/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190326.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 26, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 61 Headlines 3A COMPOSITES: IMF Bentham, William Roberts Lawyers File Suit 3M COMPANY: Whidbey Island Resident Files Lawsuit 3ML: Accused of Migrant Exploitation in New Zealand ACN OPPORTUNITY: Trumps Collaborated with Marketing Scheme ACTIVISION: Offering "Potential Refunds" to Guitar Hero Live Buyers ALKERMES PLC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit AM KIDS: Rodriguez Seeks Earned Wages & OT Pay for Workers AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mohammed Says APHRIA: Class Certification Could Take a Year APPLE INC: Faces New Class Action Over Two-Factor Authentication ARCONIC INC: Still Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Nix Howard Suit ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Bevinal Class Action AVON PRODUCTS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit AZCONA INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA and NYLL, Reyes Says BARCLAYS PLC: Challenges Dismissal Order in SIBOR/SOR Suit in SDNY BARCLAYS PLC: Continues to Defend Japanese Yen LIBOR Suit in SDNY BARCLAYS PLC: Faces USD LIBOR Class Action in New York BARCLAYS PLC: Sterling LIBOR Case Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration BARCLAYS PLC: USD LIBOR Cases Still Ongoing BEAUMONT COLLEGE: College Linked to Fraud, Attorneys Claim BLACKROCK INST'L: Court Strikes 2 Undisclosed Individuals in Baird BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Stein Says Securities Statements Misleading BRISTOW GROUP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action CALAVO GROWERS: Faces Velez's Labor Suit in Sacramento CATHOLIC HEALTH: Nurses Sue Over Improper Wages for On-Call Hours CAVCO INDUSTRIES: Schall Law Firm Probing Securities Violations CELGENE CORP: Bernstein Seeks to Halt Bristol-Myers Merger CEMTREX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Discloses Class Action Settlement CERES, CA: $75K Settlement in Amador FLSA Suit Gets Approval CHARMIN FRESHMATES: Settles Flushable Wipes Class Action CLUTCH LANDSCAPING: Accused by King Suit of Not Paying Overtime COALINGA STATE: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Consiglio Suit COLGATE PALMOLIVE: ERISA Class Action in New York Still Ongoing COMCAST CORP: Can Compel Arbitration in O'Neil Suit COMPLETE BUILDING: Nautilus Files Class Suit Over Insurance Dispute DELTA AIR: $2.3MM Schofield Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval DENVER, CO: Ct. Denies Bid to Exclude Witness Testimony in "Lyall" DESI GALLI: Galeana Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA DITECH FINANCIAL: Court Requires Bankruptcy Status Report DOW JONES: Court Dismisses 1st Amended Horton Suit DURA-LINE CORP: Brown Seek Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Prep Time DUVAL COUNTY, FL: Cash Bail System Biased vs Poor People, Suit Says E-VERIFILE.COM: Gunn Suit Transferred to S.D. Mississippi EDELSTEIN & EDELSTEIN: Smith Seeks to Recover Damages Under FDCPA EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Injunction Bid in Prince Suit Withdrawn EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Sanfilippo Securities Voluntarily Dismissed ELITE STAFFING: Hudson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Court's OK on McGee Settlement ENERGEN RESOURCES: Filing of 2nd Amended Ulibarri Suit Allowed ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces 2 Merger-Related Class Suits EQT CORP: Tentative Settlement Reached in Class Action Lawsuit EQUIFAX INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Public Records Suit EQUIFAX INC: Cybersecurity-Related Suits in Canada Still Ongoing EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Suits in Georgia Stayed EQUIFAX INC: Small Businesses' Data Breach Claims Tossed FEDERAL AVIATION: Stephen Lynch Takes Aim at Airport Pollution FEDERAL NATIONAL: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Banneck Suit FERROGLOBE PLC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action FIDELITY NATIONAL: Pre-Trial Discovery in Reliance Suit Completed FINANCIAL CORP: Summary Judgment Bid in Encarnacion Suit Granted FLIGHT CENTRE: To Fight $100MM Overtime Wages Class Action FLUOR CORP: Expects Consolidated Complaint to be Filed FORD MOTOR: Notices of Appeal Filed in Takata Airbag-Related Suit FRONTLINE ASSET: Velez Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York GALLATIN COUNTY, MT: ACLU Sues Over Unlawful Immigrant Detentions GC OF CAPITAL: Settlement in Hickman Labor Suit Has Approval GENERAL MOTORS: Averts Class Action Over Leaky Cadillac Sunroofs GEO GROUP: Joint Bid for Discovery Dispute Determination Partly OKd GOGO INC: Bid to Dismiss Pierrelouis Class Action Pending GOOGLE LLC: Court Dismisses Cabrera's Claims in Woods Suit GRAIN PROCESSING: To Pay $45MM in Iowa Pollution Settlement HAGYARD EQUINE: Lawsuit Says Vets Altered Dates on X-Rays HARRISON GLOBAL: Settlement in Huddlestun Suit Has Final Approval HERSHEY COMPANY: Clark et al Suit Transferred to S.D. California HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES: Summ. Judgment Bid in Cupolo-Freeman Denied HUMMINGBIRD FUNDS: Shmakova Sues over Installment Loans HUPP DRAFT: Faces Burton's Labor Suit in Sacramento IMPERIAL PACIFIC: Court Dismisses S. Loh's Wage & Hour Suit INDIANA: Sued Over Lack of Legal Counsel During Dependency Hearings INTERJET: Failed to Offer Refund Options to Customers, Suber Says JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 2 Law Firms to Pursue Talc Litigation KIA MOTORS: Lawsuit Filed After Couple Says Car Started on Fire KRAFT HEINZ: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action LAS 3K USA: Fajardo Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages LEND-A-HAND: Walburn et al. Seek Payment for Overtime Work LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: April 1 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline LIBERTY HEALTH: Brower Piven Notifies Investors of Class Action LIBERTY POWER: Massachusetts Ct. Bifurcates Discovery in Katz Suit LINCOLN LENDING: Court Flips Dismissal of Claim 21 in Tejera Suit LIVE POULTRY: Vargas Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages LOGMEIN INC: Wasson Class Action Underway LX 1204 JEWELRY: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Jimenez Says LYON HOME: Vickers Seeks Back Pay MASSACHUSETTS: Court OKs I. Liviz's In Forma Pauperis Suit MAXWELL: Investors File Class Action to Halt Tesla Acquisition MDL 2492: Hoffman Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Kimble Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Lauback Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: MacLellan Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Moor Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Purdie Action v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Sepanski Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Swanson Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Van Doren Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Williams Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Wilson Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2741: Burchfield vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Kirsch Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Poroz Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MEDICAL AND PROFESSIONAL: Settlement in Blanchard Has Prelim OK MICHIGAN: Transfer of M. Carter Suit to Circuit Court Affirmed MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action MIDWEST WATER: Varble Seeks Payment for Overtime Work MIKE'S PLACE: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, Espinoza-Sanchez Claims MISSISSIPPI FARM: Court Certifies Class in Britt FLSA Suit MISSOURI: Court Denies Certification of Dalton's Class of Indigents MISSOURI: Summary Judgment Bid in Gasca Prisoners Suit Granted MONSANTO COMPANY: Barnes Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Bates Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Baucoms Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Bonzos Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Brewsters Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Collinses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Davises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Fellows Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: McCoy Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Morrises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Ridner Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Seeger Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Supinski Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Woodersons Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONTGOMERY & MCCRACKEN: Removes Waleski Suit to M.D. Pa. MOVIE GRILL: Tate Sues over Collection of Biometric Identifiers MR. KABOB: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Usmanova Says NASSAU COUNTY, NY: 99 Lakeville Seeks Return of Remaining Funds NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Brain Injury Class Action in Indiana NAVIHEALTH INC: Nurses Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages NEVRO CORP: Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement Suit Ongoing NEWCOMB OIL: Court Grants Bid to Remand Southard FLSA Suit OUTERSCAPE INC: Cruz Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages PACIFIC, MO: Police Dispatchers Hit Missed Breaks, Seeks Unpaid OT PBF ENERGY: Continues to Defend Kendig Class Action PBF ENERGY: Goldstein Class Action Still Ongoing PPG INDUSTRIES: Trevor Mild Securities Class Action Ongoing PRIME CONSULTING: Mims Sues over Cellular Phone Calls PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL: Collins Suit Moved to S.D. California PROCOLLECT INC: Bid for Summary Judgment in Young FDCPA Suit OK'd PROSHARES SHORT VIX: Kuznicki Law Files Class Action RJT MOTORIST: Taylor Suit Hits Illegal Deductions, Seeks OT Pay SMC STONE: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA & NYLL, Cumbe Alleges SOCAL GAS: Removes Victorian's Labor Suit to C.D. California SOGOU INC: Kuznicki Law Files Securities Class Action SOGOU INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Airline Personnel Hit Biometrics Data Sharing STATE FARM: Fails to Provide 401(k) Plan Benefits, Sheldon Says STATE STREET: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set in April STEIN MART: Failed to Maintain Data Security Measures, Kyles Says SUPERIOR HEALTH: Suit Seeks to Stop Unlawful Use of Biometric Data SYMANTEC CORP: Calif. Court Dismisses M. Beyer's Suit TARGET CORPORATION: Removes Thomas Case to N.D. California TETRA TECH: Northern California Residents File Class Action TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Isolde Consolidated Suit Remains Stayed TRIVAGO NV: Holbrook Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed With Prejudice TUT'S HUB: Gonzales Seeks to Recoup Overtime & Damages Under FLSA TWITTER INC: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Calif. U.S. XPRESS: Smith Says Financial Report Misleading ULTA BEAUTY: Court Narrows Claims in Smith-Brown UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE: Faces Thew Suit in C.D. California UNITED SERVICES: Faces Spielman Suit over Vehicle Insurance UNITED STATES: Medicare Patients File Class Action Lawsuit vs HHS UNITED STATES: Percy Seeks to Enforce S.D.N.Y Court Decision VALE SA: Hach Rose Commences Securities Class Action VALE SA: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Action VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Settles Retirement Plan Class Action VEREIT INC: Briefing in ARCP Litigation to be Completed April 5 VEREIT INC: Realistic Partners' Class Action Still Ongoing VERSUM MATERIALS: Poison Pill Violates Voting Rights, Fund Says WADDELL & REED: Fairness Hearing in 401(k) Plan Suit Set April 8 WELLS FARGO: Responds to California Class Action Suit WESTERN UNION: Bid to Dismiss Smallen Trust Suit Still Pending WESTERN UNION: Class Suit v. Argentina Unit Still Ongoing WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend Frazier Class Action WIRECARD AG: April 9 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline WIRECARD AG: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS: Felix Files Suit in Calif. Under FDCPA WM. MULHERIN'S SONS: Faces Class Action Over Servers' Tips WOUND CARE SOLUTIONS: Zepeda Hits Illegal Biometrics Data Retention WPX ENERGY: Accord Reached in Kansas & Missouri Purchasers Suits WPX ENERGY: Class Action in Nevada Underway XOLO TACOS 2: Underpays Servers, Gaffney Suit Alleges YOGAWORKS INC: Kuznicki Law Files Securities Class Action ZILLOW GROUP: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending [*] Litigation Funders Invest in UK to Launch Class Actions [*] Right to Counsel Cases Pending Against Various States ********* 3A COMPOSITES: IMF Bentham, William Roberts Lawyers File Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Bleby, writng for The Australian Financial Review, reports that the first legal battle against a supplier of combustible cladding has commenced, with litigation funder IMF Bentham and William Roberts Lawyers filing a class action in the Federal Court of Australia. ASX-listed IMF Bentham and William Roberts filed proceedings on Feb.14 against the German producer of Alucobond polyethylene-core aluminium composite panels 3A Composites GmbH and Australian supplier Halifax Vogel Group, IMF Australia investment manager Gavin Beardsell said. "It's a product liability claim under the basis of consumer law," Mr Beardsell told The Australian Financial Review on Feb. 15. The filing follows the opening of a register for potential claimants by the funder and law firm in October last year. The case only has one lead applicant so far, the owners corporation of a 17-unit development in the southern Sydney suburb of Dolls Point, but that was enough to start a case that would draw other claimants, Mr Beardsell said. "You are only required to have one representative applicant and then you push on," he said. "Our class action involves hundreds of buildings and thousands of affected building owners who will be claiming compensation." Court documents have not yet been served on either of the respondents. Bruce Rayment, the chief executive officer of privately owned Halifax Vogel, declined to comment. While this class action focuses on Alucobond, a market leading PE-core panel sold into the Australian market, it was not the only one and the IMF Australia and William Roberts Lawyers were open to starting class actions against producers and suppliers of other products, they said. "We are still continuing on with investigating other potential class actions to launch on similar grounds against other manufacturers," William Roberts principal Bill Petrovski, Esq.-- bill.petrovski@williamroberts.com.au-- said. The current class action is open to property owners and long-term lease-holders who have suffered or will suffer financial loss due to the need to remove and replace Alucobond PE cladding products, or take other remedial measures. It seeks compensation for property owners of residential, commercial, mixed-use, and other non-residential buildings. Mr Beardsell declined to quantify the value of the claim being made, as it would depend on the number of buildings that ultimately joined the class action, but said relief sought would be to cover the costs of rectification, loss of market value of properties and the costs of experts consulting to the case. Mr Beardsell also declined to say how much IMF was spending to fund the action. "Most class actions require multi-million investments," he said. Rectification costs of combustible cladding costs will vary. On some buildings, the remedy can include keeping the cladding in place, but add features to mitigate the risks, such as sprinklers. In other cases, full replacement of the cladding is required. In December, builder LU Simon and the residents of Melbourne's Lacrosse tower settled on a $5.6 million cost for LU Simon to replace the combustible cladding. That agreed price was low and not necessarily a benchmark for what it would cost to reclad similar residential towers, however.[GN] 3M COMPANY: Whidbey Island Resident Files Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Cauvel, writing for goskagit.com, reports that an Oak Harbor resident who says her well was contaminated with chemicals from firefighting foam used at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court. The lawsuit accuses five companies involved in the manufacture, marketing, sales and delivery of the firefighting foam of knowingly putting the water — and therefore the environment and public health — at risk in areas around NAS Whidbey Island and hundreds of other military bases. "As a result, significant portions of the water supply and soil on Whidbey Island are contaminated ... exposing residents to significant health risks and devaluing their lands," the lawsuit states. The lawsuit was filed on Feb. 5 as a class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Seattle. The plaintiff, Krista Jackson, is asking the court to require the companies to pay her and potentially thousands of others who have been affected by the firefighting foam. The lawsuit includes seven complaints against The 3M Company, Tyco Fire Products, Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, Chemguard Inc., and National Foam Inc. The complaints include negligence, product liability for failure to warn and trespass. At issue is a foam that was used for decades to fight fires, particularly during military practices and incidents involving petroleum-based fires such as from aircraft crashes. The chemicals from the foam -- called perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl, or generally PFAS -- pose health concerns, according to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the chemicals may increase risks for kidney and testicular cancer and can possibly affect fetal development and the immune system. As a result of the foam's longtime use, "Oak Harbor and Coupeville ... have widespread contamination in their water supply," the class action lawsuit states. The Navy itself has helped to document that contamination. It determined through water testing that 15 residential wells in the area had concentrations of the chemicals above the EPA's recommended exposure limit. As of press time, it is unclear if Jackson's well was one of those tested by the Navy. The Navy is providing bottled water or water filtration systems to those with affected wells. It is also in the process of building a water filtration system for the town of Coupeville to ensure its residents are protected from the chemical contamination. The chemicals don't break down in the environment, and once consumed through contaminated water or food they accumulate in the body, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. So while the chemicals have been phased out of manufacturing since about 2002, according to the EPA, they are still found in the environment and in the blood of those exposed to contamination. The class action lawsuit argues that it is necessary for Jackson and others represented in the lawsuit to undergo more frequent medical testing in order to detect and treat related medical problems. Jackson is seeking payment from the defendant companies for that increased medical testing, as well as decreased property values, the cost of the lawsuit and attorney's fees, and any other damages the court deems fit. The settlement amount being sought is not listed because the number of those who qualify to be represented in the lawsuit has not been determined, but is expected to exceed $5 million, according to the lawsuit. The use of the firefighting foam at NAS Whidbey Island has left area residents with "a persistent poison lurking in their water supply," the lawsuit states. The team representing the plaintiff in the lawsuit has created a website where potentially impacted current and past Whidbey Island residents can contact them for consultation. The team includes Robert Teel, a former Whidbey Island resident now based in Seattle and practicing through the Law Office of Robert L. Teel, Esq. and five members of Edelson PC, an Illinois-based law firm that focuses on class actions and other lawsuits against major companies.[GN] 3ML: Accused of Migrant Exploitation in New Zealand --------------------------------------------------- Tom Pullar-Strecker, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that more action is being taken against subcontracting firms that have been accused of breaching employment law and exploiting migrants while building Chorus' ultrafast broadband network. Labour Inspectorate spokesman Michael Docherty said it had lodged a claim with the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) against a third subcontracting firm, 3ML, and had issued infringement and improvement notices to a further 15 firms since its crackdown began in December. A total of 13 UFB subcontracting firms have now received infringement notices for breaches of employment record-keeping obligations. These carry a fine of $1000 per breach, up to a maximum of $20,000 in any three-month period. Another 21 subcontracting firms have been issued with "improvement notices" ordering them to fix their employment practices and two more have been issued with "enforceable undertakings" requiring them to enter into a formal agreement to "improve and rectify compliance breaches". The inspectorate had previously lodged ERA claims against two UFB subcontracting firms -- Sunwin Technologies and Babylon Communications, both of which are also based in Auckland. Docherty said action was likely against "all 72" subcontracting firms that it identified breaching employment law during a series of visits by the department, Immigration NZ and Inland Revenue in June. "Once investigations are completed with the remaining 33, the degree of compliance action against each can be finalised," he said. Labour Inspectorate national manager Stu Lumsden said in October that the visits took place after it became aware that migrant workers were "potentially being exploited by various subcontracting companies undertaking work on behalf of Chorus". The breaches it uncovered included contracting firms failing to maintain employment records, failing to pay employees' the minimum wage and holiday entitlements, and failing to provide employment agreements. Immigration NZ also found several workers who were carrying out work on the UFB network in breach of their visa conditions and one overstayer. The enforcement action has encouraged Australian-listed law firm Shine Lawyers to seek support from fibre installers for a class action lawsuit against Chorus' main contractor, Australian-owned Visionstream, and contracting companies working for Visionstream. The E tu union threw its weight behind the lawsuit in January. Union organiser Joe Gallager said he believed about 3500 workers who had been involved in building Chorus' UFB network should have been treated as employees rather than contractors. The union believed those workers could have a claim to back pay, holiday pay and sick pay. Gallagher said the union was continuing to encourage linesmen to talk to Shine about the potential lawsuit. Chorus has been providing protection to a group of whistleblowers who approached Stuff to relate largely separate allegations concerning the roll-out of UFB and who later agreed to meet with the company. The allegations ranged from conflicts of interest around business interests held by some Visionstream and Chorus staff, through to concerns subbies were not being paid correctly for work and a suspicion a Visionstream manager had accepted bribes for approving linesmen to carry out work on the broadband network. Chorus spokesman Ian Bonnar said on Feb. 9 that both Chorus and Visionstream had taken action with regard to some of the lesser matters raised by the whistleblowers, while their investigations continued. Those actions concerned conflicts of interest held by employees who were involved in UFB subcontracting companies on the side. The various investigations have not affected investor confidence in Chorus, which saw its shares climb to a record high of $5.08 on Feb. 8 -- more than triple their price five year's ago. [GN] ACN OPPORTUNITY: Trumps Collaborated with Marketing Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------- Erica Orden, writing for CNN, reports that an amended class-action lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court on Feb. 21 accused President Donald Trump, his three eldest children and his company of collaborating with a fraudulent marketing scheme to prey on investors -- including by recruiting teenagers, promising them success as "The Trumps of Tomorrow." The lawsuit alleges that in exchange for "secret" payments, Trump and three of his adult children used his former reality TV show "The Celebrity Apprentice" and other promotional events as vehicles to boost ACN Opportunity, a telecommunications marketing company linked to a nonprofit that used Trump's brand to appeal to teens. After Trump joined the board of the nonprofit in 2009, the lawsuit alleges, it distributed an edition of its magazine, "Success from Home," that contained an article titled "The Trumps of Tomorrow," announcing his involvement and featuring an interview with him. Included in the magazine was an image of four teenagers, as well as references to Trump's children, "who all now work with the Trump dynasty." Trump's association with the nonprofit "lent a gloss of legitimacy to ACN's efforts to reach a new generation of potential recruits," according to the lawsuit, which also notes that information about the board "disappeared" from the group's website around May 2016. The lawsuit, brought initially in October on behalf of four anonymous individuals, accuses the Trumps of pocketing millions in payments between 2005 and 2015 to promote what they described as promising business opportunities: ACN Opportunity; the Trump Network, a vitamin and health product marketing company; and The Trump Institute, a seminar program that "purported to sell Trump's 'secrets to success.' " The suit is being funded by the nonprofit Tesseract Research Center, which has ties to Democratic candidates, according to a spokesman for the law firm Kaplan, Hecker & Fink. A partner in that firm, Roberta Kaplan, as well as Andrew G. Celli Jr., of Emery, Celli, Brinckerhoff & Abady, are representing the plaintiffs. An attorney for Trump and his three eldest children didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint, saying in court papers: "While the Complaint purports to allege malfeasance by various Trump entities, it seeks relief for a single class of putative victims -- those who paid money to a business Mr. Trump does not own, has never owned, and over whose operations he has never exercised control." As with the original lawsuit, the amended complaint alleges that the Trumps profited off the poor, seeking "to enrich themselves by systematically defrauding economically marginalized people looking to invest in their educations, start their own small business, and pursue the American dream." The suit claims that the Trumps, in fact, "deliberately misled" consumers about the likely success of their investments. The lawsuit, which runs 186 pages in its amended form, further claims the Trumps engaged in "a pattern of racketeering activity" and "were aware that the vast majority of consumers would lose whatever money they invested in the business opportunities and training programs" offered by the three companies. None of the three companies is named as a defendant. [GN] ACTIVISION: Offering "Potential Refunds" to Guitar Hero Live Buyers ------------------------------------------------------------------- Owen S. Good, writing for Polygon, reports that Activision is offering "potential refunds" to some buyers of Guitar Hero Live, whose catalog of streaming songs to play was cut to about 10 percent of its size at the end of 2018 (so, nine times worse than decimated). The company isn't giving any reasons why in a tersely worded claims form page, but it's rather obvious that Activision's decision to obliterate a library that counted almost 500 songs at its peak, and a resulting lawsuit -- dismissed less than two weeks ago -- is the culprit. The refunds are only good for those who: * Bought Guitar Hero Live in the United States. * Bought it between Dec. 1, 2017 and Jan. 1, 2019. * File a claim by May 1, 2019. And whose purchase of the game, subject to the above conditions, "can be confirmed by Activision." That means providing either a receipt or a credit card statement showing the relevant charge. Those who have neither can still file a claim, and Activision will try to verify whether the purchase is legit. The claim form requires a claimant to provide both an email address and the Gamertag or online ID of the platform where they bought and played Guitar Hero Live. In June 2018, Activision announced that Guitar Hero TV, the streaming music service for Guitar Hero Live, would close in December, leaving the game with just the 42 songs provided on the disc. Guitar Hero TV had a song catalog of 484 at the time of the announcement. When it launched in October 2015, Guitar Hero TV took a Spotify/Apple Music approach to catalog management, forsaking the premium DLC model of Rock Band and past Guitar Hero games in favor of a much larger rotation (for a single game) available to players for free. The catch was that the songs would only be available for as long as Activision supported it, and the bell tolled for that in December. Shortly after this announcement, a Los Angeles man filed a lawsuit against Activision in U.S. District Court, alleging false advertising and seeking class action status. Robert Fishel argued that he bought the game two years after its launch for the discounted price of $22.43 "reasonably expect[ing] that Activision would not subsequently eliminate his ability to use the vast majority" of the songs. In a motion dated Jan. 22, Fishel voluntarily dismissed his case without prejudice (which means he could choose sue again on the same allegations). Guitar Hero Live released Oct. 20, 2015, on PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, Wii U, Xbox 360 and Xbox One. It, as well as Rock Band 4 momentarily resuscitated a music gaming genre that had gone into hibernation following 2010's Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock. But a year after Guitar Hero Live's release, Activision Blizzard fired several workers at UK-based FreeStyleGames, which developed the game, following advice to investors that Guitar Hero Live had sold "lower than expected."[GN] ALKERMES PLC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Alkermes plc. ("Alkermes" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ALKS) and certain of its officers and directors. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, and indexed under 19-cv-00624, is on behalf of a class consisting of all behalf of persons and/or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Alkermes securities between February 17, 2017 through November 1, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Alkermes securities between February 17, 2017, and November 1, 2018, you have until February 25, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Alkermes is incorporated in Ireland and is a biopharmaceutical company which researches, develops and commercializes pharmaceutical products. The complaint alleges that Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had advised Alkermes to follow a certain protocol in connection with its New Drug Application submission for ALKS 5461; (2) Alkermes had failed to follow that protocol; (3) consequently, an FDA advisory committee voted 21 to 2 against the approval of ALKS 5461; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. On April 2, 2018, Alkermes reported that it received a Refusal to File letter from the FDA regarding its NDA for ALKS 5461. The Company stated that "the FDA has taken the position that it is unable to complete a substantive review of the regulatory package, based on insufficient evidence of overall effectiveness for the proposed indication and that additional well-controlled clinical trials are needed prior to the resubmission of the NDA for ALKS 5461." On this news, shares in Alkermes' stock fell $12.73 per share or nearly 22% to close at $45.23 per share on April 2, 2018. On October 30, 2018, the FDA released a briefing document concerning Alkermes' NDA for ALKS 5461. The briefing document stated the FDA did not agree with Alkermes' methodologies and that Alkermes disregarded the FDA's advice. On this news, shares in Alkermes' stock fell $0.57 per share or over 1.4% to close at $39.80 per share on October 30, 2018. Then, on November 1, 2018, Alkermes disclosedthat the FDA advisory committee voted 21 to 2 against the approval of ALKS 5461. That same day, Xconomy reported that "[a]t the hearing, FDA representatives said the agency specifically told Alkermes not to analyze its data through an average, which it still did." On this news, shares in Alkermes' stock fell $3.09 per share or over 7.5% to close at $37.74 per share on November 2, 2018, damaging investors. Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Telephone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980 Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] AM KIDS: Rodriguez Seeks Earned Wages & OT Pay for Workers ---------------------------------------------------------- LUIS RODRIGUEZ, the Plaintiff, vs. AM KIDS, INC. d/b/a C TOWN SUPERMARKET and KIDS AM, INC d/b/a C TOWN SUPERMARKET and ANTHONY DIAZ and MARIANO DIAZ, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01358 (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and earned wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the collective class work or have worked at the C Town Supermarket controlled and operated by Defendants Anthony Diaz and Mariano Diaz, respectively. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all similarly situated current and former non-exempt workers who elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA. The Plaintiff worked at C Town Supermarket from 2004 through February 2019. The Plaintiff's job duties as a butcher's helper included preparing and arranging meat for garnishes, using hand and electric food service equipment, setting up and decorating the meat area and cleaning the equipment and the work area. Throughout his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff was scheduled to work more than 40 hours each week. The Plaintiff was only paid for the first 40 hours he worked each week, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, 3rd Floor New York, NY 100017 Telephone: (212) 323-6980 Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mohammed Says ----------------------------------------------------------- HASIM A. MOHAMMED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN AIRLINES; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 19CV342788 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 19, 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 Mohammed was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt, hourly employee. American Airlines, Inc. operates as a network air carrier. The company provides scheduled air transportation services for passengers and cargo. It also offers freight and mail services. The company operates hubs in Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, London Heathrow, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, and Phoenix, as well as in Washington, D.C. As of December 31, 2018, it operated a fleet of 956 mainline aircraft. The company was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. American Airlines, Inc. is a subsidiary of American Airlines Group Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. William M. Pao, Esq. Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan, 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 william@setarehlaw.com lilit@setarehlaw.com APHRIA: Class Certification Could Take a Year --------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that another proposed class action has commenced against cannabis-producer Aphria, but it could take a while before it's certified by a judge. Rochon Genova LLP says the suit is on behalf of people who purchased Aphria shares between Jan. 29, 2018 up to and including Nov. 30, 2018. Back in December, Koskie Minsky LLP also announced a proposed class action against the Leamington company. Both suits allege Aphria did not make adequate disclosures to shareholders regarding its acquisitions of assets in Colombia, Argentina and Jamaica. "The kind of allegations that have been made are not great," said Jay Strosberg, Esq.-- jay@strosbergco.com -- partner at Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP, a firm which focuses on class action suits based in Windsor and Toronto. In a statement, Joel P. Rochon, Esq. -- jrochon@rochongenova.com -- managing partner at Rochon Genova, said "proper disclosure levels the playing field among all investors" and that "accurate and timely public disclosure is the lifeblood" of capital markets. Were acquisitions worthless? In early December, short-sellers Quintessential Capital Management and Hindenburg Research alleged that Aphria's acquisition of the LATAM holding assets in Colombia, Argentina and Jamaica totaling $280 million from Scythian Biosciences were "largely worthless." Proposed class action against Aphria after alleged 'callous disregard' for full disclosure Cannabis producer Aphria to review acquisition slammed by short sellers The allegations drastically affected Aphria's stock prices, causing them to drop 30 per cent. Then in January, a Bloomberg report questioned those short-sellers' allegations, after a reporter found assets in Jamaica that were claimed by short-sellers to be inoperational. Strosberg said these proposed class actions launched against Aphria are different from usual shareholder class actions -- where financial statement misrepresentation or accounting errors are commonplace. But with Aphria, it's about transparency. "This isn't just an accounting error. These are very serious allegations." Class action timeline Plaintiffs can hope their case will be heard by a judge within a year and a half's time to determine if it will be certified, said Strosberg. For the class actions to be certified, plaintiffs need to convince the judge that "Aphria, or its management, made misleading statements or failed to give investors full and complete information." Some of that evidence plaintiffs can bring include the information that the short-sellers have, according to Strosberg. But if plaintiffs want to find their own evidence on Aphria's disclosure, he said, "it's not going to take a tremendous amount of an investigation to marshal those facts and present it to the court."[GN] APPLE INC: Faces New Class Action Over Two-Factor Authentication ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Purcher, writing for Patently Apple, reports that a Plaintiff by the name of Jay Brodsky has filed with a California court a formal complaint against Apple Inc. in an effort to get a class action approved. The nature of the action, according to the formal complaint, is based on Apple locking out Plaintiff from use of his personal devices by a business policy requiring two-factor authentication that cannot be disabled after a lapse of an initial fourteen (14) days. Once two-factor authentication is enabled either by default, on a software update or accidentally by a user and 14 days have lapsed, Apple does not allow any mechanism to disable two-factor authentication. Two-factor authentication imposes an extraneous logging in procedure that requires a user to both (i) remember password; and (ii) have access to a trusted device or trusted phone number to receive an additional six-digit code that needs to be entered at the time of logging in addition to the user set password. A user does not have an option to disable such doubled up security measures and is stuck with wasting time to log on to his own device. Two-factor authentication requires additional steps to access any third-party apps or services requiring passwords. Two-factor authentication is required each time you turn on a device. Apple does not get user consent to enable two-factor authentication. Apple does not get user consent to then remove the option forever to disable two-factor authentication, once it is enabled. An email with a long paragraph thanking the user and highlighting the good features of two-factor authentication followed by a simple single last line in an email saying that the link will expire on a given date is insufficient to put the user on notice of his options and make an informed decision as to whether to click the link to disable it. As a result of Apple's coercive policies with regards to security of Plaintiff owned devices, Plaintiff and millions of similarly situated consumers across the nation have been and continue to suffer harm. Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered economic losses in terms of the interference with the use of their personal devices and waste of their personal time in using additional time for simple logging in. Plaintiff and the Class seek monetary damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent Apple from continuing its practice of not allowing a user to choose its own logging and security procedure. Causes for Action Count 1: Trespass to personal Property Count 2: Violation of the invasion of privacy act Count 3: Violation of the Computer Crime Law Count 4: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act [GN] ARCONIC INC: Still Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Nix Howard Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arconic 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 parties in the case styled Howard v. Arconic Inc. et al., are still awaiting a court ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. A purported class action complaint (Howard v. Arconic Inc. et al.) related to the Grenfell Tower fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Arconic Inc. and Klaus Kleinfeld. A related purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on August 25, 2017, under the caption Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et al., against Arconic Inc., two former Arconic executives, several current and former Arconic directors, and banks that acted as underwriters for Arconic's September 18, 2014 preferred stock offering (the "Preferred Offering"). The plaintiff in Sullivan had previously filed a purported class action against the same defendants on July 18, 2017 in the Southern District of New York and, on August 25, 2017, voluntarily dismissed that action without prejudice. On February 7, 2018, on motion from certain putative class members, the court consolidated Howard and Sullivan, closed Sullivan, and appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case. On April 9, 2018, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated purported class action filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the registration statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and misleading statements and omitted to state material information, including by allegedly failing to disclose material uncertainties and trends resulting from sales of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses and by allegedly expressing a belief that appropriate risk management and compliance programs had been adopted while concealing the risks posed by Reynobond PE sales. The consolidated amended complaint also alleges that between November 4, 2013 and June 23, 2017 Arconic and Kleinfeld made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information about the Company's commitment to safety, business and financial prospects, and the risks of the Reynobond PE product, including in Arconic’s Form 10-Ks for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, its Form 10-Qs and quarterly financial press releases from the fourth quarter of 2013 through the first quarter of 2017, its 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 Annual Reports, and its 2016 Annual Highlights Report. The consolidated amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and expenses. On June 8, 2018, all defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Briefing on that motion is now closed and the parties await a ruling. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Arconic Inc. engineers, manufactures, and sells lightweight metals worldwide. The company operate in three segments: Engineered Products and Solutions, Global Rolled Products, and Transportation and Construction Solutions. The company was founded in 1888 and is based in New York, New York. ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Arlo Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: ARLO) Class Period: common stock purchased pursuant and/or traceable to Arlo's August 3, 2018 initial public offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering"). Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 25, 2019 For more info: www.bgandg.com/arlo The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there was a flaw and/or quality issue with Arlo's newly designed battery for its Ultra camera systems; (2) this flaw and/or quality issue with the Ultra battery could result in a shipping delay of Arlo's Ultra product; (3) such a shipping delay endangered Arlo's chances of launching the Ultra product in time for the crucial holiday season; (4) such a shipping delay would allow Arlo's competitors to capitalize on the Ultra product's missed launch, thereby increasing their own market share; (5) Arlo's consumers had been experiencing battery drain issues and other battery-related issues in connection with recent firmware updates; (6) because of the foregoing, Arlo's fourth quarter 2018 results and consumer base would be negatively impacted; and (7) as a result, Arlo's Registration Statement was materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Yael Hurwitz, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Telephone: 212-697-6484 Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN] AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Bevinal Class Action ----------------------------------------- Avon Products, 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 has been named as defendant in a purported shareholder's class action complaint entitled, Bevinal v. Avon Products, Inc. On February 14, 2019, a purported shareholder's class action complaint (Bevinal v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-1420) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain present and former officers of the Company. The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all purchasers of Avon common stock between August 2, 2016 and August 2, 2017, inclusive. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or misleading statements and alleged market manipulation with respect to, among other things, changes made to Avon's credit terms for representatives in Brazil. Avon said, "In light of the early stage of the litigation, we are unable to predict the outcome of this matter and are unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome." Avon Products, Inc. manufactures and markets beauty and related products in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, south Latin America, north Latin America, and the Asia Pacific. The company was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. AVON PRODUCTS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosedthat a class action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Avon Products, Inc. (NYSE:AVP) common stock during the period between August 2, 2016 and August 2, 2017 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the Southern District of New York and is captioned Bevinal v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-1420. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Avon common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/avonproducts/. The complaint charges Avon and certain of its current and former officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Avon is a global manufacturer and marketer of beauty and related products. Avon's business is conducted primarily in one channel, direct selling to Avon representatives. Avon representatives then resell Avon products to end-user customers. As of December 31, 2016, Avon had approximately 6 million active representatives. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, in order to inflate its reported revenue and representative growth metric, Avon engaged in an undisclosed scheme whereby it significantly loosened its credit terms in order to recruit new representatives in Brazil, its largest market. Avon did not disclose the changes to its credit terms in Brazil. Avon also failed to increase its allowance for doubtful accounts to account for the changes to its credit terms in Brazil. As a result of the concealment of defendants' scheme during the Class Period, the price of Avon stock was artificially inflated to as high as $6.89 per share. On November 3, 2016, Avon filed its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016 and disclosed that its operating expenses and margins had been negatively impacted by higher bad debt expense. Over the next two days, the price of Avon stock dropped $0.47 per share to close at $5.94 per share on November 4, 2016, a decline of more than 7%. On February 16, 2017, the Company issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter 2016 results and held a conference call to discuss the results. The Company reported a net loss of $0.03 per share and a 2% decline in active representatives. The Company also disclosed a $35 million bad debt charge attributable to the previously undisclosed changes to credit terms to recruit new representatives in Brazil. As a result of this news, the price of Avon stock dropped $1.09 per share to close at $4.77 per share on February 17, 2017, a decline of nearly 19%. On the following day, February 18, 2017, the price of Avon stock dropped again, falling over 3% to close at $4.61 per share. On May 4, 2017, Avon issued a press release announcing its first quarter 2017 results and held a conference call to discuss the results. The Company reported a net loss of $0.10 per share and a 3% decline in active representatives. On the call, Avon disclosed that despite its earlier assurances that the Brazil bad debt problem had been fully accounted for in 2016, the Company was recording another significant charge for bad debt tied to Avon's decision to loosen its credit terms to recruit new representatives in Brazil. As a result of this news, the price of Avon stock dropped $1.03 per share to close at $3.62 per share on May 4, 2017, a decline of 22%. Then, on August 3, 2017, Avon issued a press release announcing its second quarter 2017 financial results and held a conference call to discuss the results. The Company reported a net loss of $0.12 per share and a 3% decline in active representatives. The Company also reported that Brazil revenue was "down 2% in constant dollars, primarily driven by a decrease in Active Representatives." On the call, Avon's CFO acknowledged that, despite Avon's earlier representations, the remedial actions in Brazil (i.e., stricter credit terms applied to recruiting new representatives) were negatively impacting active representatives and revenue in Brazil. As a result of this news, the price of Avon stock dropped $0.36 per share to close at $3.00 per share on August 3, 2017, a decline of nearly 11%. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Avon common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Telephone: 800-449-4900 Website: www.rgrdlaw.com Email: djr@rgrdlaw.com SRudman@rgrdlaw.com DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com [GN] AZCONA INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA and NYLL, Reyes Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ISMAR REYES and FIDEL RAXCACO IZAGUIRRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AZCONA INC. and MANUEL AZCONA, as an individual, Case No. CV 19-1188 (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2019), accuses the Defendants of willfully failing and refusing to pay required overtime wage compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Azcona Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of New York. The Company is a corporation authorized to do and doing business in New York. The Company is owned and/or operated by Manuel Azcona. Based in Inwood, New York, Azcona serves surrounding communities specializing in demolition and trucking/hauling.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 E-mail: avshalumovr@yahoo.com BARCLAYS PLC: Challenges Dismissal Order in SIBOR/SOR Suit in SDNY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Barclays PLC 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 31, 2018, that the plaintiffs in the SIBOR/SOR case in the the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) are challenging the court's order dismissing all the claims against the company. In 2016, a putative class action was filed in the SDNY against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and other defendants, alleging manipulation of the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate (SIBOR) and Singapore Swap Offer Rate (SOR). The plaintiffs amended their complaint in 2017 following dismissal by the court of the claims against Barclays for failure to state a claim. In October 2018, the court dismissed all claims against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and BCI, a decision that the plaintiffs are challenging. Barclays PLC, through its subsidiaries, provides various financial products and services in the United Kingdom, other European countries, the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. The company operates through Barclays UK and Barclays International divisions. The company was formerly known as Barclays Bank Limited and changed its name to Barclays PLC in January 1985. Barclays PLC was founded in 1690 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. BARCLAYS PLC: Continues to Defend Japanese Yen LIBOR Suit in SDNY ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barclays PLC 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 31, 2018, that the company remains a defendant in the Japanese Yen LIBOR cases in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). In 2012, a putative class action was filed in the SDNY against Barclays Bank PLC and other Japanese Yen LIBOR panel banks by a plaintiff involved in exchange-traded derivatives. The complaint also names members of the Japanese Bankers Association's Euroyen Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate (Euroyen TIBOR) panel, of which Barclays Bank PLC is not a member. The complaint alleges, amongst other things, manipulation of the Euroyen TIBOR and Yen LIBOR rates and breaches of the CEA and Antitrust Act between 2006 and 2010. In 2014, the court dismissed the plaintiff's antitrust claims in full, but the plaintiff's CEA claims remain pending. Discovery is ongoing. In 2017, a second putative class action concerning Yen LIBOR which was filed in the SDNY against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and BCI was dismissed in full. The complaint makes similar allegations to the 2012 class action. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal. Barclays PLC, through its subsidiaries, provides various financial products and services in the United Kingdom, other European countries, the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. The company operates through Barclays UK and Barclays International divisions. The company was formerly known as Barclays Bank Limited and changed its name to Barclays PLC in January 1985. Barclays PLC was founded in 1690 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. BARCLAYS PLC: Faces USD LIBOR Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------ Barclays PLC 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 31, 2018, that the company faces a consolidated USD LIBOR class action suit in US District Court in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). In January 2019, two putative class actions were filed in the SDNY against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BCI, other financial institution defendants and Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (ICE) and certain of its affiliates, asserting antitrust and unjust enrichment claims on allegations that, beginning in 2014, defendants manipulated USD LIBOR through defendants' submissions to ICE, which took over rate-setting duties for LIBOR from the British Bankers' Association in 2014. These two actions were consolidated in February 2019. Barclays PLC, through its subsidiaries, provides various financial products and services in the United Kingdom, other European countries, the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. The company operates through Barclays UK and Barclays International divisions. The company was formerly known as Barclays Bank Limited and changed its name to Barclays PLC in January 1985. Barclays PLC was founded in 1690 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. BARCLAYS PLC: Sterling LIBOR Case Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barclays PLC 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 31, 2018, that the plaintiff in the Sterling LIBOR Case in the US District Court in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) has asked the court to reconsider the decision in granting defendants' motion to dismiss. In 2015, a putative class action was filed in the SDNY against Barclays Bank PLC and other Sterling LIBOR panel banks by a plaintiff involved in exchange-traded and over-the-counter derivatives that were linked to Sterling LIBOR. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants manipulated the Sterling LIBOR rate between 2005 and 2010 and, in so doing, committed CEA, Antitrust Act, and RICO violations. In 2016, this class action was consolidated with an additional putative class action making similar allegations against Barclays Bank PLC and BCI and other Sterling LIBOR panel banks. The defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in December 2018. The plaintiff has asked the court to reconsider this decision. Barclays PLC, through its subsidiaries, provides various financial products and services in the United Kingdom, other European countries, the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. The company operates through Barclays UK and Barclays International divisions. The company was formerly known as Barclays Bank Limited and changed its name to Barclays PLC in January 1985. Barclays PLC was founded in 1690 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. BARCLAYS PLC: USD LIBOR Cases Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------- Barclays PLC 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 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a multidistrict litigation over USD LIBOR. The majority of the USD LIBOR cases, which have been filed in various US jurisdictions, have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes before a single judge in the US District Court in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The complaints are substantially similar and allege, amongst other things, that Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and other financial institutions individually and collectively violated provisions of the US Sherman Antitrust Act (Antitrust Act), the US Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and various state laws by manipulating USD LIBOR rates. Certain of the proposed class actions have been settled. Barclays has settled claims purportedly brought on behalf of plaintiffs that (i) engaged in USD LIBOR-linked over-the-counter transactions (OTC Class); (ii) purchased USD LIBOR-linked financial instruments on an exchange; (iii) purchased USD LIBOR-linked debt securities; or (iv) issued loans linked to USD LIBOR (Lender Class) and paid $120 million, $20 million, $7.1 million and $4 million respectively. The settlements with the OTC Class and the Lender Class have received final court approval. The other settlements remain subject to final court approval and/or the right of class members to opt out of the settlement and to seek to file their own claims. The remaining putative class actions and individual actions seek unspecified damages with the exception of five lawsuits, in which the plaintiffs are seeking a combined total in excess of $1.25 billion in actual damages against all defendants, including Barclays Bank PLC, plus punitive damages. Some of the lawsuits also seek trebling of damages under the Antitrust Act and RICO. Barclays PLC, through its subsidiaries, provides various financial products and services in the United Kingdom, other European countries, the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. The company operates through Barclays UK and Barclays International divisions. The company was formerly known as Barclays Bank Limited and changed its name to Barclays PLC in January 1985. Barclays PLC was founded in 1690 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. BEAUMONT COLLEGE: College Linked to Fraud, Attorneys Claim ---------------------------------------------------------- Chris Mullooly, writing for KFDM-TV News, reports that Southeast Texas attorneys representing students and staff members of recently closed college campuses across the country say they have new evidence on the abrupt closures of more than 76 campuses nationwide, including Brightwood College in Beaumont. Attorney Tim Ferguson, Esq., with the Ferguson Law Firm says the firm originally filed a nation-wide class action suit against 13 defendants. The original complaint was Brightwood College run by the Education Corporation of America (ECA) were permanently closing and officials knew it, but didn't deliver on promises to students and staff. "The students were paying all this money, owing all the money back to the government and then one day you show up to class and the door is locked," says Ferguson. Staff were also affected by the closure, especially those dealing with personal battles of their own. "She's stuck with no benefits, but the cancer is still there," says Ferguson. "Shannon Shroeder was the director of Career Services at Brightwood. She was diagnosed with breast cancer in June 2018, and told on December 5th, her job of 14 years was over. Ferguson says Shroeder and others whose stories he's heard with similar endings, deserve answers. "We believe it further proves that the defendants either knew of had reason to know that these colleges across the country were going to be prematurely closed. [GN] BLACKROCK INST'L: Court Strikes 2 Undisclosed Individuals in Baird ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CHARLES BAIRD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL TRUST COMPANY, N.A., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01892-HSG (KAW) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District Court for the Norther District of California granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to strike 10 individuals that BlackRock did not disclose until Dec. 21, 2018. On July 5, 2017, the parties exchanged initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). In their initial disclosures, the Plaintiffs identified, among other individuals, Mr. Jeffrey Kirsh. BlackRock identified four individuals, including Plaintiff Baird. BlackRock also incorporated by reference any individual disclosed by another party in the case. On Dec. 7, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation to modify the case schedule, including continuing the discovery deadlines. The parties agreed that if the extension was granted, they would not issue any further written discovery requests on one another. The Plaintiffs also agreed not to seek to depose any current or former BlackRock employee, other than Mr. Schnadt or Ms. Fung, prior to the class certification hearing. On Dec. 21, 2018, BlackRock served a Supplemental Disclosure, which identified 29 individuals likely to have discoverable information. After the Plaintiffs objected, BlackRock provided a Second Supplemental Disclosure on Jan. 17, 2019, less than three weeks prior to the close of fact discovery. The Second Supplemental Disclosure provided greater detail as to what the individuals would be testifying to. The parties then filed joint letters concerning ten of the individuals identified by BlackRock's Supplemental Disclosures. On Feb. 21, 2019, the Court held a discovery hearing on the parties' joint discovery letters. At the hearing, BlackRock noted that Ms. Jeanne Belanger and Ms. Irene Ashkenazy would be testifying as BlackRock's 30(b)(6) witnesses. BlackRock also emphasized that except for Mr. Kirsh, Ms. Belanger, and Ms. Ashkenazy, the other seven individuals at issue were identified in the event that the Plaintiffs raised foundation objections at trial. The Plaintiffs seek to strike 10 individuals that BlackRock did not disclose until Dec. 21, 2018. BlackRock responds that its disclosures were not late, and that if they were, any delay was harmless or justifiable. On Dec. 21, 2018, BlackRock disclosed Mr. Kirsh, Managing Director and Senior Counsel, on the topic of "Fiduciary process and decisions for the plan." BlackRock contends that it has always identified Mr. Kirsh as a potential trial witness because its initial disclosures incorporated the Plaintiffs' initial disclosures. Magistrate Judge Westmore finds that Mr. Kirsh was not sufficiently disclosed. With respect to BlackRock's initial disclosures, she notes that despite incorporating the Plaintiffs' initial disclosures, BlackRock still separately identified four individuals who were also identified by the Plaintiffs' initial disclosures. Specifically, Plaintiffs identified Plaintiff Baird and the individual members of the Retirement Committee, Investment Committee, and Administrative Committee in their initial disclosures. BlackRock, in turn, identified Plaintiff Baird, Mr. Feliciani (a member of the three committees), Ms. Nedl (a member of the Administrative Committee), and Mr. Herman (the secretary of the Retirement Committee). Under these circumstances, where BlackRock specifically identified individuals who were already "incorporated" from the Plaintiffs' initial disclosures, BlackRock cannot rely on the incorporation of the Plaintiffs' initial disclosures to satisfy its Rule 26 disclosure obligations. On Dec. 21, 2018, Ms. Jeanne Belanger (Managing Director, Legal & Compliance) was disclosed on the topic of "CTF governing documents." BlackRock contends the Plaintiff should have known of Ms. Belanger because Ms. Belanger signed four declarations in support of motions to file under seal, which stated that she was familiar with the confidential information and documents that are created in connection with the management, governance, and administration of BlackRock CTIs. The Magistrate finds that, to the extent BlackRock intends to rely on Ms. Belanger in her individual capacity, rather than as a 30(b)(6) witness, Ms. Belanger was not sufficiently disclosed. The declarations in support of the motions to file under seal did not indicate that Ms. Belanger was familiar with drafting the CTI plan documents, or the processes for reviewing and revising these documents. While BlackRock faults the Plaintiffs for not asking more questions of the deposition witnesses regarding Ms. Belanger's role in helping them prepare their 30(b)(6) testimony, the Plaintiffs' failure to ask such questions does not absolve BlackRock of its Rule 26 disclosure obligations. In the Dec. 21, 2018 supplemental disclosure, Irene Ashkenazy (Managing Director, Head of Business Economics) was disclosed on the topic of "BlackRock, Inc. business reviews." In the Jan. 17, 2019 second supplemental disclosure, Mr. Rajiv Khurana (Director, Corporate Financial Planning & Analysis) was identified as preparing Mr. Jason Strofs for his 30(b)(6) deposition, and is involved in preparing quarterly business reviews ("QBRs"). In the Jan. 17, 2019 second supplemental disclosure, Ms. Sara Lo (Managing Director, Global Chief Operating; Officer, Trading & Liquidity Strategies) is identified as preparing Mr. Strofs for his 30(b)(6) deposition, and having overseen securities lending operations which includes analysis of the type of cost and revenue information included in the QBRs for the securities lending business. With respect to Ms. Ashkenazy, the Magistrate finds that to the extent BlackRock intends to rely on Ms. Ashkenazy in her individual capacity, rather than as a 30(b)(6) witness on QBRs, she was not sufficiently disclosed. BlackRock does not dispute that Ms. Ashkenazy could not be found in any discovery to date. As to Mr. Khurana and Ms. Lo, she likewise finds that these witnesses were not sufficiently disclosed. In the Dec. 21, 2018 supplemental disclosure, Ms. Chris Christensen (Managing Director, BlackRock Services & Operations) was disclosed on the topic of "BTC processes related to securities lending and cash collateral management." In the Jan. 17, 2019 second supplemental disclosure, BlackRock identified Mr. Ianthus Martin (Director, Securities Lending Operations) as helping prepare Mr. Strofs and Mr. Henige for their 30(b)(6) depositions. In the Jan. 17, 2019 second supplemental disclosure, BlackRock also identified Mr. Joel Munoz (Vice President) as helping prepare Mr. Henige for his 30(b)(6) deposition. Again, although BlackRock faults the Plaintiffs for not asking more questions, BlackRock had an independent duty to disclose all individuals it intended to rely upon at trial. Therefore, the Magistrate concludes that these individuals were not sufficiently disclosed in prior discovery. In the Dec. 21, 2018 supplemental disclosure, Ms. Elizabeth Kent (Managing Director; Former Global Chief Operating Officer, Trading & Liquidity Strategies) was disclosed on the topic of "management and operation of securities lending program." In both the Dec. 21, 2018 and Jan. 17, 2019 supplemental disclosures, Mr. Eric Hiatt (Director, Cash Portfolio Manager) was disclosed on the topic of management of STIFs used to hold securities lending cash collateral. The Magistrate finds that Ms. Kent and Mr. Hiatt were not sufficiently disclosed prior to the supplemental disclosures. The fact that Ms. Kent and Mr. Hiatt were listed on an organization chart does not alone suggest that they would be witnesses in the case. The Plaintiffs should not be put in the position of having to prepare for the possibility of facing every individual on an organization chart as a potential witness. Similarly, Mr. Strofs' identification of Mr. Hiatt as assisting him in preparing for his deposition is insufficient to satisfy Rule 26. In the alternative, BlackRock argues that there is no harm from the late disclosures because the Plaintiffs could conduct further discovery after the class certification motion is decided. The Magistrate finds that BlackRock has not satisfied its burden to prove harmlessness from its late disclosures. The Dec. 7, 2018 stipulation only highlights the harm as the Plaintiffs agreed not to propound new discovery prior to BlackRock disclosing 29 new individuals in their Dec. 21, 2018 supplemental disclosures. It is not clear the Plaintiffs would have agreed to limit future discovery requests if they had known there BlackRock intended to supplement its Rule 26 disclosures with so many individuals. Finally, BlackRock argues that the Plaintiffs complaint that BlackRock should have formally revised its disclosures earlier is misplaced because they only filed their Second Amended Complaint in August 2018. The fact that BlackRock may need these individuals as witnesses to handle foundation objections, however, does not warrant requiring the Plaintiffs to have to prepare for all of these individuals as witnesses for any purpose. For the reasons stated, Magitrate Judge Westmore struck the individuals at issue in the joint letters except for Ms. Belanger and Ms. Ashkenazy in their capacity as 30(b)(6) witnesses only. The stricken individuals may not supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at trial. Again, the ruling is without prejudice to foundation objections to 30(b)(6) testimony that the individuals assisted in preparing. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/kVRIxg from Leagle.com. Charles Baird, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan, Plaintiff, represented by Nina Rachel Wasow -- nina@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP, Daniel Ryan Sutter -- dsutter@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll, PLLC, pro hac vice, Julia Horwitz -- jhorwitz@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll, Julie S. Selesnick -- jselesnick@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Karen L. Handorf -- khandorf@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Mary Joanne Bortscheller -- mbortscheller@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll PLLC, Michelle C. Yau -- myau@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Todd F. Jackson -- todd@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman and Wasow LLP. Lauren Slayton, Plaintiff, represented by Michelle C. Yau, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Nina Rachel Wasow, Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP, Daniel Ryan Sutter, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll, PLLC, pro hac vice, Julia Horwitz, Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll & Mary Joanne Bortscheller, Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll PLLC. BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., Blackrock, Inc., The BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee & The Investment Committee of the Retirement Committee, Defendants, represented by Brian David Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com -- O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan -- akaplan@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow -- mvergow@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP, Michael John McCarthy -- mmccarthy@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards -- redwards@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Catherine Bolz, Chip Castille, Paige Dickow, Daniel A. Dunay, Jeffrey A. Smith, Anne Ackerley, Nancy Everett, Joseph Feliciani, Jr., Ann Marie Petach, Michael Fredericks, Corin Frost, Daniel Gamba, Kevin Holt, Chris Jones, Philippe Matsumoto, John Perlowski, Andy Phillips, Kurt Schansinger & Tom Skrobe, Defendants, represented by Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny Myers LLP, Randall W. Edwards, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow, OMelveny and Myers LLP & Michael John McCarthy, O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Amy Engel, Management Development & Compensation Committee of the BlackRock, Inc. Board of Directors, Kathleen Nedl, Marc Comerchero, Joel Davies, John Davis, Milan Lint & Laraine McKinnon, Defendants, represented by Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny Myers LLP, Randall W. Edwards, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow, OMelveny and Myers LLP & Michael John McCarthy, O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Mercer Investment Consulting, Defendant, represented by Brian Thomas Ortelere, Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew Allen Russell, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice & Spencer H. Wan, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Stein Says Securities Statements Misleading ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHIVA STEIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC., ANDREW S. CLARK, KEVIN ROYAL, and JOSEPH L. D'AMICO, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00460-WQH-MSB (S.D. Cal., March 8, 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 a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Bridgepoint securities between March 8, 2016 and March 7, 2019, both dates inclusive. Bridgepoint was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. Bridgepoint, together with its subsidiaries, provides postsecondary education services in the United States. The Company was formerly known as TeleUniversity, Inc. and changed its name to Bridgepoint Education, Inc. in February 2004. Bridgepoint's academic institutions, Ashford University and University of the Rockies, offer associate's, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree programs in the disciplines of business, education, psychology, social sciences, and health sciences. Bridgepoint offers its programs primarily through online, and also at its campuses. As of December 31, 2017, its institutions offered approximately 1,200 courses and 80 degree programs, with 45,730 students enrolled. As a means of increasing enrollment, the Company formed various corporate partnerships with employers to offer their employees a way to pursue and complete a college degree without incurring any student debt, referred to as the Corporate Full Tuition Grant ("FTG") program. In 2017, enrollments in the Company's FTG program accounted for approximately 10% of its total enrollment. The 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) Bridgepoint's processes for recording revenue for its FTG program were inaccurate; (ii) Bridgepoint maintained deficient internal controls; (iii) due to the foregoing deficiencies, Bridgepoint was prone to and did commit material accounting errors related to revenue, provision for bad debts, accounts receivable and deferred revenue, which resulted in the overstatement of revenue and expenses; and (iv) as a result, Bridgepoint's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 7, 2019, Bridgepoint announced that it had "determined to restate the Company's previously issued unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements, and advised that those financial statements should not be relied upon, for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018." Bridgepoint stated that the processes used for recording revenue for the FTG program portion of its student contracts "were not designed with sufficient precision," leading to "material" accounting errors related to revenue, provision for bad debts, accounts receivable and deferred revenue, which resulted in the overstatement of revenue and expenses. Bridgepoint also identified weaknesses in internal controls. On this news, Bridgepoint's stock price plummeted by $3.21 per share, or over 34%, to close at $6.22 per share on March 7, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1558 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (818) 532-6499 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com BRISTOW GROUP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, captioned Kokareva v. Bristow Group Inc. et al., (Case No. 4:19-cv-00509), on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Bristow Group Inc. (NYSE: BRS ) ("Bristow" or the "Company") securities between February 8, 2018 and February 12, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com On February 11, 2019, the Company disclosed that it "did not have adequate monitoring control processes in place related to non-financial covenants within certain of its secured financing and lease agreements." The same day, the Company disclosed that it had terminated its agreement to purchase Columbia Helicopters, Inc. On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.22 per share, or nearly 40%, to close at $1.84 per share on February 12, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then on February 12, 2019, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC to announce: (i) that it had terminated its agreement to purchase Columbia Helicopters, Inc.; and (ii) that Jonathan E. Baliff would retire as Chief Executive Officer and would resign from the Board of Directors, effective February 28, 2019. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.64, or nearly 35%, to close at $1.20 per share on February 13, 2019, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, 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 the Company lacked adequate monitoring processes related to non-financial covenants within its secured financing and lease agreements; (2) that, as a result, the Company could not reasonably assure compliance with certain non-financial covenants; (3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to breach certain agreements; (4) that, as a result, the Company had understated its short-term debt; (5) the required corrections would materially impact financial statements; (6) that there was a material weakness in the Company's internal controls over financial reporting; and (7) 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. If you purchased Bristow securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters please; Contact: Lesley Portnoy,Esq. Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: 310-201-9150 888-773-9224 Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] CALAVO GROWERS: Faces Velez's Labor Suit in Sacramento ------------------------------------------------------ An employment-related class action has been filed against Renaissance Food Group LLC. The case is captioned as MARIA VELEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RENAISSANCE FOOD GROUP LLC; CALAVO GROWERS INC.; KENNETH J. CATCHOT; G&M HIRE ENTERPRISES LLC; GH FOODS CA LLC; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00250841-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 19, 2019). Renaissance Food Group, LLC produces and supplies fresh perishable food products. The company offers fresh cut fruits, ready-to-eat vegetables, recipe ready fresh vegetables, vegetable sides and meals, and fresh overwrap melons; salads and salad kits, fresh party trays, sandwiches and wraps, and snacks; meat component kits; and fresh salad bar and food service trays. It offers its products through retailers. The company was founded in 2003 and is based in Rancho Cordova, California with production facilities in the United States. As of June 1, 2011, Renaissance Food Group, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Calavo Growers Inc. [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 CATHOLIC HEALTH: Nurses Sue Over Improper Wages for On-Call Hours ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Anderson, writing for Sand Hills Express, reports that seven current and former nurses at St. Elizabeth Regional Medical Center in Lincoln have named Catholic Health Initiatives in a federal lawsuit. The nurses allege that they were not paid what they were due under state and federal law for time worked while on call on weeknights, weekends and holidays. The lawsuit was filed on Feb. 6 in U.S. District Court in Lincoln. All of the nurses work for hourly wages, said Kathleen Neary of Lincoln, who filed the suit with fellow Lincoln attorney Vince Powers, Esq. -- vince@vpowerslaw.com Both state and federal law require employers to pay employees at least the statutory minimum wage for hours worked. The federal Fair Labor Standards Act requires that hourly employees be paid at a rate of 11/2 times their regular pay for any time worked beyond 40 hours a week, Neary said. In the lawsuit, the nurses allege that they did not receive the minimum wage, their regular hourly rate or overtime for services they provided during on-call hours, in violation of state and federal labor laws and of Catholic Health Initiatives' own policies. CHI Health officials in Omaha said in a statement on Feb. 8 that they are aware of the allegations made in the lawsuit. "CHI Health is looking into all matters raised in that complaint and will handle all appropriately," officials said. "Because this involves litigation, CHI Health cannot comment on any facts of the matter. CHI Health takes serious(ly) the allegations raised in this complaint, and is committed to full compliance with the law and fair treatment for all of its employees." Catholic Health Initiatives -- which, after a merger with Dignity Health, is now called CommonSpirit Health -- is the parent of CHI Health, which operates St. Elizabeth and other hospitals, clinics and facilities in Nebraska and Iowa. The nurses, Neary said, "thought long and hard about bringing the lawsuit because they love their jobs, they love taking care of their patients, but they just want what the law requires in terms of pay." While on call, the nurses routinely received work-related calls, emails and texts and were required to answer and respond to patient-related matters and occasionally speak with patients. During the weeks they were on call, according to the suit, their workweeks often exceeded 40 hours when their work at the hospital was combined with the active on-call work they performed. During the time period in question, according to the lawsuit, CHI's on-call policies said work "that can be taken care of with a phone call or access to work from home" would be paid at 1½ times the employee's base pay in 15-minute increments. The nurses say in the lawsuit that they were not paid according to that policy. Instead, the nurses allege, they were paid between $2 and $4 an hour for the entire on-call shift, regardless of the time they actually spent working. The nurses are asking to be paid the required rates only for the time they were actively working while on call, not for every minute of on-call time, Neary said. All worked for one department at the hospital. But Neary said they believe that many other employees working for different departments at CHI facilities in Nebraska and Iowa were also not properly paid for the on-call hours they worked. The lawsuit asks the judge to extend the complaint to include "all others similarly situated." The lawsuit says that group would include all current and former hourly CHI employees who did not receive the "statutory rate of pay and/or agreed upon wages for all active on-call work" from Feb. 6, 2015, to the present. In addition to St. Elizabeth, the suit lists 16 other CHI-run health care facilities in Nebraska and Iowa. Under federal law, Neary said, the attorneys would have to move for class-action status to include other nurses affected but not explicitly named in the suit. They must first wait until CHI files an answer to the lawsuit. A judge would then have to certify or deny class-action status. But Neary said state law includes a provision that appears to let them move ahead with the state claim "on behalf of all employees similarly situated" without formally moving for class-action status.[GN] CAVCO INDUSTRIES: Schall Law Firm Probing Securities Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, disclosed that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Cavco Industries, Inc. ("Cavco" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: CVCO) for violations of Section 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. The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information pertinent to investors. Cavco filed its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2018 after the market closed on November 8, 2018. The Company disclosed in its 10-Q that it had received an SEC Division of Enforcement subpoena on August 20, 2018. The SEC subpoena requested records of Cavco's trading in another public company's stock, amongst other details. Joseph Stegmayer, Cavco's former Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, received a similar SEC subpoena on October 1, 2018. Based on the news of SEC subpoenas, Cavco shares fell almost 23% on November 9, 2018. 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. Brian Schall, Esq. Sherin Mahdavian, Esq. The Schall Law Firm 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Email: brian@schallfirm.com. sherin@schallfirm.com [GN] CELGENE CORP: Bernstein Seeks to Halt Bristol-Myers Merger ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael A. Bernstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Celgene Corporation, Mark J. Alles, Richard W. Barker, Michael W. Bonney, Michael D. Casey, Carrie S. Cox, Michael A. Friedman, Julia A. Haller, Patricia Hemmingway Hall, James J. Loughlin, Ernest Mario and John H. Weiland, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04804 (D. N.J., February 6, 2019), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of Celgene by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Burgundy Merger Sub, Inc. will merge with and into Celgene, with Celgene surviving the merger and becoming its wholly-owned subsidiary. Bernstein claims that the merger documents omitted the valuation analyses prepared by J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. in support of their fairness opinion, specifically earnings per share estimates for Celgene for 2019 and revenue, EBITDA, adjusted EBITDA and free cash flow projections. [BN] Celgene is a biotechnology company that specializes in the discovery, development and commercialization of therapies for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases. Plaintiff is represented by: Gary S. Graifivan, Esq. Jay Brody, Esq. KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Rd. Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 Tel: (845) 356-2570 Fax: (845) 356-4335 Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com Email: jbrody@kgglaw.com - and - Howard T. Longman, Esq. Michael J. Klein, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 687-7230 Facsimile: (212) 490-2022 Email: abrody@ssbny.com hlongman@ssbny.com CEMTREX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Discloses Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Cullinan, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CEMTREX, INC., SAAGAR GOVIL, ARON GOVIL and RENATO DELA RAMA,Defendants. No.: 2:17-cv-01067 (JFB) (AYS) CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED CEMTREX, INC. SECURITIES DURING THE PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 26, 2012 THROUGH MARCH 6, 2017, INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that a hearing will be held on May 22, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 1040 before the Honorable Joseph F. Bianco, United States District Judge of the Eastern District of New York, 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, NY, 11722 (the "Settlement Hearing") for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement consisting of the sum of $625,000 (the "Settlement Amount") should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application for an award of attorneys' fees of $156,250 (25% of the Settlement Amount), reimbursement of litigation expenses of no more than $80,000, and an award to the Lead Plaintiffs as follows: amounts not to exceed $22,000 to Dr. Khetarpal; and $2,500 to each of the remaining lead plaintiffs Benjamin Webb, Gang Chen, Timothy Heath, and Minh Nguyen should be approved; and (4) whether the Class Action should be dismissed with prejudice. If you purchased Cemtrex, Inc. securities during the Class Period from December 26, 2012 through March 6, 2017, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this Class Action. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to the Claims Administrator at: Cemtrex, Inc. Litigation, c/o RG/2 Claims Administration LLC, or going to the website, www.rg2claims.com/cemtrex.html. If you are a member of the Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no later than April 15, 2019 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you would like to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than April 22, 2019, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, or payment to Lead Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than May 8, 2019 by each of the following: Clerk of the Court United States District Court Eastern District of New York 100 Federal Plaza Central Islip, NY 11722 Shannon L. Hopkins LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 Fax: (212) 363-7177 Douglas W. Greene BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98104-4040 Telephone: (206) 332-1380 Fax: (206) 624-7317 If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Class Counsel: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 Fax: (212) 363-7171 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 11, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN] CERES, CA: $75K Settlement in Amador FLSA Suit Gets Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JULIO AMADOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CERES, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00552-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the parties' stipulation for approval of the settlement agreement. On April 19, 2017, the Plaintiffs commenced the action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated the FLSA by omitting premium compensation items -- such as cash in lieu of health benefits and lump sum holiday pay -- from the regular rate of pay. On March 16, 2018, the parties submitted their stipulation for approval of the settlement agreement. On March 23, 2018, the Court issued an order directing the parties to provide supplemental briefing addressing why the proposed settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute, and also directed the parties to provide briefing on the issue of attorneys' fees. The Plaintiffs provided supplemental briefing on April 12, 2018, and the Defendant provided briefing on April 13, 2018. Upon considering the totality of the circumstances, Judge Drozd finds that the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. Among other things, he finds that under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant will pay the Plaintiffs a total sum of $75,300. Each Plaintiff will receive a minimum payment of $1,200 to account for both overtime pay and liquidated damages, with some Paintiffs receiving substantially more. Forcing the case to proceed to trial would dramatically inflate the fee award. The Judge accordingly finds it likely that further prolonging the litigation would generate needless litigation expenses for both sides, and that both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant will likely benefit financially by settling the action now. Accordingly, consideration of this factor weighs in favor of approval of the parties' FLSA settlement. Next, the release provision is limited to all grievances, disputes or claims of every nature and kind, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, arising from or attributable to the Plaintiffs' claims that the City violated the FLSA up to and including the Effective Date of the Agreement. This release provision, the Judge finds, is nearly identical to those previously found appropriate in FLSA cases, and he similarly finds that this release provision is reasonable. He also finds that there is a very low probability of fraud or collusion because the parties used payroll record data to calculate back overtime pay and liquidated damages, and provided all the Plaintiffs the opportunity to review their settlement amounts, the methodology used to calculate those amounts, and the attorneys' fees and costs. This approach, based on an objective analysis of the Plaintiffs' time records, guards against the arbitrariness that might suggest collusion. As to attorneys' fees and costs, according to the terms of the settlement, the Plaintiffs' counsel will be paid $51,566.38 in attorneys' fees and costs, out of a total settlement sum of $126,866.38. Attorneys' fees and costs represent roughly 41% of the maximum settlement amount, which is above the benchmark, and also slightly above comparable awards in other cases. Moreover, the Judge notes that although the requested fee award is above the Ninth Circuit's benchmark, the amount recovered for the Plaintiffs in the case appears to be high compared with the Defendants' anticipated liability at trial. He therefore approves the award of $51,566.28 in attorneys' fees and costs. For the forgoing reasons, Judge Drozd approved the Settlement Agreement, and entered the Stipulation and Order. Neither party is entitled to attorneys' fees and costs except as expressly specified in the Settlement Agreement. He dismissed the action with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/GZKzYi from Leagle.com. Julio Amador, Ross Bays, Steve Carvalho, Kari Carvalho, Jason Coley, James Dayton, Eric Gallegos, Arthur Hively, Coey Henson, Jeffrey Travis Hudson, Dirk Nieuwenthuis, Frederico Ortiz, Jr, Brian Petersen, Hector Pulido, Kiashira Ruiz, Charles Rushing, Jesus Salinas, Krandall Vandagriff, Darren Venn, Jonathan Vera, Danny Vierra, Michael Vierra, Trinidad Viramontes, Greg Yotsuya, Mark Anderson, Oyre Echols, Derrick Faria, Tammie Johnson, Devin Ladd, Justin Vosbein, Shawnna Yotsuya, Lorenzo Beltran, Matthew Berlier & Keith Griebel, Plaintiffs, represented by Gary G. Goyette -- goyetteg@goyette-assoc.com -- Goyette & Associates, Inc. City of Ceres, Defendant, represented by Jesse Jeremy Maddox -- jmaddox@lcwlegal.com -- Liebert Cassidy Whitmore & Michael David Youril -- mblacher@lcwlegal.com -- Liebert Cassidy Whitmore. CHARMIN FRESHMATES: Settles Flushable Wipes Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that there have been complaints that some are not really flushable and cause problems for sewers and septic systems. That's the class action lawsuit allegation involving Charmin Freshmates Flushable wipes. Scott Hardy with TopClassActions.com says a settlement means up to $30 back for you with proof of purchase. The company does not admit to any wrongdoing. Get an unwanted text message from Jenny Craig? A lawsuit alleges the weight loss business sent texts that disobeyed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The settlement means you could get part of up to $3 million. The company admits no wrongdoing. No real ginger in Canada Dry Ginger Ale? We've told you about this false advertising allegation before. The deadline to file a claim for part of the class action lawsuit settlement is March 19. The company claims no wrongdoing. [GN] CLUTCH LANDSCAPING: Accused by King Suit of Not Paying Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- SULTAN KING, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CLUTCH LANDSCAPING & MAINTENANCE, INC., AARON FRANK and PAUL WOLANIN, Case No. 1:19-cv-00452 (N.D. Ohio, February 28, 2019), alleges that, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Defendants did not pay overtime compensation to the Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Collective at time-and-a-half rate for all of the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Clutch Landscaping is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Cleveland, Ohio. The Individual Defendants are the owners of Clutch Landscaping. Clutch Landscaping provides landscaping, ground maintenance, snow removal and other services to customers at various locations throughout Cuyahoga County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC The Caxton Building 812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (216) 350-6313 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com COALINGA STATE: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Consiglio Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the United States District Court for the Eastern District California issued a Findings and Recommendation dismissing the Complaint in the case captioned SAM CONSIGLIO, JR., Plaintiff, v. COALINGA STATE HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:18-cv-00669-BAM (PC). (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Sam Consiglio, Jr. is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. A complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Detailed factual allegations are not required, but threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Coalinga State Hospital, Inc. and (2) Brandon Price, Executive Director. In Claim I, the Plaintiff alleges as follows: Coalinga State Hospital, Inc. is a very corrupt corporation and many of the staff are corrupt as well, especially Brandon Price the Program Director. A class action needs to be filed in this matter but Plaintiff is unable to afford an attorney. Plaintiff pleads for this court to appoint Janice Bellucci or any other competent attorney in order to put an end to this corruption. In Claim II, the Plaintiff alleges as follows: Title 9 can only be applied to prisoners. Title 9 can not be applied to civil detainees at Coalinga State Hospital. Defendants had no legal right to restrict packages for civil detainees on 6/22/17 and when they were ordered to rescind that illegal 6/22/17 memo, they had no legal right to retaliate against all patients by placing even more severe restrictions on packages and the Defendants then compounded these violations of the U.S. Constitution by denying Due Process. Defendants are being sued in their professional and personal capacity. The Plaintiff purports to bring this suit as a class action. However, a pro se litigant may not bring a class action on behalf of others. Accordingly, because the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he cannot assert claims on behalf of other Coalinga State Hospital civil detainees. The Plaintiff's complaint does not include sufficient facts for the Court to determine that he has stated a cognizable claim for relief. Plaintiff's conclusory assertions that his rights were violated by restrictions on the size and number of packages he can receive are not sufficient. The Plaintiff does not demonstrate that the restrictions are intended to punish, are excessive or that there are less restrictive methods. Rather, the exhibits attached to the complaint suggest that the package restrictions were adopted to reduce intoxication and improve the safety of staff and patients because excess property, pruno, illegal substances, and excess stamps all have a nexus to extortion, adverse medical outcomes, and violence. By imposing the restrictions, the institution anticipated a reduction in violence and safer working conditions for staff and a safer living and treatment environment for the patient population. Thus, it appears that the package restrictions were imposed with the objective to reduce violence and improve safety. If a particular condition or restriction of civil commitment is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it does not, without more, amount to punishment. Civil detainees enjoy constitutional protection under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which protects against state facilities' imposition of restrictions and other general conditions of confinement that do not reasonably serve a legitimate, non-punitive government objective. Here, the nature of the Plaintiff's due process claim is not entirely clear. That is, the Court cannot determine from the allegations whether Plaintiff is complaining about the procedural mechanism for implementing the regulations at issue, the actions in denying him particular packages, or both. Civil detainees are protected from retaliation by the First Amendment. A viable claim of First Amendment retaliation by a civil detainee entails five elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against plaintiff (2) because of (3) that plaintiff's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the plaintiff's exercise of his First Amendment rights and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. The Plaintiff does not allege facts to demonstrate that any defendant acted in retaliation for any protected conduct by Plaintiff. Conclusory allegations of retaliation are not sufficient to state a claim. In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation (2) the Court's need to manage its docket (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Here, the action has been pending since May 2018, and Plaintiff's first amended complaint is overdue. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance awaiting compliance by Plaintiff. Thus, the Court finds that both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. However, this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction, which is the case here. Finally, the court's warning to a party that failure to obey the court's order will result in dismissal satisfies the considerations of the alternatives requirement. Accordingly, It is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A, failure to obey the Court's orders and failure to prosecute this action. A full-text copy of the District Court’s February 21, 2019 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y542h6t2from Leagle.com Sam Consiglio, Jr., Plaintiff, pro se. COLGATE PALMOLIVE: ERISA Class Action in New York Still Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Colgate-Palmolive Company continues to defend a class action over residual annuity payments, the Company 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. In June 2016, a putative class action claiming that residual annuity payments made to certain participants in the Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the "Plan") did not comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed against the Plan, the Company and certain individuals in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This action has been certified as a class action. The relief sought includes recalculation of benefits, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees. Colgate-Palmolive said, "The Company is contesting this action vigorously. Since the amount of any potential loss from this case currently cannot be reasonably estimated, the range of reasonably possible losses in excess of accrued liabilities disclosed above does not include any amount relating to the case." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Colgate-Palmolive Company, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells consumer products worldwide. The company operates through two segments, Oral, Personal and Home Care; and Pet Nutrition. Colgate-Palmolive Company was founded in 1806 and is headquartered in New York, New York. COMCAST CORP: Can Compel Arbitration in O'Neil Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the case, ELIZABETH O'NEIL, Plaintiff, v. COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants (N.D. Ill.), Judge Harry D. Leinenweber of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stay the action in its entirety during the pendency of any resulting arbitration proceedings. O'Neil brings the putative class action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Comcast Corp. and Comcast Cable Communications failed to protect her personal information, resulting in identity thieves accessing that information and purchasing cell phones in her name. She claims the Defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, breached an implied contract, and unjustly enriched themselves. Comcast is a media and technology company. Comcast Cable is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Comcast. Xfinity is a brand of Comcast Cable, used to market its consumer cable television, internet, telephone, and wireless services. O'Neil has a Xfinity account for wireless internet at her residence. In April 2017, Comcast created a new wireless service named Xfinity Mobile. The Plaintiff never added Xfinity Mobile services to her account. In November 2017, she was alerted that several cell phones she did not purchase herself had been charged to her Xfinity account and shipped to various addresses in the United States. The phone purchases were processed in her name through Xfinity Mobile. Similar unauthorized purchases in her name occurred a few months later. The Plaintiff ultimately expended significant time and resources resolving these fraudulent purchases with Comcast and reporting the incidents to local law enforcement. In June 2018, the Plaintiff brought the lawsuit, claiming that the Defendants used existing cable and internet subscribers' personal information to open Xfinity Mobile accounts without their knowledge or consent. Because of the lack of security measures, unauthorized users could easily access these accounts and then fraudulently purchase cell phones. The Plaintiff brings suit on behalf of herself and all other Comcast subscribers who had cell phones fraudulently purchased in their name, through an account they neither created nor had knowledge of. She brings three counts, arguing: (1) Defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, by opening Xfinity Mobile accounts without subscribers' consent or knowledge, and failing to protect subscribers' personal information from unauthorized third parties; (2) the Defendants breached an implied contract to reasonably safeguard subscribers' personal information; and (3) the Defendants unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of Plaintiff and the putative class. The Defendants assert that the Plaintiff twice agreed to use arbitration for dispute resolution. Following installation of Comcast internet in her residence in November 2015, the Plaintiff received a copy of the Defendants' standard Subscriber Agreement. When the Plaintiff signed a work order confirming the installation, she both acknowledged receipt of the 2015 Subscriber Agreement and agreed to be bound by it. In August 2017, Comcast updated the 2015 Subscriber Agreement. Comcast sent her the 2017 Subscriber Agreement along with her August 2017 billing statement. Both the 2015 Subscriber Agreement and its 2017 replacement contain terms requiring arbitration in the case of a dispute. The Defendants now move to compel the Plaintiff to pursue her claims in individual arbitration, and to stay the action during the pendency of any resulting arbitration proceedings, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. Judge Leinenweber finds that the Defendants have made a prima facie showing that the 2017 Subscriber Agreement is a contract that binds the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has failed to offer any evidence to counter the Defendant's prima facie showing. Accordingly, the 2017 Subscriber Agreement constitutes a written agreement to arbitrate. Having found that a written agreement to arbitrate exists, the Judge turns to the question of whether the dispute at issue is within the scope of that agreement. He finds that the Plaintiff apparently views her Xfinity Mobile account as requiring a different contract with its own arbitration agreement. However, the Judge need not resolve that argument because he has already found the Plaintiff's claims to be within the scope of the arbitration provision in the 2017 Subscriber Agreement. Accordingly, the Defendants have satisfied the three requirements for a motion to compel arbitration. Finally, the Judge finds that the arbitration provision is not "unlimited" in scope. It is confined to disputes regarding the parties' relationship. As already discussed, the Plaintiff had a meaningful opportunity to opt out of the arbitration requirement without repercussions. Such an option "weighs strongly against" finding substantive unconscionability. Thus, the 2017 Subscriber Agreement is not substantively unconscionable. For the reasons he stated, Judge Leinenweber granted the Defendants' Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration and Stay Litigatio. The Plaintiff will comply with the written arbitration agreement in the 2017 Subscriber Agreement. The action is stayed in its entirety during the pendency of any resulting individual arbitration proceeding. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/xgTrPT from Leagle.com. Elizabeth O'Neil, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Sweetnam, Sweetnam LLC & Natasha Singh, Sweetnam LLC. Comcast Corporation & Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, doing business as, Xfinity Mobile, Defendants, represented by Jeffrey Thomas Norberg -- jnorberg@nealmcdevitt.com -- Neal & McDevitt, Meredith Connie Slawe -- mslawe@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice & Michael W. McTigue, Jr. -- mmctigue@akingump.com -- AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP, pro hac vice. COMPLETE BUILDING: Nautilus Files Class Suit Over Insurance Dispute ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit over an insurance dispute has been filed against Complete Building Corporation Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nautilus Insurance Company, Plaintiff v. Eloy Alonso, Mary Leigh Arnold as Receiver for Eloy Alonso, Complete Building Corporation Inc., Tri-County Roofing Inc, Palmetto Pointe at Peas Island Condominium Property Owners Association Inc and Jack Love, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00518-BHH (D. S.C., February 21, 2019). Complete Building Corporation provides building and construction services. The Company offers design, preconstruction, site supervision, general contracting, construction management, and value engineering services. Complete Building serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janice Holmes, Esq. Gallivan White and Boyd PO Box 7368 1201 Main Street, Suite 1200 Columbia, SC 29202 Tel: (803) 779-1833 Fax: (803) 779-1767 Email: jholmes@gwblawfirm.com - and - Shelley S Montague, Esq. Gallivan White and Boyd PO Box 7368 1201 Main Street, Suite 1200 Columbia, SC 29202 Tel: (803) 779-1833 Email: smontague@GWBlawfirm.com DELTA AIR: $2.3MM Schofield Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSEPH L. SCHOFIELD, Plaintiff, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00382-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The case is a class action for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, and the Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiffs are individuals who applied for employment at Defendant Delta Airlines and were given inadequate disclosure documents when consenting to background checks. More specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant did not provide a stand-alone form consisting of solely a background check disclosure form, as required by the FCRA and its counterpart state laws. The parties have agreed to settle the dispute and now seek the Court's approval of the proposed settlement. The pending motion requests the Court grants preliminary approval of the class settlement. The Settlement Agreement releases the FCRA and the state law claims related to the Defendant's conduct in obtaining background checks on applicants without using a stand-alone authorizing document that complies with the FCRA and accompanying state laws. The settlement is for $2.3 million for a class of approximately 44,100 class members. The class members will not need to make a claim but instead will automatically be enrolled in the class unless they choose to opt out. The notice provides an opportunity to opt out or object to the settlement. The Settlement Agreement allows the Plaintiff's counsel to seek up to a third of $2.3 million. Therefore, the Plaintiff's counsel can seek up to $766,666.66 in fees subject to court approval. The Plaintiff's counsel is going to seek 25% of the settlement amount. If the escalator clause causes the settlement amount to increase, the Plaintiff's counsel will seek up to 25% of the full amount, but not more than $766,666.66, since the settlement provides that is the maximum amount that can be awarded. Judge Chen, having fully reviewed the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, and the supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Declarations, including the Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement, and Notice of Settlement, and for good cause appearing, granted preliminary approval of the settlement based upon the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Judge finds that the Settlement falls within the range of reasonableness of a settlement (even under heightened scrutiny) which could ultimately be given final approval by the Court, and appears to be presumptively valid, subject only to any objections that may be raised at the Final Approval Hearing and final approval by the Court. He notes that the Defendant has agreed to create a common fund of $2.3 million to cover (a) settlement payments to the Class Members who do not validly opt out; (b) the Class Representative service payment of up to $10,000 for the Class Representative Joseph Schofield; (c) the Class Counsel's attorneys' fees, not to exceed 33-1/3% of the Gross Settlement Amount (the Class Counsel is requesting attorney fees in the amount of 25% of the Gross Settlement Amount), (d) actual litigation expenses incurred by the Class Counsel; and (e) reasonable Settlement Administration Costs (estimated to be approximately $70,000). In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the Judge certified the class, for purposes of settlement, of all persons in the United States who applied for employment with Delta and were the subject of a consumer report that was procured by Delta or caused to be procured by Delta at any time from Oct. 17, 2012, through Feb. 14, 2019. He approved Rust Consulting to perform the duties of the Settlement Administrator as set forth in the Order and the Settlement Agreement. Within 30 days of the issuance of the Order, Delta will provide the Settlement Administrator with the Class Member Database, as specified in the Settlement Agreement. Within 14 days after receipt of the Database, the Settlement Administrator will mail the Notice in the manner specified in the Settlement Agreement. The Judge ordered that any request for exclusion from the Settlement must be postmarked no later than 45 days after the Notice is initially mailed to the Class Members, and must be received by the Settlement Administrator to be valid. If more than 5% of the total number of the Class Members submit timely and valid opt-out requests, Delta will have the option to void the settlement. To exercise this option, the Defendant's Counsel must send written notification to Class Counsel within 14 days of receiving a report from the Settlement Administrator of the total number of timely and valid opt-out requests received from the Class Members. The Final Approval Hearing is set for July 11, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. The briefs regarding the settlement will be served and filed in accordance with the following briefing schedule: a. Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs - 14 days before the deadline for Class Members to submit objections to the settlement b. Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement and for Class Representative service payment - 28 days before the Final Approval Hearing c. Defendant's Counsel will file with the Court a declaration attesting that CAFA Notice has properly been served pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1715 - 14 days before the Final Approval hearing d. Reply briefs, if any - 14 days before the Final Approval Hearing The order disposes of Docket No. 40. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/X5H0g9 from Leagle.com. Joseph L. Schofield, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh -- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group, Ashley N. Batiste, Setareh Law Group, Farrah Grant, Setareh Law Group & Thomas Alistair Segal -- thomas@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group. Delta Air Lines, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Andrew Paul Frederick -- andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Maureen Nicole Beckley -- maureen.beckley@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP & Robert Jon Hendricks -- rj.hendricks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. DENVER, CO: Ct. Denies Bid to Exclude Witness Testimony in "Lyall" ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the District of Colorado issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine in the case captioned RAYMOND LYALL, GARRY ANDERSON, THOMAS PETERSON, FREDRICK JACKSON, BRIAN COOKS, and WILLIAM PEPPER, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF DENVER, a municipal corporation, Defendant. Civil Action No. 16-cv-2155-WJM-SKC. (D. Colo.). Currently before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine for Order Suspending Camping Ban Enforcement During Trial. The Plaintiffs are homeless persons living on Denver's streets. Proceeding via 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, they bring this class action lawsuit against Defendant City of Denver, arguing that Denver clears homeless encampments through unconstitutional mass sweeps. The camping ban in question is Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) Section 38-86.2, which prohibits camping on public property not expressly approved for that purpose, or private property without consent of the property owner. Plaintiffs have not challenged the camping ban itself in this lawsuit. But the Plaintiffs argue that, absent an order suspending enforcement of the camping ban during trial, Denver may deprive them of their constitutional right of access to the courts because Plaintiffs and their witnesses will not be able to sleep close enough to the courthouse to make it here in time for their testimony. The Court presumes without deciding that it has power to enter the requested order, regardless of how Plaintiffs have captioned their motion. First, the degree to which DRMC Section 38-86.2 might disrupt a witness's ability to testify is speculative. The Plaintiffs have presented nothing demonstrating that Denver's enforcement of that ordinance is continuous and systematic, such that the Plaintiffs or their witnesses have a high likelihood on any day or night, in any location, of being told to move along repeatedly until they have moved so far away that they cannot make it back to the courthouse on time. Second, it is always the responsibility of the party calling the witness more specifically, the attorney representing the party calling the witness to ensure the witness's presence, by way of subpoena or other arrangements. The Court recognizes that this is a greater challenge as to the named Plaintiffs and many of the Plaintiffs' witnesses, but Mr. Flores-Williams's ability to overcome these unique hurdles is precisely why the Court approved him as class counsel, despite other misgivings. The Court is frankly surprised that Mr. Flores-Williams or the Plaintiffs' other attorneys have not already made arrangements to ensure their clients' and witnesses' availability at trial. Third, the Plaintiffs' motion and attached declarations fail to mention the various homeless shelters within easy walking distance of the courthouse, much less explain why those shelters will not provide adequate overnight accommodations for the named Plaintiffs and their witnesses. Fourth, the Court does not have anything approaching a record sufficient to evaluate what effect an order suspending DRMC Section 38-86.2 might have on Denver. And the Court is frankly concerned that any such order would take on a life of its own. As the Plaintiffs' other two attorneys (Messrs. Lane and McNulty) are well aware from their participation in an unrelated lawsuit, the Court previously granted a limited preliminary injunction purposefully worded very narrowly against official efforts to prevent distribution of jury nullification literature on the exterior grounds of Denver's Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse. The Court predicts that if it enjoined Denver from enforcing DRMC Section 38-86.2, similar problems may arise, and on a larger scale. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine for Order Suspending Camping Ban Enforcement During Trial is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 21, 2019 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y3tsz52cfrom Leagle.com. Raymond Lyall, Garry Anderson, Thomas Peterson, Fredrick Jackson, Brian Cooks & William Pepper, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Joseph McNulty -- AMcNulty@KLN-law.com -- Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP, David Arthur Lane -- dlane@kln-law.com -- Killmer Lane & Newman, LLP & Jason Flores -- Jason@Jasonfloreslaw.com -- Law Office of Jason Flores. City of Denver, municipal corporation, Defendant, represented by Conor Daniel Farley, Denver City and County Attorney's Office, Geoffrey Charles Klingsporn, Denver City Attorney's Office, Michele Annette Horn, Denver City Attorney's Office & Wendy J. Shea, Denver City and County Attorney's Office. DESI GALLI: Galeana Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arturo Galeana, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Desi Galli Inc., Second Desi Galli, LLC d/b/a Desi Galli, and Priavanda Chouhan, Case No. 1:19-cv-01901 (S.D.N.Y., February 28, 2019), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff and the class are entitled to unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay. Desi Galli Inc. is a New York corporation with a principal place of business in New York City. Second Desi Galli, LLC, doing business as Desi Galli, is a company organized under the laws of the state of New York with a principal place of business in New York City. Priavanda Chouhan is an owner or part owner and principal of the Desi Galli restaurants. The Defendants have owned and operated Indian restaurants in Manhattan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com DITECH FINANCIAL: Court Requires Bankruptcy Status Report --------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued an Order requiring Bankruptcy Filing Status Report in the case captioned LEE C. KAMIMURA, Plaintiff, v. DITECH FINANCIAL LLC, Defendant. Case No. 2:16-cv-00783-APG-CWH. (D. Nev.) The parties indicated they were preparing to file a motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. However, defendant Ditech Financial LLC filed a notice of bankruptcy. The parties shall file a status report regarding the impact of the bankruptcy filing on the resolution of this case. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 21, 2019 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yytt9nw6from Leagle.com. Lee C. Kamimura, Plaintiff, represented by David H. Krieger -- dkrieger@hainesandkrieger.com -- Haines & Krieger, LLC, Abbas Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC, pro hac vice & Michael Kind -- mkind@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC. Ditech Financal LLC, formerly known as Green Tree Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Donald H. Cram -- dhc@severson.com -- Severson & Werson, pro hac vice, Mary C. Kamka -- mkk@severson.com -- Severson & Werson, pro hac vice, Laszlo Ladi -- ll@severson.com -- Severson & Werson & Laura R. Jacobsen -- ljacobsen@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald Carano & Wilson. DOW JONES: Court Dismisses 1st Amended Horton Suit -------------------------------------------------- Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case, ROBERT JEREMY HORTON, Plaintiff, v. DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., Defendan, Case No. 18 Civ. 4027 (LGS) (S.D. N.Y.). The Plaintiff brings the action against Dow Jones, individually and on behalf of members of a putative class of Wall Street Journal ("WSJ") subscribers between May 4, 2015, and July 30, 2016. The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Michigan Video Rental Privacy Act. The Defendant publishes the WSJ. The Plaintiff ordered a digital and print subscription to the WSJ in his name on March 13, 2014, through the WSJ website. The subscription was for a "12 for 12" promotion under which the Plaintiff received twelve weeks of access to print and online materials for $12. To complete the purchase, the Plaintiff had to agree to a subscriber agreement by clicking a check-box under the bolded title "Subscriber Agreement" and clicking the "Complete Purchase" button. The Plaintiff concedes he entered into the Agreement. The Arbitration Clause designates threshold issues relating to the scope, application, and enforceability of the arbitration provision to courts. Section 11 of the Agreement provides that New York law, without regard to its choice of law principles, will apply to any and all claims arising from this agreement. The Arbitration Clause also contains a survival clause, which states that the agreement to arbitrate will survive termination of the Agreement. The First Amended Class Action Complaint alleges that between May 4, 2015, and July 30, 2016, Dow Jones sold information that identifies the Plaintiff as having purchased a subscription to the Wall Street Journal to third parties without his consent. He seeks to represent a putative class of all Michigan subscribers who, at any point in time between May 4, 2015, and July 30, 2016, had personal Reading Information disclosed to third parties without written consent. The Complaint alleges that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's class claim under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), because at least one class member is diverse from the Defendant and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of $5 million. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that there are more than 100 class members, each claiming $5,000 in damage. Judge Schofield holds that the Class Waiver is enforceable and bars the Plaintiff's claim from proceeding on a class basis, whether in arbitration or in court. She also holds that the Plaintiff's Michigan state law claim is not arbitrable, but she declines to exercise over it. The Judge finds that the Class Waiver expressly pertains to "class arbitrations and class actions." A reading that confines the prohibition on class litigation to arbitration would render meaningless the phrase "and class actions." This interpretation runs contrary to the well-settled principle that "courts are obliged to interpret a contract so as to give meaning to all of its terms" and avoid interpretations that "render any portion meaningless." The Class Waiver is enforceable and bars the Plaintiff from proceeding on a class basis. Further, the Arbitration Clause states that except for claims related to intellectual property and disputes that qualify for small claims court, any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to the Agreement or any aspect of the relationship between them will be resolved by arbitration. This language expressly exempts disputes that qualify for small claims court from arbitration. Having decided that the claim is not arbitrable, the Judge declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state law claim. The case is in the early stages of litigation; the parties have not conducted any discovery or engaged in any motion practice on the merits of the state law claim. The case is therefore dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Schofield denied the Plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration, and dismissed the case. She denied as moot the Defendant's Motion for Oral Argument. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 27, 34 and 42 and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/0RFidw from Leagle.com. Robert Jeremy Horton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Frank Hedin, Hedin Hall LLP, Sean Thomas Masson -- SMASSON@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Scott Scott, L.L.P. & Thomas Livezey Laughlin, IV -- TLAUGHLIN@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Scott Scott, L.L.P. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., doing business as The Wall Street Journal, Defendant, represented by Natalie J. Spears -- natalie.spears@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Sandra Denise Hauser -- sandra.hauser@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP & Kristen C. Rodriguez -- kristen.rodriguez@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, pro hac vice. DURA-LINE CORP: Brown Seek Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Prep Time ------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Dura-Line Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00286 (N.D. Ohio, February 6, 2019), seeks overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for the hours they worked over 40 each workweek pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Dura-Line manufacturers and distributes communication and energy infrastructure products and systems in Elyria, Ohio. Brown worked as an operator at their Elyria, Ohio facility between January 2017 and January 2019. He claims overtime compensation for work performed before and after their scheduled start and stop times, including but not limited to, changing into and out of their personal protective equipment and walking to their assigned area of the manufacturing floor. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: (216) 696-5000 Fax: (216) 696-7005 Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com DUVAL COUNTY, FL: Cash Bail System Biased vs Poor People, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Shelby Danielsen, writing for FirstCoastNews.com, reports that located on prime downtown real estate, the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office is hard to miss. Surrounding it are just as hard-to-miss bright, neon lights of bail bonds companies. With nearly 60 bail companies in Duval County in total, their services are in high demand. On Feb. 8, a day when their business seemed to be thriving, others are questioning the justice of it all, like civil rights attorney Bill Sheppard, Esq. -- sheplaw@sheppardwhite.com "It's biased against poor people, it doesn't favor the rich, it harms the poor," said Sheppard. "What we have is a system where if you've got money, you get out." He is fighting the cash bail system with a pending class action lawsuit in federal court and a similar case in state court. Bail is cash collateral meant to ensure that defendants show up for their court date, but Shepperd argues that "fleeing" or not showing up for court is exceedingly rare. "Ninety-nine percent of them are going to appear in court whether they have money or not," he said. Like Sheppard, advocates of bail reform argue that minor crimes keep poor people in jail for long periods, contributing to jail overcrowding. Because of that, he says, people are pressured to plead guilty just to get out of jail, even when they are innocent. "A substantial amount of people are in jail because they are indigent," Sheppard said. "They don't have the funds to take part in the 'buy-your-freedom' scheme." Sheppard argues that the federal system is fair since a defendant only has to post bail if they don't show up for their court date. This October, California will join New Jersey in abolishing its cash bail system, excluding people accused of violent felonies. Sheppard believes this is the start of nationwide reform and he plans to be a part of it. In the 80s and 90s, he led the charge on jail reform and went on to argue in our country's highest court. "I'm not going away," Sheppard said. "I'm going to stay with this issue for as long as I live." First Coast News spoke with dozens of bail bonds agents on Feb. 8, most of whom said they felt strongly about defending their industry but were too busy to discuss the matter. We also reached to the association for local bail bond businesses in Duval County, but they were unable to comment at this time. [GN] E-VERIFILE.COM: Gunn Suit Transferred to S.D. Mississippi --------------------------------------------------------- The case Steven D. Gunn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. E-Verifile.com, Inc., BNSF Railway Company, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, and Railroad Controls, LP, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00457, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson) on March 11, 2019. The Southern District of Mississippi Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00176-CWR-LRA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. The suit alleges Fair Credit Reporting Act violation. e-VERIFILE.COM, Inc. provides risk assessment, administrative support, and workforce solutions. It offers workforce safety and security assessments that include criminal background investigation with optional automated adverse; action notification and/or information analytics and grading; the U.S. government watch searches; certificate and license verification; motor vehicle reports; employment and reference verification; drug testing; medical credentialing; and professional license/credentials verification.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Matthew A. Dooley, Esq. Stephen M. Bosak, Esq. O'Toole McLaughlin Dooley & Pecora 5455 Detroit Road Sheffield Village, OH 44054 Telephone: (449) 930-4001 Facsimile: (440) 934-7208 E-mail: mdooley@omdplaw.com sbosak@omdplaw.com Attorneys for the E-Verifile.com, Inc.: Erica L. Calderas, Esq. HAHN, LOESER & PARKS-CLEVELAND 2800 BP Tower 200 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 274-2533 Facsimile: (216) 274-2539 E-mail: elcalderas@hahnlaw.com - and - Henry M. Perlowski, Esq. Megan P. Mitchell, Esq. ARNALL, GOLDEN & GREGORY-ATLANTA 171 Seventeenth Street, NW, Ste. 2100 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone: (404) 873-8684 Facsimile: (404) 873-8501 E-Mail: henry.perlowski@agg.com megan.mitchell@agg.com Attorneys for the BNSF Railway Company and Norfolk Southern Railway Company: John Gerak, Esq. Matthew T. Wholey, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART-CLEVELAND Ste. 4100 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 241-6100 Facsimile: (216) 357-4733 E-mail: john.gerak@ogletree.com matthew.wholey@ogletree.com - and - Robert S. Hawkins, Esq COZEN O'CONNOR - PHILADELPHIA One Liberty Place, Ste. 2800 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 665-2015 Facsimile: (646) 461-2097 E-mail: rhawkins@cozen.com Attorneys for Railroad Controls, LP: Amber L. Merl, Esq. Michael H. Carpenter, Esq. CARPENTER, LIPPS & LELAND-COLUMBUS 280 North High Street, Ste. 1300 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 365-4100 Facsimile: (614) 365-9145 E-mail: merl@carpenterlipps.com carpenter@carpenterlipps.com - and - Louis A. DePaul, Esq. Thomas J. Sweeney, Esq. ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT U. S. Steel Tower, 44th Floor 600 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 566-6968 Facsimile: (412) 566-6099 E-mail: ldepaul@eckertseamans.com tsweeney@eckertseamans.com EDELSTEIN & EDELSTEIN: Smith Seeks to Recover Damages Under FDCPA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Smith v. Edelstein & Edelstein, PC, an Illinois professional corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-01446 (N.D. Ill., February 28, 2019), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for a finding that the Defendant's form debt collection letter violated the FDCPA, and to recover damages. Edelstein & Edelstein, PC, is an Illinois professional corporation and law firm that acts as a debt collector, as defined by the FDCPA. Edelstein operates a debt collection business and attempts to collect debts from consumers in the state of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Philipps, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. Angie K. Robertson, Esq. PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Telephone: (708) 974-2900 Facsimile: (708) 974-2907 E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com mephilipps@aol.com angie@philippslegal.com EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Injunction Bid in Prince Suit Withdrawn ---------------------------------------------------------- Edge Therapeutics, 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 plaintiffs in the case, Jeffrey L. Prince v. Edge Therapeutics et al., have withdrawn their motion for preliminary injunction. Edge and the Edge Board have been named as defendants in two individual lawsuits and two putative class action lawsuits regarding the potential merger, each of which alleges that the registration statement on Form S-4 (Registration No. 333-228937) filed by the Edge on December 21, 2018 omitted material information with respect to the proposed transaction, which rendered the registration statement on Form S-4 false or misleading. The case captioned Michael Condon v. Edge Therapeutics et al., case no. 2:19-cv-00152, or the Condon Action, was filed on January 4, 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case captioned Adam Franchi et al. v. Edge Therapeutics et al., case no. 1:19-cv-00058-UNA, or the Franchi Action, was filed on January 9, 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case captioned Jeffrey L. Prince v. Edge Therapeutics et al., case no. 1:19-cv-00280, or the Prince Action, was filed on January 10, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case captioned Brian Foldenauer et al. v. Edge Therapeutics et al., case no. 1:19-cv-00280, or the Foldenauer Action, was filed on January 22, 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The causes of action set forth in each of the Condon Action, the Franchi Action, the Prince Action and the Foldenauer Action are (i) a claim against Edge and the Board for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as (ii) a claim against the Board for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In the Franchi Action, PDS was also named as a defendant in respect of the claim regarding violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In each case, the plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief, rescissory damages, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Edge has voluntarily accepted service of process in the Franchi Action and Prince Action, but has not yet been served with process in the Condon Action or the Foldenauer Action. On January 18, 2019, the plaintiffs in the Prince Action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction barring any stockholder vote on the proposed merger until revised disclosures are made to Edge's stockholders, and withdrew the motion for a preliminary injunction on February 1, 2019. Edge believes the litigation is without merit and in any event has been rendered moot by amendment no. 1 to the Registration Statement on S-4 filed by Edge on January 25, 2019 and subsequent disclosures. This litigation remains in the initial pleadings phase. Edge Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology company, discovers, develops, and seeks to commercialize hospital-based therapies for acute life-threatening neurological and other conditions. Edge Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey. EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Sanfilippo Securities Voluntarily Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Edge Therapeutics, 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 lead plaintiffs in the case, Sanfilippo v. Edge Therapeutics, Inc., have voluntarily dismissed the action, without prejudice, as to all defendants. On April 23, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint was filed against Edge, Brian Leuthner (Edge's President and Chief Executive Officer) and Andrew Saik (Edge's Chief Financial Officer) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Sanfilippo v. Edge Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-8236. The complaint alleged that Edge, Mr. Leuthner and Mr. Saik violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements concerning Edge's business, operations and prospects by failing to disclose that Edge's developmental product EG-1962 allegedly would likely fail a futility analysis. The complaint also asserted a "control" person claim against Mr. Leuthner and Mr. Saik pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint was brought on behalf of all purchasers of Edge’s common stock between December 27, 2017, and March 27, 2018, and sought unspecified damages. On December 7, 2018, the court appointed Sam Kirkpatrick and Amos Bakouple lead plaintiffs for the putative class and appointed the firm Glancy, Prongay & Murray LLP lead counsel for the putative class. On February 14, 2019, the lead plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action, without prejudice, as to all defendants. Edge Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology company, discovers, develops, and seeks to commercialize hospital-based therapies for acute life-threatening neurological and other conditions. Edge Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey. ELITE STAFFING: Hudson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------ Willie Hudson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Elite Staffing Global, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00094, (E.D. Ark., February 6, 2019) seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Elite is a national full-service staffing company providing temporary workers, temporary-to-permanent placement workers, direct-hire services and on-site managed programs staffing and workforce needs. It assigned Hudson to the manufacturing facility operated by Welspun Pipes, Inc., Welspun Tubular LLC, and/or Welspun USA, Inc. Hudson claims to have regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week throughout his tenure without the appropriate overtime pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. Daniel Ford, Esq. Chris Burks, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com chris@sanfordlawfirm.com daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Court's OK on McGee Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Endurance International Group Holdings, 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 parties in the case, William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al., are still awaiting court approval on the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant Contact and two of its former officers. An amended complaint, which named an additional former officer as a defendant, was filed December 19, 2016. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and non-disclosure of material facts, regarding Constant Contact's business, operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class period of October 23, 2014 to July 23, 2015. The parties mediated the claims on March 27, 2018, and as a result of that mediation reached an agreement in principle with the lead plaintiff to settle the action. The parties then negotiated the terms and conditions of a stipulation and agreement of settlement and related papers, which, among other things, provide for the release of all claims asserted against Constant Contact and its former officers. On May 18, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion seeking preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, certification of the proposed settlement class for settlement purposes only, and approval of notice to the settlement class. The court has not yet ruled on this motion. Endurance International said, "Our contribution to the settlement pool under the proposed settlement would be approximately equal to the $7.3 million we reserved during the three months ended September 30, 2018 in connection with a possible settlement of both this action and the Endurance Machado litigation. We cannot make any assurances as to whether or when the settlement will be approved by the court." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides cloud-based platform solutions for small-and medium-sized businesses in the United States and internationally. The company operates in three segments: Web Presence, Domain, and Email Marketing. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts. ENERGEN RESOURCES: Filing of 2nd Amended Ulibarri Suit Allowed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GERALD ULIBARRI, Plaintiff, v. ENERGEN RESOURCES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. CIV 1:18cv0294 RB/SCY (D. N.M.), Judge Robert C. Brack of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Case Management Order Setting Deadlines for Filing Amended Claims and Adding Additional Parties and Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiff brings the putative class action on behalf of himself and other class members to recover proceeds they are allegedly owed under Royalty Agreements with Defendant Energen. The Plaintiff filed both his original Class Action Complaint and his First Amended Class Action Complaint on March 29, 2018. He brings claims for breach of contract and violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act. Energen filed its Answer and Counterclaim on May 25, 2018. The Court filed its Order Setting Case Management Deadlines and Discovery Parameters for Pre-Class Certification Discovery on Aug. 3, 2018. The Court imposed a deadline of Sept. 14, 2018, for the Plaintiff to move to amend his pleadings or add additional parties. Non-expert discovery pertaining to class certification ended on Nov. 30, 2018. The Court imposed a briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, with the motion due on March 11, 2018, and briefing complete on April 26, 2019. Following certification-related discovery, the Plaintiff filed the motion to amend. He seeks to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint with three changes: (1) the removal of allegations related to tolling under the applicable statute of limitations; (2) the addition of White River Royalties, LLC as an additional named Plaintiff; and (3) the amendment of the class definition to include two newly discovered types of Royalty Agreements. With respect to the third change, the Plaintiff's proposed class in the Second Amended Complaint would include all persons and entities to whom Energen paid royalties on natural gas produced by Energen from wells located in the state of New Mexico between March 29, 2012, and May 31, 2015, pursuant to leases or overriding royalty agreements. The fourth and fifth types of Royalty Agreements in the list are new to the Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff's substantive allegations and claims for relief remain unchanged. Energen does not oppose removing the allegations regarding the statute of limitations, but it does oppose the other two changes. It contends that the Plaintiff learned of the information that forms the basis for his motion in late August 2018; thus his motion—filed approximately four weeks after the deadline to file a motion to amend -- is untimely. At the heart of the Plaintiff's case are leases that Energen originally had an interest in. Energen sold most of its interest in the leases to Southland Royalty Co. in March 2015. In fact, the Plaintiff has a related case pending in the Court against Southland. The Plaintiff has received similar discovery consisting of approximately 300 leases from both Energen and Southland, as many leases that Southland currently holds were formerly held by Energen. On Aug. 15, 2018, Southland produced leases that contained the two new royalty provisions that the Plaintiff seeks to add to the class definition. On Aug. 29, 2018, Energen produced leases with the gross proceeds without deduction of post-production costs royalty provision language, but no lease containing the "greater market value or gross proceeds royalty provision" language. On Sept. 17, 2018, the Plaintiff's counsel (Mr. Robert Harken) gave Energen's counsel a list of the leases Southland had produced but Energen had not, in an effort to help Energen complete its production. Presumably, these leases included the two new royalty provisions. Energen's counsel responded on Oct. 5, 2018, and produced some, but not all of the leases on the Plaintiff's list. Energen's counsel stated that it had no intention to produce lease agreements with the "greater market value or gross proceeds royalty provision" language, because that provision does not appear in the First Amended Complaint's class definition. On Aug. 30, 2018, Southland produced discovery that identified White River as a potential class member. Because White River is a long-time client of the Plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Harken reached out to White River to determine whether and under what lease agreements it had received royalties from Energen. On Sept. 13, 2018, White River Royalties confirmed it had received royalties from Energen. Energen produced data on Sept. 19, 2018, that identified White River as a potential class member. White River has asked Mr. Harken to participate in this litigation as a named Plaintiff. Energen argues that Plaintiff lacks good cause under Rule 16 to file its motion approximately four weeks after the deadline to amend the complaint or add another party has passed. Judge Brack finds that it is clear that the Plaintiff learned of the additional information relatively late in discovery. The Plaintiff adequately explained that Mr. Harken had to perform an independent investigation of a large number of leases that were produced over the course of several months -- some even after the deadline to file a motion to amend had passed. Thus, despite Mr. Harken's diligent efforts, he was unable to meet the scheduling order deadline. The deadline for the motion to certify has not yet passed, and the Court is willing to grant the parties an extension on that briefing schedule if necessary. For these reasons, the Judge finds good cause to grant the Plaintiff's motion to extend the deadline to file an amended complaint. Having granted the Plaintiff's motion to extend the relevant case management deadline, the Judge turns to the motion to amend the complaint. First, he will grant the Plaintiff's motion to remove allegations relating to the statute of limitations, as Energen does not oppose the request. Energen opposes the remaining two proposed amendments on the grounds that the Plaintiff's request is untimely and that Energen will be prejudiced by the amendments. The Judge finds that the Plaintiff waited only weeks to file the motion (approximately six weeks after receiving the discovery and taking time to independently investigate the discovery, and less than two weeks after Energen confirmed it had the relevant leases), and the parties are not up against a trial date. He finds that any delay in the Plaintiff's motion was not undue. He also finds that Energen will not be unduly prejudiced by the addition of the two new types of royalty provisions. The Judge does not make the same decision with respect to the addition of White River as a named Plaintiff. The Plaintiff never offers a valid reason to add White River, he merely states that White River "requested to participate in the litigation as a named Plaintiff. The Plaintiff offers no further explanation to demonstrate what benefit will accrue if the Court adds White River, as its leases contain the same type of royalty provisions as those held by Mr. Ulibarri -- the current named Plaintiff. Because the Plaintiff has not offered any legitimate reason to add White River as a named Plaintiff, the Judge does not find that justice requires the amendment and will deny the Plaintiff's motion as to this amendment. Based on the foregoing, Judge Brack granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Case Management Order Setting Deadlines for Filing Amended Claims and Adding Additional Parties and Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Class Action Complaint as described. The Plaintiff must file his Second Amended Class Action Complaint no later than March 4, 2019. If the parties wish to extend any other case management deadline in the matter, they must confer and file a motion no later than March 7, 2019. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/xtQYgF from Leagle.com. Gerald Ulibarri, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by A. Michael Chapman -- mchapman@ncg-law.com -- Newbold Chapman & Geyer, P.C., George Barton -- gab@georgebartonlaw.com -- Law Offices of George Barton, P.C. & Stacy Burrows -- stacy@georgebartonlaw.com -- Law Offices of George A. Barton, PC. Energen Resources Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradford C. Berge -- bberge@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP, Christopher A. Chrisman -- cachrisman@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP, pro hac vice & Lauren R. Caplan -- lrcaplan@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP, pro hac vice. Energen Resources Corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by Christopher A. Chrisman, Holland & Hart LLP, pro hac vice. Gerald Ulibarri, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons, Counter Defendant, represented by A. Michael Chapman, Newbold Chapman & Geyer, P.C., George Barton, Law Offices of George Barton, P.C. & Stacy Burrows, Law Offices of George A. Barton, PC. ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces 2 Merger-Related Class Suits -------------------------------------------------------- Enterprise Financial Services Corp said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 22, 2019, that the company has been named as defendant in two lawsuits over the merger deal with Trinity Capital Corporation. The company previously announced the proposed merger between Trinity Capital Corporation ("Trinity") and Enterprise Financial Services Corp (the "Merger"). A putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico on January 22, 2019 against Trinity, the members of the Trinity board of directors and Enterprise. In addition, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on February 12, 2019 against Trinity and the members of the Trinity board of directors. The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and certain rules and regulations promulgated thereunder by not disclosing in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus certain allegedly material facts. Trinity believes that the claims asserted in the lawsuits are without merit. However, to avoid the risk that the lawsuits may delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending the lawsuits, Trinity has voluntarily made the supplemental disclosures related to the Merger. Trinity specifically denies that any further disclosure is required to supplement the Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable law. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://goo.gl/Pyg774. Enterprise Financial Services Corp operates as the financial holding company for Enterprise Bank & Trust that offers banking and wealth management services to individuals and corporate customers. Enterprise Financial Services Corp was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Clayton, Missouri. EQT CORP: Tentative Settlement Reached in Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Wheeling Intelligencer reports that EQT Corp., the defendant in a class-action lawsuit against West Virginia landowners, reached a tentative $53.5 million settlement with the West Virginia landowners who filed the suit. The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia in 2013, claims the natural gas production company EQT had improperly taken post-production deductions from the royalty payments owed to landowners. Those claims cover the period between 2009 and 2017. Judge John Preston Bailey presided over the case. EQT disclosedthe tentative deal on Feb. 13. In the settlement, EQT agrees to pay $53.5 million into a settlement fund that will be established to distribute payments to the plaintiffs. Additionally, certain participants may elect to instead adopt a standard lease pooling modification in exchange for an increase in their royalties, ranging from 2 percent to 18 percent, at the court's discretion. "EQT is working diligently to resolve this matter with our leaseholders and earn their confidence, as well as that of other West Virginia residents and community leaders," EQT CEO Robert McNally said. "This was an opportunity to turn over a new leaf in our relationship with our West Virginia leaseholders and this mutually beneficial agreement demonstrates our renewed commitment to the state of West Virginia." Linda Robertson, manager of media relations for EQT, did not return calls on Feb. 14 seeking additional comment and further information. The plaintiff's legal representative, Kay Company LLC, could not be reached for comment. EQT Corp. operates in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania with an emphasis on the Appalachian Basin. It has been in business for 130 years and says it is the largest producer of natural gas in the United States.[GN] EQUIFAX INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Public Records Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Equifax 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 and the plaintiffs' attorneys in the lawsuit over public records have reached an agreement in principle. Equifax has been named as a defendant in 19 putative class action lawsuits pending in federal courts across the country relating to its reporting of civil judgments and tax liens on consumers' credit files. In October 2018, Equifax and the plaintiffs' attorneys who filed the lawsuits reached an agreement in principle to settle the public records-related claims at issue on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers and the company accrued an estimate of its liability for these matters in the third quarter of 2018. Equifax said, "The amount accrued represents our best estimate of the liability related to this matter and is not material to the Consolidated Financial Statements. The parties have filed notices of settlement in the pending lawsuits and have begun drafting a settlement agreement and preliminary approval papers to file with the requisite court. If the final terms of a settlement agreement cannot be agreed upon, or if the settlement is not ultimately approved by the court, Equifax believes it has valid defenses to each of these actions and will continue to defend against them." Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. EQUIFAX INC: Cybersecurity-Related Suits in Canada Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Equifax 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 class action lawsuits in Canada in relation to a 2017 cybersecurity incident. Seven Canadian class actions, five of which are on behalf of a national class of approximately 19,000 Canadian consumers, have been filed against the company in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Quebec and British Columbia. Each of the proposed Canadian class actions asserts a number of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages and other related relief in connection with the 2017 cybersecurity incident. The plaintiffs in each case seek class certification/authorization on behalf of Canadian consumers whose personal information was allegedly impacted by the 2017 cybersecurity incident. In some cases, plaintiffs also seek class certification on behalf of Canadian consumers who had contracts for subscription products with Equifax around the time of the incident. Equifax said, "All purported class actions are at preliminary stages, and we are opposing class certification or authorization in cases where such motions are pending. In addition, one of the cases in Ontario as well as the Saskatchewan case have been stayed. The Court’s order staying the Saskatchewan case is on appeal." Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Suits in Georgia Stayed ------------------------------------------------ Equifax 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 Fulton County Business Court has stayed the single and consolidated class action lawsuit over data breach. Four putative class actions arising from the 2017 cybersecurity incident were filed against the company in Fulton County Superior Court and Fulton County State Court in Georgia based on similar allegations and theories as alleged in the U.S. consumer class actions pending in the MDL Court and seek monetary damages, injunctive relief and other related relief on behalf of Georgia citizens. These cases have been transferred to a single judge in the Fulton County Business Court and three of the cases were consolidated into a single action. On July 27, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the Company's motion to stay the remaining single case, and on August 17, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the Company's motion to stay the consolidated case. Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. EQUIFAX INC: Small Businesses' Data Breach Claims Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- Equifax 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 claims by small businesses over a data breach in 2017 have been dismissed. Since a 2017 cybersecurity incident, hundreds of class actions and other lawsuits have been filed against the company typically alleging harm from the 2017 cybersecurity incident and seeking various remedies, including monetary and injunctive relief. The company dispute the allegations in the complaints and intend to defend against such claims. In addition, numerous governmental agencies are investigating the company in connection with the 2017 cybersecurity incident, which may result in fines, settlements or other relief. Hundreds of class actions were filed against the company in federal and state courts relating to the 2017 cybersecurity incident. The plaintiffs in these cases, who purport to represent various classes of U.S. consumers and small businesses, generally claim to have been harmed by alleged actions and/or omissions by Equifax in connection with the 2017 cybersecurity incident and assert a variety of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and other related relief. In addition, certain class actions have been filed by financial institutions that allege their businesses have been placed at risk due to the 2017 cybersecurity incident and generally assert various common law claims such as claims for negligence and breach of contract, as well as, in some cases, statutory claims. The financial institution class actions seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief and other related relief. Furthermore, a lawsuit has been filed against the company by the City of Chicago with respect to the 2017 cybersecurity incident alleging violations of state laws and local ordinances governing protection of personal data, consumer fraud, breach notice requirements and business practices and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and the imposition of fines the aggregate amount of which the complaint does not specifically quantify. Three Indian Tribes filed suits in federal court asserting putative class actions relating to the 2017 cybersecurity incident brought on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated federally recognized Indian Tribes and Nations. Additionally, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed an action on its own behalf and on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico arising out of the 2017 cybersecurity incident. Beginning on December 6, 2017 and pursuant to multiple subsequent orders, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the consolidation and transfer for pre-trial proceedings with respect to the U.S. cases pending in federal court, including the City of Chicago action, the Indian Tribal suits, and the Puerto Rico action, to the Northern District of Georgia as the single U.S. District Court for centralized pre-trial proceedings (the "MDL Court"). Based on these orders, consolidated proceedings with respect to U.S. consumer and financial institution federal class actions and other lawsuits related to the 2017 cybersecurity incident have been conducted in the MDL Court. The MDL Court has established separate tracks for the consumer and financial institution class action cases and appointed lead counsel on behalf of plaintiffs in both tracks. Certain individual plaintiffs with cases pending in the MDL consolidated proceedings, including Puerto Rico and the City of Chicago, have sought the establishment of additional tracks and other related relief. The MDL Court has not yet ruled on those requests. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaints filed by the U.S. consumer, small business and financial institution plaintiffs in their entirety. On January 28, 2019, the MDL Court dismissed the small businesses' consolidated class action complaint in its entirety. The MDL Court dismissed certain claims brought by the consumer and financial institution plaintiffs, while allowing other claims by those plaintiffs to proceed. Pursuant to case management orders issued by the MDL Court, consolidated pre-trial proceedings, including discovery between the parties, will proceed on the remaining claims of the U.S. consumer and financial institution plaintiffs. Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. FEDERAL AVIATION: Stephen Lynch Takes Aim at Airport Pollution -------------------------------------------------------------- Marie Szaniszlo, writing for Boston Herald, reports that noise and pollution near airports has U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch looking to give residents below the flight paths a break. Lynch has filed a bill that would allow the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to study the health impacts from planes, potentially laying the groundwork for a class action lawsuit. The bill, filed by the South Boston Democrat, would direct the Federal Aviation Administration to "enter into appropriate arrangements with the National Academies" for a report on the effects of noise disturbances that prompted 71,381 complaints in Massachusetts alone last year, more than 10 times the 6,811 filed in 2013, according to the Massachusetts Port Authority, which oversees Logan International Airport in Boston, Hanscom Field and Worcester Regional Airport. "The impact of flying over the same homes all the time is a stress issue based on noise and jet fuel emissions," Lynch said. "The goal is to collect data that could lead to a class action lawsuit." The problem, he said, began in 2013, when the FAA switched to a navigation system designed to save jet fuel by having planes use the most efficient routes, often flying at lower altitudes longer while making their ascents. "As a result, thousands of flights go over the same homes every month," Lynch said, "when we might be able to bring relief to a lot of people if those flights were sent over water or dispersed over different neighborhoods." For the last two years, R. John Hansman, director of the MIT International Center for Air Transportation, and his students have been working to see how advanced flight procedures might be used to lessen the problem. "The ultimate goal is to use technology to both improve the efficiency of flights and minimize adverse effects such as noise," said Hansman. Maryann Aberg said planes fly over her Medford home as often as every 30 seconds, sometimes at altitudes so low she can read the names of the airlines and see the pilots. "The windows of the house rattle," she said. "It's impossible to carry on a conversation in your own home." In an email on Feb.8, FAA spokesman Jim Peters said the administration "does not comment on proposed legislation." Massport spokeswoman Jennifer Mehigan said the agency "supports scientific research" and keeps "involved in community discussions with residents and elected officials regarding aircraft activity and supports the work by the FAA and MIT engineers, with feedback from the Massport CAC (Community Advisory Committee), to develop ways to reduce the impacts of Logan operations."[GN] FEDERAL NATIONAL: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Banneck Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAMES BANNECK, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-04657-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Fannie Mae's motion for summary judgment. Banneck brings the instant lawsuit against Defendant Fannie Mae alleging violations of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ("CCRAA") and the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). Banneck claims that Fannie Mae's Desktop Underwriter ("DU") system, which is used by lenders to determine whether an applicant's loan can be purchased by Fannie Mae, generated an inaccurate DU findings report that negatively impacted his loan application. He contends that Fannie Mae prohibited mortgage originators from providing consumers with a copy of their DU findings report in violation of the CCRAA and FCRA. In February 2010, Banneck completed a short sale of a residential property after he defaulted on two mortgage loans. After waiting the obligatory two years from his short sale, in April and May 2013 Banneck sought mortgage loans with brokers like Southern Fidelity, Quicken Loans, and Red Rock to purchase a property in Las Vegas. Southern Fidelity and Quicken Loans denied his applications without submitting them to Fannie Mae's DU system. On June 23, 2013, Red Rock submitted Banneck's loan application information to DU, but received a report listing his prior mortgage loan as a foreclosure rather than a short sale. The foreclosure earned his report a "Refer with Caution" recommendation that Banneck then tried to correct. Three days later, on June 26, 2013, Red Rock worked with Banneck and sought to correct the reporting, but it received a response that the inaccurate information could not be removed. Rather than manually underwrite Banneck's application, Red Rock ultimately denied it according to its own policy. The case is one of four similar cases asserting that Fannie Mae is a consumer reporting agency ("CRA"). First, in Zabriskie v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and held that Fannie Mae is not a CRA and cannot be held liable under the FCRA. In the second case, Walsh v. Federal National Mortgage Association, the district court granted Fannie Mae's motion for summary judgment because it was not a CRA under Zabriskie. In the third case, McCalmont v. Federal National Mortgage Association, the district court again granted Fannie Mae's motion for summary judgment in response to the dispositive precedent set by Zabriskie. In the instant case, Banneck filed his initial class action complaint on Aug. 12, 2017, alleging three causes of action under the CCRAA. Fannie Mae moved to dismiss. After Banneck conceded that he did not request information from Fannie Mae, Judge Orrick dismissed his "right-to-access" claim under California Civil Code sections 1785.10 and 1785.15, and his "reinvestigation" claim under California Civil Code section 1785.16 without leave to amend. However, his "reasonable procedures" claim under section 1785.14(b) survived because it was not "based on the same act or omission" as the pending Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") putative class action in Walsh v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n. Banneck then filed an amended complaint on March 21, 2018 on behalf of himself, three putative California classes, and one national class. The AC asserts three claims: (1) violation of the CCRAA, for failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure "maximum possible accuracy" of the reports it sold; (2) violation of the FCRA by prohibiting users of DU software from disclosing DU Findings Reports to consumers; and (3) violation of the CCRAA for the same acts alleged in count two. Banneck also brought one claim as an individual, alleging that Fannie Mae violated the CCRAA Section 1785.10.1 by prohibiting, dissuading, and/or attempting to dissuade, including through the use of contracts, users of DU Findings Reports from providing Mr. Banneck with copies of such reports to him upon request, even when the user had taken adverse action against him based in whole or in part on the report. The Judge denied Fannie Mae's second motion to dismiss except for Banneck's requests for "other" forms of equitable relief such as disgorgement, restitution and recessionary damages. In response to the Order, on June 4, 2018, the Federal Housing Finance Agency moved to intervene as conservator for Fannie Mae, seeking interlocutory review. Fannie Mae then filed its answer to the amended complaint on June 7, 2018. The Judge denied the Federal Housing Finance Agency's motion to certify the May 18, 2018 Order for Interlocutory Review because it did not establish that interlocutory review would resolve a controlling question of law, that there were substantial grounds for difference of opinion, or provide a likelihood that an immediate appeal would materially advance the termination of the litigation. Fannie Mae filed the instant motion for summary judgment on Oct. 31, 2018. The parties asked to delay the hearing until the Ninth Circuit published Zabriskie and they had a chance to brief it for the Judge. The Judge heard argument on Feb. 20, 2019. For Banneck to succeed on his claims under the FCRA and CCRAA, he must establish that Fannie Mae is a CRA. CRA is defined under the FCRA as (i) any person which regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers (ii) for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties." As noted earlier, the Ninth Circuit recently held Fannie Mae is not a CRA under either part of this definition. In supplemental briefing, Banneck argues that Zabriskie is distinguishable on the facts and procedural posture. Judge Orrick disagrees and must grant Fannie Mae's motion fo summary judgment. He finds that Fannie Mae meets the first part of the CRA definition. The Zabriskie court found the supposed admissions from Fannie Mae witnesses to be "taken out of context." While there is additional evidence from Fannie Mae witnesses that was not present in Zabriskie, the result is no different. The deposition testimony does not go to "what Fannie Mae actually does" and instead repeats the kind of evidence discussed and rejected in Zabriskie. The second portion of the definition was also inapplicable to Fannie Mae in Zabriskie because there was no support in the record that Fannie Mae assembled information for any purpose other than to determine a loan's eligibility for subsequent purchase by Fannie Mae. The same is true in the instant case, the Judge holds. He finds that the Consumer Data Industry Association exhibit that Banneck asserts is unique to the case is not enough to distinguish this case from Zabriskie. The conclusion of a third party that Fannie Mae is having problems with its foreclosure recommendations in DU is consistent with the allegedly erroneous DU findings report before the Ninth Circuit in Zabriskie. The document would not change the Ninth Circuit's finding that this evidence goes to what DU does separate from Fannie Mae. Nor does it undercut the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that Fannie Mae provides DU "to help lenders determine whether Fannie Mae will purchase the loans that they originate based only on information provided to it by lenders and credit bureaus. Following Zabriskie, the Judge concludes (as did the district court in Walsh and McCalmont) that Fannie Mae is not a CRA. Banneck also suggests that the Judge waits to issue the opinion until after a petition for rehearing in Zabriskie is filed and decided. A pending petition for rehearing en banc would not eliminate the precedent that Zabriskie currently provides. Zabriskie is dispositive. The Judge granted Fannie Mae's motion for summary judgment. Fannie Mae seeks to seal portions or entire exhibits to the Oakley and Armstrong-Kielmeyer Declarations in support of its motion for summary judgment that contain trade secret information, were designated confidential pursuant to the Protective Order, or contain confidential business information. The Judge holds that sealing is not sufficiently indicated for Exhibits H, M, V, and W, where the only reason in support is that these documents were designated confidential. He denied the motion to seal without prejudice with respect to Exhibits H, M, V, and W; and granted with respect to the other exhibits sought to be sealed. Fannie Mae has seven days from the date of this Order to submit an amended declaration in support of sealing, to provide compelling reasons beyond the confidentiality basis provided. In addition, Banneck filed motions to seal portions or entire exhibits to the Francis Declaration and references in supplemental briefing to those same exhibits. Fannie Mae provided a declaration in support of sealing on the grounds that the exhibits contain trade secret information on its DU functionality, trade secret information on Fannie Mae's network for providing electronic credit reports, and confidential business information. There are compelling reasons to seal references to its trade secrets and confidential business information. The Judge granted these motions to seal. For the reasons he stated, Judge Orrick granted Fannie Mae's motion for summary judgment. The judgment will be entered in accordance with the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/IH6O6Q from Leagle.com. James Banneck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Paul B. Mengedoth, Mengedoth Law PLLC, Casey Shannon Nash -- casey@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly & Crandall, PLC, pro hac vice, James A. Francis -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis and Mailman, P.C., John Soumilas -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis and Mailman, P.C., Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Kelly and Crandall PLC, pro hac vice, Lauren K.W. Brennan -- lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis and Mailman PC, Sylvia Antalis Goldsmith, Goldsmith and Associates, LLC, pro hac vice & Stephanie R. Tatar -- stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com -- Tatar Law Firm, APC. Federal National Mortgage Association, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Lemond McKeen -- emckeen@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Benjamin Dean Brooks -- benbrooks@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP & Danielle Nicole Oakley -- doakley@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP. Federal Housing Finance Agency, Intervenor, represented by D. Eric Shapland, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP & Michael A.F. Johnson, Arnold and Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, pro hac vice. FERROGLOBE PLC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Ferroglobe PLC (NASDAQ: GSM) Class Period: August 21, 2018 - November 26, 2018 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 25, 2019 For more info: www.bgandg.com/gsm The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that there was excess supply of the Company's products; (2) that demand for the Company's products was declining; (3) that, as a result, the pricing of the Company's products would be materially impacted; and (4) 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. Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Yael Hurwitz, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Telephone: 212-697-6484 Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN] FIDELITY NATIONAL: Pre-Trial Discovery in Reliance Suit Completed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity National Information Services, 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 pre-trial discovery has been completed in the class action lawsuit involving Reliance Trust Company, a company's subsidiary. Reliance Trust Company, the Company's subsidiary, is named as a defendant in a class action arising out of its provision of services as the discretionary trustee for a 401(k) Plan (the "Plan") for one of its customers. Plaintiffs in the action seek damages and attorneys' fees, as well as equitable relief, on behalf of Plan participants for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The action also makes claims against the Plan's sponsor and record-keeper. Reliance is vigorously defending the action and believes that it has meritorious defenses. Pre-trial discovery has now been completed. Reliance contends that no breaches of fiduciary duty or prohibited transactions occurred and that the Plan suffered no damages. Plaintiffs allege damages of approximately $125 million. Fidelity National said, "While we are unable at this time to estimate more precisely the potential loss or range of loss because of unresolved questions of fact and law, we believe that the ultimate resolution of the matter will not have a material impact on our financial condition. We do not believe a liability for this action is probable and, therefore, have not recorded a liability for this action." Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. operates as a financial services technology company in the United States and internationally. It operates through Integrated Financial Solutions and Global Financial Solutions segments. The company was founded in 1968 and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. FINANCIAL CORP: Summary Judgment Bid in Encarnacion Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, OMAR ENCARNACION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-566-FtM-38UAM (M.D. Fla.), Judge Sheri Polster Chappell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, (i) granted Defendant Financial Corp. of America ("FCOA")'s Motion for Summary Judgment; and (ii) denied Plaintiff Encarnacion's Motion for Summary Judgment. In 2016, Encarnacion brought his minor child, O.E., to the emergency room at Lehigh Regional Medical Center. Because of the visit, Encarnacion allegedly incurred a debt, which he never paid. About eight months later, FCOA sent Encarnacion a dunning letter. FCOA sent the Letter on behalf of the Hospital. Thus, the Hospital was Encarnacion's creditor and FCOA was the debt collector. Because Encarnacion cannot read much English, he gave the Letter to his wife without reading it. The dispute centers on the form and contents of the Letter. t was on FCOA's letterhead, including FCOA's name and contact information in the uppermost left corner. Just below, the Letter was dated and addressed to the Parent Of O.E. with Encarnacion's address. Then, the Letter began with "Responsible Party: Parent of O.E.." The rest of the Letter contained three boilerplate paragraphs about the debt collection process and a detachable payment stub, which again listed the account number and balance due. Nowhere is the word creditor used. One paragraph, however, stated that the Letter was "an attempt to collect a debt" and the "communication is from a debt collector." Encarnacion brought a class action against FCOA for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Specifically, he alleged that the Letter failed to identify the Hospital as the creditor. Before the Court are FCOA's Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and the parties' responses in opposition. The sole issue is simple: whether the Letter contains the creditor's name. Encarnacion contends that the Letter failed to identify the Hospital as the creditor. Particularly, Encarnacion argues that the Letter needed more information to identify the creditor or describe FCOA's relationship with the Hospital. Conversely, FCOA asserts that the Letter identified the Hospital as creditor. It relies on a recent Eleventh Circuit opinion as dispositive in the case. Judge Chappell agrees with FCOA. She finds that much of Encarnacion's argument boils down to his belief that the Letter must have "something more." Reading the Letter with care as a whole, the least sophisticated consumer would understand the creditor identification information. As Encarnacion concedes, FDCPA requires no "magic words." Yet the lack of magic words is the basis of his FDCPA claim. In this Circuit, the Judge holds that the information in the Letter would certainly satisfy Section 1692g(a)(2) if it also stated that the account was "placed with" FCOA for collection. But the absence of that statement does not obfuscate an otherwise clear creditor identification. Of course, debt collectors cannot evade their obligation to identify the creditor by writing dunning letters in Dothraki. The Letter satisfies that requirement here even without the magic words that Encarnacion seeks. Because FCOA identified the Hospital as creditor clearly enough for the least sophisticated consumer to understand, Encarnacion cannot demonstrate a FDCPA violation. So FCOA is entitled to summary judgment. Accordingly, Judge Chappell (i) granted FCOA's Motion for Summary Judgment, and (ii) denied Encarnacion's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for FCOA, terminate all remaining motions and deadlines, and close the file. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/iq7Rbk from Leagle.com. Omar Encarnacion, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Katie Marguerite Miller, The Law Offices of Katie M. Miller, PA & Yitzchak Zelman -- Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, pro hac vice. Financial Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by Charles James McHale, Jr. -- cmchale@gsgfirm.com. -- Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC & Dale Thomas Golden -- dgolden@gsgfirm.com -- Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC. FLIGHT CENTRE: To Fight $100MM Overtime Wages Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Travelweek Group reports that Flight Centre Travel Group (Canada) Inc. says it intends to fight back against a proposed $100 million class action lawsuit, charging that the class action suit makes several false assertions and factually incorrect allegations. The lawsuit, filed Feb. 20 and coming to light on Feb. 25, alleges Flight Centre Travel Group (Canada) Inc. violated applicable employment standards legislation and its contracts of employment with class members by failing to pay for overtime work. Goldblatt Partners LLP, based in Toronto, is handling the $100 million proposed class action filing, open to all current and former travel consultants who worked for Flight Centre in Canada since October 2010. In a company statement issued by Allison Wallace, VP, Corporate Communication & CSR, The Americas for Flight Centre Travel Group, the retail travel giant responds: "Flight Centre complies with applicable employment standards legislation governing hours of work and overtime as the claim itself acknowledges. "The claim makes several false assertions and many of the allegations are factually incorrect. "Flight Centre denies the allegations and will be vigorously defending this claim." The 29-page Statement of Claim, available through a link at flightcentreclassaction.com, alleges that Flight Centre failed to ensure that hours of work were monitored and accurately recorded, among other things. The allegations mainly focus on failure to pay overtime and a work environment where employees were "required and/or permitted and/or suffered to work hours in excess of those scheduled, including hours both below and in excess of the overtime threshold under the applicable employment standards legislation, in order to carry out the duties assigned to them." [GN] FLUOR CORP: Expects Consolidated Complaint to be Filed ------------------------------------------------------ Fluor 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 the company anticipates that the co-lead plaintiffs in the purported shareholder class action lawsuit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to file a consolidated complaint no later than March 2019. In May 2018, purported shareholders filed complaints against Fluor Corporation and certain of its current and former executives in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Fluor common stock from August 14, 2013 through May 3, 2018, and seek to recover damages arising from alleged violations of federal securities laws. In December 2018, the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. It is anticipated that the co-lead plaintiffs will file a consolidated complaint no later than March 2019, after which it is anticipated the company will respond, likely with a motion to dismiss the matter. Fluor said, "While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, the company believes that the claims asserted in the complaint are without merit." Fluor, through its subsidiaries, provides engineering, procurement, construction, fabrication and modularization, operation, maintenance and asset integrity, and project management services worldwide. It operates through four segments: Energy & Chemicals; Mining, Industrial, Infrastructure & Power; Diversified Services; and Government. Fluor Corporation was founded in 1912 and is headquartered in Irving, Texas. FORD MOTOR: Notices of Appeal Filed in Takata Airbag-Related Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ford Motor Company 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 notices of appeal of the trial court's order overruling all objections and entering a final order approving the settlement in the case entitled, In re: Takata Airbag Product Liability Litigation; Economic Loss Track Cases Against Ford Motor Company. On July 16, 2018, Ford entered into a settlement agreement related to a consumer economic loss class action pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The first case was originally filed on October 27, 2014, against Ford, Takata, and several other automotive manufacturers, and was brought by consumers who own or owned vehicles equipped with Takata airbag inflators. Additional cases were subsequently filed in courts throughout the United States and consolidated into a multidistrict case before the Florida court, which also included personal injury claims and claims by automotive recyclers. Ford's July 16 settlement relates only to the consumer economic loss matters. In these cases, Plaintiffs allege that Ford vehicles equipped with Takata airbags are defective and that Ford did not disclose this defect to consumers. Plaintiffs allege that they suffered several forms of economic damages as a result of purchasing vehicles with defective airbags. The settlement is for $299 million, which is subject to certain discounts, and court approval. On December 20, 2018, the court overruled all objections and entered a final order approving the settlement. Several objectors have filed notices of appeal of the trial court's order. Ford Motor Company designs, manufactures, markets, and services a range of Ford cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles, and electrified vehicles worldwide. It operates through three segments: Automotive, Mobility, and Ford Credit. Ford Motor Company was founded in 1903 and is based in Dearborn, Michigan. FRONTLINE ASSET: Velez Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Velez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, and LVNV Funding, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 617812/2018, was removed form the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip) on March 7, 2019. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01353 to the proceeding. The suit alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation. Frontline Asset offers collection services.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq. 775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255 Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (631) 335-1107 E-mail: mpash@verizon.net Attorneys for the Defendants: Peter G. Siachos, Esq. GORDON & REES LLP 18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 549-2500 Facsimile: (973) 377-1911 E-mail: psiachos@gordonrees.com GALLATIN COUNTY, MT: ACLU Sues Over Unlawful Immigrant Detentions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Freddy Monares, writing for Bozeman Daily Chronicle, reports that the ACLU of Montana and the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project filed a class-action lawsuit for people unlawfully jailed at the Gallatin County Detention Center at the request of U.S. immigration officials. Gallatin County officials are exceeding their authority under Montana law by imprisoning people on the grounds that they may have committed a civil violation under federal immigration law, according to an ACLU news release. The complaint, filed in Gallatin County District Court, named Gallatin County Sheriff Brian Gootkin and detention center administrator Jason Jarrett as the defendants. Mr. Gootkin said on Feb. 26 he had not been served with the suit and couldn't comment. He said the jail does hold inmates when immigration officials request it. Of the 151 inmates being held at the county jail on Feb. 26, at least one other inmate had an immigration hold, according to the county's jail roster. County Attorney Marty Lambert said on Feb. 26 he hadn't seen the lawsuit either and couldn't comment on it. Mr. Lambert said he would contact the state's Attorney General's office as well as the U.S. Department of Justice for help in the case. Luis Soto-Lopez, the named plaintiff in the case, has been jailed at the Gallatin County Detention Center at the request of federal immigration officials since Nov. 11, 2018, the ACLU said. Upon his arrest for a misdemeanor, his family immediately attempted to pay his $500 bond, which would have secured his release pending trial. Despite their attempts to pay bail, Gallatin County refused to release Soto-Lopez due to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement hold -- commonly called an "ICE detainer," the ACLU said. Three months later, Mr. Soto-Lopez remains in jail, while his wife and children -- all U.S. Citizens -- wait for his release. The lawsuit seeks to end the use of ICE detainers for all current and future people incarcerated at the Gallatin County Detention Center who are being held at the behest of federal immigration authorities, according to the ACLU. It also seeks compensation for Mr. Soto-Lopez's unlawful imprisonment. "Gallatin County officials are illegally depriving Mr. Soto-Lopez of his liberty," ACLU of Montana Legal Director Alex Rate said in the release. "The law is clear: when a person posts bond, they must be released from custody." In May 2018, Mr. Soto-Lopez and his wife got into an argument at their Bozeman apartment after he saw his wife drinking coffee with a friend at a restaurant, according to charging documents. Mr. Soto-Lopez tried leaving with their three children, but his wife held onto their youngest daughter and called 911, according to charging documents. Mr. Soto-Lopez grabbed her arm and ended the call to dispatch, court records state, and he then left with their two older children to stay at a house he was working on in Big Sky. Mr. Soto-Lopez turned himself in to law enforcement in November 2018 and was charged with misdemeanor tampering with a communication device. The ACLU suit said Mr. Soto-Lopez and his family remain willing to pay the $500 bail. Mr. Soto-Lopez had a jury trial scheduled to begin March 15 for the tampering charge. [GN] GC OF CAPITAL: Settlement in Hickman Labor Suit Has Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MAURICE HICKMAN, Plaintiff, v. G. C. OF CAPITAL CENTRE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. CBD-18-1238 (D. Md.), Magistrate Judge Charles B. Day of the U.S. District Court for the Maryland, Southern Division, granted the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement without modification. Hickman brought claims for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Plaintiff brought these claims as a collective action under the FLSA, and as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiff sought damages, including liquidated and treble damages, from Defendants G.C. of Capital Centre, LLC, and Both, Inc. On Jan. 24, 2019, the parties submitted their Joint Motion. The parties' settlement agreement states that the Defendants will pay Plaintiff a total sum of $12,500 in compensation for his claims. However, due to the Plaintiff's retainer agreement with his counsel, $5,643 of that will be paid to the Plaintiff's counsel as reimbursement for attorneys' fees and costs incurred throughout these proceedings, leaving the Plaintiff with $6,857. The Plaintiff's counsel state they incurred costs amounting to $1,424.39 and fees amounting to $36,239.50. The Memorandum in Support does not state how much was in controversy at the outset, but it does state that the Plaintiff will be recovering "approximately $625 per workweek worked by the Plaintiff." It also states that the Plaintiff is recovering a substantial amount for a part-time employee who generally worked between 20 and 35 hours per week. Judge Day has reviewed the Joint Motion, the accompanying memorandum in support, and the applicable law. He finds that no hearing is deemed necessary. He granted the parties' Joint Motion without modification as: (1) there exists a bona fide dispute; (2) the settlement agreement is both fair and reasonable under the Saman test; and, (3) while there is a dearth of information by which to make the assessment, the attorneys' fees agreed to appear reasonable under Saman as they are in line with what other cases have settled for, they represent a significant reduction from what the Plaintiff's counsel incurred while prosecuting the case, and the Plaintiff's retainer agreement does not appear to permit him to agree to any other division of damages. A separate Order will issue. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/mFPqzV from Leagle.com. Maurice Hickman, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle L. Perry -- dperry@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson and Mason LLP, pro hac vice, Jason S. Rathod -- jrathod@classlawdc.com -- Migliaccio and Rathod LLP, Nicholas A. Migliaccio -- nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com -- Migliaccio & Rathod LLP & Gary E. Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson and Mason LLP. G.C. of Capital Centre, L.L.C. & Both, Inc., Defendants, represented by Maxine Arielle Adams -- MAdams@ebglaw.com -- Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. & Paul DeCamp -- PDeCamp@ebglaw.com -- Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., pro hac vice. GENERAL MOTORS: Averts Class Action Over Leaky Cadillac Sunroofs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a Cadillac owner can't accuse General Motors Co. of violating its warranty agreements when it allegedly forced customers to pay for repairs to leaky sunroofs because her own sunroof didn't leak. [GN] GEO GROUP: Joint Bid for Discovery Dispute Determination Partly OKd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RAYMOND RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. THE GEO GROUP, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18cv2136-LAB (MSB) (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part the parties' Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute. Ramirez, a former non-exempt "security officer," brings the putative class action, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated non-exempt security class members against his former employers The Geo Group, Inc. and GEO Corrections and Detention, LLC for numerous wage and hour violations, including: (1) failing to pay security officers according to their electronic time keeping system; (2) failing to providing off-duty meal breaks; (3) failing to provide off-duty rest breaks; (4) failing to provide timely and accurate wage statements; and (5) failing to reimburse for business expenses. The Plaintiff and GEO seek rulings with regard to various disputes arising from the parties' written discovery. There are two sets of issues contained within this discovery dispute. The first set deals with the GEO's responses to the Plaintiff's requests for production of documents ("RFPs") and interrogatories, and the second set deals with the Plaintiff's responses to GEO's interrogatories. The Plaintiff and GEO disagree regarding the scope of the potential class into which discovery should be permitted, an issue which is pervasive to the disputes presented regarding the Plaintiff's written discovery. The Plaintiff maintains that discovery into Class Members should include all non-exempt security personnel within the security department. GEO, however, maintains that this is overbroad when compared to the class defined in the operative complaint, and they are only obligated to provide discovery responses pertaining to the potential class members holding the two positions that the Plaintiff held during his employment, "correctional officer" and "assistant shift supervisor." Magistrate Judge Berg finds that the scope, as limited by GEO, is consistent with the pleadings, reasonable and proportional to the needs of the case. The Plaintiff's RFP No. 1 seeks all versions of GEO's employee manuals and/or handbooks used during the class period. Because the Plaintiff failed to establish why the requested information is relevant to the case, the Magistrate denied the Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses with respect to this topic. The Plaintiff's RFP Nos. 20 and 21 seek information regarding any complaints by non-exempt security personnel during the class period and the two years prior concerning compensation and wage claims, and meal and rest breaks, including those filed with the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. The Plaintiff has narrowed the request to any complaints made regarding compensation and/or meal and rest breaks during the class period only: Aug. 9, 2014 to present. Because discovery has not been phased or bifurcated in the case, and the requested discovery is relevant to the establishment of a class and may provide evidence relevant to Plaintiff's individual claims, the Magistrate rejects GEO's prematurity argument. In light of the Plaintiff's agreement to limit the request to the claims period, and noting the Court's limitation of the scope in section II.A.1, supra, the Magistrate does not find the RFP overbroad. He granted the Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 20 and 21 as to this topic with regard to complaints filed by people employed by the Defendants in California as either correctional officers or assistant shift supervisors during the class period. GEO will provide supplemental responses and documents no later than March 20, 2019. The Plaintiff's Interrogatories No. 1 and 2 seek potential class member names, last known home address, and phone number. The Magistrate denied the Plaintiff's motion to compel the production of employee phone numbers in response to Interrogatories No. 1 and 2. He finds that GEO has already provided a significant amount of personal information including a list of the employees' names, personnel numbers, job titles, dates of employment, and employees' last known addresses, as opposed to simply identifying the putative class members as member "X" or member "Y." The information produced by GEO adequately addresses employee privacy concerns while providing the Plaintiff with sufficient information to contact potential class members who wish to communicate with the Plaintiff's counsel. He notes that the motion for class certification deadline is now set for April 19, 2019. Other related discovery deadlines have also been adjusted. This leaves sufficient time for the Plaintiff's counsel to contact potential class members using their last known addresses. GEO's Interrogatories No. 3, 9, 11, 12, and 13, seek the Plaintiff's arguments and opinions related to class certification. GEO's Interrogatories No. 3, 9, and 13 ask the Plaintiff to "describe in detail" how he will demonstrate that the Defendants' alleged uniform policies can be proven efficiently and manageably as a class action, how he contends the case would be tried as a class action, and why he contends that a class action procedure is a superior means of resolving this action compared to other means. The Magistrate finds that contention interrogatories are premature if the propounding party cannot present plausible grounds showing that early answers to contention questions will efficiently advance litigation, or if the defendant does not have adequate information to assert its position. To force the Plaintiff to preview the class certification motion for GEO is premature, burdensome and harassing. GEO's Interrogatories No. 11 and 12 ask the Plaintiff to state all issues that may remain for decision upon the completion of a class action, and as to each, describe in detail how the Plaintiff contends that such issue could be finally resolved. These interrogatories call for legal opinion and speculation. As such, the Magistrate denied GEO's motion to compel further responses to those interrogatories. For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Berg granted in part and denied in part the parties' Joint Motion for determination of Discovery Dispute. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/W4BWw0 from Leagle.com. Raymond Ramirez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Allison H. Goddard -- ali@pattersonlawgroup.com -- Patterson Law Group, APC, Jacquelyn Emilia Quinn -- jackie@pattersonlawgroup.com -- Patterson Law Group & James Richard Patterson -- jim@pattersonlawgroup.com -- Patterson Law Group, APC. The Geo Group, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Defendant, represented by Anthony Gerald Ly -- aly@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, Lena Kae Sims -- lsims@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Peiyi Chen -- pchen@littler.com -- Littler & Mendelson PC. GEO Corrections and Detention, LLC ("GEO Corrections"), a subsidiary of GEO Group, Inc., a Florida limited liability corporation, Defendant, represented by Peiyi Chen, Littler & Mendelson PC & Anthony Gerald Ly, Littler Mendelson PC. GOGO INC: Bid to Dismiss Pierrelouis Class Action Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Gogo 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 is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss the case styled Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc. On December 10, 2018, two purported stockholders of the Company filed an amended putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division styled Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., naming the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and its current Chief Financial Officer and President, Commercial Aviation as defendants purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the company's securities from February 27, 2017 through May 4, 2018. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or omissions by the company purporting to relate to the company's 2Ku antenna's reliability and installation and remediation costs. The plaintiffs seek to recover from the company and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages. In February 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. That motion remains pending. Gogo said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. In accordance with Delaware law, we will indemnify the individual named defendants for their defense costs and any damages they incur in connection with the suit. We have filed a claim with the issuer of our Directors' and Officers' insurance policy with respect to this suit. No amounts have been accrued for any potential losses under this matter, as we cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation or any potential losses." Gogo Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides inflight broadband connectivity and wireless entertainment services to the aviation industry in the United States and internationally. It operates through three segments: Commercial Aviation North America (CA-NA), Commercial Aviation Rest of World (CA-ROW), and Business Aviation (BA). The company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. GOOGLE LLC: Court Dismisses Cabrera's Claims in Woods Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RICK WOODS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:11-cv-01263-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted Google's motion to dismiss as to Rene Cabrera's claims in the Fourth Amended Complaint, and denied in all other respects. Co-plaintiff Woods filed his initial complaint in March 2011 alleging that Google bilked him and other advertisers into overpaying for advertising services through Google's AdWords program and pricing scheme. After several rounds of pleadings, Woods' allegations were pared down to the following. First, Woods states a plausible claim for breach of contract based upon Google's alleged failure to Smart Price clicks on the Display Network. The court found that the "measurements clause" of the AdWords Agreement could be reasonably interpreted as requiring Google to base its charges for Display Network clicks at least in part on the Smart Pricing formula. Second, Woods states a plausible claim for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") to the extent his claim is based upon location targeting. Thereafter, the Court disqualified Woods as a class representative. To preserve the class action, Woods and the counsel added Cabrera as a named Plaintiff in a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"). In the TAC, the Plaintiffs alleged that during the summer of 2008, Cabrera researched AdWords to determine whether to advertise his software consulting business through Google. Cabrera allegedly began advertising on AdWords on or about Aug. 14, 2008 and continued advertising with Google until August 2009. In ruling on Google's motion to dismiss the TAC, the Court (1) denied Google's motion to dismiss Cabrera's Smart Pricing claim and location targeting claim, (2) granted Google's motion to strike Woods's class allegations, and (3) directed the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. In October of 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint and Google filed the instant motion to dismiss raising two primary arguments. First, Google asserts that Cabrera lacks Article III standing. According to Google, Cabrera's claims are based solely on alleged injuries to Cabrera's software consulting business, Training Options, Inc., and that recent discovery reveals that Cabrera sold Training Options nine years before he was named as a Plaintiff. Second, Google contends that the Smart Pricing claim must be dismissed to the extent the claim is based on a breach of contract theory the court purportedly rejected in the summary judgment order. Because Cabrera lacks Article III standing, Judge Davila granted Google's motion to dismiss Cabrera's claims without leave to amend. He finds that (i) Cabrera's AdWords account provided only the means or vehicle through which the ads were disseminated over the Internet; (ii) Cabrera confirmed during his deposition that he did not "keep any of the assets of Training Options" and instead "sold them all"; (iii) Cabrera's ownership of the AdWords account is irrelevant; (iv) Cabrera's alleged course of performance evidence contradicts the plain language of the APA and his deposition testimony that he sold all the assets of Training Options; (v) Cabrera's alleged course of performance violates the terms of the APA and his contractual promise to make no further use of the Training Options business or its tradename; (vi) none of Cabrera's proposed last-minute legal maneuvers would establish his standing to pursue the claims in the Fourth Amended Complaint; and (vii) naming both Cabrera and the Training Options corporate shell or substituting in the Training Options corporate shell for Cabrera would not create standing. The Judge denied Google's motion to dismiss in all other respects. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/UqBVA7 from Leagle.com. Rick Woods, individually and on behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brad Edward Seidel -- bradseidel@nixlawfirm.com -- Daniel Christopher Mulveny -- dmulveny@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP, Margaret Elin Mazzeo -- mmazzeo@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP, Matthew Leo Mustokoff -- mmustokoff@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP, Andrew Gordon Pate -- dpate@nixlaw.com -- Nix, Patterson and Roach, LLP, Bradley E. Beckworth -- bbeckworth@nixlaw.com -- Nix, Patterson & Roach, pro hac vice, Chad Ethan Ihrig -- cihrig@nixlaw.com -- Nix, Patterson and Roach, LLP, Christopher Robert Johnson -- cjohnson@nixlaw.com -- Nix, Patterson and Roach, LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey John Angelovich -- jangelovich@nixlaw.com -- Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph H. Meltzer -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Louis Bradon Paddock -- bpaddock@nixlawfirm.com -- Nix, Patterson, Roach, LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Bryan Angelovich -- mangelovich@nixlaw.com -- Nix Patterson and Roach, LLP, pro hac vice, Michelle Newcomer -- mnewcomer@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Naumon A. Amjed -- namjed@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP, Ramzi Abadou -- ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick Foti LLP, Richard A. Russo, Jr. -- rrusso@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Robin Winchester -- rwinchester@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan Thomas Degnan -- rdegnan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP, Sean M. Handler, Esq. -- shandler@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Stacey Marie Kaplan -- skaplan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. Rene Cabrera, Plaintiff, represented by Margaret Elin Mazzeo, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP & Matthew Leo Mustokoff, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP. Google LLC, Defendant, represented by Edward D. Johnson -- wjohnson@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Evans -- tevans@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Daniel Edward Jones -- djones@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Donald M. Falk -- dfalk@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Lee H. Rubin -- lrubin@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Matthew Henry Marmolejo -- mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & Sarah Eileen Reynolds -- sreynolds@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP. GRAIN PROCESSING: To Pay $45MM in Iowa Pollution Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Insurance Journal reports that a judge has approved a class-action settlement between Muscatine, Iowa, residents and a local factory that they blame for a noxious odor and haze and for causing health problems. District Judge John Telleen on approved the settlement over the Grain Processing Corporation plant, which makes corn-based products, The Muscatine Journal reported. The company, a subsidiary of Muscatine-based Kent Corp., agreed to pay $45 million to cover an estimated 14,000 claims and to spend $6.5 million on pollution controls at the Muscatine plant. Residents sued the company in 2012, alleging that the plant was negligent with its emissions and the odor was a nuisance. The case later received class-action status. GPC supports the settlement and believes it's fair, said Joshua Frank, Esq. -- jfrank@tpglaws.com -- an attorney for the company. The company will continue to operate successfully in the area, he said. The settlement is groundbreaking because of the duration of coverage, complexity and value, said Sarah Siskind, an attorney for the residents. People who lived within 1.5 miles of the plant between April 24, 2007, and Sept. 1, 2017, may qualify for payment. Plaintiff Kelcey Brackett said he was happy with the settlement. "I think, as the judge stated during the hearing, this was probably the most fair turn out of the case," he said. "And I think what this does is secure a way for GPC and the community to work together." Brackett said he's already seen improvements, noting that GPC invested $83 million in upgrades during the lawsuit. "I know I've seen reduction of odors in the area," he said, "and I want to see that continue." Residents have until March 19 to file a claim and could receive $2,000 to $16,000, depending on where they live. Up to $2 million of any money remaining after the payouts will be placed into a community fund for neighborhood improvements, Frank said.[GN] HAGYARD EQUINE: Lawsuit Says Vets Altered Dates on X-Rays --------------------------------------------------------- Charlotte Observer reports that a lawsuit filed on Feb. 7 accuses veterinarians of falsifying the dates on X-rays of horse sold at public auction at the Keeneland racetrack. The Lexington Herald-Leader reports the lawsuit was brought Tom Swearingen, a horse buyer and trainer who says he paid more than $400,000 for 24 horses from 2007 to 2016. The lawsuit in Fayette Circuit Court claims veterinarians with Hagyard Equine Medical Institute altered dates to make it look as though X-rays were taken within three weeks of a sale when they were actually older. The suit seeks class-action status, claiming that "thousands of buyers" have been duped by altered X-rays. "Had they known it was a sham, they never would have participated in the sale in the first place," the suit says. Michael Casey, Esq. -- mcasey@cbmlaw.net -- is an attorney for Hagyard. He told the paper the case is without merit. "We will vigorously address the misrepresentations and claims made in the suit through the proper legal channels," he said. Some of the allegations in the lawsuit first surfaced in a 2017 suit also filed in Fayette Circuit Court. A trial date has not been scheduled in that case. Some veterinarians admitted to modifying X-ray dates to the Kentucky Board of Veterinary Examiners, according to court records. The new lawsuit also names as a defendant the accounting firm Dean Dorton Allen Ford, which provides computer and information technology services for Hagyard. The firm had no comment when contacted by the paper. According to the lawsuit, Keeneland sells about a half billion dollars in thoroughbreds at its annual horse sales, and more than $25 million in commissions and fees are paid to consignors, sellers, veterinarians and the sales agency. Keeneland officials told the paper they had no comment on the lawsuit. The track is not named as a defendant.[GN] HARRISON GLOBAL: Settlement in Huddlestun Suit Has Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARK HUDDLESTUN and ROBERT BENSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HARRISON GLOBAL, LLC DBA BOSTON COACH, MTG ACQUISITIONS, LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-CV-00253-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal.), Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. On Aug. 17, 2018, the Court granted preliminary approval of a class-wide settlement. At this same time, the Court approved certification of a provisional Settlement Class for settlement purposes only. The matter came before the Court at 1:30 p.m. on Feb. 22, 2019. Judge Sabraw, having carefully considered the briefs, argument of the counsel and all matters presented to the Court and good cause appearing, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. In compliance with the Preliminary Approval Order, the Class Notice Package was mailed to 173 Plaintiff Class members. The deadline for opting out or objecting was Oct. 16, 2018. According to the Claims Administrator, no Plaintiff Class members opted out, no Plaintiff Class members objected, and there were 118 members of the Plaintiff Class who returned timely claim forms and who, thus, will receive an Individual Settlement Share. The Participating Class Members, as a group, represent 68% of the total Plaintiff Class. The proposed Agreement is, thus, approved as fair, adequate and reasonable and in the best interests of the Plaintiff Class members. The Agreement provides for an award of up to $294,000 to the Class Counsel as attorneys' fees in this action, representing 28% of the Gross Settlement Fund, plus actual costs, subject to the Court's approval. The Class Counsel requests an award of $13,301.05 as reimbursement for litigation costs, and $294,000 for attorneys' fees. An award of $294,000 for attorneys' fees and $13,301.05 for litigation costs is reasonable in light of the contingent nature of Class Counsel's fee, the hours worked by the Class Counsel, and the results achieved thereby. The Agreement provides for an Enhancement Award of up to $5,000 for each of the Representative Plaintiffs from the Gross Settlement Amount, subject to the Court's approval. Judge Sabraw finds that a total service award of $10,000 for the two Representative Plaintiffs is reasonable in light of the risks and burdens undertaken by the Representative Plaintiffs in the Action and for their time and effort in bringing and prosecuting this matter on behalf of the Plaintiff Class. The Agreement provides for payment of settlement administration expenses from the Gross Settlement Amount. The Settlement Administrator seeks $10,000 in claims administration expenses. The amount of this payment is reasonable in light of the work performed by the Settlement Administrator and will be awarded thereto. The Agreement provides for a PAGA award of $6,666, from which $5,000 will be allocated and paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA"). The Class Counsel represents that this payment is consistent with other payments to the LWDA in similar settlements. The (25%) remainder from the PAGA award (i.e., a remainder of $1,666) will remain in the net settlement fund and available for distribution to the Participating Class Members. Based on the foregoing findings, and good cause appearing, Judge Sabraw certified the Settlement Class for the purposes of settlement only. The Settlement Class is defined to include all California Chauffeurs who worked for Defendants Harrison Global, LLC and/or MTG Acquisitions, LLC from March 14, 2014 to Jan. 26, 2018 (San Francisco); March 14, 2014 to Nov. 16, 2017 (Los Angeles); and Oct. 1, 2015 to Nov. 17, 2017 (San Diego), respectively. The Agreement is finally approved. The Class Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $294,000 and litigation costs in the amount of $13,301.05. The payment of an Enhancement Award in the amount of $5,000 to Representative Plaintiff Robert Benson, $5,000 to Representative Plaintiff Mark Huddlestun, and $10,000 to the Settlement Administrator for settlement administration services. The PAGA award $6,666 is approved. From this award, a payment of $5,000 will be made to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and a payment of $1,666 remain in the net settlement fund for distribution to the Participating Class Members. The net settlement fund (i.e., after deduction of attorneys' fees, attorneys' costs, enhancement awards to the representative Plaintiffs, settlement administration costs, and the LWDA's portion of the PAGA payment from the gross settlement fund) will be distributed to the 118 Participating Class Members based on each Participating Class Member's pro rata number of work weeks during the class period, as compared to the aggregate work weeks worked by all Participating Class Members during said period. The parties have stipulated to, and the Judge approved, Legal Aid at Work as the cy pres recipient of any residual funds resulting from uncashed settlement checks by Participating class members. A Final Judgment in the action will be entered. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/Wq7euB from Leagle.com. Mark Huddlestun, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel D. Bodell -- dbodell@BODELLLAWGROUP.COM -- Bodell Law Group LLP, Harry W. Harrison -- hharrison@harrisonbodell.com -- Bodell Law Group LLP, Scott Edward Cole -- scole@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole & Associates, APC & Todd C. Atkins -- tatkins@bodelllawgroup.com -- Bodell Law Group. Robert Benson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Corey Benjamin Bennett -- cbennett@maternlawgroup.com -- Scott Cole & Associates, APC & Scott Edward Cole, Scott Cole & Associates, APC. Harrison Global, LLC, doing business as, Defendant, represented by Heather Murray Sager -- hsager@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price & Ayse Kuzucuoglu -- akuzucuoglu@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price (CA), LLP. MTG Acquisitions, LLC, Defendant, represented by Heather Murray Sager, Vedder Price. HERSHEY COMPANY: Clark et al Suit Transferred to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Howard Clark, Todd Hall, and Angela Pirrone, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiffs, vs. The Hershey Company, a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00356, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Mar. 11, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-mc-80060-JSC to the proceeding. The suit alleges fraud-related violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Michael Houchin, Esq. Ronald Marron, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 E-mail: mike@consumersadvocates.com ron@consumersadvocates.com Attorneys for the The Hershey Company: Matthew Borden, Esq. BRAUNT HAGEY & BORDEN LLP 351 California Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 599-0210 Facsimile: (415) 276-1808 E-mail: borden@braunhagey.com HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES: Summ. Judgment Bid in Cupolo-Freeman Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANN CUPOLO-FREEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES TRUST, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-00221-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Cupolo-Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, and Julie Reiskin are disabled individuals who use wheelchairs for mobility. They, along with the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center ("CREEC"), filed the putative class action against the Defendant, contending that HPT violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by failing to provide accessible transportation services at the hotels it owns. CREEC subsequently dismissed all of its claims with prejudice. The Court found that the Plaintiffs had standing to bring the action but denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification based on a lack of commonality and typicality and a failure to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). The Plaintiffs appealed the Court's decision, and the Ninth Circuit agreed to hear the appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). The Ninth Circuit affirmed both the Court's determination on standing and its finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet Rule 23's commonality requirement, given the lack of consistent policies or practices across the hotels owned by the Defendant, but operated by others. The court did not reach the issues of typicality or the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). HPT contends that the manner in which its hotels are managed -- through agreements that give management companies sole control over the hotels' operation -- precludes any finding of liability in the case. Specifically, HPT argues that the Transportation Provisions do not apply to it because it is not "a private entity which operates" a fixed route or demand responsive system. Although HPT raised this argument on appeal, the Ninth Circuit did not reach it for two reasons: First, the issue is not before the court, because it goes to the merits, not the issue of class certification. Second, even if the argument were to bear on class certification, it need not reach it because it affirms the district court on other grounds. HPT now asks the Court to decide the question in its favor on summary judgment. Judge Tigar finds that tge use of the word "operates" in the Transportation Provisions does not exclude HPT from liability. The parties have also identified no regulations implementing the ADA that define what it means to operate a place of public accommodation. In addition, the Judge finds that the ADA specifically tasked the DOT with issuing regulations to carry out the Transportation Provisions. Although HPT argues that it is not liable under the DOT regulation, it does not argue that the DOT's interpretation is in any way impermissible. To the contrary, the DOT's interpretation is consistent with Title II's statutory definition of "operates" in the context of fixed route and demand responsive systems, thus ensuring that the phrases "operates a fixed route system" and "operates a demand responsive system" are interpreted consistently throughout the ADA. Accordingly, the Judge defers to the DOT regulation and concludes that the Transportation Provisions apply to any private entity that provides transportation service "itself or by a person under a contractual or other arrangement or relationship with the entity." HPT contends that it does not fit within this definition, but the Judge disagrees. He finds that the management companies provide transportation services under a contractual or other arrangement or relationship with HPT, and HPT therefore "operates" those services under the DOT regulation's definition. HPT argues that the contractual or other arrangement or relationship with the entity must be specific to the transportation services — i.e., that for HPT to be liable, it must have a contract with an entity specifically to provide transportation services. But nothing in the statute or the regulations is so limiting, and courts are to reject restrictive interpretations of the ADA. Because Judge Tigar finds no disputed fact as to HPT's liability as an "operator" of the transportation systems as defined by the DOT regulation, he does not reach HPT's arguments concerning whether an owner of a public accommodation that does not also "operate" a transportation system can be held liable for failing to comply with the Transportation Provisions. Nor does he reach the Plaintiffs' argument that HPT is judicially estopped from taking that position based on its previous concession that it "does not contest in the action that an owner cannot contract away its ADA obligations to a manager and remains jointly and severally liable to disabled the Plaintiffs. Based on the foregoing, Judge Tigar denied HPT's motion for summary judgment. The parties will appear for a case management conference on April 3, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., and file a joint case management statement by March 27, 2019. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/oguW24 from Leagle.com. Ann Cupolo-Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn & Julie Reiskin, on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of similarly situated persons defined below, Plaintiffs, represented by Timothy P. Fox, Civil Rights Education & Enforcement Center, Andrew Paul Lee -- alee@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Bill Lann Lee, Civil Rights Education & Enforcement Center, Hillary Jo Benham-Baker -- hillary@campinsbenhambaker.com -- Campins Benham-Baker, LLP, Julia Campins -- julia@campinsbenhambaker.com -- Campins Benham-Baker, LLP & Linda Mary Dardarian -- ldardarian@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho. Hospitality Properties Trust, Defendant, represented by David Howard Raizman -- david.raizman@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Kathleen Jenny Choi -- kathleen.choi@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak and Stewart, P.C.. HUMMINGBIRD FUNDS: Shmakova Sues over Installment Loans ------------------------------------------------------- OLGA SHMAKOVA and GEOFFREY HASBROOK, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated,the Plaintiffs, vs. HUMMINGBIRD FUNDS, LLC D/B/A BLUE TRUST LOANS, and Does 1 through 100 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01284 (N.D. Cal., March 10, 2019), alleges that Defendant violated various sections of the Financial Code, which constituted an unlawful business practice. According to the complaint, the Defendant is a private company that offered installment loans over the Internet to California residents. Although Defendant claims to be affiliated with an Indian tribe that owns tribal land in Wisconsin, none of the class members ever visited that tribal land to obtain the loans in question. On January 10, 2018, Shmakova obtained a $600 loan from Defendant, which subsequently withdrew $712 from her bank account and deemed the loan satisfied. The Plaintiff alleges the annual percentage rate (APR) was over 400%. On January 22, 2018, Shmakova obtained a second loan, this one for $1,000, from Defendant, which subsequently withdrew $1,989.54 from her bank account. The Defendant claims she owes additional money. The APR was 635%. On April 17, 2018, Hasbrook obtained a $150 loan from Defendant, which subsequently withdrew $454 from his bank account. The Defendant claims he owes additional money. The APR was 736%. The Defendant made similar loans to the class members, depositing money in their bank accounts and then withdrawing money from their bank accounts to repay itself principal and interest charges. The Defendant qualified as a "finance lender" pursuant to Financial Code section 22009. Financial Code section 22203 defines a "consumer loan" as a loan "the proceeds of which are intended by the borrower for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes." Pursuant to Financial Code section 22303, the maximum that can be legally imposed as finance charges depends on the amount of the loan. This law does not apply to loans of more than $2,500. The first $250 of principal has a maximum monthly finance charge of 2.5% or an APR of 36%. The next $675 of principal has maximum monthly finance charges of 2%, the next $749 of principal has maximum monthly finance charges of 1.5% and the remaining portion up to $899 has a maximum monthly finance charge of 1%. Therefore, under no conditions, can a loan of this nature in California impose an APR greater than 36% and usually the cap will be lower. The actual APR for the loans obtained by Plaintiffs and class members was more than twice the maximum 36% allowed under the foregoing law. Therefore, Defendant violated this requirement. In addition, Financial Code section 22100 (a) provides "No person shall engage in the business of a finance lender or broker without obtaining a license from the commissioner." Financial Code section 22155 provides: "No finance lender, broker, or mortgage loan originator licensee shall transact the business licensed or make any loan provided for by this division under any other name or at any other place of business than that named in the license except pursuant to a currently effective written order of the commissioner authorizing the other name or other place of business." The name of the lender listed on Defendant's loan agreements was "Hummingbird Funds, LLC d/b/a Blue Trust Loans." This entity never had a finance lenders license or authorization from any California government official. Therefore, Defendant violated this requirement.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Jeffrey Wilens, Esq. LAKESHORE LAW CENTER 18340 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 107-610 Yorba Linda, CA 92886 Telephone: 714 854-7205 Facsimile: 714 854-7206 E-mail: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org - and - Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq. THE SPENCER LAW FIRM 2 Venture, Suite 220 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: 949-240-8595 Facsimile: 949-377-3272 E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net HUPP DRAFT: Faces Burton's Labor Suit in Sacramento --------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action has been filed against Hupp Draft Services Inc. The case is captioned as DESHUAN BURTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUPP DRAFT SERVICES INC.; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00250809-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 19, 2019) Hupp Draft Services Inc. is engaged in draft beer distribution in the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 IMPERIAL PACIFIC: Court Dismisses S. Loh's Wage & Hour Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Northern Mariana Islands issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned SHIRLENE LOH, Plaintiff, v. IMPERIAL PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL (CNMI), LLC, Defendant. Case No. 1:1:18-CV-00025. (D.N. Mar. L.). She was employed as a VIP Services Host to bring food and drink and provide necessary gaming items to VIP guests, as well as to tidy up the VIP gaming rooms. Loh's employment contract with IPI required her to work more than 40 hours a week, without overtime pay. Throughout her employment, Loh worked for IPI in excess of 14 hours a day, seven days a week. Loh filed suit against IPI, alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA) and the CNMI's Minimum Wage and Hour Act (MWHA), for unpaid wages under FLSA and MWHA's minimum-wage and overtime provisions, as well as a common-law claim for fraud and conversion with respect to the tips. Commonwealth Minimum Wage and Hour Act Claims The Defendant moves to dismiss the MWHA claims because the statute of limitations has run. A claim under the MWHA must be commenced within six months after the cause of action accrued except that a cause of action arising out of a willful violation may be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrued. Loh stopped working for IPI in August 2016 and did not file a complaint until more than two years later, in September 2018. She is well outside the limitations period even for willful violations. Plaintiff has alleged no facts that would support equitable tolling of the limitations period. The Plaintiff conceded that her MWHA claims are untimely, and she did not assert that the limitations period should be equitably tolled. The second and fourth causes of action under the MWHA will be dismissed. Fraud and Conversion Claim The fifth cause of action is for conversion and fraud. Fraud and conversion are separate legal theories of liability. The Motion to Dismiss concerns the fraud theory only. The elements of a Commonwealth-law claim of fraudulent misrepresentation are: (1) a material, false misrepresentation by the defendant (2) the defendant's knowledge of its falsity (3) the defendant's intent that the plaintiff act reasonably upon it and (4) the plaintiff's justifiable and detrimental reliance upon the misrepresentation. In support of her fraud claim, the Plaintiff alleges these facts: tips were given by IPI customers to IPI for the specific purpose of rewarding VIP hosts for good service, with the direction that IPI pay these tips to the VIP hosts; IPI refused to pay these tips to the VIP hosts, specifically Plaintiff, and instead converted these tips to its own use; Yuki Xia, an IPI employee who supervised and managed the VIP hosts, converted these tips to the use of IPI, failing and refusing to pay the Plaintiff her legitimate and rightful share of the tips. The Defendant asserts that these factual allegations about not passing along tips are not particular enough about the time, place, and circumstances to support a claim of fraud. The Plaintiff, in her Opposition, matches the who, what, when, where, and how to statements in the Complaint: who is Yuki Xia, what is customers' tips, when is the whole period of employment in which tips were confiscated, etc. This exercise misses the mark. The what that must be specifically identified is the misrepresentation. A review of the Complaint reveals that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy those requirements. A mere expectation that the Plaintiff would get a share of the tips, without some statement or action by the employer to support that expectation, does not constitute a fraud on the employee. An employer who keeps tips that a customer meant for the service staff might be liable to the employees on a stand-alone claim for conversion. Because the complaint fails to specify a false statement regarding tips and fails to identify what action Plaintiff took in reliance on that statement, the fraud component of the fifth cause of action is inadequately pled under Rule 9(b). Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 21, 2019 Decision and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yylozcnufrom Leagle.com. Shirline Loh, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Fitzgerald -- fitzgerald.law@gmail.com -- Law Office of William M. Fitzgerald. Imperial Pacific International (CNMI), LLC, Defendant, represented by Kelley Butcher, Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC. INDIANA: Sued Over Lack of Legal Counsel During Dependency Hearings ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Mcgill, writing for Fox 59, reports that Indiana has an increasing number of child welfare cases piling up in courtrooms. However, a new lawsuit is hoping to get the children at the center of those cases their own legal representation. A class action lawsuit filed by Children's Advocacy Institute, San Francisco law firm Morrison & Foerster and Indianapolis law firm DeLaney & DeLaney alleges that Indiana is violating the constitutional rights of children involved in Child in Need of Services cases by not providing them with legal counsel during dependency hearings. The lawsuit reads: "Removing a child from his or her family is one of the most traumatic experiences that can be imagined. When the government takes a child from his or her home on the grounds of abuse or neglect, it has an obligation to protect not only the child's safety but also the child's legal rights. Those rights include the right to be represented by an attorney when the child's fundamental liberty interests are at stake." "In our view the 14th amendment to the united states constitution says if you're going to be taking someone's liberty away. They have the right to a lawyer to represent their interests," Indianapolis attorney Kathleen Delaney, Esq. -- kathleen@delaneylaw.net -- said. The suit seeks to certify a class of more than 5,000 children, and specifically targets Marion, Scott, and Lake counties and seeks legal recognition that would require the appointment of legal counsel to children in Child in Need of Services and Termination of Parental Rights cases. "It's very rare that any child is appointed a lawyer to represent the child in a proceeding about where that child is going to live, where they're going to school, whether they're going to be separated from their siblings," DeLaney said. Representatives from The Marion County Public Defenders Agency say if the suit is successful, they would be on board for representing children in future cases. "The children do deserve to have a voice and they deserve to have due process. Because this does impact their liberty," Chief Counsel Ann Sutton said. Sutton says the current process the state uses includes the appointment "guardians ad litem" special advocates to represent for children involved in CHINS and TPR proceedings but stops short of legal representation. "At the outset of these cases the goal is always reunification and that is the one voice that is many times missing," she said. In response to the lawsuit, a spokesperson from the Attorney General's Office said they are "conducting a review to determine if the state plays any role in this litigation."[GN] INTERJET: Failed to Offer Refund Options to Customers, Suber Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEIDRA SUBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ABC AEROLINEAS, S.A. DE C.V. INC., d/b/a INTERJET, a Mexican corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH03111 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., March 8, 2019), seeks damages for Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated individuals who fulfilled their obligations under Interjet's Contract of Carriage and were injured when Interjet breached its obligation under the contract to offer refund options to customers whose flights are cancelled; and to prevent Defendant from continuing to breach its contract by refusing to issue refunds. According to the complaint, Interjet prides itself on offering low-cost airfare to customers. Jose Louis Garza, Interjet's Chief Executive Officer, stated Interjet is "giving the flying public the inspiration to fly again. We understand what travelers are looking for in an airline partner - not just lower fares, but everything they used to get for the price of a ticket, such as free checked bags, seat selection, free beverages and snacks onboard." Unfortunately, Interjet's claim that it "understands what travelers are looking for in an airline partner" is belied by its systematic practice of refusing to issue refunds to customers who are contractually entitled to them. Interjet has maintained significant business contacts with the State of Illinois and Cook County for several years by operating nonstop service between Mexico City and Chicago O'Hare International. 3 Since 2016, Interjet's Mexico-City-Chicago route is serviced by two daily flights, each with a capacity of 150 people. This totals 2,100 people per week on this route alone, and 218,000 people over two years. The Chicago Department of Aviation in 2016 noted that "[t]hese flights [to Mexico City] are estimated to generate $45 million in annual economic impact for the Chicago region.?" In 2018, Interjet opened an additional daily route between Chicago O'Hare International Airport and Guadalajara International Airport. Interjet sells and issues plane tickets in the State of Illinois and Cook County, advertises its services directly to residents of Illinois and Cook County, and conducts business directly with the City of Chicago and O'Hare International Airport, the lawsuit says. Interjet provides passenger and freight air transportation services across various destinations in Mexico and internationally. Interjet is Mexico's third largest airline, measured by passengers carried, and has serviced international flights to and from the United States since 2012.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Sydney Janzen, 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 sjanzen@edelson.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 2 Law Firms to Pursue Talc Litigation -------------------------------------------------------- Dawn Onley, writing for The Grio, reports that attorney R. Allen Smith of Smith Law Firm, PLLC and civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump have joined forces to pursue litigation over the manufacture and marketing of talc, including the way companies like Johnson and Johnson market their products with a laser focus on Black and Latino women. Messrs. Crump and Smith hosted a press conference in Atlanta on Feb. 25 at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church Amphitheater along with Janice L. Mathis, Esq., the executive director of National Council of Negro Women (NCNW), the oldest advocacy group for minority women, not only to alert women of color, but to look for women who may be suffering as a result of using this product. Messrs. Crump and Smith are going on the road, traveling throughout the country, to find and speak to women, educating them about this issue. Mr. Smith, who is from Ridgeland, Mississippi, has taken on similar talc cases on behalf of several plaintiffs and was recently retained to represent Mississippi in seeing civil fines against the company. In July 2018, a Missouri jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to issue a payment of up to $4.7 billion to 22 women that claimed their ovarian cancer diagnoses were directly related to the company's baby powder. The group was also at Ebenezer Baptist Church Amphitheater to discuss the evidence that shows a direct correlation between ovarian cancer and the use of Johnson & Johnson's baby powder. "We have to protect our women of color," said Mr. Crump said. "There is evidence that Johnson & Johnson preyed on women of color while possessing scientific reports that showed a linkage between talcum powder and ovarian cancer." During the press conference, Mr. Allen explained that his team is in possession of multiple documents that prove that Johnson & Johnson deliberately targeted Black, Hispanic, and obese women to increase their sales, knowing full and well that Black women are prone to ovarian cancer at higher levels when using baby powder in their genital areas. The documents are being used as part of several existing lawsuits filed by ovarian cancer and mesothelioma victims. They contend that Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that its talc products include asbestos fibers and that the exposure to those fibers can cause ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, according to Business Insider. Mr. Crump believes Johnson & Johnson engaged in "cynical tactics to market these products to women of color, while knowing their potential harm." "Johnson & Johnson devalued Black lives by expressly marketing a product to black customers that they knew for decades to be harmful," said Crump. "Given that many Black workers' retirement funds depend on government pension funds that invest in this stock for their retirement, Johnson & Johnson victimized them twice, jeopardizing their physical and their financial health." If you're a woman of color who believes your cancer diagnoses is directly links to the use of Johnson & Johnson's baby power, contact Attorney Crump, at 844-638-1822 or fill out the free case evaluation form at bencrump.com/contact/.[GN] KIA MOTORS: Lawsuit Filed After Couple Says Car Started on Fire --------------------------------------------------------------- Troy Campbell, writing for WKMG News 6 & ClickOrlando, reports that a class-action lawsuit was filed on Feb. 7 against Kia Motors after a Polk County couple said their car started on fire. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Daniel and Christine Adams, alleges in August, their 2013 Kia Sorrento started on fire while they were driving. The family said their infant son was in the back seat of the car at the time. The lawsuit claims "frantic onlookers began to honk and attempt to get Mr. and Mrs. Adam's attention" and the warning indicators on the dashboard turned on "like a Christmas lights display." The lawyer for the couple wrote, "Mrs. Adams rushed to the back seat where their infant child was secured in his car seat, and lucky Mr. and Mrs. Adams were able to free their child." A picture showing the vehicle on fire was also submitted with the lawsuit. The lawsuit also alleges Kia was notified of mechanical issues as early as June 2013 after people submitted complaints to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Court documents show the couple said their Kia had an engine replacement just two months prior to the fire in response to a voluntary recall. Kia Motors told News 6 that it does not comment on pending litigation.[GN] KRAFT HEINZ: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 26 disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of The Kraft Heinz Company (NASDAQ:KHC) common stock during the period between May 4, 2017 and February 21, 2019 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania and is captioned Walling v. The Kraft Heinz Company, et al. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Kraft Heinz common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from February 24, 2019. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/kraftheinz/. The complaint charges Kraft Heinz, certain of its current and former officers and 3G Capital, Inc., one of Kraft Heinz's largest beneficial stockholders, with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Kraft Heinz manufactures and markets food and beverage products in the United States, Canada, Europe and internationally. Kraft Heinz products include condiments and sauces, cheese and dairy products, meals, meats, refreshment beverages, coffee, and other grocery products. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Kraft Heinz's operations and financial condition. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that Kraft Heinz had been materially overstating the value of certain of its important product lines; that Kraft Heinz's intangible assets, including goodwill, associated with, at least, its Kraft natural cheese, Oscar Mayer cold cuts, and U.S. Refrigerated and Canadian retail businesses were materially impaired; that Kraft Heinz had been employing improper accounting policies and procedures associated with its procurement function, including, but not limited to, agreements, side agreements, and changes or modifications to its agreements with its vendors; that Kraft Heinz had been improperly accounting for the costs of products sold; and that Kraft Heinz had been operating with material weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting, including controls related to the accounting and disclosure of new accounting standards, its cost of products sold, its procurement function, the impairment of goodwill and the impairment of intangible assets. As a result of this information being withheld from the market, Kraft Heinz stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, with its stock price reaching a high of more than $93 per share. Then on February 21, 2019, Kraft Heinz announced its financial results for the fourth quarter of 2018, including an impairment charge of $15.4 billion. The Company stated that, "[d]uring the fourth quarter, . . . [it had] concluded that, based on several factors that developed during the fourth quarter, the fair values of certain goodwill and intangible assets were below their carrying amounts. As a result, the Company recorded non-cash impairment charges of $15.4 billion to lower the carrying amount of goodwill in certain reporting units, primarily U.S. Refrigerated and Canada Retail, and certain intangible assets, primarily the Kraft and Oscar Mayer trademarks. These charges resulted in a net loss attributable to common shareholders of $12.6 billion and diluted loss per share of $10.34." The same day, Kraft Heinz disclosed that it had received a subpoena in October 2018 from the SEC "associated with an investigation into the Company's procurement area, more specifically the Company's accounting policies, procedures, and internal controls related to it procurement function, including, but not limited to, agreements, side agreements, and changes or modifications to its agreements with vendors." On these disclosures, the price of Kraft Heinz stock fell $13.23 per share, or more than 27%, to close at $34.95 per share on February 22, 2019. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Kraft Heinz common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a national law firm representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For five consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in both the amount recovered for shareholders and the total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also advocates for corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. [GN] LAS 3K USA: Fajardo Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- ANIBAL FAJARDO and other similarly-situated individuals v. LAS 3K USA, L.L.C., d/b/a QUE CHULADA, d/b/a EL CAPO BRICKELL, and JAIRO AVELLANEDA individually, Case No. 1:19-cv-20797-RNS (S.D. Fla., February 28, 2019), seeks to recover damages for alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. LAS 3K USA, L.L.C., doing business as QUE CHULADA, doing business as EL CAPO BRICKELL, is a Florida corporation, having a place of business in Dade County, Florida. Jairo Avellaneda is now the owner, partner and manager of the Defendant Corporation. LAS 3K USA is a restaurant company, which operated under the name of Que Chulada, a Mexican restaurant located at 1250 S. Miami Avenue, #101, in Miami, Florida. On April 17, 2017, the Defendant began to operate in the same location El Capo Brickell, a combination of restaurant/bar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com LEND-A-HAND: Walburn et al. Seek Payment for Overtime Work ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Lend-a-Hand Services, LLC seeks to recover unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants employ approximately 15 hourly employees that provide home healthcare services to clients at any given time. The Plaintiffs were hourly paid, non-exempt employees of Defendants as that term is defined in the FLSA and Chapter 4111. The Plaintiffs consistently worked more than 40 hours in a workweek during the three years prior to filing the cComplaint. The Plaintiffs were not paid overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. On numerous occasions, the Plaintiffs approached Defendant Nerswick and told him that they believed that they and the other hourly employees should be receiving overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendant responded that he had never offered overtime pay and was not going to pay it, the lawsuit says. The case is captioned as MARY WALBURN, 5153 Norwich Street Hilliard, OH 43026; JOHNATHAN BAILEY, 62173 Forestview Drive Cambridge, OH 43725; MISTY HALL, 9849 Lancaster New Lexington Road Bremen, OH 43107; JILL HOLLETT, 1866 Cedar Hill Rd. Apt. A Lancaster, OH 43130; MEGAN HUGHES, 79 East Canal Street, Apt. C Carroll, OH 43112; ALLISON MITCHELL, 11109 Frasure Helber Rd, Lot 10 Logan, OH 43138; JESSICA ROTH, 5045 Sugar Grove Road Sugar Grove, OH 43155; and JOSHUA SLIKER, 62173 Forestview Drive Cambridge, OH 43138 for themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs vs. LEND-A-HAND SERVICES, LLC 4925 Vanlear Road Columbus, OH 43229 and PAUL NERSWICK 4925 Vanlear Road Columbus, OH 43229, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00711-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 28, 2019).[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs: Greg R. Mansell, Esq. Carrie J. Dyer, Esq. Kyle T. Anderson, Esq. MANSELL LAW, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: 614 610-4134 Facsimile: 614 547-3614 E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com Kyle@MansellLawLLC.com LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: April 1 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 26 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Lexicon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LXRX) and certain of its officers and directors. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, and indexed under 19-cv-00301, is on behalf of a class consisting of all behalf of persons and/or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Lexicon securities between March 11, 2016 and January 17, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Lexicon securities between March 11, 2016, and January 17, 2019, you have until April 1, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Lexicon was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas. Lexicon is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products for the treatment of human diseases. "Sotagliflozin" is the scientific name of one of Lexicon's orally-delivered small molecule drug candidates under development. Sotagliflozin is in Phase 3 clinical trials for the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes. In November 2015, Lexicon entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Sanofi S.A. ("Sanofi"), a French multinational pharmaceutical company. Under the collaboration and license agreement, Lexicon granted Sanofi an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing right and license to develop, manufacture and commercialize Sotagliflozin. Lexicon is responsible for all clinical development activities relating to type 1 diabetes and retains an exclusive option to co-promote and have a significant role, in collaboration with Sanofi, in the commercialization of Sotagliflozin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes in the United States. Sanofi is responsible for all clinical development and commercialization of Sotagliflozin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes worldwide and is solely responsible for the commercialization of Sotagliflozin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes outside the United States. On May 22, 2018, Sanofi filed a New Drug Application ("NDA") for "Zynquista" (the trademarked, commercialized name of Sotagliflozin) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). The NDA for Zynquista was based on data from the inTandem clinical trial program that included three Phase 3 clinical trials (called, respectively, "inTandem1," "inTandem2," and "inTandem3") assessing the safety and efficacy of Zynquista in approximately 3,000 adults with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes. According to Jorge Insuasty, Senior-Vice President, Global Head of Development, Sanofi, "[i]f approved, Zynquista would be the first oral antidiabetic drug approved in the U.S. for use by adults with type 1 diabetes, in combination with insulin." The complaint alleges that 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 data from Lexicon's Phase 3 clinical trials assessing the safety and efficacy of Sotagliflozin in treating type 1 diabetes were not as positive as Lexicon represented; (ii) the health risks posed by Sotagliflozin were severe enough to threaten its FDA approval prospects; and (iii) as a result, Lexicon's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On January 17, 2019, Lexicon announced that the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee of the FDA (the "Advisory Committee") had "voted eight to eight on the question of whether the overall benefits of [Lexicon's product] Zynquista (sotagliflozin) outweighed the risks to support approval." On news of the Advisory Committee's stalemate, Lexicon's stock price fell $1.74 per share, or 22.6%, to close at $5.96 per share on January 18, 2019. With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN] LIBERTY HEALTH: Brower Piven Notifies Investors of Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Liberty Health Sciences, Inc. (Other OTC: LHSIF) ("Liberty" or the "Company") securities during the period between June 28, 2018 through December 03, 2018 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until March 08, 2019 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in Liberty securities during the Class Period. Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has yet been certified in the above action. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose during the Class Period that Liberty, in conjunction with Aphria Inc. ("Aphria"), was involved in a scheme whereby numerous fraudulent acquisitions and transactions were made to provide undue benefits to both companies' insiders. According to the complaint, following a December 3, 2018 report that Aphria was involved in the acquisition of shell companies at artificially inflated prices, and December 6, 2018 news reports of Liberty's connection to Aphria's illicit dealings, the value of Liberty shares declined significantly. If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment in Liberty securities purchased on or after June 28, 2018 and held through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you. Charles J. Piven, Esq. Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation 1925 Old Valley Road Stevenson, Maryland 21153 Telephone: 410-415-6616 Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com [GN] LIBERTY POWER: Massachusetts Ct. Bifurcates Discovery in Katz Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SAMUEL KATZ et al., Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY POWER Corp., LLC et al, Civil Action No. 18-cv-10506-ADB (D. Mass.), Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (i) bifurcated individual and class discovery, and (ii) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order regarding certain third-party subpoenas. Katz, Alexander Braurman, and Lynne Rhodes allege violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TPCA") and fraudulent transfers to the detriment of four putative nationwide classes of persons who received telemarketing calls on behalf of Defendants Liberty Power Corp, LLC and Liberty Power Holdings, LLC. This action was filed on March 16, 2018. The complaint has been amended twice, most recently on Nov. 14, 2018. On Jan. 9, 2019, Liberty Power filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Although the Court has not yet ruled on that motion, the parties have -- quite appropriately -- engaged in considerable discovery. As a result, Liberty Power has identified several perceived weaknesses in the named Plaintiffs' claims and argues that it may be able to show, after limited additional individual discovery, that the named Plaintiffs lack viable claims. Liberty Power requests that the Court bifurcate discovery and permit a dispositive motion on the named Plaintiffs' claims before class discovery. As part of Liberty Power's efforts to secure discovery to support its arguments that the named Plaintiffs do not have viable claims, it issued third-party subpoenas to Verizon, Cellco Parnership, Vonage, and Google, providers of telephone and email services used by the Plaintiffs. he Plaintiffs move for a protective order prohibiting enforcement of those third-party subpoenas, or alternatively narrowing their scope. Judge Burroughs finds that the need for class discovery may be eliminated if Liberty Power is able to demonstrate that all of the named Plaintiffs lack viable individual claims. Further, class discovery is not necessary to address certain issues that may be dispositive of the Plaintiffs' individual claims or ability to bring the asserted class claims, including whether the phone numbers at issue are within the TCPA, whether named Plaintiffs' are within the classes they purport to represent, and whether any named Plaintiffs with a viable claim can demonstrate the Court's jurisdiction to resolve that claim. The parties will complete discovery relevant to the alleged TCPA violations committed against the named Plaintiffs by May 22, 2019. The Class discovery is stayed until further order of the Court, and the parties will file a joint letter setting forth their respective positions concerning class discovery by May 31, 2019. Liberty Power will file any motion for summary judgment based on the named Plaintiffs' individual claims by June 21, 2019. The Plaintiffs will respond in accordance with the local rules. Next, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 allows third-party subpoenas in connection with civil litigation but requires parties to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. Although the subpoena at issue requests the production of emails in the District of Columbia and a motion to quash or modify the subpoena would be more properly filed in the United States District Court where performance is required, the Court retains jurisdiction to restrict the scope of discovery and issue protective orders in accordance with Rule 26. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order with respect to the subpoena of Mr. Katz's emails from Google is granted. Given the absolute clarity of the law in this area, the Defendants are warned that similar subpoenas could result in sanctions. Finally, the Judge finds that given the uncertainty as to how some of the Plaintiffs' phone numbers were being used, the subpoenaed account records are potentially relevant and do not impose an undue burden on the named Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order concerning subpoenas of telephone account records is therefore denied. The Defendants will treat the records produced in response as "Confidential" under the Protective Order, and will not inquire at any deposition as to the content of calls that the Plaintiffs concede do not concern the Defendants, their agents, or TCPA claims. The Defendants may inquire whether calls are of a business or personal nature but may not go beyond that for calls that do not relate to TCPA violations alleged in the case or elsewhere. Accordingly, Judge Burroughs bifurcated discovery in the cas. The discovery relevant to the merits of the named Plaintiffs' individual claims will conclude by May 22, 2019. The class discovery is stayed until further order by the Court, and the parties will file a joint letter stating their positions on class discovery by May 31, 2019. The Defendants will file a status report on or before May 31, 2019 to inform the Court as to whether they intend to move for summary judgment for some or all of the named Plaintiffs' claims. The Defendant may then move for summary judgment with respect to some or all of the named Plaintiffs' claims by June 21, 2019. The Judge granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order with respect to Liberty Power's subpoena of emails, but denied with respect to the subpoenas of telephone account records, including call logs and other requested information. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/QfyeZ4 from Leagle.com. Samuel Katz, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Christopher Parisi -- dcparisi@parisihavens.com -- Parisi & Havens LLP, pro hac vice, Ethan Mark Preston, Preston Law Offices, pro hac vice, Grace Parasmo -- gparasmo@parasmoliebermanlaw.com -- Parasmo Lieberman Law, pro hac vice, Suzanne L. Havens Beckman -- shavensbeckman@parisihavens.com -- Parisi & Havens, LLP, pro hac vice, Yitzchak H. Lieberman -- ylieberman@parasmoliebermanlaw.com -- Parasmo Lieberman Law, pro hac vice, John L. Fink -- jfink@westborolawyer.com -- Sims and Sims LLP & Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, LLC, pro hac vice. Alexander Braurman & Lynne Rhodes, Plaintiffs, represented by Ethan Mark Preston, Preston Law Offices, David Christopher Parisi Parisi & Havens LLP, Grace Parasmo, Parasmo Lieberman Law, John L. Fink, Sims and Sims LLP & Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, LLC, pro hac vice. Liberty Power Corp., LLC, Delaware limited liability company & LIBERTY POWER HOLDINGS, LLC, Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, represented by Charles A. Zdebski -- czdebski@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey P. Brundage -- jbrundage@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, pro hac vice, Craig R. Waksler -- cwaksler@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC & Rachel E. Moynihan -- rmoynihan@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. Jefferson Sessions United States Attorney General, Interested Party, represented by Susan M. Poswistilo, United States Attorney's Office. LIBERTY POWER HOLDINGS, LLC, Delaware limited liability company & Liberty Power Corp., LLC, Delaware limited liability company, ThirdParty Plaintiffs, represented by Charles A. Zdebski, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, pro hac vice, Craig R. Waksler, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC & Jeffrey P. Brundage, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. LINCOLN LENDING: Court Flips Dismissal of Claim 21 in Tejera Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Luis Tejera, et al., Appellants, v. Lincoln Lending Services, LLC, et al., Appellees, Case No. 3D16-2746 (Fla. Dist. App.), Judge Kevin M. Emas of the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Third District (i) affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's order dismissing with prejudice counts 19 and 21 of Tejera's operative complaint against Omar Romay and America-CV Network, LLC ("ACV"), as barred by the statute of limitations; and (ii) remanded for further proceedings. Accepting as true all allegations of the operative complaint, Tejera and others were victims of an illegal mortgage rescue scheme devised and perpetrated by Lincoln Lending, and several related individuals and entities. This scheme consisted of collecting illegal up-front fees from individuals, such as Tejera, who were in need of "mortgage rescue services," but after collecting payment, those services were never provided because the scheme was "designed to steal money from consumers." In furtherance of this scheme, the Lincoln Defendants advertised their services on Channel 41 in Miami, Florida, which was operated by Okeechobee Television Corp., a company owned by Romay, and alleged to be Romay's "alter ego." This television advertising provided the medium for the scheme, and enticed Tejera and the purported class members to use the services offered by the Lincoln Defendants. The success of the scheme depended on this "heavy rotation of advertising." At some point, Romay was made aware that the Lincoln Defendants were not performing any of the advertised services, but Romay became a willing co-conspirator in the mortgage rescue fraud scheme, and continued to air the heavy rotation of advertisements for the fraudulent mortgage rescue conspiracy. In March 2009, the Florida Attorney General commenced a civil action against Lincoln Lending and its managing member for the fraudulent scheme and obtained a temporary injunction prohibiting Lincoln Lending from operating a mortgage rescue business. Tejera filed the instant lawsuit as a class action against the Lincoln Defendants, alleging claims of unfair and deceptive trade practices and civil theft. After several amendments, a fifth amended complaint was filed alleging claims against Romay and ACV for civil conspiracy to commit civil theft (count 19) and civil conspiracy to perpetrate fraud in the inducement (count 21). Tejera further alleged that he could not have discovered the facts giving rise to an action against Romay and ACV until April 2012. ACV and Romay filed motions to dismiss these counts, contending that the claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations for civil conspiracy. As to count 21, alleging civil conspiracy to perpetrate fraud in the inducement, Tejera acknowledged a four-year statute of limitations applied, but contended that the delayed discovery doctrine also applied, and that the four-year limitations period did not begin to run until the date when the facts giving rise to the cause of action were discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence (which, as Tejera alleged in the complaint, was not until April 2012). Following a hearing, the trial court dismissed, with prejudice, count 21 against Romay and ACV. Tejera appeals. Judge Emas affirmed without further discussion the trial court's dismissal of count 19 (alleging a claim for civil conspiracy to commit civil theft), as the trial court properly determined that count was barred by the statute of limitations. Because Tejera's claim of conspiracy to perpetrate fraud in the inducement alleged an action "founded upon fraud," the Judge holds that section 95.031(2)(a)'s delayed discovery doctrine may properly be invoked in determining when the statute of limitations began to run on claim 21. The trial court erred in dismissing this count with prejudice, as barred by the statute of limitations, where Tejera's complaint alleged that he could not have discovered the facts giving rise to this claim against Romay and ACV until April 2012. For these reasons, the Judge affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/RxMHal from Leagle.com. Corona Law Firm, P.A., and Ricardo Corona and Ricardo M. Corona -- info@coronapa.com -- for appellants. Dorta & Ortega, P.A., and Omar Ortega -- info@dortaandortega.com -- and Rosdaisy Rodriguez; David M. Rogero, P.A., and David M. Rogero -- dmrogero@rogerolaw.com -- and Yvette H. Ayala -- yhayala@dmrpa.com -- for appellees. LIVE POULTRY: Vargas Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- ANTONIA VARGAS SANCHEZ (A.K.A. MARGARITA), individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LIVE POULTRY FARM CORP. (D/B/A LIVE POULTRY FARM), WEBSTER LIVE CHICKEN MARKET INC. (D/B/A LIVE POULTRY FARM), MUFID SAWADALLAH, ALI MUSTAFA, HAMADA DOE, and TONY MENDOZA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02179 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2019), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants own, operate, or control a live poultry market, located at 1167 Webster Ave., Bronx, NY 10456 under the name "Live Poultry Farm." Ms. Vargas is a former employee of Defendants. She was employed as a poultry cutter at the a live poultry market. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate record-keeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Defendants' conduct extended beyond the Plaintiff Vargas to all other similarly situated employees. Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff Vargas and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a live poultry market, located at 1167 Webster Ave., Bronx, NY 10456 under the name "Live Poultry Farm."[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com LOGMEIN INC: Wasson Class Action Underway ----------------------------------------- LogMeIn, 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 a securities class action entitled, Wasson v. LogMeIn, Inc. et al. On August 20, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit (the "Securities Class Action") was initiated by purported stockholders of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of its officers, entitled Wasson v. LogMeIn, Inc. et al., (Case No. 2:18-cv-07285). On November 6, 2018 the case was transferred to the District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:18-cv-12330). The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged misstatements or omissions concerning renewal rates for the Company's subscription contracts. The Company believes the lawsuit lacks merit and intends to defend it vigorously. LogMeIn, Inc. provides a portfolio of cloud-based communication and collaboration, identity and access, and customer engagement and support solutions. It enables people to connect with each other worldwide to drive meaningful interactions, deepen relationships, and create better outcomes for individuals and businesses. LogMeIn, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with additional locations in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. LX 1204 JEWELRY: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Jimenez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- GREGORIO JIMENEZ, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs v. LX 1204 JEWELRY INC, KEVIN LEE and SAM [LNU], Case No. 1:19-cv-01908 (S.D.N.Y., February 28, 2019), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiff and the class are entitled to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. LX 1204 Jewelry Inc. is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal place of business located at 1204 Broadway, in New York City. The Individual Defendants are officers or principals of the Corporate Defendants. The Company sells jewelry items, including necklaces, earrings, bangles, bracelets and rings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com anne@leelitigation.com LYON HOME: Vickers Seeks Back Pay --------------------------------- BRANDI VICKERS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LYON HOME ENTERPRISES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00039-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., March 8, 2019), seeks to recover back pay, compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney fees, costs of litigation and other relief from Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and breach of contract. According to the complaint, in or around November 2018, the Defendant hired the Plaintiff to work going door-to-door offering the Defendant's repair services to individuals in and around Panama City, Florida. The Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff 8% of the billings it received on behalf of customers whom Plaintiff signed up for the Defendant's services. The Plaintiff stopped working for the Defendant in January 2019. At the time, she was owed $5,602.69 in commissions. She received one check from Defendant in the amount of $1,508.37, but Defendant has refused to pay her any additional money. The Plaintiff worked both regular hours for which she did not receive minimum wage and overtime hours for which she received no compensation. 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 proposed additional class consists of other service writers, who like Plaintiff were not paid minimum wage for each week of their employment and were not paid overtime when they worked in excess of 40 hours per week, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Matthew W. Birk, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK 309 NE 1 st Street Gainesville, FL 32601 Telephone: (352) 244-2069 Facsimile: (352) 372-3464 E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com MASSACHUSETTS: Court OKs I. Liviz's In Forma Pauperis Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in the case captioned ILYA LIVIZ, Plaintiff, v. CHARLIE BAKER, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 19-10304-WGY. (D. Mass.). Through this purported class action, Liviz seeks to challenge alleged discriminatory conduct concerning the right to travel. Liviz alleges that his Massachusetts drivers' license was (1) deemed non-renewable based upon unpaid tickets and (2) suspended based upon three surchargable events. Plaintiff explains that by the paying applicable fees and completing a driver retraining program, he could obtain a Massachusetts driver's license. Upon review of Liviz' motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court concludes that he is without income or assets to pay the $400.00 filing fee. The motions are therefore granted. When a plaintiff seeks to file a complaint without prepayment of the filing fee, summonses do not issue until the Court reviews the complaint and determines that it satisfies the substantive requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section 1915. Section 1915 authorizes federal courts to dismiss a complaint sua sponte if the claims therein lack an arguable basis in law or in fact, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. In order to establish standing, Liviz must show that (1) he personally has suffered some actual or imminent injury as a result of the challenged conduct (2) the injury can fairly be traced to that conduct and (3) the injury likely will be redressed by a favorable decision from the court. Here, there are no adequate allegations that the non-Massachusetts defendants caused the plaintiff any injury. Conclusory assertions of harm in states other than Massachusetts do not remedy this deficiency. To the extent Liviz challenges the constitutionality of his license suspension or non-renewal, federal district courts do not have discretion to exercise jurisdiction over cases brought by state-court losers' challenging state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes a federal action if the relief requested would effectively reverse or void a state court decision, or if the plaintiff's claims are inextricably intertwined with the state court action. To the extent Liviz seeks to have this federal court review the underlying motor vehicle infractions, find them incorrect and reverse such decisions, there is no jurisdiction for such federal court review. Liviz contends that the defendants deprived him of his fundamental right to travel because of the suspension and non-renewal of his Massachusetts driver's license. However, enforcement of state motor vehicle licensure requirements does not violate the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right to travel. However, the constitutional right to travel guarantees: (1) citizens of one State the right to travel across borders into another State (2) visiting citizens the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien and (3) newly-arrived residents the right to the same privileges and immunities that longstanding citizens of the state enjoy but not the right to drive a car without a license. Liviz contends that his liberty interest in traveling has been impeded by the loss of driver's license and that, but for his inability to pay, he would have his driver's license. This allegation is insufficient to state a claim that the government violated his right to travel. The right to travel protects how a citizen in a state is treated by the government compared to other citizens in that same state or another state. Because the requirements of procedural due process apply only to the deprivation of interests encompassed by the [Constitution's] protection of liberty and property and because the range of interests protected by procedural due process is not infinite, the first inquiry in every due process challenge is whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a protected interest in property' or liberty. Liviz contends that but for his inability to pay, he would have his Massachusetts driver's license restored. Given the multiple procedures available to avoid suspension and/or non-renewal, the allegations have not shown that the process for suspending plaintiff's license is constitutionally inadequate. There are opportunities to challenge the factual premise for non-renewal and/or suspension as well as avenues through which to avoid the loss of a license. To the extent Liviz alleges that a violation of substantive due process, plaintiffs must prove that they suffered the deprivation of an established life, liberty or property interest, and that such deprivation occurred through governmental action that shocks the conscience. To shock the conscience, the challenged conduct must be egregious and outrageous, such as conduct that is intended to injure in some way unjustifiable by any government interest. No such offensive conduct is at issue here and the complaint fails to allege inadequate process. In light of this, this action will be dismissed in 21 days unless Liviz files an Amended Complaint which cures the pleading deficiencies noted herein. Any amended complaint must comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in that it must clearly state the grounds for relief and include specific factual allegations in support of those claims. The plaintiff must clearly identify each named defendant and state the specific allegations against each. The amended complaint must also demonstrate how the plaintiff was harmed by each defendant's actions. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 21, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yxkzzavx from Leagle.com. Chief Jurist Ilya Liviz Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Ilya Liviz, Liviz Law Office. MAXWELL: Investors File Class Action to Halt Tesla Acquisition -------------------------------------------------------------- Fred Lambert, writing for electrek, reports that Tesla's move to acquire battery and ultra-capacitor tech company Maxwell is being challenged by investors in a class action lawsuit to stop the acquisition. Earlier in February, Tesla announced the acquisition of the San Diego-based ultracapacitor and battery company Maxwell for over $200 million. Bloomberg Terminal is now reporting that some investors have filed a class action in San Diego federal court to abort the all-stock transaction, which they say was at an "unfair" price in an "unfair" process. Before the deal was announced, Maxwell's stock traded at just over $3.00 per share for a valuation of $140 million. The board approved Tesla's offer to acquire them for $4.75 per share making the transaction worth over $200 million. Electrek's Take The seriousness of this class action is unclear at this point. The board has approved Tesla's offer and it sounds like they did approve the deal with the backing of most investors. That said, there was a lot of back and forth between the two companies and it sounds like Maxwell was pushing for a much higher price. Apparently, Tesla and Maxwell had discussions for years over potential opportunities between the two companies, but Tesla started being serious about acquiring them in December 2018. At that point, they started negotiations and Tesla made several offers that were refused. It wasn't until Tesla threaten to pull their interest in the company that they finally decided to accept the offer. It's nothing exceptional when it comes to acquisition negotiation, but it's something to think about as some investors are trying to kill the deal. Here's a timeline of the discussions between Tesla and Maxwell: On December 12, 2018, Brian Scelfo of Tesla contacted Dr. Fink to convey Tesla's interest in a potential acquisition of Maxwell rather than pursuing a strategic commercial relationship. Prior to December 12, 2018, none of the discussions between representatives of Maxwell and Tesla involved the possibility of an acquisition of Maxwell. Mr. Scelfo explained to Dr. Fink Tesla's strategic rationale for a potential acquisition of Maxwell. Dr. Fink informed Mr. Scelfo that while Maxwell was not actively looking to sell the company, he would inform the Maxwell board of directors of Tesla's current interest in a potential acquisition of Maxwell. On December 13, 2018, Dr. Fink received a call from Mr. Scelfo, who called Dr. Fink as a follow up to his December 12 call, to express Tesla's interest in conducting due diligence for a potential transaction. Following the call, Mr. Scelfo sent a mutual nondisclosure agreement to Dr. Fink so the parties could begin discussions and for preliminary diligence in connection with a potential transaction. On December 14, 2018, Tesla and Maxwell entered into the mutual nondisclosure agreement related to a possible negotiated transaction between Tesla and Maxwell. On December 14, 2018, Tesla delivered a non-binding letter of intent to Dr. Fink proposing to acquire 100% of the outstanding shares of capital stock of Maxwell for a per share purchase price of $2.35, which represented a premium of 15.2% from the closing price of Maxwell's stock on December 14, 2018. The purchase price would be paid in shares of Tesla stock based on an exchange ratio to be fixed at the time of signing definitive transaction documents. In addition, Mr. Scelfo requested that Maxwell enter into an exclusivity agreement as it related to a proposed acquisition and delivered a draft to Dr. Fink. Dr. Fink then promptly informed the Maxwell board of directors of the letter of intent and interest from Tesla. On December 16, 2018, Dr. Fink called Mr. Scelfo to inform him that the Maxwell board of directors would be holding a telephonic meeting on December 18, 2018, primarily for the purpose of approving a transaction unrelated to the Tesla non-binding letter of intent, and the Maxwell board of directors would also likely consider the Tesla offer at this meeting, but that based on Maxwell's standalone plan and the moderate proposed premium to the Maxwell trading price represented by Tesla's initial offer, the offer presented by Tesla would likely not be accepted by the Maxwell board of directors. Dr. Fink and Mr. Scelfo agreed that an in-person meeting between representatives of Tesla and Maxwell would be helpful for Tesla to further understand Maxwell's products, technology and operations and the benefits of a potential acquisition transaction and allowing it to offer a higher valuation. Between December 17 and December 19, 2018, Dr. Fink had numerous calls and email correspondence with Mr. Scelfo in order to prepare for an inperson meeting on December 20, 2018. Dr. Fink also informed Mr. Scelfo that the Maxwell board of directors declined Tesla's offer, and that Tesla would need to increase its offer price to interest the Maxwell Board in a sale transaction. On December 20, 2018, senior business development and engineering personnel and other members of Tesla management met with the CEO, CFO, senior operations personnel and other members of Maxwell management at Maxwell's headquarters. Maxwell provided Tesla with further information regarding Maxwell's products, technology and operations for the purpose of assisting Tesla with further analyzing the benefits of a potential acquisition transaction. Representatives of Tesla also provided information regarding Tesla's programs and particular interest in Maxwell's business, product lines and operations. Following the meeting on December 20, 2018, Mr. Scelfo, on behalf of Tesla, delivered a revised non-binding letter of intent to Dr. Fink to acquire 100% of the outstanding shares of capital stock of Maxwell for a per share purchase price of $3.10, which represented a premium of 56% from the closing price of Maxwell's stock on December 20, 2018. Other terms of the offer remained the same as the initial letter of intent. Mr. Scelfo also indicated that a decision regarding a potential acquisition of Maxwell by Tesla would have to be reached quickly in order to not delay other important investment decisions at Tesla. Dr. Fink promptly provided the revised letter of intent to the Maxwell board of directors along with an update of his discussions with Mr. Scelfo. After the December 22, 2018 Maxwell board of directors meeting, Dr. Fink informed Mr. Scelfo that Tesla's revised offer was not accepted by the Maxwell board of directors and that the Maxwell board of directors would need a higher price in order to support a sale transaction with Tesla. Dr. Fink informed Mr. Scelfo, however, that he and his team were willing to work with Tesla through the holidays to help Tesla better understand the value that Tesla could realize through an acquisition of the company and further explain why the Maxwell board of directors was seeking a higher valuation. Between December 23 and December 28, 2018, Dr. Fink had numerous email correspondences with Mr. Scelfo in order to conduct further diligence and discuss the benefits of a potential transaction. During this period, Mr. Scelfo also conveyed that Tesla was no longer interested in a potential strategic commercial arrangement with Maxwell and it would move in a different direction should Maxwell and Tesla be unable to reach an agreement regarding a potential acquisition of the entire capital stock of Maxwell. After the December 28, 2018 Maxwell board of directors meeting, Dr. Fink contacted Mr. Scelfo via e-mail to discuss why the Maxwell board of directors felt a higher valuation was justified. Dr. Fink also provided Mr. Scelfo with a high-level summary of management's net present value analysis, as reviewed by the Maxwell board of directors at the meeting earlier in the day. Dr. Fink also provided Mr. Scelfo with buy-in analysis of Maxwell's larger institutional investors as previously previewed by the Maxwell board of directors. In addition, Dr. Fink reiterated that it was the view of the Maxwell board of directors that a higher value would likely be needed to gain the support of Maxwell's largest institutional investors. At such time, Dr. Fink indicated to Mr. Scelfo that it was the Maxwell board of directors' view that it would likely require at least $5.75—$6.00 per share to gain the support of Maxwell's largest institutional investors. Between January 3 and January 7, 2019, Dr. Fink had additional email and telephone correspondence with Mr. Scelfo. On January 7, 2019, Mr. Scelfo, on behalf of Tesla, delivered a revised non-binding letter of intent to Dr. Fink to acquire 100% of the outstanding shares of capital stock of Maxwell for a per share purchase price of $4.35, which represented a premium of 75% from the closing price of Maxwell's stock on January 7, 2019. The other terms of the offer remained the same as Tesla's initial letter of intent. Dr. Fink shared the revised non-binding letter of intent with Maxwell's Strategic Transaction Committee on the morning of January 8, 2019. In connection with the revised offer, Dr. Fink and Mr. Scelfo agreed to arrange an additional in-person meeting pursuant to which Tesla could meet additional members of the Maxwell team and learn more about Maxwell's operations, technology and products. Dr. Fink and Mr. Scelfo continued to communicate via email in between January 7, 2019 and January 10, 2019, and Dr. Fink indicated that Tesla's latest offer was unlikely to be accepted by the Maxwell board of directors. On January 11, 2019, senior business development and engineering personnel and other members of Tesla management met with the CEO, CFO, senior operations personnel and other members of Maxwell management and personnel at Maxwell's headquarters in San Diego. During the meetings, Tesla indicated that members of its management team would be having a technical and business review on the following Monday and an update on negotiations with Maxwell would be provided to Tesla's Chief Executive Officer and Audit Committee. Tesla made it clear that their latest offer was at the high end of the range in which approval from its Audit Committee had been given. Moreover, Mr. Scelfo indicated that, while Tesla may consider any counter-proposal from Maxwell, any higher proposal from Maxwell may cause Tesla to discontinue discussions and explore any and all alternative solutions available to Tesla, including alternatives that were simultaneously being considered or in development at Tesla. On January 18, 2019, Mr. Scelfo, on behalf of Tesla, delivered a revised non-binding letter of intent to Dr. Fink. The offer continued to be an acquisition of 100% of the outstanding shares of capital stock of Maxwell. In the non-binding letter of intent, Tesla indicated a new per share purchase price of $4.75. While this was still lower than Maxwell's initial request of $5.75-$6.00 per share that was discussed with Mr. Scelfo in December, it represented a premium of 66% from the closing price of Maxwell's stock on January 17, 2019. Tesla indicated it would be amenable to discussing a fixed value construct, subject to a potential mutually agreed to price collar should Tesla share price move outside a certain percentage between signing and closing. On January 20, 2019, Maxwell received a priority due diligence list from Tesla. On January 23, 2019, Maxwell provided certain employees of Tesla with access to a virtual data room that contained materials regarding Maxwell's business that were responsive to Tesla's priority due diligence request list. Throughout the negotiation period, Maxwell continued to provide materials and Tesla continued to conduct due diligence on Maxwell. From January 19 through January 22, 2019, Tesla and Maxwell continued to exchange revised drafts of the non-binding letter of intent and exclusivity agreement. On January 23, 2019, Maxwell and Tesla entered into the non-binding letter of intent and an exclusivity and non-solicitation agreement with Tesla providing for exclusive negotiations through February 21, 2019. Later on January 23, 2019, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Tesla's outside legal advisors ("WSGR"), sent a draft of a proposed definitive merger agreement to representatives of DLA Piper LLP (US), Maxwell's outside legal advisor ("DLA"). Between January 23, 2019 and February 1, 2019, representatives of Maxwell held a number of lengthy management meetings in person and by conference call with various representatives of Tesla, during which in-depth financial, technological, legal and other due diligence was conducted, including meetings at Tesla's offices on January 24 and 25, 2019, between members of Maxwell's management and other employees of Tesla. On January 24, 2019, representatives of DLA provided a revised draft of the definitive merger agreement to representatives of WSGR. Significant areas of negotiation included the scope and terms of the interim operating covenants, the timing of the closing and the outside date for the transaction, the structure of the transaction, the calculation of the Tesla trading price and collar terms, the terms upon which Maxwell could consider an alternative acquisition proposal and the process for dealing with any such proposal, and triggers for the possible payment of a termination fee and/or possible expense reimbursement. On January 26, 2019, WSGR sent an initial draft of a form tender and support agreement in line with Tesla's request to have certain Maxwell executive officers and all directors and their affiliated funds sign such an agreement. On January 27, 2019, representatives of DLA provided a revised draft of the form of tender and support agreement to representatives of WSGR, which was finalized over the course of the next several days. On January 26, 2019, Tesla delivered a more extensive due diligence request list to Maxwell that supplemented the initial high priority due diligence request list. Maxwell continued to provide materials to Tesla in response to the due diligence request lists. Between January 25 and February 2, 2019, representatives of DLA and representatives of WSGR exchanged drafts of the merger agreement and ancillary transaction documents and held telephonic discussions to progress negotiations between the parties on transaction terms. On January 31, 2019, members of Maxwell management, along with representatives of DLA, held a conference call with members of Tesla management regarding reverse legal and financial due diligence by Maxwell of Tesla and Tesla Common Stock. After the close of market trading on February 1, 2019, representatives of Tesla visited Maxwell's facility in Peoria, Arizona, to view the commercial production facility. Members of Maxwell's senior management and engineering personnel were also present. On February 3, 2019, the Tesla board of directors held a special meeting and approved the terms of the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby. Following the meeting, on February 3, 2019, Maxwell and Tesla signed the definitive merger agreement and, before the open of markets on February 4, 2019, Maxwell issued a press release announcing the transaction. [GN] MDL 2492: Hoffman Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Jeffrey Hoffman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00446 (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-01135 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 Student-Athletes. The Hoffman 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: Kimble Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Melvin Kimble, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00455 (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-01148 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 Student-Athletes. The Kimble 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: Lauback Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Tyler Lauback, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00503 (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-01169 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 Student-Athletes. The Lauback 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: MacLellan Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Darren MacLellan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and University of La Verne, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00480 (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-01143 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 University of La Verne Student-Athletes. The MacLellan 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: Moor Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------- A case, Sheldon Moor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00459 (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-01107 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 Student-Athletes. The Moor 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: Purdie Action v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Robert Purdie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and William Penn University, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00491 (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-01159 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 William Penn University Student-Athletes. The Purdie 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: Sepanski Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Joshua Sepanski, 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 and Southwest Baptist University, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00488 (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-01156 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 Southwest Baptist University Student-Athletes. The Sepanski 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: Swanson Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Daniel Swanson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00370 (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-01174 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 Swanson 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: Van Doren Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- A case, MATTHEW VAN DOREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00355 (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-01049 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 Lafayette College student-athletes. The Van Doren 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: Williams Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Lorenzo Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00454 (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-01146 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 Student-Athletes. The Williams 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, Charles Wilson, 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-00471 (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-01125 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 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: Burchfield vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled STEVEN BURCHFIELD, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00205 (Filed Feb. 11, 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 March 4, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01187-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 Burchfield 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. 156 N. Main St. Edwardsville, IL 62025 E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com jcarnduff@gorijulianlaw.com Telephone: (618) 659-9833 Facsimile: (618) 659-9834 MDL 2741: Kirsch Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled NEIL KIRSCH, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-159 (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-00959-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 Kirsch 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: Poroz Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled NATALA POROZ, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF WILLIAM P. BECKWITH, deceased, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00077 (Filed Feb. 15, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Mar. 8, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01243-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Poroz 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. The Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges 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: Kevin M. Noonan, Esq. McTEAGUE, HIGBEE, CASE, COHEN, WHITNEY & TOKER, PA Four Union Park PO Box 5000 Topsham, ME 04086-500 Telephone: 207-725-5581 Facsimile: 207-725-1090 - and - Paul M. Dominguez, Esq. DOMINGUEZ LAW FIRM, LLC Albuquerque, NM 87184 Telephone: 505 850-5854 Facsimile: 505 796-5107 E-mail: paul@dominguez.law MEDICAL AND PROFESSIONAL: Settlement in Blanchard Has Prelim OK --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Settlement Agreement in the case captioned JULIE BLANCHARD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL AND PROFESSIONAL COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., Defendant. Case No. 3:17-CV-01309-SMY-GCS. (S.D. Ill.). The Court makes a preliminary finding that this action satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b). The Class as defined in the Settlement Agreement is so numerous that joinder of all members is not practicable, there are questions of law and fact common to the Class, the claims of the Class Representative are typical of the claims of the Class, and the Class Representative will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. For settlement purposes only, the Court preliminarily finds that settlement of the Litigation, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, preliminarily appears in all respects fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interest of the Class Members and within the range of possible approval, especially in light of the complexity, expense, and probable duration of further litigation, the risk and delay inherent in possible appeals, and the limited amount of any potential total recovery for the class. This finding is subject to further consideration at the Final Approval Hearing. The Court approves the Parties' notice plan as set forth in the Agreement including the form and substance of the written class notice. This Court finds the Parties' proposed notice plan as set forth in the Agreement, including the Class Notice, fully satisfies the requirements of due process, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) and any other applicable laws, and constitutes: (i) the best notice practicable under the circumstances and (ii) due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto. Accordingly, this Court approves the form and content of the notice plan and Class Notice. Any Class Member who does not timely opt-out of the Settlement may appear at the Final Approval Hearing to argue that the proposed Settlement should not be approved. All written objection papers must be mailed to the Clerk of the Court and served on Counsel for the parties, postmarked no later than May 28, 2019. To the extent necessary or desired, the Settling Parties may respond to any properly submitted objections no later than seven (7) days before the Final Approval Hearing. There shall be no replies from objectors. All papers in support of the Settlement Agreement shall be filed no later than June 10, 2019. All proceedings in this Litigation are stayed pending final approval of the Settlement, except as may be necessary to implement the Settlement or comply with the terms of the Stipulation. This Court reserves the right to adjourn or continue the date of the Final Approval Hearing without further notice to the Settlement Class and may approve or modify the Settlement without further notice to the Settlement Class. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 21, 2019 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y3z27l3bfrom Leagle.com. Julie Blanchard, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Cathleen M. Combs -- ccombs@edcombs.com -- Edelman, Combs, et al., Heather Kolbus, Edelman, Combs, et al., Isabella M. Janusz, Edelman, Combs, et al, James O. Latturner, Edelman, Combs, et al., & Daniel A. Edelman -- courtecl@edcombs.com -- Edelman, Combs, et al. Medical and Professional Collection Services Inc, Defendant, represented by David M. Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson & James M. Brodzik -- jbrodzik@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. MICHIGAN: Transfer of M. Carter Suit to Circuit Court Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Michigan issued an Opinion affirming the Court of Claims' judgment granting Defendants' Motion to Case Transfer in the case captioned MARLON CARTER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHIGAN STATE POLICE and DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, Defendants, and MICHIGAN CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and STATE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR, Defendants-Appellants. MARLON CARTER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHIGAN STATE POLICE and DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, Defendants-Appellants, and MICHIGAN CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and STATE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR, Defendants. Nos. 341349, 341594. (Mich. App.). Defendants, the Michigan Civil Service Commission, the Michigan State Police, and their respective directors, appeal by right the order of the Court of Claims granting the motion of plaintiff, Marlon Carter, to transfer his case back to the circuit court and denying as moot defendants' joint motion for summary disposition brought under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (immunity granted by law). The Plaintiff, who is African American, applied to the Michigan State Police after passing required preliminary tests, but his application was denied because, as characterized by plaintiff, he had previously accepted a deed in lieu of foreclosure, resulting in a credit issue. The Plaintiff filed a proposed class action complaint in Wayne Circuit Court against defendants. He alleged violations of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), claiming disparate impact, intentional racial discrimination, and discrimination through failure to monitor the adverse impact of hiring decisions. The Defendants filed notices to transfer the case to the Court of Claims. The Court of Claims granted the plaintiff's motion to transfer the case back to the circuit court and denied defendants' motion for summary disposition as moot. The Defendants first argue that the state has sovereign immunity from trial by jury under the ELCRA. The Defendants present this argument in an effort to keep the case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. In Doe v Dep't of Transp, 324 Mich.App. 226, 231; 919 N.W.2d 670 (2018), this Court held that the Legislature waived the state's immunity from jury trial in actions brought under the ELCRA. The Court concluded that because plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial against defendant in her action under the ELCRA, the Court of Claims had concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit court by virtue of MCL 600.6421(1); therefore, the Court of Claims did not err by transferring the case back to the circuit court. Next, the defendants contend that the Court of Claims erred when it determined that the plaintiff did not waive his right to a jury trial. According to the defendants, if the plaintiff waived his right to trial by jury, he would not be entitled to a jury trial and, therefore, would not be entitled to a transfer to the circuit court. In the instant case, the plaintiff initially demanded a trial by jury, and he engaged in litigation in the circuit court for nearly two years before the case was transferred to the Court of Claims. After the case was transferred, the plaintiff participated in the proceedings for about three months: he filed a motion to amend the complaint to add equitable and damage claims; he requested the court to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff, and he mentioned looking forward to continuing the case in the Court of Claims. But plaintiff's primary argument in requesting a transfer of the case back to the circuit court was that he had a right to a jury trial on the ELCRA claims. And plaintiff simultaneously withdrew his request to amend the complaint. The Court concludes that the plaintiff did not waive his right to a jury trial, explicitly or implicitly, where it cannot be inferred that the right was waived based on his conduct under a totality of the circumstances. The relatively brief period the case was in the Court of Claims, especially when viewed in context with the circuit court proceedings, and plaintiff's innocuous acts do not suggest that he intended to waive his right to a jury trial. Finally, the defendants argue that the Court of Claims should have granted their motion for summary disposition on the basis that plaintiff had not filed a notice of intent to file a claim as required by MCL 600.6431(1). The Court of Claims found that the argument was moot, and the defendants fail to address the mootness ruling. When an appellant fails to dispute the basis of a lower court's ruling, we need not even consider granting the relief being sought by the appellant. Indeed, defendants fail to provide any legal analysis or reasoning with respect to the question of MCL 600.6431(1)'s continuing relevance or application in light of the procedural posture of the case. It is insufficient for an appellant to simply announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to us to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority to sustain his position. Affirmed. A full-text copy of the Mich. App.'s February 21, 2019 Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/y4635y4afrom Leagle.com. LEONARD MUNGO, for MARLON CARTER/ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff-Appellee. JEANMARIE MILLER, for STATE POLICE, Defendant. CHRISTOPHER W. BRAVERMAN, for CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellant. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Micron Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: MU) Class Period: October 15, 2018 - November 19, 2018 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 25, 2019 For more info: www.bgandg.com/mu The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Micron was engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy with Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix, and that such unlawful behavior could lead to severe sanctions against the Company. Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Yael Hurwitz, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Telephone: 212-697-6484 Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN] MIDWEST WATER: Varble Seeks Payment for Overtime Work ----------------------------------------------------- TRAVIS VARBLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDWEST WATER & CONCRETE, INC. d/b/a "MIDWEST BASEMENT TECH," WILLIAM S. JONES and KAREN JONES, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00247 (S.D. Ill., Feb. 28, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois’ Employee Classification Act. According to the complaint, Midwest Water & Concrete operates a basement waterproofing and concrete repair business servicing large portions of Illinois, Missouri and Kentucky. MW&C employs laborers to perform waterproofing and repair services for its customers. The Laborers travel between MW&C's facility and the first job site of the day, travel between job sites, and travel between the last job site of the day and MW&C's facility. Although MW&C correctly classifies the Laborers as "employees" while they are at job sites, MW&C misclassifies the same Laborers as "independent contractors" during such travel. By misclassifying the Laborer’s during travel time, MW&C evades federal and state overtime pay requirements. MW&C has violated the ECA by failing and refusing to designate Plaintiff and the Class as "employees." MW&C thus permitted Plaintiff and the Class to work more than 40 hours in a workweek without proper overtime compensation. MW&C's failure to comply with the ECA caused Plaintiff and the Class to suffer loss of overtime wages and interest. The Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to unpaid overtime wages and any employee benefits denied, an equal amount thereto in liquidated damages, up to $500.00 for each violation of the ECA or associated regulations, attorney's fees and costs, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Mark Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MI 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com - and - Jack R. Daugherty, Esq. SHORT AND DAUGHERTY P.C. 325 Market St. Alton, IL 62002 Telephone: 618-462-9160 Facsimile: 618-462-9167 E-mail: jack@siltrial.com MIKE'S PLACE: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, Espinoza-Sanchez Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS ESPINOZA-SANCHEZ, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. MIKE'S PLACE AT OAKWOOD, INC., d/b/a MIKE'S OAKWOOD DINER; and MICHAEL MOUDATSOS JR.; jointly and severally, Case No. 1:19-cv-01201 (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2019), alleges that the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff and the class for alleged unpaid or underpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mike's Place at Oakwood, Inc., doing business as Mike's Oakwood Diner, is a New York business corporation with its office in Richmond County. Michael Moudatsos, Jr., is an owner, shareholder, officer, or manager of the Defendants' business. The Defendants' business is a full-service restaurant doing business as Mike's Oakwood Diner and located at 3161 Amboy Road, in Staten Island, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon D. Sherr, Esq. Justin A. Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com MISSISSIPPI FARM: Court Certifies Class in Britt FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MEGAN BRITT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 1:18-cv-00038-GHD-DAS (N.D. Miss.), Judge Glen H. Davidson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Aberdeen Division, (i) granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act; and (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to modify the proposed notice and notice plan. The Plaintiffs are current and former insurance agents who sold insurance policies for the Defendants. They contend that despite being nominally considered independent contractors, the Defendants exerted a level of control over them to make them employees, that they worked in excess of 40 hours a week, and that the Defendants did not pay them overtime. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and ask the Court to order the Defendants to provide them with the contact information of the potential class members. Further, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to authorize them to provide the proposed notice and reminder notice attached to their motion to potential class members. The Plaintiffs initially defined the putative class as all individuals who, through a contract or agreement with Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co. and/or Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., perform or performed as insurance agents for and who were classified on paper by Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co. and/or Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. as independent contractors anywhere in the State of Mississippi at any time from the date that is three years preceding the commencement of the action through the close of the Court-determined opt-in period and who file a consent to join in the action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Through briefing, the Plaintiffs voluntarily refined the class definition to be all individuals who, through a contract or agreement with Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co. and/or Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., perform or performed as insurance agents for each of them or any of them anywhere in the State of Mississippi and who were classified on paper by each of them or any of them as independent contractors and who work or worked in excess of 40 hours during any work-week at any time from the date that is three years preceding the commencement of the action through the close of the Court-determined opt-in period and who file a consent to join in the action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The Defendants object to certification of the putative class on the grounds that members of the putative class would not be similarly situated. Additionally, they object to the proposed notice and notice plan submitted by the Plaintiffs. Judge Davidson finds that the Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that conditional certification is proper at this time. Accordingly, their motion to certify class is granted in part. He approved the modified class definition: All individuals who, through a contract or agreement with Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co. and/or Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., perform or performed as insurance agents for each of them or any of them anywhere in the State of Mississippi and who were classified on paper by each of them or any of them as independent contractors and who work or worked in excess of 40 hours during any work-week at any time from the date that is three years preceding [he Court's final order approving the Plaintiff's notice through the close of the Court-determined opt-in period and who file a consent to join in the action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The Judge further finds some of the Defendants objections to the proposed notice are well-taken. Accordingly, he granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion. The Plaintiffs agree to withdraw their requests for social security numbers. The Judge admonishes the Plaintiffs to utilize telephone numbers only to facilitate delivery of the Court approved notice and for no other purpose. The Plaintiffs have not yet shown that such reminder notices are necessary to facilitate notice. This is especially so since the Plaintiffs intend to send both mail and email initial notices and to utilize telephone numbers to verify the opt-in Plaintiffs addresses. Accordingly, the Defendants objection is sustained and the Plaintiffs reminder notice is disapproved without prejudice to their ability to later request reminder notices be sent, should a compelling reason to do so arise. The Judge notes that one necessary change is readily apparent. First, the notice contains language stating "FLSA AND FICA OPT-IN CLASS ACTION". The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' FICA claims. Any reference to FICA are stricken. The proposed notice should contain a statement of the Defendant's basis for disputing liability. Accordingly, the Defendants' objection to the one-line description of their defenses is sustained. The Judge ordered that said description is replaced with the Defendant's proposed language. He further ordered that the following language be inserted in the notice: "You may be required to pay your proportional share of taxable court costs if the plaintiffs receive an unfavorable decision." The Judge also ordered that the first sentence of the language concerning attorneys' fees be modified to state that: "In the event that Farm Bureau prevails in this action, there will be no recovery, and you will not be required to pay any attorneys' fees." The Judge set the opt-in period at 60 days from the date that notice is mailed. Finally, having already resolved the Defendants' objections to the proposed notice, he finds the Defendants' request that the Court orders the parties to meet and confer on a proposed notice agreement and notice plan unwarranted. The Plaintiffs will file a revised notice and consent form incorporating the rulings contained in the Opinion for the Court's final approval. An order in accordance with the Opinion will issue. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/y5Vkjm from Leagle.com. Megan Britt, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Brett Hawkins, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Steve Harbour, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Jason Norman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Brian Miley, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Clint Buckley, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Jason Baker, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Chris Carney, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Arch W. Bullard -- abullard@claytonodonnell.com -- CLAYTON O'DONNELL, PLLC, Sidney Ray Hill, III -- rhill@claytonodonnell.com -- CLAYTON O'DONNELL, PLLC & Dana Gail Dearman -- ddearman@claytonodonnell.com -- Clayton O'Donnell, PLLC. Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company & Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Defendants, represented by James R. Moore, Jr. -- jmoore@cctb.com -- COPELAND, COOK, TAYLOR & BUSH, Rebecca Jordan Blunden -- rblunden@cctb.com -- COPELAND, COOK, TAYLOR & BUSH, P.A. & Robert C. Richardson -- brichardson@cctb.com -- COPELAND, COOK, TAYLOR & BUSH. Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Cathleen Bell Bremmer, CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A., pro hac vice, Irma Reboso Solares, CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, PA, pro hac vice, Markham R. Leventhal, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. & Stephanie A. Fichera, CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A., pro hac vice. MISSOURI: Court Denies Certification of Dalton's Class of Indigents ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Randall Lee DALTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Michael BARRETT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-04057-NKL (W.D. Mo.), Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Central Division, denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The lawsuit challenges the adequacy of the Missouri State Public Defender ("MSPD"), which provides legal representation to all indigent citizens accused or convicted of crimes in Missouri state court. The Named Plaintiffs filed the putative class action alleging that Missouri has failed to meet its constitutional obligation to provide indigent defendants with meaningful representation. The crux of their allegations is that the MSPD is underfunded and overworked, and they seek only injunctive and declaratory relief aimed at correcting the issues. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of similarly situated individuals who currently are or will be represented by MSPD defined as all indigent persons who are now or who will be during the pendency of the litigation under formal charge before a state court in Missouri of having committed any offense the penalty for which includes the possibility of confinement, incarceration, imprisonment, or detention (regardless of whether actually imposed), and who are eligible to be represented by MSPD. The Plaintiffs' Class Action Petition for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, includes five claims for relief: (I) Violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; (II) Violation of Article 1, Section 18(a) of the Missouri Constitution; (III) Violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; (IV) Violation of Article 1, Section 10 of the Missouri Constitution; and (V) Violation of Missouri Criminal and Juvenile Codes. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to (i) declare that the Defendants are obligated to provide constitutionally adequate representation to indigent criminal defendants and juvenile respondents, including at their initial appearances; (ii) declare that the constitutional and statutory rights of Missouri's indigent criminal defendants and juvenile respondents are currently being violated by the Defendants on an ongoing basis; (iii) enjoin the Defendants from continuing to violate the rights of indigent Defendants by providing constitutionally deficient representation; and (iv) enter an injunction that requires Defendants to propose and implement, subject to thw Court's approval and monitoring, a plan to ensure that all indigent criminal Defendants and juvenile respondents in the State of Missouri are provided with constitutionally adequate legal representation. Judge Laughrey finds that the Plaintiffs fail to establish Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a statewide, 10,000+ member class, with no common policy other than alleged system-wide underfunding. The Plaintiffs also fail to satisfy Rule 23(b)(1)(B). The Judge finds that there is no limited fund of public defenders, and the resolution of one indigent Defendant's inadequate assistance claim would not preclude others from seeking similar relief. The supply of public defenders can be expanded by the legislature, as can its funding. Indeed, regardless of whether the funding and staffing of MSPD is adequate, both appropriations and the amount of public defenders have increased over the past 25 years. Accordingly, she says, it follows that if a plaintiff were to succeed on an individual suit for inadequate representation, it would not necessarily impede any other potential plaintiff from raising a similar claim. Finally, the Judge finds that as the proposed class is not sufficiently cohesive, the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy Rule 23(b)(2). The proposed class would require evidence and inquiries into far too many individual circumstances. Furthermore, although the Plaintiffs maintain that a single injunction would provide relief to each member of the class, their proposal requires the Defendants to propose and implement a plan to ensure that all indigent criminal Defendants and juvenile respondents in the State of Missouri are provided with constitutionally adequate legal representation. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Laughrey denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Class. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/jFUsXY from Leagle.com. Randall Lee Dalton, Dorian Samuels, Viola Bowman & Brian Richman, Plaintiffs, represented by Amy Elizabeth Breihan, MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis, Anjali Prasad, pro hac vice, Anthony E. Rothert, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, Anthony Tartaglio , Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, pro hac vice, Camille Joanne Rosca, pro hac vice, Easha Anand -- eanand@orrick.com -- Orrick, pro hac vice, Evan Rose -- erose@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Gillian R. Wilcox, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, Jason D. Williamson, pro hac vice, Jessie Steffan, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, Matthew R. Shahabian -- mshahabian@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, pro hac vice, Robert L. Sills, pro hac vice & Will Melehani, pro hac vice. Michael Barrett, H. Riley Bock, Charles R Jackson, Craig Chval & A. Crista Hogan, Defendants, represented by John Gregory Mermelstein, Missouri State Public Defender Admin and Appellate & Patrick J. Berrigan, Missouri State Public Defender System Capital Litigation Division, Western District. MISSOURI: Summary Judgment Bid in Gasca Prisoners Suit Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STEPHANIE GASCA, et al., on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. ANNE PRECYTHE, Director of the Missouri, Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-04149-SRB (W.D. Missouri), Judge Stephen R. Bough of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. The lawsuit challenges the parole revocation policies and procedures of the Missouri Department of Corrections and its Division of Probation and Parole. The Plaintiffs argue there is no genuine dispute as to the material facts underlying the Plaintiffs' claim that the Defendants' revocation policies and procedures violate their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as articulated in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, and Morissey v. Brewer. The Plaintiffs seek prospective relief on behalf of a class of all adult parolees in the state of Missouri who currently face, or who in the future will face, parole revocation proceedings. The Defendants concede that the policies that existed at the time the Plaintiffs filed their Amended Class Action complaint did not satisfy Due Process requirements, and that the Defendants have taken substantial corrective measures to remedy these shortcomings. Judge Bough finds no genuine dispute of material fact and the Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/MDTySS from Leagle.com. Stephanie Gasca, Mildred Curren, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Amber Wyse, Timothy Gallagher & Solomon Warren, Plaintiffs, represented by Amy Elizabeth Breihan -- amy.breihan@macarthurjustice.org -- MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis, Locke E. Bowman -- l-bowman@law.northwestern.edu -- Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center, pro hac vice, Megan G. Crane, pro hac vice & Sheila A. Bedi -- sheila.bedi@law.northwestern.edu -- Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center, pro hac vice. Anne L. Precythe, in her official capacity, Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections, Kenneth Jones, in his official capacity, Chairman of the Missouri Division of Probation and Parole, Jennifer Zamkus, in her official capacity, Vice Chair of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, Jim Wells, in his official capacity, Member of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, Martin Rucker, in his official capacity, Member of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, Ellis McSwain, Jr, in his official capacity, Member of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, Gary Dusenberg, in his official capacity, Member of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole & Paul Fitzwater, in his official capacity, Member of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, Defendants, represented by Doug Shull, Missouri Attorney General's Office & Justin Moore, Missouri Attorney General's Office. MONSANTO COMPANY: Barnes Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- GLORIA L. BARNES and EDWARD BARNES, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01235-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb. 18, 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 Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Bates Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- LESLIE BATES III, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01236-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb. 18, 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 Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Baucoms Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ PRISCILLA BAUCOM and EARNEST BAUCOM, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00380 (E.D. Mo., March 1, 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: Bonzos Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- GARY L. BONZO and MELISSA BONZO,, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01238-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb. 19, 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 Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Brewsters Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN H. BREWSTER and JUDITH M. BREWSTER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00376 (E.D. Mo., March 1, 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's 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: Collinses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- EILEEN COLLINS and EDWARD COLLINS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00352-JAR (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: Davises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ HENRY DAVIS and VIRGINIA DAVIS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00355 (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: Fellows Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- JONI FELLOWS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00365 (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 Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: McCoy Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- PAUL D. MCCOY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No 4:19-cv-00357 (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: Morrises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- STANLEY W. MORRIS AND ROSEMARIE MORRIS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00341 (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: Ridner Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ MARK RIDNER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00351-JAR (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: Seeger Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ RICHARD SEEGER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00385 (E.D. Mo., March 1, 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: Supinski Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN SUPINSKI, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00347 (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: Woodersons Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------------- WALLACE M. WOODERSON and LORETTA WOODERSON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00377 (E.D. Mo., March 1, 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 Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONTGOMERY & MCCRACKEN: Removes Waleski Suit to M.D. Pa. -------------------------------------------------------- Montgomery & McCracken Walker & Rhoads, LLP removed the case STANLEY WALESKI, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similary situated, the Plaintiff, v. Montgomery & McCracken Walker & Rhoads, LLP, Natalie D. Ramsey and Leonard A. Busby, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-1144, from Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on March 8, 2019. The Middle District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No. 19-01087-mew to the proceeding. The complaint seeks to recover damages for breach of contract arising from the firm's actions and inactions committed while representing the interest of the Plaintiffs in connection with the Tronox Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Specifically, Waleski alleges that the firm breached professional obligations set forth in the Contingent Fee Agreement date January 27, 2009 between the Defendant Powell Law Group, PC, the Plaintiffs' tort law firm.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendants: Robert P. Johnson, Esq. Emily G. Montion, Esq. THOMPSON HINE LLP 312 Walnut Street, Suite 1400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: 513 352 6769 E-mail: Rob.Johnson@ThompsonHine.com Emily.Montion@ThompsonHine.com MOVIE GRILL: Tate Sues over Collection of Biometric Identifiers --------------------------------------------------------------- DASHAWNA TATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MOVIE GRILL CONCEPTS XXVI LLC, a Texas limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH02682 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty, Feb. 28, 2019), seeks to stop Defendant's capture, collection, use and storage of individuals' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by Defendant's conduct. The case concerns Defendant's conduct of capturing, collecting, storing, and using Plaintiff's and other workers' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information without regard to BIPA and the concrete privacy rights and pecuniary interests Illinois' BIPA protects. The Defendant does this in the form of finger scans, which capture a person's fingerprint, and then Defendant use that fingerprint to identify that same person in the future. Following the 2007 bankruptcy of a company specializing in the collection and use of biometric information, which risked the sale or transfer of millions of fingerprint records to the highest bidder, the Illinois Legislature passed detailed regulations addressing the collection, use and retention of biometric information by private entities, such as Defendant. The Illinois Legislature has found that "biometrics are unlike other unique identifiers that are used to access finances or other sensitive information." 740 ILCS 14/S(c). "For example, social security numbers, when compromised, can be changed. Biometrics, however, are biologically unique to the individual; therefore, once compromised, the individual has no recourse, is at heightened risk for identity theft, and is likely to withdraw from biometric-facilitated transactions." The Defendant has implemented an invasive program that relies on the capture, collection, storage and use of their workers' fingerprints, while disregarding the applicable Illinois statute and the privacy interests it protects. The Defendant's employees in Illinois have been required to clock "in" and "out" of their work shifts by scanning their fingerprints. When clocking in and out using the fingerprint scans, Defendant's biometric computer systems then verify the employee and clock the employee "in" or "out." Unlike traditional time clock punch cards which can be changed or replaced if lost or compromised, fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers 1 associated with each employee. This exposes Defendant's workforce to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. South Michigan A venue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 Facsimile: (312) 332-0600 E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com cpsons@bormeslaw.com - and - Frank Castiglione, Esq. Kasif Khowaja, Esq. THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC 70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 356-3200 Facsimile: (312) 386-5800 E-mail: fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com kasif@khowajalaw.com MR. KABOB: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Usmanova Says ----------------------------------------------------- RANOKHON USMANOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MR. KABOB RESTAURANT INC., dba RAVAGH PERSIAN GRILL, and MONIRETH TEHRANI and MASOUD TEHRANI, as individuals, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02212(S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2019), seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment at the Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed as a waitress, and performing other miscellaneous duties from in or around August 2009 until the present. TThe Plaintiff has worked 72 hours or more per week during her employment. The Defendants failed pay Plaintiff the legally prescribed minimum wage for her hours worked from im or around March 2013 until the present, a blatant violation of the minimum wage provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 NASSAU COUNTY, NY: 99 Lakeville Seeks Return of Remaining Funds --------------------------------------------------------------- 99 Lakeville Road Corp. and all other Petitioners similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Beaumont Jefferson, in his official capacity as the Treasurer of Nassau County and the County of Nassau, Defendants, Case No. 19-000145 (N.Y. Sup., February 6, 2019), seeks the return of remaining funds attributable to an Assessment Fund for the tax years 2016/17 and/or 2017/18 and such other and further relief pursuant to the Disputed Assessment Fund Law and New York real property tax laws. Plaintiff owns real property located within the County of Nassau. They were obligated, and did pay their taxes without the Disputed Assessment Fund (DAF). They challenge the assessments and DAF tax that was charged to them on the 2017 General tax bill. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jacqueline L. Mascetti, Esq. HERMAN KATZ CANGEMI & CLYNE, LLP 538 Broadhollow Road, Suite 307 Melville, NY 11747 Tel: (631) 501-5011 Defendant is represented by: Jared A. Kasschau. Esq. NASSAU COUNTY ATTORNEY 1 West Street Mineola, NY 11501 Tel: (516) 571-3056 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Brain Injury Class Action in Indiana --------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that the National Collegiate Athletic Association and a northeastern Pennsylvania university failed to protect athletes from head injuries sustained while playing football, according to a proposed class action filed in Indiana federal court. [GN] NAVIHEALTH INC: Nurses Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------- Mae Barbee and Donna Trone, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Navihealth, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00119 (M.D. Tenn., February 6, 2019), seeks to recover overtime compensation, damages, equitable relief and other relief available under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. NaviHealth, Inc. manages post-acute care and care transitions on behalf of health plans, hospitals, health systems, and post-acute providers, offering clinical service support, proprietary technology, and advisory solutions for payers and providers. Barbee and Trone were employed by NaviHealth as a licensed practical nurses. Both claim to have rendered in excess of 50 hours per week without being paid overtime. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200 Nashville, TN 37215 Tel: (615) 250-2000 Fax: (615) 250-2020 Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com - and - Molly A. Elkin, Esq. Hillary D. LeBeau, Esq. WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 833-8855 Fax: (202) 452-1090 Email: mae@wmlaborlaw.com hl@wmlaborlaw.com NEVRO CORP: Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Nevro Corp. 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 a securities class action initiated by the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System. On August 23, 2018, the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System filed a putative securities class action complaint against us and certain individual officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act. The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees based on alleged misleading statements or omissions by the company and the individual officers regarding the company's rights in technology underlying the Senza SCS systems and the termination of the company's former Vice President of Worldwide Sales. On November 3, 2018, a related shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking unspecified damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees based on alleged violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets. Nevro Corp., a medical device company, provides products for the patients suffering from chronic pain in the United States and internationally. The company develops and commercializes the Senza spinal cord stimulation system, an evidence-based neuromodulation platform for the treatment of chronic pain. Nevro Corp. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Redwood City, California. NEWCOMB OIL: Court Grants Bid to Remand Southard FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL SOUTHARD, Plaintiff, v. NEWCOMB OIL CO., LLC d/b/a NEWCOMB OIL CO., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-CV-803-CRS (W.D. Ky.), Judge Charles R. Simpson, III of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville, granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. On Nov. 9, 2018, Southard commenced the putative class action against Newcomb Oil in the Jefferson Circuit Court. The Plaintiff's original complaint alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, in addition to Kentucky statutory and common law claims. Specifically, the Plaintiff brought state law claims for failure to pay overtime under KRS Section 337.285 (Count II), failure to provide meal and rest periods under KRS Sections 337.355, 337.365, and 446.070 (Count III), untimely payment of wages and unlawful withholding of wages under KRS Sections 337.055 and 337.060 (Count IV), failure to furnish statement of wage deductions under KRS Section 337.070 (Count V), and unjust enrichment (Count VI). On Dec. 6, 2018, Newcomb Oil removed the action to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction. On Dec. 12, 2018, the Plaintiff amended his complaint as a matter of course pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), removing the sole federal claim. That same day, Newcomb Oil moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims, compel arbitration or, in the alternative, stay pending individual arbitration. On Dec. 20, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The next day brought a flurry of competing motions starting with the Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Briefing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, which asserted that the Court must resolve the Motion for Remand before the Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Plaintiff also filed a motion asking the Court to expedite briefing on the Plaintiff's motion to stay. In response, Newcomb Oil filed its own motion to stay asking the Court to stay briefing on the Plaintiff's motion to remand pending the Court's resolution of Newcomb Oil's Motion to Compel Arbitration. On Jan. 2, 2019, having received no ruling on the Plaintiff's motion to stay briefing on the motion to compel, the Plaintiff filed its response to Newcomb Oil's Motion to Compel Arbitration, to which Newcomb Oil replied. On Jan. 10, 2019, having received no ruling on its motion to stay briefing, Newcomb Oil filed its response opposing the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, to which the Plaintiff replied. February 2019 brought even more motion practice. On Feb. 5, 2019, the Plaintiff moved for leave to file a sur-reply regarding Newcomb Oil's exhibits attached to Newcomb Oil's Motion to Compel Arbitration. Newcomb Oil filed a response in opposition, and filed a contingent motion for leave to file a response to the sur-reply. Both parties urge the Court to decide their respective motion first. Newcomb Oil's position is that the Court should decide its Motion to Compel Arbitration because "arbitrability is a mandatory threshold issue that should be decided at the earliest possible stage in the proceeding, before discretionary matters such as supplemental jurisdiction. In contrast, the Plaintiff asks the Court to address its Motion to Remand first on the grounds that a federal court must resolve issues of subject matter jurisdiction before it decides the merits of a claim. Although Judge Simpson acknowledges the Plaintiff's use of forum manipulation, none of the other factors relied upon by the Harper v. AutoAlliance Int'l. Inc. court are present. The instant action has only been on the Court's docket for approximately three months. The Plaintiff filed his amended complaint six days after Newcomb Oil removed the case. In addition, no dispositive rulings have been issued and the Court has not overseen discovery. Further, Newcomb Oil's Motion to Compel Arbitration pursuant to an alleged arbitration agreement is a contract that must be construed in accordance with the state law of Kentucky where it was finalized. The Kentucky courts are well situated to rule on that motion. Accordingly, the Judge finds that comity and the interest in judicial economy favor remand. For the reasons he discussed, Judge Simpson granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand by a separate order. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/U58hqX from Leagle.com. Michael Southard, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Abate -- mabate@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com -- Kaplan Johnson Abate & Bird LLP. Newcomb Oil Co., LLC, doing business as Newcomb Oil Co., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Calabrese -- jeff.calabrese@skofirm.com -- Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, John O. Sheller -- john.sheller@skofirm.com -- Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC & Steven T. Clark -- steven.clark@skofirm.com -- Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC. OUTERSCAPE INC: Cruz Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Ovidio Cruz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Outerscape, Inc. and Andris S. Morton, individually and as officer, director and or principal of Outerscape, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00738, (E.D. N.Y., February 6, 2019) seeks damages and other legal and equitable relief for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor laws. Cruz worked as a landscaper for Outerscape's lawn and garden care business. He regularly worked well in excess of forty hours per workweek without overtime premium and was denied "spread of hours" pay for each workday that the he worked in excess of ten hours. Cruz also claims that he did not receive any wage statements during his employment. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R. Barravecchio Esq. Alexander M. White, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, New York 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7180 Fax: (516) 706-0248 Email: jvagnini@vkvlawyers.com rrb@vkvlawyers.com awhite@vkvlawyers.com PACIFIC, MO: Police Dispatchers Hit Missed Breaks, Seeks Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Donoho and Cassidy Hodge, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. City of Pacific, Missouri, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00186, (E.D. Mo., February 6, 2019), seeks compensatory damages, including for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law, incentive award and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. Defendant is a political subdivision of Missouri where Donoho worked with the Pacific Police Department communication division from February 2017 to November 2018, while Hodge worked as a dispatcher from August 22, 2016 until June 21, 2018, answering 911 and other phone calls, working the police dispatch radio, communicating with police officers and providing reports to other dispatchers at shift change. Both claim to work beyond the scheduled shifts to make reports, did not take scheduled meal breaks and were never completely relieved from duty during their shifts because of the nature of their job. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Dolley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC 2726 S. Brentwood Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63144 Tel: (314) 645-4100 Fax: (314) 736-6216 Email: kevin@dolleylaw.com PBF ENERGY: Continues to Defend Kendig Class Action --------------------------------------------------- PBF Energy 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 case, Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al. v. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., was removed to the Federal Court, California Central District. On September 18, 2018, in Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al. v. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., PBF Energy Limited and Torrance Refining Company LLC along with ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and ExxonMobil Pipeline Company were named as defendants in a class action and representative action complaint filed on behalf of Michelle Kendig, Jim Kendig and others similarly situated. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles and alleges failure to authorize and permit uninterrupted rest and meal periods, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, violation of the Private Attorneys General Act and violation of the California Unfair Business and Competition Law. Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified economic damages, statutory damages, civil penalties provided by statute, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, interest, attorney's fees and costs. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims accrued prior to July 1, 2016, ExxonMobil has retained responsibility for any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and logistics assets. On October 26, 2018, the matter was removed to the Federal Court, California Central District. PBF Energy said, "As this matter is in the class certification phase, we cannot currently estimate the amount or the timing of its resolution. We presently believe the outcome will not have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows." PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey. PBF ENERGY: Goldstein Class Action Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------ PBF Energy 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 from a class action suit entitled, Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al. On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., the company and PBF Energy Company LLC, and the company's subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of our Torrance refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named as defendants in a class action and representative action complaint filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La Bella and others similarly situated. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and alleges negligence, strict liability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance, a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February 18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil. The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities subsequent to the company's acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP explosion, Exxon has retained responsibility for any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery. On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs were added an additional plaintiff. PBF Energy said, "As this matter is in the class certification phase, we cannot currently estimate the amount or the timing of its resolution. We presently believe the outcome will not have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey. PPG INDUSTRIES: Trevor Mild Securities Class Action Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries, 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 a putative securities class action suit entitled, Trevor Mild v. PPG Industries, Inc., Michael H. McGarry, Vincent J. Morales, and Mark C. Kelly. On May 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of its current or former officers. On September 21, 2018, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed in the action. The Amended Complaint, captioned Trevor Mild v. PPG Industries, Inc., Michael H. McGarry, Vincent J. Morales, and Mark C. Kelly, asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired stock of the Company during various time periods between January 19, 2017 and May 10, 2018. The allegations relate to, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about the Company's business, operations and prospects. On December 21, 2018, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and on January 4, 2019 the defendants filed answers to the Amended Complaint. This action remains pending. PPG Industrie said, "The Company believes this action is without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously." PPG Industries, Inc. manufactures and distributes paints, coatings, and specialty materials in the United States and internationally. It operates through Performance Coatings and Industrial Coatings segments. The company was founded in 1883 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. PRIME CONSULTING: Mims Sues over Cellular Phone Calls ----------------------------------------------------- CORINTHIA MIMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PRIME CONSULTING LLC d/b/a FINANCIAL PREPARATION SERVICES, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00435 (E.D. Cal., March 8, 2019), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, beginning in or around October of 2018, the Defednant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -8202, in an attempt to 21 solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services. The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone number (800) 425-0008. The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes. The Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1). The Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent” to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A), the lawsuit says. Defendant is a document preparation company.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: 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 PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL: Collins Suit Moved to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Carrie Collins an individual; on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc. doing business as: Solco Healthcare LLC; and Solco Healthcare U.S., LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 37-02018-00063224-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on March 1, 2019. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00415-LAB-AGS to the proceeding. The suit alleges pharmaceutical Personal Injury and product liability related violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Larry Alan Burns. Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc. develops, manufactures, markets, and registers generic prescription pharmaceutical products.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2625 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 Facsimile: (213) 514-5682 E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com Attorneys for the Defendants: Duane Morris, Eswq. 750 B Street, Suite 2900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 744-2285 Facsimile: (619) 923-3315 E-mail: clbaird@duanemorris.com PROCOLLECT INC: Bid for Summary Judgment in Young FDCPA Suit OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned RONNIE YOUNG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. PROCOLLECT, INC., ET AL., Defendants. No. 4:18-CV-475-A. (N.D. Tex.). The Plaintiff alleges that the defendant is a debt collector as defined in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Defendant was retained to collect a debt on behalf of the Center of Assisted Reproduction. The Plaintiff received a collection letter from defendant offering to settle the debt for half the balance owed. The letter showed that plaintiff's balance on the account was $0.00, but then attempted to collect $7.50. The Defendant urges two grounds in support of its motion. First, the FDCPA does not apply to the conduct at issue in this case, which occurred after the debt was paid. And, second, the defendant is entitled to the bona fide error defense under 15 U.S.C. Second 1692k(c). Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court shall grant summary judgment on a claim or defense if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The movant bears the initial burden of pointing out to the court that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. Facts Established by Summary Judgment Evidence The following facts are established by the record: the Defendant was hired by creditor to collect a past due amount of $75.00 owed by plaintiff for services rendered by creditor. The Defendant received a letter from the plaintiff disputing the debt. In response, the defendant sent a verification letter to plaintiff including a copy of the patient statement reflecting the $75.00 owed by the plaintiff to creditor. The Defendant changed its reporting of the debt to in dispute. The Defendant received and processed a payment in the amount of $75.00 from plaintiff. The Defendant moved the account into the paid in full category. The Plaintiff's spouse contacted defendant by phone to seek proof of payment. The employee who took the call obtained the spouse's email address and emailed a paid in full letter addressed to the plaintiff to the email address provided. During the process of taking the call and generating the letter, the employee moved the account from the paid in full category to the information request return category, and neglected to return the account to the paid in full category, which had the effect of causing defendant's records to show that the account was active again. The law is clear that once a consumer has paid a debt in full, there is no debt as defined in the FDCPA and the FDCPA does not apply to post-collection activities. Here, as in those cases, the plaintiff paid his debt in full and defendant properly noted that the debt was paid and so reported it. The July 7 letter was an obvious mistake and not an attempt to collect the debt, which had been paid in full. And, indeed, the plaintiff was notified on multiple occasions that such was the case. Even if the FDCPA applied, and it does not, the defendant is entitled to the bona fide error defense. That is, a debt collector may not be held liable if the debt collector shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adopted to avoid such error. In response, the plaintiff simply argues that whether the defendant is entitled to the bona fide error defense is a fact question. He has not, however, come forward with any summary judgment evidence to rebut the declaration supporting the defendant's motion. The Defendant has met its burden of establishing the defense and is entitled to judgment. The court orders that the defendant's motion for summary judgment be, and is granted, and the plaintiff take nothing on his claims against the defendant. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 21, 2019 Memorandum Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y5x4wkx4from Leagle.com. Ronnie Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan David Kandelshein, The Law Offices of Jonathan Kandelshein & Yaakov Saks, Stein Saks PLLC, pro hac vice. ProCollect Inc, Defendant, represented by John W. Bowdich, II, Bowdich & Associates, PLLC. PROSHARES SHORT VIX: Kuznicki Law Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in these companies during the dates listed below are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible appointment as lead plaintiff and a preliminary estimate of their recoverable losses. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in the respective securities during the class periods. Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No classes have yet been certified in the actions below. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures (NYSEArca: SVXY) Investors Affected: Investors in ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF pursuant to the May 15, 2017 Registration Statement and/or between May 15, 2017 and February 5, 2018 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain investors in ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: According to the complaint in the Registration Statement and during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding the risks of investing in the Fund. Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to disclose that the Fund was threatened with catastrophic losses as a result of the Fund's flawed design and the low-volatility environment and acute liquidity risks that existed during the Class Period. In addition, during the Class Period defendants made similar false and misleading statements in numerous financial reports and draft prospectuses and registration statements filed with the SEC. Contact: Daniel Kuznicki, Esq. Kuznicki Law PLLC 445 Central Avenue, Suite 334 Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Phone: (347) 696-1134 Cell: (347) 690-0692 Fax: (347) 348-0967 Email: dk@kclasslaw.com [GN] RJT MOTORIST: Taylor Suit Hits Illegal Deductions, Seeks OT Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Taylor, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RJT Motorist Service, Inc. and Raymond Tartaglione, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01155 (S.D. N.Y., February 6, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. RJT provides automotive servicing, auto body repairs, towing and road services. Taylor was hired by RJT primarily as a tow-truck driver. He claims that RJT deducted the penalties from unpaid towing charges from his pay, failed to pay him overtime and did not pay him on time. He also complained about the lack of insurance on their vehicles for safety purposes. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brian L. Greben, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN L. GREBEN 316 Great Neck Road Great Neck, NY 11021 Tel: (516) 304‐5357 SMC STONE: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA & NYLL, Cumbe Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL VINANZACA CUMBE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SMC STONE INTERNATIONAL INC. and SING MING CHAO, as an individual, Case No. CV 19-1186 (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2019), alleges that although the Plaintiff worked approximately 72 or more hours per week during his employment by the Defendants, they did not pay him time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. SMC Stone International Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive office in Brooklyn, New York. Sing Ming Chao owns and/or operates SMC. SMC's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of stone, cement, lime, construction sand, gravel and other construction materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 E-mail: avshalumovr@yahoo.com SOCAL GAS: Removes Victorian's Labor Suit to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ Southern California Gas removed the case, KATHERINE VICTORIAN, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV01843, from Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California – Western Division on Mar. 8, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01731 to the proceeding. The complaint purports to assert claims for relief arising out of the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant on behalf of a proposed class of all current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendant who worked in California at any time since January 24, 2015, in the position of Energy Technician or a position with 11 similar duties and/or job titles. Specifically, the Plaintiff brings claims for: failure to pay regular wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements; failure to reimburse business expenses; and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 17200, the lawsuit says. The Southern California Gas Company is the primary provider of natural gas to the region of Southern California. Its headquarters are located in the Gas Company Tower in Downtown Los Angeles.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendant: Daniel J. Mcqueen, Esq. Limore Torbati, Esq. Brett D. Young, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422 Telephone: 213 620 1780 Facsimile: 213 620 1398 SOGOU INC: Kuznicki Law Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders of Sogou Inc. Shareholders who purchased shares in these companies during the dates listed below are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible appointment as lead plaintiff and a preliminary estimate of their recoverable losses. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in the respective securities during the class periods. Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No classes have yet been certified in the actions below. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Sogou Inc. (NYSE: SOGO) Investors Affected: Purchasers of American Depositary Shares pursuant and/or traceable to Sogou's false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering on November 9, 2017 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Sogou Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Chinese regulators were analyzing Sogou for regulatory action because of an increase in Sogou merchants' sales of counterfeit goods; (ii) Chinese regulators were analyzing Sogou for regulatory action because Sogou's existing software, advertising procedures, personnel, and audit procedures were insufficient to safeguard against compliance violations with governing Chinese regulations, and would need to be updated, enhanced, and strengthened, thus resulting in increased expenses; (iii) Sogou's cost of revenues were skyrocketing primarily because of significant increases in Traffic Acquisition Cost, which is a primary driver of Sogou's cost of revenues, as Sogou was dealing with significant price inflation from increased competition; (iv) Sogou was going to alter its strategy concerning smart hardware and push the Company's AI capabilities to increase product competitiveness; (v) as a result of altering its smart hardware strategy, Sogou had already decided to phase out non-AI-enabled hardware products, such as legacy models of Teemo Smart Watch, and transition to use products integrating AI technologies, which Sogou hoped would reduce its hardware revenue in the second half of 2018; and (vi) as a result of the foregoing, Sogou's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://kseclaw.com/securities/sogou-inc/?wire=3 Daniel Kuznicki, Esq. Kuznicki Law PLLC 445 Central Avenue, Suite 334 Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Phone: (347) 696-1134 Cell: (347) 690-0692 Fax: (347) 348-0967 Email: dk@kclasslaw.com [GN] SOGOU INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Sogou Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to Sogou's November 9, 2017 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Sogou investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Sogou class action, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1472.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with Sogou's IPO was materially false and misleading and failed to disclose that: (1) Chinese regulators were analyzing Sogou for regulatory action for various reasons, including, among others, an increase in counterfeit goods sold by Sogou merchants, and Sogou's existing software and procedures were insufficient to safeguard against compliance violations; (2) Sogou's cost of revenues were skyrocketing primarily due to significant increases in Traffic Acquisition Cost, a primary driver of Sogou's cost of revenues; (3) Sogou was going to alter its strategy concerning smart hardware and push its artificial intelligence ("AI") capabilities to increase product competitiveness; (4) as a result of altering its smart hardware strategy, Sogou had already decided to phase out non-AI-enabled hardware products, such as legacy models of Teemo Smart Watch, and transition to use products integrating AI technologies, which Sogou hoped would reduce its hardware revenues in the second half of 2018; and (5) as a result, Sogou's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 11, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1472.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Zachary Halper, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Airline Personnel Hit Biometrics Data Sharing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Darrell Crooms, John Lopez, Latrice Saxon and Stephanie Hill, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Southwest Airlines Co. and Kronos, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2019CH01610 (Ill. Cir., February 6, 2019), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics; statutory damages together with costs; and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Southwest Airlines Co. is a major United States airline headquartered and incorporated under the laws of Texas. Kronos provides biometric timekeeping devices to Southwest. Southwest improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data to Kronos without informed consent, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com aficzko@stephanzouras.com STATE FARM: Fails to Provide 401(k) Plan Benefits, Sheldon Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JASON R. SHELDON, and STEVEN HUNSBERGER, the Plaintiffs, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; STATE FARM LIFE AND ACCIDENT ASSURANCE COMPANY; STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01080-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill., Mar. 8, 2019), seeks to recover damages and equitable relief against Defendants on account of their alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs worked for State Farm as Term Independent Contractor Agents ("TICA"), and file this action on behalf of a class for ERISA violations as all TICAs were misclassified as independent contractors and not provided 401(k), retirement, and pension benefits. Plaintiffs also filed this case, individually, for willful fraud and deceit by State Farm. Sheldon and Hunsberger were both hired as TICAs by State Farm. State Farm intentionally misclassifies all TICAs as independent contractors. By not providing TIC As the same employment benefits as full time employees, the Defendant State Farm has violated ERISA, the lawsuit says. Particularly, State Farm, through its representatives and agents, induced Plaintiffs to create business proposals that set them up for failure. State Farm, through oral statements, emails, and written documentation, also induced Plaintiffs to continually invest more and more of their own money, into a business that was destined to fail. Ultimately, State Farm caused Plaintiffs significant economic harm by creating a fraudulent employment system.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs: Robert M. Foote, Esq. Elizabeth Chavez, Esq. FOOTE MILEKE CHAVEZ ONEIL, LLC 10 West State Street, Suite 200 Geneva, IL 60134 Telephone: (630) 232 7450 Facsimile: (630) 232 7452 E-mail: rmf@fmcolaw.com ecc@fmcolaw.com - and - D.G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq. WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER, & GOLDBAR, LLC The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: 205 314 0557 E-mail: dgpjr@wigginschilds.com STATE STREET: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set in April ------------------------------------------------------------ State Street 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 final settlement fairness hearing is scheduled to take place in April 2019. A State Street shareholder has filed a purported class action complaint against the Company alleging that the Company's financial statements in its annual reports for the 2011-2014 period were misleading due to the inclusion of revenues associated with the invoicing matter and the facts surrounding our 2017 settlements with the U.S. government relating to the company's transition management business. The Court has preliminarily approved a class settlement in this matter for $4.9 million. The final fairness hearing is scheduled to take place in April 2019. In addition, a shareholder of the company has filed a derivative complaint against the Company's past and present officers and directors to recover alleged losses incurred by the Company relating to the invoicing matter and to our Ohio public retirement plans matter. State Street Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides a range of financial products and services to institutional investors worldwide. State Street Corporation was founded in 1792 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. STEIN MART: Failed to Maintain Data Security Measures, Kyles Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, ANDE KYLES and DIANE TAYLOR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. STEIN MART, INC., a Florida corporation, and SOCIAL ANNEX, INC. (d/b/a, ANNEX CLOUD), a Delaware corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00483-UNA (D. Del., March 8, 2019), alleges that personal information was accessed and captured from Defendants' systems by unauthorized users during at least four of the following different periods of time between December 28, 2017 and July 9, 2018: May 19, June 1, June 5, and July 8-9 2018. The Plaintiffs bring this action, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated whose sensitive financial and personal non-public information, including but not limited to their (a) names; (b) addresses; (c) email addresses; and (d) payment card information (including, inter alia, card numbers, expiration dates, and security codes ("CVV numbers")). Annex is a company that provides a service used by websites that enable consumers to use their user name and password from other websites -- such as Facebook and Amazon -- to log in to internet merchants' websites, such as Stein Mart's, to make online purchases. On or around November 13, 2018, Stein Mart sent letters to customers/consumers informing them that Annex's system was accessed by unauthorized users who were able to capture customers'/consumers' Personal Information, including payment card information, entered while making online purchases on Stein Mart's website. According to the complaint, Defendants' failure to implement or maintain adequate data security measures for customers' information, including Personal Information, directly and proximately caused injuries to Plaintiffs and the Class. The Defendants failed to take reasonable steps to employ adequate security measures or to properly protect sensitive payment Personal Information despite well-publicized data breaches at large national retail and restaurant chains in recent years, including Arby's, Wendy's, Target, Home Depot, Sally Beauty, Harbor Freight Tools, P.F. Chang's, Dairy Queen, Kmart, and many others. The Data Breach was the inevitable result of Defendants' inadequate data security measures and cavalier approach to data security. Despite the well-publicized and ever-growing threat of security breaches involving payment card networks and systems, and despite the fact that these types of data breaches were and are occurring throughout the restaurant and retail industries, Defendants failed to ensure that they maintained adequate data security measures, causing customers' Personal Information to be stolen and/or accessed by unauthorized users. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' negligence and/or failure to implement and maintain adequate security measures, a massive amount of information was stolen from Defendants. Upon information and belief, the Defendants Data Breach compromised the Personal Information of thousands (if not more) of Defendants' customers/clients. Victims of the Data Breach have had their Personal Information compromised, had their privacy rights violated, been exposed to the increased risk of fraud and identify theft, lost control over their personal and financial information, and otherwise been injured. Moreover, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been forced to spend significant time associated with, among other things, detecting and expending effort to recuperate fraudulent charges on their debit and credit cards, cancelling/closing and opening new credit or debit card accounts, ordering replacement cards, obtaining fraud monitoring services, losing access to cash flow and credit lines, monitoring credit reports and accounts, and/or other losses resulting from the unauthorized use of their cards or accounts. Rather than providing meaningful assistance to consumers to help deal with the fraud that has and will continue to result from the Data Breach, Defendants simply told them to carefully monitor their accounts. In contrast to what is and has been frequently made available to consumers in recent data breaches, Defendants have not offered or provided any monitoring service or fraud insurance to date. Had the Plaintiff known that Defendants would not adequately protect the Personal Information and other sensitive information entrusted to them, she would not have made purchases on Stein Mart's online website using her debit card. Had the Plaintiff known that Defendants would not adequately protect the Personal Information and other sensitive information entrusted to them, she would not have transmitted her Personal Information to Defendants and/or allowed Defendants to store her Personal Information, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class: Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq. Scott M. Tucker, Esq. Tiffany J. Cramer, Esq. Vera G. Belger, Esq. Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Mark B. DeSanto, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 2711 Centerville Rd, Ste. 201 Wilmington, DE 19808 Telephone: (302) 656-2500 E-mail: rjk@chimicles.com smt@chimicles.com tjc@chimicles.com vgb@chimicles.com bfj@chimicles.com mbd@chimicles.com - and - Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq. ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY 320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130 Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone & Facsimile: 918 588 3400 E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com www.abingtonlaw.com SUPERIOR HEALTH: Suit Seeks to Stop Unlawful Use of Biometric Data ------------------------------------------------------------------ SONIA LOPEZ-MCNEAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUPERIOR HEALTH LINENS, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company, Defendant, and, AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING, INC., a Delaware corporation, Respondent In Discovery, Case No. 2019CH02668 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., February 28, 2019), wants to put a stop to the Defendant's alleged unlawful collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' sensitive biometric data. Super Health Linens, LLC, is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the state of Wisconsin with its principal place of business located in Batavia, Illinois. SHL provides linens and other textiles to the health care industry in the Midwest, including in Illinois. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., provides SHL with human resource management software and services, including employee time tracking services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: brichman@edelson.com ewadescott@edelson.com - and - David Fish, 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: dfish@fishlawfirm.com jkunze@fishlawfirm.com SYMANTEC CORP: Calif. Court Dismisses M. Beyer's Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Symantec's motion to dismiss the case, MONTGOMERY BEYER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SYMANTEC CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02006-EMC (N.D. Cal.). Beyer and Linda Cheslow bring the putative class action alleging that certain network security software products sold by Symantec contained critical defects. Symantec produces and sells network security software to consumers under the Norton brand and to businesses under the Symantec brand. On April 28, 2016, a Google cybersecurity team notified Symantec of alleged vulnerabilities in the AntiVirus Decomposer Engine, a key component in the Affected Products. In particular, the Google team discovered that the AntiVirus Decomposer Engine was defectively designed to have unrestricted access to and writing permissions for the computer's files, opening the operating system up to corruption. The High Privilege Defect allegedly violates the cybersecurity best practice of "the principle of least privilege," which dictates that software should operate using the least amount of privilege necessary to complete its task. Additionally, the AntiVirus Decomposer Engine contains third party open source code that Symantec failed to update for at least seven years, resulting in critical vulnerabilities. Beyer was the only named Plaintiff in the original complaint. The original complaint asserted five causes of action: (i) a California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") claim, (ii) a California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("SBA") claim, (iii) a California False Advertising Law ("FAL") claim, (iv) a California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") claim, and (v) a claim for "Quasi-Contract/Unjust Enrichment." In May 2018, Symantec moved to dismiss the original complaint. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion. The Plaintiffs then filed the operative First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on Nov. 26, 2018. The FAC adds Linda Cheslow as a second named Plaintiff. Beyer alleges he purchased five Norton Products containing the defects. He seeks recovery for the second and third purchases only. Beyer made his second purchase in March 2009, when he bought Norton 360 Premier from Symantec's website. The same year, he purchased another Norton 360 Premier, v. 2.0 subscription from Best Buy. Cheslow alleges she purchased two Norton Products containing the defects, and seeks recovery for both. She made her first purchase in June 2009, when she bought Norton Internet Security from Symantec's website. he made her second purchase, of Norton 350 Premier, v. 4.0, in December 2010, also from Symantec's website. Symantec and the Google team reported the Affected Products' vulnerabilities to the public on June 28, 2016, and simultaneously issued a security advisory describing software patches Symantec was deploying to resolve the vulnerabilities. Symantec's first motion to dismiss contended that Beyer's original complaint failed to establish Article III standing as to the Enterprise Products under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), failed to plead the facts and circumstances of Symantec's alleged fraud regarding its software defects with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), and failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court held that Beyer had "alleged sufficient similarity between the enterprise and consumer products" to establish standing for claims based on defects in the Enterprise Products, even though he had never purchased an Enterprise Product himself. The Court dismissed claims regarding Beyer's Third Software purchase without prejudice because they were based on alleged misrepresentations on Best Buy's website, rather than statements attributable to Symantec. The claims regarding the Beyer Second Software, on the other hand, were allowed to proceed because Symantec's statement that the software is "industry leading" may have been actionable non-puffery, and omitted mention of defects that Symantec had a duty to disclose. The Court further held that Beyer had adequately alleged reliance on Symantec's misrepresentations and Symantec's knowledge of the defects at the time of sale under Rule 9(b). Finally, the Court dismissed Beyer's SBA claim without prejudice because he failed to allege that the Beyer Second Software was sold at retail in California. Symantec has again moved to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' claims. The instant motion seeks dismissal of the FAC on six grounds, different from those raised in the first motion to dismiss. In particular: (1) the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring any of their claims because they have not suffered a concrete and actual injury as a result of the alleged software vulnerabilities; (2) the Plaintiffs' CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims fail to plead with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) any actionable, non-puffing Symantec misrepresentation upon which Plaintiffs relied; (3) the alleged vulnerabilities were not physical defects that were central to the functioning of the Affected Products, and therefore did not give rise to a duty to disclose the vulnerabilities; (4) the Plaintiffs have not alleged in their SBA claim that the Affected Products were unmerchantable, or that they purchased the software in California; (5) the Plaintiffs' UCL claims fail because they cannot establish any fraudulent, unlawful, or unfair conduct on the part of Symantec; and (6) the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim is duplicative of and falls with their other claims. As to injury in fact based on overpayment, Judge Chen finds that the Plaintiffs have not established standing based on an overpayment theory of injury. The Plaintiffs' economic loss theory is not credible, as the allegations that the Affected Products are worth less are conclusory and unsupported by any facts. In the absence of a product malfunction, all that the Plaintiffs can offer is what was found inadequate in Cahen v. Toyota Motor Corp. -- a bare assertion that they overpaid for the Affected Products. But they do not allege that disclosure of the alleged defects had "a demonstrable effect on the market" for the Affected Products, or that the vulnerabilities were such that "they were forced to replace or discontinue using their software. If anything, the Plaintiffs' case is even more tenuous. The Plaintiffs do not expressly invoke a theory of standing based on actual or future harm, but the Judge addresses this issue briefly for the sake of completeness. As he discussed, the Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged actual harm from the defects in their software; the performance issues arising from the Beyer Fifth Software and the vague complaints on Symantec's online forums have not been shown to be caused by the High Privilege and Outdated Source Code Defects in the software versions for which the Named Plaintiffs seek recovery. But the absence of actual harm is not dispositive, because an injury supporting Article III standing can be "actual or imminent." The Judge finds that the alleged defects in the Affected Products were revealed in 2016, but despite the fact that the defect existed since 2005, the Plaintiffs have not cited a single example of computer malfunction causally connected to the defect. The Named Plaintiffs also stopped using the Affected Products years ago. Accordingly, they have not alleged a credible threat of real and immediate harm stemming from the alleged defects. As the Plaintiffs have failed to establish the jurisdictional requirement of Article III standing, their claims must be dismissed, and the Court need not reach Symantec's remaining arguments for dismissal. The Judge, however, will allow them one more opportunity to amend their complaint. The Plaintiffs' counsel stated at the Feb. 14, 2019 hearing that with further investigation, they may be able to allege that the computer malfunctions Beyer experienced after installing the Beyer Fifth Software, as well as the performance issues reported on Symantec's online forums, are attributable to the High Privilege and Outdated Source Code Defects. W hile the Court cannot say at this point whether such allegations will be enough to establish standing as to the Named Plaintiffs, leave to amend will be freely given when justice so requires, and amendment would not clearly be futile. To that end, the parties represented at the hearing that they could engage in limited and focused discovery: the Plaintiffs will be given: (1) documents in Symantec's possession pertaining to known or suspected incidents of third-party hacking or exploitation arising from the alleged defects, and (2) relevant source code that would allow Plaintiffs to determine whether there is a causal link between the alleged defects and reported malfunctions. Such discovery will be produced within 30 days of the Order. The Plaintiffs will have 60 days from the order to file a Second Amended Complaint, provided it can do so consistent with Rule 11. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Chen granted Symantec's motion to dismiss with respect to all claims. The Plaintiffs will have leave to amend their complaint within 60 days. The order disposes of Docket No. 61. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/YROODU from Leagle.com. Montgomery Beyer, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Cassidy Kim -- ckim@sjk.law -- SchubertJonckheerKolbeLLP, Noah M. Schubert -- nschubert@sjk.law -- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, Robert C. Schubert -- rschubert@sjk.law -- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, Willem F. Jonckheer -- wjonckheer@sjk.law -- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP & John Robert Edgar Archibald, Investigation Counsel P.C., pro hac vice. Linda Cheslow, Plaintiff, represented by Willem F. Jonckheer, Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP. Symantec Corporation, Defendant, represented by Laurence F. Pulgram -- lpulgram@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP, Ciara Nicole McHale -- mchale@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West LLP, Molly Roberta Melcher -- mmelcher@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby -- tnewby@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP. TARGET CORPORATION: Removes Thomas Case to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- Target corporation removed 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, Defendants, Case No. 19CIV00584 (Jan. 29, 2019), from the San Mateo County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 28, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01131 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts five claims for relief: (1) failure to pay hourly wages; (2) failure to indemnify; (3) failure to provide accurate written wage statements; (4) failure to timely pay all final wages; and (5) unfair business practices under California unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 et seq. All five of the Plaintiff's claims are premised on Target's alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff for necessary business expenses, including the purchase and maintenance of uniforms and cell phone expenses.[BN] Target is the eighth-largest retailer in the United States, and is a component of the S&P 500 Index.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendant: Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq. Ryan D. Derry, Esq. Anna M. Skaggs, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 101 California Street, 48th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 856-7000 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com ryanderry@paulhastings.com annaskaggs@paulhastings.com TETRA TECH: Northern California Residents File Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Jon Parton, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Northern California residents filed a federal class action on Feb. 26 against beleaguered environmental engineering firm Tetra Tech, alleging the company falsely reported to the government that the properties affected by last year's wildfires had been properly cleaned and that no contaminated soil remained. The 22-page complaint, filed in federal court in San Francisco, claims Tetra Tech and AshBritt Environmental removed "excessive amounts of soil" and structures unaffected by the fires; destroyed property such as sidewalks, driveways and septic tanks; and lied to government agencies and property owners that "land had been cleaned" and tests that showed soils were uncontaminated when contaminated soil and debris remained untouched. The homeowners claim that the two firms took those actions as part of a conspiracy to increase the amount they would be paid for their clean-up efforts. The plaintiffs say the companies excavated more soil than what was needed due to receiving payments of between $200 and $300 per ton of debris. "Defendants routinely removed excessive amounts of soil, up to six feet in depth at a time, far more than was necessary to dispose of contaminants, without performing sampling to determine whether the soil was contaminated," the complaint states. The lawsuit also cites a letter sent to the Army Corps of Engineers from the director of the Governor's Office of Emergency Services, describing "unacceptable" work as part of the clean-up process, including damage to the homeowners' properties. "After extensive on-site inspections, the issues we have discovered thus far include, but are not limited to, obvious over-scraping of properties, severe damage to driveway and sidewalks, and damage to wells and septic tanks," the plaintiffs said the letter says. "Additionally, more than a dozen sites that were deemed cleared by [the Army Corps of Engineers] have recently been discovered to contain contaminated ash and fire debris." The complaint also claims that the companies falsely told government agencies that soil samples tested as being uncontaminated when "either no testing for contamination had occurred on the properties or results of testing for contamination were falsified." Plaintiffs allege that the two firms have worked together to defraud the government since at least 2015 over numerous clean-up projects they've worked together on across the country. "The fundamental goal of the enterprise was to maximize the profits of AshBritt and Tetra Tech by over-excavating on subject properties and unnecessarily removing non-debris material without testing for contamination," the complaint states. "Defendants communicated with each other via daily mail and e-mail correspondence in furtherance of their scheme to increase profits by over-excavating soil, needlessly removing debris, overseeing the destruction of Plaintiffs' property, and falsely claiming test results from contaminated properties showed the properties were clean." The lawsuit comes one month after the Justice Department sued Tetra Tech's subsidiary for the work it did in cleaning up former naval base Hunters Point in San Francisco, claiming it submitted at least $58 million in false invoices and fabricated radiation data about the site. Two company managers pleaded guilty last year to falsifying data. Despite the DOJ lawsuit, California officials awarded Tetra Tech with a $250 million dollar contract to test potentially contaminated soils from the wildfires, despite public concerns about the firm. Officials with CalRecycle said the contract was given to Tetra Tech due to its success in seven other debris clean-up contracts. The plaintiffs are suing the companies for racketeering and fraud, among other charges. They are represented by Robert Arns of San Francisco. [GN] TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Isolde Consolidated Suit Remains Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Trinity Industries, 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 Isolde consolidated class action is still stayed. On January 11, 2016, the previously reported cases styled Thomas Nemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) ("Nemky") and Richard J. Isolde, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry, Case No. (3:15-CV-2093) ("Isolde"), were consolidated in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, with all future filings to be filed in the Isolde case. On March 9, 2016, the Court appointed the Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and United Association Local Union Officers & Employees' Pension Fund as co-lead plaintiffs ("Lead Plaintiffs"). On May 11, 2016, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Complaint alleging defendants Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, James E. Perry, and Gregory B. Mitchell violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and defendants Mr. Wallace and Mr. Perry violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements and/or by failing to disclose material facts about Trinity's ET Plus and the FCA case styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States of America, Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.). On August 18, 2016, Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Mitchell filed motions to dismiss Lead Plaintiffs Consolidated Complaint, which remain pending. On March 13, 2017, the Court granted defendant's motion to stay and administratively close proceedings pending Fifth Circuit appeal. The Company anticipates that the parties will be in communication with the Court in the near term regarding the stay and further potential proceedings in this action. Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Mitchell deny and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Isolde case. Trinity Industries said, "Based on the information available to the Company, we currently do not believe that a loss is probable with respect to this shareholder class action; therefore no accrual has been included in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. Because of the complexity of these actions as well as the current status of certain of these actions, we are not able to estimate a range of possible losses with respect to these matters." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Trinity Industries, Inc. provides rail transportation products and services in North America. It operates through three segments: Railcar Leasing and Management Services Group, Rail Products Group, and All Other. Trinity Industries, Inc. was founded in 1933 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. TRIVAGO NV: Holbrook Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANTHONY HOLBROOK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TRIVAGO N.V., ROLF SCHROMGENS, AXEL HEFER, NATIONAL CORPORATE RESEARCH, LTD., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER SMITH INCORPORATED, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, and GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17 Civ. 8348 (NRB) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (i) denied National Corporate Research, Ltd. ("NCR")'s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5), and (ii) granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant Rule 12(b)(6) in their entirety and with prejudice. Trivago operates a global hotel search platform that allows users of the Company's website or mobile application to search for and compare deals from a variety of hoteliers and online travel agencies. It offered access to approximately 1.3 million hotels in over 190 countries as of Dec. 31, 2016. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Schrömgens has served as Trivago's CEO and Defendant Hefer has served as the CFO. Both Schrömgens and Hefer were also managing directors of Trivago. The initial complaint in the action was filed with olbrook as a named Plaintiff on Oct. 30, 2017. On Nov. 7, 2017, a separate case captioned Oliva v. Trivago N.V., No. 17 Civ. 8634 was also filed in the district. After reviewing the three timely filed Lead Plaintiff applications as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the Court appointed Dharmanand Shetty as the Lead Plaintiff, approved his counsel Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as the Lead Counsel, and consolidated the actions under the caption. The Plaintiffs then filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 30, 2018, which remains operative. Lead Plaintiff Shetty brings the federal securities class action on behalf of all individuals and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired american depositary shares of Trivago (1) between Dec. 16, 2016 and Oct. 25, 2017, inclusive, or (2) pursuant or traceable to the registration statement issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering on Dec. 16, 2016. The Plaintiffs allege violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against Trivago, its CEO Schrömgens, and its CFO Hefer, the Company's underwriters J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Allen & Company LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Cowen and Company, LLC, and Guggenheim Securities, LLC, and the Company's U.S. representative NCR. The Plaintiffs further allege violations of Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the Trivago Defendants and bring "control person" claims against Schrömgens and Hefer under both Section 15 of the Securities Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Presently before the Court are: (1) Trivago's motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("CAC") in its entirety for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) the Underwriter Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 11 claims as against the Underwriter Defendants pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6); and (3) NCR's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 11 claims as against NCR pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and for insufficient service of process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5). An oral argument was held on Feb. 4, 2019. Judge Buchwald denied NCR's motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5), and granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant Rule 12(b)(6) in their entirety and with prejudice. She also dismissed the CAC as to the unserved and non-moving Individual Defendants because the issues concerning the non-moving Defendants are substantially the same as those concerning the other Defendants, and the Plaintiffs had notice and a full opportunity to make out their claim. Although the Plaintiffs make a perfunctory request for leave to amend in their opposition brief, they do so in conclusory fashion without providing an adequate explanation of what they would allege in a second consolidated amended complaint to cure the CAC's deficiencies, and the Judge therefore denied their request. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment for the Defendants and terminate the case and any motions pending therein. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/VLDKtC from Leagle.com. Dharmanand Shetty, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy -- LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Casey Edwards Sadler -- csadler@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Charles H. Linehan -- CLINEHAN@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Kevin F. Ruf -- KRUF@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP & Robert Vincent Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Anthony Holbrook, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP. Jorge Oliva, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Nirav Shah, Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A. AW Bangayan Inc., Alexander Rizk & Veronika Prudnikova, Movants, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP. Trivago N.V., Defendant, represented by Lewis J. Liman, Cleary Gottlieb & Jared Mitchell Gerber, Cleary Gottlieb. National Corporate Research, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Joanna Andrea Diakos -- joanna.diakoskordalis@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP & Anthony Peter Badaracco -- badaracco.anthony@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Allen & Company LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Cowen and Company, LLC & Guggenheim Securities, LLC, Consolidated Defendants, represented by Peter Eric Kazanoff -- pkazanoff@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP & Sara Ann Ricciardi, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Peter Eric Kazanoff, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. TUT'S HUB: Gonzales Seeks to Recoup Overtime & Damages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- YOSSELIN GONZALES, on behalf of herself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs v. TUT'S HUB CORP. d/b/a EGYPT ROYAL CUISINE, BEIRUT FLAME INC. d/b/a LAYALI BEIRUT, KHALED ABDELHALEEM and NABIL ZEBIB, Case No. 1:19-cv-01197 (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2019), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Tut's Hub Corp., doing business as Egypt Royal Cuisine, is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal place of business located in in Astoria, New York. Beirut Flame Inc., doing business as Layali Beirut, is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of New York, with a principal place of business located in in Astoria, New York. The Individual Defendants are principals, officers or employees of the Corporate Defendants. The Defendants own or operate "Egypt Royal Cuisine" restaurant located at 30-91 Steinway Street, in Astoria, New York, and "Layali Beirut" restaurant located at 25-60 Steinway Street, also in Astoria.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com anne@leelitigation.com TWITTER INC: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ Twitter, 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 a consolidated class action lawsuit in the Northern District of California. Beginning in September 2016, multiple putative class actions and derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the United States against Twitter, Twitter's directors, and/or certain officers alleging false and misleading statements in violation of securities laws and breach of fiduciary duty. The putative class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On October 16, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. On July 17, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the consolidated securities action. The Company disputes the claims and intends to continue to defend the lawsuits vigorously. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and conversation in real time. The company offers various products and services, including Twitter, a platform that allows users to consume, create, distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a mobile application that enables user to broadcast and watch video live with others. The company operates in the United States and internationally. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. U.S. XPRESS: Smith Says Financial Report Misleading --------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN SMITH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. U.S. XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC., ERIC FULLER, ERIC PETERSON, JASON GREAR, MAX FULLER, LISA QUINN PATE, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, STEPHENS INC., STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED and WR SECURITIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00078-HSM-SKL (E.D. Tenn., March 8, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Act. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons and entities, other than Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of U.S. Xpress pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering completed in June 2018. The action asserts strict liability claims under sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against U.S. Xpress, certain current and/or former U.S. Xpress officers and directors, and the underwriters of the IPO. These claims specifically exclude any allegations of fraud, knowledge, recklessness or scienter, do not "sound in fraud" and are based solely on strict liability and negligence. The claims in this action arise from the materially misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus, defined infra, issued in connection with the IPO. In the IPO, Defendants offered and sold 16,668,000 shares of U.S. Xpress common stock to the public at a price of $16.00 per share. The Company received net proceeds from the IPO of approximately $245.2 million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses. To the detriment of the Plaintiff and all those that bought shares in or traceable to the IPO, the negligently prepared Offering Documents omitted material information regarding the Company's business prospects and financial health. As such, the Offering Documents contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state the facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading, thus violating the rules and regulations governing its preparation. Specifically, the Offering Documents failed to disclose that a shortage of trucks was negatively impacting U.S. Xpress's dedicated division; that (a) certain account shipping patterns had been performing differently than expected; and that, as a result (b) utilization and driver retention and hiring were being negatively affected; and that, as a result (c) U.S. Xpress's dedicated accounts, including one large account, were being negatively impacted; and that, as a result (d) U.S. Xpress's OTR division was providing continued support to the dedicated division; (3) that: (a) U.S. Xpress failed to stay informed regarding two large liability events; and that, as a result (b) U.S. Xpress's insurance claim expense was understated; (4) and that U.S. Xpress's cost per mile for driver wages and independent contractors was exceeding the Company's internal expectations. As a result of the foregoing, the statements contained in the Offering Documents were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. On November 1, 2018, U.S. Xpress issued a press release, announcing the Company's financial and operating results for the third fiscal quarter and nine months ending September 30, 2018. Therein, as well as during a conference call to discuss the results, U.S. Xpress disclosed how unusual shipping patterns were impacting its segments and how market challenges for drivers resulted in a year-to-year tractor count decrease. The Company and its executives also disclosed higher driver wages and independent contractor costs, lower than expected recruitment levels, and a higher insurance expense. On this news, the price of U.S. Xpress's common stock declined from a close of $10.14 per share on November 1, 2018 to a close of $7.10 per share on November 2, 2018, a drop of approximately 29.98%. At the date of the filing of this action, less than a year after the IPO, U.S. Xpress's common stock trades around $7.87 per share, a decline of $8.13 per share or 50.81% from the $16 IPO public price, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Sarah R. Johnson, Esq. Al Holifield, Esq. Sarah R. Johnson, Esq. HOLIFIELD JANICH RACHAL FERRERA, PLLC 11907 Kingston Pike Suite 201 Knoxville, TN 37934 Telephone: (865) 566-0115 Facsimile: (865) 566-0119 E-mail: aholifield@holifieldlaw.com sjohnson@holifieldlaw.com - and - Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com ULTA BEAUTY: Court Narrows Claims in Smith-Brown ------------------------------------------------ Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, KIMBERLY LAURA SMITH-BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ULTA BEAUTY, INC. and ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., Defendant (N.D. Ill.). The Plaintiffs, 22 customers of the Defendants' retail cosmetics stores in 18 states, bring the putative class action lawsuit, asserting state-law claims of breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud. Ulta Salon is a mass retailer of beauty products, operating retail stores coast to coast. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ulta Beauty. The Plaintiffs, consumers hailing from 18 states, purchased cosmetics or beauty products at the Defendants' stores, only to learn that the Defendants had a practice of reshelving products that had been used and returned by dissatisfied customers. In some cases, the Plaintiffs noticed shortly after purchase that the products appeared to have been previously used. In other cases, they infer that the products may have been previously used based on the following information about Ulta's business practices. On Jan. 9, 2018, a former Ulta employee revealed that, when customers returned products after using them, the products were "made to 'look new' -- but not sanitized -- and put back on the shelf to sell to unsuspecting customers. The employee posted her revelations on the microblogging website Twitter, identifying herself by the Twitter handle, "@fatinamxo." She posted pictures of used foundation and lipsticks, which Ulta resold as if new. She claimed that Ulta even trained its staff members to "restore" products, and managers were careful to keep an eye on products in the "damage bin" to assess whether they could be resold. Managers taught employees how to clean eyeshadow palettes and let it dry overnight so it can be repackaged and sold the next day. Other Twitter users responded to @fatinamxo's posts by claiming that they too worked at Ulta, and what @fatinamxo reported was consistent with their own experience in various places, including California, Washington, Texas, Florida, Michigan, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Ohio. One of these Twitter users even claimed to have worked at Ulta store number 1221 in Sherman Oaks, California, the same store where Smith-Brown routinely shopped. In the wake of these and other, similar revelations about Ulta on the internet and social media, the Plaintiffs obtained sworn affidavits from five former Ulta employees -- Tammy Geier, Kami Turner, Ella Soto, Laura Hornick, and Michael Fisher -- who worked in Ulta stores in Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida, and California. Fisher, Geier, and Turner, while working as general managers of individual Ulta stores, were trained by regional management, apparently based on pressure from senior management, on how to restore and repackage used makeup and beauty products in order to reduce "shrink," or inventory going to waste. All five former employees were instructed to use returned products as "testers" in their stores, despite the potential to spread disease and germs to those who use them. The Plaintiffs allege that Ulta's policy of reselling or reusing returned products is "unsanitary and hazardous to the public." Many of the Plaintiffs allege that they suffered sties, rashes, and irritation due to skin and eye infections after purchasing and using Ulta products. They believe the Ulta products they purchased were, unbeknownst to them, previously used and their use of these unsanitary products caused the infections they suffered. The Plaintiffs seek to represent in the action not only themselves but also (a) a nationwide class consisting of all persons in the United States who purchased, other than for resale, beauty products from Ulta Beauty retail locations, or alternatively, (b) 18 state subclasses made up of all persons who purchased Ulta beauty products, other than for resale, in each of the 18 states the Plaintiffs represent, namely, Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. The Second Amended Complaint consists of 23 claims for relief: breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, on behalf of the nationwide class or, alternatively, each state subclass; unjust enrichment, on behalf of the nationwide class or, alternatively, each state subclass; and 21 claims under 21 separate consumer fraud and deceptive business practices statutes in the various states the Plaintiffs represent, each claim on behalf of the subclass of persons who purchased Ulta products in the state supplying the governing law. The Defendants challenge the Plaintiffs' standing in three respects, arguing as follows: (a) the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue over the purchase of products that were new, not used; (b) the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue on behalf of the class members who did not purchase the same beauty products as the Plaintiffs did; and (c) the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue on behalf of the class members in other states whose claims will be governed by other states' laws. Judge Alonso granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. He granted the motion to (1) any claims based on the purchase of new products, (2) any claims on behalf of the prospective class members residing outside the states represented by the named Plaintiffs, (3) Plaintiff Sot's breach of warranty claim under New Jersey law, (4) any claim under the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ADTPA"), (4) any claim under the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("WDTPA"), and (6) any claim under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("NDTPA"). Among other things, the Judge finds that to the extent the Plaintiffs or the class members purchased new products, it was not the "product itself" (i.e., the one with which they walked out of the store) that was "defective or dangerous," and therefore such purchasers have not suffered an injury-in-fact that confers Article III standing. The Plaintiffs do not have standing to assert claims arising out of the purchase of new Ulta products. Because Sot's claim is against the immediate seller of the defective beauty products she complains of purchasing, the pre-suit notice requirement applies in full force. Plaintiff Sot's breach of warranty claim is dismissed. The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs cite no authority to support giving the ADTPA's 15-day requirement a liberal construction or implying a substantial compliance or actual notice exception, nor is the Judge aware of any. With only the plain language of the statute for guidance, he must apply the statute as written. The Plaintiffs' claim under the ADTPA is dismissed. The Plaintiffs have not pointed to any specific misrepresentations the Defendants made about whether their products were new or used. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as to the WDTPA claim. Finally, applying the plain language of the statute, the Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs must plead an affirmative misrepresentation in order to state a claim under the NDTPA. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as to the NDTPA claim. The Judge otherwise denied the motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/Ca4qYu from Leagle.com. Kimberly Laura Smith-Brown, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similary Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carl V. Malmstrom -- malmstrom@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Janine L. Pollack -- pollackj@thesultzerlawgroup.com -- The Sultzer Law Group, PC, pro hac vice, Lee Shalov -- lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com -- McLaughlin & Stern LLP, pro hac vice, Carlos Mario Jaramillo -- info@accesslg.com -- Access Lawyers Group, pro hac vice, Jason Giaimo -- jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com -- McLaughlin & Stern LLP, pro hac vice & Wade Wilkinson -- wwilkinson@mclaughlinstern.com -- McLaughlin & Stern LLP, pro hac vice. Colleen Thornton, Allison Sot, Alice Vitiello, Karen Eonta, Jennifer Sacks, Brittany Caffrey, Valarie Hutchison, Robin Okman, Paula M Ogurkiewicz, Quinn Allen, Veronica Sanders, Ilene Anchell, Kristen Jackson & Shasta Swaney, Plaintiffs, represented by Janine L. Pollack, The Sultzer Law Group, PC, pro hac vice. Tammy Walker, Deanna Shaw, Kris Dane, Michelle Musk, Jessica Tift, Donna Williams & Cristina Kovacs, Plaintiffs, represented by Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., Matthew C. De Re, Zimmerman Law Offices, P.c., Sharon Harris, Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C. & Janine L. Pollack, The Sultzer Law Group, PC, pro hac vice. Ulta Beauty, Inc. & Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., Defendants, represented by Craig Christopher Martin -- cmartin@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Amanda S. Amert, Jenner & Block LLP, Matt D. Basil -- mbasil@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP & Paul Benjamin Rietema -- prietema@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block Llp. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE: Faces Thew Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against USAA Federal Savings Bank. MARY THEW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00314-DMG-SHK (C.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Dolly M. Gee and referred to Magistrate Judge Shashi H. Kewalramani. USAA Federal Savings Bank provides banking products and services for military members and their families. The company was founded in 1983 and is based in San Antonio, Texas. USAA Federal Savings Bank operates as a subsidiary of USAA Capital Corporation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yana A Hart, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3609 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: yana@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Daniel Guinn Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G SHAY 409 Camino Del Rio South Suite 101B San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 Facsimile: (866) 431-3292 E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com UNITED SERVICES: Faces Spielman Suit over Vehicle Insurance ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, LESTER I SPIELMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (d/b/a USAA), the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01359 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 22, 2019), alleges that the Defendant systematically underpaid not just Plaintiff but tens of thousands of other putative class members for total loss vehicles insured with physical damage coverage, including collision or physical damage other than collision coverage, by failing to pay the full Actual Cash Value of the insured total loss vehicles. The case is a class action lawsuit by Plaintiff Spielman, the named insured under a USAA automobile policy issued for private passenger auto physical damage coverage, including collision or physical damage other than collision, which requires payment of ACV in the case of a total loss of the insured vehicle. The Plaintiff brings claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief. The Defendant is among the leading providers of insurance to members of the United States military, veterans, and their families. The mutual insurance company serves some 12 million-member customers, primarily military personnel, military retirees, and their families. Its products and services include property/casualty and life insurance, banking, discount brokerage, investment management, and real estate development. This lawsuit is brought by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated insureds who suffered damages due to Defendant's practice of refusing to pay full ACV payments or full total loss payment ("FTLP") to first-party 25 total loss insureds on physical damage coverage, including collision or physical damage other than collision coverage. Specifically, as a matter of policy, Defendant fails to include sales tax and/or vehicle title transfer and vehicle registration fees ("Vehicle Title and Registration Fees") in its calculation of ACV when paying FTLP to its insureds. Defendant's failure to pay FTLP to first-party total losses owed to its insureds and to condition payments on actions not required by the policy itself, such as purchase of a new vehicle, is a breach of the policy agreement and a clear breach of contract.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Annick M. Persinger, Esq. Tanya Koshy, Esq. YCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Ste 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone (510) 254-6808 E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com tkoshy@tzlegal.com - and - Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, Esq. FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com stresifeld@kolawyers.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Jordan D. Utanski, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd. No. 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com utanski@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com UNITED STATES: Medicare Patients File Class Action Lawsuit vs HHS ----------------------------------------------------------------- Is your Medicare coverage "sticking it" to you? According to some recipients, the answer is a clear "yes". Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar is the subject of a new class action lawsuit filed by two plaintiffs, Douglas B. Sargent and Carol A. Lewis. They allege that Medicare's repeated refusal to cover continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) results in serious negative health outcomes to patients. CGMs have been approved by Medicare as a replacement to a "finger prick" method of testing blood glucose. CGMs are effective because they continuously monitor a patient's blood glucose level and easily send the data to patients and caregivers alike. This makes it easier to catch any potential issues before they become serious. Denying diabetes patients access to them, then, might put their health in jeopardy. The plaintiffs are hoping to receive retroactive payments for patients who have shouldered this cost alone. [GN] UNITED STATES: Percy Seeks to Enforce S.D.N.Y Court Decision ------------------------------------------------------------ The plaintiff in the case captioned Albert E. Percy, individually and as the Class Representative of the Class certified in US Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York Case No. 73-cv-04279, Plaintiff, v. Alexander Acosta, Secretary of Labor, the United States Department of Labor, Ondray T. Harris, Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance, Andrew Mark Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York, Roberta Reardon, Commissioner, New York State Department of Labor, New York State Department of Labor, Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, New York Building and Construction Industry Board of Urban Affairs Fund, New York Plan For Training, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 501764/2019, (N.Y. Sup., January 25, 2019), seeks to enforce the Southern District of New York order in Case No. 73-cv-04279 brought on behalf of minority persons seeking affirmative action in training and employment in the New York construction industry. Original complainants in aforementioned case, John Mercado, Manuel Mejia, Fight Back and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People sought redress over failure to implement the equal employment opportunity mandate under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and as amended in 1991, within the protections of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. They were construction workers who claim to be discriminated and denied equal employment opportunities because of their Hispanic heritage. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Kernan, Esq. KERNAN PROFESSIONAL GROUP, LLP 26 Broadway, 19th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 986-3196 Fax: (212) 656-1213 Email: jkernan@hernanllp.com VALE SA: Hach Rose Commences Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons and or entities who purchased Vale S.A. common stock between April 13, 2018 and January 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Class"). The action is styled Epstein v. Vale S.A., et al., Civil Action No. 19-cv-00793 (E.D.N.Y.). Investors who suffered a financial loss are encouraged to speak directly with the attorneys litigating this action by contacting Frank R. Schirripa, Esq., or Gregory Nespole, Esq., at (212) 213-8311, toll free (866) LAWS-USA, or via email at FSchirripa@hrsclaw.com or GNespole@hrsclaw.com. You may move the Court, no later than March 29, 2019, to appoint you as lead plaintiff, a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading statements concerning the Company's safety protocols and compliance with applicable mining regulations. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Vale had failed to adequately assess the risk and damage potential of a dam breach at its Feijao iron ore mine especially in light of its tragic experience in 2015 in connection with the another mine catastrophe; (2) Vale's programs to mitigate health, safety and environmental incidents were inadequate; (3) defendants' mine safety auditor was not independent as required under Brazilian mining law; (4) defendants were in possession of an internal report commissioned by Vale itself to study the stability of the tailings dam and the report raised concerns over the mine's drainage and monitoring systems; and (5) defendants failed to disclose the existence of information that the dam was at risk of "liquefaction," the same issue that led to the 2015 collapse of the Samarco dam. On January 25, 2019, catastrophe struck when Vale's tailings dam at the Feijao mine in the rural state of Minas Gerais failed, killing scores of people. On this terrible news, Vale (the world's biggest producer of iron ore) suspended dividends and its shares plunged the most on record, wiping out about $18 billion in market value. Specifically, the tragic events drove the price of Vale shares down $3.66, or over 24%, between January 24, 2019 and January 28, 2019. If you purchased Vale common stock during the Class Period, you may, no later than March 29, 2019 request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Frank R. Schirripa, Esq. Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP 112 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 213-8311 Fax: (212) 779-0028 Toll Free: (866) LAWS-USA E-Mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com [GN] VALE SA: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Vale S.A. ("Vale" or the "Company") (NYSE: VALE) between April 13, 2018 and January 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired Vale securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than March 29, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the actions. Vale investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the Vale Securities Class Litigation Vale, incorporated in Brazil and headquartered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, is one of the world's largest mining companies, and the top global producer of iron ore and nickel in the world. In 2015, the Fundao tailings dam, joint-owned by Vale and BHP Billiton Brasil Ltda., burst, flooding downstream communities and resulting in 19 fatalities and the worst environmental disaster in Brazilian history. On January 25, 2019, Vale's tailings dam at its Feijao iron ore mine in Brumadinho, Brazil collapsed, flooding Brumadinho and killing hundreds, with many still missing. Brazilian authorities have frozen $1.3 billion worth of Vale assets to pay for the damages. The action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Vale and certain of its senior executives made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and its assessment of the risk and potential damage potential of a dam breach at its Feijao iron ore mine, as well as the adequacy of Vale's programs to mitigate health and safety incidents. The scope of Vale's misstatements are magnified by public commitments to keep its workplace safe and to minimize environmental damage following the 2015 Fundao dam collapse. On news of the dam collapse, the price of Vale's American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") declined by $2.46 per share, or 18%, over the next 3 trading days to close at $11.20 on January 28, 2019, eliminating more than $2.5 billion in shareholder value. For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's representation of investors, please visit http://www.lieffcabraser.com.[GN] VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Settles Retirement Plan Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Vanderbilt University is the third prominent college to settle class claims challenging the fees and investment funds in its retirement plan. The deal, announced in a Feb. 25 status report filed in federal court, follows a $10.65 million settlement by Duke University and a $6.5 million deal agreed to by the University of Chicago. Details about Vanderbilt's settlement will be made public by April 22, the parties said. [GN] VEREIT INC: Briefing in ARCP Litigation to be Completed April 5 --------------------------------------------------------------- Vereit, 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 briefing on the motions for summary judgment in the case entitled, In re American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, to be completed by April 5, 2019. Between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and certain of its former officers and directors, among other individuals and entities, were named as defendants in ten securities class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court consolidated these actions under the caption In re American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH) (the "SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action"). The plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint on December 11, 2015, which asserted claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On September 8, 2016, the court issued an order directing plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint to reflect certain prior rulings by the court in connection with various motions to dismiss. The third amended complaint was filed on September 30, 2016 and the defendants were not required to file new answers. On August 31, 2017, the court issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Defendants' petitions seeking leave to appeal the court's order granting class certification were denied on January 24, 2018. Fact depositions were concluded at the end of 2018 and at a status conference in November 2018, the court ordered all summary judgment motions to be filed by February 8, 2019, with briefing on all motions to be completed by April 5, 2019. The next status conference with the court is scheduled for April 17, 2019 and trial is scheduled for September 9, 2019. Vereit, Inc. is a full-service real estate operating company which owns and manages one of the largest portfolios of single-tenant commercial properties in the U.S. Vereit's business model provides equity capital to creditworthy corporations in return for long-term leases on their properties. Vereit is a publicly traded Maryland corporation listed on the New York Stock Exchange. VEREIT INC: Realistic Partners' Class Action Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Vereit, 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 a putative class action suit entitled, Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital Partners, et al. In December 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and the then-members of its board of directors in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, captioned Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital Partners, et al., No. 654468/2013. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the board of the Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the transactions contemplated under the Cole Merger Agreement (in connection with the merger between a wholly owned subsidiary of Cole Credit Property Trust III, Inc. and Cole Holdings Corporation) and that Cole Credit Property Trust III, Inc. aided and abetted those breaches. In January 2014, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of the alleged class of the Company's stockholders. The proposed settlement terms required the Company to make certain additional disclosures related to the Cole Merger, which were included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with the SEC on January 17, 2014. The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the parties would enter into a stipulation of settlement, which would be subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to the Company's stockholders, and provided that the defendants would not object to a payment of up to $625,000 for attorneys' fees. Vereit said, "If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, which has not occurred, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of understanding." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Vereit, Inc. is a full-service real estate operating company which owns and manages one of the largest portfolios of single-tenant commercial properties in the U.S. Vereit's business model provides equity capital to creditworthy corporations in return for long-term leases on their properties. Vereit is a publicly traded Maryland corporation listed on the New York Stock Exchange. VERSUM MATERIALS: Poison Pill Violates Voting Rights, Fund Says --------------------------------------------------------------- PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 60 PENSION TRUST, on behalf of itself and all similarly situated holders of VERSUM MATERIALS, INC., the Plaintiff, vs. VERSUM MATERIALS, INC., SEIFI GHASEMI, GUILLERMO NOVO, JACQUES CROISETIERE, YI HYON PAIK, THOMAS J. RIORDAN, SUSAN C. SCHNABEL, ALEJANDRO D. WOLFF, and BROADRIDGE CORPORATE ISSUER SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2019-0190 (Del. Ch., March 8, 2019), alleges that Versum's Board is making a mockery of voting rights of its stockholders. According to the complaint, on January 27, 2019, Versum and Entegris, Inc. agreed to combine in a merger of equals transaction. A month later, before the stockholder vote on the Proposed Entegris Merger was scheduled, Merck KGaA submitted an unsolicited all-cash offer to acquire Versum. The Merck Offer on its face offers superior value to Versum stockholders. However, a majority of the Board is interested in the Proposed Entegris Merger as a majority will be able to retain their Board seats in a merger of equals transactions. Therefore, it is unsurprising that within two days of receiving the Merck Offer, the Board implemented an overly restrictive Poison Pill and rejected the Merck Offer. If the Poison Pill simply prevented the accumulation of shares, either individually or with an actual group, and mirrored the poison pills the Court has declared valid in the past, the Plaintiff would have no cause to petition the Court for relief. However, the Poison Pill adopted by the Board prohibits far more extensive conduct than two or more stockholder acting together to influence the Company. Rather, the Poison Pill here gives the Board the discretion to trigger the Pill if two or more stockholders knowingly, but separately, act towards a common goal in parallel of one another. As a result, the Poison Pill chills stockholders from basic participation in corporate democracy, including discussing their views with one another about the matter to be voted on privately and then advocating publicly for other shareholders to vote in a certain manner. No election, stockholder or otherwise, is free and fair if voters are unable to share information with one another, discuss their opinions on the matter to be voted on, or encourage other voters to vote in a certain manner. As such, the Poison Pill violates Versum stockholders' franchise rights and the members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties by adopting it, the lawsuit says. Versum Materials is a 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 is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. Versum is named as a Defendant herein solely in its capacity as a party to the rights agreement that governs the Poison Pill.[BN] Attorneys for Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 60 Pension Trust: Ned Weinberger, Esq. Mark Richardson, Esq. John Vielandi, Esq. David MacIsaac, Esq. Thomas Curry, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1340 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-2540 WADDELL & REED: Fairness Hearing in 401(k) Plan Suit Set April 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a settlement fairness hearing is scheduled for April 8, 2019, in the 401(k) Plan Class Action Litigation. In an action filed on June 23, 2017 and amended on June 26, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, Schapker v. Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., et al, (Case No. 17-2365 D. Kan.), Stacy Schapker, a participant in the Company's 401(k) and Thrift Plan, as amended and restated (the "401(k) Plan"), filed a lawsuit against the Company, the Company's Board of Directors, the Administrative Committee of the 401(k) Plan, and unnamed Jane and John Doe Defendants 1-25. On August 7, 2017, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on behalf of the 401(k) Plan and a proposed class of 401(k) Plan participants, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, based on the 401(k) Plan's offering of investments managed by the Company or its affiliates during a proposed class period of June 23, 2011 to present. The second amended complaint dismissed the Company's Board of Directors as a defendant and named as defendants the Company, the Compensation Committee of the Company's Board of Directors, the Administrative Committee of the 401(k) Plan, and the individuals who served on those committees during the proposed class period. While the Company and all other defendants deny any and all liability with respect to the claims, the parties to the litigation reached a settlement. The November 19, 2018 settlement agreement contemplates a full release for the benefit of the Company and all other defendants and the payment of $4.875 million (less attorney's fees and costs, class representative compensation, and administrative expenses) to eligible settlement class members, their beneficiaries or alternate payees. On November 28, 2018, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement, including preliminary certification of a class for settlement purposes only, to include 401(k) Plan participants at any time during the approved class period of June 23, 2011 to November 28, 2018. A fairness hearing is scheduled for April 8, 2019, at which the court will consider granting final approval to the settlement. The settlement is subject to final court approval. The payments contemplated by the proposed settlement are recoverable to the Company through insurance. Waddell & Reed said, "The Company has recorded a liability and offsetting receivable from insurance, as reflected in the Company's consolidated balance sheets." Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides investment management and advisory, investment product underwriting and distribution, and shareholder services administration to mutual funds, and institutional and separately managed accounts in the United States. Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc. was founded in 1937 and is based in Overland Park, Kansas. WELLS FARGO: Responds to California Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Radhika Ojha, writing for The MReport, reports that Wells Fargo is addressing the claims of a class-action suit alleging that the bank has violated California's wage and vacation laws. "Wells Fargo's compensation structure for its Home Mortgage Consultants (HMCs) complies with California's wage and hour laws, including paying for all time worked, and allows our HMCs to earn competitive performance-based compensation," the bank said in a statement shared with MReport. At the crux of the matter is a lawsuit filed against Wells Fargo by James C. Kang a loan officer who worked at Wells Fargo October 2000 through May 2015 with a short break in employment in 2011. Kang alleged that while the bank paid advances on commissions at a rate of approximately $12 per hour, those advances were "clawed back" from commissions earned. He also alleged that Wells Fargo did not compensate HMCs for non-sales work, clawed back vacation pay from commissions with the result that HMCs did not actually receive their accrued vacation and that they did not pay HMCs overtime wages as required by law. According to Bloomberg Law, the suit was admitted in California courts as a class action suit since "these allegations were based on a common compensation plan applicable to all class members, making class certification appropriate," Judge Beth Labson Freeman wrote for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] WESTERN UNION: Bid to Dismiss Smallen Trust Suit Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The Western Union Company 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 court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss in the case, Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust et al. v. The Western Union Company et al. On February 22, 2017, the Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and a former executive officer of the Company were named as defendants in two purported class action lawsuits, both of which asserted claims under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b‑5 and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On May 3, 2017, the two cases were consolidated by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado under the caption Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., Civil Action No. 1:17‑cv‑00474‑KLM (D. Colo.). On September 6, 2017, the Court appointed Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust as the lead plaintiff. On November 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint ("Amended Complaint") that, among other things, added two other former executive officers as defendants, one of whom subsequently was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. The Amended Complaint asserts claims under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission rule 10b‑5 and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges that, during the purported class period of February 24, 2012, through May 2, 2017, the defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to disclose purported adverse material facts regarding, among other things, the Company's compliance with AML and anti-fraud regulations, the status and likely outcome of certain governmental investigations targeting the Company, the reasons behind the Company's decisions to make certain regulatory enhancements, and the Company's premium pricing. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on January 16, 2018. The consolidated action is in a preliminary stage and the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with it. The Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in this matter. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment services worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. The Western Union Company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. WESTERN UNION: Class Suit v. Argentina Unit Still Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- The Western Union Company 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 Western Union Financial Services Argentina S.R.L., a company subsidiary, continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit in Argentina. In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No. 19 against the Company's subsidiary Western Union Financial Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA"). The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA's fees for money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA does not provide consumers with adequate information about foreign exchange rates. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order requiring WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid and the foreign exchange revenue associated with money transfers sent from Argentina, plus punitive damages. The complaint does not specify a monetary value of the claim or a time period. In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint formally admissible as a class action. The notice of claim was served on WUFSA in May 2016, and in June 2016 WUFSA filed a response to the claim and moved to dismiss it on statute of limitations and standing grounds. In April 2017, the Court deferred ruling on the motion until later in the proceedings. The process for notifying potential class members has been completed and the case is currently in the evidentiary stage. Western Union said, "Due to the stage of this matter, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this matter. WUFSA intends to defend itself vigorously." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment services worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. The Western Union Company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend Frazier Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- The Western Union Company 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 and its subsidiary Western Union Financial Services, Inc., continues to defend a class action lawsuit entitled, Frazier et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., Civil Action No. 1:18‑cv‑00998‑KLM (D. Colo.). On April 26, 2018, the Company, its Western Union Financial Services, Inc. ("WUFSI") subsidiary, its President and Chief Executive Officer, and various "Doe Defendants" (purportedly including Western Union officers, directors, and agents) were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit asserting claims for alleged violations of civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and the Colorado Organized Crime Act, civil theft, negligence, unjust enrichment, and conversion under the caption Frazier et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., Civil Action No. 1:18‑cv‑00998‑KLM (D. Colo.). The complaint alleges that, during the purported class period of January 1, 2004 to the present, and based largely on the admissions and allegations relating to the DPA, the FTC Consent Order, and the NYDFS Consent Order, the defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud customers through Western Union's money transfer system. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 17, 2018. The amended complaint is similar to the original complaint, although it adds additional named plaintiffs and additional counts, including claims on behalf of putative California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and New Jersey subclasses for alleged violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. On August 28, 2018, the Company and the other defendants moved to stay the action in favor of individual arbitrations with the named plaintiffs, which defendants contend are contractually required. That motion has been fully briefed and remains pending, and the case is otherwise stayed pending a determination of that issue. Western Union said, "The action is in a preliminary stage and the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with it. The Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in this matter." The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment services worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. The Western Union Company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. WIRECARD AG: April 9 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ------------------------------------------------ Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until April 9, 2019 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Wirecard AG (OTC: WCAGY, WRCDF), if they purchased the Company's securities between April 7, 2016 and February 1, 2019 (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. What You May Do If you purchased securities of Wirecard and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/otc-wcagy/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by April 9, 2019. About the Lawsuit Wirecard and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On February 1, 2019, news media sources reported that an external law firm retained by the Company to investigate activities in its Singapore office had discovered evidence of "serious offences of forgery and/or of falsification of accounts." Further, "there are reasons to suspect that they may have been carried out to conceal other misdeeds, such as cheating, criminal breach of trust, corruption and/or money laundering." The case is Dalpoggetto v. Wirecard AG et al, 19-cv-986. Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: 1-877-515-1850 Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] WIRECARD AG: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Wirecard AG (OTC: WCAGY, WRCDF) from April 7, 2016 through February 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Wirecard investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Wirecard class action, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1499.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) for the period spanning from 2015 to 2018, a senior Wirecard executive in Singapore had been accused of forging and backdating contracts, including falsifying accounts and money laundering; (2) an external law firm commissioned to investigate Wirecard's Singapore office had reportedly found evidence of "serious offences of forgery and/or of falsification of accounts"; (3) Wirecard had downplayed weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting and failed to disclose the true extent of those weaknesses; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about Wirecard's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 9, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1499.html Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Zachary Halper, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN] WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS: Felix Files Suit in Calif. Under FDCPA ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WM. Bolthouse Farms, Inc. The case is styled as Eric Felix, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WM. Bolthouse Farms, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00312-AWI-EPG (E.D. Cal., March 7, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc. produces fresh produce and beverages. It provides beverages that includes juices, smoothies, protein plus, breakfast smoothies, and cafe drinks; dressings, such as Greek yogurt, yogurt, and vinaigrette; and carrots. Additionally, it offers smoothies, fruit tubes, and veggie snackers. Its products are sold through a network of stores. Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc. was founded in 1915 and is headquartered in Bakersfield, California. Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Campbell Soup Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emil Davtyan, Esq. Davtyan Professional Law Corporation 5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 130 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (818) 875-2008 Fax: (818) 722-3974 Email: emil@davtyanlaw.com - and - Eric Bryce Kingsley, Esq. Kingsley & Kingsley APC 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Tel: (818) 990-3800 Fax: (818) 990-2903 Email: eric@kingsleykingsley.com - and - Kelsey Szamet, Esq. Kingsley & Kingsley, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Tel: (818) 990-8300 Email: kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com WM. MULHERIN'S SONS: Faces Class Action Over Servers' Tips ---------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Vigoda, writing for Eater Philadelphia, reports that Italian restaurant Wm. Mulherin's Sons in Fishtown is facing controversy again. A former server filed a lawsuit against the restaurant's owners and management on Feb. 25, reports Philadelphia magazine. The federal class action suit alleges that Wm. Mulherin's Sons violated labor laws by skimming tips -- pooling tips given to servers and using some of the money to pay bussers, bartenders, cooks, and other non-tipped employees. That practice can open up the possibility of management keeping a portion of the money for themselves, which the lawsuit claims is what happened at Wm. Mulherin's. The defendants named in the suit include owners David Grasso and Randall Cook of Method Hospitality, along with Michael Jreidini, who is no longer at the restaurant but was the general manager. The server, Michael Cona, also filed a second lawsuit on Feb. 25 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas alleging he was fired and defamed when sexual harassment allegations against Mr. Jreidini, the restaurant's then chef-partner Chris Painter, and two staffers not identified were made public via a Philly Mag article, Philly.com is reporting. [GN] WOUND CARE SOLUTIONS: Zepeda Hits Illegal Biometrics Data Retention ------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Zepeda, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wound Care Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH01612 (Ill. Cir., February 6, 2019), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics; statutory damages together with costs; and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Wound Care provides medical supply delivery services. It captures, collects, stores, uses and disseminates its employees' biometrics, specifically, hand prints, for its timekeeping system. Zepeda alleges that Wound care improperly disclosed its employees' fingerprint data to its service provider without their informed consent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: William P.N. Kingston, Esq. Jad Sheikali, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 893-7002 Fax: (312) 275-7895 Email: wkingston@mcgpc.com jsheikali@mcgpc.com WPX ENERGY: Accord Reached in Kansas & Missouri Purchasers Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- WPX Energy, 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 a settlement in principle has been reached in a class action involving Kansas and Missouri purchasers of natural gas. The company is currently a defendant in class action litigation and other litigation originally filed in state court in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri and Wisconsin and brought on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in those states. These cases were transferred to the federal court in Nevada. In 2008, the court granted summary judgment in the Colorado case in favor of the company and most of the other defendants based on plaintiffs' lack of standing. On January 8, 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of the Colorado dismissal and entered judgment in our favor. On August 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the orders denying class certification and remanded to the MDL Court. On September 7, 2018, those plaintiffs filed a motion seeking remand to the originally filed district courts of Missouri, Kansas and Wisconsin. On October 23, 2018, a settlement in principle with the Kansas and Missouri class claimants was reached. Final documents have not been finalized and approved by the Court. In the Wisconsin class action, defendants' motion for entry of their proposed order denying class certification remains pending, along with the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the originally filed district court. WPX Energy, Inc., an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company, engages in the exploitation and development of unconventional properties in the United States. The company was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. WPX ENERGY: Class Action in Nevada Underway ------------------------------------------- WPX Energy, 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 a class action in the the Nevada District Court. On July 18, 2011, the Nevada district court granted the company's joint motions for summary judgment to preclude the plaintiffs' state law claims because the federal Natural Gas Act gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive jurisdiction to resolve those issues. The court also denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On April 10, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in the In re: Western States Wholesale Antitrust Litigation, holding that the Natural Gas Act does not preempt the plaintiffs' state antitrust claims and reversing the summary judgment previously entered in favor of the defendants. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Defendants' writ of certiorari. On April 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the state antitrust claims are not preempted by the federal Natural Gas Act. On March 7, 2016, the putative class plaintiffs in several of the cases filed their motions for class certification. On March 30, 2017, the court denied the motions for class certification, which decision was appealed on June 20, 2017. On May 24, 2016, in Reorganized FLI Inc. v. Williams Companies, Inc., the Court granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety, and an agreed amended judgment was entered by the court on January 4, 2017. Reorganized FLI, Inc. appealed this decision and on March 27, 2018, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the MDL Court. The parties have filed numerous motions for summary judgment, reconsideration and remand. WPX Energy said, "Because of the uncertainty around pending unresolved issues, including an insufficient description of the purported classes and other related matters, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential exposure at this time." WPX Energy, Inc., an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company, engages in the exploitation and development of unconventional properties in the United States. The company was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. XOLO TACOS 2: Underpays Servers, Gaffney Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- MIKAYLA GAFFNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XOLO TACOS 2, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00711-GEKP (E.D. Pa., Feb. 20, 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 Gaffney was employed by the Defendant as server. Xolo Tacos 2, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in the restaurant business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Murphy, 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 YOGAWORKS INC: Kuznicki Law Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in these companies during the dates listed below are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible appointment as lead plaintiff and a preliminary estimate of their recoverable losses. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in the respective securities during the class periods. Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No classes have yet been certified in the actions below. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. YogaWorks, Inc. (NasdaqGM: YOGA) Investors Affected: Pursuant to the IPO commenced around August 10, 2017 and closed on August 16, 2017 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in YogaWorks, Inc. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated their disclosure obligations because the Offering Materials materially misrepresented and failed to adequately disclose the truth concerning several known trends negatively impacting YogaWorks' business at the time of the IPO, including, inter alia: (i) declining studio profitability; (ii) the impact of increased corporate overhead; (iii) declining financial metrics that would ultimately lead to a substantial impairment charge and (iv) the conditions that led the Defendants to postpone the initial offering. Shareholders may find more information at https://kseclaw.com/securities/yogaworks-inc/?wire=3 Daniel Kuznicki, Esq. Kuznicki Law PLLC 445 Central Avenue, Suite 334 Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Phone: (347) 696-1134 Cell: (347) 690-0692 Fax: (347) 348-0967 Email: dk@kclasslaw.com [GN] ZILLOW GROUP: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Zillow Group, 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 is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint in the consolidated cases, Shotwell v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al. and Vargosko v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al. In August and September 2017, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of its executive officers, alleging, among other things, violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased the company's common stock between February 12, 2016 and August 8, 2017. One of those purported class actions, captioned Vargosko v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The other purported class action lawsuit, captioned Shotwell v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaints allege, among other things, that during the period between February 12, 2016 and August 8, 2017, the company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding our business practices. The complaints seek to recover, among other things, alleged damages sustained by the purported class members as a result of the alleged misconduct. In November 2017, an amended complaint was filed against the company and certain of its executive officers in the Shotwell v. Zillow Group class action lawsuit, extending the beginning of the class period to November 17, 2014. In January 2018, the Vargosko v. Zillow Group class action lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and consolidated with the Shotwell v. Zillow Group class action lawsuit, and the court appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuit. In February 2018, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, and in April 2018, the company filed its motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint was fully briefed in June 2018. On October 2, 2018, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss, although the court gave lead plaintiffs 45 days, or until November 16, 2018, to file a second consolidated amended complaint and attempt to cure the defects in their consolidated amended complaint. On November 16, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which we moved to dismiss on December 17, 2018. Zillow Group said, "We anticipate that briefing on our motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint will be complete by February 6, 2019. We have denied the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend the claims in this lawsuit. We have not recorded an accrual related to this lawsuit as of December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, as we do not believe a loss is probable." Zillow Group, Inc. operates real estate and home-related brands on mobile and the Web in the United States. The company offers a portfolio of brands and products to empowering consumers with unparalleled data, inspiration, and knowledge around homes and connecting them with real estate professionals. Zillow Group, Inc. was incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [*] Litigation Funders Invest in UK to Launch Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------- Dorothy Murray, Esq. -- Darren.Roiser@eu.kwm.com -- Darren Roiser, Esq. -- Dorothy.Murray@eu.kwm.com -- Natalie Quinlivan, Esq., of King & Wood Mallesons, in an article for Lexology, review six key commercial litigation and investigation developments of the last year and predict their future impact. Speed-read: Wealth Good news for recovering stolen assets -- when you have been defrauded, you don't have to identify the fraudster to preserve stolen assets. In January 2018, the English Courts granted a worldwide freezing order (WFO) against "persons unknown" allowing Chinese multinational CMOC to trace funds stolen by anonymous hackers in a sophisticated cyber fraud through over 50 international bank accounts. We predict: the powers of the Court and the nuclear weapon of the WFO will continue to adapt to the internet age. Expect valid service by WeChat and judges willing to be persuaded to take innovative steps to keep the UK central to global asset recovery actions. Bad news for illegitimate wealth -- the British National Crime Agency secured an "unexplained wealth order" against the wife of the former chairman of the International Bank of Azerbaijan, successfully arguing that her GBP22m properties and over GBP16.3m shopping at Harrods must, in the absence of any explanation from her, be laundered proceeds of crime. We predict: more UWOs, as the UK promotes itself as friendly to good business but no haven for wrongdoers. Stability Courts uphold certainty of contracts -- in the landmark judgment of Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd in May 2018, the Supreme Court upheld a contractual provision requiring amendments to be in writing. We predict: more court decisions cementing the reputation of English contract law as clear and certain. Courts confirm scope of privilege in litigation -- the Court of Appeal confirmed that investigating whistle-blower allegations, dealing with compliance and governance and seeking to avoid or settle a dispute is all captured within "litigation" for the purpose of attracting privilege from disclosure: SFO v ENRC [2018]. Commercial discussions within a board about a settlement are not covered however: WH Holding Ltd v E20 Stadium LLP [2018] We predict: sadly, this area will continue a minefield. As ever, our advice to clients is to get legal advice early to ensure privilege exists and retained over appropriate documents. SFO promises businesses DPA certainty -- the first deferred prosecution agreement with the Serious Fraud Office came to an end in 2018, after Standard Bank completed the 3-year term following allegations that it had failed to prevent bribery by its subsidiaries in Tanzania. The new director of the SFO has announced her commitment to ensure a predictable process for other corporates who seek a DPA, so encouraging engagement with regulators and enforcement agencies in cases of suspected wrongdoing. We predict: active engagement between the SFO and companies to combat corporate crime but preserve businesses and their reputations. Bad news for parents -- the UK is increasingly seeing "class action tourism", where claimants seek to sue parent companies for damage caused in another jurisdiction by a subsidiary or other group company. Traditionally these kinds of claims had focused on competition law, personal injury or banking regulation breaches but 2018 saw attempts to bring claims for largescale environmental damage against natural resources groups. While some claims have been dismissed because the English courts lack jurisdiction over them, the English Supreme Court is considering whether to allow claimants to sue Vedanta, a UK incorporated company, and its Zambian subsidiary, for damage and loss caused by alleged water pollution from mining waste. Judgment is expected in March 2019 and could open the door to other claims in the future. We predict: whatever the outcome, claimants will continue to explore new options and parent companies will face continued attack and new risks. Long-read: Wealth Good news for recovering stolen assets Recent innovative action in the Commercial Court in England demonstrated that it is possible to trace, freeze and recover money stolen in a sophisticated computer email hack. The funds, taken from the bank account of CMOC, a Chinese multinational, was remitted to banks in many foreign countries by the cyber-fraudsters. Armed only with details of the destination banks and account numbers, the claimant made repeated applications to court to freeze the destination bank accounts using the effective English Worldwide Freezing Injunction and associated procedures. The innovation here was that the Court did not require the claimant to identify the cyber-fraudsters, who tried to hide behind the anonymity of the Internet. Instead, they were sued as a class of ‘Persons Unknown'. The freezing injunctions were made effective by ancillary orders, requiring 50+ international banks to disclose the identity of persons and companies who held the bank accounts where the stolen money was received, as well as to give details of all relevant account transactions. That allowed CMOC to trace its money as it moved from bank to bank across the world. Other ground-breaking developments in the action included obtaining permission to serve court documents, orders and injunctions by Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp and by access to a secure online data room. It is envisaged that future orders may permit service in China using WeChat. 2019 prediction: With the rise of online and cyber fraud, these developments are of great relevance to all corporations and high-net-worth individuals in China and elsewhere. The principles in the case may also have direct application where Bitcoin or other cyber currency is stolen. The powers of the English Court and the nuclear weapon of the WFO will continue to adapt to the internet age. Expect valid service by WeChat and judges willing to be persuaded to take innovative steps to keep the UK central to global asset recovery actions. Bad news for illegitimate wealth Pursuant to the Criminal Finances Act 2017, unexplained wealth orders (UWO) came into force on 31 January 2018. Already used to good effect in Australia and Ireland, a UBO effectively reverses the burden of proof, forcing those suspected of gaining assets illegally to prove they were obtained within the confines of the law. In February 2018, the UK's National Crime Agency ("NCA") secured its first two UWOs against Zamira Hajiyeva, the wife of Jahangir Hajiyeva, the former chairman of the International Bank of Azerbaijan currently serving a prison sentence in his home country for various frauds. The properties subject to the UWOs were two residential properties valued at approximately GBP22m held by a BVI registered company beneficially owned by Mr Hajiyeva. The allegation against Mrs Hajiyeva was that these assets, as well as extravagant spending which included a GBP16.3m shopping spree in Harrods, were funded by the laundered proceeds of the bank fraud, rather than her or her husband's legitimate funds. Interim freezing orders were granted in support of the UWOs to prevent the sale, transfer or dissipation of the properties. Mrs Hajiyeva challenged the UWOs on the basis that her husband was not a politically exposed person ("PEP") (by virtue of being a state employee) but rather was a "fat cat banker" and the funds used to purchase the property were his own. This argument failed and Mrs Hajiyeva is now facing extradition to Azerbaijan over allegations of embezzlement. 2019 prediction: The Hajiyeva case demonstrates the UK's commitment to anti-money laundering enforcement efforts. The NCA has publicly stated that its Economic Crime team have over 100 live cases where UWOs are being considered. We expect UK prosecutors to increase the use of UWOs over the coming year to target corrupt PEPs and other individuals suspected of investing illicit funds in British assets as the UK promotes itself as friendly to good business but no haven for wrongdoers. Stability Courts uphold certainty of contracts In May 2018, the Supreme Court overturned a decision that contractual clauses requiring amendments to be in writing would not preclude amendments subsequently being effected orally. In Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd [2018] the Supreme Court held that if the parties to a commercial contract wish to restrict the manner in which they can amend their contract, there is no policy reason for the law to prevent their doing so. The previous trend had been to allow parties to vary a contract orally, giving precedent to the subsequent (albeit oral) agreement. This is an important judgment which means that "no oral modification" ("NOM") clauses will generally be given effect so as to prevent contracting parties being bound by a subsequent variation unless the specified formalities are complied with. The majority of the Court identified three commercial reasons for including NOM clauses: -- to prevent attempts to undermine written agreements by informal means; -- to avoid disputes about whether a variation was intended and also its exact terms; and -- to make it easier for corporations to police their own internal rules and policies restricting the authority to agree variations. 2019 prediction: This decision will be welcomed by the business community as the enforcement of NOM clauses provides much needed certainty when included in written agreements. The requirement that any variation needs to be in writing will also reduce the scope for misunderstandings which are so common in oral agreements. We predict more decisions like this in 2019 cementing the reputation of English contract law as clear and certain. Courts confirm the scope of privilege in litigation September 2018 saw the long awaited Court of Appeal decision in ENRC. The decision in SFO v ENRC [2018] restored the generally held view of the ‘dominant purpose' test, finding that the purpose of investigating whistleblower allegations and dealing with compliance and governance was all part and parcel of the litigation purpose, and so the test for litigation privilege was met. It also helpfully confirmed that avoiding or settling a dispute, even pre-action, is as much a litigation purpose as defending proceedings. However, rather unhelpfully, in December 2018 the same court restricted the use of litigation privilege to the purpose of obtaining advice or information and not the conduct of litigation more broadly, such as correspondence with experts. In WH Holding Ltd v E20 Stadium LLP [2018] the Court of Appeal held that emails between a company's board members which had been prepared to discuss a commercial proposal for the settlement of a dispute were not covered by litigation privilege. It is not sufficient that it is for the dominant purpose of conducting litigation, in a broader sense. 2019 prediction: Privilege remains a thorny issue for the coming year. After successive judgments in 2018 where the English Courts have adopted a conservative view on where litigation privilege applies, extra care must be taken to ensure privilege is maintained. Also, the long-standing issue of the definition of a client for the purposes of legal advice privilege, as delineated by the Three Rivers No 5 decision, will remain a headache for GCs and external counsel for 2019. As ever, our advice to clients is to get legal advice early to ensure privilege exists and retained over appropriate documents. SFO promises businesses DPA certainty In November 2018, the UK's Serious Fraud Office ("SFO") announced the end of the UK's first DPA with Standard Bank. A DPA is an agreement reached between a prosecutor and an organisation which could be prosecuted, under the supervision of a judge. The agreement allows a prosecution to be suspended for a defined period provided the organisation meets certain specified conditions. They are typically used for fraud, bribery and other economic crime. They apply to organisations, never individuals. Since their introduction in 2014, four DPAs have been entered into with the SFO. Standard Bank holds the dubious honour of being the first recipient of one after it was alleged that the Bank had failed to prevent associated persons of its African subsidiary from committing bribery offences. The successful conclusion of the UK's first DPA, following confirmation that Standard Bank fully complied with its terms, is an important milestone for the SFO. Lisa Osofsky, the SFO's new director, has stated her commitment to create a predictable landscape for corporates who are seeking a DPA. To achieve this, she is focused on collaborating with international prosecutors, regulators and law enforcement around the world. 2019 prediction: The SFO currently has a US Department of Justice ("DOJ") prosecutor on secondment in London, as well as two prosecutors from the AG's office in Singapore. Going forward, we can expect joint investigation teams combining resources with the aim of tackling global corruption issues. This level of coordination is likely to result in significantly higher fines for offending corporates. That said, with a commitment to DPAs, we also predict active engagement between the SFO and companies to combat corporate crime but preserve businesses and their reputations. Bad news for parent companies 2018 has been a busy year in the UK for so-called "class action tourism". Already common place in the US and Australia, claimant firms and litigation funders are investing heavily in the UK to launch class actions in this jurisdiction. The cases under the spotlight during 2018 relate largely to incidents in a foreign country, directly effecting a proportion of the local population who seek damages in the UK on the basis that an anchor defendant has a connection to the UK. The case of Lungonwe and others v Vedanta Resources plc and & Konkola Copper Mines plc may be the first case where jurisdiction for these types of claims is granted in the UK. Residents of a Zambian city brought civil proceedings against Vedanta, a UK incorporated parent company, and its Zambian subsidiary, Konkola Copper Mines Plc ("KCM"), claiming that waste discharged from a copper mine -- owned and operated by KCM -- had polluted the local waterways, causing personal injury to the local residents, as well as damage to property and loss of income. The High Court found that it did have jurisdiction to hear claims against Vedanta, even though the alleged tort and harm occurred in Zambia. The defendants have appealed this decision all the way to the Supreme Court and the two-day hearing took place in January 2019, the judgment of which will be published in March 2019. 2019 prediction: While we await the outcome of the Supreme Court's judgment in the Vedanta case, multinational corporate clients with a presence in the UK should be aware that this is an increasing area of risk for them. For 2019, the key areas that we are likely to see targeted are shareholder claims and environmental or human rights-based claims. For this reason, corporates who may be exposed to this risk should take proactive steps by implementing measures which ensure human rights are given priority throughout their operations. Whatever the outcome in the Vedanta case, claimants will continue to explore new options and parent companies will face continued attack and new risks. [GN] [*] Right to Counsel Cases Pending Against Various States --------------------------------------------------------- Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, reports that a California man pled guilty to a crime he says he didn't commit. A Nevada woman was represented by four different attorneys in as many years. A Louisiana man received a warrant for failure to appear in court when he was, in fact, in jail. The cases range from animal cruelty to firearm charges in locales as diverse as coastal cities and the rural South. But they are united by a common factor, advocates say: underfunded public defenders offering poor advocacy to their indigent clients. Now, in lawsuits across the country, these low-income defendants have become the plaintiffs, suing over a dearth in resources for constitutionally mandated services. "In almost every state, public defenders are laboring under excessive caseloads without the people power or investigative resources they need," said Jason Williamson, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Criminal Law Reform Project. Cases are pending in Nevada, Idaho, Missouri, California, Pennsylvania and Washington, inspired by an ACLU-led lawsuit in New York that boosted state public defense funding there. The ACLU has won reforms with similar lawsuits in Montana and Michigan. The suits have met resistance from governors and attorneys general. Sometimes, public defenders are the litigation's fiercest opponents. And not all of the ACLU's cases have been successful. A year ago, a federal judge nixed litigation in Utah, saying the arguments were "generalized" and that allegations public defenders didn't meet with clients, missed hearings and pressed for plea deals weren't enough to show irreparable harm unless the plaintiffs had been convicted. But Mr. Williamson remains optimistic. "We've done a fair amount over the last several years," he said. "I really hope to turn the tide on this issue and get people to see how important public defense is." A Road Map Kimberly Hurrell-Harring knew she should have put her foot down when her husband begged her to smuggle drugs into Great Meadow Correctional Facility in Comstock, New York, where he was doing time. But one day in 2007, she made her regular 240-mile drive from Rochester to the prison with less than an ounce of marijuana and was arrested for the first time in her life, according to court records. "I should have . . . said no," she'd later admit to the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "But let's be honest, we all did things for men that we shouldn't have." Ms. Hurrell-Harring had been working two jobs as a nurse to support her sick mother and two young daughters. She couldn't afford an attorney, and was entitled to court-appointed counsel. But no lawyer came to her arraignment, so she was held on $10,000 bail. Her public defender didn't answer her calls or plead down her charge from a felony that could have kept her in prison for up to seven years to a misdemeanor that carried a maximum one-year sentence. Ms. Hurrell-Harring pled guilty to the felony and got a six-month sentence with five years probation, but her days in court weren't over. She joined defendants from five New York counties in a class action alleging the state had flouted the Sixth Amendment by failing to provide adequate counsel for indigent defendants. They were represented pro bono by the law firm Schulte Roth & Zabel and the ACLU. After seven years of litigation, the case won significant reforms, quadrupling New York's annual public defense spending. "The Hurrell-Harring case set the standard and gave us some hope these kinds of cases can move forward," Williamson said. The ACLU has filed several suits that follow the Hurrell-Harring road map in other states: It identifies a few low-income defendants who've received little legal advice from their court-appointed attorneys in criminal court and then files class claims on their behalf. That wave of litigation includes claims from Colleen Davison, who sued over the public defense system in Grays Harbor County, Washington. She said the handling of her 11-year-old granddaughter's assault charges was "deplorable" and "a circus." Her attorney did not challenge the decision to set bail at $5,000, didn't use the girl's past mental health issues as a defense and didn't challenge the prosecutor's failure to seek a capacity hearing. The public defender was "in the back pocket of the prosecuting attorney," Ms. Davison contended, and both attorneys dug in their heels on a plea deal she didn't want. "There was no defense. The justice system really let us down, but I feel like we're going to get some good outcomes out of this," she said of the pending litigation. The Washington State Office of Public Defense declined to comment on pending litigation. She decided to sue after sitting through hearings for other children while waiting for her granddaughter's case to be called. "I thought, 'Oh my gosh, this is systemic. They're all getting railroaded,'" Ms. Davison said. Differing Payment Models The ACLU's lawsuits contend states are flouting the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Gideon v. Wainwright decision by providing ineffective public defense. That unanimous 1963 ruling held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees court-appointed counsel for indigent criminal defendants. But the high court didn't offer any guidance on how states should bankroll that due process right. Funding sources vary from state to state, and according to a 2017 report from the Sixth Amendment Center, 27 state governments foot the whole bill for indigent defense, as the American Bar Association recommends. Two states, Pennsylvania and South Dakota, leave the responsibility entirely to counties. In 12 states, local governments pay most of the share of indigent defense in trial court. Neighboring counties can have wildly different resources based on their tax revenues, according to David Carroll, executive director of the Sixth Amendment Center, which advocates for better public defense funding. "The ones who need indigent defense services the most are the ones least able to pay for it," Carroll said. In California, for example, the state contributes about 10 percent to public defense funds. Significant local inequities lead to varying opinions on the best funding method, according to Norman Lefstein, an Indiana University law professor. "Public defenders in California who are better funded feel they'd be worse off if the state got involved, and those who are worse off feel they'd be better off," he said. Carroll said well-heeled communities like San Francisco and Silicon Valley have "some of the most innovative public defender's offices in the country," but rural areas tend to contract out indigent defense, paying private attorneys flat fees. And even in cities like Fresno, which has a public defender's office, inadequate funding means caseloads exceed maximums recommended by the ABA, Carroll said. Faced with those disparities, the ACLU has sued the state in Superior Court, saying it had "delegated its constitutional duty to run indigent defense systems to individual counties." State spending is hardly a panacea, either, says Marea Beeman of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association. In Missouri, for example, all public defender funding comes from the state, but per capita funding is among the lowest in the nation. "There's no perfect delivery model and no perfect funding model," Ms. Beeman said. "It all depends on how it's resourced." The funding burden is sometimes shouldered by defendants, even those too poor to afford an attorney. In 43 states, there are fees associated with getting a public defender, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Derwyn Bunton, chief district defender for Orleans Parish, Louisiana, says his office relies on traffic tickets for funding. And because indigent defendants who've been found guilty are also charged a fee, "on paper, public defenders are paid to lose." Mr. Bunton welcomes a state suit filed in 2017 by a class of indigent defendants, set to go to trial in July. While the suit wasn't filed by the ACLU, Lisa Graybill, a Southern Poverty Law Center attorney representing the class, said the Hurrell-Harring case "absolutely inspired" the litigation. "It's part of this generation of lawsuits asking, 'What does Gideon mean?'" she said. "Is it something as de minimis as a lawyer in-name-only, or does it mean more than that?'" The Power Of Litigation The state of New York settled the Hurrell-Harring case on the eve of trial, agreeing to hire more attorneys, translators and investigators in the five counties that filed suit. The New York legislature has since voted to implement those reforms statewide. By 2023, the state will give counties more than $350 million annually for public defense; about $274 million of that is new Hurrell-Harring funding. "It's a very big deal," said Bill Leahy, director of the New York State Office of Indigent Legal Services, the agency tasked with implementing the reforms. "It takes a lot to get the political will to get it done. The lawsuit was the catalyst." It wasn't an open-and-shut case. The litigation lasted seven years and faced serious challenges to the plaintiffs' standing from Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who was the state's attorney general at the time. Ongoing cases in other states have met opposition, too, and some of their fiercest opponents are public defenders themselves. In Idaho, they've argued the demand simply isn't there, pointing to the fact that their offices are well-staffed with interpreters and investigators. David Martinez and Anne Taylor, the chief public defenders for Bannock County and Kootenai County, respectively, opposed the ACLU lawsuit using identical language. "My expectation is that if my attorneys believed that their representation was adversely affected by their caseload or workload, that they would inform me so that I could redistribute work," they both wrote in November depositions. But that opposition isn't universal. Missouri's public defenders welcome the ACLU's suit against them. In affidavits, they said their "lack of resources and burdensome workload" were "too much to bear" and required "triage." The litigation against the state of Louisiana has drawn varied reactions. Mark Plaisance, who heads Lafourche Parish's Indigent Defender's Office, would like to see public defenders' funding on par with prosecutors'. But of the suit, he said, "While the goal is laudable, the methodology is not." "To file a class action alleging everyone's incompetent so we can get more money for the system -- it's throwing everybody under the bus to try to make a point," he said. Though he supports the lawsuit, Mr. Bunton, of the Orleans Public Defenders, said he understands why others are leery of it. "We suffer from a social justice PTSD. There's a lot of cynicism that this won't amount to much," he said. "I support it because I believe power really does concede nothing without a demand. The big sort of hammer you have is litigation, going to court and holding up what is wrong to the light of day." [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 ***