/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190130.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 30, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 22 Headlines 22ND CENTURY GROUP: Bull Sues Over Share Price Drop 7M EGROUP CORP: Carmack Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ADVANCE STORES: Josie Badger Seeks to Certify ADA Class ALABAMA: Says Making Progress in Addressing Mental Health Issues ALLERGAN PLC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action ALLIED INTERSTATE: Briggs Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Aversa Sues Over False Company Reports ARRIS INT'L: Settlement Reached in Acquisition-Related Suits ASCENDA USA: Charlot Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation AT&T MOBILITY: Averts Lawsuit Over iPhone Data Speed BANK OZK: Wood Suit Transferred to Eastern District of Arkansas BARCLAYS BANK: Ex-Currency Trader Sues XL in Rigging Case BMW: Barun Law Firm Prepares Class Action Over Sedan Fires BMW: Faces Criminal Probe in South Korea Over Engine Fires BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Estate Says Not Entitled to Redo of Trial BY THE RIO: Larry Rice Sues over No-Poach Policy at Carl's Jr. CHINA TECH: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims CITIGROUP INC: Euribor Settlement Hearing Scheduled for May 17 CODILIS MOODY: Class Certification Sought in Meyer Suit COMMUNITY CARE: Wilson Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA CUSTOM ROOFING: Abrego Suit Seeks Damages under FLSA DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Stempien Seeks Unpaid Wages for Instructors DISNEY: Appeals Court Won't Revive Shareholder Suit Against Board EDGEWELL PERSONAL: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in SPF Case EMBRAER: Brazil Court Revokes Injunction Following Class Action EMERGENCY SITE: Does Not Pay Security Personnel Overtime Wages EQHEALTH SOLUTIONS: Underpays Technical Coordinators, Suit Claims FORTRESS SYSTEMS: Sharkey Bid for Class Certification Denied FOUR PARTNERS: Howard's Bid to Certify Denied; Hearing on Mar. 19 GARDNER DENVER: Purcell Julie Investigates Fiduciary Breach GENERAL MOTORS: Must Face Breach of Contract Class Action GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Forex Currency Rigging Lawsuit GOOGLE INC: Settlement Parties Split Over Article III Standing GROSSE POINTE, MI: 2016 Flooding Class Action Settled GUILIANO ENVIRONMENTAL: Vargas Seeks Unpaid Wages for Workers HSBC BANK USA: Removes Antonicic et al. Suit to N.D. Illinois INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Fixed ICE LIBOR Rates, Suit Claims IQVIA INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in TCPA Class Action ISRAEL ELECTRIC: Electricity Rate to Rise After Settlement JFE INC: Does Not Properly Pay Construction Workers, Suit Says JR ENGINEERING: James Roberts Seeks Overtime Compensation KELLOGG COMPANY: Smith Moves to Certify Class of RSRs Under FLSA LACI TRANSPORT: Stingley Bid to Certify Class Dropped LAMPS PLUS: Rumberger Kirk Attorney Discusses Arbitration Issue LEXINGTON LAW: Must File Judgment Bid by March 18 in Rosales Suit LOWE'S HOME: Court Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration MANTECA, CA: Homeless Man Challenges Anti-Camping Ordinance MARIN COUNTY, CA: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Perez et al. Suit MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Esquerra Suit in Maryland MARRIOTT INT'L: Reinsurers Speculate over Nature of Cyber Loss MASTERGAS USA: Lantieri Seeks Overtime Pay for Cashiers MDL 2741: Garrison vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Ottinger vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Peabody v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Scott v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2873: Battisti vs. 3M Company over AFFF Products Consolidated MENZGOLD: Consultant Calls for Liquidation, Class Action Mulled MINDBODY INC: Johnson Fistel Investigates Proposed Sale MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Kennedy Alleges Mislabeling of Graham Crackers MONSANTO COMPANY: Binghams Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Campbell Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Garner Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Herr Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Ledvina Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Salamone Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Stewart Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup NEINSTEIN LLP: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement OASIS OUTSOURCING: Isha Smith Seeks Unpaid Wages PACIFIC COAST: Faces Garcia Suit in Sacramento, California PANDORA MEDIA: Faces 8 Suits over Sirius XM Merger PFIZER INC: Al Haj Class Certification Bid Continued to March 6 PLASTIPAK PACKAGING: Class Cert. Bid in Hernandez Suit Denied POWERLINE FUNDING: Benitez Files Suit Asserting TCPA Violation R.J. REYNOLDS: Removes Kec Suit to C.D. California REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Class Certification Sought in Reince Suit RELIANT CAPITAL: Certification of Class Sought in Kasper Suit RENT-A-CENTER: May 3 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set RONALD ERDOS: Gallant Seeks to Certify Class RUBY IV LLC: Two Classes Certified Under FLSA in Kidwell Suit SACRAMENTO, CA: Judge Set to Rule on County Jail Class Action SPACE EXPLORATION: Burke Suit Asserts FCRA Violation STEARNS LENDING: Solarski & Schaeg Seek to Certify Class SYNCHRONY BANK: McMullen Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement TAKATA CORP: Court Approves $300MM Airbag Class Action Settlement TAMPA BAY OPERATIONS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Suit Alleges TARGET CORP: Averts Cashier Class Action in Minnesota TOKYO ELECTRIC: Prosecutors Say Execs Fail to Safeguard Plant TRANS WORLD: Class Cert. Bid in Spack et al. Suit Granted in Part TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Files Motion to Disqualify 2 Attorneys UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Offers Settlement to Drivers Prior to IPO UNIQUE CAMERA: Tyler Singleton Seeks Minimum Wages UNITED KINGDOM: Sued Over "State-Sponsored Discrimination" WELLMONT HEALTH: Jury Rules in Favor of Highlands Physicians WEST VIRGINIA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in I/DD Waiver Case WINCO FOODS: Faces Petersen Suit in Sacramento, California WM MORRISON: Field Law Attorney Discusses Court Ruling YALE UNIVERSITY: Vellali et al. Seek to Certify Beneficiaries Class ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Rolfe et al. Sue over Silver Pool Scam [*] Department of Education to Implement "Borrower Defense" Rule [*] Employers Brace for Fair Credit Reporting Act Class Actions [*] TruthinAdvertising.org Sees Spate of Fake White Chocolate Cases ********* 22ND CENTURY GROUP: Bull Sues Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------- Matthew Bull, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00409 (E.D. N.Y., January 21, 2019) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded 22nd Century securities between February 18, 2016 and October 25, 2018, inclusive. Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. By 2013, 22nd Century announced a partnership with British American Tobacco ("BAT"), granting BAT access to 22nd Century's "patented technology which alters levels of nicotinic alkaloids in tobacco plants." But on September 26, 2017, the Winston-Salem Journal reported that BAT was ending its partnership with 22nd Century to develop low nicotine cigarettes in order to pursue "more beneficial options available to us going forward". According to a February 2, 2018 Seeking Alpha article by Fuzzy Panda Research, 22nd Century's stock price had been inflated through various paid stock promotion articles from 2014 through 2017, some of which had disclosed the paying party and amount, and others which did not. On this news, shares of 22nd Century fell $0.35 per share or over 11% to close at $2.73 per share on February 2, 2018. Then, on October 25, 2018, Fuzzy Panda Research disclosed in another Seeking Alpha article that its Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests from the SEC for "all 22nd documents in the possession of SEC that pertain to investigations regarding Century Group (XXII) for the time period January 1, 2016 through July 16, 2018" had been denied. On this news, shares of 22nd Century fell $0.11 per share or over 4% to close at $2.45 per share on October 25, 2018. As a result of Defendants' wrongdoing, 22nd Century investors have been damaged. The Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) 22nd Century's stock was prone to manipulation through paid stock promotions; (2) such conduct would subject 22nd Century to heightened regulatory scrutiny by the SEC; and (3) consequently, 22nd Century's public statements were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times, says the complaint. Plaintiff purchased 22nd Century securities during the Class Period and was economically damaged thereby. 22nd Century provides technology that increases or decreases the nicotine levels and other nicotinic alkaloids in tobacco plants, and cannabinoids in hemp/cannabis plants through genetic engineering and plant breeding. 22nd Century is incorporated in Nevada. Its principal place of business is in Williamsville, New York. 22nd Century's shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the ticker symbol "XXII". Henry Sicignano III has served as the Company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") since March 3, 2015. He also served as the Company's Chief Operating Officer ("COO") from October 25, 2014 to March 3, 2015. John T. Brodfuehrer has served as the Company's Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") since March 2013 and serves as the Company's Treasurer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com 7M EGROUP CORP: Carmack Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------- Jake Carmack, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The 7M EGroup Corp., doing business as "Dynasty Toys", Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00099 (C.D. Cal., January 21, 2019) seeks legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in transmitting unsolicited, autodialed SMS or MMS text messages, en masse, to Plaintiff's cellular device and the cellular devices of numerous other individuals across the country, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The text messages sent by Defendant to the numbers of the members of the Class constituted "advertisements" and/or "telemarketing" material within the meaning of the applicable TCPA regulations. Neither Plaintiff nor any members of the proposed Class ever provided their "prior express written consent" or any other form of consent to Defendant or any affiliate, subsidiary, or agent of Defendant to transmit text messages to any of the Class's telephone numbers using an "automatic telephone dialing system", says the complaint. Plaintiff is a resident of San Jose, California. The Defendant maintains its corporate headquarters at 4881 Main Street, Yorba Linda, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Ave, Ste 900 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com - and - David W. Hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Ste 1400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 766-3534 Facsimile: (415) 402-0058 Email: dhall@hedinhall.com ADVANCE STORES: Josie Badger Seeks to Certify ADA Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSIE BADGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ADVANCE STORES COMPANY, INC. d/b/a ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, Case No. 2:16-cv-01872-MPK (W.D. Pa., Jan. 15, 2019), the Defendant, the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order certifying the lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and seeks certification of the class defined as: "all persons with qualified mobility disabilities who, due to Defendant's failure to comply with the ADA's accessible parking and path of travel requirements, have experienced or will experience slope-related injuries that occur within the parking facilities at all locations within the United States for which Defendant owns and/or controls the parking facilities."[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq. Bryan A. Fox, Esq. Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5 th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15221 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com bfox@carlsonlynch.com eavery@carlsonlynch.com ALABAMA: Says Making Progress in Addressing Mental Health Issues ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Alabama prison officials contend they are making "substantial progress" in increasing mental health staff and have asked a federal judge to not find the state in contempt of court. U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson had scheduled a Jan. 7 hearing on whether the Alabama Department of Corrections should be found in contempt of a court order to increase mental health staffing numbers to minimum levels. The department wrote in a Dec. 21 court filing acknowledged that Wexford Health Sources, the contractor hired to provide health care, had not been able to meet staffing targets but said "both are making all efforts to increase staffing as quickly as possible." "In sum, the state is not contending that it has fulfilled every requirement of the staffing remedial order. But it has made in good faith all reasonable efforts to do so, and those efforts have resulted in substantial progress," the filing stated. Attorneys for the inmates have asked the judge to find the prison system in contempt, arguing the prison system is "woefully short" of a requirement to fill 263 full-time mental health positions. "Defendants' contempt is placing prisoners with serious mental-health needs at a substantial risk of serious harm every day. Their failures are most evident when looking at staffing levels for mental-health staff with advanced training, specifically psychiatrists, CRNPs, psychologists, and registered nurses," lawyers for inmates wrote earlier in December. Elaine Gedman, chief administrative officer and executive vice president for Wexford Health Sources, disputed that characterization. She wrote in a declaration with the court filing that they had provided 227 full-time equivalent positions. The prison system wrote that there has been difficulty in recruiting staff because of a shortage of health professionals in the state, particularly in rural areas. They also said compliance should be measured by "hours of service" provided, instead of just positions filled. Thompson in 2017 ruled that mental health care was "horrendously inadequate" in state prisons and created unconstitutional conditions. The ruling came after the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program filed a class-action lawsuit over health care in state prisons. The first inmate to testify at the trial killed himself days after describing past suicide attempts and a lack of psychiatric treatment while in state custody. [GN] ALLERGAN PLC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockesq.com), a securities litigation firm representing investors nationwide, on Dec. 21 disclosed that it has filed a securities fraud class action against Allergan plc. ("Allergan" or the "Company") (NYSE: AGN) and certain of its officers and directors. The firm encourages shareholders to contact Block & Leviton LLP ahead of the February 19, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Cook v. Allergan plc et al., Case No. 18-cv-12089, alleges that between May 9, 2017, and December 19, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Allergan concealed from investors the fact that the Company's CE Mark for its textured breast implants and tissue expanders was expiring in Europe. On December 19, 2018, Allergan announced that it had suspended sales of textured breast implants and that it was withdrawing any remaining supply from the European markets. The withdrawal decision followed a compulsory recall request from Agence Nationale de Securite du Medicament (ANSM), the regulatory authority in France. Following this news, Allergan's stock price dropped from $146.76 at close on December 18, 2018, to $136.56 at close on December 19, 2018. If you have purchased or otherwise acquired Allergan securities and have questions about your legal rights, or possess information relevant to this matter, you are encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP at (617) 398-5660, (888) 868-2385, by email at info@blockesq.com, or by visiting http://shareholder.law/allergan. Block & Leviton LLP was recently ranked 4th among securities litigation firms by ISS for recoveries in 2017. The firm represents many of the nation's largest institutional investors and numerous individual investors in securities litigation throughout the country. Indeed, its lawyers have recovered billions of dollars for its clients. The case, Cook v. Allergan plc, et al., No. 18-cv-12089, is pending in the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. [GN] ALLIED INTERSTATE: Briggs Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ Christopher D. Briggs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allied Interstate LLC, Resurgent Capital Services, LP, and LVNV Funding LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-01958 (E.D. Wis., December 11, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants issued false statement to influence the unsophisticated consumer's decision to pay debt. The Plaintiff was a citizen of, and resided in, the City of Appleton, Outagamie County, Wisconsin. The Defendants are in the business of collecting debts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis R. Greene, Esq. Philip D. Stern, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081 Tel: (973) 379-7500 E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com Andrew@SternThomasson.com Francis@SternThomasson.com ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Aversa Sues Over False Company Reports --------------------------------------------------------- Philip Aversa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 18CV339231 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., December 11, 2018), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. This is a class action on behalf of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Arlo pursuant and traceable to the Company's false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's August 3, 2018 initial public offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering"). The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state that there was a quality issue with certain batteries used in Arlo's new flagship wire-free security camera system, Arlo Ultra; that quality issues could delay the commercial launch of Arlo's Ultra product; and that the quality issues with the Arlo product jeopardized Arlo's ability to launch the product in time for the crucial holiday season. The Plaintiff Philip Aversa purchased Arlo securities pursuant and traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's IPO. The Defendant Arlo is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at 350 East Plumeria Drive, San Jose, California 95134. Arlo purportedly operates a cloud-based platform that enables users to monitor their environments and engage in real-time with their families and businesses from any location with internet connection. Its products include Wi-Fi- and LTE-enabled cameras, advanced baby monitors, and smart security lights. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 201-9150 Fax: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com ARRIS INT'L: Settlement Reached in Acquisition-Related Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ ARRIS International PLC said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 18, 2019, that the company has entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the lawsuits over CommScope Holding Company, Inc.'s acquisition of the company. In connection with a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement of certain previously disclosed litigation related to, among other things, the Bid Conduct Agreement (as it may be amended from time to time, the "Acquisition Agreement"), dated as of November 8, 2018, by and between ARRIS International plc ( "ARRIS"), and CommScope Holding Company, Inc. ("CommScope"), pursuant to which, CommScope has agreed to acquire all of the issued and to be issued ordinary shares of ARRIS (the "Acquisition") for $31.75 in cash per ordinary share. In connection with the Acquisition, on December 6, 2018, an alleged ARRIS shareholder filed an action against ARRIS and its directors, captioned Uzun v. ARRIS Int'l plc, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05555-WMR (the "Uzun Action"), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the "Northern District of Georgia"). The lawsuit generally alleges that ARRIS and its directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing allegedly misleading disclosures in connection with the Acquisition and seeks, among other things, to enjoin the shareholder vote scheduled for February 1, 2019 at which ARRIS shareholders will vote on a proposal to adopt the Acquisition Agreement (the "Shareholder Vote"). On December 11, 2018, a substantively identical second lawsuit, captioned Kent v. ARRIS Int'l plc, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01960-MN (the :Kent Action") was filed as a putative class action against ARRIS, its directors and CommScope in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. After ARRIS filed its Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A in connection with the Acquisition (the "Proxy Statement"), another putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in an action captioned Agnes-Sampson v. ARRIS Int'l plc, et al., 1:18-cv-12205 (NRB) (the "Agnes-Sampson Action"). On December 27, 2018, the plaintiff in the Agnes-Sampson Action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin the Shareholder Vote. On January 11, 2019, the Court in the Agnes-Sampson Action entered an order transferring the case to the Northern District of Georgia. ARRIS and its directors believe the allegations in all of the lawsuits against them lack merit. On January 18, 2019, after arm's-length discussions and negotiations concerning a possible resolution of the litigation, counsel for the parties in the Uzun Action and Agnes-Sampson Action (collectively, the "Actions") entered into the MOU, in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement of the Actions, including the dismissal with prejudice of the Actions as well as a release of all claims that have been or could have been asserted against all of the defendants in the Actions, the Kent Action, or any other proceeding, concerning, among other things, any claims arising out of or related to the matters alleged in the Actions and the Kent Action, the Acquisition Agreement, the Acquisition, the Proxy Statement, or any other disclosures made regarding the Acquisition. The proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among other things: (i) certification of a non-opt-out class for settlement purposes only; (ii) final approval of the proposed settlement by the Northern District of Georgia, including a final order and judgment by the Court dismissing the Actions with prejudice on the merits and providing for a release of all claims against defendants; and (iii) the consummation of the Acquisition. If approved, the proposed settlement also would extinguish the claims asserted in the Kent Action. In addition, in connection with the proposed settlement and as provided in the MOU, the parties contemplate that Plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses as part of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the settlement conditions will be met and, if they are not met, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU would become void. ARRIS believes that the claims asserted in all of these lawsuits against the defendants are without merit and that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable law. The defendants have agreed to the terms of the proposed settlement described above solely to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in further litigation, including the risk of delaying or adversely affecting the Acquisition, and to terminate all claims that were or could have been asserted against the defendants in connection with the Acquisition Agreement and the Acquisition contemplated thereby, including the Proxy Statement related thereto. Neither the MOU, the settlement contemplated thereby, nor this Current Report on Form 8-K will affect the consideration to be paid to ARRIS shareholders in connection with the Acquisition or the timing of the Shareholder Vote. ARRIS’s board of directors continues to recommend that you vote “FOR” all of the proposals presented in the Proxy Statement. ARRIS International plc, together with its subsidiaries, provides entertainment, communications, and networking technology and solutions worldwide. It operates through three segments: Customer Premises Equipment, Network & Cloud, and Enterprise Networks. The company was formerly known as ARRIS Group, Inc. and changed its name to ARRIS International plc in January 2016. ARRIS International plc was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in Suwanee, Georgia. ASCENDA USA: Charlot Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Charlot, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ascenda USA, Inc. d/b/a 24-7 InTouch, An Arizona Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00333-SMB (D. Ariz., January 21, 2019) was brought individually and on behalf of all current and former non-exempt call-center employees who worked for Defendant at any time from January 21, 2016 through the final disposition of this matter, to recover compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Although Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members have not been paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Samantha Charlot was employed by 24-7 InTouch within the relevant time period. Ascenda USA, Inc. d/b/a 24-7 InTouch is a for profit corporation whose corporate headquarters are located in Aurora, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq. Corey R. Feltre, Esq. Stanley Lubin, Esq. LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C. 349 North Fourth Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505 Phone: (602) 234-0008 Facsimile: (602) 626-3586 Email: nick@lubinandenoch.com - and - Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Clif Alexander, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 North Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 Email: austin@a2xlaw.com clif@a2xlaw.com AT&T MOBILITY: Averts Lawsuit Over iPhone Data Speed ---------------------------------------------------- Perry Cooper, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that AT&T Mobility LLC convinced a state appeals court Dec. 24 to toss a consumer suit over iPhone data speed. The company's service agreement bars the customers from assigning their claims to third party CrowdSuit LLC to resolve them on a collective basis, Judge Francis J. Connolly of the Minnesota Court of Appeals wrote in an unpublished opinion. CrowdSuit sues cell phone companies on behalf of customers who are barred from bringing collective action against the companies by the class action waivers in their customer service agreements. Customers assign their claims against the companies to CrowdSuit, which donates half of any money it receives in court to charities picked by the customers. Here, seven AT&T customers assigned their claims to CrowdSuit to challenge the company's practice of limiting data speed on plans with unlimited data. AT&T moved to dismiss arguing CrowdSuit's case was barred by the ban on aggregate litigation in its customer agreement. The district court denied the motion, but the appeals court reversed. "Nothing in the wireless customer agreement indicates that the parties to it intended disputes to be resolved collectively, or by third parties, or both," the court said. Judges Heidi S. Schellhas and Peter M. Reyes Jr. joined the opinion. Robins Kaplan LLP represented CrowdSuit. Ballard Spahr LLP and Mayer Brown LLP represented AT&T. The case is CrowdSuit, LLC v. AT & T Mobility, LLC, 2018 BL 476420, Minn. Ct. App., No. A17-1733, 12/24/18. [GN] BANK OZK: Wood Suit Transferred to Eastern District of Arkansas --------------------------------------------------------------- A case, RYAN A. WOOD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, ther Plaintiff, vs. BANK OZK, GEORGE GLEASON, and GREGORY MCKINNEY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10800, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock) on Jan. 17, 2019. The Eastern District of Arkansas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00042-BSM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Brian S. Miller. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Bank OZK securities between February 19, 2016 through October 18, 2018, both dates inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the Company and certain of its top officials. Bank OZK is a bank headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas with more than 255 locations in Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, California, New York and Mississippi and $20.77 billion in assets as of September 30, 2017. It is the largest bank in Arkansas.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20 th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com Attorneys for George Gleason and Gregory McKinney: Robert A. Jaffe, Esq. KUTAK ROCK LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 332-1120 Facsimile: (646) 747-8234 E-mail: Robert.Jaffe@KutakRock.com BARCLAYS BANK: Ex-Currency Trader Sues XL in Rigging Case --------------------------------------------------------- Bill Heltzel, writing for Westfair, reports that a former currency trader from Purchase who has been implicated in a massive market manipulation scandal is suing XL Insurance Co. for refusing to defend him. The Federal Reserve wants to permanently bar Peter Little from the banking business and fine him $487,500 for allegedly engaging in collusive trading when he was head of a currency trading desk for Barclays Bank PLC. Mr. Little said he is innocent, but XL Insurance of London has refused to pay for his defense, claiming he is not covered under a corporate liability policy. So far, Mr. Little said in the complaint, he has run up $1.1 million in expenses to defend himself and he estimates his costs will total more than $5 million. Mr. Little sued XL Insurance on Dec. 18 in federal court in White Plains to compel the company to pay unspecified damages and to cover his costs up to the limits of Barclays' insurance policy. An XL Insurance spokeswoman based in Chicago did not respond to a voicemail message requesting comment. Barclays hired Mr. Little in 2010 to head the spot trading desk in New York City, to primarily trade Euros and U.S. dollars. He was fired in February 2013. The Fed's Board of Governors accused him earlier in 2018 of engaging in unsafe and unsound practices and breaches of fiduciary duties. He allegedly rigged currency benchmarks with competitors, failed to supervise other traders who also were manipulating currency rates and disclosed confidential client information to competitors. For instance, the Fed alleges, he and his traders participated in electronic chat rooms with competitors where they rigged currency rates. One of the chat rooms was referred to as schadenfreude -- joy derived from the misfortune of others. Another was called "the cartel." Little benefited, the agency said, because his bonus compensation and position as head of the trading desk were affected by Barclays' profits. In 2015, Barclays consented to a Fed order charging it with unsafe and unsound practices, based in part on the conduct by Little's trading desk. It also faced regulatory actions by the New York Department of Financial Services, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority. Barclays has paid $2.4 billion in criminal and civil fines and has settled a class action lawsuit for $384 million, according to the Fed. Mr. Little asserts that his innocence was reinforced in October when a federal jury in Manhattan acquitted three traders, including one who worked for him, on criminal charges of fixing prices on the foreign exchange market. Barclays paid Mr. Little's legal expenses before the Fed formally charged him in 2018. But after the regulatory action was filed, the complaint states, the bank directed Mr. Little's attorney to contact XL Insurance for coverage. An XL attorney replied in a June 20 letter that Mr. Little did not qualify, under the policy, as an insured individual. Mr. Little has demanded a copy of the insurance policy, the complaint states, but Barclays and XL have refused to give him one. The bank did share excerpts of the policy in June, containing two of seven sections about who is insured, with Little's attorney. The excerpts, according to the complaint, demonstrate that Little does qualify as an insured employee. Then on Dec. 5, XL allowed Mr. Little's attorney to review the policy at the offices of Barclays' attorney. When he arrived, Little's attorney was told that he was not permitted to reproduce the document or take notes. "Having reviewed the policy under the conditions that it was made available," the complaint states, "it is clear that Mr. Little is an insured under the policy and that there are no other policy terms and conditions that would bar coverage for Mr. Little." Mr. Little is represented by Kenneth H. Frenchman and Alexander M. Sugzda of McKool Smith PC of Manhattan. [GN] BMW: Barun Law Firm Prepares Class Action Over Sedan Fires ---------------------------------------------------------- Kim Jee-Hee, writing for Korea JoongAng Daily, reports that things aren't looking good for beleaguered German automaker BMW, with yet another vehicle reported to have burst into flames on Christmas Day. A BMW 520 sedan caught fire at around 6 p.m. on Dec. 25 in Gongju, South Chungcheong. Earlier that day at 1 a.m., the driver of a BMW 5GT sedan saw black smoke coming out of the back of their vehicle while driving on a highway bound for Pohang, North Gyeongsang. The car, subject to recall, had already gone through safety checks. The driver said the car was moving at 110 kilometers per hour (68 miles per hour) on cruise mode, but it started slowing down even though it was moving downhill and then smoke came out the back. The car didn't burst into flames as the driver immediately pulled over and called the police. There were no casualties caused by either incident, but the news stoked fears over the safety of BMW vehicles. Just one day earlier, on Dec. 24, a BMW 320d sedan caught fire in Gwangju. The burnt 320d was a 2009 model not included in the 65 models currently subject to recall. A public-private investigation team under the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport had already raised the need of an additional recall for defective designs in exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system when it released its examination report on BMW fires on Dec. 24. The team confirmed that the major cause of the fires was a leaky EGR module, the same conclusion that the German carmaker came to, but disputed BMW's claims that changing the faulty hardware resolves the issue. The team said there may be a fundamental problem with the EGR design and a simple replacement may not completely resolve that. "We spotted coolant boiling within the EGR cooler, and we think the boiling is due to a faulty design of the EGR," the joint investigation team said in a statement. "If boiling continues, this could lead to a crack in the EGR cooler, [making them leaky.]" "New EGR systems won't lead to fires right away, but the team found that after several years of constant driving heating up the EGR cooler, a similar fire could reoccur as long as the design stays the same," a spokesperson from the Land Ministry said in a phone call on Dec. 26. "We demanded that BMW come up with an explanation regarding EGR design." The joint team also said the intake manifold connected to the leaky EGR coolant should be recalled as well after check-ups if it has been polluted or weakened by a mixture of leaked coolants and engine oil sticking to pipes. The team has delivered its research findings to the carmaker, which has to consult with its German headquarters and come up with a recall plan. In the meantime, an increasing number of BMW car owners are signing up to file a suit against the company. Barun Law, which is currently preparing for a class action suit against the carmaker, has collected around 1,000 car owners who would like to take part in the suit as of Dec. 26. The Korea Consumer Association is also preparing for a separate suit and has gathered roughly 2,000 participants. [GN] BMW: Faces Criminal Probe in South Korea Over Engine Fires ---------------------------------------------------------- Song Jung-a, writing for The Financial Times, reports that BMW is facing a criminal probe in South Korea after the transport ministry said the German carmaker concealed defects that resulted in dozens of engine fires in 2018, and delayed recalls. The ministry on Dec. 24 asked prosecutors to investigate the fire hazards of BMW cars and the company's alleged delay in recalling 22,670 vehicles. It also fined the carmaker Won11.2bn ($10m) for the alleged delay. BMW said it would cooperate with the investigations, but denied any design defects and said it had recalled affected models in a timely manner. "We embarked on recall measures without hesitation at the time when the root cause of fires was confirmed," its South Korean unit said on Dec. 24. Government investigators, who launched the official probe in August, said on Dec. 24 that they had concluded the engine fires were sparked by a faulty design in BMW's Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) system. The transport ministry will decide whether to order more recalls. The development is another setback for the Munich-based carmaker, which is also facing a class-action lawsuit in South Korea from BMW buyers. The carmaker's sales and reputation have taken a pounding in the country, where 52 of its vehicles have caught fire in 2018. BMW's unit sales in South Korea fell nearly 10 per cent to 47,569 vehicles in the first 11 months of the year, while overall sales of imported cars increased 13 per cent in the same period. Its net profit plunged 24 per cent in the third quarter, and recalls in South Korea were among five major headwinds cited by the carmaker. The company was forced to recall 172,080 vehicles and issue an apology after videos of the German luxury cars engulfed in flames went viral. BMW said it first acknowledged that there was a problem with the EGR unit in July, but the government said the company had been aware of the issue since 2015. Seoul added that, while BMW recalled 106,317 vehicles in July, it did not recall an additional 65,763 vehicles that used the same engines until October. Globally, the carmaker has recalled 1.6m vehicles over the issue. If found guilty of hiding defects and delaying recalls, BMW officials responsible could face up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to Won100m under South Korea's transportation law. BMW is South Korea's second-largest foreign car brand after Mercedes-Benz, accounting for about a quarter of the imported car segment. The country is a relatively small market, ranking 11th in global car sales, but has been a crucial market for luxury vehicles. Facing criticism over BMW's delayed recalls, Seoul plans to strengthen penalties on carmakers that cover up manufacturing defects and expand punitive damages for consumers affected by delayed recalls. [GN] BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Estate Says Not Entitled to Redo of Trial --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Steinberg, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. isn't entitled to a redo of a trial that ended in a $1.25 million jury award to the family of a woman who died from gastrointestinal bleeding after using its blood thinner Pradaxa, the family said in a new court filing. Evidence supports the jury's finding that Boehringer is liable for fraud because it hid safety information from doctors and patients in the U.S., Betty Knight's estate told the court. [GN] BY THE RIO: Larry Rice Sues over No-Poach Policy at Carl's Jr. -------------------------------------------------------------- LARRY RICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BY THE RIO, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, CARL'S JR. RESTAURANTS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00129-STV (D. Colo, Jan. 15, 2019), seeks millions of dollars in lost wages, plus triple damages, and interest, caused by Defendants' long-standing and illegal mutual non-solicitation agreements (i.e., agreements that Carl's Jr. franchisees could not solicit for employment the managerial-level employees of Carl's Jr. and/or of other Carl's Jr. franchisees) and no-hire agreements (i.e., agreements that Carl's Jr. franchisees could not hire the managerial-level employees of Carl's Jr. and/or other Carl's Jr. franchisees) that were all entered into by Carl's Jr. franchises throughout Colorado for decades and that had the intended and actual effect of significantly reducing Class Members' wages and salaries. The genesis of the no-hire and non-solicitation agreements at issue were franchise agreements between Carl's Jr. and its franchisees, and between its franchisees, including, upon information and belief, By The Rio. The alleged illegal conspiracy among and between Defendants and other Carl's Jr. franchisees to not employ, seek to employ, or to recruit one another's employees, in order to thereby suppress their wages, was not known to Plaintiff and the Class Members until July 12, 2018, when the Washington State Attorney General revealed as part of its then-pending investigation into illegal behavior by some of the largest fast food franchises in Washington State and the United States, including Carl's Jr., that Carl's Jr. would no longer enforce provisions in its franchise agreements that prevented managerial-level workers from being hired or solicited by other Carl's Jr. franchisees. In sum, the Defendants engaged in per se violations of the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 and the Sherman Act by entering into no-hire and non-solicitation agreements for the express purpose of depressing and/or reducing market-based wages and benefit increases for Class Members that are typically associated with the active recruitment of employees and workers in a competitive industry. While protecting and enhancing their profits, the Defendants, through their no-hire and non-solicitation agreements, robbed Class Members of millions of dollars-worth of wages for which Plaintiff and the Class now seek relief, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Brian W. Denlinger, Esq. Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 2602 North Proctor Street, #205 Tacoma, WA , 98406 Telephone: (253) 507-4619 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com bd@ackermanntilajef.com - and - India Lin Bodien, Esq. INDIA LIN BODIEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW* 2522 North Proctor Street, No, 387 Tacoma, WA 98406-5338 Telephone: (253) 212-7913 Fascimile: (253)276-0081 E-mail: india@indialinbodienlaw.com CHINA TECH: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 26 disclosed that it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of China TechFaith Wireless Communication Technology Limited (NASDAQ:CNTF) resulting from allegations that China TechFaith may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. On December 20, 2018, before the market opened, China TechFaith reported that in connection with its sale of a subsidiary, China TechFaith had recognized "an impairment loss of US$62.2 million under net loss from discontinued operations for the first half period ended on June 30, 2018." On this news, the price of China TechFaith securities fell $0.59 per share or more than 35% to close at $1.07 per share on December 20, 2018, thereby injuring investors. Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover losses suffered by China TechFaith investors. If you purchased China TechFaith securities, please visit the firm's website at https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1483.html to join the class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. [GN] CITIGROUP INC: Euribor Settlement Hearing Scheduled for May 17 -------------------------------------------------------------- If you transacted in Euribor Products1 between June 1, 2005 and March 31, 2011, inclusive ("Class Period"), then your rights will be affected and you may be entitled to a benefit. The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of your rights in connection with the proposed settlement with Settling Defendants Citigroup Inc. and Citibank, N.A. (collectively "Citi") and JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (collectively, "JPMorgan") in the action titled Sullivan, et al. v. Barclays plc, et al., 13-cv-2811 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y.). The settlement with Citi and JPMorgan (the "Settlement") is not a settlement with any other Defendant and thus is not dispositive of any of Plaintiffs' claims against other Defendants. The Settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit concerning the alleged manipulation of the Euro Interbank Offered Rate ("Euribor") and the prices of Euribor Products during the Class Period. The Settlement provides a total of $182.5 million to pay claims from persons who transacted in Euribor Products during the Class Period. If you qualify, you may send in a Proof of Claim and Release form to potentially get benefits, or you can exclude yourself from the Settlement, or object to it. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312) authorized this Notice. Before any money is paid, the Court will hold a Settlement Hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlement. Who Is Included? You are a "Settlement Class Member" if you purchased, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in Euribor Products during the Class Period, and during the Class Period were either domiciled in the United States or its territories or, if domiciled outside the United States or its territories, you transacted Euribor Products in the United States or its territories during the Class Period. "Settlement Class Members" include, but are not limited to, all persons who during the Class Period traded CME Euro currency futures contracts, all persons who during the Class Period transacted in NYSE LIFFE Euribor futures and options from a location within the United States, and all persons who during the Class Period traded any other Euribor Product from a location within the United States or its territories. Contact your brokerage firm to see if you purchased, sold, held, or traded or otherwise had any interest in Euribor Products. If you are not sure you are included, you can get more information, including the Settlement Agreement,2 Mailed Notice, Plan of Allocation, Proof of Claim and Release, and other important documents, at www.EuriborSettlement.com ("Settlement Website") or by calling toll free 800-492-9154. What Is This Litigation About? Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, during the Class Period, conspired to manipulate and manipulated Euribor and the prices of Euribor Products. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants did so by using several means of manipulation. For example, Plaintiffs allege that panel banks that made daily Euribor submissions to Thomson Reuters, falsely reported banks' costs of borrowing in order to financially benefit their Euribor Products positions. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants requested that other Defendants make false Euribor submissions on their behalf to benefit their Euribor Products positions. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants continuously conspired to fix the prices of Euribor Products in the over-the-counter market to financially benefit their own Euribor Products positions. In addition to coordinating Euribor submissions and agreeing on where to price Euribor Products, Plaintiffs allege that in order to effectuate their alleged manipulations of Euribor and Euribor Products during the Class Period, Defendants engaged in "pushing cash," transmitted false bids and offers, used derivative traders as submitters, and rigged bids and offers for Euribor Products. Plaintiffs have asserted legal claims under various theories, including the Sherman Act, the Commodity Exchange Act, the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and common law. Settling Defendants have consistently and vigorously denied Plaintiffs' allegations. What Does the Settlement Provide? Under the Settlement, Citi and JPMorgan agreed to pay a total of $182.5 million into the Settlement Fund. If the Court approves the Settlement, potential Settlement Class Members who qualify and send in valid Proof of Claim and Release forms may receive a share of the Settlement Fund after it is reduced by the payment of certain expenses. The Settlement Agreement, available on the Settlement Website, describes all of the details about the proposed Settlement. The exact amount each qualifying Settlement Class Member will receive from the Settlement Fund cannot be calculated until (1) the Court approves the Settlement; (2) certain amounts identified in the full Settlement Agreement are deducted from the Settlement Fund; and (3) the number of participating Class Members and the amount of their claims are determined. In addition, each Settlement Class Member's share of the Settlement Fund will vary depending on the information the Settlement Class Member provides on their Proof of Claim and Release form. The number of claimants who send in claims varies widely from case to case. If less than 100% of the Settlement Class sends in a Proof of Claim and Release form, you could get more money. How Do You Ask For a Payment? If you are a Settlement Class Member, you may seek to participate in the Settlement by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release to the Claims Administrator at the address in the Settlement Notice postmarked no later than July 31, 2019. You may obtain a Proof of Claim on the Settlement Website or by calling the toll-free number referenced above. If you are a Settlement Class Member but do not file a Proof of Claim and Release, you will still be bound by the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement if the Court enters an order approving the Settlement Agreement. If you timely submitted a Proof of Claim and Release pursuant to the class notice dated November 29, 2017, related to the $94 million settlement with Defendants Barclays plc, Barclays Bank plc, and Barclays Capital Inc. (collectively, "Barclays"); the $45 million settlement with HSBC Holdings plc and HSBC Bank plc (collectively, "HSBC"); and the $170 million settlement with Deutsche Bank AG and DB Group Services (UK) Ltd. (collectively, "Deutsche Bank") (the "2017 Notice"), you do not have to submit a new Proof of Claim and Release to participate in the Settlement with Citi and JPMorgan. Any member of the Settlement Class who previously submitted a Proof of Claim and Release in connection with the 2017 Notice will be subject to and bound by the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement with Citi and JPMorgan, unless such member submits a timely and valid request for exclusion, explained below. What Are Your Other Options? All requests to be excluded from the Settlement must be made in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice and must be postmarked to the Claims Administrator no later than April 12, 2019. All requests for exclusion must comply with the requirements set forth in the Settlement Notice to be honored. The Settlement Notice, available at the Settlement Website, explains how to exclude yourself or object. If you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by the Settlement Agreement and can independently pursue claims at your own expense. However, if you exclude yourself, you will not be eligible to share in the Net Settlement Fund or otherwise participate in the Settlement. The Court will hold a Settlement Hearing in this case on May 17, 2019, to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request by the lawyers representing all Settlement Class Members (Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP) for an award of attorneys' fees of no more than nineteen percent (19%), or $34,675,000, of the Settlement Fund for investigating the facts, litigating the case, and negotiating the settlement, and for reimbursement of their costs and expenses in the amount of no more than approximately $1,300,000. The Plaintiffs may also request no more than $400,000 from the Settlement Fund as reimbursement of their own expenses and compensation for their time devoted to this litigation. The lawyers for the Settlement Class may also seek additional reimbursement of costs and expenses in connection with services provided after the Settlement Hearing. These payments will also be deducted from the Settlement Fund before any distributions are made to the Settlement Class. You may ask to appear at the Settlement Hearing, but you do not have to. For more information, call toll free 800-492-9154 or visit the website www.EuriborSettlement.com. 1 "Euribor Products" means any and all interest rate swaps, forward rate agreements, futures, options, structured products, and any other instrument or transaction related in any way to Euribor, including but not limited to, New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange ("LIFFE") Euribor futures contracts and options, Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME") Euro currency futures contracts and options, Euro currency forward agreements, Euribor-based swaps, Euribor-based forward rate agreements, and/or any other financial instruments that reference Euribor. 2 The "Settlement Agreement" means the agreement between Plaintiffs, Citi and JPMorgan, entered into on November 21, 2018, and filed with the Court in this action. CODILIS MOODY: Class Certification Sought in Meyer Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Bonnie Meyer moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit entitled BONNIE MEYER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CODILIS MOODY & CIRCELLI P.C., Case No. 2:19-cv-00096-NJ (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 contends. 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 COMMUNITY CARE: Wilson Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled MONETTA WILSON and PATRONELLA HOLMES, on Behalf of Themselves and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. COMMUNITY CARE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-01186-TAD-KLH (W.D. La.), seeks to maintain this litigation as a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and to give notice of the lawsuit to those similarly situated employees, who worked for CCS as a domestic service employee during any workweek between September 10, 2015, to the present. As reflected in their Original Collective Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs contend that CCS violated the FLSA by failing to pay them and all other non-exempt domestic service workers appropriate overtime wages when they worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, and also failed to pay them for all hours worked. The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to issue an order directing the Defendant to promptly provide their counsel with the Class List in electronic format no later than January 30, 2019. The Class List will identify the full name of each Class Member with his/her last known mailing address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Once received, the Plaintiffs' counsel will promptly send (i.e. within 7 days after receiving the Class List) a Class Notice Letter and Notice of Consent form to the putative class members. The notice period requested is 70 days from the date that the Defendant provides the Class List.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net - and - Edward B. Cloutman, III, Esq. CLOUTMAN & CLOUTMAN, L.L.P. 3301 Elm Street Dallas, TX 75226-1637 Telephone: (214) 939-9224 Facsimile: (214) 939-9229 E-mail: ecloutman@lawoffices.email One of the Plaintiff's attorneys certifies that notice was sent to this attorney of record: Victor H. Sooter, Esq. SOOTER & ASSOCIATES, LLC 934 Third Street, Suite 601 Alexandria, LA 71301 Telephone: (318) 448-8301 CUSTOM ROOFING: Abrego Suit Seeks Damages under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------- Pedro Abrego, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Custom Roofing and Coatings, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00242 (N.D. Fla., December 11, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory and liquidated damages for Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges he typically worked between 50 and 60 hours per week and despite working as many as 70 hours per week, the Plaintiff was never paid overtime. The Defendant would take illegal deductions from the Plaintiff's pay. For example, if a roof that the Plaintiff worked on did not pass inspection, the Plaintiff would have to perform additional work on that roof without pay. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant for approximately seven years as a roofer regularly handling shingles and sealants that moved in interstate commerce. He last worked for the Defendant in or around October 2018. The Defendant was a Florida corporation, with its principal place of business in Ocala, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew W. Birk, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK, LLC 309 Northeast First Street Gainesville, FL 32601 Tel: (352) 244-2069 Fax: (352) 372-3464 E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Stempien Seeks Unpaid Wages for Instructors ------------------------------------------------------------- LISA STEMPIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DEVRY UNIVERSITY, INC., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. RG19002623 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 15, 2018), seeks damages for unpaid wages, unpaid premium pay, unreimbursed business expenses, penalties, interest, and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under California Labor Code. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals adjunct instructors or in a similar capacity from four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through to the trial date. The Plaintiff and Class Members were non-exempt employees and were paid on a piece-rate basis or "Course Rate" -- a set amount for each course taught during an academic quarter. However, the Defendant failed to pay Class Members at least minimum wage for non-productive work outside the classroom teaching time in violation of Labor Code. DeVry University is a for-profit college based in the United States. The school was founded in 1931 by Herman A. DeVry as DeForest Training School and officially became DeVry University in 2002.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Julian Hammond, Esq. Polina Brandler, Esq. Ari Cherniak, Esq. HAMMONDLAW,P.C. 1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: (310) 601-6766 Facsimile: (310) 295-2385 E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com acherniak@hammondlaw.com DISNEY: Appeals Court Won't Revive Shareholder Suit Against Board ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that the Ninth Circuit affirms dismissal of a complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duties in the face of agreements suppressing wages for animation workers. A federal appeals court won't revive a shareholder lawsuit brought against Bob Iger and other members of Disney's board for allegedly participating in a conspiracy to enact illegal anti-competitive agreements in the animation industry. On Dec. 26, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the lawsuit because plaintiffs had failed to properly make a demand upon the board to take action. The lawsuit addressed industry-wide pacts to keep the cost of labor low. All the way back in the mid-1980s, George Lucas sold his company's computer division to Steve Jobs. At the time, the two agreed to restrain competition for skilled labor at both Pixar and Lucasfilm. Over time, more companies, including Sony and Fox's Blue Sky Studios, were said to have joined into "gentleman's agreements" not to cold call each other's animation employees, provide notifications when providing job offers and make no counteroffers. That led to an investigation by the U.S. Justice Department, and in 2010, a settlement wherein Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe and Pixar agreed to stay away from anti-poaching pacts. Then came the class-action lawsuits, and further settlements. Finally, in 2015, Eugene Towers brought a stockholder-derivative complaint on behalf of Disney that targeted Iger and others including Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey (who joined Disney's board in 2013), Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (on Disney's board since 2009), and former Starbucks CEO Orin Smith (since 2006). The lawsuit failed at the district court upon the judge's conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish sufficient facts regarding the Disney board's knowledge of any conspiracy. On appeal comes discussion of a rule for stockholder-derivative suits that requires plaintiffs state their efforts to obtain a desired action from board directors or at least show such action would be futile. Towers admitted not making a demand on the board, and the appeals court emphasizes that he must therefore plead bad faith by alleging with particularity that a majority of directors knowingly violated fiduciary duties or consciously disregarded such duties. Mr. Towers pointed to key Disney officers actively participating in the conspiracy, but the appeals court deems it insufficient. "[W]e cannot assume that members of the Board had knowledge of the conspiracy simply because other individuals at Disney -- even other Board members -- knew," states the opinion. "Instead, Plaintiff would need to demonstrate a clear line of communication and knowledge between the implicated officers and the Board. Here, Plaintiff did allege that [former Disney Studios chairman Richard] Cook and [Disney Animation Studios Ed] Catmull communicated with the Board, particularly during discussions of the Pixar acquisition, but he did not allege with particularity that information regarding the conspiracy was ever transmitted to the Board by these or other officers." The rest of the opinion (read here) then rejects alternative arguments for futility, including that the board was serving while Cook was allegedly orchestrating the conspiracy as well as employment compensation issues coming up during Disney's acquisition of Pixar. The appeals court offers that plaintiffs needn't trot out a "smoking gun," but on the other hand, "something more than speculative, conclusory allegations is required." "Ultimately, the allegations in Plaintiff's amended complaint do not constitute particularized facts demonstrating demand futility," writes Ninth Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. "Whether the Board's alleged misconduct is characterized as conscious inaction or active connivance, Plaintiff needed to demonstrate that a majority of the Director Defendants knew of the conspiracy, and he failed to do so." [GN] EDGEWELL PERSONAL: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in SPF Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Napoli Shkolnik PLLC on Dec. 26 disclosed that a Third Amended Complaint was filed on Dec. 26 in the Eastern District of New York, in a proposed nationwide class action lawsuit alleging that the popular children's sunscreen lotion Banana Boat Kids SPF 50 does not provide the promised level of sun protection. The suit, entitled In re Edgewell Personal Care Co. Litig., No. 16-cv-3371 (E.D.N.Y.), was filed after a May 2016 Consumer Reports article revealed that, according to its own independent testing, the product only had a sun protection factor (SPF) of 8. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs had their own FDA-compliant testing of the product conducted by an independent laboratory, which "confirmed that Banana Boat Kids SPF 50 sunscreen lotion had an actual SPF substantially lower than the claimed SPF 50." Plaintiffs' testing revealed that the product has an SPF of only 10.4, not an SPF of 50 as represented on the product label. Attorney Stephen DeNittis of DeNittis Osefchen Prince, who represents Plaintiffs along with Janine Pollack of The Sultzer Law Group; Carl Malmstrom of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz; Salvatore Badala of Napoli Shkolnik; and others, stated: "It's really a shame. Defendants are marketing this sunscreen specifically to protect kids from the adverse effects of the sun -- from getting sunburned or worse. Unfortunately, children and parents who buy and use Banana Boat Kids SPF 50 aren't getting anywhere near the sun protection they think they are." Plaintiffs' lawsuit seeks full or partial refunds for all customers who purchased Banana Boat Kids SPF 50 sunscreen lotion, and asks the Court to order Defendants to stop selling the falsely-labeled product. [GN] EMBRAER: Brazil Court Revokes Injunction Following Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Ghim-Lay Yeo, writing for FlightGlobal, reports that a Brazil appeals court judge has struck down a second injunction issued against the proposed commercial aviation joint venture between Embraer and Boeing. The move marks another legal victory for Embraer as it seeks to get Brazilian government approval for the tie-up with Boeing, although it remains to be seen if there will be further legal challenges against the deal. Embraer says it will keep shareholders and the market informed on any developments related to the legal action. The injunction that was revoked had been granted by a Brazilian judge, following a class action lawsuit by Embraer's labour union against the proposed partnership between Embraer and Boeing. Earlier in December, another injunction was granted after a group of lawmakers opposed the deal. But this injunction was also overturned days later by an appeals court. Boeing and Embraer announced on 17 December that they had agreed to terms of their proposed partnership, which they plan to close by end-2019. Boeing will acquire 80% of Embraer's commercial aviation division for $4.2 billion, with Embraer retaining the remaining 20% share. The new company formed from the deal will be controlled by Boeing, but based in Brazil with a chief executive and president. Brazil's government, which has a golden share in Embraer, has the right to veto the planned tie-up. President-elect Jair Bolsonaro, who assumes office on 1 January, has indicated he is in favour of the deal. The tie-up is also subject to approvals from regulatory authorities and the companies' shareholders. [GN] EMERGENCY SITE: Does Not Pay Security Personnel Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Josue Alvarez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Emergency Site Protection, LLC, Gryphon Oilfield Solutions, LLC, and Sanchez Oil & Gas Corporation, Case No. 5:18-cv-01298 (W.D. Tex., December 11, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendants improperly classified the Plaintiff and the class as independent contractors. Although the Plaintiff and the class members routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, they were not paid overtime, it adds. The Plaintiff Josue Alvarez was employed by the Defendants as a security/gate guard from approximately March 2018 until October 2018. The Defendants Gryphon and ESP provided and continue to provide security services to their clients, including oil and gas producers like the Defendant Sanchez, at Sanchez's well sites throughout the State of Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. George Schimmel, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Tel: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com geordie@a2xlaw.com EQHEALTH SOLUTIONS: Underpays Technical Coordinators, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EQHEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00005-SDD-EWD (M.D. La., Jan. 7, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Russell was employed by the Defendant as technical coordinator. eQHealth Solutions, Inc. provides population health management and healthcare IT solutions. eQHealth Solutions, Inc. was formerly known as Louisiana Health Care Review, Inc. and changed its name to eQHealth Solutions, Inc. in July 2009. The company was founded in 1986 and is based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Mahone, Jr., Esq. THE MAHONE FIRM LLC 5190 Canal Blvd., Suite 102 New Orleans, LA 70124 Telephone: (504) 564-7342 Facsimile: (504) 617-6474 E-mail: mike@mahonefirm.com - and - Jack Siegel, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP, PLLC 2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 790-4454 E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz - and - Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq. THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC 5438 Rutherglenn Drive Houston, TX 77096 Telephone: (512) 417-5716 E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com FORTRESS SYSTEMS: Sharkey Bid for Class Certification Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE E. SHARKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FORTRESS SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a FORTRESS MOBILE, and ZHONG SU individually also known as Jack Su, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00019-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Frank D. Whitney entered an order on Jan. 15, 2019: 1. denying Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and judicial notice: "all current and former contractors as independent contractors, depriving them of regular pay and overtime premium pay to which they are entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act"; 2. granting in part and denying in part Parties' joint motion to amend scheduling order: Motion to Amend Pleadings: March 1, 2019 Discovery Completion: May 10, 2019 ADR: May 24, 2019 Dispositive Motions (filed): June 7, 2019 Dispositive Motions (hearing): August 5-16, 2019 Pretrial Submissions: 7 calendar days before FPC Final Pretrial Conference (FPC): To be determined Trial Setting: Term beginning September 3, 2019[CC] FOUR PARTNERS: Howard's Bid to Certify Denied; Hearing on Mar. 19 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on January 16, 2019, in the case titled Christopher Howard v. Four Partners Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18−cv−00572 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly. The minute entry states that: -- Motion to certify class is denied without prejudice; -- Deadline for amending pleadings and adding parties is March 31, 2019; -- Discovery is ordered closed by May 17, 2019; and -- Status hearing is set for March 19, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.[CC] GARDNER DENVER: Purcell Julie Investigates Fiduciary Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP, a class action law firm dedicated to representing shareholders nationwide, is investigating a potential breach of fiduciary duty claim involving the board of directors of Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: GDI). If you are a shareholder of Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc. and are interested in obtaining additional information regarding this investigation, free of charge, please visit us at: http://pjlfirm.com/gardner-denver-holdings-inc/ You may also contact Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq. either via email at rl@pjlfirm.com or by telephone at 212-725-1000. One of our attorneys will personally speak with you about the case at no cost or obligation. Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP -- http://www.pjlfirm.com-- is a law firm exclusively committed to representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty and other types of corporate misconduct. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Must Face Breach of Contract Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Karen Kidd, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that a federal judge has declined to dismiss a breach of contract class action against General Motors over the deadline of a securities issue in 2016. In his 15-page order issued Dec. 20, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen R. Bough, on the bench in Missouri's Western District, declined General Motors' motion to dismiss three counts in the case and any non-Missouri members of the class. Judge Bough turned aside claims that his court lacked "personal jurisdiction" in the case and that class members, led by lead plaintiffs Hayden Harrison and Billy James, had failed to state a claim. "The Court must accept all facts alleged in the complaint as true when deciding a motion to dismiss," Judge Bough said in his order. "However, allegations that are legal conclusions or formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action may properly be set aside." The plaintiffs' allegations in the class action stem from General Motors' 2016 issue of securities instruments called "series A warrants" that holders could use to obtain common stock in the company, according to the background portion of the order. Under the warrant agreement that came with the securities, the warrants would expire July 10, 2016 but, as July 10 was a Sunday and a non-trading day, the warrants were effectively expired two days earlier. General Motors issued a press release on June 27, 2016 to remind warrantholders about the approaching deadline but the New York Stock Exchange suspended trading on the warrants on July 1, 2016. Plaintiffs claim that they couldn't to exercise their warrants prior to July 10, 2016 and the expiration date could be modified only by consent of all warrantholders. In their lawsuit, plaintiffs claim breaches of contract and unjust enrichment, saying General Motors violated the warrant agreement by accelerating the expiration date. Plaintiffs also claim General Motors didn't follow procedures outlined in the warrant agreement and took no steps to protect warrantholders. General Motors asked Judge Bough to dismiss all counts in the complaint for failure to state a claim and for dismissal of all claims by putative class members who don't live in Missouri. In its request to dismiss based on whether a class member is a Missouri resident, General Motors cited the U.S. Supreme Court case Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, decided in 2017. Based on the Bristol-Myers case, General Motors argued that the district court lacked "personal jurisdiction" over the claims of non-resident putative class members. Judge Bough declined to apply the Bristol-Myers case in the way General Motors interpreted it, saying "it is unclear whether Bristol-Myers even applies to federal courts" or even if it would apply to a plaintiff injured in one state sought to represent a nationwide class. "While Defendant cites district court cases applying Bristol-Meyers to unnamed members of a putative class action in federal court, these cases are -- as plaintiffs argue -- the minority," Judge Bough said in his order. [GN] GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Forex Currency Rigging Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- Jacob Maslow, writing for Legal Scoops, reports that currency rigging claims have again been levied against some of the largest banks in the world. After some class action litigation suits results in billions of dollars of settlements and fines, a group of several institutional investors has formed its own lawsuit and seeks millions more in payouts. The allegations stem from alleged actions between 2003 and 2013 that certain banks worked together to rig currency within the foreign exchange (Forex) market. Previous investigations have found both banks and individual traders guilty of sharing information about orders and trades that helped influence the market, including closing rates. The Forex market experiences about $5.1 trillion per day in trade volume, and currency rigging or volatility can lead to tremendous amounts of investments being impacted. In previous lawsuits, courts and mediators have enabled more than $2.31 billion in settlements to be extracted from 15 of the 16 alleged conspirator banks. In addition, the United States government has levied an additional $10 billion in fines against several of the institutions and jailed individuals working for those organizations. Individuals and organizations have the right to opt out of class action lawsuits if they believe they will be able to achieve a better result standing on their own. This can be very tough when small figures stand against large financial corporations. However, since many billions in fines and settlements has already occurred, these bodies stand to gain even more if their allegations and demonstrations of negative impact stand up in court. The sixteen banks or financial institutions that stand accused of Forex currency rigging include United States industry giants Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, HSBC and Morgan Stanley. They are joined by international financial organizations Barclays, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, MUFG Bank of Japan, the Royal Banks of Scotland and Canada, BNP Paribas, UBS, Standard Chartered and Societe Generale. Further litigation is planned in Europe on behalf of markets there as well. The plaintiffs, who invest in Forex trading, include smaller banks like Norges Bank of Norway, pension funds including the California State Teachers' Retirement System, and investors BlackRock Inc. and the Allianz Pacific Investment Management Company. All allege financial loss due to the underhanded dealings of the financial giants they are going after. This current suit will be tried in the United States District Court in Manhattan, New York. [GN] GOOGLE INC: Settlement Parties Split Over Article III Standing -------------------------------------------------------------- Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Google, consumers and others involved in an $8.5 million privacy settlement continue to argue over whether the suit should be before the U.S. Supreme Court. The class and a settlement objector, in supplemental reply briefs filed Dec. 21, argue the consumers suffered sufficient harm by Google's practice of sharing their search terms with third parties to have standing to sue. But Google and the federal government say the consumers can't show they suffered a concrete injury from the disclosures. Objector Ted Frank argues Google and the government confuse weakness on the merits with lack of Article III standing. Their arguments would lead to an "unprecedented shift in power from the legislature to the judiciary and from the federal government's ability to regulate interstate commerce to the states," he says. The class argues Google and the government aren't focused on the scope of judicial power as envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. "Their submissions read as if injury-in-fact depends not on judicial practice from the era of muskets but on causes of action developed coincident with bell-bottom jeans and moon landings," the class says. Google says the class has no historical evidence that disclosure of search terms creates concrete harm. Instead, the class and Frank use "inapt analogies between the routine browser function at issue here and the publication of private letters" to establish standing, it says. The government agrees with Google that disclosure of search terms isn't a concrete injury. Invasion of privacy can't be analogized with historical examples involving loss of property for standing purposes, the government says. Standing dominated oral argument Oct. 31 in the case that was brought to the justices on the appropriateness of using cy pres in class settlements. Cy pres is the practice of distributing settlement funds to charitable organizations in a way that indirectly benefits class members because it isn't feasible to compensate them directly. Frank says the lower courts erred in allowing all the proceeds of the settlement to go to charity. The request for additional briefing signals the court may find it doesn't have jurisdiction to get to that question. The court has three options if it decides standing prevents it from getting to the cy pres question: It can write an opinion addressing standing, remand the case for the lower court to reconsider the issue, or dismiss the case as improvidently granted. The Competitive Enterprise Institute Center for Class Action Fairness represents the objectors. Nassiri & Jung LLP and MoloLamken LLP represent the class. Mayer Brown LLP and O'Melveny & Myers LLP represent Google. The case is Frank v. Gaos, U.S., No. 17-961, supplemental reply briefs filed 12/21/18. [GN] GROSSE POINTE, MI: 2016 Flooding Class Action Settled ----------------------------------------------------- Anthony Viola, writing for Grosse Pointe News, reports that the 2016 flooding class action lawsuits against the Park and City have been settled, pending approval by the court. Monday, Dec. 17, City city council voted unanimously to approve a $1 million settlement and the Park's insurance carrier agreed to a settlement of $2,725,000. John Gillooly, the attorney representing the City, said there will be two $500,000 lump-sum payments made, then the plaintiffs' attorney will work to distribute the money. Peter Dame, City city manager, said the money will come from the city's water and sewer fund. "We will pay from our water and sewer fund reserves in the amount of approximately $950,000 and the insurance will cover the rest," Dame said. The first lump-sum payment will be made by the end of the year and the second in 2019, said Mr. Gillooly. According to Mr. Gillooly, affected houses will receive on average approximately $5,000, but it is dependent on the amount of damage reported at the time. "Residents are required to file claims forms with the city within a certain period of time," Mr. Gillooly said. "If you did not file claims forms a couple years ago, you will not receive money." Residents should receive notices from their attorneys soon, Mr. Gillooly said. The lawsuit in the City stemmed from a flooding event in August 2016. Approximately 180 homes and a few businesses saw basements flooded with sewage during a heavy rain. The plaintiffs' attorneys, Liddle & Dubin, argued the sewage system was improperly maintained and caused excessive rainwater inflow and infiltration, which ultimately overloaded the system. "As I told the city council nearly two years ago, these types of lawsuits don't make a ton of sense to me," Mr. Gillooly said. "And the reason they don't make sense to me is because the residents are suing themselves. There's no insurance covering the City of Grosse Pointe for this event, certainly a very unfortunate event. Nobody likes to have water in their basements. It affects a lot of people's lives. It takes time away from the things we like to do. However, the residents are suing themselves. Really the only ones that make any money are the attorneys and specifically the plaintiffs' attorney." Park City Manager Dale Krajniak echoed Mr. Gillooly's sentiments. "For the community itself, it's difficult when you're undertaking litigation with your own residents," said Mr. Krajniak. "It really doesn't suit anyone's best interest." The law firm of Liddle & Dubin has overseen more than $7 million in flooding settlements from three Grosse Pointes in the last few years. In 2017, it settled a $4 million suit against the Farms for a 2011 flood and now the two settlements from the City and Park. Steven Liddle did not return multiple requests for comment. In the Park, the city's insurance carrier -- Tokio Marine -- handled the suit and according to Mr. Krajniak will bear the cost of the settlement, except for the city's $10,000 deductible. The 2016 flood in the Park affected more than 500 homes. It was caused when the city was forced to shut off its pumps in the pump station as water levels threatened to damage transformers. Since the flood, Mr. Krajniak said the city has invested approximately $500,000 in upgrades to the system, including raising the transformers to a mezzanine level. "A lot of it was bringing up to speed the equipment, likewise the automatic controls," he said. "Everything is automated now. It was changed as far as the upgrades included relocating transformers from where they were originally placed in the '60s to a higher level, a mezzanine level, so the threat of flooding within the building itself can be avoided." Mr. Krajniak also said pumps were upgraded and a number of parking lots still connected to the sewer system were separated. "Once more, requesting residents disconnect downspout connections where they are connected," Mr. Krajniak said. "I would say the majority of residents have been very responsive in undertaking that step and there are exceptions where, in some cases, it is not practical. But that is another item we'll continue to pursue." Mr. Krajniak said the increased severity and frequency of storms -- with 100-year events more and more common -- have been problematic. "I think it's a good settlement for all parties just to move forward," Mr. Krajniak said. "We'll continue to undertake upgrades or any steps which will further assist us. But, again, the concern has been the nature of these storms that we've experienced over the last three years have really been problematic. But the best we can do is to continue to invest in the infrastructure and continue to dry out the system." Mr. Gillooly also recommended residents make sure downspouts are disconnected. He also said residents should have their lateral sewer lines televised and snaked from their house to the street every year. "And," Mr. Gillooly said, "install a backflow preventer. . . . A couple hundred dollar fix can prevent sometimes thousands of dollars in clean up costs and hassles." [GN] GUILIANO ENVIRONMENTAL: Vargas Seeks Unpaid Wages for Workers ------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD VARGAS, and similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. GUILIANO ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC, and all other affiliated Entities and/or Joint Employers, CHRISTOPHER GUILIANO, individually, and ROBERT FISTER, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00513 (D.N.J., Jan. 15, 2019), seeks to recover statutory wage and overtime payments, payment for unpaid supplemental benefits that Plaintiff and the members of the putative class were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive for work they performed on numerous privately financed projects and publicly financed projects pursuant to contracts with various government entities, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey State Prevailing Wage Act. The action is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and a putative class of individuals who worked as roofers, demolition laborers, and other construction-related trades, and snow removal laborers, for Guiliano and/or any other entities affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by the Defendants. The Government Entities include, but are not limited to, the following: Union County, New Jersey, and Bergen County, New Jersey, as well as the State of New Jersey. The publicly financed projects were undertaken and performed by the Defendants in accordance with the terms and conditions of certain "Public Works Contracts" entered into with the Government Entities between January 2013 and the present, the lawsuit says. Guiliano Environmental is in the cargo loading and unloading services business.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, No. 306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: Aglenn@JaffeGlenn.com Jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com HSBC BANK USA: Removes Antonicic et al. Suit to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of CHRISTOPHER J. ANTONICIC; and ANASTASIA ANTONICIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois, County of DuPage (Case No. 2018 L 001443) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on January 4, 2019. The clerk of court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00101. The case is assigned to Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. HSBC Bank USA, National Association provides personal and business banking products and services. HSBC Bank USA, National Association was formerly known as HSBC Bank USA and changed its name to HSBC Bank USA, National Association in November 2017. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in Mclean, Virginia. HSBC Bank USA, National Association operates as a subsidiary of HSBC USA Inc. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arthur C. Czaja, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR C. CZAJA 7521 N. Milwaukee Ave. Niles, IL 60714 Telephone: (847) 647-2106 E-mail: arthur@czajalawoffices.com - and - Jeffrey Alan Berman, Esq. Patrick J. Solberg, Esq. ANDERSON WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: jberman@andersonwanca.com psolberg@andersonwanca.com The Defendant is represented by: Bruce Robert Van Baren, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 10 S. Wacker Dr., 40th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 207-2442 E-mail: bvanbaren@reedsmith.com INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Fixed ICE LIBOR Rates, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against InterContinental Exchange, Inc., and several entities concerns financial benchmark ICE LIBOR (TM) ("ICE LIBOR"), which, from February 1, 2014, through the present, has been "the world's most widely used benchmark for short term bank borrowing rates," and which, since that date, has been collusively set at artificially low levels by Defendants, to the detriment of investors in financial instruments indexed to the benchmark, such as Plaintiff and members of the Class. According to the complaint, the Defendants combined and conspired to, and did, unreasonably restrain trade by fixing, rigging, depressing, and otherwise manipulating USD ICE LIBOR and financial instruments indexed to USD ICE LIBOR, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Defendants engaged in a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy. The Plaintiff and members of the Class have been injured in their business and property by reason of Defendants' violation of the Sherman Act, the lawsuit says. The case is captioned as PUTNAM BANK, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE, INC., INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE HOLDINGS, INC., ICE BENCHMARK ADMINISTRATION LIMITED (f/k/a NYSE EURONEXT RATE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED), ICE DATA SERVICES, INC., ICE PRICING AND REFERENCE DATA LLC, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA N.A., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC., CITIGROUP INC., CITIBANK, N.A., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, BARCLAYS PLC, BARCLAYS BANK PLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BNP PARIBAS SA, BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP., CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A., CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK; CREDIT AGRICOLE SECURITIES (USA) INC., CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK PLC, HSBC BANK USA, N.A., HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC., LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS SECURITIES INC., MUFG BANK, LTD., THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD., MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP INC., MUFG SECURITIES AMERICAS INC., THE NORINCHUKIN BANK, COÖPERATIEVE RABOBANK U.A., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC, NATWEST MARKETS SECURITIES INC. (f//k/a RBS SECURITIES, INC.), SOCIETE GENERALE S.A., SG AMERICAS SECURITIES, LLC, SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING CORPORATION, SUMITOMO MITSUI FINANCIAL GROUP INC., SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING CORPORATION EUROPE LTD., SMBC CAPITAL MARKETS, INC., UBS GROUP AG, UBS AG, and UBS SECURITIES LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00439 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2019).[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: David R. Scott, Esq. Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq. Peter A. Barile III, Esq. Thomas K. Boardman, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com dweintraub@scott-scott.com pbarile@scott-scott.com tboardman@scott-scott.com - and - Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq. 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: alawrence@scott-scott.com - and - George A. Zelcs, Esq. Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 641-9750 Facsimile: (312) 641-9751 E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com rewing@koreintillery.com - and - Steven M. Berezney, Esq. Michael E. Klenov 505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-4844 Facsimile: (314) 241-3525 E-mail: sberezney@koreintillery.com mklenov@koreintillery.com - and - Vincent Briganti, Esq. Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq. Christian Levis, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone.: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com ghorn@lowey.com clevis@lowey.com - and - Randi D. Bandman, Esq. Steve Jodlowski, Esq. Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 30 Vesey Street, Suite 200 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 693-1058 Facsimile: (212) 693-7423 E-mail: randib@rgrdlaw.com sjodlowski@rgrdlaw.com vpatc@rgrdlaw.com - and - Thomas J. Undlin, Esq. Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq. Geoffrey H. Kozen, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: 612-349-8500 Facsimile: 612-339-4181 E-mail: tundlin@robinskaplan.com sslaughter@robinskaplan.com gkozen@robinskaplan.com - and - Hollis Salzman, Esq. David B. Rochelson 399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 E-mail: hsalzman@robinskaplan.com drochelson@robinskaplan.com IQVIA INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in TCPA Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Christine M. Reilly, Esq. -- creilly@manatt.com -- and A. Paul Heeringa, Esq. -- pheeringa@manatt.com -- of Manatt Financial Services, report that a recent decision from the U.S. Supreme Court continues to work in favor of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) defendants, with an Illinois federal court judge striking the plaintiff's class definition with regard to members outside the state. Two faxes were sent to the office of Florence Mussat, M.D., an Illinois corporation, by IQVIA, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. The medical office alleged that IQVIA violated the TCPA by sending junk faxes to recipients across the country and sought to represent the putative class without geographic restriction. U.S. District Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the Northern District of Illinois certified the class. But after another Illinois federal court applied Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California to a TCPA action, IQVIA moved to strike Mussat's class definition. In Bristol-Myers Squibb, a group of plaintiffs brought product liability actions against the company in California state court, claiming that a prescription drug damaged their health. After the California Supreme Court found it had specific jurisdiction to hear the cases, the Supreme Court reversed last June, holding that the defendant has the burden of proof as to whether a court has personal jurisdiction. The due process clause, "acting as an instrument of interstate federalism, may sometimes act to divest the State of its power to render a valid judgment," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. Noting that the plaintiffs were nonresidents and did not claim that they suffered harm in California—and that all conduct giving rise to the nonresident claims occurred elsewhere—the justices held that the court lacked jurisdiction over the case. IQVIA argued that the Illinois court lacked personal jurisdiction over it with respect to the unnamed putative class members who were not Illinois residents. Judge Kendall agreed, granting the motion to strike the non-Illinois class members. "The focus of the personal jurisdiction inquiry . . . is the defendant's relationship to the forum state, and because Mussat's lawsuit does not arise out of or relate to IQVIA's contacts with this forum, the Court grants its motion to strike Mussat's class definition," the court wrote. Mussat argued that IQVIA forfeited its personal jurisdiction defense by not raising it sooner, in its initial motion to dismiss. But the court had little troubling finding that the defense was not available when the defendant filed its motion in March 2018. On its face, Bristol-Myers Squibb did not apply to class actions, and no court had applied the opinion's holding or reasoning to a TCPA class action until two days before IQVIA filed its motion to dismiss. When that decision was issued, IQVIA timely amended its responsive pleading just nine days later. Even if IQVIA did forfeit its defense, Judge Kendall said she would exercise her discretion to excuse it, noting that other courts that have considered the issue in this context have excused the forfeiture. Moving to the merits of the personal jurisdiction defense, "this Court joins the litany of other courts in this District and elsewhere to hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment precludes the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a putative class action where nonresident, absent members seek to aggregate their claims with an in-forum resident, even though the defendant allegedly injured the nonresidents outside the forum," the court wrote. The TCPA does not authorize nationwide service of process, leaving the court to look to Illinois law and the Due Process Clause for the applicable limits on its exercise of personal jurisdiction. As IQVIA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania, the court found it lacked general jurisdiction over the defendant. While the court had specific jurisdiction with regard to IQVIA based on Mussat's allegations that it received two junk faxes in Illinois, Bristol-Myers Squibb holds that due process requires the defendant be subject to specific jurisdiction also as to the absent class members' claims. "Indeed, 'the mere fact' that Mussat received two faxes in Illinois 'does not allow' for an exercise of 'specific jurisdiction over the nonresidents' claims' with respect to faxes received outside of Illinois because those absent class members' claims do not relate to IQVIA's contacts with Illinois," the court wrote. "It follows, then, that exercising specific jurisdiction over IQVIA with respect to the nonresidents' claims would violate IQVIA's due process rights. Therefore, the Court must strike the class definition to the extent it asserts claims of nonresidents." Following the Supreme Court's lead in Bristol-Myers Squibb and applying its core reasoning, Judge Kendall held that due process required a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue. "This recognition bars nationwide class actions in fora where the defendant is not subject to general jurisdiction," the court said. "Whether it be an individual, mass, or class action, the defendant's rights should remain constant." Why it matters: The Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb has been beneficial for class action defendants in all types of cases, including TCPA actions, with federal courts in Illinois leading the way by applying the justices' ruling to cases filed under the statute. However, the case law in this area is far from uniform, and many of the defendant-favorable decisions have come out of the Northern District of Illinois. [GN] ISRAEL ELECTRIC: Electricity Rate to Rise After Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Sonia Gorodeisky, writing for Globes, reports that following the canceling of the excise tax on fuel purchased by Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) and compensation in the framework of a class action lawsuit, the electricity rate for home consumers will go up 2.9% starting on January 1, and the average rate will rise by 2%, the Public Utilities Authority (electricity) announced. The decision was taken a short time ago, following a public hearing by the Authority. Early in December, the Public Utilities Authority (electricity) announced that following prices rises in the basket of fuel, the shekel depreciation against the dollar, and the substantial increase in renewable energy, the electricity rate would be raised by an average of 6% and by 7.3% for households. The announcement was succeeded by strong public criticism and protests throughout Israel, because higher electric rates will cause prices rises throughout the economy. Indeed, several days after the announcement, water rates were raised, and several major food manufacturers announced price hikes. The Public Utilities Authority (electricity) stated in its announcement that the lower increase in the electricity rate had become possible when the Ministry of Finance announcement a postponement of an additional excise tax amounting to NIS 57 per ton to the beginning of 2021. This measure will save electricity consumers a cumulative NIS 715 million, amounting to 2.4% of the rate for household consumers. This amount will be subtracted from the rate for 2019. If the measures for exempting coal from excise tax are not completed by February 28, 2019, the electricity rate will be revised accordingly. In addition, in the framework of arbitration concerning an IEC auction for the purchase of GIS equipment, for a sub-station, it was recently announced that IEC would probably receive NIS 465 million in compensation during 2019. The bulk of this sum will be returned to electricity consumers. Half of the compromise amount will be recognized in the rate for 2019, equivalent to 0.8% of the rate for home consumers. The balance of the sum will be returned to consumers in the following years. [GN] JFE INC: Does Not Properly Pay Construction Workers, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Ponciano Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JFE Inc., JFE of Connecticut Inc., Jose Trinidad Espinoza, Edward A. Fucci (deceased), and Chris Fucci, Case No. 7:18-cv-11554 (S.D. N.Y., December 11, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation and unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff at least the minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime compensation at one and one-half times his regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours in a given work week. The Plaintiff Ponciano Garcia was employed by the Defendants to work as a construction/demolition worker for JFE Inc., and JFE of Connecticut, Inc. The Corporate Defendants operate a demolition/construction business with its headquarters located in Westchester, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael G. Santangelo, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL G. SANTANGELO, PLLC 75 South Broadway - Suite 4-54195 White Plains, NY 10601 Tel: (914) 304-4242 E-mail: mgsesq@msn.com JR ENGINEERING: James Roberts Seeks Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------- James Roberts, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JR ENGINEERING, INC. c/o Statutory Agent Louis P. Bilinovich Sr., the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00110-SL (N.D Ohio, Jan. 15, 2019), seeks overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is a collective action instituted by Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its hourly, non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees, overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant employed Plaintiff as a polisher at Defendant's Norton, Ohio facility between September 2017 and October 2018. Other similarly-situated employees were employed by Defendant manufacturing employees at one or both of Defendant's Ohio facilities. The Defendant paid Plaintiff and other similarly-situated manufacturing employees an hourly wage. The Defendant classified Plaintiff and other similarly-situated manufacturing employees as non-exempt employees, the lawsuit says. The Defendant manufactures automobile parts and operates two manufacturing facilities. One facility is located in Barberton, Ohio and the other facility is located in Norton, Ohio.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: 216 696-5000 Facsimile: 216 696-7005 E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com KELLOGG COMPANY: Smith Moves to Certify Class of RSRs Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled as BRIAN SMITH; and ROSEANN MIRACOLA, SCOTTY POARCH, and MARK YOUNG, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated persons v. KELLOGG COMPANY and KELLOGG SALES COMPANY, Case No. 1:18-cv-01341-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.), move the Court for an order conditionally certifying a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and to authorize that notice of the action be issued to putative collective action members and for other miscellaneous relief to effectuate the mailing and e-mailing of notice to putative collective action members. The FSLA collective action class is defined as: All persons who have worked for Kellogg in the Snacks division at any time in the three years prior to the filing of the complaint in this case and were required to move snack products from the storeroom to the store shelf and who were paid on a salary basis without compensation at the rate of time and one-half for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Job positions within this class include without limitation Retail Sales Representatives, Territory Managers, Kellogg Sales Representatives, and Retail Sales Managers (collectively, "RSRs"). The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to require Kellogg to provide them with putative class members' names, last known addresses, employer ID numbers, e-mail addresses, and, for class members whose notice is undeliverable, partial Social Security Numbers and birth dates, and to approve their forms of notice and reminder postcard to putative class members.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matt Dunn, Esq. Lesley Tse, Esq. Meagan Rafferty, Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC 260 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 255-9370 Facsimile: (845) 255-8649 E-mail: mdunn@getmansweeney.com ltse@getmansweeney.com mrafferty@getmansweeney.com LACI TRANSPORT: Stingley Bid to Certify Class Dropped ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Renee Stingley, et al., the Plaintiff, vs. Laci Transport, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18−cv−06221 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sara L. Ellis: entered an order withdrawing, without prejudice, the motion to certify class. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on Jan. 15, 2019, a motion hearing was held on Jan. 15, 2019. The Motion to certify class is withdrawn without prejudice. A Motion to stay is denied as moot. The Court entered a briefing schedule on the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's response is due by Feb. 5, 2019. Defendants' reply is due by Feb. 26, 2019. Statute of limitations tolled through May 31, 2019. Next status date is set for May 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.[CC] LAMPS PLUS: Rumberger Kirk Attorney Discusses Arbitration Issue --------------------------------------------------------------- Leonard Dietzen, III, Esq. -- ldietzen@rumberger.com -- of Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell, in an article for JDSupra, reports that mandatory arbitration long has been a fixture in many employment agreements but there has been confusion over whether this includes the right to bring claims by a class. The consequences are immense because once class certification is granted, settlements almost always follow with plaintiffs' lawyers pocketing millions of dollars in fees while their class clients get pennies and coupons. You might think of class certification as the poison pill of arbitration. But relief for employers may be forthcoming. I believe the U.S. Supreme Court is about to close the door on class arbitration in a potentially groundbreaking case, Lamps Plus v. Varela. The high court heard arguments in the case Oct. 29, 2018, and a decision is expected in the spring of 2019. Hacked W-2s led to employee claim Lamps Plus, a California lighting manufacturer and retailer, was the victim of a phishing attack in 2016 in which a hacker obtained copies of employees' W-2 forms. Frank Varela, an employee, filed a claim against the company in U.S. District Court in California and sought class certification for employees affected by the breach. Lamps Plus told the court that Varela had signed an employment contract where he agreed that all disputes with his employer would be decided in arbitration, which the company interpreted as individual, or bilateral, arbitration. The legal problem is that Varela's arbitration agreement was silent on whether employees have the right to class or collective arbitration. As the District Court saw it, that silence amounted to ambiguity and under California law any ambiguity must be construed against the drafter of an agreement. An arbitration agreement that does not expressly prohibit class actions is presumed to allow it, the court ruled. Subsequently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court and in April 2018 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The question before the Supreme Court then is whether the Federal Arbitration Act – which never contemplated class actions when it was passed in 1925 – forecloses a state law interpretation of an arbitration agreement that would authorize class arbitration based solely on general language commonly used in arbitration agreements. The FAA imposes certain rules on arbitration while generally deferring to state law for interpretation of such agreements. One fundamental aspect of the FAA is that arbitration must be a matter of consent by both parties. Lamps Plus argues that means affirmative consent, not inferred consent. Another point of contention is the meaning of a phrase of legalese in Varela's arbitration agreement that said "arbitration shall be in lieu of any and all lawsuits or other civil legal proceedings relating to my employment." As Varela and the Ninth Circuit see it, that means that arbitration should include any remedies available in court, such as class action. Again, it is reading a lot into the agreement to interpret that phrase as inferring that any procedure available in court should be available in arbitration. The case has far-reaching implications. There likely are tens of thousands of employment agreements in force where the drafters failed to consider the possibility of a class. If the California interpretation holds sway, every one of those agreements can be inferred as authorizing a class. Precedent suggests court will issue business-friendly decision While it's always risky to predict the mind of the Supreme Court, I can say that precedent heavily supports a business-friendly decision in favor of Lamps Plus. A line of decisions reinforces the principle that arbitration is between individuals or between an employee and employer. Other U.S. circuit courts have said repeatedly that arbitration waivers must be explicit, not inferred. Prior decisions also have resisted arguments that "adhesion" employment contracts – agreements that are signed as a condition of employment – coerce employees to sign, reasoning that they are free not to take the job. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court firmly nixed the argument that federal labor laws trump arbitration waivers. In May 2018, the high court said in Epic Systems v. Lewis that businesses can enforce employee agreements that explicitly waive the right to class arbitration. The Epic court dismissed arguments that arbitration waivers can't be enforced because they run afoul of the National Labor Relations Act. Instead, said the court, an agreement should be enforced according to its terms. Several other precedents seem to favor the Lamps Plus position. In Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that the FAA does not allow the imposition of class arbitration on nonconsenting parties. In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion -- another case from the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that the FAA preempts state laws that make class action waivers unenforceable. In light of these precedents, it would be remarkable if the Supreme Court created a right to class arbitration where the parties' agreement was silent on the topic. . Even if the high court rules against Lamps Plus, I believe businesses will come away with a win. The court likely will lay down clear guidelines on class arbitrations, and we can then write agreements that follow the court's instructions. What employers can do now In the meantime, employers should be certain that new employee agreements state explicitly that employees waive the right to class arbitrations. A reading of the Epic decision offers clear instructions on the language to use. In Florida, I also like to add a clause that says nothing in the agreement gives preference for or against the drafter – the employer – because the Lamps Plus case rests on the legal maxim that any ambiguity has to be interpreted against the drafter of the agreement. A waiver preempts that presumption. I also recommend that companies audit existing agreements to see whether they are explicit in waiving class arbitration. But if the Supreme Court follows its prior ruling that an agreement means exactly what it says, that won't be necessary. Regardless of which way the court goes, employers will gain clarity in writing agreements going forward. The court is likely to lay down clear guidelines on class arbitrations and employers will be able to write agreements that avoid costly litigation. [GN] LEXINGTON LAW: Must File Judgment Bid by March 18 in Rosales Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart issued an order in the lawsuit titled EUGENE ROSALES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. JOHN C. HEATH, Attorney at Law, doing business as Lexington Law, Case No. 8:17-cv-00087-RFR-CRZ (D. Neb.), directing the Defendant to file on or before March 18, 2019, its anticipated motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the Plaintiff consented to receipt of text messages and, therefore, has no cognizable claim against Lexington Law. Discovery is permitted solely as to the limited issue of whether the Plaintiff consented to receive text messages from Lexington Law during the time frame alleged in the complaint "[s]tarting in 2016", and if so, whether Plaintiff rescinded or revoked that consent and when this rescission/revocation occurred. Such discovery shall be completed on or before February 28, 2019. The parties' unopposed motion to extend deadlines is denied as moot. According to the Order, on November 9, 2018, the Court conferred with counsel regarding a discovery dispute. The Plaintiff was requesting the identity of all persons, nationwide, who "received on their cellular telephone at least one unauthorized text message" from Defendant Heath, doing business as Lexington Law ("hereinafter "Lexington Law"), advertising its credit repair services. The Plaintiff further requested "all documents showing prior express written consent from any putative class member;" and the identification of each individual who is not a customer of Lexington Law to whom Lexington Law sent an advertising text message.[CC] LOWE'S HOME: Court Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------ Sterling Laney, Esq. -- sterling.laney@wbd-us.com -- of Womble Bond Dickinson, reports that a recent case from the Northern District of California, Alvarado v Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, 2018 WL 6697181 (N.D. CA. Dec. 20, 2018), highlights the importance of drafting employment arbitration agreement language to specifically include FCRA claims. In Alvarado, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant between June 2015 and February 2018. Plaintiff signed an agreement to arbitrate disputes as part of her employment contract when she was hired. The arbitration agreement by its terms covered any controversy between Plaintiff and Defendant arising out of Plaintiff's employment or the termination of Plaintiff's employment. After her employment ended, Plaintiff brought a putative class action lawsuit alleging the Defendant conducted background checks during the hiring process without making proper disclosures. Defendant moved to compel arbitration including Plaintiff's FCRA claims based upon the allegedly improper background check. Plaintiff argued her FCRA claims should not be subject to the Arbitration Agreement because they may have taken place prior to the arbitration agreement being executed. Plaintiff argued specifically that because neither side presented evidence of when the background check was conducted, the Court should assume it was performed before she signed the arbitration agreement. Plaintiff further argued that the Arbitration Agreement could not be applied retroactively to these claims because the agreement did not unambiguously state it has retroactive effect. The Court disagreed with Plaintiff's theory and granted the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration. In doing so the Court held, "the Court need not decide when a FCRA cause of action accrues, because Plaintiff expressly agreed to arbitrate all disputes, 'including but not limited to those arising out of federal and state statutes and local ordinances, such as…the Fair Credit Reporting Act' [emphasis added] at the time she signed the Arbitration Agreement. Whether Plaintiff knew that any such claim had accrued at that time is irrelevant, because the Agreement is not limited to claims that have not yet accrued." The specific detail of including "all disputes" and then specifically mentioning that claims under the FCRA were included was persuasive to the Court and serves as a good reminder for us all to take care when drafting arbitration agreements. [GN] MANTECA, CA: Homeless Man Challenges Anti-Camping Ordinance ----------------------------------------------------------- Ennis Wyatt, writing for Manteca Bulletin, reports that Norman Moore is not a happy camper. First he contends his day in court was denied when charges against him were dismissed. Now he says the City of Manteca is violating his Fourth Amendment rights including being secure in his house, his papers, and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Mr. Moore is the 71-year-old homeless man who wanted to challenge the legality of Manteca's anti-camping law in court when he was cited for violating it by camping in a field in the 100 block of Pacific Road of West Yosemite Avenue on Sept. 29, 2017. He was given a citation for illegal camping under a city ordinance. It was the third time he was ordered by Manteca Police to leave an illegal campsite that month. The citation carries a $1,210 fine. Moore receives $805 a month in Social Security retirement. Moore made his displeasure with the city known at the Dec. 18 council meeting during public comments. His latest beef centers around being forced by police to leave "a farmer's field" located within the city limits. Mr. Moore told Mayor Ben Cantu and the council that no one complained about him being there. (The ordinance as written regarding illegal camping on private property is not complaint driven.) He argued that when police posted the camp in advance as required by court rulings that they intended to clear it out for being illegal, that had they done so before he was able to move his belongings they would have put his "papers" consisting of extensive correspondence with government officials in the garbage thus violating his Fourth Amendment. That said, Mr. Moore told the council he was able to retrieve his papers before that happened. What Mr. Moore really wants is a jury trial to argue the city's anti-camping ordinance is illegal. The city carefully crafted the anti-camping ordinance to make sure it complied with court decisions and existing law after four homeless men filed a class action suit arguing the ordinance as previously worded violated their rights. The current anti-camping ordinance applies to everyone regardless if they live in a dwelling or on the street. Essentially the courts have ruled everyone has the right to sleep. If they lack a place to do so or for whatever reason they wish regardless of their living quarters status anyone can sit or lie on public property as long as it doesn't break other existing laws or create a safety hazard such as sleeping in the street. The ordinance states a person can sit or lie on public property between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. At the same time a camping ordinance that has been in place for a number of years prohibits camping on private property except for as noted in certain conditions in a residential area. Basically anyone can sit or lie on public property between 11 p.m. and 6 p.m. unless other laws are being violated. As an example, almost all city parks are closed to everyone from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Breaching areas secured with fencing is trespassing. Not providing adequate passage on a sidewalk could violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition the city has declared some public property off limits such as the Manteca Transit Center and the Manteca Veterans Center on Moffat Boulevard. Given that still leaves plenty of options for people to lie down or sit from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. on public property the City of Manteca believes how they enforce the anti-camping as well as sleeping on public property passes legal muster. [GN] MARIN COUNTY, CA: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Perez et al. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VERONICA PEREZ; ALICIA BALENCIA; CLARISSA CHUI; JOLIE CLARK; SARAH COLTON; DIELLY DIAZ; LAURA ESTRADA-SHEPHERD; CHELSEA GEYER; ANDREA GONZALEZ; ROSIE HERNANDEZ; TERESA HIGUERA-TABASSI; ALANA KAPUST; LORRY KRONE; ERIN LYNCH; JILL MAIER; MILA MALDONADO; DULCE McALLISTER; SASHA CHELSEA McGOWAN; HALEY MEARS; TONY MILANI; MOLLY MILLER; LOREN ROTHBERRY; KRISTIN SHORE; DAVID SLOTTERBACK; DANIEL SOLIS; and TRACY VEGA, the Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF MARIN; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case 3:18-cv-04938-EDL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte entered an order on Jan. 15, 2019: 1. conditionally certifies three-opt in classes defined as: Class A: "all persons employed by the County of Marin in the following classifications after August 14, 2015, who were in positions classified as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and who were not compensated for overtime worked: Child Welfare Worker I, Child Welfare Worker I Bilingual, Child Welfare Worker II, and Child Welfare Worker II Bilingual"; Class B: "all persons employed by the County of Marin in the following classifications after August 14, 2015, who were in positions classified as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and who were not compensated for overtime worked: Social Service Unit Supervisor in the Department of Health and Human 19 Services, Social Services Division, Children & Family Services Program"; and Class C: "all persons employed by the County of Marin in the following classifications after August 14, 2015, who were in positions classified as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and who were not compensated for overtime worked: Senior Support Services Worker and Senior Support Services Worker Bilingual in the Department of Health and Human Services, Social Services Division, Children & Family Services Program"; and 2. directing the The County of Marin to provide the names, last known mailing and email addresses, dates of employment and job classifications for all class members within ten days of the issuance of this order.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: David W. Kesselman, Esq. Trevor V. Stockinger, Esq. Kara McDonald, Esq. KESSELMAN BRANTLY STOCKINGER LLP 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 690 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 307-4555 Facsimile: (310) 307-4570 E-mail: dkesselman@kbslaw.com tstockinger@kbslaw.com kmcdonald@kbslaw.com - and - Michael D. McLachlan, Esq. Edward M. Chavez, Esq. McLACHLAN LAW, APC 2447 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 100 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Telephone: (310) 954-8270 Facsimile: (310) 954-8271 E-mail: mike@mclachlan-law.com edward@mclachlan-law.com MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Esquerra Suit in Maryland ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marriott International, Inc. The case is captioned as ANDREA DURKEE; and NATHAN ESQUERRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00047-GJH (D. Md., Jan. 4, 2019). The case is referred to Judge George Jarrod Hazel. Marriott International, Inc. operates, franchises, and licenses hotel, residential, and timeshare properties worldwide. Marriott International, Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven A Skalet, Esq. MEHRI AND SKALET PLLC 1250 Connecticut Ave NW Ste 300 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 822-5100 Facsimile: (202) 822-4997 E-mail: sskalet@findjustice.com MARRIOTT INT'L: Reinsurers Speculate over Nature of Cyber Loss -------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Gallin, writing for Reinsurance News, reports that following the major cyber attack and resulting data breach of one of the Marriott hotel chain's reservation systems, Reinsurance News spoke with the Co-Head of Property Claim Services (PCS), Tom Johansmeyer, about the nature of the event and expected industry loss. The breach, announced on November 30th, led the insurance and reinsurance industry to expect a sizeable cyber risk loss, with PCS later designating the breach under its PCS Global Cyber product. AIR estimates that the event could result in an insurable loss of between $200 million and $600 million, a broad range which highlights the uncertainty about the data stolen, as well as the inherent complexity when estimating the potential insurable loss from a large cyber event. "The global reinsurance market is busy speculating as to what the biggest question is around this cyber loss. Some point to the potential for third-party losses to affect the program. Others suggest that this could be a test of whether GDPR and other fines and penalties could be covered. Those are important concerns, but it's still too soon. "For now, I'd focus on whether the consumer notification process will be sufficient. Email notification and push to an online presence is certainly low cost, which would affect the claim. However, the process for registering for monitoring requires a phone call. And with the number of records affected and timeframe involved, there could be issues with whether any of the email addresses used with the hotel chain by customers are now secondary accounts. If they aren't actively used, one could miss the notification, affecting take-up rates, and thus leading to questions about the effectiveness of the approach," said Mr. Johansmeyer. Another issue surrounding the Marriott breach concerns the security and reissuance of passports, which, Mr. Johansmeyer explains might not be as bad as initially thought. "Some countries only issue passports for five years. Given how long the breach went on before discovery, many may not be valid any longer. Even for passports issued for ten years, the duration of the breach suggests that a decent number of them expired. Any extra costs or risk associated for the need for reissuance (particularly in the context of third-party) might be mitigated as a result," said Mr. Johansmeyer. Regarding the potential for third-party impacts to extend the tail risks of this event, Mr. Johansmeyer said that while the global reinsurance market is abuzz about the class action litigation that looms, this might not be the case for this affirmative cyber loss. "Given the number of people affected -- even if de-duping brings it down -- notification could become more expensive if the current approach isn't deemed sufficient, or if there's disproportionately and unexpectedly high monitoring take-up. That could turn it all into a first-party loss and potentially shorten the tail considerably," said Mr. Johansmeyer. While uncertainty remains, some in the global reinsurance industry have suggested that the Marriott breach might well be a test whether GDPR fines and penalties could be covered, but Mr. Johansmeyer said that with this event, it might not be the GDPR learning curve that some had suggested. "As with the potential for third-party to affect the loss, if first-party is sufficient, then GDPR wouldn't get the opportunity to factor into this event. Based on the market intelligence we collected to develop our initial industry loss estimate, PCS figures that this will be a loss without the GDPR learning opportunity the sector craves," said Mr. Johansmeyer. This event certainly has the potential to be the largest standalone or affirmative cyber insurance loss ever, and if there's any spillover into other policies it might well become another large market-wide cyber loss, which could ultimately impact reinsurance players. [GN] MASTERGAS USA: Lantieri Seeks Overtime Pay for Cashiers ------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE LANTIERI, an individual, ALFRED CASTILLO, an individual, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MASTERGAS USA, INC., a Florida profit corporation, and OSVALDO RABELO FILHOS, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-60128-KMW (S.D. Fla., Jan. 15, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under Florida law and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. According to the complaint, within the past three years, the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as cashiers or store clerks at a Chevron-branded gas station operated by Defendants and located at 2750 Sheridan Street, Hollywood, Florida 33020, and their supposed pay rate was $9 per hour. The Defendants managed and operated the gas station, employed Plaintiffs, and made all significant decisions regarding the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs' employment, including but not limited to, hiring Plaintiffs and deciding their rates of pay, their schedules, their hours, their job duties, and their benefits. In the course of their employment with Defendants, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees worked the number of hours required of them and regularly were required by Defendants to work in excess of 40 hours per workweek but did not receive time and one-half their regular hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 per week. Instead, the Defendants would pay the Plaintiffs cash payments at their regular rates of pay for all hours over 40 per week. As a result, the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are owed a half-time rate for all overtime hours worked, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiffs: Jacob K. Auerbach, Esq. GALLUP A. UERBACH 4000 Hollywood Boulevard Presidential Circle-Suite 265 South Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: 954 894-3035 Facsimile: 954 894-8015 E-mail: jauerbach@gallup-law.com Web: http://www.gallup-law.com MDL 2741: Garrison vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled RICHARD GARRISON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, BAYER CORPORATION, and BAYER AG, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00752, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 17, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 3:19-cv-00280-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Garrison case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Richard W. Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC 865 S. Dixie Dr. Vandalia, OH 45377 Telephone: 937 435-7500 Facsimile: 937 435-7511 E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com MDL 2741: Ottinger vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled NINA OTTINGER, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01370, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 16, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 3:19-cv-00274-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Ottinger case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Russell W. Lewis IV, Esq. Kori Westbrook, Esq. JOHNSON LAW GROUP 1019 16th Avenue South Nashville, TN 37212 Phone: (615) 200-1122 Facsimile: (866) 902-8647 E-mail: rlewis@johnsonlawgroup.com kwestbrook@johnsonlawgroup.com MDL 2741: Peabody v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled RICKEY PEABODY, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00318 (Dec. 26, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 17, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 3:19-cv-00276-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Peabody case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Mason Lee Boling, Esq. Sean T. Keith, Esq. KEITH, MILLER, BUTLER, SCHNEIDER & PAWLIK, P.L.L.C. 224 South Second Street Rogers, AR 72756 Telephone: (479) 621-0006 E-mail: mboling@arkattorneys.com skeith@arkattorneys.com MDL 2741: Scott v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled SHERRIE SCOTT, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00522 (Dec. 12, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 17, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 3:19-cv-00296-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Scott case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Russell W. Lewis IV, Esq. Kori Westbrook, Esq. JOHNSON LAW GROUP 1019 16th Avenue South Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 200-1122 Facsimile: (866) 902-8647 E-mail: rlewis@johnsonlawgroup.com kwestbrook@johnsonlawgroup.com MDL 2873: Battisti vs. 3M Company over AFFF Products Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------------- A case, DAVID BATTISTI; REGINA SAUERACKER; MARY ANN BENSON; SUSAN SCHELL; CAROL SMITH and GERALD SMITH, her husband; and ANITA PRINGLE and DAVID PRINGLE, her husband; for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.); TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., as successor-in-interest to THE ANSUL COMPANY; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC. (f/k/a CHUBB NATIONAL FOAM, INC. f/k/a NATIONAL FOAM, INC.), individually and as successor in interest to NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC. (f/k/a WILLIAMS US INC. f/k/a WILLIAMS HOLDINGS, INC.), individually and as successor in interest to NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC. (f/k/a FENWAL INC.), individually and as successor-in-interest to NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE INTERLOGIX, INC.), individually and as successor-in-interest to NATIONAL FOAM, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00642, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston) on Jan. 16, 2019. The District of South Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00143-RMG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Honorable Richard M Gergel. The lead case is Case No. 2:18-mn-02873-RMG. The Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for medical monitoring and property damage as a result of their exposure to water contaminated with toxic chemicals resulting from Defendants' harmful and defective products, aqueous firefighting foams ("AFFF") and other materials containing perfluorochemicals (PFCs) including perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related fluorochemicals that can degrade to perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") or PFOS, which were released onto the ground, into the environment and infiltrated the groundwater and Plaintiffs' drinking/potable water. The Battisti case is being cosolidated with MDL 2873 in RE: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation. 3M Company, is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, health care, and consumer goods.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: James L. Ferraro, Esq. Janpaul Portal, Esq. James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM Brickell World Plaza 600 Brickell Avenue, 38 th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 Facsimile (305) 379-6222 E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com jpp@ferrarolaw.com jjr@ferrarolaw.com MENZGOLD: Consultant Calls for Liquidation, Class Action Mulled --------------------------------------------------------------- GhanaWeb reports that a financial consultant Charles Mensah has called for the liquidation of the assets of gold dealership firm, Menzgold to pay aggrieved customers. The financial advisor believes that it's the surest way to get funds to settle customers who have been demonstrating for their investments to be paid. But for the timely intervention by the police, Dec. 24 there would have been a mass suicide by Menzgold clients on one of Accra's major highways (N1 Highway). Police had been deployed to the headquarters of Menzgold to offer protection to property as well as persons, after customers whose funds are locked up with the firm, massed up to protest the failure of the company to pay back their funds. Director of Operations at the Accra Regional Police Command, Supt. Kwesi Ofori, told Joy News the angry Menzgold customers rushed onto the road to carry out their plan, defying the high-speed at which vehicles were approaching. Speaking in an interview with Evans Mensah on Newsnite on Joy FM, Mr Charles Mensah said the right action to take now is to request for the liquidation of the company because of what is happening. "The Registrar General can request for liquidation of the company by virtue of what is happening," he said and added that, "they can have a class action [approach] the court to ensure that there is a compulsory liquidation to the extent that the liabilities of the company cannot be met so they can liquidate." He explained that when that happens the "assets of Menzgold, the directors' personal assets they can lift the veil of incorporation and sell those assets and then they begin to distribute to…those who have invested. He cautioned that it was a high-risk venture because as long as one is earning high returns, the downside is that there is a high-risk venture and "they've lost." Mr Charles Mensah wondered how the government would come in and help salvage the situation. In a country where there are regulations, the Financial consultant noted, "anybody who invests in a venture where they are not regulated in itself is a challenge and I was thinking that it was a signal for people to pull out" but that did not happen. Thousands of customers of the gold dealership firm have for months now, are unable to access their investments after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ordered its closure, due to its unregulated business model. Menzgold had earlier in the month, asked its staff to proceed on leave following increasing threats to its properties as well as staff of the company. The December 4 statement also added that the company has been advised by the authorities to halt both online and offline trading to enable the authorities to assess the system and present a final say to the public and the company. But SEC has said its directives to the company do not in any way stop it from paying monies they had taken from the clients. [GN] MINDBODY INC: Johnson Fistel Investigates Proposed Sale ------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP has launched an investigation into whether the board members of MINDBODY, Inc. (NASDAQ:MB) ("MINDBODY") breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed sale of the Company to Vista Equity Partners ("Vista"). On December 24, 2018, MINDBODY announced that it had signed a definitive merger agreement with Vista. Under the terms of the merger agreement, Vista will acquire all outstanding shares of MINDBODY common stock for $36.50 in cash per share of MINDBODY common stock. The investigation concerns whether the MINDBODY board failed to satisfy its duties to the Company shareholders, including whether the board adequately pursued alternatives to the acquisition and whether the board obtained the best price possible for MINDBODY shares of common stock. Nationally recognized Johnson Fistel is investigating whether the proposed deal represents adequate consideration, especially given that one Wall Street analyst has a $45.00 price target on the stock, and analysts' projections for future earnings and revenue growth. The 52-week high for MINDBODY was $45.50. If you are a shareholder of MINDBODY and believe the proposed buyout price is too low or you're interested in learning more about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number. About Johnson Fistel, LLP: Johnson Fistel, LLP -- https://www.johnsonfistel.com -- is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York, and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. [GN] MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Kennedy Alleges Mislabeling of Graham Crackers --------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Kennedy individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Mondelez Global LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00302 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 15. 2019), contends that the Defendant' s label of its Honey Maid brand Graham crackers is misleading and deceptive, and creates an erroneous impression that graham flour is the predominant or exclusive flour component, as opposed to white flour. The lawsuit says the main ingredient in the Products is not graham flour but white flour -- unbleached enriched flour -- indicated on the ingredient list in miniscule font below the nutrition facts on the side panel. The Honey Maid brand has existed for almost 100 years and is synonymous with graham crackers, similar to other well-known consumer brands like Kleenex (facial tissues) and Vaseline (petroleum jelly). The common front label representations include "Honey Maid," "Made with Real Honey," "8g of Whole Grain per 31g serving," "No High Fructose Corn Syrup," the flavor variety, if any, and a statement of identity that the Products are "Grahams." Graham flour is a type of coarse-ground whole wheat flour, made from the whole grain. Consumers increasingly seek flours made from whole grain for its numerous health benefits compared to refined white flour, also referred to as unbleached enriched flour. The lawsuit claims the practice of passing off refined white flour mixed with small amounts of coarser bran (whole wheat) flour is a practice which has existed for over 100 years. While the form of the misleading practice has changed, deceptive representations of the amount of graham flour in products has not. Excluding tax, the Products cost no less than $2.99, a premium price compared to other similar products, the lawsuit says.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2527 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: joshua@levinepstein.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Binghams Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR BINGHAM and CAROLYN BINGHAM HIATT, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00059 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 15, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs say that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of the Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jessica L. Richman, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 6 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, NY 11050 Telephone: (516) 723-4627 Facsimile: (516) 723-4727 E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Campbell Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID CAMPBELL, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00084 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 16, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff says that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of the Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell W. Lewis IV, Esq. Kori Westbrook, Esq. JOHNSON LAW GROUP 1019 16th Avenue South Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 200-1122 Facsimile: (866) 902-8647 E-mail: rlewis@johnsonlawgroup.com kwestbrook@johnsonlawgroup.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Garner Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES GARNER, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00051 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 15, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff says that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of the Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC. 9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207-2950 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com Telephone: (913) 451 3433 Facsimile: (913) 839 0567 MONSANTO COMPANY: Herr Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Herr, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00056-SPM (E.D. Mo., Jan. 15, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff says that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of the Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC. 9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207-2950 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com Telephone: (913) 451 3433 Facsimile: (913) 839 0567 MONSANTO COMPANY: Ledvina Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD LEDVINA, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00048-PLC (E.D. Mo., Jan. 15, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff says that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of the Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC. 9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207-2950 Telephone: (913) 451 3433 Facsimile: (913) 839 0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Salamone Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS SALAMONE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00058 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 15, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff says that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of the Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Stewart Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM STEWART, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00060 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 16, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff says that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of the Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric D. Holland, Esq. HOLLAND LAW FIRM 300 North Tucker, Suite 801 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: 314-241-8111 Facsimile 314-241-5554 E-mail: eholland@allfela.com - and - Jessica L. Richman, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 6 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, NY 11050 Telephone: (516) 723-4627 Facsimile: (516) 723-4727 E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com NEINSTEIN LLP: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------- Reuters reported that a judge approved a settlement in a certified class action that alleged a breach of the Solicitors Act, according to Neinstein LLP, the firm named in the case, Hodge v. Neinstein. While it is unclear how many clients will actually make claims, the firm could pay up to $4 million, a figure yielded by an estimate submitted for court approval Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Perell, says Greg Neinstein, managing partner at the firm. Duncan Embury, a partner at the firm, says it is impossible to know how much the firm will ultimately pay out. The case centered on whether there was a breach of the Solicitors Act, which says that a contingency fee agreement should not include a payment to the lawyer resulting from a costs award or settlement costs, according to a 2017 Court of Appeal decision on the matter. The dispute was the "canary in a coal mine" of the confusion in the profession around the wording and interpretation of the Solicitors Act, which has since been clarified by the Law Society of Ontario and the provincial government, Neinstein says. "When there was obvious confusion, we acted immediately and we are proud of that," says Embury. "We continue to believe that access to justice is one of the most fundamental rights in our society and its important it be achieved in an open and transparent way." [GN] OASIS OUTSOURCING: Isha Smith Seeks Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------ ISHA SMITH, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. OASIS OUTSOURCING INC., the Defendant(s), Case No. 9:19-cv-80055-DMM (S.D. Fla., Jan. 15, 2019), seeks damages exceeding $15,000 excluding attorneys' fees or costs resulting from Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act According to the complaint, the Plaintiff performed work for Defendant from on or about May 27, 2018 to on or about August 11, 2018 as a manager. The Plaintiff was paid $10.00 hourly and bi-weekly in the form of a check. The Plaintiff's hours were recorded by digit entering and the Plaintiff always clocked in and out of work. The Plaintiff worked about a total of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff would usually stay to cover other employees after her own shift, but would not get compensated for her time. The Plaintiff's hours compensated for never aligned with her actual hours worked. The Plaintiff complained about these discrepancies, but was also presented with excuses as to why they did not pay her. The Plaintiff contends she is owed between about 40-50 hours, about $400.00 to $500.00 in unpaid wages. Once Plaintiff realized that was owed that amount and that she would not be compensated, she quit the company (Checkers Fast-Food Restaurant), the lawsuit says. Oasis Outsourcing Holdings Inc. operates as a professional employer organization that provides workforce solutions for businesses in the United States.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Rainier Regueiro, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Comeau Building 319 Clematis Street, Suite 606 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 225-1970 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: rregueiro@rgpattorneys.com PACIFIC COAST: Faces Garcia Suit in Sacramento, California ---------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against JOSE GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC COAST SUPPLY LLC; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00247748-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 4, 2019) Pacific Coast Supply, LLC, through its subsidiaries, markets and distributes building materials. The company was founded in 1960 and is based in North Highlands, California. Pacific Coast Supply, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Pacific Coast Building Products, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Douglas Han, Esq. PANDORA MEDIA: Faces 8 Suits over Sirius XM Merger -------------------------------------------------- Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 18, 2019, that the company is facing eight purported class action suits related to its merger agreement with Sirius XM Holdings Inc. On September 23, 2018, Pandora Media, Inc. ("Pandora") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement") with Sirius XM Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Sirius XM"), and White Oaks Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sirius XM ("Merger Sub"). On October 25, 2018, Sirius XM Radio Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sirius XM ("Sirius XM Radio"), Billboard Holding Company, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pandora ("New Holding Company"), and Billboard Acquisition Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of New Holding Company ("Holdco Merger Sub") entered into a joinder agreement to become parties to the Merger Agreement. Following the announcement of the Merger Agreement, eight purported class action complaints have been filed on behalf of Pandora's stockholders against Pandora and its directors and one complaint has been brought by an individual holder of Pandora common stock; six of these matters in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, two in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and one in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda. The complaints are captioned as follows: Kapela v. Pandora Media, Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.); Knapp v. Pandora Media, Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.); Gallant v. Pandora Media, Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.); Thompson v. Pandora Media, Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.); Dawson v. Pandora Media, Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.); Raul v. Pandora Media, Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.); Sciabacucchi v. Pandora Media, Inc., et al. (D. Del.); Staab v. Pandora Media, Inc., et al. (D. Del.); and Irvin v. Pandora Media, Inc., et al. (Cal. Sup. Ct.). The Kapela, Sciabacucchi, and Dawson matters also name Sirius XM and Merger Sub as defendants. The Irvin matter has been dismissed without prejudice. The company refers to these nine actions collectively as the "Merger Litigation". Pandora believes that the claims asserted in the Merger Litigation are without merit and supplemental disclosures are not required or necessary under applicable laws. However, in order to avoid the risk of the Merger Litigation delaying or adversely affecting the transactions and to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Pandora is voluntarily supplementing the Proxy Statement. In consideration for these supplemental disclosures, plaintiffs in the actions have agreed to voluntarily dismiss the actions. Pandora and the other named defendants deny that they have violated any laws or breached any duties to Pandora's stockholders. Pandora and the other named defendants are providing these supplemental disclosures solely to eliminate the burden and expense of litigation and to avoid any possible disruption to the merger that could result from further litigation. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://goo.gl/HoVFPD. The supplemental disclosures will not affect the merger consideration to be received by stockholders of Pandora in connection with the transactions or the timing of the special meeting of the stockholders of Pandora scheduled for January 29, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. Pacific time, at Cathedral of Christ the Light Event Center, Conference Room AB, 2121 Harrison St., Oakland, CA 94612. The Pandora board of directors continues to recommend that Pandora stockholders vote "FOR" the merger agreement proposal and "FOR" the other proposals being considered at the special meeting. Pandora Media, Inc. provides music discovery platform services in the United States and internationally. The company offers streaming radio and on-demand music services, which enable the listeners to create personalized stations and playlists, as well as search and play songs and albums on-demand. Pandora Media, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Oakland, California. PFIZER INC: Al Haj Class Certification Bid Continued to March 6 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Karmel Al Haj, et al., the Plaintiff, vs. Pfizer Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06730 (N.D. Ill.), Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order continuing Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel to March 6, 2019. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on Jan. 15, 2019, status hearing held and continued to March 6, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. The Plaintiff's motion to intervene is withdrawn. Joint oral motion to extend time to respond to summary judgment motion is granted. The Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant's summary judgment motion by Feb. 1, 2019; and reply due is by March 1, 2019. For the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel is entered and continued to March 6, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., with no briefing schedule set at this time.[CC] PLASTIPAK PACKAGING: Class Cert. Bid in Hernandez Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HECTOR HERNANDEZ, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PLASTIPAK PACKAGING, INC., a foreign profit corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-02826-JSM-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James S. Moody entered an order on Jan. 15, 2019, denying Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action and facilitate notice to potential class of: "all current and former Maintenance Mechanics employed by Plastipak Packaging, Inc., nationwide, within in [sic] three year period preceding November 22, 2017 (Putative Class), who worked over 40 hours in one or more workweeks and who were paid a shift differential in one or more such workweeks". The Court, having reviewed the motion, response, and being otherwise advised in the premises, concludes that Plaintiff's motion should be denied because he has not established that similarly situated employees desire to opt-in this action.[CC] POWERLINE FUNDING: Benitez Files Suit Asserting TCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- Mariano Benitez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Powerline Funding, LLC, a New York limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00098 (C.D. Cal., January 21, 2019) seeks to: (1) stop Defendant's practice of placing calls using an "automatic telephone dialing system" ("ATDS") and/or using an "artificial or prerecorded voice" to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent, (2) enjoin Defendant from continuing to place autodialed and/or prerecorded telephone calls to consumers who have elected to opt-out of receiving them, and (3) obtain redress for all persons injured by Defendant's conduct. Plaintiff also seeks an award of statutory damages to the members of the Classes, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. By making unauthorized prerecorded and/or autodialed calls, Powerline has caused consumers actual harm, says the complaint. This includes the aggravation, nuisance and invasions of privacy that result from the placement of such calls. Furthermore, the Defendant made the calls knowing they trespassed against and interfered with Plaintiff and the other class members' use and enjoyment of, and the ability to access, their cellphones, including the related data, software, and hardware components, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Mariano Benitez is a natural person over the age of 18 who resides in Anaheim, Orange County, California. Powerline Funding LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron D. Aftergood, Esq. THE AFTERGOOD LAW FIRM 1880 Century Park East, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 550-5221 Facsimile: (310) 496-2840 Email: aaron@aftergoodesq.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Taylor T. Smith, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Phone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com R.J. REYNOLDS: Removes Kec Suit to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of NICHOLE KEC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY; REYNOLDS AMERICAN, INC.; STACI MEYER; WILLIAM ROTH; DANIEL HARRINGTON; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange (Case No. 30-2018-01031808-CU-OE-CXC) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on January 4, 2019. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00020-DOC-DFM. The case is assigned to Judge David O. Carter and referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company manufactures and markets cigarettes for adult tobacco consumers in the United States. The company was founded in 1875 and is based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company operates as a subsidiary of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Mirzayan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NATALIE MIRZAYAN 26632 Towne Centre Drive Suite 300 Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 Telephone: (949) 285-3550 E-mail: mirzayanlaw@outlook.com The Defendants are represented by: Steven M Zadravecz, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612-4408 Telephone: (949) 851-3939 Facsimile: (949) 553-7539 E-mail: szadravecz@jonesday.com - and - Allison Elizabeth Crow, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 Facsimile: (415) 875-5828 E-mail: acrow@jonesday.com - and - Liat Yamini, Esq. JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 489-3939 Facsimile: (213) 243-2539 E-mail: lyamini@jonesday.com REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Class Certification Sought in Reince Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Reince moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit captioned LINDA REINCE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00095-JPS (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 contends. 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 RELIANT CAPITAL: Certification of Class Sought in Kasper Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Cara Kasper moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit styled CARA KASPER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RELIANT CAPITAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00098 (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 contends. 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 RENT-A-CENTER: May 3 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION ALAN HALL AND JAMES DEPALMA, PLAINTIFFS, CIVIL NO. 4:16-CV-00978-ALM-CMC v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC., ROBERT D. DAVIS, AND GUY J. CONSTANT, DEFENDANTS. SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All Persons Who Purchased or Otherwise Acquired Rent-A-Center, Inc. Publicly-Traded Common Stock During the Period from February 2, 2015 Through October 10, 2016, Inclusive and Who Were Allegedly Damaged Thereby (the "Settlement Class"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, that Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, on behalf of itself, additional named plaintiff City of Hollywood Employees' Retirement Fund, and the proposed Settlement Class, and Rent-A-Center, Inc., Robert D. Davis, and Guy J. Constant, (collectively, the "Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the above-captioned action (the "Action") in the amount of $11,000,000 that, if approved, will resolve the Action in its entirety (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Amos L. Mazzant, III of the United District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, at the Paul Brown United States Courthouse, 101 East Pecan Street, Sherman, TX 75090, Courtroom 208, at 10:00 a.m. on May 3, 2019 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated December 3, 2018; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Net Settlement Fund; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Notice and Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website dedicated to the Settlement, www.RentACenterSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Hall v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. Claims Administrator P.O. Box 3727 Portland, OR 97208-3727 (877) 432-3842 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: Jonathan Gardner, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com (888) 219-6877 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or received no later than May 2, 2019. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that it is received no later than April 12, 2019. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application must be filed with the Court and mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are filed and received no later than April 12, 2019. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: January 16, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS RONALD ERDOS: Gallant Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeremy P. Gallant, the Plaintiff, vs. Ronald Erdos et al, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00039-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify class. Erdos is the warden at Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC). The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC] RUBY IV LLC: Two Classes Certified Under FLSA in Kidwell Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Barry W. Ashe grants the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify classes and denied the motion to strike the Elaal and Sharaf Affidavits in the lawsuit captioned TAMMY KIDWELL, et al. v. RUBY IV, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02052-BWA-MBN (E.D. La.). The Court conditionally certified these classes pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act: (1) All hourly workers working for the Defendants between June 13, 2015, and the present, to whom Defendants did not pay overtime compensation for hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek, including hostesses, managers and other hourly workers (collectively referred to as the "Overtime FLSA Collective"); and (2) All servers (waiters/waitresses) working for the Defendants between June 13, 2015, and the present, who were not paid $7.25/hour for hours worked under forty (40) in a workweek and/or the minimum overtime rate of $10.88 for hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek (the "Server FLSA Collective"). Judge Ashe also rules that within 14 days of the date of this Order & Reasons, the Defendants shall provide to the Plaintiffs' counsel the names, last-known addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, dates of employment, and work locations (by the name of the particular Ruby/Ruba LLC) of all putative collective action members. Ms. Kidwell's proposed written notice to putative collective action members and proposed opt-in consent forms are approved with certain changes. Counsel for the Plaintiffs shall submit to the Court within five days of the date of this Order & Reasons for final approval a revised proposed written notice that incorporates the changes. Counsel for the Plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the date that the Court approves the revised proposed written notice to transmit the notice and consent forms to the putative collective action members via first-class mail, e-mail, and text message. Opt-in plaintiffs are granted a period of 90 days from the date that the notice and consent forms are mailed to return their signed consent forms to the Plaintiffs' counsel via mail, e-mail, fax, or electronic signature service. The Defendants shall post the written notice and consent forms in conspicuous locations at their headquarters and all of their IHOP restaurant locations during the 90-day opt-in period. The Defendants and their management are prohibited from retaliating against any individual, who exercises his or her right under the FLSA or opts into this lawsuit.[CC] SACRAMENTO, CA: Judge Set to Rule on County Jail Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Crescenzo Vellucci, writing for Vanguard Sacramento Bureau, reports that 'Tis the season to be jolly? Peace and goodwill to all? Well, maybe not for some housed in Sacramento County jails. Just days before Christmas, the Davis Vanguard was alerted that a federal judge will soon rule on the certification of a federal class action lawsuit against both Sacramento County jails -- the filing charges the long-troubled facilities with "unconstitutional and illegal treatment" of about 3,800 men and women, and has subjected them to "dangerous, inhumane, and degrading conditions." Details -- after the Vanguard analyzed the lawsuit describing the treatment to inmates -- are disturbing and horrific in nature, and unsuitable during these "happy" holidays when "peace and goodwill to all" echoes through "the halls." Declarations by Sacramento County Jail inmates/plaintiffs read in large part like something prisoners of war might divulge -- wounds not treated and allowed to rot, blindness caused by a failure of treatment, no exposure to sunlight for months and even years, total isolation with no access to human contact, inhumane conditions and inhumane treatment. A synopsis of those declarations by prisoner plaintiffs -- including some who have been incarcerated, still awaiting trials for up to 10 years -- are available at the bottom of this story. The lawsuit, filed last July 31, 2018, ensued after a several-year negotiation with the County of Sacramento broke down. https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/cases/mays-v-county-of-sacramento The court has now signaled it's about to make a final ruling on the certification of the suit as a class action, according to plaintiff lawyers, Disability Rights California and the Prison Law Office. A tentative ruling by a magistrate judge in November supported the class action. The downtown and Rio Cosumnes jails have long been considered to be among the worst in the state and nation. Many organizations in Sacramento have pushed for changes to no avail for the nearly 4,000 prisoners, the majority of which have not been convicted of a crime. Experts who have investigated the conditions at the Sacramento County Jail for a decade or more said the conditions are "unlikely to meet constitutional standards" and identified "serious violations" of the rights of people with disabilities, according the claims in the lawsuit. According to the federal filing, the county fails to provide even minimal medical care, doesn't screen for medical conditions and does not respond in a "timely" manner to requests for medical care, leaving prisoners at serious risk of injury or death. "Individuals held in the county's jails have been denied essential cancer treatment, lost their eyesight where treatment could have prevented it, and faced needless pain and irreparable harms due to delayed or denied care (failing) adequately screen people with disabilities or provide them necessary accommodations, including wheelchairs, canes, eyeglasses, hearing aids, and other items they need to perform everyday activities," reads the lawsuit. "The conditions that people with serious mental health needs and disabilities face inside Sacramento County's jails are beyond the pale," said Aaron Fischer, Litigation Counsel at Disability Rights California. "You don't have to take our word for it. The County's own consultants have condemned the jail system as dangerous, inadequate, and dramatically out of step with contemporary standards." For example, Sacramento County locks up hundreds of people in solitary confinement, where they spend all but a few hours a month in a cell alone -- they usually don't see sunlight for months. The suit said at least five people died by suicide in the last two years, and hundreds of others became suicidal during that time. The lawsuit alleges, in part: "Defendant regularly subjects people in its custody -- the majority of whom have not been convicted of any crime -- to harsh, prolonged, and undue isolation. Every day, Defendant locks up hundreds of people in solitary confinement in dark, cramped, filthy cells for 23-1/2 hours or more per day. While these individuals are held in isolation, Defendant deprives them of human contact, programming, fresh air, and sunlight. Many people do not get outside to see the sun for weeks or months at a time. The extreme isolation and deprivation place people at serious risk of profound physical and psychological harm." "Defendant incarcerates people with serious mental illness at dangerous and disproportionately high rates. Defendant subjects people with serious mental illness to extreme isolation, with little or no mental health treatment. Defendant's failure to provide minimally adequate mental health treatment -- combined with the deplorable conditions of confinement in the jails -- exacerbates individuals' existing mental illnesses and increases the likelihood that people will suffer serious decompensation or death," further charges the complaint. "Sacramento County is well aware of the serious problems inside its jails," said Margot Mendelson, Staff Attorney at the Prison Law Office. "Our clients are entirely dependent on the jail system for their health care and basic needs. They are suffering needlessly due to the County's failure to commit the resources to meet its constitutional and legal obligations." Disability Rights California and the Prison Law Office have successfully litigated class action cases in jails throughout the State regarding conditions of confinement. "It remains our sincere hope that this case can be resolved without the need for costly litigation," said Aaron Fischer. "But we are prepared to seek a remedy in court to end the violation of our clients' rights. Our clients can wait no longer." Plaintiff #1: "I am diagnosed with mastocytosis , which means that I have chronic respiratory and allergy needs. On at least fifteen occasions, I have been transported from the Jail to a hospital for emergency medical care for intubations and anaphylaxis treatment. I believe that proper treatment of my condition would have prevented many, if not all, of my hospital emergency room visits. "On one occasion, I told jail staff that I was experiencing hives all over my body and shortness of breath due to an allergic reaction. The medical staff accused me of lying and did not provide me with the treatment I needed. I spent the night fearing that my throat would close up entirely. And the itching was excruciating; I scratched so much that my skin bled. When (staff) decided to transport me to a hospital. The hospital kept me as an inpatient for more than a month to recover from the incident. "In 2015, medical staff told me that I need to see a glaucoma specialist about my declining eyesight. I have reminded the Jail's in-house ophthalmologist every time I see him, and I have submitted numerous medical service requests about this…(three years later) I have lost nearly all vision in my left eye. The vision in my right eye has also deteriorated, I understand that I am at risk of becoming permanently blind. "I lost hope and it became difficult to cope in the isolated cell. I felt lonely and afraid for my health. I was so stressed that I could not take it anymore. I tried to end my life by swallowing several pieces of metal I had found . I then created a noose out of my bedsheets, wrapped it around my neck and attempted to hang myself. I was told that jail staff found me unconscious on the floor." Plaintiff #2: "I am diagnosed with mental health disorders and take psychotropic medications to manage my symptoms. I have struggled with thoughts of suicide, and have attempted suicide on more than one occasion. When I first arrived at Sacramento County Jail…Staff placed me alone in a cell and did not permit me to interact with other people. I received no more than thirty minutes out of my cell every other day. This meant that I could not communicate with my family. "This, on top of the isolation, made me want to give up. I soon stopped even leaving my cell during the minimal times I was permitted. I also stopped bothering to get out of my bed for count. I became mentally exhausted and suicidal. "I have told staff that I felt suicidal on at least four occasions. Each time, my clothes were taken away and I was either placed in a cold cell or in a large classroom. The cell was a dark and bare room with only a grate in the floor to use as a toilet. The classroom was just as bad. It was brightly lit and surrounded by wide windows for anyone (inmates, staff, and visitors) passing by to see me in my most vulnerable state, with only a safety smock to cover my body. Sometimes I would tell staff that I felt better in order to escape the cell or the classroom, because of how uncomfortable and humiliated I felt." Plaintiff #3: "I am diagnosed with severe cataracts and have limited vision. My doctor and jail medical staff have told me that I need surgery to treat my cataracts, and that without timely surgery, I am at risk of complete blindness (but) I have not received such a surgery for over fourteen months. Without the treatment that medical staff say I need, I have completely lost vision in my right eye and the vision in my left eye continues to get worse. "I also experience increased and painful pressure behind my eyes. Because of my untreated eye condition, I also often become too dizzy to stand. Because of my limited and worsening vision, I asked jail staff to place me in a cell on the lower tier, so that I did not have scale the stairs to my bed. My request for this housing accommodation was denied, and I was housed on an upper tier for months. It was a scary journey every time I had to go down and up the stairs for meals, medication, or other activities. "(T)he jail held me in an isolation unit . . . (but) I have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorder, and depressive disorder. My experience in isolation units in the jail has aggravated my mental health symptoms in a way that I believe will affect me the rest of my life . . . staff kept me alone in my cell all day, except for no more than thirty minutes every other day when staff permitted me to shower and use the phone." Plaintiff #4: "I was identified as a polytrauma patient, which means I have experienced serious injuries to multiple parts of my body, including a fractured pelvis and injuries to a network of nerves that connect to my spinal cord. The jail refused to give me a wheelchair when I asked for it. Instead, they gave me a walker without wheels and that was too heavy for me to maneuver given my condition. When I asked for a different walker that was lighter and had wheels, medical staff did not provide one. "As a result, I had a very difficult time getting around inside the jail. I tripped over the walker many times. I was constantly dizzy, in extreme pain, and exhausted. Many of the jail staff watched me fall and even cry. I grew very tired of not being able to walk and going through all of this, and I even considered suicide. "In 2017, I was placed in disciplinary segregation for nearly one month. The cell was small and filthy. The staff placed magnetic slabs over the small window on the cell door. I could not see outside of my cell to know the time of day or to see other people. I had no normal interactions with other human beings. For weeks, I was not permitted to leave my cell -- I could not take a shower, make phone calls, or even take out the trash that was accumulating in my cell." Plaintiff #5: I no longer have function in the lower half of my body, including in both of my legs. I use a wheelchair for mobility (but) I cannot safely access many physical spaces and activities at the jail. "I cannot get into the confidential attorney visiting booth using my wheelchair. The entrance to the booth is at a very sharp right angle and is too narrow for my wheelchair. The threshold in the doorway is also too high for my wheelchair to get over, and the door itself is heavy and closes quickly without any way for me to safely prop it open as I enter. Every visit from my attorney is a harrowing experience for me. "For each meeting, I have to leave my wheelchair outside of the booth, which means that I have to maneuver my body into the attorney booth in a way that is dangerous and painful. There is a small steel stool that is anchored to the floor inside the booth, which I cannot reach from the door without crawling across the floor. Instead, I typically drag a plastic chair to the booth, and heave it into the booth while I am still in my wheelchair. "Once the plastic chair is in the room, I have to simultaneously hold open the heavy door and hoist myself out of the wheelchair, through the doorway, and into the plastic chair. Because the attorney visiting booth is non-contact, my lawyer can do nothing but watch me through the window partition while I do all of this. "The showers in the unit where I am housed are inaccessible. There is only one grab bar and the shower chair is old, flimsy and on wheels. The first time I showered in the unit was a humiliating experience. I fell out of the shower chair when it rolled and became stuck in the drain. Without adequate supports around me, I had to drag my body across the filthy shower floor and out of the shower back to my wheelchair. "I can only come out of my cell into the dayroom and watch television. I rarely, if ever, get to go outside, and there is no way for me to do exercises in the unit without assistance, which is not provided. I did not have diabetes when I entered the jail, but I do now, in part because I have no meaningful opportunities for healthy exercise. I feel the way that I have to live, without exercise or physical therapy, is breaking my spirit." Plaintiff #6: (In custody, without trial, since 2010) "I have been held in isolation…I am in a single cell and am not permitted to have normal human interactions with other people. I am not allowed to leave my cell for more than thirty minutes each day (and usually much less than that). "I rarely, if ever, get to go outside. I have not had real exposure to sunlight for years. This has led to health problems. For example, in 2016, I was diagnosed with a Vitamin D deficiency, a condition I understand can be caused or worsened by inadequate exposure to sunlight. My skin became covered in rashes and severely itchy. The condition has kept me awake at night. Jail medical staff have explained to me that the conditions of my confinement make me more vulnerable to this health problem. "Jail staff have also refused to provide the corrective lenses I need for seeing and reading, even though I have requested this help many times. As a result, I have had problems participating in my court-ordered competency training, which involves reading written materials. I have not received the assistance from jail staff that I need to read and understand my documents. "While an inmate at the jail, I was assaulted and suffered bad injuries for which I did not receive the medical care I needed…my hand was broken in several places, requiring pins to be surgically placed in my hand to help it heal. But after the surgery, the pins began causing me pain. I submitted several jail medical service requests and verbally requested help…the pins even began to pierce through my skin causing me to bleed. It developed into an open wound. I complained and submitted medical requests for twelve months before I finally received medical attention to address the problem." [GN] SPACE EXPLORATION: Burke Suit Asserts FCRA Violation ---------------------------------------------------- Seymore Burke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. dba Space X, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00445 (C.D. Cal., January 21, 2019) challenges the actions of Defendant with regard to Defendant's wrongful use of Plaintiff's and the putative Class's credit reports, by failing to provide them with copies of the findings, that caused damages. In or about January 2017, Defendant obtained Plaintiff's consumer credit report. The Defendants obtained Plaintiff's consumer credit report as part of a "private investigation" it was conducting pursuant to a background check required for employment with the Defendant. In the process of this private investigation, Plaintiff was not provided any disclosures as required when Plaintiff's consumer credit report is investigated as part of a background check for employment. By doing so, Defendants improperly requested Plaintiff's credit report without any permissible purpose. The Defendant failed to provide to Plaintiff the required disclosure for obtaining his consumer credit report for the purposes of employment, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a natural person, residing in the County of Orange, in the State of California, who is a "consumer" as defined by the FCRA. Space X is a company located in Hawthorne, California, and incorporated in Delaware, who conducts business in California and is a "person" as that term is defined by the FCRA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: 877-206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com - and - John R. Habashy, Esq. Tiffany N. Buda, Esq. Taryn E. Short, Esq. LEXICON LAW, PC 633 W. 5th Street, 28th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (877) 529-5090 Fax: (888) 373-2107 Email: john@lexiconlaw.com tiffany@lexiconlaw.com taryn@lexiconlaw.com STEARNS LENDING: Solarski & Schaeg Seek to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORI SOLARSKI and CASSANDRA SCHAEG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. STEARNS LENDING, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01741-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal.), th Plaintiff will move the Court on April 15, 2019, for an order: a. certifying a Class of: "all persons who had an FHA-Insured Loan secured by real property 28 in California that was originated between June 1, 1996 and January 20, 2015, where (i) Stearns was the mortgagee as of the date the total amount due on the FHA-Insured Loan was brought to zero, (ii) Stearns collected Post-Payment Interest on the FHA-Insured Loan during the applicable Limitations Period, and (iii) the borrower made a prepayment inquiry, request for payoff figures, or tender of prepayment but did not receive a Payoff Statement containing the verbatim Post-Payment Interest disclosure language in Housing Handbook, 4330.1 REV-5 Appendix 8(c) or the verbatim language contained in the "Payoff Disclosure" referenced in the Housing Handbook 7 4000.1." Excluded from the Class are Stearns, all officers, directors, and employees of Stearns, and their legal representatives, heirs, or assigns, and any Judges to whom the Action is assigned, their staffs, and their immediate families.; b. appointing Epps, Holloway, DeLoach & Holloway, LLC and Robins Kaplan, LLP as class counsel for the proposed Class; and c. appointing Lori Solarski as class representative.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Michael F. Ram, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100 Mountain View, CA 94040 Telephone: 650 784 4040 Facsimile: 650 784 4041 E-mail: mram@robinskaplan.com - and - Kevin E. Epps, Esq. Adam L. Hoipkemier, Esq. EPPS, HOLLOWAY, DELOACH & HOIPKEMIER, LLC 1220 Langford Drive, Bldg. 200 Watkinsville, GA 30677 E-mail: kevin@ehdhlaw.com adam@ehdhlaw.com SYNCHRONY BANK: McMullen Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled VALERIE McMULLEN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SYNCHRONY BANK, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01983-JEB (D.D.C.), submits her Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Final Certification of Class for Settlement Purposes. Ms. McMullen informs the Court that Defendant Synchrony Bank does not oppose her requested relief.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Salvatore J. Zambri, Esq. Patrick M. Regan, Esq. Christopher J. Regan, Esq. REGAN ZAMBRI LONG 1919 M Street, NW, Suite 350 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 463-3030 Facsimile: (202) 463-0667 E-mail: szambri@reganfirm.com pregan@reganfirm.com cregan@reganfirm.com - and - Brendan J. Klaproth, Esq. Jesse C. Klaproth, Esq. KLAPROTH LAW PLLC 406 5th Street NW, Suite 350 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 618-2344 Facsimile: (202) 618-4636 E-mail: bklaproth@klaprothlaw.com jklaproth@klaprothlaw.com TAKATA CORP: Court Approves $300MM Airbag Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glenn Minnis, writing for Florida Record, reports that a federal court judge in Florida has approved the nearly $300-million settlement between Ford car owners and Japanese manufacturer Takata Corp. over defective airbags motorists allege exploded when deploying. U.S. District Court Judge Federico Moreno signed off on the $299.1 million settlement on Dec. 20. The judge's ruling also ended a dispute over attorney fees by stipulating that attorneys for the plaintiffs receive $74,775,000, or 25 percent of the common fund. The class-action suit followed one of the largest auto recalls in history and came after the airbags in question were cited as having caused severe injuries and even deaths in some cases. In addition to Ford, Takata Corp. has a history of supplying airbags to several other automakers, including Toyota and Honda. In rendering his verdict on the issue of fees, Moreno asserted, "The Court finds that the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate based on the following factors, among other things: (a) there is no fraud or collusion underlying the settlement agreement; (b) the complexity,, expense, uncertainty and likely duration of litigation in the action favor settlement on behalf of the class; ( c) the settlement agreement provides meaningful benefits to the class; and ( d) any and all other applicable factors that favor final approval." The Ford settlement is similar to others entered into over the faulty airbags reached with automakers Toyota, BMW, Mazda, Subaru, Nissan and Honda. Litigation is still pending with a list of automakers that include GM, Fiat Chrysler, Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz. Peter Prieto, a partner with the Florida based firm of Podhurst Orseck, served as lead counsel for the plaintiffs over the duration of the nearly two-year proceedings. [GN] TAMPA BAY OPERATIONS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- DORRAINE COOPER-ROONEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAMPA BAY OPERATIONS, LLC; SWF OPERATIONS, LLC; GULF COAST OPERATIONS, LLC; EM OPERATIONS, LLC; PINE ISLAND OPERATIONS, LLC; SFDP OPERATIONS, LLC; WEHBE ROCKIN, INC.; WEHBE JAMMIN, INC.; ERIN MULLINS; KEITH SMITH; and FREDDIE WEHBE, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-01399-SDM-MAP (M.D. Fla., Jan. 4, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Cooper-Rooney was employed by the Defendants as delivery driver. Tampa Bay Operations, LLC is a Florida limited liability company. The Company operates Domino pizza stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, 14th Floor Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew Kimble, Esq. Philip Krzeski, Esq. MARKOVITS STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com akimble@msdlegal.com TARGET CORP: Averts Cashier Class Action in Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------- Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Target Corp. and Starbucks Corp. won't have to face a class action alleging cashiers take a cut when customers try to add money to their Starbucks accounts. The suit is frivolous because the plaintiff didn't back up his claims for fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or negligence, Judge Edward J. Cleary of the Minnesota Court of Appeals wrote Dec. 24 in an unpublished opinion. Roy A. Day sued the companies after he attempted to deposit five dollars in his Starbucks account at a location inside a Target store but only one dollar was deposited. He alleged Target's one-dollar minimum deposit allows cashiers to credit the account just one dollar and pocket the rest. Mr. Day can't proceed with a claim for fraud because he didn't allege the companies made a false statement that he relied on and lost money, the court said. His distress claim failed too. "Although appellant may conclude that the alleged theft of his four dollars is outrageous, such an occurrence is not utterly intolerable to the civilized community," the court said. His negligent hiring and supervision claims fail because he didn't allege any physical harm, the court said. Judges Louise Dovre Bjorkman and John R. Rodenberg joined the opinion. Mr. Day represented himself. Counsel for Target and Starbucks didn't make appearances at the appeals court. The case is Day v. Target Corp., 2018 BL 476885, Minn. Ct. App., No. A18-0611, 12/24/18. [GN] TOKYO ELECTRIC: Prosecutors Say Execs Fail to Safeguard Plant ------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Chappell, writing for wvnc91.5, reports that the former chairman and two vice presidents of the Tokyo Electric Power Co. should spend five years in prison over the 2011 flooding and meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, Japanese prosecutors say, accusing the executives of failing to prevent a foreseeable catastrophe. Prosecutors say the TEPCO executives didn't do enough to protect the nuclear plant, despite being told in 2002 that the Fukushima facility was vulnerable to a tsunami. In March of 2011, it suffered meltdowns at three of its reactors, along with powerful hydrogen explosions. "It was easy to safeguard the plant against tsunami, but they kept operating the plant heedlessly," prosecutors said on Dec. 26, according to The Asahi Shimbun. "That led to the deaths of many people." Former TEPCO Chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata, 78; former Vice President Ichiro Takekuro, 72; and former Vice President Sakae Muto, 68, face charges of professional negligence resulting in death and injury. Messrs. Muto and Takekuro once led the utility's nuclear division. All three have pleaded not guilty in Tokyo District Court, saying they could not have predicted the tsunami. The stricken plant triggered mandatory evacuations for thousands of people. Prosecutors link 44 deaths to the incident, including a number of hospital patients who were forced to leave their facilities. The sentencing recommendation came as prosecutors made their closing arguments on Dec. 26, more than two years after the executives were initially indicted. The next step in the case will see a lawyer for victims and their families speak in court on Dec. 27. But it won't be until March of 2019 that defense lawyers will deliver their closing arguments, according to Japan's NHK News. Hinting at what the defense's argument might be, NHK cites the prosecutors saying, "the former executives later claimed that they had not been informed, and that the executives put all the blame on their subordinates." The case has taken a twisting journey to arrive at this point. In two instances, public prosecutors opted not to seek indictments against the three TEPCO executives. But an independent citizen's panel disagreed, and in early 2016, prosecutors in the case -- all court-appointed lawyers -- secured indictments against the three former TEPCO leaders. Both TEPCO and the Japanese government lost a class-action lawsuit in late 2017, when a court found that officials had not prepared enough for potential disaster at the Fukushima power plant. In that case, the Fukushima district court ordered payments totaling nearly $4.5 million to about 3,800 plaintiffs. All told, around 19,000 people are estimated to have died in eastern Japan's triple disaster that included a powerful earthquake off the coast of Tohoku, a devastating tsunami, and the worst nuclear meltdown since the Chernobyl catastrophe of 1986. In September, Japan's government announced the first death due to radiation that was released at the Fukushima plant. The region is still sharply feeling the results of the calamity. As of late November, more than 30,000 people who fled the area had still not returned, Kyodo News reports. [GN] TRANS WORLD: Class Cert. Bid in Spack et al. Suit Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CAROL SPACK, TABITHA SCHMIDT, the Plaintiffs, vs. TRANS WORLD ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION; RECORD TOWN, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01335-TJM-CFH (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Christian F. Hummel entered an order on Jan. 15, 2019: 1. granting in part Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify as a collective action pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act section 216(b): (a) Plaintiffs may conditionally certify their misclassification claim as to Store Managers, (b) Plaintiffs are permitted to set up a website, within the confines specified; (c) Plaintiffs are granted permission to send one reminder notice by U.S. mail; and (d) Defendants are ordered to post the Court-approved notice form in a conspicuous location in each of their stores for the entire duration of the notice period; 2. denying in part Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify as a Collective Action pursuant to FLSA section 216(b): (a) Plaintiffs' request to certify their off-the-clock claim is denied; (b) Plaintiffs' request to allow potential opt-in plaintiffs to submit their consent to join forms by e-mail, website, or fax is denied; and (c) Plaintiffs' request to send a reminder notice by e-mail is denied; 3. permitting Plaintiffs to distribute the Court-authorized notice form; 4. accepting proposed consent form with the edits; 5. accepting proposed reminder form with the edits; 6. considering as potential Plaintiffs all those who were employed as SMs for at least one week from April 1, 2014, to the date of the Memorandum-Decision & Order; 7. directing Defendants to provide to Plaintiffs, within 21 days of the date of this Memorandum-Decision & Order -- by February 5, 2019 -- the names, work locations, dates of employment, telephone numbers, work e-mail addresses, and last known addresses of all current and former Store Managers who worked at any of the TWEC locations in the United States for at least one week from April 1, 2014, to the date of the Memorandum-Decision & Order; 8. directing that the notice period is 60 days, beginning on February 5, 2019 -- the date by which Defendants' must turn over to plaintiffs the information specified above -- and ending on April 6, 2019; and 9. directing the Clerk of the Court to serve the Memorandum- Decision & Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.[CC] TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Files Motion to Disqualify 2 Attorneys ---------------------------------------------------------- Jimmie E. Gates, writing for Mississippi Clarion Ledger, reports that Trustmark National Bank has yet to answer a federal class-action lawsuit against the bank over overdraft fees, but it has filed a motion to disqualify two Washington-based attorneys from the lawsuit. Trustmark said in the motion filed that attorneys Jeffrey Kaliel and Sophia Gold of the Washington, D.C., law firm Kaliel PLLC made an unauthorized appearance in the case. The complaint shows that it was submitted by attorneys Christopher J. Weldy, Mr. Kaliel and Ms. Gold as attorneys for plaintiffs, according to Trustmark. Trustmark said Mr. Weldy is licensed to practice in Mississippi, but Mr. Kaliel and Gold are not licensed to practice in Mississippi and have not been admitted to practice in the specific case by a judge. "Attorneys Kaliel and Gold have made an unlawful appearance in this court in violation of Local Rule 83, for which the penalty is mandatory disqualification," Trustmark Attorney David Kaufman said in the court motion. Earlier in December, two Mississippi women filed the lawsuit. Cryesha McDonald of Waynesboro and Chantal Lewis of Jackson alleged Trustmark routinely assesses overdraft fees on transactions that didn't actually overdraft an account. The lawsuit also alleges Trustmark has a policy of assessing two out-of-network automated teller machine fees on a single cash withdrawal and three out-of-network fees on ATM withdrawals preceded by a purported balance inquiry. According to the lawsuit, the moment a debit card transaction is authorized on an account with positive funds, Trustmark immediately reduces the consumer's checking account balance by the amount of the purchase and the set-aside funds to cover the transaction. Despite putting aside sufficient available funds for debit card transactions at the time transactions are authorized, Trustmark later will often assess overdraft fees on those same transactions when they purportedly settle days later into a negative balance, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit is seeking restitution of all fees paid, compensatory damages and injunctive relief. Mr. Kaufman said on Dec. 26 that Trustmark will have a response to the lawsuit. However, he said the Christmas holiday season will delay a response with personnel off work. U.S. Magistrate Judge Keith Ball extended the deadline to Feb. 19 for Trustmark to respond to the lawsuit on a request from attorneys for the bank. A judge will decide whether to grant the two women's request for a class-action lawsuit against the bank. Meanwhile Bobby White, 55, who said he is disabled and lives on a fixed income; alleges he has had numerous problems with Trustmark overdraft fees. "A few months ago, I was about a week from my monthly check and the $8.99 (monthly) service fee put me $2 in overdraft and I borrowed and put $20 in the bank the same day," Mr. White said. "They still charged me the $32 OD fee which threw me back into overdraft and they charged me another $32 overdraft fee. It was their OD fee that threw me back into OD!" Mr. White said he ended up paying $188 in overdraft fees that month and $108 this past month. "You can't imagine what that does to someone on a fixed income," Mr. White said. [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Offers Settlement to Drivers Prior to IPO ------------------------------------------------------------ PYMNTS.com reports that Uber, gearing up to launch an initial public offering (IPO) in the first quarter of 2019, is offering to settle with drivers who have been fighting the ride-hailing company via individual arbitration. According to a report in TechCrunch, citing law firm Lichten & Liss-Riordan, Uber has as part of the settlement tentatively offered to pay 11 cents for each mile Uber drivers drove. Drivers have been going after Uber individually after a September ruling that they could launch a class action lawsuit against Uber. Uber declined to comment to TechCrunch, noted the report. The lawsuits over driver classification goes back a few years and involves nine states and 160,000 drivers. The drivers want to be classified as employees instead of independent contractors so they can get compensated for expenses including gas and maintenance on their vehicles. Drivers are also focusing on Uber's move to prevent drivers from keeping or accepting tips from passengers. In June of 2017, Uber did introduce a tips app, which TechCrunch reported resulted in drivers earning an extra $600 million in one year's time. With the settlement, drivers who accept it must release all claims lodged against Uber related to misclassification of employees. TechCrunch noted the settlement is tentative depending on how many drivers sign up for the agreement as well as other factors, reported TechCrunch, noting payment could take six months to reach drivers. The report noted that 11 cents per mile is about one-third of what the driver could have received if he or she pursued arbitration instead of seeking a settlement. The move on the part of Uber to potentially settle with the drivers comes as reports are surfacing that the IPO is about to happen. Earlier in December The Financial Times, citing people familiar with the matter, reported Uber filed paperwork with the SEC, which means an IPO can happen soon with the first quarter the most likely time frame. Uber is expected to be among the biggest IPOs for 2019, already garnering a multibillion-dollar valuation. By settling with drivers it removes one bit of uncertainty for investors. [GN] UNIQUE CAMERA: Tyler Singleton Seeks Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------- TYLER SINGLETON, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. UNIQUE CAMERA SERVICE, INC., an Illinois for-profit corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-10152-BAF-SDD (E.D. Mich., Jan. 15. 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Act. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant whose rights under the FLSA and the WOWA have been violated. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a repair technician between October 2017 and January 2018. The Plaintiff was fired in January 2018 over a misunderstanding with the schedule. He did not voluntarily leave his employment with Defendant Unique Repair. In his position as a repair service technician, the Plaintiff went to the homes of Defendant's customers and he repaired the customers' appliances. Specifically, he worked mostly on repairing appliances which were under a warranty from Samsung, the lawsuit says. Unique Camera is in the household appliance repair services business.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Bryan Yaldou, Esq. Elaina S. Bailey, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC 23000 Telegraph, Suite 5 Brownstown, MI 48134 Telephone: (734) 692-9200 Facsimile: (734) 692-9201 E-mail: Bryan@yaldoulaw.com UNITED KINGDOM: Sued Over "State-Sponsored Discrimination" ---------------------------------------------------------- Phila Siu, writing for South China Morning Post, reports that a British citizen of Gurkha descent in Hong Kong is threatening to take the British government to court over the "state-sponsored discrimination" he is undergoing in his passport renewal application, saying he felt humiliated by the "nonsense". Tsewang Bhotia, 43, director of a headhunting firm, applied to have his passport renewed in November, expecting the process to take three to four weeks. His nightmare started when the Passport Office wrote to him and requested that he submit 13 additional documents, which he described as "nonsense". Among the documents requested were his school records dating as far back as possible; his family tree dating back to his grandparents; photos of himself with his parents since birth; his father's British Army Service book; and his father's Army camp letter given when he was discharged from service. "I was stunned. When I was looking at this [list], I was like, what is this?" he said. "I will be looking at legal action". He said he has not decided whether to take an individual legal action or a class action -- to gather more people in similar ordeals to sue the British authorities together. "If we take legal action, we have a strong chance because you can clearly see this is discrimination. No other citizens of the UK are being asked this, and no other ethnic groups are being asked this. Why suddenly the Nepalese?" The Gurkhas are Nepali soldiers who served in the British army, and to whom the UK government granted citizenship. During the colonial period when Hong Kong was ruled by the British, the Gurkhas lived in army barracks, isolated from the rest of society, until they were thrust into the midst of an overwhelmingly Chinese community when British rule ended in 1997. In May, about 100 Gurkha descendants protested outside the British consulate in Hong Kong, complaining about the delays in receiving their passports. Some said the application usually took four years. UK loses vital immigration documents, throwing lives into turmoil During the protest, British consulate staff handed the protesters a letter by Mark Thomson, the passport office's director general, who promised that his office would "urgently" review the delays. He also said that the hold-ups were caused by people falsifying connections to the Gurkhas. But what Mr. Bhotia could not understand was that he was not applying for his first British passport. He was applying to have his existing one, which he received in 2008, renewed. "When I applied for my passport for the first time, did I face any real difficulties? The answer was no," he said. Mr. Bhotia was born and raised in Hong Kong. He received his British National (Overseas) passport in 2005, and his British passport three years later. He was married to a British woman and they have two children. None of them have had any problems with their passport applications. "[Mark Thomson] stated that some frauds are taking place. I don't know what kind of fraud he was talking about. He was probably referring to identity fraud. If that's the case, what you are doing now is trying to label all of us as fraudsters by giving us this nonsense [the letter]," he said. With the hold-up, Mr. Bhotia has already cancelled work trips to Singapore and Jakarta in December, as well as other trips to Southeast Asia in the coming months. He has also cancelled several family trips. "I am in the people's business. I need to meet people," he said. "If I am not going to be travelling for a year, it's going to have an impact." Asked about Mr. Bhotia's case, a spokesman for the British Home Office said that all applications for a British passport, including renewals, are treated "on their own merit". "Her Majesty's Passport Office will not issue a passport until all checks to confirm nationality and identity have been satisfactorily completed," he said. The list of documents the Passport Office has asked Tsewang Bhotia to submit: 1) School records dating back as far as possible 2) Hong Kong birth certificate 3) Hong Kong permanent identity card 4) Nepalese relationship certificate relating to him and his parents 5) Nepalese citizenship certificate 6) Nepalese passport(s) 7) Marriage certificate 8) Family tree showing his relationship back to grandparents (maternal and paternal) 9) Photos of himself with his parents since birth (in chronological order) 10) Successive identity documents for himself from birth to the time of issue of his first British National (Overseas) passport 11) Parents' current identity card 12) Father's British Army service book (if applicable) 13) Army camp letter (if applicable) [GN] WELLMONT HEALTH: Jury Rules in Favor of Highlands Physicians ------------------------------------------------------------ According to Eric Oliver of Becker's ASC Review, a Tennessee jury ruled Bristol, Tenn.-based Wellmont Health System breached its contractual and fiduciary duties to Kingsport, Tenn.-based Highlands Physicians, the Bristol Herald Courier reports. Here's what you should know: 1. The jury sided with Highlands awarding the group $58 million, but did not grant additional punitive damages. 2. Highlands along with 2,100 people filed the class-action suit in 2016, alleging a breaches of contract, fiduciary duty and of the network access agreement. The suit also argued Wellmont made several other actions that negatively impacted Highland. 3. Wellmont intends to appeal the decision. [GN] WEST VIRGINIA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in I/DD Waiver Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Open Minds reports that on September 25, 2018, a federal judge ruled that West Virginia's current budgeting procedures for the Intellectual/Developmental Disability (I/DD) Waiver does not violate due process. The ruling was in response to a lawsuit, Michael T. v. Crouch, filed in July 2015 on behalf of five waiver participants, and which later became a class action-lawsuit that covered all 4,684 I/DD waiver participants. The original complaint was filed by Mountain State Justice. The Department of Health and Human Resources' (DHHR) Bureau for Medical Services (BMS) operates the IDD Waiver budgeting program. [GN] WINCO FOODS: Faces Petersen Suit in Sacramento, California ---------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against Winco Foods Foundation. The case is captioned as DENNIS J. PETERSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WINCO FOODS FOUNDATION; WINCO HOLDINGS INC.; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00247825-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 4, 2019). WinCo Foods, LLC retails bulk foods, deli, seafood, and bakery products bulk foods, produce, meat, deli products, seafood, variety and seasonal products, and bakery products. WinCo Foods, LLC was formerly known as Waremart Food Centers and Cub Foods and changed its name to WinCo Foods, LLC in 1999. The company was founded in 1967 and is based in Boise, Idaho with stores in Arizona, Idaho, California, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington. WinCo Foods, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Winco Holdings, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Marcus J Bradley, Esq. WM MORRISON: Field Law Attorney Discusses Court Ruling ------------------------------------------------------ Brian Vail, Q.C of Field Law, in an article for Lexology, reports that employers can be vicariously liable at common law for the actions of a rogue employee who brings about an unauthorized cyber data breach, even where the employee's motive was to harm the employer and not to injure the third parties whose data is involved or for personal gain. Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC v Various Claimants, 2018 EWCA Civ 2339 FACTS AND ISSUES: Skelton was employed by a supermarket company (Morrisons) as a Senior IT Auditor. After he was formally disciplined in 2013 he bore a grudge against the company. In 2014, in the course of his duties, he was assigned the task of transmitting employee personal data on a USB memory stick to the company's external auditors. He copied this data from his employer-supplied computer onto a personal USB stick before passing the data on to the auditor. Subsequently, he posted the personal data of almost 100,000 Morrisons employees online. He took (unsuccessful) steps to attempt to frame another employee for the breach. The trial judge held that Skelton's actions were not a "sequence of random events" but all part of a careful plan to cause the company harm. He was ultimately convicted of crimes for this conduct. A number of Morrisons employees (5,518) brought a class action against the company, seeking damages for breach of the U.K. Data Protection Act, s. 4(4) and at common law for the torts of misuse of private information and breach of confidence. The trial judge held that the company was not directly liable for breach of the statute or at common law. Although it was the "data controller" within the meaning of the statute for the data on its own storage devices, it was held not to be the "data controller" of the data on Skelton's personal USB stick that was posted online. The trial judge held that Morrisons did not know, nor ought it to have known in the circumstances, that Skelton bore a grudge or would act criminally with the data. Morrisons was held to have breached a Data Protection Principle (DPP) set out in the statue in that it should have had better procedures in place to ensure that confidential data was deleted from Skelton's laptop shortly after it had been provided to the external auditors, and after temporary use outside of its data base. However, the trial judge held that this breach of the DPP "could not have prevented an individual determined to [misuse the data] from copying sensitive data held on his work laptop to some other medium" and Skelton had stolen the data before it would have been deleted in compliance with the rule. However, the trial court held Morrisons to be vicariously liable for the actions of its rogue employee because the loss was sufficiently connected to his legitimate employment duties. The Data Protection Act was interpreted as not excluding the possibility of vicarious liability for its breach and did not occupy the legal field so as to eliminate common law vicarious liability. The trial judge held that vicarious liability is imposed on a party which is not directly liable in one of two ways as outlined by Salmon on Torts as adopted by Mohamud v. William Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC11 (H.L.)]. The Court held as follows: 131. The precise scope of "course of employment" which could bring secondary liability upon an employer for a wrongful act was defined by Salmond in the first (1907) edition of his text book on the law of torts, Salmond on Torts, as "either (a) a wrongful act authorized by the master or (b) an unauthorized mode of doing some act authorized by the master" adding that a master was liable for acts which he had not authorized if they were "so connected with the acts which he has authorized that they may rightly be regarded as modes -- although improper modes -- of doing them" (pp 83-84). . . Morrisons was granted leave to appeal by the trial judge. The Court of Appeal found this to be because Skelton appeared to have been troubled by the Morrisons argument that vicarious liability should not be imposed on the employer where the rogue employee's motive was to harm the employer, because to hold the contrary would render the court to be an accessory to the employee's misconduct (appeal decision para. 75). Morrisons appealed the trial judge's findings of vicarious liability at common law. Neither side challenged the trial judge's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims for breach of statutory duty and the finding that Skelton, not Morrisons, was the "data controller" of the leaked data within the meaning of the statute. Morrisons advanced three grounds of appeal, the third of which being of interest to Canadians. Morrisons argued that the trial judge erred: In concluding that the Data Protection Act, does not excludes vicarious liability; In concluding that the Data Protection Act does not preclude common law actions for breach of confidence and the U.K. tort misuse of private information; and In finding that Morrisons was vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of Skelton at common law. HELD: For the plaintiffs; appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal concluded that the U.K Data Protection Act did not exclude vicarious liability and did not preclude common law actions for breach of confidence and misuse of private information. It dismissed the first two grounds of appeal. The Court held that "if Parliament had intended such a substantial eradication of common law and equitable rights, it might have been expected to say so expressly" (para. 51). The Court also relied on a concession by Morrisons that the common law actions in question "operate in parallel" to the statutory causes of action to find internal inconsistency in Morrisons' position. The Court found that "the DPA says nothing at all about the liability of an employer, who is not a data controller, for breaches of the DPA by an employee who is a data controller" (para. 57) The Court concluded as follows on this issue: 60. In conclusion, the concession that the causes of action for misuse of private information and breach of confidentiality are not excluded by the DPA in respect of the wrongful processing of data within the ambit of the DPA, and the complete absence of any provision of the DPA addressing the situation of an employer where an employee data controller breaches the requirements of the DPA, lead inevitably to the conclusion that the Judge was correct to hold that the common law remedy of vicarious liability of the employer in such circumstances (if the common law requirements are otherwise satisfied) was not expressly or impliedly excluded by the DPA. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of vicarious liability on the part of Morrisons at common law. 1. The first part of the Salmond test was held to have been met for the reasons enunciated by the trial judge. Skelton's actions were held to have been within the scope of his employment duties. His employment did not merely allow him access to the data; he had been specifically assigned to use it (para. 62-63). 2. The Court found the second part of the test to have been met. The Court held that there was a sufficiently close connection between Skelton's wrongful acts and what he was authorized to do in his employment; that his acts could be considered a mode of carrying out his employment, albeit an unauthorized mode. (i) The Court rejected Morrsions' argument that his wrongful disclosure of the data was a subsequent, separate matter from his original copying of the data in the course of his employment. The Plaintiffs' cause of action came into existence when Skelton downloaded the data onto his own USB stick. Had the Plaintiffs been aware of it at that time they could have sued for an injunction and at least nominal damages (para. 66). The Court upheld the trial judge's finding that Skelton's acts were not a "sequence of random events, but an unbroken chain" of Skelton's plan (para. 73), concluding as follows: 74. The findings of primary fact in this paragraph are not in dispute. The Judge's evaluation of them in the opening and closing sentences of the paragraph as constituting a "seamless and continuous sequence" or "unbroken chain" of events is one with which we entirely agree. It is therefore unnecessary to embark on a discussion of the nature of the review by an appellate court of evaluative findings of this kind. In so far as the Judge's conclusions involved a value judgment (see Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2003] 2 AC 366 per Lord Nicholls at [24]), it is one with which we agree. The Court noted that employers have long been held vicariously liable for torts committed "away from the workplace" (para. 71). 3. The Court rejected Morrisons' "novel" argument that an employer should not be vicariously liable where the rogue employee's motive was to harm the employer and not for personal gain or to injure third parties. Morrisons had argued that in finding the employer vicariously liable the Court was, in effect, becoming an accessory to the employee's tort (para. 75 – 76). 4. The Court also rejected Morrisons' argument that a finding of vicarious liability for cyber data breaches would impose an unacceptable burden on employers because of their potential to give rise to claims on a "massive scale": 77. Ms. Proops [for Morrisons] submitted that, given that there are 5,518 employees who are claimants in the present case, and the total number of employees whose confidential information was wrongly made public by Mr. Skelton was nearly 100,000, this illustrates how enormous a burden a finding of vicarious liability in the present case will place on Morrisons and could place on other innocent employers in future cases. These arguments are unconvincing. As it happens, Mr. Skelton's nefarious activities involved the data of a very large number of employees although, so far as we are aware, none of them has suffered financial loss. But suppose he had misused the data so as to steal a large sum of money from one employee's bank account. If Morrisons' arguments are correct, then (save for any possible claim against the bank) such a victim would have no remedy except against Mr. Skelton personally. Yet this hypothetical claimant would, as it seems to us, be in essentially the same position as Mrs. Lloyd in Lloyd v Grace, Smith. 78. There have been many instances reported in the media in recent years of data breaches on a massive scale caused by either corporate system failures or negligence by individuals acting in the course of their employment. These might, depending on the facts, lead to a large number of claims against the relevant company for potentially ruinous amounts. The solution is to insure against such catastrophes; and employers can likewise insure against losses caused by dishonest or malicious employees. We have not been told what the insurance position is in the present case, and of course it cannot affect the result. The fact of a defendant being insured is not a reason for imposing liability, but the availability of insurance is a valid answer to the Doomsday or Armageddon arguments put forward by Ms. Proops on behalf of Morrisons. COMMENTARY: The two-part test for vicarious liability relied upon and applied by the English courts (often referred to as the "Salmond Test") is the same test as applied in Canada (Bazley v Curry [1999] 2 S.C.R. 534 (S.C.C.); T. (G.) v. Griffiths[1999] 2 S.C.R. 570). Thus, this case is a significant persuasive authority in this country. The case was decided on principles of vicarious liability that have been well-settled for decades. The decision should come as no surprise. The Court rejected what it considered to be the only "novel" defence argument advanced -- that a finding of vicarious liability for cyber data breaches would impose an unacceptably heavy burden on innocent employers. There have been Canadian examples of employees causing or threatening to cause a data breach to injure the employer so as to advance some cause. There has been at least one American case holding that an employer cannot be vicariously liable for an employee's wrongful acts, absent direct liability on the part of the employer: Enslin v. The Coca-Cola Co. 136 F.Supp.3d 654 (2015, U.S.D.C., E.D. Penn.). In that case, an employee of a Coke company who was responsible for making decisions to divest the company laptop computers, knowingly and unlawfully sold the laptops to criminals. These laptops contained personal information about Coke employees. The Plaintiff experienced fraud and identity theft after the computer thefts occurred. The Court refused to dismiss the case. However, the Court dismissed the negligence claim and held for the Plaintiff for, inter alia, breach of contract since his employment contract was held to contain a term that the employer would keep his data secure. The Court held that absent a finding in direct negligence on the part of the employer there could be no claim for vicarious liability. This case cannot be authority regarding vicarious liability as that concept is understood in Canada where the very essence of vicarious liability involves an innocent employer being found liable for the risks its business creates in the marketplace. It is interesting to note that the Court suggested that the best protection for employers might be insurance, notwithstanding that it was not aware of what the insurance position would be for such a loss and the fact that the presence or absence of insurance for a defendant cannot affect the result of a tort case (at para. 78). We understand that Morrisons has indicated an intention to appeal to the U.K. Supreme Court (D. Margolis, Data Breach in the UK: Can a Rogue Employee Leave You on the Hook?, 11 December 2018, Littler, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/data-breach-in-the-uk-can-a-rogue-56745/).[GN] YALE UNIVERSITY: Vellali et al. Seek to Certify Beneficiaries Class ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH VELLALI et al., the Plaintiffs, vs. YALE UNIVERSITY et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01345-AWT (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order on Jan. 15, 2019: 1. certifying a class of: "all participants and beneficiaries of the Yale University Retirement Account Plan from August 9, 2010, through the date of judgment, excluding the Defendants"; and 2. appointing the Plaintiffs as representatives of the class and appointing their attorneys -- Schlichter, Bogard & Denton LLP -- as class counsel for the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Heather Lea, Esq. Sean E. Soyars, Esq. Joel D. Rohlf, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-7151 E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com hlea@uselaws.com ssoyars@uselaws.com jrohlf@uselaws.com - and - Stuart M. Katz. Esq. COHEN AND WOLF, P.C. 1115 Broad Street Bridgeport, CT 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-0211 Facsimile: (203) 337-5505 E-mail: skatz@cohenandwolf.com ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Rolfe et al. Sue over Silver Pool Scam ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit against Zions Bancorporation seeks to recover damages from Defendant sustained as a result of the Bank's own independent wrongdoing and knowing assistance related to the Silver Pool scam. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are victims of an enormous Ponzi scheme knowingly assisted by Zions Bank, a division of Defendant Zions Bancorporation. By its substantial assistance, including the actions of the Bank and its employees in furtherance of and to facilitate the scheme, and through its actual knowledge that fiduciary funds it held as custodian were being diverted and used for Ponzi payments, Zions Bank aided and abetted the scheme. Moreover, Zions Bank was negligent in failing to act, as it was required to do once it became aware that investor money, i.e., fiduciary funds for which it acted as custodian, were being diverted. The scheme was perpetrated by Gaylen Rust and members of his family, who, through Rust's company, Rust Rare Coin, Inc. raised money from investors ostensibly to purchase contracts of sale for silver. Rust told investors he was pooling their money in a silver trading pool that he managed (the "Silver Pool"), and through a proprietary trading system he employed, and through a trading account he purportedly held at HSBC Bank, one of the world's largest financial institutions, was using the money in the Silver Pool to sell silver as market prices rose, and buy silver as market prices fell, thereby increasing the amount of silver in the Silver Pool. Rust also claimed that he maintained large amounts of physical silver owned by the Silver Pool at warehouses owned and operated by Brink's Incorporated where it was being held for safekeeping. To solicit investors, Rust touted his supposed successful track record in buying and trading silver, luring investors with the promise of double-digit returns averaging 20-25% per year on their investment in the Silver Pool. Rust provided investors with periodic statements reflecting those supposed returns. In reality, however, Plaintiffs' investment in the Silver Pool was a sham. Rust was not buying or selling silver, nor did he have physical silver stored in a Brink's warehouse. Moreover, neither Rust nor RRC maintained an account at HSBC. Instead, Rust diverted investor money to himself and to his family, to other failing companies Rust or his family members controlled, and used new investor money to make payments to earlier investors seeking to liquidate all or part of their interests in the Silver Pool. In reality, the statements Rust provided to his investors and the returns stated thereon were fake. Rust was not earning profits from buying and selling silver, and instead was making those distributions from the money received from new investors. The Silver Pool was not a real business or trading operation, and instead was a Ponzi scheme. Rust could not have perpetrated the Silver Pool scam on his own. Instead, he crucially depended on the knowing participation of his bank, Zions Bank, through which Rust committed his fraud. The epicenter of Rust's Silver Pool scheme was one account at Zions Bank ending in number 7496, known to investors. The investigation of Plaintiffs' counsel, which investigation included interviews with many Silver Pool investors, a review and analysis of numerous documents related thereto, and a review and analysis of other documents including documents obtained in a civil enforcement action filed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the State of Utah Division of Securities, demonstrates that Zions Bank had actual knowledge that: (1) RRC was a precious metal and coin dealer, and thus was a high-risk account, triggering enhanced due diligence requirements for the Bank; (2) RRC had a silver trading operation called the Silver Pool; (3) RRC received investment proceeds from investors in the Silver Pool to be invested by RRC and Rust; (4) RRC and Rust were managing investor money as fiduciaries, and thus the Silver Pool account held fiduciary funds; (5) RRC and Rust were misusing funds from the Silver Pool Investment Account by commingling such funds and transferring them to Rust, his family, and other entities whose business was unrelated to the Silver Pool; and (6) RRC and Rust were misusing investor money to make Ponzi payments. On November 13, 2018, Rust's scheme began to unwind. On that date, the CFTC and Utah filed their civil enforcement action against Rust, certain members of his family, and RRC charging them with fraud and asserting violations of the Commodities and Exchange Act and CFTC Regulations, aiding and abetting those violations, and multiple violations of the Utah Uniform Securities Act. On November 15, 2018, two days later, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed its own action charging Rust and RRC with operating a fraudulent silver trading program. The SEC complaint alleged the same course of conduct alleged by CFTC/Utah; that Rust made material misrepresentations and omissions to solicit investors across the country to invest in his scheme. The SEC also charged Rust and RRC with fraud and asserted numerous violations of the federal securities laws. The Plaintiffs and the putative class members were victims of Rust's Silver Pool investment scheme. They invested their personal money in what they believed to be the Silver Pool, and were damaged, the lawsuit says. The case is captioned as DALE AND KAREEN SPRINGER, JACK AND LEXI ROLFE, DAVID AND GWEN DUDIK, PATRICK SPRINGER, TERRY FISHER, MICHAEL ORGILL, BRYCE ABPLANALP, KIM ABPLANALP, MATHEW AND JESSICA OBRAY, KENT AND JANN MOWER, DANIEL AND JESSICA MCCAIN, DANIEL AND VICTORIA LEMON, ADAM AND STEPHANIE WELLS (individually and on behalf of their minor children C.W. AND J.W.), JADEN WELLS, MCKENNA WELLS, LANCE PACKER, CLARENCE AND NANCY FIELDS, ROBYN GRAY, CHRISTOPHER AND DELANI LYMAN, RAY AND RITA SMITH, WAYNE HALL, JEFF AND SUSAN MCCAIN, SCOTT SEIPERT, NOLAN AND VICKI ANDERSON, AG TSUNAMI, LLC, LADAWN LOTT, SCOTT AND VICKIE MOWER, RON WELLS, BRYAN BARKER, DALE MORK, MARK AND STEPHANIE MUDROW, ELWIN JOHNSON, CODY BROWNING, KEVIN MAUGHAN, COREY AND ANGIE THURMAN, KEVIN AVERY AND DENISE MURDOCK, WILLIAM GUFFEY, JEFF RANSOM, DON AND JANETTE FOWERS, RONALD SCOTT WELLS, ROBERT HARRISON, ALAN ALLRED, CATHERINE BINSACCA, SCOTT PIGGOTT, DAVID ZUCKERMAN, JDH FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP, EDWARD TERRY, SHADE PROPERTIES, LLC, JOYCE STEVENS, MIKAEL AND KRISTEN THELIN, ALAN AND VALORIE LAMBERT, BRIAN AND KATHERINE MALLROY, DIANNA CLARK, KEVIN AND APRIL WELLS, ROSALIE WELLS, DENNIS AND ANNETTE GUFFEY, CHARLES CLANTON, KATHLEEN CALLAHAN, BRADY TEW, DEAN PAUL IVORY, KELLY AND TAMARA FLINT, JASON AND TAMARA HIXSON, BRYAN POWELL, GINGER CRUIKSHANK, GLENN AND JAN MILLER, JACOB INGEBRITSON, TIFFANI GRIMM, and LAEL AND JEAN WELLS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ZIONS BANCORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00035-BCW (D. Utah, Jan. 15, 2018). Zions Bancorporation is a bank holding company headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. It is one of the largest banks in the United States.[BN] Class Counsel for Plaintiffs: Samuel Adams, Esq. ADAMS DAVIS P.C. 35 Broadway, Suite 203 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 532-9500 E-mail: sam@adamsdavis.com - and - Alan L. Rosca, Esq. Mark Goldman, Esq. Paul Scarlato, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY PC Eight Tower Bridge, 161 Washington St Conshohocken, PA 19428 23250 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 100 Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: (484) 342-0700 E-mail: rosca@lawgsp.com goldman@lawgsp.com scarlato@lawgsp.com - and - J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE PC 5015 Grand Ridge Dr, Ste 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com [*] Department of Education to Implement "Borrower Defense" Rule ---------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Culhane, Jr., Esq. -- culhane@ballardspahr.com -- of Ballard Spahr LLP, in an article for National Law Review, reported that the Department of Education announced earlier in December that it would begin implementing its "borrower defense" final rule which was issued in November 2016 by providing discharges of federal student loans made to any borrowers who, in addition to other conditions, could not complete his or her program of study because the borrower's school closed. The final rule was the subject of litigation that resulted in an October 2018 ruling requiring the Department to implement the rule. In addition to requiring the discharges, the final rule includes a ban on all pre-dispute arbitration agreements for borrower defense claims by schools receiving Title IV assistance under the Higher Education Act. Both mandatory and voluntary pre-dispute arbitration agreements are prohibited by the rule, whether or not they contain opt-out clauses. In addition, schools are prohibited from relying on any pre-dispute arbitration or other agreement to block a borrower from asserting a borrower defense claim in a class action lawsuit until the court has denied class certification and the time for any interlocutory review has elapsed or the review has been resolved. The prohibition applies retroactively to pre-dispute arbitration or other agreements addressing class actions that were entered into before the final rule's effective date. In August 2018, following negotiated rulemaking, the ED published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would rescind the final rule and replace it with the "Institutional Accountability regulations" contained in the proposal. Among the major changes to the final rule that would be made by the proposal is the removal of the arbitration ban. Although the October 2018 ruling requires the Department to implement the final rule, the Department has not yet indicated whether it will enforce the arbitration ban, such as by requiring schools to retroactively cancel arbitration agreements in existing contracts. Politico reported however that Department Spokeswoman Liz Hill has indicated that guidance from the Department on mandatory arbitration agreements will be forthcoming. [GN] [*] Employers Brace for Fair Credit Reporting Act Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- According to ESR News Blog Editor Thomas Ahearn, class action lawsuits involving the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) will not be the only compliance concern for employers performing background checks in an increasingly complex legal environment in 2019. This trend has been chosen by global background check provider Employment Screening Resources® (ESR) as second on the list of "ESR Top Ten Background Check Trends" for 2019. As legal compliance in screening continues to increase in complexity, aligning with a screening firm that can support compliance will be important, according to ESR founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Attorney Lester Rosen. Federal FCRA requirements are not the only concern for many employers as they are also impacted state and local prohibitions involving "Ban the Box", salary history, and privacy. As a result, Mr. Rosen explains lawsuits involving background checks for employment purposes will continue to rise and the market will look more closely at a screening firm's litigation and sanctions history. Mr. Rosen -- who founded Employment Screening Resources® (ESR) in 1997 -- says his firm has never been named in an FCRA lawsuit and its screening practices have never been sanctioned by any regulatory authority. Part of the reason that not being involved in any FCRA lawsuits or sanctions by regulatory authorities is an important issue is that background screening has become so legally regulated since it involves the ability of consumers to obtain and retain employment. As a result, background screening is focused on legal compliance as a result of litigation, legislation, and government regulation. Passed by Congress in 1970, the FCRA 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 promotes the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information contained in the files of consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) -- the FCRA's term for background check firms -- and it was intended to protect consumers from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of inaccurate information in their consumer reports, the FCRA's term for background checks. FCRA lawsuits are commonplace for employers who screen. In 2018, settlements in lawsuits for alleged FCRA violations included $3.3 million against a CRA, $3 million against a tenant screening company, $1.3 million against a health care firm, $1.2 million against a subsidiary bottling plant of PepsiCo, $2.4 million against snack food manufacturer Frito-Lay, and $1.2 million against pet product supplier Petco. The FCRA is enforced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a U.S. government agency responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector that may soon be called the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a U.S. government agency promoting consumer protection. Both the CFPB and FTC were involved with the FCRA in 2018. In December of 2018, the CFPB announced a settlement with State Farm Bank for allegedly violating the FCRA by obtaining consumer reports without a permissible purpose. Under the terms of the consent order, State Farm Bank must implement and maintain reasonable written policies, procedures, and processes to address the practices at issue in the consent order and prevent future violations. In July of 2018, Maneesha Mithal, Associate Director of the FTC's Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, testified on behalf of the FTC before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee that "vigorous" enforcement of the FCRA remained a top priority and outlined efforts to educate consumers and businesses about the law that governs the use of background checks. Mr. Mithal noted that the FTC has played a key role in the implementation, enforcement, and interpretation of the FCRA, which requires CRAs to ensure they provide information in consumer reports to recipients with a "permissible purpose," have reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the information, and allow consumers to dispute and correct information in their consumer reports. Mr. Mithal testified that the FTC has brought more than 30 actions to enforce the FCRA against CRAs, users of consumer reports, and furnishers of information to CRAs in the last decade. As consumer reporting evolves and new technologies and business practices emerge, the FTC will continue to educate businesses that conduct background checks on their respective rights and obligations under the FCRA. In October of 2018, the FTC announced a tenant screening company in Texas agreed to pay $3 million -- the largest civil penalty the FTC has obtained from a background screening company -- to settle charges of violating the FCRA by failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of information provided to landlords and property managers that caused renters to be falsely associated with criminal records. The tenant screening company issued a statement about the settlement that expressed disappointment that the FTC singled out their screening report results "for an issue that has confronted the entire screening industry, namely how to match applicants with common last names to public records when most courts do not make social security or driver's license numbers available as part of those records." Besides the FCRA, employers and their screeners also have to worry about state and local requirements such as "Ban the Box", which delays questions about the criminal history of job applicants until later in the hiring process, and salary history laws that prohibit employers from seeking salary history information from applicants in an effort to narrow the gender wage gap between women and men. "Ban the Box" is a nationwide movement that seeks to advance job opportunities for people with prior criminal convictions by eliminating any inquiry on job applications into the criminal history of candidates, specifically the check box that requires candidates to disclose their criminal history. As of December 2018, more than 150 cities and counties as well as 34 states have passed Ban the Box laws. In 2018, the Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) reached agreements with four national employers -- Edible Arrangements, Five Guys Burgers and Fries, L'Occitane, and The Walking Company – and issued warning letters to 17 other Boston area businesses found to be in violation of a "Ban the Box" provision in state law that prohibited employers from asking about criminal records on an initial job application. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recommended employers utilize Ban the Box and a process called an "Individualized Assessment" before the use of a criminal record is made final where an applicant has one last opportunity to present the case why they should be hired in its 2012 Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment. Employers need to be careful that criminal records are used in a way that does not cause discrimination as a result of disparate impact, and that in no case should an employer automatically deny employment on the basis of a criminal record unless it is job related or there is a business necessity. Employers should consider the nature and gravity of the offense, the nature of the job, and the age of the offense. Salary history restrictions have been passed in states, counties, and cities with the idea is that if new pay is based upon previous pay, then gender pay gaps are perpetuated. The goal is to base compensation on the work performed and not to rely on previous pay that may reflect gender discrimination. Statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau show that women earned 80 percent of what men earned in 2015. In 2018, the EEOC -- the government agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination including pay discrimination -- announced that Denton County in Texas had agreed to pay $115,000 to a female doctor after a federal court sided with the EEOC in a lawsuit filed by the EEOC over alleged violations of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers and screening firms also have to comply with a growing number of privacy laws. For example, in June of 2018 California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a comprehensive internet privacy and data breach protection bill called the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (Assembly Bill 375) in response to the data breaches that affected the personal data of millions of consumers in the state. The Act -- which takes effect on January 1, 2020 -- expands the rights of consumers to know what data is being collected about them online and to even delete it, empowers consumers to decline the sale of their information and to report violations which must be addressed by the violator or risk civil action, and provides a private right of action for unauthorized access and theft or disclosure of personal data. [GN] [*] TruthinAdvertising.org Sees Spate of Fake White Chocolate Cases ------------------------------------------------------------------- This article by TruthinAdvertising.org highlights a trend in class-action litigation as identified by its Class-Action Tracker. Thus the name of this feature, CATrends. If there's a white chocolate lover on your holiday shopping list, be forewarned: Not all white chocolate is the real deal. That's according to a recent spate of class-action lawsuits alleging that a number of treats marketed as white chocolate do not meet the FDA's definition for the confection. For white chocolate to be called white chocolate, the agency has the following minimum requirements: 20 percent cocoa butter 14 percent milk solids (mmm, milk solids) 5 percent milk fat The FDA has only one limit, on sweeteners, which cannot exceed 55 percent. Fun fact: While you may be reading about these standards for the first time, they have been around since 2004. That's when the FDA finalized a rule in response to petitions filed by the Hershey Company and the Chocolate Manufacturers Association (now part of the National Confectioners Association). So who's allegedly pushing fake white chocolate? Products currently facing class-action litigation range from a Starbucks espresso drink that contains no cocoa butter, to a Clif and Luna bar with no milk fat, to a Nuts 'N More spread that is similarly lacking in the milk fat department. The complaint against Starbucks states: Real white chocolate's flavor is partially imparted by cocoa butter and cacao fat. The imitation white chocolate in [Starbuck's Doubleshot Energy White Chocolate Drink] does not have cocoa butter as required, and instead has other cheap confectionary ingredients to imitate the taste of white chocolate. The complaint against the coffee giant points to the absence of cocoa butter in the ingredients list on the label of the bottle. It notes that Starbucks has other white chocolate beverages that do contain cocoa butter, per ingredient information on the company's website, proving that Starbucks is fully aware of "the qualities and ingredients that make up real white chocolate." Starbucks did not respond to request for comment. Neither did Nuts 'N More nor Living Intentions, whose trail mix may not be as white chocolate-y as advertised. A spokeswoman for Clif Bar & Company, maker of Clif and Luna bars, referred to a motion filed in response to the lawsuit against the company that argues product labeling is clear and transparent. She said in a statement: As our motion states, our "product labels explicitly disclose that the 'white chocolate' taste in the products is merely a 'natural flavor' and not an ingredient." You be the judge. [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 ***