the program of the condition giving rise to and the principal terms and conditions of the program. Pei alleges that the existence of the `secret warranty' is established by the fact that Plaintiff Ferrara was offered $300-$500 or an automatic starter to address the failure to include the auto on/off feature in their headlight system. He alleges further that this remedy, however, was only available to those who complained loudly enough. Defendants correctly point out that these allegations are insufficient to allege the adoption of an adjustment program as defined above. At most, the allegations suggest that Defendants made ad hoc adjustments on a case-by-case basis. Although the Plaintiffs have amended their pleading twice previously, they added the secret warranty claim in their last amendment and have not received any guidance from the Court on that claim until now. The Court therefore will grant Plaintiffs leave to amend the claim. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted with leave to amend as to the claim for violation of California's Secret Warranty Law. Unjust Enrichment In Count XI, Plaintiff Pei asserts a claim for unjust enrichment under California law on behalf of the Nationwide class or, alternatively, the California subclass. The Court previously dismissed the unjust enrichment claim because Plaintiffs had not specified which state's law governs the claim. Plaintiffs have cured that defect by specifying California law. Pei alleges that Defendants represented that the XLE, XLE Hybrid, and SE models were equipped with the auto on/off feature; Defendant Toyota Motor knew that those models were not equipped with the auto on/off feature; class members purchased or leased those models based on a reasonable expectation that they would have the auto on/off feature; Defendant Toyota Motor received funds from those sales; and Defendant Toyota Motor thereby received an economic benefit at the expense of class members. SAC ¶¶ 189-194. Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to state a claim against Defendant Toyota Motor. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as to the unjust enrichment claim. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 13, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycunjfs2 from Leagle.com. Yan Mei Zheng-Lawson, Yuanteng Pei & Joanne E. Ferrara, Plaintiffs, represented by James Robert Noblin -- jrn@classcounsel.com -- Green and Noblin, P.C., Robert S. Green, Green & Noblin, P.C., Gary S. Graifman, Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., pro hac vice & Lynda J. Grant, TheGrantLawFirm, PLLC, pro hac vice. Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota North America, Inc. & Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., Defendants, represented by Jeffrey Brian Margulies -- jeff.margulies@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Christine Alegrado Robles -- christine.robles@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP & Stacey A. Martinez -- stacey.martinez@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice. UNITED STATES: Class Action Over Army Discharge Reviews Okayed -------------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Army veterans who claim the military did not give "liberal consideration" to diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder while reviewing disciplinary decisions can proceed in their lawsuit as a class, a federal judge ruled. U.S. District Judge Warren Eginton in Connecticut certified a class to include all Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with less-than-honorable statuses who have not received discharge upgrades to honorable, and also have diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or PTSD-related conditions attributable to their military service. The lead plaintiff, Stephen Kennedy, joined the Army in 2006, and served in Iraq the following two years. He came back to the U.S. with severe PTSD and depression that the Army allegedly failed to adequately treat. In 2009, he took an absence without leave, or AWOL, to attend his wedding because his request for leave was denied due to a scheduled training exercise. He returned to Fort Bragg after two weeks, but was soon discharged with a less-than-honorable discharge. Mr. Kennedy says his PTSD was a major factor in his decision to go AWOL. He petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for a change to his discharge status, but claims the board did not follow or even refer to instructions issued by former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ordering it to give "liberal consideration" to diagnoses of PTSD and similar mental health conditions when making its decisions. In December 2016, Kennedy filed the lawsuit seeking a re-characterization of his Army service, and was granted class certification on Dec. 21. "Plaintiffs have requested that the court's injunction ‘rectify the ADRB's failure to apply the decisional standards already established by the Hagel Memo and now codified at 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1553,'" Judge Eginton said. "This court has jurisdiction to consider a lawsuit seeking redress where a military entity has failed to follow mandatory regulations resulting in prejudice to a service member." After Kennedy filed his motion for class certification, the board upgraded his discharge to honorable, but the judge said this change in status did not moot his claims. "Defendant has not demonstrated assurance that there exists no reasonable expectation that the ADRB will continue to disregard the Hagel Memo PTSD directive in its in review of discharge upgrade applications," the 17-page opinion states. The Yale Law School's Veterans Legal Services Clinic and Jenner & Block LLP will represent all the plaintiffs in the case. The ruling comes a month after a similar class of Navy and Marine Corps veterans was certified. A copy of the Memorandum on Decision on Motion for Class Certification is available at: https://is.gd/FUC3Tk The case is Kennedy, et al. v. Esper, Case No. 16-cv-02010 (D. Conn.). UNITED STATES: Liviz Appeals D. Mass. Decision to First Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Ilya Liviz, Sr., filed an appeal from a court ruling in his lawsuit styled Liviz v. U.S. Supreme Court, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-12532-ADB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 7, 2019, the Plaintiff asks the District Court to issue declaratory relief, temporary injunction followed by permanent injunction from allowing use of court proceeding to create precedent based on fake facts. Mr. Liviz also asks the Court to find that SCOTUS has damaged the United States Government, integrity of the judiciary, and availability of due process of fair and meaningful access to the court by allowing or preventing such conduct within the court that they are in charge of. He contends that to make video recording available at courts is the best evidence for use by the litigants for re-trials, re-hearing, preservation of record, and appellate review. The appellate case is captioned as Liviz v. U.S. Supreme Court, et al., Case No. 18-2252, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ILYA LIVIZ, SR., Chief Jurist, D.L.D., National Academy for Jurists, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, represents himself: Ilya Liviz, Sr., Esq. LIVIZ LAW OFFICE 156 6th St. Lowell, MA 01850 Telephone: (978) 606-5326 E-mail: ilya.liviz@gmail.com Defendants-Appellees U.S. SUPREME COURT; JOHN G. ROBERTS, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; CLARENCE THOMAS, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; RUTH BADER GINSBURG, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; STEPHEN G. BREYER, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR., Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; ELENA KAGAN, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; NEIL M. GORSUCH, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; and BRETT M. KAVANAUGH, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, are represented by: Cynthia A. Young, Esq. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200 Boston, MA 02110-0000 Telephone: (617) 748-3649 UNITED STATES: Migrant Kids Mental Health Care Class Action OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Macias Jr., writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that detained asylum-seeking children wanting consensual mental health care won class certification on Dec. 27 and can continue their case despite efforts by the Trump administration to dismiss the case and delay litigation due to the government shutdown. Ruling on the Justice Department's request for a delay in a sharply worded 2-page order, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee said the request is unwarranted because the court can order attorneys to respect existing deadlines even during a government shutdown. "The prosecution of this action should not be further delayed because it concerns the health and welfare of minors in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement," Judge Gee wrote, adding the administration should respond to the children's claims by Jan. 9 and to discovery requests by Feb. 22. Attorneys for both parties did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The children claim the Office of Refugee Resettlement blocks their access to attorneys, gives them psychotropic drugs without familial consent and discriminates against children with disabilities. Under the 21-year-old Flores settlement, children in federal custody must be released to relatives or other custodians, or placed in facilities within 20 days. Facilities housing the children must be "the least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor's age and special needs." The children sought class protections and an opportunity to challenge placements in medical facilities. In 28-page order also issued on Dec. 27, Judge Gee granted certification to five classes children who either have a mental disability, been given psychotropic drugs without consent, been detained for more than 30 days without notice or been blocked from being released to guardians. The Trump administration argued the case should be dismissed because the children's claims for relief under the Flores settlement are duplicative. Judge Gee partly agreed, dismissing claims that she found can only be litigated in the ongoing Flores litigation. However, Judge Gee said the class can continue with claims the Office of Refugee Resettlement has failed to provide sufficient procedural safeguards for them to exercise their rights under Flores. The exact size of the class is unknown, but likely includes hundreds of children. In a third order issued on Dec. 27, Judge Gee said the standard for determining which children receive class protections will change. She modified the class definition by using the Rehabilitation Act standard instead of the Americans With Disabilities Act standard, which is broader in scope. The Rehabilitation Act standard requires plaintiffs to show they were "denied services 'solely by reason of' [his or] her disability," Judge Gee wrote. Her previous class certification order covered children "who have or will have a behavioral, mental health, intellectual, and/or developmental disability" and who will receive treatment while in federal custody because of their disabilities. She said the modification doesn't make the class representatives inadequate since children are placed in medical facilities when they require intensive mental health treatment they can't receive in an outpatient facility. The judge rejected the Trump administration's argument that "it is unclear how each [of the children] is actually disabled or 'otherwise qualified'" to represent the class, since it is undisputed the five class representatives have been transferred to an inpatient treatment center in Texas because of their mental health needs. Finally, Judge Gee denied the children's request to initiate discover immediately, finding they hadn't explained how the current stipulated schedule hurts them or what the scope of early discovery might be -- the latter being prejudicial to the government, she said. A copy of the Order Denying Defendants' Ex Parte Application for a Stay of Proceedings is available at: https://is.gd/EiZk2P The case is Lucas R., et al. v. Azar, et al., Case No. 18-cv-05741 (C.D. Cal.). VICTIM SERVICES: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Solberg Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants American Justice Solutions, Inc., Birch Grove Holdings, Inc., Karl Thomas Jonsson, Mats Jonsson, National Corrective Group, Inc. and Victim Services, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Karen Solberg, et al. v. Victim Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-05266-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs sought certification of this class: "all California consumers who received similar letters or made payments to Defendants from May 11, 2012 to the present. Class certification is appropriate because Defendants followed a standardized set of collection procedures and treated the Plaintiffs and members of the class in the same way." The appellate case is captioned as Karen Solberg, et al. v. Victim Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-80196, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents KAREN SOLBERG, NANCY MORIN and NARISHA BONAKDAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Paul Arons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PAUL ARONS 685 Spring Street, Suite 104 Friday Harbor, WA 98250 Telephone: (360) 378-6496 Facsimile: (360) 378-6498 E-mail: lopa@rockisland.com - and - Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bchandler@terrellmarshall.com bterrell@terrellmarshall.com - and - Deepak Gupta, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER PLLC 1900 L Street, NW, Suite 312 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 888-1741 Facsimile: (202) 888-7792 E-mail: deepak@guptawessler.com - and - Karl Olson, Esq. CANNATA O'TOOLE FICKES & OLSON LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 409-8900 E-mail: kolson@cofolaw.com - and - Michael Ram, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 2440 W. El Camino Real, Suite 100 Mountain View, CA 94040 Telephone: (650) 784-4006 E-mail: mram@robinskaplan.com Defendants-Petitioners VICTIM SERVICES, INC., DBA CorrectiveSolutions; NATIONAL CORRECTIVE GROUP, INC., DBA CorrectiveSolutions; MATS JONSSON; AMERICAN JUSTICE SOLUTIONS, INC., DBA CorrectiveSolutions; BIRCH GROVE HOLDINGS, INC.; and KARL THOMAS JONSSON are represented by: Sean Hardy, Esq. Michael A. Taitelman, Esq. FREEDMAN AND TAITELMAN, LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067-6001 Telephone: (310) 201-0005 Facsimile: (310) 201-0045 E-mail: smhardy@ftllp.com mtaitelman@ftllp.com VILLAGEONE SPACE: Olsen Files Suit under ADA in New York -------------------------------------------------------- Villageone Space 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. Villageone Space LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00091 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2019). Villageone Space LLC offer spacious studio, one, and two bedroom floor plans designed to suit the needs of the modern lifestyle.[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 VUZIX CORP: Securities Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------- Vuzix(R) Corporation (NASDAQ:VUZI), ("Vuzix" or, the "Company"), a supplier of Smart Glasses and Augmented Reality (AR) technology and products, on Dec. 17 disclosed that the consolidated class action filed in the United States District Court Southern District of New York (In Re Vuzix Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:18-cv-06656) was voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice and without costs against all the defendants, by the plaintiff and their counsel on December 14, 2018. Vuzix had vigorously denied the class action allegations as meritless and is pleased that plaintiff and their counsel agreed to voluntarily dismiss the case. "Vuzix will continue to defend the interests of the Company and all of the Company's shareholders, customers and business partners against false, misleading and defamatory statements made about Vuzix," commented Vuzix CEO and President Paul Travers. About Vuzix Corporation Vuzix is a supplier of Smart-Glasses and Augmented Reality (AR) technologies and products for the consumer and enterprise markets. The Company's products include personal display and wearable computing devices that offer users a portable high-quality viewing experience, provide solutions for mobility, wearable displays and augmented reality. Vuzix holds 133 patents and patents pending and numerous IP licenses in the Video Eyewear field. The Company has won Consumer Electronics Show (or CES) awards for innovation for the years 2005 to 2018 and several wireless technology innovation awards among others. Founded in 1997, Vuzix is a public company (NASDAQ:VUZI) with offices in Rochester, NY, Oxford, UK, Barcelona, Spain and Tokyo, Japan. [GN] WATERSTONE MORTGAGE: Werner's Bid to Compel Arbitration Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned DOUG WERNER and WILLIAM WIESNESKI, both individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. WATERSTONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 17-cv-608-jdp. (W.D. Wis.). Plaintiffs Doug Werner and William Wiesneski are suing their former employer, Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. More than a year after filing this lawsuit, the plaintiffs move to dismiss the case and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration. The Plaintiffs say that they could not move to compel arbitration earlier because their arbitration agreements include class waivers, which Lewis v. Epic Sys. Corp., 823 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2016), found to be unlawful. Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Lewis, the plaintiffs believe that their motion to compel is timely. The Court finds that there is no dispute that both Werner and Wiesneski have an arbitration agreement with Waterstone that covers the disputes in this case and that the arbitration agreements are valid under current law. The question is whether the plaintiffs waived their right to arbitrate by failing to invoke the right sooner. A party may waive his right to arbitrate expressly or by simply acting inconsistently with the right. When a party chooses to proceed in a judicial forum, there is a rebuttable presumption that the party has waived its right to arbitrate. In this case, the plaintiffs filed their complaint in this court. It is undisputed that they did not submit an arbitration demand before filing their lawsuit and did not otherwise discuss with Waterstone at the time the possibility of arbitrating the claims. The Plaintiffs have also engaged in extended settlement negotiations and submitted discovery requests. The Plaintiffs do not deny that their conduct in this case is inconsistent with their right to arbitrate and would ordinarily qualify as waiver. And they do not make any attempt to distinguish the cases that Waterstone cites in support of its waiver argument. The Plaintiffs' only argument against a finding of waiver is that they were legally prohibited from arbitrating their claims when they filed this lawsuit in 2017. They say that, under Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp., 823 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2016), their arbitration agreements were invalid and unenforceable because they include class waivers. So the plaintiffs could not enforce their arbitration agreement until the Supreme Court reversed Lewis and held that class and collective action waivers were permitted under federal law. But the plaintiffs waited several more months to file a motion to compel after the Supreme Court decided Epic, which would be reason enough to conclude that they waived their right to arbitration. The Plaintiffs say that they were entitled to wait because the parties were in the midst of settlement negotiations at the time, and then Waterstone filed a motion for partial summary judgment and a motion for a declaration that the plaintiffs had waived their right to arbitrate. Even if the court assumes that the plaintiffs acted diligently after the Supreme Court decided Epic, the court is not persuaded that the plaintiffs could not have arbitrated their claims before the ruling in Epic. To begin with, even assuming that Epic rendered the arbitration agreements unenforceable, that would mean only that the plaintiffs could not compel Waterstone to arbitrate. The Plaintiffs identify no reason that the parties could not agree to arbitrate their claims. And there would have been strong reasons to believe that Waterstone would have been amenable to such an agreement. After all, it was Waterstone that moved to compel arbitration in an earlier case involving similar claims brought by the same counsel. And if Lewis called into question whether Waterstone would resist arbitration in this case, that question was resolved by Waterstone's answer to the complaint in this case, in which Waterstone asserted that the plaintiffs' claims were subject to arbitration. If the plaintiffs really wanted to submit their claims to arbitration all along, then it is not clear why they did not ask Waterstone to submit to arbitration then. If the answer is that the plaintiffs preferred to litigate their claims in federal court so long as there was a chance to proceed collectively then that is simply an acknowledgment that their decision was a strategic choice and was not governed by Lewis. In Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage Corp., No. 11-cv-779bbc (W.D. Wis.), Judge Crabb made it clear in Herrington that an arbitration agreement may be enforceable even if the agreement includes an unenforceable class waiver, a conclusion that is not inconsistent with Lewis. The Court notes that the Plaintiffs should appreciate the importance of this distinction because the arbitration agreements at issue in Herrington did not include language requiring class or collective actions to proceed in court rather than in arbitration in the event that the class waivers were invalidated. In light of Herrington, the court sees no reason why plaintiffs could not have moved to compel arbitration at the outset of this case. Like the agreements at issue in Herrington, plaintiffs' agreements include a severability clause. Unlike the agreements in Lewis, plaintiffs' agreements do not require the plaintiffs' claims to proceed in court if the class action waivers are invalidated. The Plaintiffs do not identify any basis for distinguishing Herrington. And plaintiffs cannot argue plausibly that they were unaware of the facts or rulings in that case. Herrington involves the same counsel raising the same claims against the same defendant. Because Herrington shows that plaintiffs could have arbitrated their claims despite Lewis, the court concludes that plaintiffs waived their right to arbitrate by filing this case in federal court and litigating it for more than a year. The court will deny plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration. Accordingly, the motion to compel arbitration filed by plaintiffs Doug Werner and William Wiesneski is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 13, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybrtrxv4 from Leagle.com. Doug Werner & William Wiesneski, Plaintiffs, represented by Dan Getman, Getman & Sweeney, PLLC, Matthew Dunn, Getman & Sweeney, PLLC & Artemio Guerra, Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLLC. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, represented by Spencer Skeen -- spencer.skeen@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins, Jesse Ferrantella -- jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins & Timothy Johnson -- tim.johnson@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins. WELLS FARGO: Keller Rohrback Investigates HAMP Faulty Calculation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo recently sent letters to home mortgage customers apologizing for a "faulty calculation" that caused qualified borrowers, who were part of the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), to be improperly rejected or not offered a loan modification. Because of this glitch in Wells Fargo's software program, hundreds of people unnecessarily lost their homes and may have had their credit scores negatively impacted. Wells Fargo's letters to customers say, "When you were considered for a loan modification, you weren't approved, and now we realize that you should've been. We based our decisions on a faulty calculation, and we're sorry. If it had been correct, you would have been approved for a trial modification." Keller Rohrback -- a leading consumer protection law firm that was the first firm to bring a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo over its practice of opening unauthorized deposit and credit accounts -- is now investigating claims people who were affected by these modification denials may have against Wells Fargo. "It appears that this 'glitch' caused tremendous hardship to hundreds of people, unnecessarily forcing them from their homes," said Matthew Preusch, an attorney at Keller Rohrback L.L.P. "Wells Fargo needs to be held fully accountable for this alleged practice." If you went through the foreclosure process between April 2010 and October 2015, and recently received a letter from Wells Fargo apologizing for denying you a loan modification, contact attorney Matthew Preusch at 800-776-6044 or via email at consumer@kellerrohrback.com to discuss your concerns and potential legal claims. About Keller Rohrback L.L.P. With offices in Seattle, Phoenix, New York, Santa Barbara, Oakland, and Missoula, Keller Rohrback serves as lead and co-lead counsel in class actions throughout the country. [GN] WORLD MARKETING: Former Employees Class Certified in Carroll Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Lynn Adelman entered an order in the lawsuit titled AMY CARROLL, RALPH FORD, and ROY S. ADDIS IV on their own behalf and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. WORLD MARKETING HOLDINGS, LLC, and BLUE STREAK HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01309-LA (E.D. Wisc.), certifying this class: All former employees nominally employed by one or more of the following: World Marketing Dallas, LLC, World Marketing Chicago, LLC, World Marketing Atlanta, LLC, and/or World Marketing Holdings, LLC; who worked at or were based at one or more of the facilities located at 7950 West Joliet Road, McCook, Illinois 60525 (the "Illinois facility"); 8801 Autobahn Road, Suite 100, Dallas, Texas 75237 (the "Texas facility") and 1961 S. Cobb Industrial Boulevard, SE, Smyrna, Georgia 30082 (the "Georgia facility" and collectively, the "Facilities"), and were allegedly terminated on or about September 28, 2015, within thirty days of that date or thereafter, as part of, or as the reasonably expected consequence of, plant closings ordered on or about September 28, 2015, as defined by the WARN Act, and who do not file a timely request to opt-out of the class ("Class"). Plaintiffs Amy Carroll, Ralph Ford and Roy S. Addis IV are appointed Class Representatives. The Gardner Firm, P.C., Lankenau & Miller LLP, and The Previant LawFirm, S.C. are appointed class counsel. Judge Adelman approved the proposed form of Notice to the Class. The Class Counsel shall mail the Notice, First Class postage prepaid, to the proposed members of the Class at their last known addresses and as used in connection with the class mailings in the bankruptcy WARN Act matter against the Debtors, in an envelope bearing the return address of The Gardner Firm, P.C.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mary E. Olsen, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C. 182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103 Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-8100 E-mail: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com - and - LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 581-5005 - and - THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C. 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100 MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 271-4500 WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: Couch Sues Over Fraudulent Sale of VOIs ---------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE COUCH and LINDA COUCH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS, INC., WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC., and WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC., Case No. 6:18-cv-02199-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla., December 22, 2018), alleges that the Defendants engage in a highly organized fraudulent scheme to sell Vacation Ownership Interests ("VOIs") to prospective owners and increase ownership interests of existing owners by utilizing high-pressure sales tactics based on fraud and deception with material omissions, misrepresentations, and concealment. According to the complaint, the Representative Plaintiffs and thousands of other Class Members are the victims of the Defendants' unlawful conduct and have paid out millions of dollars to purchase VOIs to stay in resorts owned and operated by the Defendants or by the Defendants' affiliates and associates, as well as excessive upgrade costs and annual maintenance fees, only to be thwarted in actually staying at one of the Defendants' resort of their choosing as they are unable to use the VOI "points" as reasonably expected based on the Defendants' representations. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation is a Delaware Corporation with its principal address in Parsippany, New Jersey. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation conducts a substantial amount of business in Florida. Prior to June 1, 2018, Wyndham Worldwide Corporation claimed to be one of the world's largest hospitality companies, offering hospitality services through several brands, including Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Ramada, Days Inn, Super 8, Howard Johnson, Wingate by Wyndham, Microtel Inns & Suites by Wyndham, TRYP by Wyndham, Dolce Hotels and Resorts, RCI, Wyndham Vacation Rentals, Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Shell Vacations Club and WorldMark by Wyndham. On June 1, 2018, Wyndham Worldwide Corporation split into two publicly traded companies: Wyndham Destinations, Inc., which focuses on the vacation ownership resorts at issue in this action, and Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Inc., which focuses on hotels and resorts. Wyndham Destinations, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation with its principal address in Parsippany, New Jersey. Wyndham Destinations, Inc. operates under several brands, including Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Wyndham Vacation Rentals, Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Shell Vacations Club and WorldMark by Wyndham. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in Orlando, Florida. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in Orlando, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Vijay G. Brijbasis, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1750 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 991-5420 Facsimile: (844) 670-6009 E-mail: VBrijbasi@dickinson-wright.com XPO LOGISTICS: Feb. 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against XPO Logistics, Inc. ("XPO" or the "Company") (NYSE: XPO) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired XPO securities between February 26, 2014, and December 12, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/xpo. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) XPO's highly touted aggressive M&A strategy had yielded only minimal returns to the Company; (2) XPO was utilizing improper accounting practices to mask its true financial condition, including, inter alia, under-reporting of bad debts and aggressive amortization assumptions; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On December 12, 2018, Spruce Point Management ("Spruce Point") published a report regarding XPO, entitled "Trucking Ridiculous; End of the Road". The Spruce Point report asserted that a "forensic investigation" into XPO had revealed "financial irregularities that conveniently cover [the Company's] growing financial strain and inability to complete additional acquisitions despite repeated promises." Spruce Point reported that it had uncovered, among other issues, "concrete evidence to suggest dubious tax accounting, under-reporting of bad debts, phantom income through unaccountable M&A earn-out liabilities, and aggressive amortization assumptions: all designed to portray glowing 'Non-GAAP' results." The Spruce Point report further stated that "XPO insiders have aggressively reduced their ownership interest in the Company since coming public, and recently enacted a new compensation structure tied to 'Adjusted Cash Flow Per Share'–defined in such a non-standard way that it is practically meaningless." Following publication of the Spruce Point report, XPO's stock dropped $15.77 per share, or 26.17%, to close at $44.50 on December 13, 2018. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/xpo or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in XPO you have until February 12, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of its clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. [GN] ********* 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 ***