/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190325.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 25, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 60 Headlines 1MJJET CORP: Underpays Waiters, Daniel Change Alleges 346 LOUNGE: Germosen Sues over Tip-Pooling, Minimum & OT Wages 62-98 REALTY: Xia et al. Seek OT Pay for Tile Installers A2 MILK: Sarr Says Milk Product Composition Misleading AA AND K: Valle Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages ABC PHONES: Underpays Sales Associates, Chavarin-Aguilar Alleges ACCEPTANCE SOLUTIONS: Washington et al Seek Overtime Pay ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Winckler Says Securities Statement Misleading ALLIANCE FIBER: April 26 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ALLSTATE FIRE: Stockdale Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania AMARIN CORPORATION: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action AMERICAN FINANCE: Sued over Defective Registration Statements AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Removes Jarman Suit to S.D. Illinois AMERIPRISE AUTO: Lovelace Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Arkansas ASHLEY FURNITURE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Alleges ASLAN COLD: Underpays Drivers, Martinez Suit Alleges AT&T MOBILITY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gorss Motels Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Owen et al. Suit in S.D. Florida BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss IV Solutions Sales Underway BAYER: Obtains Favorable Ruling in False Advertising Class Action BROOKLYN, NY: Warden Faces Class Action Over Jail Conditions CABLE BAHAMAS: Attorney Mulls Class Action Over Service Problems CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Class Certification Bid in Jensen Suit Denied CAMPBELL SOUP: Simon Says V8+ Energy Products Packaging Misleading CARELINK INC: Walthrust et al. Seek OT Pay for Home Health Aides CARIBBEAN BLUEWATERS: Yin et al. Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages CEDAR SHAKE: ZRD Sues over Price Fixing of Roofing Material CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Masteller Sues over Debt Collection Practices CHOICE HOTELS: De La Rosa Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois CLIENT SERVICES: Charach Sues over Debt Collection Practices COMBE INC: New Judge to Handle Jurisdictional Dispute COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeal in Gibson Class Suit Still Pending COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bowden Suit Against Affiliate Ongoing COMMUNITY HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in Tennessee Suit Still Pending COMMUNITY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Zwick Partners' Suit COMMUNITY HEALTH: Deadline to Opt Out or Object to Deal Due May 10 COOK COUNTY, IL: Smith Sues over Juvenile Program CSX TRANSPORTATION: Burns Sues over Collection of Biometric Data CURRICULUM ASSOCIATES: Underpays Account Specialists, Duran Says DELTA AIRLINES: Tourism Tax in Mexico Flights Illegal, Suit Says DIRECT FUNDING: Ricco Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ELECTROLUX HOME: Diller Suit Asserts BIPA Violation ELI LILLY: Appeal in Strafford Class Action Still Pending ESHAI CORP: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Tahbout Suit Alleges FBCS INC: Dillard Sues over Debt Collection Practices FCA US: Grigorian Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida FUJITSU AMERICA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Johnson Suit Claims GENERAL MOTORS: Castro et al. Sue over Defective 2.4L Engine GENERAL MOTORS: Sanderlin Sues over Defective 2.4L Engine GENERAL PROVISION: Richards Seeks All Unpaid Wages GEO GUIDANCE: Faces Ramsey Labor Suit in Kern County GETSWIFT: ASIC Civil Action Potentially Game-Changer HALCON ENERGY: Appeals Jan. 30 Judgment in Vodenichar Class Suit HI-TECH METALS: Underpays Manual Workers, Rojas Suit Claims HIGHLAND BAKING: Underpays Line Workers, Ontiveros Suit Alleges HYATT HOTELS: Website Lacks Features for Disable, Strojnik Claims HYUNDAI MOTOR: Gentry Appeals W.D. Virginia Ruling to 4th Circuit HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued over Defective GDI-Equipped Vehicles IAIRE LLC: Ruiz Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay INOGEN INC: Fabbri Says Financial Report Misleading J-M MANUFACTURING: Sued over Rounding of Employees' Time JEANNIE'S DELI: Salvador et al Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages JH ONE PROPERTIES: Faces Suit over Unaccounted Security Deposit KIA MOTORS: Faces Pasillas Suit over Defective GDI Engine KLEMENT FAMILY: Walli Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages KROGER CO: Faces Murphy's ADA Suit in District of Colorado LCL 18: Zhao Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Pay for Restaurant Staff LENNAR CORP: Daniel Brings Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages LIFE INSURANCE: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Decision in Walker Suit LITTLE JOHN: Warner Seeks Full Back Pay for Agents LUCKY 2: Lewis Suit Seeks Back-pay, Damages Under FLSA MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Dougan Files Securities Class Action in NJ MARKEL CORP: Wellington Says Financial Report Misleading MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Frank Suit Moved to Connecticut Dist. Ct. MATTEL INC: Wyatt Sues over Drop in Share Price MAXWELL TECH: Phillipps Says Solicitation Statement Misleading MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Sabatini Balks at Merger Deal with Tesla MCLENNAN: Davis et al Say Housing Rental Services Discriminatory MDL 2492: Hurst Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Johnson Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Kidd Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Koronkiewicz Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Moved MDL 2492: Lott Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: McCall Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: McKinney Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Moore Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Owens Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Perry Suit v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Moved MDL 2492: Staten Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Stroud Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Thompson Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Wasil Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Webster Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Wilson Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2741: Barnes Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Bordeaux Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Martinez Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Susak Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2804: Dawsey Suit v. Purdue over Opiates Sales Consolidated MDL 2804: Golden Suit v. Purdue over Opiates Sales Consolidated MDL 2875: Longwell Suit v. Camber over Valsartan Consolidated MDL 2879: Axelrod Suit vs Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated MDL 2879: Kimmel et al vs Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated MERCHANTS & PROFESSIONAL: Yannacone Says Debt Collection Illegal METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: McGinnis Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania MONSANTO COMPANY: Brown Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Browns Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Gattuccio Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Lundys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Lutzs Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Maestas Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Moul Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Navarro Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Robbins Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Rowell Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Snyders Sue over Sale of Roundup Products NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Jones Sues Over Student-Athletes' Injuries NCAA: Murray Sues over OSU Athletes' Football Injuries NCAA: Schultz Sues over Safety of Concordia Student-Athletes NEW ANSWERNET: Salon Sues over Background Checks & Unpaid Wages NEWPORT RIB: Underpays Cooks, Rosete Suit Alleges NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Gandy Sues over Debt Collection Practices NUCO2 LLC: Overcharges Customers, Townhouse Restaurant Claims NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Cobra Lawsuit NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Proskauer Rose Discusses Supreme Court Ruling NVIDIA CORP: Bid to Consolidate Iron Workers & Oto Suits Underway ORVIS COMPANY: Website not Accessible to Blind, Garey Says P CONSTRUCTION: Rodrigues et al. Seek Overtime Premiums PALIGROUP MANAGEMENT: Underpays Bartenders, Raczkiewicz Alleges PENNSYLVANIA: UPMC Pinnacle Sues AG Shapiro over New Rules PEPPERIDGE FARM: Mulhern Hits Misclassification, Seeks Damages PHEAA: Fails to Credit Student Loan Payments, Winebarger Says PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Robinson Sues over Debt Collection Practices PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Teiner Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of New York PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: Trantham Seeks Overtime Pay for Employees PROVIDENT CREDIT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wilkerson Claims RADIOLOGY BOARD: Sued over Maintenance of Certification Requirement REMEX INC: Maneri Sues over Debt Collection Practices RENT RECOVERY: Madison Sues over Debt Collection Practices RENT-A-TIRE LP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chappel Alleges ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY: Sexual Abuse Victims Offended by Letter SCRIPPS HEALTH: Vaughn-Love Sues over Background Checks SECURUS TECH: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Romero Suit SELECT PORTFOLIO: Alper Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts SERVICOM: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Employee Wages SHERLOQ REVENUE: Schwartz Sues over Debt Collection Practices SI FINANCIAL: Raul Balks at Mergel Deal with Berkshire SILVER LAKE: Directors Breached Fiduciary Duties, Suit Claims SIMPLIFIED LABOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martinez Suit Claims SIRENA RESTAURANT: Ayasi Seeks Unpaid Wages, Tips Under NYLL SNC-LAVALIN: Strosberg Sasso Files Class Action in Ontario SUMMIT STAFFING: Trottier Sues over Collection of Biometric Data TARGET CORP: Removes Thomas Case to N.D. California TEAM INDUSTRIAL: Warner Sues over Collection of Biometric Data TELEFONICA BRAZIL: Appeal in SISTEL Collective Action Pending TOP GOLF: Burlinski Sues over Collection of Biometric Identifiers TREVIS BERRY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Velasquez-Alfaro Claims UNITED DEVELOPMENT: Fox Sues Over Investment Fund Fraud USAA CASUALTY: Faces Koehler Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania VERSUM MATERIALS: Wheby Balks at Merger Deal with Entegris, Inc. VF OUTDOOR: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Garey Says VIEGA LLC: Sued over Anticompetitive Press Fittings Market WEIGHT WATCHERS: Potts Says Financial Report Misleading WESTERN DENTAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Caldera Suit Claims WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Still Defends Natural Gas Price Index Suits WINCO HOLDINGS: Removes Petersen Case to E.D. California [*] Class Actions Against Companies in New Zealand Increasing [*] Mass. Companies Have Unique Exposure to Wage Class Actions ********* 1MJJET CORP: Underpays Waiters, Daniel Change Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- DANIEL CHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1MJJET CORP., d/b/a SHANGHAI MONG; TORA YI; JANE YI; EDDIE LEE; and JOHN DOES NOS. 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01453 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum wages and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Chang was employed by the Defendants as waiter. 1MJJET CORP., d/b/a Shanghai Mong is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dean M. Solomon, Esq. RHA & KIM, LLP 215-45 Northern Blvd., Suite 200 Bayside, NY 11361 Telephone: (718) 321-9797 Facsimile: (718) 321-9799 E-mail: dsolomon@rhakimlaw.com 346 LOUNGE: Germosen Sues over Tip-Pooling, Minimum & OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Germosen, on behalf of himself and on behalf of other similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. 346 LOUNGE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 504738/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 5, 2019), alleges that Defendant violated federal and state labor laws over its failure to pay minimum wage, illegal retention and distribution to tip ineligible employees of gratuities and "charges purported to be gratuities," and failure to properly pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was a service employee of a restaurant owned and operated by Defendant 346 Lounge LLC, which is located at 355 W 16th Street, New York, NY 10011. Specifically, the Plaintiff has worked as a Busser for Defendant, and brings this class and collective action on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly-situated tipped Bussers and Barbacks employed by Defendant who are or were subjected to the same unlawful wage practices. However, the Defendant was not entitled to avail itself of the reduced minimum wage by applying the tip credit allowance for Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and the NYLL Class, because, inter alia, Defendant required them to share and/or pool their tips with non-"tipped" employees such as a "sweeper" and other employees who did not perform "tipped" duties and/or did not have meaningful interaction with customers. The Defendant was also not entitled to avail itself of the reduced minimum wage because it required that Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective and the NYLL Class perform non-tipped work for a meaningful portion of their shifts, no less than 20% or two hours during their shifts, whichever was less, and because they failed to provide adequate notice regarding the tip credit. As such, the Defendant was obligated to pay Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and the NYLL Class the standard hourly minimum wage rate, and not any reduced minimum wage through application of a tip credit, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed FLSA Collective and NYLL Class: Jeanne M. Christensen, Esq. Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq. WIGDOR LLP 85 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 257-6800 Facsimile: (212) 257-6845 E-mail: ichristensen@wigdorlaw.com trahman@wigdorlaw.com 62-98 REALTY: Xia et al. Seek OT Pay for Tile Installers -------------------------------------------------------- LIJUN XIA and LIJUN YANG, individually and on behalf of all other Employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. 62-98 REALTY LLC, SUNAMERICA REALTY GROUP, INC., MKB CONSTRUCTION USA, L.L.C., SAINT JAMES PLACE, LLC, JEFF QIU, YANMING GU, DANNY KONG and AIYUN CHEN, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01203 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2019), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. Throughout their employment, the Plaintiffs were assigned as tile installers. The Plaintiffs worked Monday through Saturday, inclusive, from 6:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., and Plaintiffs needed to work at least 50% of Sundays throughout their employment. Therefore, the Plaintiffs worked eleven and one-half (11.5) hours each day, and 74.75 hours each week. The Plaintiffs are entitled to spread of hours premium for this stated employment period. Ever since Plaintiffs' employment with Defendants, the Plaintiffs were paid at a fixed rate of $280.00 daily. The Plaintiffs regularly worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours a week but did not receive any overtime premium of one and one half times his regular rate of pay for those hours, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Hui Chen, Esq. 136-20 38th Ave., Suite 9E Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 463-2666 E-mail: hui.chen@alum.cardozo.yu.edu A2 MILK: Sarr Says Milk Product Composition Misleading ------------------------------------------------------ The case, Boubacar Sarr individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. The A2 Milk Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01265 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2019), alleges that Defendant misrepresented nutritional and functional significance of a2 Milk Product composition. The A2 Milk Company produces, bottles, packages, markets, distributes and sells milk identified as "a2 Milk". The Products are sold in whole, 1%, 2% and chocolate in various sized cartons, available to consumers nationwide at grocery stores and other retailers. The front labels contain the brand name "a2," "Feel the Difference," "Easier on Digestion" and "Naturally Easy to Digest." The other three sides elaborate on the front-label claims, describing "The a2 Milk Difference" by posing the rhetorical question below: Discomfort from milk? Ordinary cows' milk contains a mix of A1 and A2 protein types. The a2 Milk brand comes from cows that naturally produce only the A2 protein and no A1 -- and that makes a big difference. Independent research shows the A1 protein can cause you tummy discomfort. If that's you, a2 Milk may help. Cow's milk is made up of two milk proteins -- whey and casein. Of the 12 different types of casein proteins, the most common are called A1 and A2. "Ordinary Milk" contains a combination of A1 and A2 while a2 Milk exclusively contains A2. According to the research supporting the representations, the difference in casein proteins is manifested in the way A1 protein is broken down, creating a peptide (protein fragment) called beta-casomorphin-7 (BCM-7), believed to cause digestive issues commonly associated with dairy products. In contrast, the breakdown of A2 does not result in BCM-7. According to the representations, a2 Milk's relative ease of digestion owes to its origins as the "original" cow's milk. Originally, cows' milk contained only one beta casein protein, called A2. Over time, cows started to naturally produce a different beta casein protein, called A1. More and more research suggests this may be the reason some people say milk just doesn't agree with them. It is deceptive and misleading to tout the relative superiority of the Products, based on the absence of BCM-7, when there are no criteria for establishing potentially negative values of this substance. The Products' representations of their A2 content are misleading as to their nutrient content because there are no negative effects of A1 protein in "ordinary milk." The representations that the Products contain more A2 than ordinary milk are misleading because no quantification is provided with respect to the actual amount of A2 contained in standard milk products. To the extent that the images of the A1/A2 and A2 cows indicate the quantity of A2 contained in ordinary milk, this information is imprecise because a consumer has no way of knowing how much A2 is contained in the A1/A2 "ordinary milk." The representations convey that the A2 proteins are superior in their ability to prevent and/or limit digestive discomfort through reliance on "independent research." In fact, the research relied upon has been shown to be performed by groups, organizations and researchers with close ties to defendant. The representations that the Products are "easier to digest" is misleading because it is misleading comparison (suffix "-ier") to the digestibility of traditional milk. However, A2 milk and ordinary traditional milk both contain lactose, which is the component of milk which provides digestive difficulty to affected persons, and the lactose content is not impacted by whether the proteins are A1 or A2. All reasonable scientists agree there are no detrimental effects of A1 protein from traditional milk on human digestion and that A2 protein does not provide "easier" digestion, quantified by gastrointestinal transit time in clinical studies of relevant population groups. The studies purporting to support the Products' claims that A2 proteins provide nutritional, health and functional advantages vis-a-vis A1 proteins are poorly designed, implausible, contrary to human physiology and represent the view of a minority of scientists. The Products contain other representations which are misleading and deceptive. Excluding tax, the Products cost no less than $4.99 per gallon and according to a 2017 news report, $9 per gallon, a premium price compared to other similar products.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: 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 AA AND K: Valle Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------- Ramon Valle, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AA and K Restoration Group, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; Katherine M. Biscardi, individually; and, Alfred Miller, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-20873-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 6, 2019), seeks to recover money damages and other relief brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is similarly situated to at least four other contracted employees who work or have worked during any part of the past three years at any of the work locations to which the defendant employed people to clear debris occasioned by natural disasters. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated work or worked in accordance with their status as W-2 employees specifically contracted to clear storm debris from areas affected by natural disasters, and required to be paid at a negotiated base rate of hourly pay. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated were routinely required to work long hours and even around the clock to ensure that storm debris was removed from public areas affected by natural disasters. On a daily basis, because available housing in affected areas was greatly diminished, employees were required to stay at hotels designated by the defendant located at considerable distances from the work locations, thus necessitating substantial travel to and from the designated work sites and the designated housing sites provided by the employer. The defendant fails to keep reliable time-keeping records, but purports to pay in round figures by direct deposit which bear no relationship with the negotiated hourly rates for work provided by the plaintiffs. The defendant does not specifically or finally pay on account of hours worked and in fact does not attempt to keep track of or otherwise account for the number of hours worked actually worked by them. The defendant further avoids the responsibility of paying a minimum and overtime wages to employees by failing to pay wages on the negotiated and established pay day, and failing to pay at all for the last days of an employee's tenure of employment. On at least two pay periods, during the period of time covered by this Complaint, the Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, were paid less than necessary to cover the required minimum wage for all hours worked during respective pay periods, and failed to at the required premium rate for hours worked in excess of 40 on any given workweek, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq. ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A. 6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101 Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: 305 665-9211 Facsimile: 305 328-4842 E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com ABC PHONES: Underpays Sales Associates, Chavarin-Aguilar Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- WENDY CHAVARIN-AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV04996 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 15, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff Chavarin-Aguilar was employed by the Defendants as sales associate. ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc., doing business as Victra, retails Verizon Wireless products and services. The company offers smartphones and cellphones, tablets, audio products, headphones, batteries, chargers, holders, kits, memory products, screen protectors, and others. ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in Greenville, North Carolina with additional office in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan M. Smith, Esq. BROWN NERI SMITH AND KHAN LLP 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2080 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 593-9890 Facsimile: (310) 593-9980 E-mail: nate@bnsklaw.com ACCEPTANCE SOLUTIONS: Washington et al Seek Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- MAGUN WASHINGTON and SOLOMON BROWN on behalf of herself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ACCEPTANCE SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01415 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 27, 2019), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked as hourly wage workers for Acceptance. Acceptance did not pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees proper overtime wages of one and one-half time their regular rate of pay for all hours worked above 40 hours in a work week. By way of example, Acceptance did not pay Plaintiff Magun one and one-half times full regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40. Also, the Defendant collected Plaintiffs' and other employees' biometric information for use in Defendant's time clock without obtaining written consent, the lawsuit adds.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: David J. Fish, Esq. Kimberly Hilton, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. Seth Matus, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C. 200 E 5th Ave Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355-7590 Facsimile: (630) 778-0400 ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Winckler Says Securities Statement Misleading ------------------------------------------------------------------ BENJAMIN WINCKLER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ROBERT A. KOTICK, SPENCER NEUMANN, and COLLISTER JOHNSON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02095 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2019), 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. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Activision Blizzard securities between August 2, 2018 and January 10, 2019, both dates inclusive. On April 29, 2010, the Company announced its entry, through its wholly owned subsidiary Activision Publishing, Inc., into an agreement with Bungie, Inc., the developer of blockbuster game franchises including Halo, Myth and Marathon. The agreement with Bungie gave Activision Blizzard exclusive rights to publish and distribute video games developed by Bungie for the next 10 years. The partnership between Activision Blizzard and Bungie yielded the commercially successful Destiny franchise, a series of science fiction-themed video games. In September 2014, Activision Blizzard released Destiny, the first installment in the franchise, developed by Bungie. Activision Blizzard announced that the Company sold $500 million of Destiny into retail stores and first parties worldwide on the first day of its release, making the game the largest video game franchise launch in history, at that time. Over the following two years, Bungie developed and Activision Blizzard released four expansions for Destiny. In September 2017, Activision Blizzard released a full sequel, Destiny 2. On September 15, 2017, Activision Blizzard announced that Destiny 2 had "surpassed the original's records for engagement and digital sales in launch week." To date, Bungie has developed and Activision Blizzard has released three expansions for Destiny 2. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the termination of Activision Blizzard and Bungie's partnership, giving Bungie full publishing rights and responsibilities for the Destiny franchise, was imminent; (ii) the termination of the two companies' relationship would foreseeably have a significant negative impact on Activision Blizzard's revenues; and (iii) as a result, Activision Blizzard's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On January 10, 2019, Activision Blizzard and Bungie announced the end of their business relationship. In a post on Bungie's website entitled "Our Destiny", Bungie stated, in relevant part: "We have enjoyed a successful eight-year run and would like to thank Activision for their partnership on Destiny. Looking ahead, we're excited to announce plans for Activision to transfer publishing rights for Destiny to Bungie. With our remarkable Destiny community, we are ready to publish on our own, while Activision will increase their focus on owned IP projects." The planned transition process is already underway in its early stages, with Bungie and Activision both committed to making sure the handoff is as seamless as possible. That same day, in an SEC filing, Activision Blizzard stated that Bungie would "assume full publishing rights and responsibilities for the Destiny franchise. Going forward, Bungie will own and develop the franchise." Following these announcements, the Company's stock price fell $4.81 per share, or 9.37%, to close at $46.54 on January 11, 2019. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says. Activision Blizzard develops and distributes content and services on video game consoles, personal computers ("PC"), and mobile devices. The Company is headquartered in Santa Monica, California, and its common stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market ("NASDAQ") under the ticker symbol "ATVI."[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: W. Scott Holleman, Esq. Garam Choe, Esq. Michael Fistel, Jr., Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-802-1486 Facsimile: 212-602-1592 E-mail: ScottH@johnsonfistel.com GaramC@johnsonfistel.com ALLIANCE FIBER: April 26 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Brodsky & Smith, LLC regarding the AFOP Shareholder Litigation: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. ALLIANCE FIBER OPTICS PRODUCTS, INC., PETER C. CHANG, GWONG-YIH LEE, JAMES C. YEH, RICHARD B. BLACK, RAY SUN, CORNING INCORPORATED, APRICOT MERGER COMPANY and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 16CV294245 CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION Department: 1 Judge: Hon. Brian C. Walsh BAHMAN KHAKI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. ALLIANCE FIBER OPTICS PRODUCTS, INC., PETER C. CHANG, GWONG-YIH LEE, JAMES C. YEH, RICHARD B. BLACK, RAY SUN, CORNING INCORPORATED, APRICOT MERGER COMPANY and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 16CV294833 CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS WHO WERE THE RECORD OR BENEFICIAL OWNER OF COMMON STOCK OF ALLIANCE FIBER OPTICS PRODUCTS, INC. ("AFOP" OR THE "COMPANY") FROM APRIL 7, 2016, THROUGH AND INCLUDING THE CONSUMMATION OF THE ACQUISITION OF AFOP BY CORNING INCORPORATED ("CORNING") ON JUNE 3, 2016 (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT Plaintiffs in the above-captioned stockholder actions (the "Actions") have reached a proposed settlement of that litigation with the Defendants (the "Settlement") that, if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims asserted in the Actions as well as certain other claims (defined in the full printed Notice of Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice")). YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT a hearing will be held on April 26, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. at the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, 191 N 1st St., San Jose, CA 95113, to determine inter alia: (a) whether the Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (b) Plaintiffs' petition for an Attorneys' Fee Award; and (c) whether the Judgment should be entered. Be advised that on January 29, 2019, the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara ("Santa Clara Court") certified the Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement, pursuant to section 382 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, as an opt-out class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for the Defendants who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition, as set forth in the Notice. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTIONS AND THE SETTLEMENT. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy by contacting the Notice Administrator at the address listed below. Copies of the Notice and other Settlement-related documents can be accessed at the following websites: (i) www.AFOPShareholderLitigation.com, (ii) www.weisslawllp.com, and http://www.brodskysmith.com. Any Settlement Class Member who does not wish to participate in the Settlement and wishes to be excluded from the Settlement Class must submit a request to be excluded from the Settlement Class ("Opt-Out") to the Notice Administrator listed below in such a manner that they are received by the Notice Administrator postmarked on or before April 12, 2019, in accordance with the instructions set forth in Section X of the Notice. All Opt-Out requests must be mailed to the Notice Administrator: AFOP Shareholder Litigation Notice Administrator c/o KCC Class Action Services P.O. Box 404002 Louisville, KY 40233-4002 Any Settlement Class Member who duly objects to any aspect of the Settlement, including Plaintiffs' petition for an Attorneys' Fee Award may: (i) submit a written objection, (ii) appear and make an oral objection at the Settlement Hearing, or (iii) both submit a written objection and appear and make an oral objection at the Settlement Hearing. Any written objection to the proposed Settlement and/or Plaintiffs' petition for an Attorneys' Fee Award must be filed with the Santa Clara Court and served upon Plaintiff's Counsel and counsel for Defendants, such that they are received no later than April 12, 2019, in accordance with the instructions set forth in Section IX of the Notice. Members of the Settlement Class may attend the Settlement Hearing and make an oral objection without first submitting a written objection or entering an appearance in the Actions; written objections are not a pre-requisite to being heard at the Settlement Hearing. PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK REGARDING THIS NOTICE. For further information regarding this Settlement, you may contact: Brodsky & Smith, LLC, c/o Evan J. Smith, 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900, Beverly Hills, CA 90212; Telephone: 1-877-534-2590. DATED: February 25, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA [GN] ALLSTATE FIRE: Stockdale Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------- A case, KAYLA STOCKDALE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, the Plaintiff, vs. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 190102151, was removed from the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on Feb. 27, 2019. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00845-WB to the proceeding. The suit alleges claims over insurance. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: James C. Haggerty, Esq. HAGGERTY GOLDBERG SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH PC 1835 Market St Ste 2700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 350-6609 E-mail: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com Attorneys for the Defendant: Mark J. Levin, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL 1735 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599 Telephone: (215) 864-8235 E-mail: levinm@ballardspahr.com AMARIN CORPORATION: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on Feb. 27 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Amarin Corporation plc ("Amarin" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: AMRN) for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's shares between September 24, 2018 and November 9, 2018, inclusive (the ″Class Period″), are encouraged to contact the firm before April 23, 2019. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian, of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Amarin touted the results of its REDUCE-IT trial for Vascepa, the Company's cardiovascular disease drug candidate, while knowing the results were not as positive as it was representing them to be. The placebo given to the control portion of the trial may have led to an increased rate of cardiovascular events for those patients. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Amarin, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm -- http://www.schallfirm.com-- represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. [GN] AMERICAN FINANCE: Sued over Defective Registration Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN BRACKEN, MICHAEL P. MILLER and JAMIE BECKETT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. AMERICAN FINANCE TRUST, INC., AMERICAN FINANCE ADVISORS, LLC, AR GLOBAL INVESTMENTS, LLC, NICHOLAS S. SCHORSCH, WILLIAM M. KAHANE, EDWARD M. WEIL, JR., NICHOLAS RADESCA, DAVID GONG, STANLEY R. PERLA and LISA D. KUBNICK, the Defendants, Case No. 651348/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 6, 2019), seeks to recover damages as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' issuance of defective registration statements. The case is a securities class action arising from the issuance of shares of American Finance Trust, Inc. ("AFIN") to Plaintiffs and members of the class in AFIN's dividend reinvestment program ("DRIP") from April 1, 2016 through the date of AFIN's public listing. The AFIN shares that Plaintiffs and the other class members purchased were registered with the SEC pursuant to defective registration statements, issued on April 1, 2016 and December 2016. The Registration Statements contained materially incomplete and misleading information concerning (a) the financial impact to AFIN and its shareholders of the changes in 2015 to the Advisory Agreement ("2nd Advisory Agreement") between AFIN and Defendant American Finance Advisors, Inc. ("Advisor") and the additional changes to the Advisory Agreement in 2016, which were conditioned upon approval of a "Merger" of AFIN and Retail Centers of America ("RCA") in early 2017 (the "3rd Advisory Agreement") (under the same control as Advisor); and (b) the material negative impact of the 2nd and 3rd Advisory Agreements upon AFIN and its shareholders for a public listing liquidity event. For instance, the Defendants failed to disclose in the Registration Statements that public markets discount the value of externally managed REITs like AFIN. When AFIN, then known as American Realty Capital Trust V, Inc., went public in 2013, it filed a Form S-l 1 registration statement/prospectus on March 6, 20132 that disclosed the higher advisory fees and market discounts for externally managed REITs. Those facts remained true throughout the Class Period. Yet when AFIN filed the Registration Statements on April 1, 2016 and later on October 21, 2016, November 23, 2016 and December 16, 2016. The Defendants omitted those disclosures or ideal any warning that a public listing could result in the public violation of AFIN shares at a deep discount to their net asset value due to issues surrounding AFIN's external management by AR Global affiliates. The Registration Statements also omitted material information about AFIN's inability to obtain a public listing of its stock in 2015 and 2016 despite a direction from the SEC to make such disclosure. Defendants Weil, Radesca, Gong, Perla and Kubnick signed the false and misleading Registration Statement pursuant to which the AF1N stock was issued and Advisor, AR Global Investments, LLC ("AR Global"), Schorsch and Kahane were controlling persons of the issuer, AF1N. Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants for violations of Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act. When AFIN finally listed its stock for public trading on the NASDAQ in July 2018, the risks that had been concealed and misrepresented in the Registration Statements became known and the price of AFIN stock plunged approximately 30% below the "net asset value" of $23.17, (which NAY defendants had publicly confirmed less than 60 days before the listing).[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Olimpio Lee Suitieri, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 Facsimile: (212) 421-6553 AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Removes Jarman Suit to S.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The Defendant in the case of DEBORAH JARMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, INC.; and CITY OF GRANITE CITY, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois, County of Madison (Case No. 18-L-1658) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on February 14, 2019. The clerk of court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00204-NJR-RJD. The case is assigned to Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel and referred to Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly. American Traffic Solutions, Inc. provides smart transportation solutions. The company develops, delivers, and operates road safety products and services that reduce the number and severity of preventable crashes by enhancing compliance with traffic laws addressing red-lights, school zones, speed limits, and school bus safety. It also offers turnkey and customized transportation-related business management solutions; and toll and violation management solutions for commercial and rental fleets. The company is based in Mesa, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas G. Maag, Esq. MAAG LAW FIRM, LLC 22 West Lorena Avenue Wood River, IL 62095 Telephone: (618) 216-5291 Facsimile: (618) 551-0421 E-mail: tmaag@maaglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Joy C. Syrcle, Esq. STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP 7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 259-4537 E-mail: joy.syrcle@stinsonleonard.com - and - Jon A. Santangelo, Esq. STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP 7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 863-0800 Facsimile: (314) 863-9388 E-mail: jon.santangelo@stinsonleonard.com AMERIPRISE AUTO: Lovelace Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Arkansas ----------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Belincia Lovelace, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance Agency Inc., IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company, Ameriprise Financial Inc., Progressive Specialty Insurance Agency Inc., Progressive Direct Holdings Inc., Progressive Corporation, and American Strategic Insurance Corp., the Defendants, Case No. 60CV-19-00154, was removed from the Pulaski County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock) on Feb. 27, 2019. The Eastern District of Arkansas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00150-SWW to the proceeding. The suit alleges insurance-related claims. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Susan Webber Wright. Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance is an insurance company based in suburban Green Bay, Wisconsin. The company sells auto, home, condo, renters, umbrella and travel insurance.[BN] Attorneys for the Belincia Lovelace, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated: David A. Hodges, Esq. DAVID HODGES LAW OFFICE 212 Center Street, Suite 500 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-2400 Facsimile: (501) 374-8926 E-mail: david@hodgeslaw.com - and - Michael Benjamin Honaker, Esq. HONAKER LAW 212 Center Street, 10th Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 247-6975 E-mail: ben@benhonakerlaw.com Attorneys for Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance Agency Inc.; IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company; and Ameriprise Financial Inc.: John A. Little , Jr., Esq. John A. Smyth, III, Esq. Thomas J. Butler, Esq. MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C. Regions/Harbert Plaza 1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 2400 Birmingham, AL 35203-2618 Telephone: (205) 254-1000 Facsimile: (205) 142-1999 E-mail: jsmyth@maynardcooper.com ASHLEY FURNITURE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ELIA HAGGAR; KYO HAK CHU; VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01266-PA-JC (C.D. Cal., Feb. 21, 2019) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the Complaint, the Defendants' website https://www.ashleyfurniture.com/ is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During the Plaintiffs' numerous visits to the Defendant's website, the Plaintiffs encountered multiple access barriers which denied the Plaintiffs full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public on the Defendant's website, and its prior iterations. Due to the widespread access barriers the Plaintiffs and Class Members encountered on the Defendant's website, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have been deterred, on a regular basis, from accessing the Defendant's website. Similarly, the access barriers the Plaintiffs have encountered on the Defendant's website have deterred the Plaintiffs and Class Members from visiting the Defendant's brick-and-mortar stores. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. manufactures home furniture. It offers living room furniture, such as chairs and ottomans, entertainment centers, occasional tables, recliners, reclining sofas, sectionals, sofas and loveseats, bars, lamps, rugs, wall art, and home accessories. Ashley Furniture Industries was founded in 1945 and is based in Arcadia, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bobby Saadian, Esq. Thiago Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 ASLAN COLD: Underpays Drivers, Martinez Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------- JOSE LUIS ESQUIVEL MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASLAN COLD STORAGE, LLC; SCOTT CRITCHLEY; and DOES I through 50, Defendants, Case No. 19CECG00612 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., Feb. 15, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff Martinez was employed by the Defendants as driver. Aslan Cold Storage, LLC is a California liability corporation providing logistics and agricultural labor. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Daniel Conforti, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249F Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net dconforti@mahoney-law.net AT&T MOBILITY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gorss Motels Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Gorss Motels Inc. filed an appeal from a Court ruling in its lawsuit entitled Gorss Motels Inc. v. AT&T Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-cv-403, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). The appellate case is captioned as Gorss Motels Inc. v. AT&T Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-514, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Mar. 1, 2019, the Hon. Janet Bond Arterton denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, for sending an unsolicited fax advertisement. The Plaintiff moves for class certification pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class is defined as: All persons or entities who were successfully sent a facsimile on or about January 14, 2014, stating: "Visit your AT&T Partner online store at att.com/wireless/wyndhamfranchisees for your exclusive specials such as $50 new smartphone activation credit, $100 instant rebate on all tablets while supplies last, 16% on qualifying monthly charges," and "Learn about AT&T's new Mobile Share Value Plan!," and "For a limited time, switch from T-Mobile and receive up to $450 when you trade in your current smartphone!." In her ruling, Judge Arterton opined that the Plaintiff has not met its burden to demonstrate that the requirements of Rule 23, citing Raitport, 312 F. Supp. 3d at 234-235 (citing cases "den[ying] class certification in cases involving allegedly defective opt-out notices and arising under the TCPA" because of question of individualized consent, and denying class certification for Plaintiffs failure to show that "questions of law common to class members predominate").[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner Gorss Motels Inc., a Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, is represented by: Glenn L. Hara, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: ghara@andersonwanca.com Defendants-Respondents AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Mobility National Accounts LLC are represented by: Hans Germann, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 701-8792 E-mail: hgermann@mayerbrown.com BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Owen et al. Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America, N.A. The case is captioned as KENNETH D. OWENS; SAMANTHA A. HOLLEY; KARA L. GARIGLIO; NICOLETTA PANTELYAT; ISABELLE SCHERER; JONATHAN TULE; and KELSEA D. WIGGINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-20614-MGC (S.D. Fla., Feb. 15, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Marcia G. Cooke. Bank of America, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank offers saving and current account, investment and financial services, online banking, mortgage and non-mortgage loan facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans. Bank of America serves client worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss IV Solutions Sales Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that company is seeking dismissal of the amended complaint in the purported class action involving IV solutions sales. In November 2016, a purported antitrust class action complaint seeking monetary and injunctive relief was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges a conspiracy among manufacturers of IV solutions to restrict output and affect pricing in connection with a shortage of such solutions. Similar parallel actions subsequently were filed. In January 2017, a single consolidated complaint covering these matters was filed in the Northern District of Illinois. The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in February 2017. The court granted the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint without prejudice in July 2018. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 6, 2018. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 9, 2018. Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops and provides a portfolio of healthcare products. The company operates through North and South America; Europe, Middle East and Africa; and Asia-Pacific segments. Baxter International Inc. was founded in 1931 and is headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois. BAYER: Obtains Favorable Ruling in False Advertising Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that on Feb. 22, Bayer and its lawyers at Wilkinson Walsh & Eskovitz routed class action claims by consumers in New York, Florida and California who alleged Bayer falsely represented that its One A Day multivitamins support heart health, immunity and physical energy. The nine-member jury could not have sided more decisively with Bayer: On the verdict form, jurors found that class counsel from Tillotson Law and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer not only failed to prove that Bayer's representations were misleading or deceptive but also failed to establish that any of the three class representatives relied on the allegedly false statements when they bought One A Day vitamins. Consumer class action trials are a rarity. For most defendants, the stakes are simply too high to risk. In this case, for example, plaintiffs' damages model put Bayer's exposure at about $600 million, and that was just for consumers in three states. Had Bayer lost at trial and failed to overturn the verdict on appeal, it doubtless would have faced copycat class actions by consumers in other states, escalating its potential liability into billions of dollars. [GN] BROOKLYN, NY: Warden Faces Class Action Over Jail Conditions ------------------------------------------------------------ WCBS 880 reports that after prisoners at a federal jail in Brooklyn went a week without heat and electricity in February, a new lawsuit has been filed against the warden. The class action lawsuit says the warden of the Metropolitan Detention Center, Herman Quay, failed to provide decent, humane conditions for inmates living there. The federal prison in Sunset Park was compared to a gulag during one of the coldest weeks of the winter. The prison had major heating issues to go along with power problems that left inmates' cells completely in the dark. The unbearable conditions caught the attention of Mayor Bill de Blasio and other elected officials, who found when they tried to help those inside, they were met initially by resistance from Quay. The lawsuit represents just two inmates at the moment but could include more down the road. One of the inmates suing says he had to survive the bitter cold in just a short-sleeve cotton jumper. He says when he complained of numbness in his hand and an infection on his skin, he was ignored. [GN] CABLE BAHAMAS: Attorney Mulls Class Action Over Service Problems ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rashad Rolle, writing for Tribune 242, reports that Wayne Munroe wants to launch a class-action lawsuit against Cable Bahamas, hoping to force the service provider to provide customers with all they pay for, or supply credits when it can't do so. Mr Munroe, in Facebook posts, invited disgruntled customers to join his suit. He told The Tribune: "I don't watch a lot of TV because I'm not home a lot but it's annoying that you go to a channel you want to watch and it's temporarily off air. "In my case, I watched five or six channels and the issue came to a head over the weekend where I had an issue where channels were out for almost two weeks and on the weekend, most of them went out. Somebody called Cable Bahamas from my house; a representative said they would see if they could get someone there about three, four days later. "It struck me that here it is that's ten percent of the month without a service and they don't compensate us when they don't provide the service you contracted for. Bahamas Power & Light is different because when the power out you're not charged because you're not consuming electricity." Mr Munroe said his action would hopefully force companies like Cable Bahamas to hire the number of staff needed to ensure it does not take days for representatives to respond to concerns. He said: "If they had to give you credit for the time when they aren't providing a service, they might keep on more staff. I don't know whether they're able to see that two of the 30 channels Munroe is paying for are out so they can work on that even before I call them, but if they cannot do that, why? Is it that the technology doesn't exist? Maybe the technology costs a bit of money so they can get away without buying it. That's the thinking behind holding them to the strict contract they have entered into with us." Mr Munroe said a number of people have expressed interest in joining a lawsuit. "URCA should force them," he said, "by saying if you're not giving the service pay for, give a credit to customers. Then I don't care if it takes two weeks to come to my house because then I don't have to pay them for the two weeks the service isn't being provided. But it can't be right that they take three days to come and we have to pay them for the three days. We know that if you're a day late in paying them, they cut you off, right?" Mr Munroe said a lawsuit would be a service to the community. "As a lawyer, I now see there is something wrong cuz I witness it," he said. "Having witnessed it, I can't sit back and let it continue because what good will that do? How right would it be that they may put an alert in the system so that when I call them they come deal with my issue so I won't sue them, but they don't do the same to all the rest of the people who are paying and not getting the service?" [GN] CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Class Certification Bid in Jensen Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit PAUL JENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; ALTICE N.V., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-100 (ADS)(AKT), the Hon. Judge Arthur D. Spatt entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to exclude the report and testimony of Dr. Mitchell Smooke; 2. granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to exclude the report and testimony of Dr. Jennifer Golbeck; and 3. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 23. The Defendants have moved to exclude the reports and testimony of Dr. Jennifer Golbeck and Dr. Mitchell Smooke. The Defendants argue that this Court should exclude the expert report and testimony of Dr. Jennifer Golbeck because she lacks the qualifications to render expert opinions on this case and the opinions contained in her expert report do not meet the standards for admissibility outlined in Daubert and its progeny. Dr. Jennifer Golbeck is an associate professor in the College of Information Studies at the University of Maryland. She was an assistant professor from 2007 until 2013, when she received tenure. While at the University of Maryland, Dr. Golbeck focuses her research and teaching on the internet as well as various aspects of social media. At her deposition, she testified that she also focuses her research on issues of trust, privacy, and network analysis. The Court said, "While Cablevision's practices may have violated certain consumers' expectations of privacy and autonomy, as Dr. Golbeck notes in her expert report, the Plaintiff has failed to put forth any evidence that any damage resulted from violating customer expectations. Even if Jensen did assert an invasion of privacy claim, i.e. the unauthorized collection of data, "Sec. 349 injury has been recognized only where confidential, individually identifiable information -- such as medical records or a Social Security number -- is collected without the individual's knowledge or consent."[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiff: CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W. 7 th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 - and - Joseph H. Bates, Esq. THE CASEY LAW FIRM LLC 20 NE Thompson Street Portland, OR 97212 - and - M. Ryan Casey, Esq. MILSTEIN, JACKSON, FAIRCHILD & WADE LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd., 14 th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 - and - Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Sara D. Avila, Esq. KU & MUSSMAN, P.A. 6001 NW 153rd Street, Suite 100 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Attorneys for the Defendants: Brian T. Ku, Esq. Louis I. Mussman, Esq. Matthew D. Ingber, Esq. Archis A. Parasharami, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 CAMPBELL SOUP: Simon Says V8+ Energy Products Packaging Misleading ------------------------------------------------------------------ Renzil Simon individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Campbell Soup Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01209 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2019), alleges that the Defendant manufactures, packages, distributes and sells products which purport to be described as capable of supplying steady energy whereby the caffeine absorption would be tempered by constituents of green tea, among other things. This warrants to consumers that caffeine in the Products does not result in a "crash" which is a typical result of a caffeine-enhanced beverage. The Plaintiff and class members relied on defendant’s claims, paying more than they would have. Campbell Soup manufactures, bottles, packages, markets, distributes and sells fruit and vegetable beverage blends with green tea extracts in the V8+ Energy product line ("Products"). The Products are sold in regular, sparkling and diet, in cans including 8 and 12 oz, nationwide to consumers from retail stores and websites, and from defendant directly. The product line includes no fewer than 14 varieties. Regular: Peach Mango, Pomegranate Blueberry, Black Cherry, Orange Pineapple, 100% Vegetable Juice, and Strawberry Banana Sparkling: Sparkling Orange Pineapple, Sparkling White Grape Raspberry, Sparkling Blackberry Cranberry, and Sparkling Kiwi Melon Diet: Diet Strawberry Lemonade, and Diet Cranberry Raspberry. Sparkling Diet "Energy drinks" are sought by consumers to feel more energetic, alert, focused, creative, and productive. These products have come under scrutiny for their harmful effects in part due to their high potential for abuse and excessive caffeine content. The active ingredient for the "energy" is caffeine, a central nervous system stimulant. Caffeine induces mental and physical changes associated with "energy": increase alertness, wakefulness, motivation, and motor activity; enhance physiological arousal, by activating sympathetic nervous system by increasing heart rate and blood pressure and the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis by increasing cortisol. It takes about 45 minutes for 99% of caffeine to be absorbed in the body, and the discharge rate is steep -- 50% within two hours. This fast metabolism of caffeine leads to drowsiness and fatigue, due to elevated levels of adenosine, causing dopamine to be repressed -- referred to as a "crash." The Products provide 80 mg of caffeine (per 12 oz) and emphasize its source on the front label and compare the caffeine levels to similar foods on the side label. The representations are that the caffeine in the Products will not produce the typical "crash" associated with caffeine because its source is green tea, indicated in the ingredient list. The "steady energy" claims are repeated and promoted in the marketing campaign. It is false, deceptive and misleading to claim and/or imply the caffeine in the Products from green tea will last longer, be metabolized or absorbed at a different rate ("steadily") and will not cause a typical caffeine crash from caffeine not derived from green tea. This claim is based upon faulty science, implausible studies and consumers’ erroneous impressions, which the labels take advantage of. Tea is associated with calming and soothing effects in part because it's consumed slowly (hot), by the cup, and has less caffeine per ounce than caffeinated beverages like coffee. When tea is converted into a powdered extract, the caffeine content becomes higher since there is no water, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plainitff: 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. 1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2527 New York, NY 10119 CARELINK INC: Walthrust et al. Seek OT Pay for Home Health Aides ---------------------------------------------------------------- ZANETTA WALTHRUST, KATIANA WILLIAMS, STEPHANIE MOLIERE, FRANCOISE M. GUELCE, MARILYN PASCHALL, KATHLEEN BERNARD, MARTHA ELIZABETH ABRAMS, MICHELINE CANTAVE, MARIE PIERRE BERNADIN, MATHEW J. DI NORCIA, SANDRA OLIVER, JORDELINE JEAN BAPTISTE, NIRVA N. MONCHAIS, and JOHN DOES No. 1-10, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CARELINK, INC., ENA BAILEY and JOHN DOES No. 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 504599/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 1, 2019), alleges that Plaintiffs worked for Defendants for more than 40 hours per week and were illegally not paid any wages for many of their hours worked. The Plaintiffs and the putative class plaintiffs were home health aides who worked numerous 24-hour shifts for which they were illegally paid for only 13 of the 24-hours worked, as they did not get meal breaks and did not get 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep and a full 8 hours of sleep during the shifts. The Plaintiffs complain that they are entitled to back wages from Defendant for (a) hours worked for which they did not receive wages including wages as required under the Wage Parity Act, (b) overtime hours worked for which they did not receive time and one half the minimum wage or time and one half their actual wages, and (c) spread of hours work performed for which they did not receive an extra hour of pay, as required by the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. The Plaintiffs also complain that they are entitled to damages under the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act because Defendants did not provide proper notices to the Plaintiffs.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: William C. Rand, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND 501 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 0017 Telephone: (212) 286-1425 Facsimile: (646) 688-3078 CARIBBEAN BLUEWATERS: Yin et al. Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- COLIN LEI YIN, FANG WANG, YUEPING HUANG, and YU ZHANG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CARIBBEAN BLUEWATERS GROUP, LLC d/b/a YIHAN SPA, "Amy" Su (first name unknown), and Geoffrey Allard, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02032 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2019), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and/or attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed FLSA Collective: Xiaoxi Liu, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38 th Ave. Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: xliu@hanglaw.com CEDAR SHAKE: ZRD Sues over Price Fixing of Roofing Material ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, ZRD GROUP, LLC, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE BUREAU, a Washington nonprofit corporation; WALDUN FOREST PRODUCTS, LTD, a British Columbia corporation; ANBROOK INDUSTRIES LTD, a British Columbia Corporation; and G&R CEDAR LTD, a British Columbia corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01312 (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2019), targets Defendants' wrongful and anticompetitive actions that had the intended purpose and effect of artificially fixing, raising, maintaining, and stabilizing the price of cedar shakes and shingles to Plaintiff and class members in the United States. Indeed, 90% of all cedar shakes and shingles manufactured in Canada are exported to the United States. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself and on behalf of a plaintiff class consisting of all individuals and entities who purchased cedar shakes and shingles for end use and not for resale that were manufactured by one of the Defendants or a co-conspirator named in this complaint in the United States from no later than February 27, 2015 through the present. Cedar shakes and shingles are roofing and siding material produced from cedar logs and cut blocks. The use of cedar shakes and shingles dates back hundreds of years. A cedar shake is a rustic-looking roofing shingle that has been hand split, replicating the look of an ax or mallet cut. Shakes are rough and variable and almost always used for roofing. Conversely, cedar shingles are uniformly sawn for a consistent and even thickness, and provide a uniform machine-like look. Shingles are used for both sidewalls and roofing. The Cedar Shake & Shingle Bureau ("CSSB") is a trade association serving the shake and shingle industry in the United States and Canada. CSSB owns the trademark to "Certi-Label" shakes and shingles, which include the Certi-Grade, Certi-Sawn, Certi-Split, and Certi-Ridge registered trademark labels. CSSB Certi-Labeled shakes and shingles account for an estimated 95% of the high-end cedar shake and shingles utilized in the United States product market. All CSSB members participate in and sell the vast majority of their high-end cedar shake and shingle products in the United States. The CSSB Board of Directors comprises several of the largest manufacturers of cedar shakes and shingles, including Anbrook Industries Ltd., Waldun Forest Products Ltd., and G&R Cedar Ltd. At least some members of the CSSB -- including Manufacturer Defendants -- colluded to fix prices on cedar shake and shingles. The CSSB plays a large role in regulating the cedar shake and shingle industry in the United States and Canada. The CSSB drafted and holds the copyright to the CSSB-97 grading and packing rules, which have been almost universally incorporated into building codes throughout the United States and Canada. The CSSB has aggressively and successfully promoted its CSSB-97 grading rules and its trademarked Certi-Label shakes and shingles. Virtually all of the manufacturers of high end shakes and shingles sold and used in the United States in the past 20 years have been members of the CSSB. Membership in the CSSB trade association is necessary to effectively compete in the U.S. market for high-end shakes and shingles. CSSB members hold at least 90% of the shares of this market. The cedar shake and shingle industry has become significantly consolidated over the past two decades. Shake and shingle manufacturers now operate only in Washington, Idaho, and British Columbia. Manufacturer Defendants have a concentration of power in the CSSB, partly due to the consolidation of the shake and shingle industry, and partly due to the voting structure of the CSSB, which weighs votes based on each manufacturer member's annual shake and shingle production. In fact, through the CSSB, Manufacturer Defendants have used their voting power to terminate members from the CSSB who compete on price and who are unwilling to follow the price and product leadership of Manufacturer Defendants. As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the class paid artificially inflated prices for cedar shakes and shingles during the Class Period, i.e., February 27, 2015 through the present. Such prices exceeded the amount they would have paid for cedar shakes and shingles if the price had been determined by a competitive market. Thus, Plaintiff and class members suffered an antitrust injury as a result of Defendants' conduct.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Fred T. Isquith, Esq. Thomas H. Burt, Esq. Randall S. Newman, Esq. Veronica M. Bosco, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-545-4600 Facsimile: 212-686-0114 E-mail: isquith@whafh.com burt@whafh.com newman@whafh.com bosco@whafh.com CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Masteller Sues over Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA MASTELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL PORTFOLIO CONTROL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00755-EGS (W.D. Pa., Feb. 14, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Central Portfolio Control Inc. was founded in 1998. The company's line of business includes collection and adjustment services on claims and other insurance related issues. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sharon S. Masters, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF SHARON S. MASTERS 50360 2201 Pennsylvania Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (610) 322-5277 Facsimile: (866) 317-2674 E-mail: shmasters@hotmail.com CHOICE HOTELS: De La Rosa Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Javier De La Rosa, individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Choice Hotels International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2019-CH-01258 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 7, 2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01638. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Illinois Biometrics Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), through the use of "fingerprint" technology. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant collects, stores, uses, and discloses employee biometric information when the employees clock in or out of work without first obtaining informed written consent or publishing their retention policies, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Illinois. Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business in Rockville, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William P.N. Kingston, Esq. Jad Sheikali, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 893-7002 Fax: (312) 275-7895 Email: wkingston@mcgpc.com jsheikali@mcgpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60606-1901 Phone: (312) 416-6200 Facsimile: (312) 416-6201 Email: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com - and - Joel Griswold, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP SunTrust Center 200 S. Orange Ave., Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801-3432 Phone: (407) 649-4088 Email: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com CLIENT SERVICES: Charach Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ AHRON CHARACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00230-RSW (E.D. Mo., Feb. 16, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to District Judge Rodney W. Sippel. Client Services, Inc. operates as a customer relationship management company that offers a suite of accounts receivable management, business processing outsourcing (BPO), and healthcare solutions. Client Services, Inc. was founded in 1987 and is based in Saint Charles, Missouri with additional locations in Lenexa, Kansas, as well as Costa Rica. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. RC LAW GROUP, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 x101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com COMBE INC: New Judge to Handle Jurisdictional Dispute ----------------------------------------------------- Madison-St. Clair Record reports that former U.S. District Judge David Herndon presided over 8,655 claims of injury from Just for Men hair dye for two and a half years, and now that he is retired, District Judge Staci Yandle must solve a jurisdictional puzzle. Judge Yandle has to decide whether plaintiffs can amend complaints they filed against dye maker Combe Inc. in 2016, alleging the product caused burns, scars, and discoloration. Attorney John Driscoll of St. Louis moved to amend the complaints on Feb. 22, admitting they don't meet a jurisdictional standard the U.S. Supreme Court adopted in 2017. He wrote that it would be unfair for defendants to benefit from the Court's decision and not permit plaintiffs to amend and update their personal jurisdiction allegations in light of the change the Court wrought in Bristol Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California. Mr. Driscoll and other lawyers filed suits for 3,709 plaintiffs in St. Clair County Circuit Court against Combe, a Delaware corporation in White Plains, N.Y. About six percent of the plaintiffs lived in Illinois. Plaintiffs also sued two Combe subsidiaries in Illinois and two in other states. Combe removed the suits to federal court, where Judge Herndon coordinated them for discovery and other pretrial purposes. Judge Herndon appointed Mr. Driscoll, Roger Denton of St. Louis, and Richard Schulte of Dayton, Ohio, to an executive committee for plaintiffs. He also appointed Kristine Kraft of St. Louis as liaison counsel. For a steering committee he appointed Joseph Osborne of Boca Raton, Fla., Jon Conlin of Birmingham, Ala., Angela Mason of Dothan, Ala., Jay Urban of Milwaukee, and Tad Thomas of Louisville, Ky. At some point plaintiff lawyers reached a tolling agreement with Combe for 4,946 cases they didn't file, for a total of 8,655. Combe and two subsidiaries in other states moved to dismiss claims from plaintiffs in other states, arguing the court lacked personal jurisdiction. All subsidiaries moved to dismiss for failure to state a valid cause of action. All five defendants moved to strike class allegations. In November 2016, Judge Herndon suspended the proceedings in favor of mediation through former Madison County judge Daniel Stack. He held six status conferences in 2017, issuing no orders until the last one. On Dec. 13, he wrote that he held Combe's motions in abeyance while the parties addressed other issues. He wrote that he judicially termed the motions with the understanding that they could be reinstated. "The court hereby confirms that the merits of these motions will not be affected in any way while they are termed," Judge Herndon wrote. "If they are reinstated at a later date, they then will be fully briefed and decided on the merits." He wrote that no issue of waiver was raised. After a status conference last June, Herndon appointed Randi Ellis of Baton Rouge, La., as mediation facilitator. He bestowed power on her "to do all things necessary." What Stack couldn't accomplish alone, he and Ellis couldn't accomplish together. Judge Herndon declared defeat after a hearing this Jan. 4, his final day on the job. "This hearing represented a culmination of a year plus of mediating intensely and frequently in order to attempt in every way to reach a compromise of this litigation," he wrote. "Without blame to either side, that particular point at which any piece of litigation can be compromised because each side sacrifices some and gains some could not be reached here." He reinstated Combe's motions and wrote, "There is much work to be accomplished, which is rare in cases with a lengthy time on file already." On Jan. 9, the court clerk assigned the cases to Judge Yandle. On Jan. 16, she asked for briefs on the status and posture of the action. She set a hearing the following week. On Jan. 17, she told them not to bother. "In light of the information contained in the transcript of the status conference conducted by Judge Herndon on January 4, it is not necessary for the parties to submit a joint memorandum on January 22, as previously directed," she wrote. On Jan. 19, plaintiffs moved to amend complaints. On Jan. 23, Judge Yandle stayed briefing on the motion to dismiss subsidiaries and the motion to strike class allegations, pending a ruling on personal jurisdiction. She suspended all discovery not related to personal jurisdiction. On Feb. 6, plaintiff liaison counsel Kraft moved to conduct jurisdictional discovery and compel depositions. She wrote that plaintiffs never had an opportunity to amend complaints because they focused on fact sheets and settlement negotiations. "Plaintiffs' counsel anticipated that a subsequent judge or defendants may unfairly try to punish plaintiffs for cooperating in the process established by Judge Herndon given the passage of three years," Kraft wrote. On that date, a connection between the action and the Supreme Court's jurisdiction decision from 2017 appeared in the record for the first time. In that decision, the Justices found a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a company only if a claim arises out of a defendant's contact with the forum. In a brief opposing Kraft's motion, Combe counsel Stephen Strauss of St. Louis wrote, "For a company to be subject to general personal jurisdiction, that company ordinarily has to be domiciled in the state." "In other words, in most instances, in order for a company to be subject to general personal jurisdiction, the company must either be incorporated in the state or have its principal place of business in the state," Strauss wrote. In the week of Feb.18, plaintiffs filed motions to amend complaints in the 22 cases underlying the coordination file. Mr. Driscoll wrote in one of the motions that, "If plaintiffs had known that their good faith attempt to settle the litigation would ever preclude the opportunity to amend their complaint, they would never have agreed to this process." The court should not punish plaintiffs now by denying their motion to amend the complaints and the requested jurisdictional discovery for complying with the court's settlement process," Mr. Driscoll wrote. On Jan. 22, Judge Yandle stayed Kraft's motion for jurisdictional discovery pending a ruling on amending the complaints. [GN] COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeal in Gibson Class Suit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the appeal from a ruling in the case, Gibson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Healthcare of Leesville, Inc. d/b/a Byrd Regional Medical Center, is still pending. This case is a purported class action lawsuit filed in the 30th Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and served on August 3, 2016, claiming the company's formerly affiliated Leesville, Louisiana hospital violated payor contracts by allegedly improperly asserting hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors and seeking class certifications for any similarly situated plaintiffs. The court has certified a class and denied the company's motion for summary judgment. Community Health said, "We have appealed both rulings to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals. That appeal is pending. We believe these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the case." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare services through the hospitals that we own and operate and affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin, Tennessee. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bowden Suit Against Affiliate Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that Ruston Louisiana Hospital Company, LLC continues to defend a purported class action lawsuit entitled, Bowden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ruston Louisiana Hospital Company, LLC d/b/a Northern Louisiana Medical Center. This case is a purported class action lawsuit filed in the 3rd Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and served on September 7, 2016, claiming the company's affiliated Ruston, Louisiana hospital violated payor contracts by allegedly improperly asserting hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors and seeking class certifications for any similarly situated plaintiffs. The company's motion for summary judgment is pending, as is plaintiff's motion for class certification. Neither motion is currently set for hearing. Community Health said, "We believe these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the case." Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare services through the hospitals that we own and operate and affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin, Tennessee. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in Tennessee Suit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the motion seeking class certification of a consolidated class action lawsuit in Tennessee is still pending. Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between July 27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for our common stock. In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel. In lieu of ruling on the company's motion to dismiss, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file a first amended consolidated class action complaint which was filed on October 5, 2015. The company's motion to dismiss was filed on November 4, 2015 and oral argument took place on April 11, 2016. The company's motion to dismiss was granted on June 16, 2016 and on June 27, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The matter was heard on May 3, 2017. On December 13, 2017, the Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court's dismissal of the case and remanded it to the District Court. The company filed a renewed partial motion to dismiss on February 9, 2018, which was denied by the District Court on September 24, 2018. The company also filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on April 18, 2018 seeking review of the Sixth Circuit's decision. The United States Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari on October 1, 2018. Plaintiff's motion for class certification is pending. Community Health said, "We believe this consolidated matter is without merit and will vigorously defend this case." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare services through the hospitals that we own and operate and affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin, Tennessee. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Zwick Partners' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company's motion to dismiss the new claims raised in the amended complaint filed in the case, Zwick Partners, LP and Aparna Rao, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quorum Health Corporation, Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash, Thomas D. Miller, and Michael J. Culotta amended complaint is pendinq. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification is also pending. This purported class action lawsuit previously filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee was amended on April 17, 2017 to include Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash as additional defendants. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of QHC shareholders and allege that the failure to record a goodwill and long-lived asset impairment charge against QHC at the time of the spin-off of QHC violated federal securities laws. The District Court denied all defendants' motions to dismiss on April 20, 2018. The plaintiffs amended their complaint on September 14, 2018, and the company's motion to dismiss the new claims in the amended complaint is pending. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is also pending. Community Health said, "We believe the claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the case." Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare services through the hospitals that we own and operate and affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin, Tennessee. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Deadline to Opt Out or Object to Deal Due May 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that deadline for purported class members to opt out of or object to the settlement in the litigation over cyber attacks is May 18, 2019. on August 18, 2014, the company's computer network was the target of an external, criminal cyber-attack that the company believes it occurred between April and June, 2014. The company and Mandiant (a FireEye Company), the forensic expert engaged by the company in connection with this matter, believe the attacker was a foreign "Advanced Persistent Threat" group who used highly sophisticated malware and technology to attack the company's systems. The attacker was able to bypass the company's security measures and successfully copy and transfer outside the Company certain non-medical patient identification data (such as patient names, addresses, birthdates, telephone numbers and social security numbers), but not including patient credit card, medical or clinical information. The company worked closely with federal law enforcement authorities in connection with their investigation and possible prosecution of those determined to be responsible for this attack. Mandiant has conducted a thorough investigation of this incident and continues to advise us regarding security and monitoring efforts. The company has provided appropriate notification to affected patients and regulatory agencies as required by federal and state law.The company has offered identity theft protection services to individuals affected by this attack. The company have incurred certain expenses to remediate and investigate this matter. In addition, multiple purported class action lawsuits have been filed against the company and certain subsidiaries. These lawsuits allege that sensitive information was unprotected and inadequately encrypted by the company. The plaintiffs claim breach of contract and other theories of recovery, and are seeking damages, as well as restitution for any identity theft. On February 4, 2015, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the transfer of the purported class actions pending outside of the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. A consolidated complaint was filed and the company filed a motion to dismiss on September 21, 2015, which was partially argued on February 10, 2016. In an oral ruling from the bench, the court greatly limited the potential class by ruling only plaintiffs with specific injury resulting from the breach had standing to sue. Further, on jurisdictional grounds, the court dismissed Community Health Systems, Inc. from all non-Tennessee based cases. Finally, the court set April 15, 2016 for further argument on whether the remaining plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a cause of action to continue their cases. On April 15, 2016 in an oral ruling from the bench, the court dismissed additional claims and following this oral ruling only eight of the forty plaintiffs remained, with significant limitations imposed on their ability to assert claims for damages. These oral rulings were confirmed in a written order filed on September 12, 2016. On October 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for interlocutory appeal from the motion to dismiss ruling and on February 15, 2017 this motion was denied. Plaintiffs refiled their motion for permission to seek interlocutory appeal on March 15, 2017, and that motion was also denied. The company have settled these class action lawsuits, and the settlement has been approved by the District Court. Notices of the settlement and claim forms have been mailed to purported class members. The deadline for purported class members to opt out of or object to the settlement is May 18, 2019. The company is also currently responding to two government investigations related to the 2014 cyber-attack. The first is being conducted by various State Attorneys General, and the second is being conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights. We are cooperating fully with both investigations. Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare services through the hospitals that we own and operate and affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin, Tennessee. COOK COUNTY, IL: Smith Sues over Juvenile Program ------------------------------------------------- The case, Jason Smith on his own behalf and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Timothy Evans, Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Avik Das, William Patterson, Jennifer Nunez, Sharon Throw Koc, Kate Gailbraith- Verrant, Lloyd Marshall, Steve Kasperki, Michael Newman, and Roberta Lynch, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01539 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 2019), contends that: -- Chief Judge Timothy Evans, who oversees the Cook County Juvenile Probation and Court Services Department, discriminated against Plaintiffs and similarly situated or tolerated discrimination of them on the basis of their race through his subordinates with him; and -- AFSCME Council 31 and Local 3477 through their subordinates, conspired and colluded with the Defendant and his subordinates. The lawsuit contends that: A. Greater or harsher discipline has been imposed on plaintiffs and other African American officers than on by non-African-American probation officers for purported offenses of the same character and degree; B. Different and harsher terminology has been used or allowed to describe the misconduct allegedly committed by African-American probation officers than for misconduct of the same kind or character allegedly committed by non African-American probation officers; C. Language in the collective bargaining agreement has been circumvented to allow and terminate African American probation officers compared to non-African American probation officers; D. Defendants have a pattern and practice of carrying out this racially-based disparate treatment, trying recently to cover-up past racially based disparate treatment by scapegoating white probation officers through claims of misconduct and discipline; E. Defendants failed to follow the procedures of the collective bargaining agreement and adhere to the language when they disciplined and terminated the plaintiff and other similar situated individuals; F. Defendants violated the plaintiff and other similar situated individuals' constitutional rights by terminating and allowing the decision to stand for the plaintiff and other similar situated individuals and refusing to forward this matter to arbitration; and G. The Union conspired and colluded in the violation of the plaintiff and other similar situated individuals' rights and failed to provide fair representation because of their race, freedom of association and non support of AFSCME by refusing to arbitrate this matter or provide representation.[BN] CSX TRANSPORTATION: Burns Sues over Collection of Biometric Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- SIOBHAN BURNS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH02935 (Ill. Cir. Ct., March 5, 2019), seeks to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs and the proposed Class's sensitive, private, and personal biometric data. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Illinois. Each time the Plaintiff began and ended her workday, she was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that operated, at least in part, by scanning Plaintiffs hand. As an employee, the Plaintiff was required to scan her hand multiple times so Defendant could create, collect, capture, construct, store, use, and/ or obtain a biometric template for Plaintiff. The Defendant subsequently stored Plaintiff's biometric data in a biometric database. The Defendant then used Plaintiff's biometrics as an identification method to track her time, potentially with the help of a third-party vendor. While most establishments and employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Defendant, upon information and belief, mandated and required that employees have their hand scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- hand-based biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendant's employees, including Plaintiff, to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a biometric database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed -- such as in the recent Equifax data breach -- employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking, and other improper or unlawful use of this information. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act expressly obligates Defendant to obtain an executed, written release from an individual, as a condition of employment, in order to capture, collect, and store an individual's biometric identifiers or biometric information, especially a handprint or hand geometry scan, and biometric information derived from it. BIPA further obligates Defendant to inform its employees in writing that a biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected or captured; to tell its employees in writing for how long it will store their biometric data or information and any purposes for which biometric information is being captured, collected, and used; and to make available a written policy disclosing when it will permanently destroy such information. BIPA makes all of these requirements a precondition to the collection or recording of fingerprints, hand geometry scans, or other associated biometric information -- under the Act, no biometric identifiers or biometric information may be captured, collected, purchased, or otherwise obtained if these pre-capture, pre-collection, pre-storage, or pre-obtainment requirements are not met. The State of Illinois takes the privacy of biometric data seriously. There is no realistic way, absent surgery, to reassign someone's biometric data. A person can obtain a new social security number, but not a new hand, which makes the protection of, and control over, biometric identifiers and biometric information particularly important -- particularly given the increasing use of biometric information or identifiers in the stream of commerce and financial transactions and the ever-increasing rate of corporate data breaches. On or about 2014 to on or about 2017, the Defendant has taken the rather invasive and coercive step of requiring employees to be hand scanned, and then using biometric information captured from those hand scans, and data derived therefrom, to identify the employee and track employee work time. After an employee's hand scans are captured, collected, and/ or recorded by Defendant, employees are subsequently required to scan their hand into one of Defendant's biometric time clocks when they clock in or out at work. The Defendant captured, collected, stored, and/ or otherwise obtained the employee's biometrics in order to identify the employee who is clocking in or out. Moreover, Defendant caused these biometrics to be associated with employees, along with other employee personal and work information. The Defendant has a practice of using biometric time clocks to track its employees, albeit without regard to Illinois' requirements under BIPA, the lawsuit says.[BN] No Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: 314 833-4825 E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com plesko@pwcklegal.com CURRICULUM ASSOCIATES: Underpays Account Specialists, Duran Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLAUDIA DURAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CURRICULUM ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10286 (E.D. Mass., Feb. 14, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Duran was employed by the Defendant as account specialist. Curriculum Associates, LLC operates as an education publishing company that designs research-based print and online instructional materials, screens and assessments, and data management tools for students and educators. The company was founded in 1969 and is based in North Billerica, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adelaide Pagano, Esq. Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C 729 Boyslton Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: apagano@llrlaw.com slissllrlaw.com www.llrlaw.com - and – Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC 8201 Mission Road, Suite 250 Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 766-5585 Facsimile: (816) 875-5069 E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com Wwww.rmlegalgroup.com DELTA AIRLINES: Tourism Tax in Mexico Flights Illegal, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Noel Moran Rojas, Miguel Hilarion Jiminez, Olivia Isabel Gonzales, Mayra Luisa Castillo Casteneda, Luzmaria Armendaiz De Arroyo, Patricio Mercado, and Alexandra Almanza, individually and on behalf of the class of injured persons they represent., the Plaintiffs, vs. Delta Airlines, Inc. ("Delta"); United Airlines, Inc. ("United"); American Airlines, Inc. ("American"); Aerovias De Mexico S.A. De C.V., Inc. ("AeroMexico"); ABC Aerolineas, S.A. De C.V. ("Interjet"); Aeroenlaces Nacionales, S.A. De C.V. ("Viva Aerobus"); Southwest Airlines, Co. ("Southwest"); and JetBlue Airways Corporation ("jetBlue"), the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00665-GJH (D. Md., March 1, 2019), alleges that Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to artificially fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of passenger air transportation, by uniformly and unlawfully including a charge for the Tax to Exempt Travelers on flights between the United States and Mexico, in violation of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs are Mexican citizens who now live or previously lived in the United. They represent a putative class of primarily Mexican citizens who, like plaintiffs themselves, flew to Mexico from the United States as ticketed passengers on one or more of the defendants' airlines. Mexico has historically charged a tourism tax for non-Mexican citizens entering its country. The defendants, through a common fraudulent scheme, charged the plaintiffs this tourism tax even though it was not owed by Mexican citizens, and then kept that money for themselves. Most or all of the defendants continue to use this scheme to unlawfully collect money from unwitting Mexican-citizen passengers for a tax they do not owe, apparently believing loophole in the laws of the 50 states, purportedly formed through the intersection of the Airline Deregulation Act's preemption clause with various state statutes and common laws intended to prevent this very type of unlawful behavior, protect them from any consequences. Defendants are members of "Camera Nacional de Aerotransportes" ("CANAERO"), an association of airlines that transport passengers to and from different countries, including Mexico and the United States. CANAERO, and each of the defendants, executed a self-imposed undertaking -- a contract with the Mexican government, initially in 1999 ("the CANAERO Agreement"), under which each agreed to collect a Mexico Tourism Tax on behalf of the Mexican government from certain persons traveling on flights to Mexico from the United States. Defendants were then to deliver the collected fees to the Mexican government. There is no provision in the CANAERO Agreement, or any other known agreement, that allows the defendants to collect the Tax from Mexican citizens, and there is no provision in the CANAERO Agreement, or any other agreement, that allows the defendants to keep the Tax for themselves. But every defendant airline can and does determine which passengers are exempt. They do this so that they can determine how much of the money they collect as a Tourism Tax to remit to the Mexican government, and how much of the improperly collected tax funds they can keep for themselves. After each flight from the United States to Mexico, each defendant reports to Mexico the total number of passengers on each flight, and the number of passengers from whom the Tax should have been collected. The defendants do not pay to Mexico the taxes they charged to Exempt Travelers. Instead, all of the defendants brazenly keep the ill-gotten tax funds for themselves, making no attempt to remit the funds to the improperly charged passengers or Mexico. In practice, the scheme has created a nearly cost-free profit center for defendants through a uniform and artificially fixed surcharge to air fare for Mexican citizens flying from the United States to Mexico. The defendant airlines perfected this scheme, and maintained this scheme, in a coordinated fashion, and by agreement among the defendants. They needed this close cooperation because without it, at least two situations would result. First, and at least in the earlier stages of the scheme, if any one of them had done so alone, without coordination among the other defendant members of CANAERO, it would be in serious danger of being turned in by its competitors to Mexican authorities. Second, if only one of them used this outrageous practice of overcharging each Exempt Traveler $25 per ticket, it would be at a competitive disadvantage to the other carriers. If the airlines could fix the overcharge price the same for each or most of them, then passengers would have few, if any, alternate choices. As Mexico eventually caught wind of certain anomalies surrounding defendants' compliance with their contractual obligations, defendants coordinated their responses. Throughout the years, defendants were confronted by Mexican authorities who suspected defendants were unlawfully charging the Tax to Exempt Travelers. Defendants at times refused to provide a cogent response, or at other times promised they would cease the improper practice. They did not. When questioned together and separately by Mexican authorities and other representatives about their tax collection procedures, defendants either lied about their system, or refused to provide accurate information to the Mexican authorities. Defendants then jointly decided to resist any attempt by Mexican authorities to deny their ability to collect the Tax, and kept the terms of their contract with the Mexican government secret from the public, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Tejinder Singh, Esq. Eric F. Citron, Esq. GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C. 7475 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 850 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (202) 362-0636 Facsimile: (866) 574-2033 E-mail: tsingh@goldsteinrussell.com ec@goldsteinrussell.com - and - Matthew J.M. Prebeg, Esq. Christopher Faucett, Esq. Stephen W. Abbott, Esq. Brent T. Caldwell, Esq. PREBEG, FAUCETT & ABBOTT, PLLC 8441 Gulf Freeway, Suite 307 Houston, TX 77017 Telephone: (832) 743-9260 Facsimile: (832) 742-9261 E-mail: mprebeg@pfalawfirm.com cfaucett@pfalawfirm.com sabbott@pfalawfirm.com bcaldwell@pfalawfirm.com - and - Austin Tighe, Esq. Michael Angelovich, Esq. NIX PATTERSON LLP 3600 N Capital of Texas Hwy, Suite B350 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 328-5333 Facsimile: (512) 328-5335 E-mail: atighe@nixlaw.com mangelovich@nixlaw.com - and - John D. Sheppard, Esq. Nicholas A. Morrow, Esq. MORROW & SHEPPARD LLP 3701 Kirby Dr., Ste. 1000 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 489-1206 Facsimile: (713) 893-8370 E-mail: jsheppard@morrowsheppard.com nmorrow@morrowsheppard.com DIRECT FUNDING: Ricco Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- A case, ANDREW RICCO, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DIRECT FUNDING NOW LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00411 (C.D. Cal., March 1, 2019), alleges that Direct Funding has placed numerous calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 6452, using an "automatic telephone dialing system," as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1). The Direct Funding used fake caller identification information to mask its identity (referred to as "spoofing"). Furthermore, incoming calls from Direct Funding would often appear as telephone numbers similar to the the Plaintiff's (i.e. containing the same area code). The purpose of spoofing is to prevent the recipient from screening the incoming call. Similarly, since the caller's telephone number constantly changes, the recipient is unable to block the caller. Automatic telephone dialing systems allow callers to engage in such spoofing techniques. When the Plaintiff inadvertently answered a call from Direct Funding, there was a lengthy and unnatural pause from the time the call was answered by the Plaintiff to the time a representative came on the line, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and Proposed Class: Marc L. Godino, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310-201-9150 Facsimile: 310-201-9160 E-mail: mgodino@glancylaw.com - and - Jeremy E. Abay, Esq. John K. Weston, Esq. SACKS WESTON DIAMOND, LLC 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 219 925-8200 Facsimile: 267 639-5422 E-mail: jweston@sackslaw.com jabay@sackslaw.com ELECTROLUX HOME: Diller Suit Asserts BIPA Violation --------------------------------------------------- Brandon Diller, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Electrolux Home Care Products, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH03032 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., March 7, 2019) seeks relief from Electrolux's practice of collecting "biometric identifiers" or "biometric information" from people working at its Illinois facilities, in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), an Illinois statute regulating and protecting the privacy of biometrics. Electrolux has collected, captured, or otherwise obtained biometrics (including fingerprints or fingerscans) from Plaintiff and other persons working at its facilities in Illinois, and has done so (a) without first disclosing in writing that it was collecting or capturing biometrics, the specific purpose and length of term for which the biometrics were being collected, stored, and used and (b) without first obtaining their informed written consent or a release, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked under the direction and control of Electrolux at its facility from September 25, 2018 to October 16, 2018. Defendant Electrolux Home Care Products, Inc. is a Delaware corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Tod A. Lewis, Esq. David M. Oppenheim, Esq. Mara A. Baltabols, Esq. Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC 134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 658-5500 Email: service@classlawyers.com ELI LILLY: Appeal in Strafford Class Action Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that appeal from a decision in the case, Strafford et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company, still pending. The company is a defendant in a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (now called Strafford et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company) involving Cymbalta. The plaintiffs, purporting to represent a class of all persons within the U.S. who purchased and/or paid for Cymbalta, asserted claims under the consumer protection statutes of four states, California, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New York, and sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for various alleged economic injuries arising from discontinuing treatment with Cymbalta. The district court denied the plaintiffs' motions for class certification. The district court dismissed the suits and plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In November 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the suit. In July 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of California denied plaintiffs' motion to reopen the case. Plaintiffs' appeal of this denial is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. ESHAI CORP: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Tahbout Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ MUSTAPHA TAHBOUT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESHAI CORP d/b/a COURIER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, LLC; and COURIER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendants, Case No 2:19-cv-00698 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 18, 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 Tahbout was employed by the Defendants as delivery driver. Courier Distribution Systems, LLC provides courier, freight, and logistics services in the United States. The company offers same day delivery, freight service, expedited delivery, scheduled delivery, and nationwide delivery services. It also provides less than truckload delivery service, white glove delivery, live animal delivery, and medical delivery services which provide delivery to hospitals, medical and dental clinics, nursing homes, and hospice care. It provides its services in Indianapolis, Louisville, Madison, Pittsburgh, and San Diego. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in Duluth, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Murphy, Esq. Michael Groh, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 273-1054 Facsimile: (215) 525-021 E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com mgroh@phillemploymentlawyer.com FBCS INC: Dillard Sues over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------- YVONNE DILLARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FBCS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00968-KAM-RER (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2019) alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is assigned to Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto and referred to Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. Federal Bond and Collection Service, Inc. provides collection services. The Company offers products such as consumer credit, healthcare, commercial, auto, education, and utilities. Federal Bond And Collection Service also provides telephone, mailed, and moneygram payment services. Federal Bond and Collection Service serves customers in the States of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Silver, Esq. 237 Club Dr Woodmere, NY 11598 Telephone: (718) 855-3834 Facsimile: (718) 534-0057 E-mail: silverbankruptcy@gmail.com FCA US: Grigorian Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A case, Mariam Grigorian, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FCA US LLC, a Michigan limited liability company; and Third Party Defendant Mudd, Inc., doing business as: Mudd Advertising, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-mc-00003, from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-mc-20747-MGC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Marcia G. Cooke. FCA US LLC, together with its subsidiaries, designs, engineers, manufactures, distributes, and sells vehicles primarily in the United States.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd. 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com FUJITSU AMERICA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Johnson Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FUJITSU AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV342670 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 14, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Johnson was employed by the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt field employee. Fujitsu America, Inc. develops business technology solutions and provides related services. Fujitsu America, Inc. was formerly known as Fujitsu North America Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Fujitsu America, Inc. in April 2009. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in Sunnyvale, California. Fujitsu America, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Fujitsu Limited. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Singer, Esq. J. Jason Hill, Singer, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com jhill@ckslaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Castro et al. Sue over Defective 2.4L Engine ------------------------------------------------------------ ERNESTO CASTRO; and LILIA CASTRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV05040 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 14, 2019) alleges that the Defendant's 2010-2013 motor vehicles equipped with a 2.4L engine, including the 2011 Buick Lacrosse, contained one or more design and manufacturing defects in their engines that cause them to be unable to properly utilize engine oil and, in fact, to improperly burn off and consume abnormally high amounts of oil. According to the complaint, the Subject Vehicle contained or developed defects, including but not limited to, defects causing the Subject Vehicle's engine to be unable to properly utilize engine oil and, in fact, to improperly burn off and consume abnormally high amounts of oil; defects causing the illumination of the check engine light; defects causing the failure and/or replacement of the intake and exhaust camshaft sensors; defects causing the storage of Diagnostic Trouble Code; defects requiring the reprogramming of the HVAC module; defects causing the failure and replacement of the intake and exhaust camshaft actuators; defects causing the HVAC to make abnormal noise; defects causing the HVAC to make an intermittent grinding sound; defects requiring the HVAC mounting bolts to be tightened; defects causing the Vehicle to stall on freeway or at stop light; defects causing the Vehicle to shake; defects causing the engine to make a rattle noise; defects causing the failure and replacement of intake and exhaust camshaft position actuator solenoid valves; defects causing the Vehicle to make a ticking noise when turning right; defects requiring the adjustment of the backing plate; defects causing a coolant leak; defects causing the failure and/or replacement of the water pump; defects causing a clatter type noise. The defects substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the Subject Vehicle. General Motors LLC was incorporated in 2009 and is based in Wilmington, Delaware. General Motors LLC operates as a subsidiary of General Motors Company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Tai, Esq. Tionna Dolin, Esq. STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 929-4900 Facsimile: (310) 943-3838 E-mail: dtai@slpattorney.com tdolin@slpattorney.com GENERAL MOTORS: Sanderlin Sues over Defective 2.4L Engine --------------------------------------------------------- DONALD SANDERLIN; and MICHELLE SANDERLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV06081 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 20, 2019) alleges that the Defendant's 2010-2013 motor vehicles equipped with a 2.4L engine, including the 2010 Chevrolet Equinox contained one or more design and manufacturing defects in their engines that causes them to be unable to properly utilize engine oil and to improperly burn off and consume abnormally high amounts of oil. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Subject Vehicle contained or developed defects defects causing the Subject Vehicle's engine to be unable to properly utilize engine oil and, in fact, to improperly burn off and consume abnormally high amounts of oil; defects requiring the replacement of the key and/or FOB; defects causing the engine to make a rattle noise; defects causing failure and/or replacement of the balance chain and/or chain tensioner; defects causing the rear console accessory port to fail; defects requiring performance of Recall 12312; defects requiring the engine control module ("ECM") to be reprogrammed; defects causing the valve cover gaskets to leak; defects causing the Vehicle to misfire; defects causing seepage at the cover axle seal; defects requiring the performance of Recall 14535; defects requiring the performance of Recall 43180; defects requiring replacement of the high pressure fuel pump; defects causing the illumination of the check engine light ("CEL"); defects causing storage of Diagnostic Trouble Codes ("DTC") P0013, P0324, P0116, P0117 and/or P0326; defects causing the exhaust camshaft to stick; defects causing the air conditioner condenser to leak; defects causing the failure and replacement of the air conditioning condenser; defects causing the lower ball joint to be torn; defects causing a knock sensor circuit fault; defects causing the failure and/or replacement of the knock sensor, camshaft sensor, camshaft actuator, crank sensor, valve cover and chain guide; defects causing the failure of the timing chain guide; defects causing the failure and replacement of the engine piston and rings; and/or any other defects identified in the repair history. General Motors LLC was incorporated in 2009 and is based in Wilmington, Delaware. General Motors LLC operates as a subsidiary of General Motors Company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Tai, Esq. Tionna Dolin, Esq. STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 929-4900 Facsimile: (310) 943-3838 E-mail: dtai@slpattorney.com tdolin@slpattorney.com GENERAL PROVISION: Richards Seeks All Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------- COLBY RICHARDS, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff(s), v. GENERAL PROVISION, LLC a Florida limited liability company, and TIMOTHY HASSE, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-60555-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 1, 2019), contends that the Defendants have unlawfully deprived Plaintiff, and all other employees similarly situated, of overtime during the course of their employment and have unlawfully misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor. GPL offers co-working opportunities for start-up companies and business professionals in at least two physical locations within Broward County, Florida. GPL employs individuals such as Plaintiff to perform manual labor at its locations to ensure its facilities remain in proper working condition for their client's use. During Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, GPL has multiple other employees, handled and worked with various good and/or materials that have moved through interstate commerce, including, but not limited to: wrenches, hammers, nails, paint, tape, computers, telephones, office supplies and equipment, and other tools necessary to perform maintenance and repair work. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week but was not properly compensated in accordance with the FLSA for all of the overtime hours he worked. The Defendants advised Plaintiff he was to be paid at a regular hourly rate of $21.00 per hour. However, the Defendants failed to properly compensate Plaintiff for the hours he worked from August 2018 through February 2019. The Defendants were expressly aware of the work performed by Plaintiff, and in fact instructed and directed Plaintiff to perform much (if not all) of this work, but nevertheless required Plaintiff to continue working without receiving proper compensation for the hours worked during the relevant period of his employment, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Jordan Richards, Esq. Melissa Scott, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS- JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com Stephanie@jordanrichardspllc.com GEO GUIDANCE: Faces Ramsey Labor Suit in Kern County ---------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action has been filed against Geo Guidance Drilling Services, Inc. The case is assigned to GARRETT RAMSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEO GUIDANCE DRILLING SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-100463 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Feb. 20, 2019). The case is assigned to Stephen D. Schuett. Geoguidance Drilling Services, Inc. Offers directional drilling services to oil, gas, and geothermal industries. The company is headquartered in Bakersfield, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq. YOON LAW, APC One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200 Telephone: (213) 612-0988 Facsimile: (213) 947-1211 GETSWIFT: ASIC Civil Action Potentially Game-Changer ---------------------------------------------------- Tony Boyd, writing for The Australian Financial Review, reports that fast-growing software company GetSwift is at the centre of a fascinating case study of the intersection between allegedly bad corporate behaviour, class actions and the long-term interests of shareholders. Sitting in the middle of this morass are three independent directors who have chosen to defend the company and its officers against allcomers. But the independent directors -- chairman Michael Fricklas and non-executive directors David Ryan and Belinda Gibson -- could come under intense pressure from shareholders to change their hard-line legal strategy. ASIC has now taken out a civil claim against GetSwift and its chief executive Bane Hunter and president and managing director Joel Macdonald. David Rowe First, a bit of context. In January last year The Australian Financial Review revealed that GetSwift had been neglecting to tell the ASX about changes in the status of key contracts even though it had previously regarded these contracts as price-sensitive information. GetSwift attacked the Financial Review for its "negative" coverage. But within a month of the revelations the Australian Securities and Investment Commission began investigating its disclosures. ASIC followed that up with a civil claim against GetSwift and its chief executive Bane Hunter and president and managing director Joel Macdonald for contraventions of the Corporations Act. The company, Hunter and Macdonald are accused of false and misleading conduct. ASIC wants the company and the two executives to pay pecuniary penalties. It also wants Hunter and Macdonald banned from managing corporations for a period to be determined by the court. GetSwift on Feb. 25 irrefutably denied the allegations made by ASIC and said it will vigorously defend the proceedings. In response, the shares plunged 31.82 per cent to a two-year low of 30¢. As well as defending itself against ASIC, GetSwift is defending itself against three separate class actions. These are the subject of an appeal to the High Court after the Federal Court said all three should be rolled into one. Thanks to a boom-time capital raising before the Financial Review blew the whistle on its disclosure practices, GetSwift has about $87 million in cash and cash equivalents in the bank. It can afford to fight the class actions for as long as necessary and delay an inevitable settlement. Given the usual legal tactics and court delays it could be four years before there is a final settlement. Of course, class actions only go ahead if sufficient shareholders back them. Otherwise the class action financiers walk away. Shareholders may not wish to back a class action for fear it might kill the company before it reaches its full potential. This is why the ASIC civil action is potentially a game-changer. In the post-Hayne world ASIC could be able to push through a judgment much faster than the usual two to three years. If ASIC wins its case that might influence shareholders to either back a class action or force the independent directors to think about winding up the company. Repaying all the money in the bank back to shareholders could be smarter than spending it all on lawyers. After all, what is the use of a technology company that cannot employ as "officers" of the company the two big brains behind its success? All the more reason to fight to the death. One critical factor that must be on the minds of the independent directors is the fact that the company is burning about $2 million in cash each month. Legal bills could see the cash burn increase despite the rapid increase in revenue from selling the GetSwift logistics software. [GN] HALCON ENERGY: Appeals Jan. 30 Judgment in Vodenichar Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Halcon Energy Properties, Inc., filed an appeal from a judgment entered on January 30, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Jeffry S. Vodenichar, David M. King, Jr. and Leigh V. King, husband and wife, Joseph B. Davis and Lauren E. Davis, husband and wife, Grove City Country Club, and Richard Broadhead, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Halcon Energy Properties, Inc., Morascyzk & Polochak and Co-Exprise, Inc., d/b/a CX-Energy, in the Mercer County Court of Common Pleas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case involves alleged breaches of contracts over land rights, specifically, gas and oil leases, and all of the land at issue is located exclusively within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The appellate case is captioned as Vodenichar, J., et al. v. Halcon Energy Properties, Inc., et al., Case No. 301 WDA 2019, in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Richard Broadhead, Joseph B. Davis, Lauren E. Davis, Grove City Country Club, David M. King, Jr., Leigh V. King and Jeffry S. Vodenichar are represented by: David A. Borkovic, Esq. JONES GREGG CREEHAN & GERACE, LLP 411 7th Ave., Suite 1200 Pittsburgh, PA 15129 Telephone: (412) 261-6400 E-mail: dab@jgcg.com - and - Richard Allen Finberg, Esq. 300 Mt Lebanon Blvd., Suite 206b Pittsburgh, PA 15234-1507 Telephone: (412) 341-1342 E-mail: richardfinberg@gmail.com Defendant-Appellee Co-Exprise, Inc., is represented by: James Robert Hankle, Esq. Nicholas Louis Fiske, Esq. SHERRARD, GERMAN & KELLY, P.C. 535 Smithfield St., Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 355-0200 E-mail: jrh@sgkpc.com nlf@sgkpc.com Defendant-Appellee Morascyzk & Polochak is represented by: Stephen Paul Plonski, Esq. Daniel Mahony Taylor, Jr., Esq. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 535 Smithfield St., Suite 1100 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (724) 272-1942 E-mail: splonski@margolisedelstein.com dtaylor@margolisedelstein.com Defendant-Appellant Halcon Energy Properties, Inc., is represented by: Kevin L. Colosimo, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD LLC 501 Grant St., Suite 800 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (724) 743-3433 E-mail: kcolosimo@fbtlaw.com HI-TECH METALS: Underpays Manual Workers, Rojas Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSE ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HI-TECH METALS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 702847/2019 (N.Y. Super., Queens Cty., Feb. 15, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Rojas was employed by the Defendant as manual worker. Hi-Tech Metals, Inc. provides metal finishing services to the aerospace industry, as well as automotive manufacturers. Its services include aluminum processing, passivation, electroplating, non-destructive testing, organic finishing, powder coatings, and heat treatments. The company was founded in 1989 and is based in Denton, Texas. As of November 7, 2016, Hi-Tech Metals, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of ESCO Technologies Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: (718) 740-2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com HIGHLAND BAKING: Underpays Line Workers, Ontiveros Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- TEODORO ONTIVEROS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIGHLAND BAKING COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH02062 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 15, 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 was employed by the Defendant as line worker. Highland Baking Co., Inc. bakes bread products. It offers table breads, dinner rolls, pan breads, hamburger buns, rolls, and subs, as well as frozen products. The company was founded in 1984 and is based in Northbrook, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madeline K. Engel, Esq. Lorraine T. Peeters, Esq. CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD. 224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 763-6880 HYATT HOTELS: Website Lacks Features for Disable, Strojnik Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- PETER STROJNIK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HYATT HOTELS CORP. D/B/A HYATT PLACE PASADENA, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01148-PA-AS (C.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2019) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant's third party booking website www.hotels.com and its own website www.hyatt.com failed to describe accessible features to reasonably permit individuals with disabilities to assess independently whether the Defendant meets the standard of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hyatt Hotels, a hospitality company, develops, owns, operates, manages, franchises, licenses, or provides services to hotels, resorts, residential, and other properties. The company was formerly known as Global Hyatt Corporation and changed its name to Hyatt Hotels in June 2009. Hyatt Hotels was founded in 1957 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. HYUNDAI MOTOR: Gentry Appeals W.D. Virginia Ruling to 4th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff John William Gentry filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled John Gentry, et al. v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-00030-NKM-JCH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia at Charlottesville. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the cases captioned JOHN WILLIAM GENTRY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., Defendant. ALIM ABDURAHMAN, ET AL., Plaintiff, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., ET AL., Defendants. JIHAD ABDUL-MUMIT, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case Nos. 3:13-cv-00030, 3:14 cv-00002, 3:14-cv-00005 (W.D. Va.), involve allegations that Hyundai Motor America, Inc., misstated or misrepresented the gas mileage obtained by Hyundai Elantras. Gentry is a class action against a single defendant, HMA. The cases previously were stayed, transferred to MDL 2424, and then partially remanded by the MDL back to the Court in September 2015. Each case contains a claim under the Virginia Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act (Lemon Law); the Virginia Consumer Protection Act of 1977; and for false or misleading advertising. The appellate case is captioned as John Gentry, et al. v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Case No. 19-1219, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN WILLIAM GENTRY, individually and on behalf of all other Virginia owners similarly situated, is represented by: James B. Feinman, Esq. JAMES B. FEINMAN & ASSOCIATES 1003 Church Street Lynchburg, VA 24504 Telephone: (434) 846-7603 Facsimile: (434) 846-0158 E-mail: jb@jfeinman.com Defendant-Appellee HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INCORPORATED, is represented by: Shon Morgan, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Steet Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 E-mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com - and - James F. Neale, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP P. O. Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902-0000 Telephone: (434) 977-2582 E-mail: jneale@mcguirewoods.com - and - Ashley Walker Winsky, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 800 East Canal Street P. O. Box 3916 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-1000 E-mail: awinsky@mcguirewoods.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued over Defective GDI-Equipped Vehicles -------------------------------------------------------- LINDA SHORT and OLIVIA PARKER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., and KIA MOTORS CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00318 (W.D. Wash., March 4, 2019), alleges that Hyundai and Kia failed to disclose or remedy several serious defects of design and manufacturing that can cause the engines of certain vehicles equipped with gasoline direct-injection ("GDI") engines to suddenly stall while at speed or to burst into flames. These vehicles include the 2011-2013 Hyundai Tucson, the 2012-2016 Kia Soul, and the 2011-2012 Kia Sportage. The lawsuit contends that Hyundai and Kia knew or should have known about these defects before these vehicles went on sale, and it failed to correct these dangerous defects or disclose them to their customers. Moreover, once the vehicles were on the road, Hyundai and Kia failed to recall and repair these defective vehicles for years, leading to hundreds or thousands of engine failures, sudden stalls, and fires. According to the complaint, only recently -- after years of concealing serious safety defects -- have Hyundai and Kia begun to recall these vehicles, such a recall will be inadequate to remedy the problem or to compensate the customers who bore the risk that their cars might suddenly stall while driving or, worse, burst into flames. In the past, Hyundai and Kia have recalled numerous vehicles with GDI engines to repair defects that could lead to engine fires, but fires have recurred despite the recalls, and Hyundai and Kia are recalling many of those vehicles yet again for the same problems. Consumers have every reason to suspect that a recall at this late date will not be an adequate solution to the defect. These consumers also have every reason to suspect that now that the problem has become known and publicized, the resale values of their vehicles has likely plummeted. These consumers did not get the vehicles they bargained for at the time of purchase, have gone years without an adequate repair, may have suffered diminished resale value, and cannot now be made whole merely be recalling and repairing the vehicles, the lawsuit says. As a result of Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiffs and other owners and lessees of the Class Vehicles overpaid at the time of purchase or lease for vehicles that were actually defective, have or will suffer the costs associated with extensive repairs, have owned and leased vehicles that were less valuable than those for which they bargained, and have seen their vehicles likely lose market value. Defendants still have not provided to the Plaintiffs the vehicles bargained for, and even a future repair would not restore purchasers and lessees to the benefits of ownership for which they bargained and that they would have received but for the defect. Hyundai Motor America, Inc., (HMA) is a manufacturer and distributor of new motor vehicles under the Hyundai brand and is incorporated and headquartered in the state of California. Hyundai Motor Company (HMC) is a multinational auto manufacturer with its headquarters in Seoul, South Korea. Hyundai Motor Company controls and operates its subsidiaries in the Hyundai Motor Group, which includes Hyundai Motor America, Inc., as well as Kia Motors Corporation and Kia Motors America, Inc. Kia Motors America, Inc., (KMA) is a manufacturer and distributor of new motor vehicles under the Kia brand and is incorporated and headquartered in the state of California. Kia Motors Corporation (KMC) is a multinational auto manufacturer with its headquarters in Seoul, South Korea. It is the corporate parent of Kia Motors America, Inc., and is a part of the Hyundai Motor Group. Hyundai Motor Company holds a controlling stake in Kia Motors Corporation.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Ryan McDevitt, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile (206) 623-3384 E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com IAIRE LLC: Ruiz Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------- ANGEL RUIZ, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff(s), vs. IAIRE LLC, and CHUCK DANIELSON, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-00397-GAP-DCI (M.D. Fla., March 1, 2019), seeks to recover all wages owed to the Plaintiff, and those similarly situated to the Plaintiff, during the course of their employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act. During his employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff, and multiple other employees, handled and worked with various good and/or materials that have moved through interstate commerce, including, but not limited to: computers, HVAC products, cell phones, vehicles, wrenches, screw drivers, screws, nails, glass, hammers, aluminum, washers, gages, drills, Allen keys, bullet vacuum pumps, flat heads, meters other common tools, company clothing and uniforms. The Plaintiff became a salaried employee. However, the Plaintiff remained a non-exempt employee under the FLSA. Beginning on or about November 20, 2018, the Plaintiff's annual salary of $36,000.00 was intended to cover only his first 40 hours of work. From November 20, 2018 until the end of his employment on or about February 20, 2019, the Plaintiff worked an average of 100 hours per week, yet was not paid the proper overtime rate of time-and-one-half his regular hourly rate. The Defendants failed to maintain accurate and proper time records for the Plaintiff during the relevant time period. The Plaintiff expressly advised Defendants that he was working overtime hours for which he was not properly compensated. Despite their knowledge of the work the Plaintiff performed, Defendants nevertheless required the Plaintiff to continue working without receiving proper overtime compensation for the hours the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per week during the relevant period. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the proper overtime compensation required at the federally mandated rate of time-and-one-half for work exceeding 40 hours per week. The Defendants were either recklessly indifferent as to the overtime requirements under federal law, or in the alternative, intentionally violated federal law so that Defendants could avoid having to pay the Plaintiff his lawful (and hard-earned) wages, the lawsuit says. The Defendant provides air purification and energy saving products in the State of Florida, and has been doing so since at least 2014.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Jordan Richards, Esq. Melissa Scott, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS- JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com Stephanie@jordanrichardspllc.com INOGEN INC: Fabbri Says Financial Report Misleading --------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM FABBRI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. INOGEN, INC., SCOTT WILKINSON and ALISON BAUERLEIN, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01643 (C. D. Cal., March 6, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act. Inogen is a medical technology company that primarily develops, manufactures and markets portable oxygen concentrators used to deliver supplemental long-term oxygen therapy to patients suffering from chronic respiratory conditions. By overstating the strength of Inogen's salesforce acumen and the size of the total addressable market ("TAM") for its portable oxygen concentrators throughout the Class Period, Inogen and its senior executives led the market to believe the Company's business metrics and financial prospects were much stronger than they really were, causing a sizable run-up in the price of Inogen common stock -- which skyrocketed from its close of $101.65 per share on November 7, 2017 to reach a Class Period high of more than $282 per share by September 14, 2018. Unbeknownst to investors, Inogen was overstating the true size of the TAM for its portable oxygen concentrators, claiming it was upwards of 3 million people; misstating the basis for its calculation of the TAM; falsely attributing its sales growth to the strong sales acumen of its salesforce, when in reality it was due in large part to nefarious sales tactics designed to deceive its elderly customer base (including inducing them to purchase portable oxygen concentrators from Inogen at inflated prices by claiming that Medicare did not otherwise cover payment for such devices if obtained from other providers); that as such, the growth in Inogen's domestic business-to-business sales to home medical equipment ("HME") providers was inflated, unsustainable and was eroding direct-to-consumer sales; that very little of Inogen's business was actually coming from the more stable Medicare market; and that as a result, defendants' Class Period statements about Inogen's business metrics and financial prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Inogen released its third quarter 2018 financial results after the market closed on November 6, 2018. While the quarterly financial results were in line with expectations, defendants revealed that the growth in domestic business-to-business sales to HME providers had slowed precipitously to 32% from 56% in the second quarter of 2018. And Inogen also reduced its guidance for fiscal 2018 adjusted EBITDA to $60-$62 million from $65-$69 million. As a result, the price of Inogen common stock fell over 19%, or $37.44 per share, to close at $155.86 per share, on volume over the preceding five trading days. Then, following the publication of detailed investigative reports by stock analysts on February 8, 2019 and February 12, 2019, which challenged, among other things, the size of Inogen's actual TAM, the basis for its prior TAM claims, and the nefarious source of its Class Period sales growth, the price of Inogen common stock declined precipitously to close at $138.05 per share on February 12, 2019. Finally, on February 26, 2019, after the close of trading, Inogen issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2018 ("4Q18" and "FY18") financial results for the period ended December 31, 2018, and conducted a conference call with investors and stock analysts to discuss its business metrics and financial prospects. During the conference call, defendant Scott Wilkinson backtracked on the Company's prior TAM estimate of 2.5 to 3 million patients, and blamed Inogen's poor "domestic business-to-business sales" on "order activity [that] slow[ed] from one national home care provider in the fourth quarter of 2018." Inogen also reported that its 4Q18 non-GAAP EBITDA was $10.5 million, 9.5% lower than fiscal 2017, and significantly reduced its previously provided fiscal 2019 net income guidance. On this news, the price of Inogen common stock fell an additional $33.77 per share, or more than 24%, from a close of $140.06 per share on February 26, 2019, to a close of $106.28 per share on February 27, 2019, on unusually high volume of more than 3.64 million shares traded, or more than seven times the average daily trading volume over the preceding five trading days. The case is a securities class action brought on behalf of all purchasers of Inogen common stock between November 8, 2017 and February 26, 2019, inclusive. Throughout the Class Period, Inogen common stock traded on the NASDAQ, an efficient market, under the ticker symbol "INGN." As of February 22, 2019, Inogen had more than 21.8 million shares of common stock issued and outstanding, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Brian O. O'Mara, Esq. Mary K. Blasky, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/231-1058 Facsimile: 619/231-7423 E-mail: bomara@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com - and - Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 40 Powder Springs Street Marietta, GA 30064 Telephone: 470/632-6000 Facsimile: 770/200-3101 E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com J-M MANUFACTURING: Sued over Rounding of Employees' Time -------------------------------------------------------- JOBANY RODRIGUEZ, the Plaintiffs, vs. J-M MANUFACTURING CO., INC. dba JMEAGLE; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-at-00151 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 26, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime, failed to pay minimum wage, failed to provide compliant meal breaks, and failed to furnish accurate itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was hired by JM Eagle as a Loader in or about August 2017. Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee. As such, he was entitled to be paid at least minimum wage for every hour he worked. Throughout his employment, however, Plaintiff and JM Eagle's other non-exempt employees were not paid for every hour they worked. JM Eagle employed, with regard to Plaintiff and its other non-exempt employees, an impermissible but uniform policy and practice of rounding its employees' time. 9 12. JM Eagle's rounding policy is not neutral, either facially or as applied. JM Eagle's rounding policy favors JM Eagle and consistently results in underpayment to its non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff. For example, during the pay period of February 5, 2018, through February 18, 2018, every single time Plaintiff clocked in early, JM Eagle rounded his time up, and every single time the Plaintiff clocked out late, JM Eagle rounded his time down. This resulted in approximately 15 minutes of unpaid time, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Jobany Rodriguez and the Putative Class: Robert J. Wasserman, Esq. William J. Gorham, Esq. Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq. Vladimir J. Kozina, Esq. MAYALL HURLEY P.C. 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard Stockton, CA 95207-8253 Telephone: (209) 477-3833 Facsimile: (209) 473-4818 E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com wgorham@mayallaw.com nscardigli@mayallaw.com vjkozina@mayallaw.com JEANNIE'S DELI: Salvador et al Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ RAYMUNDO SALVADOR URAGA PAVIAS and JORGE LUIS MIRANDA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. JEANNIE'S DELI CORP. (D/B/A PARK FRESH DELI F/D/B/A JEANNIE'S DELI CORP. F/D/B/A CHELSEA FOOD MARKET), PARK FRESH DELI EXPRESS CORP. (D/B/A PARK FRESH DELI F/D/B/A JEANNIE'S DELI CORP. F/D/B/A CHELSEA FOOD MARKET), DELICIOUS FOOD MART, INC. (D/B/A PARK FRESH DELI F/D/B/A JEANNIE'S DELI CORP. F/D/B/A CHELSEA FOOD MARKET), SUK N PARK , RICHIE DOE , and ISABEL DOE, the Defendants, Case 1:19-cv-01881 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2019), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants. The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located at 194 8th Avenue, New York, New York 10011 under the name "Park Fresh Deli f/d/b/a Jeannie's Deli". The Plaintiffs were employed as sandwich preparers, stocking workers and delivery workers at the deli. Mr. Miranda was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker. However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to mopping, sweeping, cleaning the windows, preparing yogurts, cutting vegetables, fruits and meats, stocking delivery products, dishwashing and cleaning the sidewalk in front of the store (the “non-tipped duties”). At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay the Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis. The Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiff Miranda as a delivery worker in their payroll, but in actuality his duties required a significant amount of time spent performing the alleged non-tipped duties. However, under both the FLSA and NYLL, the Defendants were not entitled to take a tip credit because Miranda's non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday, or 2 hours per day, whichever is less in each day. The Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising Plaintiff Miranda’s actual duties in payroll records by designating him as a delivery worker instead of non-tipped employees. This allowed the Defendants to avoid paying Miranda at the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay him above the tip-credit but below the minimum wage. In addition, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully appropriating Plaintiff Miranda's and other tipped employees’ tips and made unlawful deductions from Miranda’s and other tipped employees’ wages.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com JH ONE PROPERTIES: Faces Suit over Unaccounted Security Deposit --------------------------------------------------------------- CELINET SANCHEZ; and WILSON FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JH ONE PROPERTIES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1977CV00257C (Mass. Super., Essex Cty., Feb. 20, 2019) alleges violation of the Security Deposit Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to notify the Plaintiffs of the actual account into which their deposits were placed. The Defendant also failed to provide the required receipts for the security deposits, co-mingled security deposit funds with its own operating funds; and failed to return the Plaintiffs' security deposits as required, or pay the interest. JH ONE Properties LLC is a Massachusetts company engaged in the business of property management. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Gardner, Esq. GARDNER & ROSENBERG, P.C. 1 State Street, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Tel: (617) 390-7570 E-mail: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com KIA MOTORS: Faces Pasillas Suit over Defective GDI Engine --------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY PASILLAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV05576 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 19, 2019) alleges that the Defendant manufacture and sell a defective 2.0 and 2.4L Gasoline Direct Injection engine. According to the complaint, the Defendant knew since 2009, if not earlier, that the 2011-2019 KIA Optima, 2011 2019 KIA Sportage, 2012-2019 KIA Sorento, 2011-2019 Hyundai Sonata, and 2013-2019 Hyundai Santa Fe vehicles equipped with a 2.0 or 2.4L engine, using the Gasoline Direct Injection technology contained one or more design and/or manufacturing defects in their engines that results in the restriction of oil flow through the connecting rod bearings, as well as to other vital areas of the engine. This defect -- which typically manifests itself during and shortly after the limited warranty period has expired -- will cause the KIA Vehicle to experience catastrophic engine failure, stalling while in operation and poses an unreasonable safety risk of non-collision fires all due to inadequate lubrication. Furthermore, engine seizure often causes internal parts, such as the connecting rods, to break and a knock hole in the engine, permitting fluids to leak and ignite a fire. Kia Motors America, Inc. operates as an automobile dealer. The Company offers passenger cars, minivans, sports utility vehicles, crossovers, sedans, vans, and cargo trucks. Kia Motors serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 402 W Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6994 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com - and - Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq. 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Adam Gonnelli, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104 1 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (854) 705-9460 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup. com Gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq. Amy E. Boyle, Esq. HALUNEN LAW 1650 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 605-4098 Facsimile: (612) 605-4099 E-mail: Wolchansky@halunenlaw.com boyle@halunenlaw.com - and - Bonner C. Walsh, Esq. WALSH PLLC PO Box 7 Bly, OR 97622 Telephone: (541) 359-2827 Facsimile: (866) 503-8206 Email: bonner@walshpllc.com KLEMENT FAMILY: Walli Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit, BRITTANY WALLI, the Plaintiff, v. KLEMENT FAMILY DENTAL, P.A. doing business as KLEMENT FAMILY DENTAL, the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00533 (M.D. Fla., Mar. 2, 2019), alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and implementing regulations by using an automatic telephone dialing system when it sent Plaintiff and the putative class members text messages after Plaintiff and the putative class members requested the cessation of text messages. By sending text messages using an ATDS to Plaintiff and the putative class members after stop requests were made, Defendant invaded the privacy rights and right to seclusion of Plaintiff and the putative class members. Plaintiff, Brittany Walli, on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated. According to the complaint, on December 18, 2018, the Plaintiff was sent a Dentistry Text Message. The Plaintiff responded with "STOP". Despite Plaintiff's STOP text message, Defendant sent another Dentistry Text Message on December 20, 2018. The Defendant or a third party on Defendant's behalf used an ATDS to send the Dentistry Text Messages to Plaintiff and other persons and entities. The Dentistry Text Messages included instructions to STOP future texts, which is the word that the Federal Communications Commission has found to equate to the revocation of consent to be sent text messages via an ATDS. As such, the fact that the Dentistry Text Messages include such instructions suggests that the sender understood that an ATDS was being used. The ATDS used to send the Dentistry Text Messages has the present capacity to store lists of numbers and send text messages to those numbers automatically. The ATDS used to send the Dentistry Text Messages has the present capacity to dial and store random and sequential numbers and it can send text messages without human intervention. The December 20, 2018, Dentistry Text Message was sent after Plaintiff's STOP request was sent. By sending the Dentistry Text Messages, Defendant harmed Plaintiff and the members of the putative class by: (1) invading their privacy and right to seclusion; (2) wasting their time; (3) causing the risk of personal injury due to interruption and distraction; (4) forcing them to incur charges; (5) depleting a cell phone's or wireless phone's battery, resulting in increased electricity costs; (6) intrusion upon and occupation of the capacity of a cell phone or wireless phone; and (7) causing the risk of personal injury due to interruption and distraction, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Shawn A. Heller, Esq. Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin FL 34698 Telephone: (305) 323-6433 E-mail: shawn@sjlawcollective.com josh@sjlawcollective.com - and - Peter Bennett, Esq. Richard Bennett, Esq. Bennett & Bennett 1200 Anastasia Ave., Ofc 360 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 444-5925 E-mail: peterbennettlaw@gmail.com richardbennett27@gmail.com KROGER CO: Faces Murphy's ADA Suit in District of Colorado ---------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL G. MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00472-DME-NRN (D. Colo., Feb. 15, 2019) alleges violation of the American with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge David M. Ebel and referred to Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter. The Kroger Co., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer in the United States. It also manufactures and processes food products for sale in its supermarkets. The Kroger Co. was founded in 1883 and is based in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin James Sweet, Esq. SWEET LAW FIRM PC 186 Mohawk Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15228 Telephone: (412) 742-0631 E-mail: ben@sweetlawpc.com LCL 18: Zhao Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Pay for Restaurant Staff --------------------------------------------------------------- TONG ZHAO, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LCL 18 Inc. TRADING AS Kumo Sushi, Yong Cheng Cai, and Luis "DOE" (LAST NAME UNKNOWN), the Defendants, Case 2:19-cv-01206 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2019), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and/or attorneys' fees and costs under the Federal Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all other and former nonexempt employees who have been or were employed by the Defendants at their restaurant locations for up to the last three years. The Defendants did not compensate the Plaintiff for minimum wage or overtime compensation according to state and federal laws. The Plaintiff was not compensated for New York's "spread of hours" premium for shifts that lasted longer than 10 hours, one day each week. The Defendants did not provide the Plaintiff with a wage notice in the Plaintiff's primary language at the time of their hiring. The Defendants did not provide the Plaintiff with a correct wage statement with every wage payment. As a delivery person, the Plaintiff was required to use his own car to make deliveries. The Plaintiff was not reimbursed for the costs and maintenance. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, he spent $400 per month on gas and maintenance. The Plaintiff also received traffic ticket for about $400, which Defendants did not reimburse, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Ken H. Maeng, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC. 136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: 718 353 8588 E-mail: kmaeng@hanglaw.com LENNAR CORP: Daniel Brings Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- Sunil Daniel, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lennar Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00452 (C.D. Cal., March 7, 2019) is a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act("TCPA"). The Defendant Lennar has violated the TCPA through its unauthorized contact of consumers on their respective cellular telephones. Specifically, Lennar has violated the TCPA by sending consumers unsolicited text messages for marketing and advertising purposes, without prior express written consent, invading their right to privacy, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a resident of the city of Irvine, in Orange County, California. Lennar Corporation, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. Danielle L. Manning, Esq. Mark S. Greenstone, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: info@glancylaw.com mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com - and - Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq. Ryan A. Stubbe, Esq. JAURIGUE LAW GROUP 300 West Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 300 Glendale, CA 91202 Phone: (818) 630-7280 Facsimile: (888) 879-1697 Email: michael@jlglawyers.com ryan@jlglawyers.com LIFE INSURANCE: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Decision in Walker Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Life Insurance Company of the Southwest filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Joyce Walker, et al. v. Life Insurance Company of the Southwest, Case No. 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant filed appeals from court rulings in the lawsuit. The Hon. James V. Selna previously granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court adopted this class definition: All persons who purchased a Provider Policy or Paragon Policy from Life Insurance Company of the Southwest that was issued between September 24, 2006 and April 27, 2014, who resided in California at the time the Policy was issued, and who received an illustration on or before the date of policy application. The Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint alleging that LSW's practices in connection with the marketing and sale of two of its life insurance policies, SecurePlus Provider and SecurePlus Paragon, constitute unlawful and unfair business practices under the California Unfair Competition Law based on various violations of California's Illustration Statute. The appellate case is captioned as Joyce Walker, et al. v. Life Insurance Company of the Southwest, Case No. 19-55241, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by March 28, 2019; -- Transcript is due on April 29, 2019; -- Appellant Life Insurance Company of the Southwest's opening brief is due on June 6, 2019; -- Appellees Taline Bedelian, Oscar Guevara, Kim Bruce Howlett, Muriel Spooner and Joyce Walker's answering brief is due on July 8, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. The briefing schedule in the cross-appeal is set as follows: -- First cross appeal brief is due on June 6, 2019, for Life Insurance Company of the Southwest; -- Second brief on cross appeal is due on July 08, 2019 for Taline Bedelian, Oscar Guevara, Kim Bruce Howlett, Muriel Spooner and Joyce Walker; -- Third brief on cross appeal is due on August 8, 2019, for Life Insurance Company of the Southwest; -- Optional cross appeal Reply brief for Taline Bedelian, Oscar Guevara, Kim Bruce Howlett, Muriel Spooner and Joyce Walker is due within 21 days of service of Third brief on cross appeal.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JOYCE WALKER, KIM BRUCE HOWLETT, MURIEL SPOONER, TALINE BEDELIAN and OSCAR GUEVARA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Lyn Agre, Esq. Margaret Alexandra Ziemianek, Esq. KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP 1633 Broadway, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 506-1700 E-mail: lagre@kasowitz.com mziemianek@kasowitz.com - and - Brian P. Brosnahan, Esq. CORNERSTONE LAW GROUP 351 California Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 305-7117 E-mail: bbrosnahan@cornerlaw.com - and - Craig A. Miller, Esq. MILLER & CALHOON 270 East Douglas Avenue El Cajon, CA 92020 Telephone: (619) 231-9449 E-mail: cmiller@craigmillerlaw.com - and - Daniel Saunders , Esq. KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 288-7904 E-mail: dsaunders@kasowitz.com Defendant-Appellant LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHWEST, a Texas corporation, is represented by: Noah A. Levine, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 230-8800 E-mail: noah.levine@wilmerhale.com - and - Matthew T. Martens, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 663-6291 E-mail: matthew.martens@wilmerhale.com - and - Andrea J. Robinson, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6360 E-mail: andrea.robinson@wilmerhale.com - and - Jonathan A. Shapiro, Esq. BAKER BOTTS LLP 101 California Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-6200 E-mail: jonathan.shapiro@bakerbotts.com LITTLE JOHN: Warner Seeks Full Back Pay for Agents -------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE WARNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. LITTLE JOHN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.; CHRISTOPHER DALE; and STEVEN DALE, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-05042-PKH (W.D. Ark., March 1, 2019), seeks full back pay, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses, and any and all other relief to which each Plaintiff is entitled as a result of Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff further seeks declaratory relief that certain Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Agreements required by Little John as a condition of employment are void and unenforceable under Arkansas law. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a company-wide collective action of all persons who worked for or work for Little John as an Agent and who were/are subject to Little John's unlawful pay practices and policies at any point from March 1, 2016, to the present. As its model for employment, Little John uses full-time salaried employees known as "Agents" to procure freight customers and then to broker such freight either to Landstar-designated carriers or to third-party carriers as may be allowed by the customer. Little John then receives a percentage of the profit from each brokered load pursuant to an agreement with Landstar. The Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs were all directly employed as Agents of the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs were not compensated for hours they worked exceeding 40 hours in any given week. Little John does not pay overtime to its Agents, the lawsuit says. Little John acts as an agency for the transportation company Landstar Systems, Inc., based in Jacksonville, Florida.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: George M. Rozzell IV, Esq. Jenna R. Fogleman, Esq. KEITH, MILLER, BUTLER, SCHNEIDER & PAWLIK, PLLC 224 S. 2nd St., Rogers, AR 72756 Telephone: 479-621-0006 Facsimile: 479-631-6890 E-mail: grozzell@arkattorneys.com jfogleman@arkattorneys.com LUCKY 2: Lewis Suit Seeks Back-pay, Damages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ Rhonda Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lucky 2 Logistics, LLC dba "Need It Now Courier", Case No. 2:19-cv-323 (E.D. Wis., March 1, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin Minimum Wage Law. The Defendant allegedly violated these laws by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and other members of the class at "time and one-half" their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked. Instead, the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated drivers, were paid primarily on a day rate basis. This class and collective action seeks to recover damages and back-pay to compensate all current and former drivers of Defendant for their unpaid overtime. The Plaintiff, Rhonda Lewis, is an adult resident of this District. The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery driver by Defendant during the statutory period and from approximately 2015 through 2019. The Defendant Lucky 2 Logistics, LLC dba Need It Now Courier has its principal offices at 37-18 57th St., Woodside, New York 11377. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Haynie, Esq. Jay Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (214) 346-5909 E-mail: matthew@foresterhaynie.com jay@foresterhaynie.com MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Dougan Files Securities Class Action in NJ ----------------------------------------------------------- John Dougan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Maiden Holdings, Ltd., Arturo M. Raschbaum, Karen L. Schmitt and John M. Marshaleck, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08105 (D. N.J., March 7, 2019) is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Maiden securities between March 4, 2014 and November 9, 2018, against Maiden and certain of the Company's former executive officers seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants misrepresented the quality and nature of Maiden's underwriting and risk management policies and practices and the risks of its reinsurance portfolio. In particular, Defendants misleadingly claimed that they were subjecting AmTrust's insurance portfolio to robust analysis and cross-checks to ensure that the Company had appropriately priced the risk of reinsuring AmTrust's insurance portfolio. In truth, the Company had failed to employ sufficient underwriting and risk management protocols and had largely abdicated its responsibility to ensure that its AmTrust Reinsurance segment priced policies commensurate with the risk assumed by the Company. These failures subjected the Company, and investors, to catastrophic losses. As those losses were realized, the price of Maiden stock declined precipitously. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. Plaintiff purchased Maiden common stock during the Class Period. Maiden is a Bermuda-based holding company that provides reinsurance services through its subsidiaries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com MARKEL CORP: Wellington Says Financial Report Misleading -------------------------------------------------------- The case, LANCE ARTHUR WELLINGTON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARKEL CORPORATION, THOMAS S. GAYNER, RICHARD R. WHITT III, ANNE G. WALESKI, and JEREMY A. NOBLE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01947 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2019), is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Markel securities between July 26, 2017 and December 6, 2018, inclusive. According to the complaint, on December 6, 2018, the Company disclosed that it had been contacted by the US and Bermuda authorities on November 30, 2018 regarding "loss reserves recorded in late 2017 and early 2018 at Markel CATCo Investment Management Ltd and its subsidiaries." On this news, the Company's share price fell $99.70 per share, more than 8%, to close at $1048.23 per share on December 7, 2018, on unusually high trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i) that the Company's subsidiaries did not appropriately record loss reserves; (ii) that, as a result, the loss reserves would need to be adjusted and/or restated; (iii) that these misleading accounting practices would lead to regulatory scrutiny and financial loss to investors; and (iv) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants’ positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says. Markel is a holding company that purports to market and underwrite specialty insurance products and programs. Markel CATCo Investment Management Ltd., the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, is purportedly an insurance-linked securities investment fund manager and reinsurance manager that manages diversified, collateralized retrocession and reinsurance portfolios covering global property catastrophe risks. The Company is the sole investor in one of the funds managed by MCIM, the Markel Diversified Fund, and consolidates that fund as its primary beneficiary. MCIM also manages CATCo Reinsurance Opportunities Fund Ltd., a closed-end fund in which the Company holds an investment.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th 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 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Frank Suit Moved to Connecticut Dist. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Melissa Frank On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Marriott International, Inc., Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide LLC, Arne Sorenson, and Does 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. FST-CV19-6039991-S, was removed from the Stamford/Norwalk Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven) on March 6, 2019. The District of Connecticut Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00326-WWE to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Warren W. Eginton. Marriott International is an American multinational diversified hospitality company that manages and franchises a broad portfolio of hotels and related lodging facilities.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Michael J. Jones, Esq. IVEY, BARNUM & O'MARA LLC 170 Mason Street Greenwich, CT 06830 Telephone: (203) 661-6000 Facsimile: (203) 661-9462 E-mail: mjones@ibolaw.com Attorneys for the Defendants: Brian W. Song, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP - NY 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 E-mail: bsong@bakerlaw.com MATTEL INC: Wyatt Sues over Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------- CAROL WYATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MATTEL, INC., YNON KREIZ, and JOSEPH J. EUTENEUER, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01646 (C.D. Cal., March 6, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a class action on behalf of persons and entities thatpurchased or 13 otherwise acquired Mattel securities between February 7, 2019 and February 15, 14 2019, inclusive. According to the complaint, on February 15, 2019, the Company provided disappointing outlook for 2019, citing slowing growth in sales of Barbie and Hot Wheels. On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.09 per share, more than 18%, to close at $13.82 per share on February 15, 2019, on unusually high trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that demand for the Company's products, including Barbie and Hot Wheels, was declining; (2) that the Company had an excess of product supply; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says. Mattel is a children's entertainment company that designs and sells toys and consumer products. Mattel's "Power Brands" include Barbie, Hot 26 Wheels, Fisher-Price, and American Girl.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com MAXWELL TECH: Phillipps Says Solicitation Statement Misleading -------------------------------------------------------------- JACK PHILLIPPS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STEVE BILODEAU, RICHARD BERGMAN, JORG BUCHHEIM, FRANZ J. FINK, BURKHARD GOESCHEL, ILYA GOLUBOVICH, and JOHN MUTCH, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01927 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2019), is a class action on behalf of the public shareholders of Maxwell against the Company and members of the Company's Board of Directors for violations of Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with a proposed acquisition of the Company by Tesla, Inc. On February 4, 2019, Maxwell announced that the Company had entered into a definitive agreement and plan of merger with Tesla, pursuant to which Tesla will commence an all stock exchange offer for all of the issued and outstanding shares of Maxwell. Participants will receive shares of Tesla Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share ("Tesla Common Stock"), equal to the quotient obtained by dividing $4.75 by the volume weighted average of the daily volume weighted average of the trading price of one (1) share of Tesla common stock as reported on the Nasdaq Global Select Market for the five (5) consecutive trading days ending on and including the second trading day immediately preceding the expiration of the Offer (the "Tesla Trading Price"), subject to the minimum, together with cash in lieu of any fractional shares of Tesla Common Stock, without interest and less any applicable withholding taxes. In the event that the Tesla Trading Price is equal to or less than $245.90, the minimum will apply and each share of Maxwell Common Stock validly tendered and not validly withdrawn will be exchanged for 0.0193 of a share of Tesla Common Stock. On February 20, 2019, the Company filed an incomplete and materially misleading Solicitation Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 14D9 in connection with the Proposed Transaction. Also on February 20, 2019, the Company authorized the filing of a Registration Statement on Form S-4 with the SEC in support of the Proposed Transaction. The Tender Materials omit material information regarding the Proposed Transaction. The failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as Maxwell stockholders need such information in order to make a fully informed decision whether to tender their shares in support of the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal, the lawsuit says. Maxwell Technologies, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets energy storage and power delivery products worldwide. The company offers ultracapacitor cells, multi-cell packs, modules, and subsystems that provide energy storage and power delivery solutions for the automotive, grid energy storage, wind, bus, industrial, and truck industries; and lithium-ion capacitors, which are energy storage devices designed to address various of applications in the rail, grid, and industrial markets.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP 821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 493-9780 Facsimile: (516) 280-7376 E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Sabatini Balks at Merger Deal with Tesla -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RICHARD BERGMAN, STEVE BILODEAU, JӦRG BUCHHEIM, FRANZ J. FINK, BURKHARD GOESCHEL, ILYA GOLUBOVICH, JOHN MUTCH, TESLA, INC., and CAMBRIA ACQUISITION CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00443-UNA (D. Del., March 1, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction announced on February 4, 2019, pursuant to which Maxwell Technologies, Inc. will be acquired by Tesla, Inc. and Cambria Acquisition Corporation. On February 3, 2019, Maxwell's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Tesla. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer to acquire each issued and outstanding share of Maxwell common stock. Specifically, each share of Maxwell common stock will be exchanged for a fraction of a share of Tesla's common stock, equal to the quotient obtained by dividing $4.75 by a volume weighted average price of one share of Tesla's common stock as reported on the NASDAQ Global Select Market for the five consecutive trading days preceding the expiration of the Tender Offer. The Tender Offer is set to expire on March 19, 2019. On February 20, 2019, the Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The lawsuit contends that the Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading, in violation of Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Maxwell Technologies is an American developer and manufacturer headquartered in San Diego, California.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com MCLENNAN: Davis et al Say Housing Rental Services Discriminatory ---------------------------------------------------------------- A case, UNITED AFRICAN-ASIAN ABILITIES CLUB, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ITS MEMBERS; JESSIE JAMES DAVIS IV, An Individual, the Plaintiffs, vs. CHARLES D MCLENNAN; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01513 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2019), seeks to enjoin Defendants to cease their discriminatory practices in housing rental services and rental housing management services, and compel Defendants to implement written policies and methods to respond to reasonable accommodation and reasonable modification requests, pursuant ot the US Fair Housing Act of 1988 and Government Code 12925, 12927, 12955; CA Civil Code sections 51, 52. Davis has cerebral palsy, uses a wheelchair for mobility, and is unable to walk any distance. He also has limited mobility in his hands and upper body. He is also a member of the Plaintiff Club. Davis alleges that Defendant's property and website have physical and communication barriers that make it impossible or extremely difficult for him to access Defendants' on-site rental services.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiffs: David C. Wakefield, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID C. WAKEFIELD 10620 Treena Street, Suite 230 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: 619 241 7112 Facsimile: 619 342 7755 E-mail: dcw@DMWakeLaw.com wakefieldlawassistant@gmail.com MDL 2492: Hurst Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ A case, Alex Hurst, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00357 (Filed Jan. 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 22, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01053 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of student-athletes. The Hurst case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: Johnson Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, BRIAN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00359 (Filed Jan. 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 22, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01057 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of student-athletes. The Johnson case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: Kidd Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------- A case, Eric Kidd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and Howard Payne University, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00376 (Filed Jan. 27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 22, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01179 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Howard Payne University student-athletes. The Kidd case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: Koronkiewicz Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Moved ------------------------------------------------------------ A case, David Koronkiewicz, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00363 (Filed Jan. 27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 22, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01064 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of student-athletes. The Koronkiewicz case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: Lott Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------- A case, Adam Lott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00356 (Filed Jan. 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 22, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01051 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of student-athletes. The Lott case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: McCall Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Shedrick McCall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and Maryville College, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00438 (Filed Jan. 28, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 27, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01124 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Maryville College Student-Athletes. The McCall case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: McKinney Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- A case, MATTHEW MCKINNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and THIEL COLLEGE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00360 (Filed Jan. 27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 22, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01059 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Thiel College student-athletes. The McKinney case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: Moore Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ A case, Kevin Moore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00353 (Filed Jan. 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 22, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01045 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of student-athletes. The Moore case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: Owens Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ A case, Andre Owens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and Howard University, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00364 (Filed Jan. 27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 22, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01066 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Howard University student-athletes. The Owens case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: Perry Suit v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Moved -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, LEON PERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and Baldwin Wallace University, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00361 (Filed Jan. 27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 22, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01060 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Baldwin Wallace University student-athletes. The Perry case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: Staten Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- A case, ARMOND STATEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00358 (Filed Jan. 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 22, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01054 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of student-athletes. The Staten case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: Stroud Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Larry Stroud, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and Charleston Southern University, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00362 (Filed Jan. 27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 22, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01062 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Charleston Southern University student-athletes. The Stroud case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: Thompson Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Dean Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00372 (Filed Jan. 27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 22, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01175 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of student-athletes. The Thompson case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: Wasil Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ A case, WILLIAM WASIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and Ohio Wesleyan University, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00352 (Filed Jan. 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 22, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.1:19-cv-01043 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Ohio Wesleyan University student-athletes. The Wasil case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: Webster Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Alan Webster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00465 (Filed Jan. 29, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 28, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01115 proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Student-Athletes. The Webster case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: Wilson Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Ryan Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and Guilford College, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00435 (Filed Jan. 28, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 27, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01121 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Guilford College Student-Athletes. The Wilson case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2741: Barnes Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled ROBERT BARNES and MARCIA BARNES, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00838 (Filed Dec. 18, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Mar. 4, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01185-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of 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 Barnes 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 the Plaintiffs: Tad Thomas, Esq. John Abaray, Esq. THOMAS LAW OFFICES 9418 Norton Commons Blvd., Suite 200 Louisville, KY 40059 Telephone: 877-256-4296 Facsimile: 877-955-7002 E-mail: tad@thomaslawoffices.com - and - 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: Bordeaux Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled WILLIAM BORDEAUX, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-160 (Filed Feb. 1, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Feb. 22, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00960-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of 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 Bordeaux 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 the Plaintiff: D. Todd Mathews, Esq. Joseph B. Carnduff, Esq. GORI & JULIAN LAW 156 N. Main St. Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 659-9833 Facsimile: (618) 659-9834 E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com jcarnduff@gorijulianlaw.com MDL 2741: Martinez Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled ALONZO MARTINEZ, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00150 (Filed Jan. 31, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Feb. 22, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00957-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of 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 Martinez 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 the Plaintiff: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207-2950 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com MDL 2741: Susak Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled FRANK SUSAK and JENNIFER SUSAK, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00140 (Filed Jan. 30, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Feb. 22, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00955-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of 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 Susak 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 the Plaintiffs: 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 MDL 2804: Dawsey Suit v. Purdue over Opiates Sales Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Debra Dawsey, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Purdue Pharma LP., Purdue Pharma Inc.; Cephalic Inc.; Neva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Neva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Jansen Pharmaceutical Inc., now known as Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Undo Health Solutions Inc.; Undo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergen PL, formerly known as: Activist PL; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Activist Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc.; Activist Dharma, Inc., formerly known as: Watson Dharma, Inc.; Activist LLC; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00094, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-op-45092-DAP to the proceeding. The Dawsey case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The ML was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multi district Litigation on December 5, 2017. These cases concern the alleged improper marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various prescription opiate medications into cities, states and towns across the country. Responding The Plaintiffs' positions on centralization vary considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or potential tag-along actions support centralization. The Plaintiffs in 15 actions or potential tag-along actions oppose centralization altogether or oppose transfer of their action. In addition to opposing transfer, the State of West Virginia suggests that the ML Panel delay transferring its case until the Southern District of West Virginia court decides its motion to remand to state court. Third party payer plaintiffs in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania potential tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers Health and Welfare Fund) oppose centralization of third participatory actions. Western District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case. Northern District of Illinois tag-along Plaintiff City of Chicago asks the Panel to defer transfer of its action until document discovery is completed. The Presiding Judge in the MDL is Sarah S. Vance, United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:17-MD-02804-PAD.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Seth A. Meyer, Esq. KELLER LENKNER 150 North Riverside Plaza Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741-5226 E-mail: sam@kellerlenkner.com MDL 2804: Golden Suit v. Purdue over Opiates Sales Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Glenn Golden, Gretta Golden, and Michael Christy, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Purdue Pharma LP., Purdue Pharma Inc.; Cephalic Inc.; Neva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Neva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Jansen Pharmaceutical Inc., now known as Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Undo Health Solutions Inc.; Undo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergen PL, formerly known as: Activist PL; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Activist Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc.; Activist Dharma, Inc., formerly known as: Watson Dharma, Inc.; Activist LLC; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01048, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-op-45091-DAP to the proceeding. The Golden case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The ML was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multi district Litigation on December 5, 2017. These cases concern the alleged improper marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various prescription opiate medications into cities, states and towns across the country. Responding The Plaintiffs' positions on centralization vary considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or potential tag-along actions support centralization. The Plaintiffs in 15 actions or potential tag-along actions oppose centralization altogether or oppose transfer of their action. In addition to opposing transfer, the State of West Virginia suggests that the ML Panel delay transferring its case until the Southern District of West Virginia court decides its motion to remand to state court. Third party payer plaintiffs in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania potential tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers Health and Welfare Fund) oppose centralization of third participatory actions. Western District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case. Northern District of Illinois tag-along Plaintiff City of Chicago asks the Panel to defer transfer of its action until document discovery is completed. The Presiding Judge in the MDL is Sarah S. Vance, United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:17-MD-02804-PAD.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: William David Aaron, Jr., Esq. Anna A. Rainer, Esq. DeWayne Larry Williams, Esq. AARON & GIANNA, PLC 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3800 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 569-1800 E-mail: waaron@aarongianna.com anna.rnr@gmail.com dwilliams@aarongianna.com MDL 2875: Longwell Suit v. Camber over Valsartan Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Veronica Longwell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hetero USA INC., and Hetero Drugs Limited, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12339 (Filed Nov. 7, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 1, 2019. The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-07463 to the proceeding. The suit demands $5,000,000 and alleges product liability for personal injury caused by the use of generic valsartan. The Longwell case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2875, Re: VALSARTAN N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE (NDMA) CONTAMINATION PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 14, 2019. This litigation arises out of an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration into impurities found in generic drug products containing valsartan, a medication indicated for the treatment of high blood pressure and other conditions. During the course of the FDA investigation, a number of voluntary recalls of generic valsartan medications were issued. Purchasers of recalled lots of generic valsartan subsequently filed actions alleging economic losses. The initial wave of consumer class actions was followed by actions alleging personal injuries from the ingestion of affected valsartan medications, as well as other related litigation. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions involve common factual questions arising out of allegations that plaintiffs purchased or used generic formulations of valsartan medications containing the nitrosamine impurities NDMA and/or NDEA; that these impurities present a risk of cancer and liver damage; and that defendants knew, or should have known, of the impurities as early as 2012. All actions stem from the same FDA investigation and voluntary recall announced in July 2018, and the voluntary recalls are ongoing. Although the investigation, and the earliest-filed actions, focused on Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. as the source of the alleged impurities, the FDA investigation and the actions before the Panel now encompass alleged industry-wide issues concerning the production of the valsartan active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) which will be common to all actions. The common questions of fact include: (1) whether the generic valsartan sold by defendants contained NDMA or NDEA; (2) the cause of the alleged impurities, including alleged defects in the manufacturing and sampling process; (3) when defendants knew or should have known of the impurities; (4) how long the NDMA- and NDEA- containing valsartan medications were in circulation; and (5) whether the amounts of NDMA and NDEA in the medications presented a risk of cancer or other injuries. All of the valsartan actions will raise these issues, regardless of whether the alleged supplier of the valsartan API was ZHP, Mylan, Hetero Labs Limited, or some other entity. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification and Daubert motions; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Robert B. Kugler. The lead case is Case No.1:19-md-02875-RBK-JS. Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. provides formulations, active pharmaceutical ingredients, and intermediates in China and internationally.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Peter J. Ainsworth, Esq. MEEHAN, BOYLE, BLACK & BOGDANOW, P.C. Two Center Plaza,Suite 600 Boston, MA 02108-1922 Telephone: (617) 523-8300 Facsimile: (617) 523-0455 MDL 2879: Axelrod Suit vs Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit titled Lisa Axelrod, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-60131 (Filed Jan. 15, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt) on Feb. 22, 2019. The District of Maryland Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00516-PWG to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege violation of customers' privacy rights. The Axelrod case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2879 in re: Marriott International, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 6, 2019. These actions -- which are putative nationwide and/or statewide consumer class actions -- share factual issues concerning a recently-disclosed breach of Marriott's Starwood guest reservation database from 2014 to 2018. In its Feb. 6, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the factual overlap among these actions is substantial, as they all arise from the same data breach, and they all allege that Marriott failed to put in to place reasonable data protections. Many also allege that Marriott did not timely notify the public of the data breach. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge. Paul W. Grimm. The lead case is 8:19-md-02879-PWG.[BN] Attorneys for the Plainitffs: Thomas E Loeser, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Ave. Ste. 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: toml@hbsslaw.com MDL 2879: Kimmel et al vs Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit titled David J. Kimmel, Michael C. Christner, and Thomas Stabile, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01983 (Filed Dec. 5, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the n District of Connecticut York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt) on Feb. 27, 2019. The District of Maryland Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00508-PWG to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege violation of customers' privacy rights. The Kimmel case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2879 in re: Marriott International, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 6, 2019. These actions -- which are putative nationwide and/or statewide consumer class actions -- share factual issues concerning a recently-disclosed breach of Marriott's Starwood guest reservation database from 2014 to 2018. In its Feb. 6, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the factual overlap among these actions is substantial, as they all arise from the same data breach, and they all allege that Marriott failed to put in to place reasonable data protections. Many also allege that Marriott did not timely notify the public of the data breach. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge. Paul W. Grimm. The lead case is 8:19-md-02879-PWG.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendants: Daniel R Warren, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP Key Tower 127 Public Square Ste. 2000 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 861-7145 Facsimile: (216) 696-0740 E-mail: dwarren@bakerlaw.com - and - Gilbert S Keteltas, Esq. Lisa M Ghannoum, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave. NW Ste. 1100 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 861-1530 Facsimile: (202) 861-1783 E-mail: gketeltas@bakerlaw.com lghannoum@bakerlaw.com MERCHANTS & PROFESSIONAL: Yannacone Says Debt Collection Illegal ---------------------------------------------------------------- A case, GERALD YANNACONE, individually & on behalf of all similarly situated, the Plaintiff(s), vs. MERCHANTS AND PROFESSIONAL BUREAU, INC. d/b/a MERCHANTS AND PROFESSIONAL COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00193 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2019), sues Defendant for unfair debt collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA). The Defendant sought collections from Plaintiff for medical bills that occurred between February 2014 and April 2014 for health care services performed by Austin Family Medicine. Austin Family Medicine did not bill for these health care services within the time period prescribed by Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code section 146.002. According to the lawsuit, a health care service provider in Texas must submit a bill within a year of service. A health care service provider is barred from collecting on any medical bills that it does not submit within a year of service. Additionally, Austin Family Medicine did not sue Plaintiff within four years of the services being rendered. The Defendant sent Plaintiff a form letter dated October 26, 2018. In the form letter, Defendant sought to collect $549.50 from Plaintiff for health care services provided that were time barred. On October 30, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a dispute letter to Defendant. On November 5, 2018, the Plaintiff spoke to Defendant, confirming that Defendant received Plaintiff's dispute. On November 19, 2018, Defendant submitted another form letter. The form letters submitted by Defendant are misleading and deceptive. The November 19th form letter states: "We have verified with our client that this balance is valid and owed. [Defendant] does not purchase debts. Our client has assigned the above reference account to us for the purpose of collecting on the outstanding balance due them."[BN] Attorneys for the Plainiff: Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq. 325 Shelby Street, Esq. Frankfort, KY 40601 Telephone: 863-838-3838 E-mail: bernie@thelaborfirm.com METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: McGinnis Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, SEAN MCGINNIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, the Plaintiff, vs. METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 190200969, was removed from Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on March 7, 2019. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00970-MAK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Mark A. Kearney. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co operates as an insurance firm. The Company offers property and casualty insurance services.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: James C. Haggerty, Esq. HAGGERTY GOLDBERG SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH PC 1835 MARKET ST STE 2700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 350-6609 E-mail: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com - and - Vincent D. Margiotti, Esq. MCMENAMIN & MARGIOTTI LLC 2307 N. Broad St., P.O. BOX 180 Lansdale, PA 19446 Attorneys for the Defendant: Vlada Tasich, Esq. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN 2000 Market Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-2659 E-mail: vxtasich@mdwcg.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Brown Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- DERICK M. BROWN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00339 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Browns Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- BRENDA BROWN and JOHNNY BROWN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00350-DDN (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Gattuccio Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN GATTUCCIO, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00370 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 28, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The 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 Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Lundys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- JOHN LUNDY AND VONZELLA LUNDY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No 4:19-cv-00342 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Lutzs Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD LUTZ AND LAURA LUTZ, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No 4:19-cv-00336-CDP (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Maestas Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- CLIFFORD MAESTAS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No 4:19-cv-00361 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Moul Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT J. MOUL, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00337 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Navarro Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE NAVARRO, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00358 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Robbins Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID J. ROBBINS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00338 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Rowell Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ GAIL ROWELL, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00354 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Snyders Sue over Sale of Roundup Products ----------------------------------------------------------- EDGAR W. SNYDER and BARBARA L. SNYDER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00291 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 22, 2019), alleges unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale of various Roundup Products, manufactured and marketed by Defendant Monsanto Company and distributed by Scotts Miracle-Gro Products, Inc., in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the New York General Business Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants label, advertise, and promote their retail Roundup (TM) products, including but not limited to their Roundup (TM) "Garden Weeds" Weed & Grass Killer products ("Roundup" or "Roundup Products"), with the false statement that Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, targets an enzyme that is not found "in people or pets." This statement is false, misleading, and deceptive, because the enzyme that glyphosate targets is found in people and pets. Glyphosate targets the EPSP synthase enzyme, which is utilized by beneficial bacteria present, including in the gut biome, in humans and other mammals, such as household pets. This enzyme, in beneficial bacteria, is critical to the health and wellbeing of humans and other mammals, including their immune system, digestion, allergies, metabolism, and brain function. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant 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, and Roundup Original 2k herbicide. The Defendants' false statements and omissions regarding glyphosate and the enzyme it targets are material. There is widespread controversy and concern around glyphosate and its effects on humans and animals. For example, EPSP synthase is directly linked to our general health, and the interference with the gut flora (including EPSP synthase) can have serious effects on humans and pets. Instead of being open and honest with consumers, Defendants have chosen to use a false statement to market their Roundup (TM) products. In addition to making the false statement, as further outlined herein, Defendants omit material, contrary information that might clarify that statement, namely, that bacteria present in humans and animals produce and utilize the enzyme targeted by Roundup. Because of the false statement and material omissions, Defendants have been able to sell more Roundup Products and to charge more for Roundup than they otherwise would have been. The Defendants were unjustly enriched through utilizing the false statement and omitting material contrary information. The Plaintiffs and other Class Members who purchased the Roundup Products suffered economic damages in a similar manner because they purchased more Roundup Products and/or paid more for Roundup Products than they would have had they not been deceived, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Eq. 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 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Jones Sues Over Student-Athletes' Injuries --------------------------------------------------------------- Courtney Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:19-cv-00898 (S.D. Ind., March 1, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for negligence, breach of express contract and fraudulent concealment. The Plaintiff seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of the Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Colorado State University student-athletes. The Plaintiff alleges that for decades, the Defendant NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur" college football. The Plaintiff Courtney Jones is a natural person and citizen of the State of Texas. The Defendant NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of business located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206. The Defendant is the governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football program at CSU. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Tel: (713) 554-9099 Fax: (713) 554-9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com NCAA: Murray Sues over OSU Athletes' Football Injuries ------------------------------------------------------ VICTOR DUSTIN THOMAS VON HOPKINS MURRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-731 (S.D. Ind., Feb. 18, 2019) is an action against the Defendant to obtain redress for injuries sustained as a result of the Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of the Oregon State University student-athletes. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries like those the Plaintiff experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other Oregon State University football players from the long-term dangers associated with them. NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of business located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206. NCAA is not organized under the laws of any State, but is registered as a tax-exempt organization with the Internal Revenue Service. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554-9099 Facsimile: (713) 554-9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Facsimile: (415) 373-9435 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com NCAA: Schultz Sues over Safety of Concordia Student-Athletes ------------------------------------------------------------ SCOTT SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and CONCORDIA COLLEGE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00894-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind., March 1, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained as a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Concordia student-athletes student-athletes. While in school, Concordia football players were under Defendant's care. Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that would haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Plaintiff and other Concordia football players from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit. As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and countless former Concordia football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit says. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589 6370 Facsimile: (312) 589 6378 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com NEW ANSWERNET: Salon Sues over Background Checks & Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- AURELIO P. SALON, III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW ANSWERNET,INC.; ENERGY CHOICE CALIFORNIA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 19CV342756 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 15, 2019), alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681. The action also seeks to recover from the Defendants premium wages for meal periods and rest periods, and non-payment of overtime wages. The Plaintiff Salon, III was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt, hourly paid employee. AnswerNet, Inc. provides inbound, outbound, and e-bound call center services. The company was formerly known as AnswerNet Network and changed its name to AnswerNet, Inc. in 2009. AnswerNet, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Willow Grove, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com farrah@setarehlaw.com NEWPORT RIB: Underpays Cooks, Rosete Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------- BONIFACIO MELENDEZ ROSETE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWPORT RIB COMPANY, INC.; NAPLES RIB COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01051724-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Feb. 15, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff Rosete was employed by the Defendants as cook. Newport Rib Company, Inc. is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin A. Mahoney, Esq. Atoy H. Wilson, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP 249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net awilson@mahoney-law.net NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Gandy Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- LEON GANDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHSTAR LOCATION SERVICES, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-05915-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., Feb. 15, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Michael A. Shipp and referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Arpert. Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Its services include first and third-party debt collections, customer care programs, and location services. The company was founded in 2000 and is based in Cheektowaga, New York with an additional office in Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben A. Kaplan, Esq. 280 Prospect Ave. 6G Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 803-6611 Facsimile: (866) 596-4973 E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com NUCO2 LLC: Overcharges Customers, Townhouse Restaurant Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, TOWNHOUSE RESTAURANT OF OVIEDO, INC., the Plaintiff, vs. NUCO2, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-14085-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 6, 2019), challenges NuCO2's widespread and systematic practice of overcharging its customers through a coordinated deceptive scheme. The Plaintiff is a small business that owns and operates a restaurant in Oviedo, Florida. As part of its operations, the Plaintiff purchases carbon dioxide (CO2) and related equipment from NuCO2, LLC. NuCO2 is a large beverage carbonation company that is wholly owned by Praxair, Inc., the largest industrial and medical supply company in North America, with more than $11 billion dollars in annual revenue. Like thousands of other small businesses across the country, Plaintiff buys its CO2 and related equipment from NuCO2 pursuant to a standard, pre-printed contract. Notably, this contract is uniform among putative class members in all relevant aspects and contains a six-year term, which auto-renews for additional six-year terms. The primary purpose of the form contract is to establish fixed monthly prices a given customer will pay NuCO2 for products and equipment. In violation of the form contract and of Florida law -- which governs all claims in this litigation -- NuCO2 has carried out a systematic deceptive scheme to charge its customers more than the agreed amounts. NuCO2 enters into the agreements knowing that it will increase the promised prices without justification. The contracts specifically restrict NuCO2's ability to increase prices to two discrete circumstances: (1) annually on the effective date of the contract (up to 5% or the amount of a specific inflationary index) or (2) within 15 days of sending a "Price Adjustment Notification." NuCO2 does neither. Rather, for years NuCO2 has carried out an automated price increase practice that increases price without the required notice and unrelated to the contractual effective date. These increases are significant; over the standard six-year term customers are forced to pay as much as 30% more each month than what NuCO2 represented and agreed. NuCO2 has also increased prices by imposing a fee it calls a "fuel surcharge/energy surcharge" but which, in fact, has no relationship to its increased fuel costs. Rather, NuCO2 uses the fuel surcharge -- in intent and effect -- as a hidden price increase. The fuel surcharge bears absolutely no relation to NuCO2's actual increased fuel or energy costs and NuCO2 does not use the proceeds from the energy surcharge to offset such costs. In fact, NuCO2 includes any fuel or energy costs it might incur in delivering its products and service through the standard rates it charges customers. NuCO2 simply uses the fuel surcharge to generate extra profit at its customers' expense, all the while deceiving customers into believing that the fee is a legitimate charge directly related to specific increased costs it incurs. NuCO2's conduct is a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, a breach of contract, and a violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing that underpins those contracts, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Anthony J. Garcia, Esq. AG LAW, P.A. 742 S. Village Circle Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: 813 259 9555 Facsimile: 813 254 9555 E-mail: anthony@aglawinc.com - and - Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq. Garrett Owens, Esq. PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC 2421 2nd Avenue North, Suite 1 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: 205 208 9588 Facsimile: 205 208 9598 E-mail: nick@pricearmstrong.com garrett@pricearmstrong.com - and - Taylor C. Bartlett,Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 2224 First Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: 205 326 3336 E-mail: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Cobra Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided with the maker of dietary supplements that promised greater "sexual energy" and against a lawsuit on behalf of customers in a ruling over the timeliness of petitions to appeal of class certification orders. Nutraceutical Corp. had asked the Supreme Court to reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's 2017 decision allowing the plaintiff in a consumer class action to file an interlocutory appeal of a decertification order in a case over "Cobra Sexual Energy" pills. The Supreme Court on Feb. 26 found that the plaintiff had missed the 14-day deadline to petition for appeal under Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, which, despite the Ninth Circuit's contrary view, was not subject to equitable tolling. "Here, the governing rules speak directly to the issue of Rule 23(f)'s flexibility and make clear that its deadline is not subject to equitable tolling," wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "The rules thus express a clear intent to compel rigorous enforcement of Rule 23(f)'s deadline, even where good cause for equitable tolling might otherwise exist." Nutraceutical attorney John Hueston -- jhueston@hueston.com -- of Hueston Hennigan in Los Angeles, said the ruling's impact extended beyond that of his client. "In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court adopted our argument that all mandatory claim-processing rules are unalterable if properly raised," he wrote in an emailed statement. "The Court's decision has significant implications for civil and administrative procedure and will provide clarity to the lower courts and litigants on this important issue." Plaintiff's attorney Jonathan Herstoff -- jherstoff@haugpartners.com -- of Haug Partners in New York, did not respond to a request for comment. The ruling is the latest Supreme Court decision to challenge procedural rules used in class actions. On Jan. 15, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Home Depot v. Jackson, which addressed whether a third-party counterclaim defendant could remove a case to federal court under the U.S. Class Action Fairness Act. And, in 2016, in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, the Supreme Court struck down a defense tactic used to wipe out a class action by offering to pay the named plaintiffs in full. Although interlocutory appeals of class certification orders aren't mandatory, lawyers on both sides of class actions have fought for appeals courts to take up more petitions for them. The Supreme Court has addressed class certification appeals before, ruling in 2017 in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker that a plaintiff couldn't petition to appeal such an order after voluntarily dismissing his claims. The practical impact of the Feb. 26 ruling, however, could be less on Rule 23(f) appeals and more on an issue that the Supreme Court "leaves dangling," said Evan Tager -- etager@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown in Washington, D.C. That is, when should a lawyer file a motion to reconsider a class certification order without losing his right to appeal? Parties on both sides of a class action could end up delaying or eliminating such motions in light of the Supreme Court's holding, Tager said. "As a practical matter, what I foresee happening is nobody is going to fail to file a 23(f) petition within 14 days. Period. End of story," he said. "And if they want to do a reconsideration, they will probably wait and see what happens with the 23(f)." In the Nutraceutical case, the plaintiff, Troy Lambert, alleged that the labels on "Cobra Sexual Energy" pills falsely promised "animal magnetism" and "potency wood." In 2015, U.S. District Judge Andre Birotte in the Central District of California decertified the class. Mr. Lambert filed a reconsideration motion 20 days later and, when Birotte rejected that, petitioned to appeal that decision 14 days after the filing of his reconsideration motion. Under Rule 23, parties must file petitions for interlocutory appeals of class certification orders 14 days after a ruling, but the Ninth Circuit tolled the deadline for Lambert, concluding that he had "otherwise acted diligently." The Supreme Court noted that the Ninth Circuit had acknowledged its holding split with nearly half the country's federal appellate courts on a matter of first impression. "Whether the pertinent rule or rules invoked show a clear intent to preclude tolling, courts are without authority to make exceptions merely because a litigant appears to have been diligent, reasonably mistaken, or otherwise deserving," Justice Sotomayor wrote. [GN] NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Proskauer Rose Discusses Supreme Court Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence I Weinstein, Esq. -- lweinstein@proskauer.com -- Carl Mazurek, Esq. -- cmazurek@proskauer.com -- and Kelly Landers Hawthorne, Esq. -- klandershawthorne@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a Ninth Circuit decision, resolving a circuit split in ruling that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)'s 14-day deadline for a losing party to file a petition for permission to appeal an order granting or denying class certification is not subject to equitable tolling. Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 586 U.S. -- (2019). The putative class action lawsuit alleged California law false advertising claims arising from Nutraceutical's sale and marketing of purported aphrodisiac supplements. The original district court judge assigned to the case certified the class and subsequently retired. Later, the judge to whom the case was reassigned granted Nutraceutical's motion for decertification. From that point under 23(f), the plaintiff had 14 days to file a petition with the Court of Appeals for leave to appeal the decertification order. Ten days into the 14-day countdown, plaintiff told the district court at a status conference that he would file a motion in the district court for reconsideration of the decertification order. No mention was made of the Rule 23(f) deadline. Plaintiff filed the reconsideration motion and, long after the 14-day deadline for a motion for leave to appeal, the district court denied reconsideration. Only then did plaintiff file his motion for leave to appeal with the Ninth Circuit. Nutraceutical objected that the motion for leave to appeal was untimely under Rule 23(f), but the Ninth Circuit found the appeal timely, reversed the district court's order of decertification and ordered that a class be certified. The Ninth Circuit's rationale was that Rule 23(f)'s 14-day time limit is non-jurisdictional and therefore necessarily subject to equitable tolling, and that the 14-day deadline was deemed tolled when, before it had expired, plaintiff had objected to the decertification order and notified the district court of his intention to seek recertification via filing a reconsideration motion for reconsideration. In reaching this result, the Ninth Circuit recognized that its decision was in conflict with those of other circuits, which had held that Rule 23(f)'s 14-day deadline was immutable. The Supreme Court granted Neutraceutical's petition for certiorari and, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, unanimously reversed. The Supreme Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit that Rule 23(f) is non-jurisdictional because it is a procedural rule. Still, the Court clarified, the "mere fact that a time limit lacks jurisdictional force . . . does not render it malleable in every respect." Instead, Justice Sotomayor explained, "[w]hether a rule precludes equitable tolling turns not on its jurisdictional character," but "rather on whether the text of the rule leaves room for such flexibility." Reading Rule 23(f) with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 5(a)(2) and 26(b)(1), the Court found that the Rules "express a clear intent to compel rigorous enforcement of Rule 23(f)'s deadline, even where good cause for equitable tolling might otherwise exist." Plaintiff's motion was therefore untimely, regardless of any equitable considerations. Nutraceutical Corp. provides an important lesson to litigants, whether plaintiffs or defendants, who find themselves on the losing end of a class action certification motion. Litigants have the right to seek leave to appeal the district court's certification decision to the relevant circuit court. However, they forfeit that right if they fail to do so within 14 days of the entry of the order granting or denying class certification, as the appellate court cannot forgive on equitable tolling ground defendant's failure to adhere to that deadline, even in good faith. [GN] NVIDIA CORP: Bid to Consolidate Iron Workers & Oto Suits Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- NVIDIA Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a number of shareholders are seeking to consolidate the Iron Workers Joint Funds v. Nvidia Corporation, et al. and Oto v. Nvidia Corporation, et al. cases and to be appointed lead plaintiff and for their respective counsel to be appointed lead counsel. On December 21, 2018, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Iron Workers Joint Funds v. Nvidia Corporation, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-7669), naming as defendants NVIDIA and certain of NVIDIA's officers. The complaint asserts that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements related to channel inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on the graphics processing unit (GPU) demand between August 10, 2017 and November 15, 2018. The plaintiff also alleges that the NVIDIA officers who they named as defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of equitable/injunctive or other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On December 28, 2018, a substantially similar purported securities class action was commenced in the Northern District of California, captioned Oto v. Nvidia Corporation, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-07783), naming the same defendants, and seeking substantially similar relief. The two cases have been related and are before the same judge. A stipulation to consolidate the Iron Workers and Oto actions is pending before the Court. On February 19, 2019, a number of shareholders filed motions to consolidate the two cases and to be appointed lead plaintiff and for their respective counsel to be appointed lead counsel. NVIDIA Corporation operates as a visual computing company worldwide. It operates in two segments, GPU and Tegra Processor. The company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Santa Clara, California. ORVIS COMPANY: Website not Accessible to Blind, Garey Says ---------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN GAREY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE ORVIS COMPANY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02075 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2019), seeks to put an end to systemic civil rights violations committed by Defendant against sight-impaired, disabled individuals, pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disability Act. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to access and read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all individuals with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20/200. Some blind individuals who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million individuals in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendants' website will thus become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired persons. Orvis is a family-owned retail and mail-order business specializing in high-end fly fishing, hunting and sporting goods. Founded in Manchester, Vermont, in 1856 by Charles F. Orvis to sell fishing tackle, it is the oldest mail-order retailer in the United States.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 971-9474 Facsimile: (718) 865-0943 E-mail: Jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com P CONSTRUCTION: Rodrigues et al. Seek Overtime Premiums ------------------------------------------------------- BENVINDO RODRIGUES, ANDRE PINTO, MARCOS DASILVA, GIVANILDO SOUSA, OLAVO PEREIRA-MARTINS, and DANIELSON MARTINS-RODRIGUE, Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly-Situated Employees, the Plaintiffs, v. P CONSTRUCTION, CORP.; RONDON SIDING CORP.; EXCEL GROUP CORP; NATIONAL LUMBER COMPANY; RELIABLE TRUSS AND COMPONENTS, INC.; WEDER PEREIRA; CRISTINA PEREIRA; WAGNER SOUZA; JOEL DA COSTA; MANUEL PINA; and STEVEN KAITZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10409 (D. Mass., March 5, 2019), seeks payment of overtime premiums and other damages due to the Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated hourly-payed workers under federal and state law. According to the complaint, the Defendants exploited these workers, all or most of whom were immigrants with little knowledge of their rights. The Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs premium wages for overtime work, timely wages, wages for all hours worked, and paid sick leave. In addition, this action seeks payment for damages resulting from Defendants' wrongful termination of certain Plaintiffs in retaliation for the wage complaint filed by Rodrigues with the Massachusetts Attorney General's office on behalf of himself and similarly-situated coworkers, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Chip Muller, Esq. MULLER LAW, LLC 47 Wood Avenue Barrington, RI 02806 Telephone: (401) 256-5171 Facsimile: (401) 256-5025 E-mail: chip@mullerlaw.com PALIGROUP MANAGEMENT: Underpays Bartenders, Raczkiewicz Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- PATRYCIA RACZKIEWICZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALIGROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a PALIHOUSE WEST HOLLYWOOD; PALIHOUSE SANTA MONICA, LLC; PALIGROUP HOLDINGS, LLC; SOUTHWEST WINE & SPIRITS, LLC d/b/a WALLY'S WINE & SPIRITS; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV05501 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 14, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff Raczkiewicz was employed by the Defendants as bartender. Paligroup Management LLC operates as a real estate development and hospitality operating company. It acquires, programs, develops, owns, and operates hotels and residences. The company offers design, development, and management services. Its portfolio also includes specialized retail spaces, restaurants, bars, and event venues. Paligroup Management LLC was formerly known as Palisades Development Group LLC and changed its name to Paligroup Management LLC in 2012. The company was founded in 1998 and is based in West Hollywood, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 312 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 582-3086 Facsimile: (818) 582-2561 E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com PENNSYLVANIA: UPMC Pinnacle Sues AG Shapiro over New Rules ---------------------------------------------------------- Several entities affiliated with UPMC Pinnacle commenced a lawsuit against Joshua D. Shapiro, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief confirming that the Plaintiffs' rights and obligations with respect to federal healthcare programs are set by federal law, barring Shapiro from interfering with superior federal law and policy, and prohibiting him from unconstitutionally depriving nonprofits of their rights and property. The lawsuit contends that Shapiro, purporting to act in his official capacity, has illegally taken over nonprofit healthcare in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Without rulemaking, legislation or public comment, Shapiro has announced new "principles" that radically (and often in direct contravention of existing federal and state law) change how nonprofit health insurers and providers operate, now rendering the Attorney General the arbiter of how nonprofit health organizations should envision and achieve their mission. Seizing on the unfounded idea that all nonprofits healthcare providers and all nonprofit health insurers must contract with any counterparty who asks, the Attorney General has imposed mandatory contracting requirements, has forced rate-making arbitration before panels that he hand-picks, and has ordered removal of corporate boards to ensure his complete control. Any entity that fails to agree to these terms faces draconian penalties, including the potential loss of nonprofit status. This illegal scheme fundamentally changes the law. The healthcare industry is based on competition between closed networks of insurers and providers, and legislative efforts to change that model have failed. Just a few years ago the Attorney General's office itself conceded that "there is no statutory basis to make" payors and providers contract with each other and "no mechanism in Pennsylvania for resolving -- price dispute[s]" between them. But the Attorney General now asserts, pursuant to what he calls his own "vast authority," the ability to override the current federal and state system and impose his own rules. The Attorney General's principles are preempted by at least four different federal laws. Medicare Advantage ("MA") statutes and regulations explicitly favor competition, preserve healthcare entities' freedom of contract, and preempt all state actions that interfere with the MA program. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA") precludes states from regulating nonprofits that offer insurance plans through public exchanges differently from the for-profit insurers in that market. The Sherman Act prohibits regulatory schemes that delegate unsupervised ratemaking. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") supersedes state health care initiatives that substantially impact employer-sponsored health plans. In each of these areas Congress' policy-making power is supreme and precludes the Attorney General's conduct. The Attorney General's assertion of "vast" power over nonprofits also violates the United States Constitution. Due process prohibits Shapiro from imposing his ultra vires requirements on nonprofits through backroom threats with no legal process and then delegating price fixing power to self-interested private parties. This is particularly true where, as here, the Attorney General successfully argued to this Court that Pinnacle Health System (now Plaintiff UPMC Pinnacle) could not proceed with its planned merger with Hershey Medical System because it would reduce leverage and thus the ability of an insurer or provider to walk away from negotiations. Shapiro has now arbitrarily and capriciously changed positions, seeking to eliminate all leverage in future contracts. The Takings Clause prohibits taking Plaintiffs' federal rights to not contract or conditioning benefits under state law, such as nonprofit status, on Plaintiffs forfeiting such rights. And Shapiro's failure to apply the law equally among all nonprofits violates the Equal Protection Clause. The case is captioned as UPMC Pinnacle; UPMC Pinnacle Hospitals; UPMC Pinnacle Carlisle; UPMC Pinnacle Hanover; UPMC Pinnacle Lititz; UPMC Pinnacle Memorial; UPMC Somerset; UPMC Health Plan, Inc.; UPMC Health Coverage, Inc.; UPMC Health Network, Inc.; UPMC Health Options, Inc.; UPMC Benefit Management Services, Inc., on their own and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Joshua D. Shapiro, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00298-JEJ (M.D. Pa., Feb. 21, 2019). Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and All Other Members of the Plaintiff Class: Leon F. DeJulius Jr., Esq. Anderson T. Bailey, Esq. David S. Torborg, Esq. JONES DAY 500 Grant Street, Suite 4500 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 391-3939 Facsimile: (412) 394-7959 E-mail: lfdejulius@jonesday.com atbailey@jonesday.com dstorborg@jonesday.com - and - Stephen A. Cozen, Esq. James R. Potts, Esq. Stephen A. Miller, Esq. Jared D. Bayer, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Ste. 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 665-2000 Facsimile: (215) 701-2055 PEPPERIDGE FARM: Mulhern Hits Misclassification, Seeks Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Mulhern, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01660-CBM-RAO (N.D. Ill., March 7, 2019) seeks to recover damages from the Defendant arising from its unlawful misclassification of him and other so-called Sales Development Associates ("SDAs") working for Pepperidge Farm as independent contractors, rather than employees. Pepperidge Farm's misclassification of its Illinois SDAs as independent contractors rather than employees constitutes a violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other SDAs operating in Illinois, seeks to recover damages suffered as a result of Pepperidge Farm's illegal misclassification of them as independent contractors, including: (a) illegal deductions that Pepperidge Farm made from their wages or compensation in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, (b) overtime wages that Pepperidge Farm deprived them of in violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and (c) business expenses that Pepperidge Farm improperly shifted onto them, resulting in Pepperidge Farm's unjust enrichment, says the complaint. Mulhern worked for Pepperidge Farm in Illinois as a so-called SDA pursuant to a standard form Consignment Agreement. Pepperidge Farm manufactures, markets, sells, and distributes biscuit and snack products (cookies and crackers) and bakery products (bread, rolls, stuffing, and croutons) throughout the United States, including in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Freed, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Phone: (224) 632-4500 Fax: (224) 632-4521 Email: mfreed@fklmlaw.com - and - Thomas V. Urmy, Esq. Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP 53 State Street, 13th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 439-3939 Fax: (617) 439-0134 Email: turmy@shulaw.com imcloughlin@shulaw.com - and - Adam J. Shafran, Esq. Jonathon D. Friedmann, Esq. Rudolph Friedmann LLP 92 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 723-7700 Fax: (617) 227-0313 Email: ashafran@rflawyers.com jfriedmann@rflawyers.com PHEAA: Fails to Credit Student Loan Payments, Winebarger Says ------------------------------------------------------------- LISA WINEBARGER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY and NELNET, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01503 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2019), seeks to rectify a pattern and practice by Defendants of failing to credit student loan borrowers for qualifying payments toward the Congressionally-mandated Public Service Loan Forgiveness ("PSLF") program. The practice contravenes Defendants' duties under their servicing contracts with the federal government and under applicable law, and financially impairs thousands, if not millions, of student loan borrowers eligible or potentially eligible for debt relief under the PSLF program. Ms. Winebarger is a case in point. She has diligently made payments which meet all the statutory and regulatory requirements to count as "qualifying payments" toward the qualifying payments required for loan forgiveness under the PSLF program. However, PHEAA -- which serves as the exclusive loan servicer for borrowers actively pursuing PSLF -- has furnished Ms. Winebarger with vastly fluctuating payment counts that do not reflect the full number of qualifying payments she has made. Ms. Winebarger now seeks to remedy the situation on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, public servants who have borrowed money to fund their education but have found their progress toward promised loan forgiveness stymied by Defendants' negligence and malfeasance. In the aggregate, the claims of all class members exceed $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, based on the allegations herein. Given the value of the loans eligible or potentially eligible for forgiveness under the PSLF program (which run to the hundreds of billions of dollars), it is readily apparent that Defendants' negligence and malfeasance have caused much more than $5,000,000 in qualifying payments for PSLF to go uncredited, thew lawsuit says. PHEAA is a public corporation headquartered in Pennsylvania. Nelnet is a corporation headquartered in Nebraska.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and for the proposed Class: Thomas D. Warren, Esq. Janine Cohen, Esq. Jonathan A. Sorkowitz, Esq. PIERCE BAINBRIDGE BECK PRICE & HECHT LLP 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 4400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 262-9333 E-mail: twarren@piercebainbridge.com jcohen@piercebainbridge.com jsorkowitz@piercebainbridge.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Robinson Sues over Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHERELL ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00459-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 15, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Honorable Richard M Gergel. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts. It serves customers through account representatives. The company was incorporated in 1996 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC operates as a subsidiary of PRA Group, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Edward Norsworthy , Jr., Esq. NORSWORTHY LAW LTD CO. 505 Pettigru Street Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 804-0581 Facsimile: (864) 756-1153 E-mail: kenorsworthy@me.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Teiner Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit captioned as Christopher Teiner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC and PRA Group, Inc., Case No. 621976/2018, was removed from the Suffolk County Supreme Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip) March 5, 2019. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01281 to the proceeding. The suit demands $501,000 and alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation. PRA Group, Inc. or PRA, is a publicly traded debt buyer based in Norfolk, Virginia. PRA was listed in the Federal Trade Commission's Report on the Debt Buying Industry as one of the largest debt buyers in the US. PRA was among the top five debt buyers in the FTC Report.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Attorneys for the Defendant: Stephen Jay Steinlight, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 704-6000 Facsimile: (212) 704-6288 E-mail: stephen.steinlight@troutmansanders.com PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: Trantham Seeks Overtime Pay for Employees --------------------------------------------------------------- SAVANNAH TRANTHAM, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PRIME COMMUNICATIONS, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00037-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., March 6, 2019), seeks to recover compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney fees, and other relief from Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for wages due and owing. In or around February 2018, the Defendant hired Plaintiff to sell AT&T products and she continued in that capacity until she resigned in February 2019. The proposed collective class of individuals consists of employees of Defendant, who like Plaintiff were hourly workers, who performed overtime work for which they failed to receive compensation and who otherwise worked off the clock without receiving compensation. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff routinely stayed late and performed work off the clock when Defendant's stores should have been closed, all at the instruction and knowledge of her supervisors. The similarly situated employees are also believed to have performed work off the clock at the direction of Defendant acting through its agents, servants and employees and to have worked overtime for Defendant who failed to pay them for their overtime pay. The Plaintiff was paid an hourly rate of $11.10. She worked from 10:30 or 11:30 in the morning until after Defendant's stores were closed, sometimes as late as 9:00 at night. The FLSA requires an employer to pay its employees at a rate of at least minimum wage for all hours worked and also requires an employer to pay its employees time and one-half when they work more than 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated were not paid for any hours worked after their 40th hour of the week despite working an average of two overtime hours per week throughout her employment.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Matthew W. Birk, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK 309 NE 1st Street Gainesville, FL 32601 Telephone: (352) 244-2069 Facsimile: (352) 372-3464 E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com PROVIDENT CREDIT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wilkerson Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- RAY WILKERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROVIDENT CREDIT UNION; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV00916 (Cal. Super., San Mateo Cty., Feb. 14, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Wilkerson was employed by the Defendants as hourly paid, non-exempt employee. Provident Credit Union operates as a credit union that provides banking products and services to its members from employer groups in the United States. Provident Credit Union was formerly known as CTA Credit Union. The company was founded in 1950 and is based in Redwood City, California with branches in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq. Daniel F. Gaines, Esq. Alex P. Katofsky, Esq. Sepideh Ardestani, Esq. GAINES & GAINES, APLC 27200 Agoura Road Suite 101 Calabasas, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 703-8985 Facsimile: (818) 703-8984 E-mail: ken@gaineslawfirm.com daniel@gaineslawfirm.com sepideh@gaineslawfirm.com RADIOLOGY BOARD: Sued over Maintenance of Certification Requirement ------------------------------------------------------------------- SADHISH K. SIVA, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN BOARD OF RADIOLOGY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01407 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 26, 2019), challenges the Board's practice of requiring all radiologists to purchase maintenance of certification product (MOC) to maintain their initial American Board of Radiology (ABR) certifications. The case is about ABR's illegal and anti-competitive conduct in the market for initial board certification of radiology physicians and the market for maintenance of certification of radiologists. In very general terms, a radiologist identifies and assesses abnormalities in imaging studies such as X-rays, computer tomography (CT) scans, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. ABR is illegally tying its initial certification product to its maintenance of certification product, referred to by ABR as MOC. The case is also about ABR's illegal creation and maintenance of its monopoly power in the market for maintenance of certification. ABR is the monopoly supplier of initial certifications for radiologists. Beginning in or about 1994, ABR used its monopoly position in the initial certification market to create a monopoly in the market of maintenance of certifications for radiologists, which is the subject of this lawsuit. Since then ABR has used various anti-competitive, exclusionary, and unlawful actions to promote MOC and prevent and limit the growth of competition from new providers of maintenance of certification for radiologists. ABR's conduct, including but not limited to tying and exclusive dealing, has harmed competition by preventing competition from others providing cheaper, less burdensome, and more innovative forms of maintenance of certification desired by radiologists. The tying product is ABR's initial board certification, which it sells to radiologists nationwide. ABR currently sells initial certification services to radiologists in four primary areas of radiology, diagnostic radiology, radiation oncology, medical physics, and interventional radiology/diagnostic radiology, and several subspecialties within the field of radiology. Many radiologists hold multiple initial ABR certifications, purchasing one or more primary certifications or subspecialties. The tied product is MOC, ABR's maintenance of certification. ABR has tied MOC to its initial certification. To drive sales of MOC and to monopolize the market for maintenance of certification, ABR has forced radiologists to purchase MOC, charged supracompetitive monopoly prices for MOC, and thwarted competition in the market for maintenance of certification. Currently, approximately 1,500-2,000 radiologists in the United States purchase ABR primary initial certifications annually. ABR has throughout the relevant period controlled the market for initial certification of radiologists in the United States. In 2016, the last year for which data is publicly available, ABR sold its MOC product to approximately 26,000 radiologists. Through its MOC program, ABR controls the market for maintenance of certification of radiologists. ABR has unlawfully obtained and maintained its monopoly power in the market for maintenance of certification services for the anti-competitive purpose of requiring radiologists to purchase MOC and not deal with competing providers of maintenance of certification services. Established in 1934, the American Board of Radiology (ABR) is a not for profit physician-led organization. It oversees the certification and ongoing professional development of specialists in diagnostic radiology, radiation oncology and medical physics.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: C. Philip Curley, Esq. Cynthia H. Hyndman, Esq. Laura R. Feldman, Esq. Benjamin E. Schwab, Esq. ROBINSON CURLEY P.C. 300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312 663 3100 Facsimile: 312 663 0303 pcurley@robinsoncurley.com E-mail: chyndman@robinsoncurley.com lfeldman@robinsoncurley.com bschwab@robinsoncurley.com - and - Katrina Carroll, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREEBERG, LLC 111 West Washington, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312 750 1265 Facsimile: 312.212.5919 E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com - and - Michael J. Freed, Esq. Brian M. Hogan, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 Facsimile: (224) 632-4521 E-mail: mfreed@fklmlaw.com bhogan@fklmlaw.com - and - Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 234-6487 Facsimile: (224) 632-4521 E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com REMEX INC: Maneri Sues over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------- MARGARET MANERI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REMEX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05978-ES-MAH (D.N.J. Feb. 15, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Esther Salas and referred to Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer. Remex, Inc. is engaged as a debt collection agency. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Telephone: (973) 227-0019 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com RENT RECOVERY: Madison Sues over Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- SHARONDALYN MADISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RENT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00406-B (N.D. Tex., Feb. 19, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Jane J. Boyle. Resort Recovery Solutions, LLC provides debt collection services. The company prepares monthly reports that include details such as member name, contract number, amount collected, payment type, and commission amount. Resort Recovery Solutions, LLC is based in San Diego, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn Jaffer, Esq. SHAWN JAFFER LAW FIRM PLLC 6136 Frisco Blvd, Suite 400 Frisco, TX 75034 Telephone: (214) 210-9910 Facsimile: (214) 594-6100 E-mail: shawn@jafflaw.com RENT-A-TIRE LP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chappel Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- TAMIKA N. CHAPPEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RENT-A-TIRE, L.P.; RENT A WHEEL; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19CV342757 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 15, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Chappel was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt, and hourly employee. Rent-A-Tire Inc. is a rent-to-own custom wheel and tire retailer in the United States. It sells wheels and tires through stores in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. The company was founded in 1996 and is based in Fort Worth, Texas. As of July 2002, Rent-A-Tire Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Rent A Wheel. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com Thomas@setarehlaw.com farrah@setarehlaw.com ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY: Sexual Abuse Victims Offended by Letter --------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY M. POPPEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE ROCKEFELLER INSTITUTE, a.k.a. THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY, a.k.a. THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY; THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; and THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01403-RA (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2019) is a class action by the Plaintiff and the class who have been harmed by: -- sexual abuse, perpetrated over the span of 40 years, by Dr. Reginald Archibald, and -- most recently by the transmission and receipt of a highly offensive, and extreme and outrageous correspondence directed at them for no purpose other than to benefit the entity that for four decades employed their perpetrator. The Plaintiff and the class includes persons who were sexually abused by Archibald at the The Rockefeller University Hospital, and subsequently received a letter from the Defendants in the fall of 2018 seeking information about Archibald's abuse. According to the complaint, the Defendants' conduct in sending the Letter to victims of sexual abuse who, at the time they received the Letter, believed they had no legal recourse for the sexual abuse they endured, was extreme and outrageous. The Defendants were reckless and disregarded a substantial probability that the Letter would cause severe emotional distress by reopening the wounds of the victims of Archibald's sexual abuse. Rockefeller University is an educational institution, which focuses on medical research. It offers programs in fields such as biochemistry; structural biology and chemistry; medical sciences and human genetics; molecular, cell and developmental biology; immunology; virology and microbiology; neuroscience; physics; and mathematical biology. In addition the university offers Ph.D. degree in the Life Sciences. Rockefeller University was formerly known as Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. It was established in 1901 and is based in New York City. The university has endowment assets worth $1372.2 million. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Corey M. Stern, Esq. Renner K. Walker, Esq. LEVY KONIGSBERG, LLP 800 Third Ave., 11th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 605-6200 Facsimile: (212) 605-6290 E-mail: cstern@levylaw.com rwalker@levylaw.com SCRIPPS HEALTH: Vaughn-Love Sues over Background Checks ------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY VAUGHN-LOVE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCRIPPS HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00336-H-MSB (S.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2019) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Scripps Health, Inc., a nonprofit health system, operates hospitals and medical centers. Scripps Health, Inc. was founded in 1924 and is based in San Diego, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Ozzello, Esq. Tarek H Zohdy, Esq. Cody R Padgett, Esq. Trisha Kathlee Monesi, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Mark.ozzello@capstonelawyers.com Tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.monesi@capstonelawyers.com SECURUS TECH: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Romero Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Juan Romero, et al. v. Securus Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-01283-JM-MDD, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The appellate case is captioned as Juan Romero, et al. v. Securus Technologies, Inc., Case No. 19-55243, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs Juan Romero, Frank Tiscareno and Kenneth Elliott filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit. That appellate case is entitled Juan Romero, et al. v. Securus Technologies, Inc., Case No. 18-80180. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Jeffrey T. Miller (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment; and (ii) granted in part their renewed motion for class certification. Plaintiffs Romero, Tiscareno, and Elliot filed the putative class action on May 27, 2016, alleging Securus unlawfully recorded detainee-attorney calls. Securus provides inmate communication services for correctional facilities throughout California. The Plaintiffs are two former inmates and a criminal defense attorney, all of whom used Securus' telephone systems to make calls to and from certain correctional facilities in California and allege that their calls were recorded. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by March 29, 2019; -- Transcript is due on April 29, 2019; -- Appellant Securus Technologies, Inc.'s opening brief is due on June 7, 2019; -- Appellees Kenneth Elliott, Juan Romero and Frank Tiscareno's answering brief is due on July 8, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JUAN ROMERO, FRANK TISCARENO and KENNETH ELLIOTT, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, are represented by: Nicholas Fox, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 3579 Valley Centre Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 847-6700 E-mail: nfox@foley.com - and - Ronald A. Marron, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com - and - Eileen R. Ridley, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 555 California Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94104-1520 Telephone: (415) 434-4484 E-mail: eridley@foley.com - and - Robert Teel, Esq. 1425 Broadway Seattle, WA 98122 Telephone: (718) 570-7509 Defendant-Appellant SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., is represented by: Keith Bradley, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 1801 California Street Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 830-1776 E-mail: keith.bradley@squirepb.com - and - Adam R. Fox, Esq. SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP 555 South Flower Street Los Angeles, CA 90071-2300 Telephone: (213) 624-2500 E-mail: adam.fox@squirepb.com - and - Gregory Schneider, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2700 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 528-4000 E-mail: gregory.schneider@squirepb.com - and - Chassica Soo, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 555 S. Flower Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 624-2500 E-mail: chassica.soo@squirepb.com SELECT PORTFOLIO: Alper Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Allen Alper on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1977CV00099, was removed from the Essex Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) on March 8, 2019. The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-10436 to the proceeding. The suit demands $750,000. Select Portfolio is a loan servicing company founded in 1989 as Fairbanks Capital Corp. with operations in Salt Lake City, Utah and Jacksonville, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Attorneys for Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.: David S Kantrowitz, Esq. Thomas M. Hefferon, Esq. Goodwin Procter, LLP 100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 570-1254 E-mail: dkantrowitz@goodwinprocter.com thefferon@goodwinprocter.com SERVICOM: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Employee Wages ------------------------------------------------------- 13WREX reports that two former employees of ServiCom are filing a class action lawsuit seeking their unpaid wages, and the wages for everyone who lost their jobs when the company filed for bankruptcy and closed in late 2018. The case, filed on Feb. 26 in the Northern District of Illinois by attorneys for Jack Rice and Randy Banfi, alleges employees worked overtime without proper payment from October 12 until December 6, 2018. It alleges that overtime was not calculated using the employees total compensation. It also states that employees were not paid in a timely manner and have not been paid for their work between November 10 and December 6, 2018. It was filed to receive that proper payment along with a $250 loyalty bonus that was allegedly never paid to employees. In the last few weeks, 13WREX has spoken to multiple former employees. All of them say they have not received payment from ServiCom after the company closed. The suit is filed against David Jefferson, the former founder and owner of ServiCom LLC, and a company called AlphaStaff, which was a co-employer. The suit alleges that company "provided various human resources management services through a co-employment relationship." Alphastaff did notify employees on October 18 that it was no longer a co-employer. "We share no employment relationship with you," that letter states. If the court certifies the case as class action, notices will be sent to all former employees on how to opt in and receive payment. The suit alleges that number could be as high as a few thousand. "Banfi and all other members suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of defendants' [Jefferson & AlphaStaff] common and systemic payroll policies and practices," the lawsuit says. 13WREX has reached out to David Jefferson and his attorneys multiple times and have not heard back. A call to AlphaStaff on Feb. 26 has not been returned. [GN] SHERLOQ REVENUE: Schwartz Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- LAZER SCHWARTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHERLOQ REVENUE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06301-WJM-MF (D.N.J., Feb. 20, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge William J. Martini and referred to Magistrate Judge Mark Falk. SHERLOQ Revenue Solutions, Inc. specializes in extended business office and revenue recovery solutions for hospitals and utilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com SI FINANCIAL: Raul Balks at Mergel Deal with Berkshire ------------------------------------------------------ TAMMY RAUL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SI FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., MARK D. ALLIOD, RHEO A. BROUILLARD, ROGER ENGLE, DONNA M. EVAN, MICHAEL R. GARVEY, ROBERT O. GILLARD, KEVIN M. MCCARTHY, KATHLEEN A. NEALON, DENNIS POLLACK, and ROBERT C. CUSHMAN SR., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02038 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2019), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a proposed transaction unless and until material information is disclosed to SI Financial stockholders before the vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the proposed transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act. On December 11, 2018, SI Financial entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Berkshire, the Company will merge with and into Berkshire, with Berkshire continuing as the surviving corporation. Immediately following the Merger, SI Financial's wholly-owned subsidiary, Savings Institute Bank and Trust, will merge with and into Berkshire's wholly-owned subsidiary, Berkshire Bank, with Berkshire Bank as the surviving bank. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each outstanding share of common stock, of SI Financial will be converted into the right to receive 0.48 shares of common stock of Berkshire. Based on the closing price of Bekshire Hills Bancorp common stock on the New York Stock Exchange on December 11, 2018, the last trading day before public announcement of the Proposed Transaction, the value of the per share merger consideration payable to holders of SI Financial common stock would be $15.02. The consummation of the Proposed Transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including the approval of the stockholders of SI Financial. The Company has scheduled a special shareholder meeting for April 2, 2019 in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proposed Transaction as currently constituted is unfair to SI Financial shareholders because it does not adequately value the Company's future growth prospects, which will inure to Berkshire if the Proposed Transaction is consummated. The lawsuit also contends that the consideration to be paid to the class members is unconscionable, unfair and grossly inadequate because, among other things: (a) the intrinsic value of the stock of SI Financial is materially in excess of $15.02 per share, giving due consideration to the possibilities of growth and profitability of SI Financial in light of its business, earnings and earnings power, present and future; (b) the $15.02 per share price is inadequate and offers an inadequate premium to the public stockholders of SI Financial; and (c) the Company received an indication of interest letter proposing a 100% stock transaction valued at $16.00 per share, with a fixed exchange ratio established at the time of a signing of a definitive agreement. In addition, the potential acquiror expressed a willingness to provide up to 30% of the merger consideration in the form of cash. Defendants' action in proceeding with the Proposed Transaction is wrongful, unfair, and harmful to SI Financial's public stockholders, and will deny them their right to share proportionately in the true value of SI Financial's future growth in profits and earnings. On February 26, 2019, in order to convince SI Financial's stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board, jointly with Berkshire, authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading definitive proxy statement with the SEC (the "Proxy Statement"), in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP 821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 493-9780 Facsimile: (516) 280-7376 E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com SILVER LAKE: Directors Breached Fiduciary Duties, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 PENSION PLAN; HOWARD MUEHLGAY; CARMINE GARELLI; and SCOTT SNOEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MICHAEL DELL; DAVID DORMAN; EGON DURBAN; WILLIAM GREEN; ELLEN KULLMAN; SIMON PATTERSON; MSDC DENALI INVESTORS, L.P.; MSDC DENALI EIV, LLC; SUSAN LIEBERMAN DELL SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST; and SILVER LAKE GROUP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2019-0115-JTL (Del. Ch., Feb. 19, 2019) challenges a share exchange transaction through which the controlling stockholders of Dell expropriated billions of dollars in value from Dell's Class V Stockholders in flagrant disregard of their fiduciary duties. The complaint alleges that pursuant to the Transaction, Dell redeemed all outstanding shares of Class V Stock for a combination of cash and Dell Class C Stock purportedly valued at a total of $120 per Class V share. This consideration was woefully inadequate. Class V Stock was intended to track, on a one-for-one basis, shares of VMware, Inc., which consistently traded far in excess of $120 per share. Moreover, the consideration was not worth anywhere close to $120 per share. That valuation was based, among other things, on the demonstrably untenable notion that the value of Dell's non-public Class C Stock had multiplied several-fold during the negotiations themselves. To obtain this price, Dell's controllers created a sham Special Committee that was riddled with conflicts ab initio, failed to obtain appropriate and independent advice, and ultimately aligned itself with Dell and negotiated nothing of value for the benefit of the Class V Stockholders the Committee purportedly represented. Silver Lake Group, L.L.C. operates as an investment management firm. The Company offers portfolio management and advisory services to individuals, institutions, trusts, private funds, charitable organizations, and investment companies. Silver Lake Group serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas Curry, Esq. Ned Weinberger, Esq. Thomas Curry, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1340 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-2540 - and - Craig J. Springer, Esq. Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. David Sborz, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC 3801 Kennett Pike, Bdg C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4957 - and - Chad Johnson, Esq. Noam Mandel, Esq. George Phillips, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 - and - Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq. David F.E. Tejtel, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 240 East 79th Street, Suite A New York, NY 10075 Telephone: (888) 529-1108 SIMPLIFIED LABOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martinez Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARMEN VIRGINIA MARTINEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIMPLIFIED LABOR STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC.; SIMPLIFIED STAFFING LABOR SOLUTIONS, LLC; TOLL GLOBAL FORWARDING (USA) INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV05288 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 15, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff Martinez was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employee. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc. is a professional recruitment agency. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Ernest Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT E. WHEELER 250 West First Street, Suite 216 Claremont, CA 91711 Telephone: (909) 621-4988 Facsimile: (909) 621-4622 E-mail: sew@scottwheelerlawoffice.com - and - Aubry Wand, Esq. THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300 Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (310) 590-4503 Facsimile: (310) 590-4596 E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com SIRENA RESTAURANT: Ayasi Seeks Unpaid Wages, Tips Under NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------ Isaac Ayasi, individually and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Sirena Restaurant, Inc. dba Garguilo's Restaurant, et al., Case No. 504596/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., March 1, 2019), seeks to recover compensation, including unpaid minimum wages and unpaid monies such as tips and gratuities under the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of unlawfully retaining employees' gratuities at all of the Defendants' catered events. The Plaintiff is an individual who resides in the State of New York, and has worked for the Defendants in various food and service capacities from approximately 2014 through 2016 at the Defendants' catered events. The Defendant Sirena Restaurant, Inc. dba Garguilo's Restaurant is a domestic corporation, with a headquarters and principal place of business located at 2907-2915 W. 15th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11224 and is engaged in the hospitality industry. The Individual Defendants own and manage the restaurant and its catering business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Tel: (516) 873-9550 SNC-LAVALIN: Strosberg Sasso Files Class Action in Ontario ---------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Reynolds, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. faces new legal troubles as a shareholder has initiated a class-action lawsuit in connection with the company's disclosure about the criminal charges against the embattled engineering firm. Law firm Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP filed a proposed class-action in Ontario Superior Court on Feb. 25 that alleges the company failed to disclose soon enough that federal prosecutors declined to invite it to negotiate a remediation agreement. The allegations have not been tested in court. The Montreal-based company is at the centre of a scandal enveloping Ottawa after the Globe and Mail reported the Prime Minister's Office pressured former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to steer prosecutors to hammer out a remediation agreement that would have averted a criminal trial. The legal action says the head of the federal prosecution service told SNC-Lavalin on Sept. 4 that she would proceed with fraud and corruption charges stemming from the company's business in Libya. The company did not inform shareholders until Oct. 10, at which point the share price dropped more than 13 per cent. "That should have been disclosed to investors," said lawyer Jay Strosberg, who represents plaintiff John Peters. Provincial securities law requires publicly held companies "to publicly disclose any material changes" in the business, according to the Ontario Securities Commission. "Take for example someone who bought shares between Sept. 4 and Oct. 10. If he would have known, maybe he would not have bought the shares. And if the information was disclosed, he would have bought the shares at a lower price," Mr. Strosberg said. The lawsuit seeks $75 million in damages for shareholders who acquired SNC-Lavalin securities between Sept. 4 and Oct. 10, he said. SNC-Lavalin declined to comment. The proposed class-action suit is the second against SNC-Lavalin in three weeks. Earlier in February, shareholder Ruediger Martin Graaf sought authorization from Quebec Superior Court to bring a class-action for what he calls the company's "false or misleading" statements about its predicament in Saudi Arabia. SNC chief executive Neil Bruce said in January that ongoing diplomatic tensions between Ottawa and Riyadh were hurting business and forcing the company to consider a possible retreat from the oil-rich state. The feud, as well problems with a Chilean mining project and an arbitration loss in Australia, prompted the company to cut its financial guidance on Jan. 28, resulting in the second of three drastic drops in the company's shares since October. [GN] SUMMIT STAFFING: Trottier Sues over Collection of Biometric Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- A case, JOSEPH TROTTIER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. SUMMIT STAFFING, INC., Case No.: 2019CH02731 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County, Feb. 28, 2019), seeks to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiffs and the proposed Class's sensitive, private, and personal biometric data. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Illinois. Each time the Plaintiff began and ended his workday, he was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that operated, at least in part, by scanning Plaintiffs hand. As an employee, Plaintiff was required to scan his hand multiple times so Defendant could create, collect, capture, construct, store, use, and/ or obtain a biometric template for Plaintiff. The Defendant subsequently stored Plaintiff's biometric data in a biometric database. The Defendant then used Plaintiff's biometrics as an identification method to track his time, potentially with the help of a third-party vendor. While most establishments and employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Defendant, upon information and belief, mandated and required that employees have their hand scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprint biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendant's employees, including Plaintiff, to serious and irreversible privacy risks. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act expressly obligates Defendant to obtain an executed, written release from an individual, as a condition of employment, in order to capture, collect, and store an individual's biometric identifiers or biometric information, especially a fingerprint or hand geometry scan, and biometric information derived from it, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: 314-833-4825 E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com plesko@pwcklegal.com TARGET CORP: Removes Thomas Case to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case, MARIAH D. THOMAS, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 19CIV00581 (Filed Jan. 29, 2019), was removed from the San Mateo Superior Court , to the U.S. District Curt for the Northern District of California on March 1, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01155 to the proceeding. Although Plaintiff does not pray for a specific dollar amount, in her complaint, she alleges claims for (1) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (2) Wrongful Termination in Violation of California Constitution; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (4) Unfair Business Practices (Bus. And Prof. Code section 17200 et seq. In connection with her claims, Plaintiff seeks compensation for lost past and future wages, earnings, bonuses, loss of job security, and other employment benefits. Further, Plaintiff seeks general, consequential, and special damages, including but not limited to, damages for emotional distress, medical expenses, punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendant: Samantha C. Grant, Esq. Sami Hasan, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055 Telephone: 310-228-3700 Facsimile: 310-228-3701 E-mail: SGrant@sheppardmullin.com SHasan@sheppardmullin.com TEAM INDUSTRIAL: Warner Sues over Collection of Biometric Data -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, ROGER WARNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TEAM INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC., a Texas corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH02590 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Feb. 27, 2019), seeks to put a stop to the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' sensitive biometric data. According to the complaint, Team Industrial provides cleaning services in the automotive manufacturing, heavy equipment manufacturing, aerospace and defense facility maintenance industries. When employees first begin their jobs at Team, they are required to scan their handprint in its biometric time tracking system as a means of authentication, instead of using only key fobs or other identification cards. While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or identification cards-which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised-scans of hand are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a database storing biometric information is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking, the lawsuit says. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. ("BIPA"), specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as scans of hand. Despite this law, Team disregards its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the BIPA. Specifically, Team has violated (and continues to violate) the BIPA because it did not: -- Properly inform Plaintiff and the Class members in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their hand scans were being collected, stored, and used, as required by the BIPA; -- Provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiffs and the Class's hand scans, as required by the BIPA; nor -- Receive a written release from Plaintiff or the members of the Class to collect, capture, or otherwise obtain hand scans, as required by the BIPA.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Benjamin H. Richman J. Eli Wade-Scott EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL Telephone: 312.589.6370 Facsimile: 312.589.6378 E-mail: brichman@edelson.com ewadescott@edelson.com - and - David Fish, Esq. John Kunze THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: 630 355 7590 Facsimile: 630 778 0400 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com jkunze@fishlawfirm.com TELEFONICA BRAZIL: Appeal in SISTEL Collective Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Telefonica Brasil S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that an appeal from a decision in the collective action by SISTEL Participants' Association (ASTEL) in the state of Sao Paulo is ongoing. A class action filed by SISTEL Participantsi Association (ASTEL) in the state of São Paulo, in which SISTEL associates question the changes made in the HealthCare Plan for Retired Employees (PAMA) of the Association and seek the reestablishment of the status quo. This proceeding is in the appeal phase under review by the superior court. The amount cannot be estimated in that it entails a return to the prior conditions. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Telefonica Brasil S.A. provides mobile and fixed telecommunications services to residential and corporate customers in Brazil. The company was incorporated in 1998 and is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Telefonica Brasil S.A. is a subsidiary of SP Telecomunicacoes Participacoes Ltda. TOP GOLF: Burlinski Sues over Collection of Biometric Identifiers ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, THOMAS BURLINSKI on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. TOP GOLF USA, INC. and TOP GOLF USA SALT CREEK, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2019L000263 (Ill. 18th Jud. Cir. Ct., March 4, 2019), alleges violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff was an hourly-paid bartender at Defendants' Topgolf driving range and bar in Wood Dale, Illinois from approximately April 2017 to July 2017. Throughout his employment, the Defendants required him and other hourly paid employees to use a biometric time clock system to record their time worked. The Defendants required Plaintiff and other hourly employees to scan their fingerprints Defendants' biometric time clock when they started working a shift, stopped for a break, returned from a break, and finished working a shift. Unlike an employee identification number or employee identification card, fingerprints are unique and permanent identifiers. By requiring employees to use their fingerprints to record their time, instead of identification numbers or badges only, Defendants ensured that one employee could not clock in for another. Thus, there's no question that Defendants benefited from using a biometric time. But there's equally no question that Defendants placed employees at risk by using their biometric identifiers to "punch the clock." In enacting the Biometric Information Privacy Act, the Illinois legislature recognized that biologically unique identifiers, like fingerprints, can never be changed when compromised, and thus subject a victim of identity theft to heightened risk of loss. As a result, Illinois restricted private entities, like Defendants, from collecting, storing, using, or transferring a person's biometric identifiers and information without adhering to strict informed-consent procedures established by the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Defendants collected, stored, used, and transferred the unique biometric fingerprint identifiers, or information derived from those identifiers, of Plaintiff and others similarly situated without following the detailed requirements of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. As a result, Defendants violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act and compromised the privacy and security of the biometric identifiers and information of Plaintiff and others similarly situated, the lawsuit says. Top Golf USA operates "Topgolf" driving range and bar facilities through the United States, including locations in Wood Dale and Naperville, Illinois.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq. WERMAN SALAS, P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: dwerman@tlsalaw.com ztlowerree@tlsalaw.com - and - David Fish, Esq. Seth Matus, Esq. Kimberly Hilton, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: 630 355.7590 Facsimile: 630 778.0400 E-mail: admin@fishlawfirm.com dfish@fishlawfirm.com smatus@fishlawfirm.com khilton@fishlawfirm.com Ukunze@fishlawfirm.com TREVIS BERRY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Velasquez-Alfaro Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN VELASQUEZ-ALFARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TREVIS BERRY TRANSPORTATION; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 19CV342736 (Cal. Super. Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 15, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Velasquez-Alfaro was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employee. Trevis Berry Transportation provides local and statewide trucking services. The Company offers hauling solutions including flatbed, heavy haul, and specialized transportation, as well as warehousing services. Trevis Berry Transportation serves customers throughout the States of California and Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS GROUP, LLP 501 Santa Clara Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531-4214 Facsimile: (831) 634-0333 - and - Dennis S. Hyun, Esq. HYUN LEGAL, APC 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 UNITED DEVELOPMENT: Fox Sues Over Investment Fund Fraud ------------------------------------------------------- Stephen N. Fox and Nora Fox (joint tenants with right of survivorship), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. United Development Funding III, UMT Services, Inc., UMTH General Services, L.P., UMTH Land Development, L.P., UMT Holdings, L.P., Hollis M. Greenlaw, Todd Etter, Cara D. Obert, Ben L. Wissink and Whitley Penn LLP Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00274 (N.D. Tex., February 4, 2019), seeks rescission and/or rescissory damages including interest, compensatory, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief pursuant to the Texas Securities Act and common law. According to the complaint, United Development Funding loans money to developers of residential real estate, with rates above those offered by commercial lenders. The third in a series of investment offerings by United Development Funds (UDF) have essentially failed. UDF was receiving funds from subsequent UDF investment vehicles to pay its distributions. Fox was misled in foregoing the receipt of his cash distributions from UDF and used those distributions to purchase subsequent UDF units in the Dividend Reinvestment Plan. The Defendants used money from investors to prop up UMT Services, Inc., UMTH General Services, L.P., UMTH Land Development, L.P. and UMT Holdings, L.P. without disclosure thereby creating the appearance that UDF was a successful, productive investment. The scheme allowed UDF to funnel cash to the UDF Entity while giving overvalued units in lieu of cash dividends, says the complaint. Stephen N. Fox and Nora Fox purchased UDF III shares in its Dividend Reinvestment Plan. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: R. Dean Gresham, Esq. STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Rd., Ste. 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Tel: (972) 387-4040 Fax: (972) 387-4041 Email: dean@stecklerlaw.com - and - Matthew M. Guiney, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 545-4600 Fax: (212) 686-0114 Email: guiney@whafh.com USAA CASUALTY: Faces Koehler Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------ A class action has been filed against USAA Casualty Insurance Company. The case is captioned as SUSAN J. KOEHLER, Executrix of the estate of Philip J. Koehler, Jr., deceased, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00715-MSG (E.D. Pa., Feb. 19, 2019), the case is assigned to Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg. USAA Casualty Insurance Company provides property and causality insurance. The company was incorporated in 1969 as United Services Casualty Insurance Company and changed its name in December, 1970 to USAA Casualty Insurance Company .USAA Casualty Insurance Company is based in San Antonio, Texas. Usaa Casualty Insurance Co operates as a subsidiary of USAA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Haggerty, Esq. HAGGERTY GOLDBERG SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH PC 1835 Market St Ste 2700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 350-6609 E-mail: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Lindsay Andreuzzi, Esq. Michael T. McDonnell, III, Esq. KUTAK ROCK LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 299-4384 E-mail: lindsay.andreuzzi@kutakrock.com michael.mcdonnell@kutakrock.com VERSUM MATERIALS: Wheby Balks at Merger Deal with Entegris, Inc. ---------------------------------------------------------------- EARL M. WHEBY JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. VERSUM MATERIALS, INC., SEIFOLLAH GHASEMI, JACQUES CROISETIÈRE, GUILLERMO NOVO, YI HYON PAIK, THOMAS J. RIORDAN, SUSAN C. SCHNABEL, ALEJANDRO D. WOLFF, and ENTEGRIS INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00472-UNA (March 6, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction announced on January 28, 2019, pursuant to which Versum Materials, Inc. will be acquired by Entegris, Inc. On January 27, 2019, Versum's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Entegris. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Verum's stockholders will receive 1.120 shares of Entegris common stock for each share of Versum common stock they own. On February 28, 2019, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says. Versum is a global provider of innovative solutions to the semiconductor and display industries with expertise in the development, manufacturing, transportation, and handling of specialty materials. Versum employs expertise in molecular design and synthesis, purification, advanced analytics, formulation development, and containers and delivery systems for the handling of high purity materials to deliver leading-edge solutions and critical process support to customers, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com VF OUTDOOR: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Garey Says -------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN GAREY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. VF OUTDOOR, LLC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02076 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2019), alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. Because Defendant's website, www.jansport.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant’s corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC. 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 971-9474 Facsimile: (718) 865-0943 E-mail: Jshalom@JonathanShalomLaw.com VIEGA LLC: Sued over Anticompetitive Press Fittings Market ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, THE PLUMBER'S SHOP AND ASSOCIATES, LLC, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. VIEGA LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01983 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2019), is an antitrust action directed at Viega's anti-competitive conduct in the market for copper press fittings and carbon steel press fittings. Viega has, for several years, and continues to, possess monopoly power in the market for carbon steel press fittings, which are press fittings used for black iron pipe. Viega's carbon steel press fittings were the first to market and, until July 2017, the only carbon steel press fittings approved in the United States. Viega controls at least 95% of the carbon steel press fittings market. Viega also holds a well-established, dominant position in the market for copper press fittings, which are press fittings used for copper pipe. It controls approximately 71% of the U.S. market. Fittings are essential components of pipeline systems that are used to join pipes or tubes. Fittings can join pipes in straight lines or change, divide, or otherwise direct the flow of media, including potable water, process water, oil, gases, and fuel. Fittings are produced in geometrical configurations of varying sizes and surface coating. Pipeline systems, including fittings, can be made from different raw materials, such as copper, bronze, carbon steel, stainless steel, and thermoplastics. The plumbing industry differentiates between these pipeline systems because each one has optimal benefits suited to different applications. Black iron pipe is used, for example, to transport fuel oil and natural gas, but is never used to transport medical oxygen. Press technology refers to the use of hydraulic power tools and jaws to press or crimp a joint to create a permanent seal between the fitting and pipe. Press technology provides a faster, safer, and more reliable method of joining fittings and pipe without compromising the quality of installation. Viega is a privately-owned company that manufactures, imports, and sells fittings in the United States. NIBCO, Inc. is Viega's most significant competitor in the copper press fittings market. It has also brought lost-profit claims in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania before Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner in Nibco Inc. v. Viega LLC, No. 17-1739 (Sept. 26, 2017). On average, NIBCO's prices for copper press fittings are lower than Viega's prices for copper press fittings – sometimes as much as 15% lower. NIBCO does not manufacture carbon steel press fittings. Fittings manufacturers such as NIBCO and Viega sell fittings almost entirely through wholesale distributors. The wholesale distributors in turn sell fittings to contractors, developers, and other end users. To enhance or at least maintain its dominant position in the copper press fittings market, Viega has engaged in systematic anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct to undermine NIBCO and other Viega competitors' attempts to compete in the relevant market and maintain and expand their customer bases. Viega has used its market power in the carbon steel press fittings market to coerce wholesale distributors not to buy copper press fittings from NIBCO and other Viega competitors. Specifically, Viega refuses to sell its carbon steel press fittings unless a wholesale distributor also purchases Viega's copper press fittings and does not purchase copper press fittings from NIBCO and other Viega competitors. Viega also coerces wholesale distributors not to purchase copper press fittings from NIBCO and other Viega competitors by withholding discounts, rebates, and other pricing concessions for its carbon steel press fittings. This pricing penalty renders the purchase from Viega of the combination of Viega's copper press fittings and carbon steel press fittings the only viable economic option. viega's conduct has denied NIBCO and other competitors free access to the relevant market for copper press fittings and significantly prejudiced competition in the relevant market, not because Viega has a better product or a lower price, but because of its power in the market for carbon steel press fittings. As a consequence, wholesale distributors and end users are forced to pay higher prices. Viega's anticompetitive conduct has been, and continues to be, effective in maintaining and stabilizing prices for both wholesalers and end users at artificially inflated levels, eliminating and excluding any concrete or potential competition, extending or maintaining its market power, and fortifying technological barriers to entry in the copper press fittings market.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Fred T. Isquith, Esq. Thomas H. Burt, Esq. Veronica M. Bosco, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-545-4600 Facsimile: 212-686-0114 E-mail: isquith@whafh.com burt@whafh.com bosco@whafh.com WEIGHT WATCHERS: Potts Says Financial Report Misleading ------------------------------------------------------- KAREN POTTS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WEIGHT WATCHERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., MINDY GROSSMAN, NICHOLAS P. HOTCHKIN and ARTAL GROUP S.A., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02005 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2019), alleges that Defendants are liable for (i) making false statements; or (ii) failing to disclose adverse facts known to them about the Company. The Defendants' fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Weight Watchers common stock was a success, as it: (i) deceived the investing public regarding Weight Watchers' business metrics and financial prospects; (ii) artificially inflated the prices of Weight Watchers common stock; (iii) allowed Artal and certain Weight Watchers executives and insiders to sell more than a billion dollars of their personally held Weight Watchers shares at fraud-inflated prices; and (iv) caused the Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase Weight Watchers common stock at artificially inflated prices. The case is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Weight Watchers between May 4, 2018 and February 26, 2019, inclusive seeking to pursue claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Potts acquired Weight Watchers common stock during the Class Period, as set forth in the accompanying certification which is incorporated herein by reference, and has been damaged thereby. Historically, Defendant Weight Watchers has offered various products and services to assist weight loss and maintenance. The core philosophy behind the Company's programs is to use a science-driven approach to help participants lose weight by forming healthy eating habits, eating smarter, getting more exercise, and providing support. Recently, the Company has rebranded itself as "WW" and tried to focus less on weight loss and more on maintaining general health. Weight Watchers earns revenues from subscriptions for the Company's digital products and by conducting workshops, for which it charges a fee, predominantly through commitment plans, prepayment plans, and "pay-as-you-go" arrangements. Weight Watchers also earns revenues by selling consumer products (including publications) in its workshops, online and to its franchisees, collecting commissions from franchisees, collecting royalties related to licensing agreements, selling magazine subscriptions, publishing, selling advertising space on its websites and in copies of its publications and By Mail product sales. On February 27, 2018, Weight Watchers announced its fiscal year 2017 financial results for year ended December 31, 2017 ("FY17"), provided its fiscal year 2018 ("FY18") guidance and provided its three-year fiscal 2020 ("end-of-2020") guidance. For FY18, the Company stated it was on track to report revenues "approaching $1.55 billion and earnings guidance of between $2.40 and $2.70 per fully diluted share," emphasizing that the "guidance reflect[ed] the operating strength of the Company's business and expected continued global momentum through the year." Weight Watchers also stated that it was confident in its ability to reach five million subscribers, driving revenues in excess of $2 billion, by the end-of-2020. The Class Period starts on May 4, 2018. On May 3, 2018, after the close of trading, Weight Watchers issued a press release announcing its 1Q18 financial results and updated/increased its FY18 financial guidance. The release emphasized that Weight Watchers' "End of Period Subscribers in Q1 2018 [increased] 29% year-over-year to a record 4.6 million," that its "Total Paid Weeks in Q1 2018 [increased] 27% year-over-year," and that its "Revenues in Q1 2018 of $408 million [increased] 24%, or 20% on a constant currency basis, year-over-year." Finally, on February 26, 2019, after the close of trading, Weight Watchers issued a press release and conducted a conference call with investors and stock analysts revealing the Company's actual 4Q18 and FY18 results and financial prospects. The 4Q18 subscriber count had again declined down to 3.9 million subscribers. The Defendants finally conceded that enrollment would continue declining during FY19, with Defendant Grossman revealing that while January is typically the best time for health-focused brands and when 40% of new subscribers typically join due to New Year's resolutions, January 2019 had been a "hard month" for Weight Watchers. The Company said that it was now only targeting revenues of $1.4 billion during FY19, nowhere near the $2 billion in annual revenues it had been projecting to achieve by the end-of-2020 and well below the nearly $1.7 billion it had led the market to expect for FY19. Weight Watchers also disclosed that it was now only targeting EPS of $1.25 to $1.50 per share for FY19, far lower than the EPS of $3.36 defendants had led the market to believe even following its prior misses in August and November 2018. During the conference call, Defendant Grossman acknowledged that the "January time period [was] such a critical component of [the Company's] recruitment for the year," emphasizing that she finally "had to be realistic and transparent about what that meant for the balance of the year," when issuing the dour FY19 guidance. In response to this news, the price of Weight Watchers common stock declined from its close of $29.57 per share on February 26 to close down at $19.37 per share on February 27 on unusually high trading volume of more than 37.4 million shares trading, the lawsuit says. Weight Watchers offers a subscription-based weight loss program and is headquartered at 675 Avenue of the Americas, 6th Floor, New York, New York. As of February 1, 2019, Weight Watchers had approximately 67 million shares of common stock issued and outstanding. Weight Watchers common stock was listed and traded in an efficient market on the NASDAQ throughout the Class Period under the ticker symbol "WTW."[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Mary K. Blasy, Esq. Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: 631 367-7100 Facsimile: 631 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Marshall Dees, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 Ashford Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: 770 392-0090 Facsimile: 770 392-0029 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com mdees@holzerlaw.com WESTERN DENTAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Caldera Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- ROSINA CALDERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTERN DENTAL SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00234-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Western Dental Services, Inc., a dental and oral health maintenance organization, provides dental and oral health care services in California, Arizona, Nevada, and Texas. Western Dental Services was founded in 1903 and is based in Orange, California. The company has dental offices in California, Arizona, and Nevada. Western Dental Services operates as a subsidiary of Premier Dental Services Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Still Defends Natural Gas Price Index Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself against putative class actions related to alleged manipulation of published gas price indices. Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states filed individual and class actions against the company, its former affiliate WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX) and its subsidiaries, and others alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were transferred to the Nevada federal district court for consolidation of discovery and pre-trial issues. The company had agreed to indemnify WPX and its subsidiaries related to this matter. In the individual action, filed by Farmland Industries Inc. (Farmland), the court issued an order on May 24, 2016, granting one of the company's co-defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Farmland's claims. On January 5, 2017, the court extended such ruling to the company, entering final judgment in the company's favor. Farmland appealed. On March 27, 2018, the appellate court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment, and on April 10, 2018, the defendants filed a petition for rehearing with the appellate court, which was denied on May 9, 2018. The case has been remanded to the Nevada federal district court. In the putative class actions, on March 30, 2017, the court issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motions for class certification. On June 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal the order. On August 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order denying class certification and remanded the case to the Nevada federal district court. The Williams Companies said, "Because of the uncertainty around the remaining pending unresolved issues, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential exposure at this time. However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these actions and our related indemnification obligation could result in a potential loss that may be material to our results of operations. In connection with this indemnification, we have an accrued liability balance associated with this matter, and as a result, have exposure to future developments." The Williams Companies, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company primarily in the United States. The Williams Companies, Inc. was founded in 1908 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. WINCO HOLDINGS: Removes Petersen Case to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- Winco Holdings, Inc. and Winco Foods Foundation, Inc. remove case captioned, DENNIS PETERSEN, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., an Idaho corporation; WINCO FOODS FOUNDATION, INC., an Idaho Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00247825-CU-OE-GDS (Filed Jan. 4, 2019), was removed from the Sacramento County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 28, 2019. The Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:19-at-00156 to the proceeding. The complaint alleged causes of action for (1) failure to pay all wages; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation ; (3) failure to provide paid time off; (4) failure to provide proper wage statements; (5) failure to pay wages at time of termination; and (6) unfair business practices, pursuant to the Welfare Commission Orders and California Labor Code. Winco Holdings Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides bulk food, meat, deli, seafood, and bakery products.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendants: Julie G. Yap, Esq. Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq. Simon L. Yang, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350 Sacramento, CA 95814-4428 Telephone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 E-mail: jyap@seyfarth.com pebsworth@seyfarth.com syang@seyfarth.com [*] Class Actions Against Companies in New Zealand Increasing ------------------------------------------------------------- Rob Stock, writing for Stuff, reports that a third of the class actions taken in New Zealand taken have been against the Government, but an increasing number are being taken against big companies on behalf of consumers. University of Auckland law lecturer Nikki Chamberlain has completed the first survey of class actions in New Zealand, legal actions taken on behalf of large groups of people all claiming to have been wronged in the same way by the same organisation. She found just 36, reflecting how slow class actions have been to develop in New Zealand, hampered by the absence of specific laws governing them. That could be about to change, with the Law Commission examining whether it is time to write class actions into law. The country came very close to a Class Actions Act in 2008, but just as it was poised to become law, Labour lost power to National, and the law, which would have made it easier for big businesses like banks to be sued, was shelved. It's now back on the agenda, after National's Amy Adams instructed the Law Commission to begin its review before the last election. Ms. Chamberlain called for class actions to be written into law. "I think it's an access to justice question," she said. Class actions enable large groups of people to band together to take on large, well-resourced entities like the government, banks and insurers, but they are seen as a threat by some, including insurers which provide liability insurance for directors. "I think certain business interests and insurers would be against the idea of getting some formal process rules," Ms. Chamberlain said. When she organised a symposium in 2018, some insurers attended, and expressed concern that making class actions easier could open the litigation floodgates. The courts have allowed class actions to happen, but the process has been slow, and costly for claimants. Ms. Chamberlain identified a number of reasons why, in the absence of legislation, New Zealand has lagged the world in class actions. In countries like the UK and US, a significant proportion of class action litigation overseas was for personal injury cases. New Zealand, which has ACC, does not allow people to sue for damages over personal injury. New Zealand courts have also been relatively conservative with damages awards compared to the US, making class actions less economically viable here. The country's small size also means that classes are generally smaller than in countries like the UK and US. Chamberlain found just four cases in which there were more than 2000 plaintiffs. And until recently, litigation funding, which was instrumental in allowing the liquidators of Mainzeal to take a case for damages against directors including former prime minister Dame Jenny Shipley, was not permitted in New Zealand due to the torts of champerty and maintenance. The courts have now accepted litigation loans. "The increase in the prevalence of cases involving a litigation funder in the last decade indicates that litigation funding is on the rise in New Zealand," Chamberlain said. She found just three before 1980, four in the 1980s, eight in the 1990s, including seven in the Employment Court, and 13 in the 2000s, and another eight since then. Class Action law suits New Zealand's tradition of class action law suits, where many people band together to seek justice is weak compared to other countries. The 1990s and 2000s were characterised by a sharp rise in cases taken by investors in failed companies, with auditors among the targets for damages. They are not always successful. Investors who took claims against the directors of carpet-maker Feltex saw their claim dismissed in 2016. The last decade has seen a new development -- cases being taken in the name of large groups of consumers. They included the 2013 class action on bank fees against ANZ, which was eventually settled, with cases also involving insurance and alleged faulty building products use in leaky buildings. [GN] [*] Mass. Companies Have Unique Exposure to Wage Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick J. Bannon, Esq., Timothy J. Buckley, Esq., Anthony S. Califano, Esq., Ariel D. Cudkowicz, Esq., C.J. Eaton, Esq., Robert A. Fisher, Esq., James M. Hlawek, Esq., Bridget M. Maricich, Esq., Hillary J. Massey, Esq., Kristin G. McGurn, Esq., Barry J. Miller, Esq., Alison H. Silveira, Esq., Dawn Reddy Solowey, Esq., Michael E. Steinberg, Esq., Jean M. Wilson, Esq. and Molly Clayton Mooney, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that until recently, there has been much debate about the enforceability of arbitration agreements containing class action waivers. Courts disagreed as to whether employers could enforce these agreements against workers seeking to sue on a class action basis. The debate is over. In 2018, the Supreme Court settled the issue. Arbitration agreements with class action waivers are enforceable to the same extent as other contracts. This means that a well-crafted and implemented arbitration program can provide insulation from bet-the-company wage and hour class action lawsuits. An employment arbitration program is not right for every company. To be sure, there are pros and cons to arbitration. With few exceptions, however, every company with a sizeable workforce should at least conduct an analysis and make an informed decision about the usefulness and scope of an arbitration agreement. In Massachusetts, companies are subject to unique levels of exposure in wage and hour class actions that might make individual, non-class arbitration an attractive option. For instance, triple damages are mandatory for proven violations of Massachusetts wage law. Unlike federal law and the laws of other states, Massachusetts law does not allow companies to avoid paying triple damages by proving that the wage violation was made in good faith. Making matters worse, plaintiffs who prove their claims under Massachusetts wage law are also entitled to their attorneys' fees and costs, along with interest on their damages. If these facts are not daunting enough, there is more. Massachusetts wage law is filled with traps for the unwary and the vigilant. And certain corporate officers, executives, and managers are subject to individual liability for their companies' violations of Massachusetts wage law -- some of them simply by virtue of their job titles. These are the realities of Massachusetts wage and hour laws. Combine these realities with another fact: Courts have certified classes in employment cases that consist of thousands of employee-plaintiffs. In this light, giving modest consideration to the potential use of a tailored arbitration agreement with a class action waiver is a no-brainer. Some back-of-the-envelope math will provide an order of magnitude sense of the exposure that a company could face in a multi-plaintiff wage case under Massachusetts law -- damages that could potentially be avoided through use of an arbitration agreement. [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 ***