/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190401.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 1, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 65 Headlines 22ND CENTURY GROUP: Faces Bull Class Action Complaint A&S BAGEL: Bonilla Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages ACCOUNT CONTROL: Ford Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. AEFFE USA: Dawson Claims Website not Blind-friendly AEROCARE HOME: Hopkins Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ALBERTVILLE AUTO: Eidson Files RICO Class Action in Alabama AMERI-TEX SERVICES: Does Not Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages, Hill Says AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Sued by Hossfeld for TCPA Violations AMGEN INC: No Generic Alternative to Sensipar, Teamsters Says ANGLIN'S BEACH: Markoe Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ARVILLA MOTEL: Forbes Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation AUTO RESCUE: Huntley Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages AVERY TECHNICAL: Guinn Seeks Overtime Wages, Damages AVIOR AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Cavalieri Contract Breach Suit B RILEY FINANCIAL: Freedman v. magicJack Vocaltec Suit Ongoing B RILEY FINANCIAL: Suit Against MLV & Co. Still Ongoing BASICS PLUS: Delacruz Claims Website not Blind-friendly BELLAMY'S AUSTRALIA: Clayton Utz Discusses Court Ruling BERNER FOOD: Lyles Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data BLACKBERRY LIMITED: May 6 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set BRINK'S INCORPORATED: Garcia Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. CAMPBELL SOUP: To Defend Consolidated Securities Suit in New Jersey CARA NAILS: Lliguicota Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages CAS MEDICAL: Franchi Suit Challenges Sale to Edwards Lifesciences CELGENE CORP: Class Cert. Bid in Thalomid & Revlimid Cases Pending CELGENE CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in New Jersey CELGENE CORP: Court Approves Settlement in JCAR015-Related Suit CELGENE CORP: Goldstein Sues to Enjoin Vote on Bristol-Myers Merger CENTURYLINK INC: Faces Caliendo Securities Suit in C.D. Calif. CENTURYLINK: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action CERTIFIEDSAFETY: Does not Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages, Jones Says CHRYSLER: Subpoena Served in Jeep Uconnect Class Action CIGAR.COM INC: Website not Blind-friendly, Dawson Says CIGNA CORP: Proskauer Rose Attorney Discusses Court Ruling CINEMARK USA: Dawson Claims Website not Blind-friendly CINEMARK USA: Stipulation and Release Entered in Brown Suit CLASSIC OILFIELD: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Fulmer Suit Says COCO DULCE: Hayes Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation Under FLSA COMMERCIAL FURNITURE: Mannie Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages COOPER COMPANIES: Deal in Contact Lens Suit Awaits Final OK CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Melucci Sues Over Share Price Drop COSTA MESA, CA: Group Home Ordinance Suit Named Top Defense Verdict CPI CARD: New York Court Tosses Securities Suit CREDIT COLLECTION: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Riccio Suit CVR REFINING: Wong Suit Asserts Stock Price Manipulation DABECCA NATURAL: Parker Hits Biometrics Data Sharing DEL FRISCO'S: Matzura Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Web Site DEPOP INC: Dawson Claims Website not Blind-friendly DISH DBS: Oral Argument in Krakauer Tentatively Set for May 7-9 DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Portela Appeals D.N.J. Order to 3rd Cir. ECCGP LLC: Kitchen Staff Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ELDER HOMECARE: Gonzales Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ELLIE MAE: Kent Securities Suit Challenges Sale to Thoma Bravo EMC HOTELS: Harty Claims Website not Blind-friendly EQT CORPORATION: Garfield Files Appeal in Suit v. Officers FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Fees and Expenses Resolved in Parshall Suit FLEX PHARMA: Rumaldo Agrees to Drop Class Action FORJAS TAURUS: Burrow Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement FUNKO INC: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Kanugonda Class Suit FUNKO INC: Still Defends Securities Suit in King County GLASSMAN AUTO: Installers Claim Overtime Pay for Hrs Worked Over 40 GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid for Class Cert. in Adeptus Health Suit Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces 1MDB-Related Class Suit in New York GOLDMAN SACHS: Forex-Related Litigation Underway GOLDMAN SACHS: NY Securities Class Suit Stayed Pending Appeal GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Approved in Cobalt Securities Litigation HARD TACK: Naiman Files Suits Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls HASBRO INC: Class Suit Over Toys "R" Us Disclosure Ongoing HAUDENOSAUNEE DEV'T: Ordered to Pay $15K to Class Action Plaintiffs HCP OXFORD: Knowles Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois HERITAGE-CRYSTAL CLEAN: Appeal in Adelphia Class Suit Underway HESKA CORP: Court Approves Settlement in Fauley Suit HEWLETT PACKARD: Forsyth Class Action Remains Stayed HEWLETT PACKARD: Jackson Class Action Remains Stayed HEWLETT PACKARD: Ross and Rogus Class Action Ongoing HEWLETT PACKARD: Settlement in Wall Suit Granted Final Approval HILL'S PET: Dog Owners Sue Over Toxic Pet Food HP INC: 189 Plaintiffs Opt in Forsyth Lawsuit HP INC: April 25 Final Approval Hearing in Printer Firmware Case HYUNDAI: Class Action Over Brake Defect Can't Proceed KNISHKA RESTAURANT: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA KPA STUDIO: Jin Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL LABOR NETWORK: Cruz Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime LASSENS NATURAL: Caballero Hits Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks LVNV FUNDING: Court Refuses to Approve Elliott Suit Settlement MARINA'S BAKERY: Brito Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage, Overtime MDL 2545: Kilpatrick Attorney Discusses Court Ruling METHUEN, MA: Police Superior Officers Union Files Wage Suit MICHIANA CHRYSLER: Class Action Over Deceptive Act Can Proceed MIZUHO BANK: Lack Moves to Certify Class of California Residents MONSANTO COMPANY: Clark Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONTGOMERY COUNTY: Henderson Files Suit for Racial Discrimination MOVING SOLUTIONS: Rider Seeks Prelim. Nod of $470,000 Settlement NATERA INC: Hale Sues Over Unauthorized Text Messages NEWELL BRANDS: Still Defends Oklahoma Firefighters Class Suit NHS PENNSYLVANIA: Brown's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot OJKAV INC: Fears Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NY Suit Underway ONLY NY: Delacruz Claims Website not Blind-friendly OTTO CLIPS: Bennington Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages PATTERSON COS: Amended Complaint Filed in Kramer Class Action PATTERSON COS: Faces Hatchett Class Suit in Illinois PATTERSON COS: Plymouth County Retirement Suit Ongoing PATTERSON COS: Settlement Agreement Inked in Dental Supplies Suit PBF HOLDING: Goldstein Class Action Still Ongoing PBF HOLDING: Kendig Suit Transferred to Calif. Central District PETE AND GERRY'S: Lugones Files False Ad Suit in NY PPG INDUSTRIES: Certification of Stockholders Class Sought PROTECTIVE LIFE: Unit Still Defends Advance Trust & Life's Suit RALPH LAUREN: Does Not Pay Tailors Overtime Wage, Luna Suit Alleges REALPAGE INC: Jones Sues Over Inaccurate Background Reports RELATED COMPANIES: Website not Accessible to Blind, Fischler Says REV GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated IPO-Related Suit REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Hubner Files Securities Class Action in NY RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Takata and Klapper Class Suits Consolidated SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Ontiveros Moves for Prelim. OK of $8MM Deal SANDERSON FARMS: Discovery Ongoing in Broiler Chicken-Related Suits SANDERSON FARMS: North Carolina Class Action Shelved SANDERSON FARMS: Plaintiffs' Appeal in NY Securities Suit Pending SEALE MOORER: Employees Hit Unpaid Overtime, Insurance Premiums SENTRY ELECTRICAL: Lewis Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages SLEEP NUMBER: Cassels and Cadenas Suit Transferred to Fresno County SLEEP NUMBER: Spade Class Action Ongoing in New Jersey SOLDIER TRUCKING: Barricelli Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime SPECIALIZED LOAN: Class Certified in Quinn Suit; April 29 Hearing STAMPS.COM: Karinski Files Securities Class Action in California SUNRUN INC: Deal in Consolidated Shareholder Suit Has Initial OK SUNRUN INC: Settlement of California Suit Wins Final Approval T.B.G. PIZZA: Kenny Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements TAMPA BAY: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages TAPESTRY INC: Garcia Moves to Certify Class & 5 Subclasses of AMs TENNESSEE: Harris Seeks Certification of Class Under Rule 23 TITLEMAX OF GEORGIA: Stein Sues Over Unremitted Lien Filing Fees TIVITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Weiner Class Suit Still Pending TRAVELPORT WORLDWIDE: Faces Toro Private Merger-Related Suits TRIVAGO NV: NY Court Rejects Consolidated Class Suit TRUECAR INC: Milbeck Seeks Class Certification; Hearing on May 13 U.S. XPRESS: Solak Files IPO-Related Securities Class Action UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Commuters Plan to File Class Action UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Miller Thomson Discusses Court Ruling UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Victims of Attacks File Class Action UNIT CORP: Chieftain Royalty Class Suit Ongoing in Oklahoma UNIT CORP: Continues to Defend Panola ISD Class Suit UNITED ENROLLMENT: Becker Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls UNITED NATURAL: Appeal in Class Suit v. Supervalu Still Pending UNITED NATURAL: Customer Data Security Breach Suit Underway UNITED STATES: 10K Federal Employees Opt Into NTEU Class Action VEOLIA: AG Defends Decision to Remove Counsel in Flint Water Suit VIBRANTCARE REHABILITATION: Faces Labor Suit in Ca. Super. Ct. VIVINT SOLAR: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Suit in D.C. VIVINT SOLAR: Resolves Customers' Suit over Power Purchase Deals VIVINT SOLAR: Wage and Hour Class Action Ongoing WAKE COUNTY, NC: Smith Appeals E.D.N.C. Ruling to Fourth Circuit WAL-MART STORES: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Mays Suit WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Herrington Class Action Underway WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Settlement Reached in Werner Suit WELCH FOODS: Jones Files Fraud Class Action in New York Ct. WILLOW CREEK COMPANIES: Garcia Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime WORLD FINANCIAL: Abtahi Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. ZIPRECRUITER INC: Alvarado Sues to Recover Overtime Pay ********* 22ND CENTURY GROUP: Faces Bull Class Action Complaint ----------------------------------------------------- 22nd Century Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the class action complaint entitled, Matthew Bull, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, has not yet been served on the Company On January 21, 2019, Matthew Jackson Bull, a resident of Denver, Colorado, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entitled: Matthew Bull, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 1:19-cv-00409. The Complaint filing discloses that Plaintiff Mr. Bull purchased 3,000 shares of the Company's common stock from September 14, 2016 to October 15, 2018 at share prices between $.91 and $2.57 per share, and that on September 24, 2018, he sold 419 shares for a profit at $2.88 per share. Mr. Bull sues individually and seeks to bring a class action for persons or entities who acquired the Company's common stock between February 18, 2016 and October 25, 2018, and alleges in Count I that the Company’s Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 allegedly contained false statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges in Count II that Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer are supposedly liable for the allegedly false statements pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified money damages, and attorney's fees and costs. The Complaint has not yet been served on the Company, Mr. Sicignano or Mr. Brodfuehrer and, therefore, the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer have not yet filed responses. 22nd Century said, "We believe that the claims are frivolous, meritless and that the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer have substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims. We intend to vigorously defend the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer against such claims." 22nd Century Group, Inc., a plant biotechnology company, provides technology that allows increasing or decreasing the level of nicotine and other nicotinic alkaloids in tobacco plants, and cannabinoids in hemp/cannabis plants through genetic engineering and plant breeding. 22nd Century Group, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Williamsville, New York. A&S BAGEL: Bonilla Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- MARVIN BONILLA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. A&S BAGEL INC. and related or affiliated entities, and ANTONINO SCOLIERI individually, Case No. 603116/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., March 6, 2019), seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation pursuant to New York Labor Law and the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. A & S Bagel Inc. is a business corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of New York with its principal place of business located in in Franklin Square, New York. Antonino Scolieri, a resident of New York, is an officer, director, president, vice president, and/or owner of the Corporate Defendant. A & S Bagel is a bagel manufacturer and deli. A & S Bagel prepares and serves bagels and deli food. It has a seated service and bakes and is a major wholesaler and distributor of bagels throughout Long Island and New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Leonor H. Coyle, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com lcoyle@vandallp.com ACCOUNT CONTROL: Ford Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Alyshea Ford, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Account Control Technology, Inc., Act Holdings, Inc., a corporation and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-100089 filed in California Superior Court on January 10, 2019, was removed to the U.S. District for the Eastern District of California on February 12, 2019, under Case No. 19-cv-00203. Ford alleges unlawful deductions, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime, failure to provide lawful meal and rest periods, failure to pay all wages due upon separation and reimbursements of all business-related expenses, and failure to furnish timely and accurate itemized wage statements under California Labor Code.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Emil Davtyan, Esq. DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7418 Telephone: (818) 992-2935 Email: emil@davtyanlaw.com - and - David Harmik Yeremian, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN AND ASSOCIATES 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 918-3876 Defendant is represented by: Tracey A. Kennedy, Esq. Rachel Patta Howard, Esq. Sandra Hanian, Esq. Adria K. Harris, 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 Email: tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com rhoward@sheppardmullin.com shanian@sheppardmullin.com aharris@sheppardmullin.com AEFFE USA: Dawson Claims Website not Blind-friendly --------------------------------------------------- Leshawn Dawson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Aeffe USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01384 (S.D. N.Y., February 13, 2019), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Defendant is a clothing company that operates www.philosophyofficial.com. Dawson claims that this is not accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com - and - Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: Joseph@cml.legal AEROCARE HOME: Hopkins Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------- Lori Hopkins, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. AeroCare Home Medical Equipment, Inc., AeroCare Holdings, Inc. and AeroCare Employee Benefits, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04054-WJE (W.D. Mo., March 15, 2019) is a class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendants employ customer service representatives ("CSRs") to coordinate the fulfillment of orders for home-based medical equipment by doing such things as making arrangements with patients, their medical providers, and health insurers when medical equipment is needed at a patient’s home. The Defendants required Plaintiff and other similarly situated CSRs to work 40 hours a week at their respective AeroCare office location. In addition to the regular 40 hour work week, Plaintiff and other CSRs were frequently and regularly required to be "on call" outside of regular business hours to receive work-related telephone calls, and to then perform tasks to coordinate Defendants' services. Despite these conditions and restrictions on their personal time while "on call," the Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff and other CSRs a wage for their "on call" time. The Defendants also refused to pay Plaintiff and other CSRs for the actual time spent on business activities while "on call". The Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and the other CSRs properly-earned wages for time worked was a deliberate violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff Lori Hopkins was employed by Defendants from approximately March, 2017, to February 8, 2018, as a CSR, and received assignments from Defendants. AeroCare Home Medical Equipment, Inc. is a Missouri corporation, organized and operating under the laws of the State of Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew A. Clement, Esq. Kari A. Schulte, Esq. COOK, VETTER, DOERHOFF & LANDWEHR, P.C. 231 Madison Jefferson City, MO 65101 Phone: (573) 635-7977 Facsimile: (573) 635-7414 Email: mclement@cvdl.net kschulte@cvdl.net - and - Ryan J. McDaniels, Esq. Kimberly J.Z. Guthrie, Esq. NEWMAN, COMLEY & RUTH P.C. 601 Monroe Street, Suite 301 P.O. Box 537 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Phone: (573) 634-2266 Fax: (573) 636-3306 Email: ryan.m@ncrpc.com guthriek@ncrpc.com ALBERTVILLE AUTO: Eidson Files RICO Class Action in Alabama ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Albertville Auto Acquistions, Inc. The case is styled as Sharon Eidson, an individual, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Albertville Auto Acquistions, Inc. doing business as: Nissan of Albertville doing business as: Team One Nissan of Albertville, Nissan of Albertville, Sandra Tidwell, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00459-KOB (N.D. Ala., Mar. 18, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Nissan of Albertville is a privately held company in Albertville, AL and is a Single Location business, categorized under Car Dealers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J Gusty Yearout, Esq. Jason L Yearout, Esq. YEAROUT & TRAYLOR PC 3300 Cahaba Road, Suite 300 Birmingham, AL 35223 Phone: (205) 414-8160 Fax: (205) 414-8199 Email: gyearout@yearout.net jyearout@yearout.net - and - Sigfredo Rubio, Esq. RUBIO LAW FIRM PC 438 Carr Avenue, Suite 1 Birmingham, AL 35209 Phone: (205) 443-7858 Fax: (205) 433-7853 Email: frubio@rubiofirm.com AMERI-TEX SERVICES: Does Not Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages, Hill Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kendall Hill on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff. v. Ameri-Tex Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00035 (E.D. Tex., March 15, 2019) is a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") suit against the Defendant. According to the complaint, the Defendant paid Named Plaintiff and the Class Members a day rate, and did not pay overtime premiums for any hours worked over forty. Additionally, some Class Members' day rates were so low that their regular rate fell below minimum wage. As such, Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay Named Plaintiff and other non-exempt Class Members both minimum wages and overtime wages. Plaintiff Kendell Hill is an individual residing in this Judicial District and handled and otherwise worked on and/or with vehicles that have been moved in or produced for commerce. Defendant operates a residential and commercial garbage pickup and disposal business in East Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. MORELAND VERRETT, P.C. 2901 Bee Cave Rd, Box L Austin, TX 78746 Phone: (512) 782-0567 Fax: (512) 782-0605 Email: doug@morelandlaw.com AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Sued by Hossfeld for TCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT HOSSFELD, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. AMERICAN FINANCIAL SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC., SUPREME HEALTH GROUP INC., BLAKE FISHMAN, MED-SENSE GUARANTEED ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF EMPLOYERS, INC., NATIONAL BENEFIT BUILDERS, INC., HEALTH ADVISORS OF AMERICA, INC., MICHAEL SMITH, and ZACHARY COX, Case No. 0:19-cv-60597-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 6, 2019), seeks to secure redress for the Defendants' practice of causing calls to be made to the cell phone numbers of Plaintiff and others using an automatic telephone dialing system and prerecorded voice, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. American Financial Security Life Insurance Company is a Missouri corporation headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Federal Insurance Company is an Indiana corporation headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Tampa, Florida. Supreme Health Group Inc. is a Florida corporation headquartered in Pompano Beach, Florida. Blake Fishman is a resident of Broward County, Florida, and directed, controlled, and had authority over Supreme Health's alleged acts. Med-Sense Guaranteed Association, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Chesterfield, Missouri. National Congress of Employers, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Garden City, New York. National Benefit Builders, Inc., is a New Jersey corporation headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey. Health Advisors of America, Inc., is a Florida corporation headquartered in Coral Springs, Florida. Michael Smith and Zachary Cox are the principals of Health Advisors. Defendants American Financial and Federal Insurance are insurance companies that do business in this District and across the country. The Insurance Companies acquire business through, among other things, using third parties to generate and facilitate leads of prospective customers, including by telephone.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235 Hollywood, FL 33019 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com - and - Alexander H. Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com AMGEN INC: No Generic Alternative to Sensipar, Teamsters Says ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237 WELFARE FUND and TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237 RETIREES' BENEFIT FUND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. AMGEN INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ACTAVIS PLC, ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD., and TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-08561 (D.N.J., March 14, 2019), alleges that Defendants have engaged in anticompetitive conduct that has prevented a less expensive generic equivalent of Sensipar from entering the market, in violation of federal and state law, and seeks damages, an order enjoining the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, and other appropriate relief. The Plaintiffs bring the antitrust action on behalf of a proposed class of end-payors who indirectly purchased, reimbursed, or otherwise paid for Sensipar (cinacalcet hydrochloride tablets) or its AB-rated generic equivalent. Sensipar is a drug used to treat certain conditions associated with chronic kidney disease and thyroid cancer. Amgen received FDA approval for Sensipar in March 2004. Sensipar's sales grew rapidly such that as of 2017, Amgen's United States sales were over $1 billion in sales in 2017 and were at or near $1 billion in the first three quarters of 2018. One of Amgen's patents for Sensipar, U.S. Patent No. 6,011,068 (the "'068 Patent"), was set to expire on March 8, 2018. This patent, stating claims related to calcimimetic compounds -- was the primary patent setting forth the chemical composition of Sensipar. Because Sensipar was a blockbuster drug, numerous generic manufacturers filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications ("ANDAs") with the FDA seeking the approval of generic versions of Sensipar. Teva was one such generic. Other generic manufacturers filing ANDAs included Accord Healthcare and Intas Pharmaceuticals; Ajanta Pharma, Ltd. and Ajanta Pharma USA, Inc.; Alkem Laboratories Ltd; Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals Co. India Private Ltd.; Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp.; Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. and Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc.; Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Cipla Limited and Cipla USA, Inc.; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc.; Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Heritage Pharma Labs, Inc.; Hetero USA Inc., Hetero Labs Ltd. and Hetero Labs Ltd. Unit V; Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Macleods, and Macleods Pharma USA Inc.; Micro Labs Ltd. and Micro Labs USA Inc.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Mylan, Inc.; Piramal Healthcare UK Ltd.; Strides Pharma Global PTE Ltd. and Strides Pharma, Inc.; Sun Pharma Global FZE and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. and Barr Pharmaceuticals; Watson Laboratories, Inc., Actavis, Inc., and Actavis Pharma, Inc.; Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA). Between March 8, 2018 and December 27, 2018, the FDA approved ANDAs from Cipla, Aurobindo, Strides Pharma Global, Piramal Healthcare, Sun Pharma, Mylan, and Teva. As part of their applications, the generic manufacturers were required to make certain certifications against the patents covering Sensipar. Among these patents was U.S. Patent No. 9,375,405 ("the '405 patent"), "Rapid dissolution formulation of a calcium receptor-active compound." Unlike the ‘086 patent, the '405 Patent was a formulation patent, which only covered a new formulation of the existing cinacalcet hydrochloride compound. Generic manufacturers filed "Paragraph IV" certifications against the '405 patent, claiming that the patent was invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed by the proposed ANDA applicants' generics. In connection with the ANDAs, Amgen sued each generic manufacturer that filed an ANDA for allegedly infringing the '405 patent. Many of the generics manufacturers thereafter settled with Amgen, including Strides Pharma, Apotex Corp., Micro Labs, Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Sun Pharmaceutical, Hetero Labs, Ajanta Pharma, Cipla Ltd., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Aurobindo Pharma, Macleods Pharma, Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Alkem Laboratories, Torrent Pharma, Heritage, and Emcure. However, several generic manufacturers, including Teva, Amneal, Piramal, and Zydus, took these claims to a bench trial in the District of Delaware, before Judge Mitchell Goldberg, 1 in March 2018. After the submission of post-trial briefs, in July 2018, the court issued an opinion, finding that Teva, Amneal, and Piramal's generic versions of Sensipar did not infringe the '405 patent. In September 2018, Amgen filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit. While this appeal was pending, on December 27, 2018, the FDA approved Teva's ANDA for a generic version of Sensipar. Teva immediately launched its generic product. During the one week that followed, Teva flooded the market with roughly six weeks of product sales. In that shore time, Teva reportedly made $59 million in profits (assuming at 25% discount off Sensipar's price), while Amgen lost an estimated $79 million in profits. Despite Teva's tremendous profits, on January 2, 2019, after only one week of availability of generic Sensipar, Teva and Amgen entered a confidential agreement in which Teva agreed to stop selling its generic version of Sensipar. The deal re-established and maintained Amgen's brand monopoly. Moreover, the deal eliminated not only Teva as a competitor, but it prevented other generic entrants well. Amgen's '405 patent action settlements apparently included acceleration clauses, which permit the generics to enter the market after a short delay if another generic, like Teva, launched. The hasty deal between Amgen and Teva served as a bottleneck to avoid triggering the acceleration clauses, thereby preventing other settling generics from launching their products. Amgen and Teva thus stopped other generics from entering and driving the price of Sensipar well below Teva's discount. Harm to Plaintiffs and the Class is ongoing, as there still is no generic alternative to Amgen's branded Sensipar available to purchase, the lawsuit says. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund and Teamsters Local 237 Retirees' Benefit Fund: Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DE PALMA & GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street - Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com bgreenberg@litedepalma.com ANGLIN'S BEACH: Markoe Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Markoe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Anglin'S Beach Cafe, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and Spiro Marchelos, in his individual capacity, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-60668 (S.D. Fla., March 13, 2019) seeks monetary damages to redress the deprivation of rights secured to Plaintiff and all past and current employees of the Defendants similarly situated to him, by the minimum wage and maximum hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week in excess of the maximum hours provided by the FLSA. No provisions have been made by the Defendant to properly pay Plaintiff at the statutory rate of time and one-half for those hours that he worked in excess of the maximum hours. The Defendants also failed to maintain proper time records as mandated by the FLSA. No payments have been made to Plaintiff by the Defendants at the statutory rate of time and one-half for the hours that he worked in excess of the maximum hours, despite his requests that Defendants do so, says the complaint. Plaintiff Markoe, was hired by Defendants as a server, a job for which he was fully qualified, on or about October, 2013. Anglin'S Beach Cafe, LLC, was and continues to be a company organized under the laws of the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn L. Birken, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN L. BIRKEN, P.A. 100 SE 3RD AVE, SUITE 1300 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 Phone: (954) 990-4459 Fax: (954) 990-4469 Primary Email: sbirken@birken-law.com Secondary Email: acabello@birken-law.com ARVILLA MOTEL: Forbes Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------- Greg Forbes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Arvilla Motel, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, and JAMES MAURER, Defendants, Case No. 19-001882-CI (Circuit Ct., Pinellas Cty., March 15, 2019) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed to Plaintiff and all others similarly situated who are or were employed by Defendants as Front Desk Clerks and Maintenance. The Defendants failed to comply with the FLSA because Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, were regularly required to work in excess of 40 hours a workweek but were not paid overtime compensation for all such time as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants during time the relevant period as Front Desk Clerk and Maintenance with a primary duty of production work that did not involve exempt managerial responsibilities. Defendant Arvilla Motel, Inc., is a company that maintains and operates a multi-room Motel located in Treasure Island, FL.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay P. Lechner, Esq. William Sheslow, Esq. WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC 11020 Northcliffe Blvd Spring Hill, FL 34608 Phone: (352) 683-2016 Facsimile: (352) 556-4839 Email: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com lechneri@theFLlawfirm.com will@theFL1awfirm.com Nichole@thefl1awfirm.com pls@thefllawfirm.com AUTO RESCUE: Huntley Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Bryant Huntley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AUTO RESCUE OF FAIRFAX, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00964 (D. Md., March 15, 2019) is a collective action brought by Plaintiff which arises from the Defendant's willful violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"), for failure to pay proper minimum wage and overtime wages for all hours of work performed by its employees. By misclassifying their roadside assistance Technicians as "independent contractors", Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay their workers minimum wage and overtime for all time worked in excess of forty hours per week, notes the complaint. The Defendant did not provide Plaintiff and others similarly situated with payroll statements or other documentation that reflected the actual number of hours that they worked. Plaintiff and others similarly situated are on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They regularly work in excess of 40 hours a week, but they are not paid any overtime, says the complaint. Plaintiff Bryant Huntley worked for Defendant as a roadside assistance technician from October 2009 to March 2017. Auto Rescue of Fairfax, LLC, is a Virginia limited liability company doing business in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrea Gold, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L St. NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 Email: agold@tzlegal.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: scarson@bm.net sschalman-bergen@bm.net elechtzin@bm.net apiazza@bm.net - and - David M. Blanchard, Esq. Daniel C. Tai, Esq. BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1166 Phone: (734) 929-4313 Facsimile: (888) 929-5833 Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com tai@bwlawonline.com - and - Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq. KEHOE LAW FIRM Two Penn Center Plaza 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone/Fax: (215) 792-6676 Email: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com AVERY TECHNICAL: Guinn Seeks Overtime Wages, Damages ---------------------------------------------------- Sterling C. Guinn, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Plaintiff, v. Avery Technical Resources, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00070 (W.D. Tex., March 15, 2019) is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act {"FLSA") seeking to recover their unpaid overtime wages, liquidate damages, expenses, costs of court, and pre and post judgment interest. The complaint says the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff a minimum, guaranteed amount each week. Instead, Plaintiff's compensation varied each week depending upon the number of days worked. Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours each week. However, when he worked more than 40 hours, he was not paid any overtime wages for those hours worked in excess of 40. The Defendant's method of paying Plaintiff and the Class Members in violation of the FLSA was willful and was not based on a good faith and reasonable belief that their conduct complied with the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an inspector from July 2018 to October 2018 in Oklahoma. Defendant provides pipeline inspection services for companies in the oil and gas industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com AVIOR AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Cavalieri Contract Breach Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Federico A. Moreno affirmed and adopted U.S. Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis' Report and Recommendation issued in the lawsuit entitled ROBERTO HUNG CAVALIERI and SERGIO ENRIQUE ISEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AVIOR AIRLINES C.A., Case No. 1:17-cv-22010-FAM (S.D. Fla.). The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on February 15, 2019, on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit. Accordingly, Judge Moreno granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The case is dismissed with prejudice and all pending motions are denied as moot. The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Avior Airlines for charging an exit fee at the airport of $80 per passenger, after Plaintiffs had paid the airfare price. The Plaintiffs indicate that the ticket states that the price "includes all taxes and fees" and as such, the $80 exit fee constitutes a breach of the contract. The Defendant moved to dismiss on various grounds and the Magistrate Judge found the Airline Deregulation Act preempts the Plaintiffs' claim. The Court notes that it is the general rule that the Airline Deregulation Act preempts common law claims if those claims relate to an air carrier's "price, route, or service." Because the Plaintiffs are unable to amend their complaint in a manner that would avoid the application of the preemption doctrine, the Court dismisses the case with prejudice.[CC] B RILEY FINANCIAL: Freedman v. magicJack Vocaltec Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- B. Riley Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company and magicJack VocalTec Ltd., continue to defend a putative class action lawsuit entitled, Freedman v. magicJack VocalTec Ltd. et al. On August 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit titled Freedman v. magicJack VocalTec Ltd. et al., Case 9-17-cv-80940, was filed against magicJack and its Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleged claims against magicJack and the members of its Board of Directors as well as two former members for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising from proxy statements issued in connection with magicJack's April 19, 2017 shareholders meeting and magicJack's July 31, 2017 shareholders meeting that allegedly misrepresented material facts concerning the "true value" of Broadsmart Global, Inc. and its future prospects in order that the individual defendants (the Board members) could entrench themselves on magicJack's Board and extract unwarranted compensation in connection with their attempt to sell the company. In January 2018, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. On February 16, 2018, magicJack and all of the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 2, 2018, and defendants' reply was filed on April 19, 2018. The court issued an order dismissing the amended complaint without prejudice on August 9, 2018. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and on August 20, 2018, magicJack filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On November 21, 2018, the court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice. The plaintiff has filed Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, and, on January 30, 2019, filed a brief with the appeals court. On February 7, 2019, the court dismissed the appeal because appellant failed to file an appendix within the time period specified by the rules. On February 19, the plaintiff filed a motion to reinstate the appeal, which was returned unfiled because the proposed appendix was not compliant. B. Riley said, "In the event the plaintiff successfully files a motion to reinstate the appeal, the Company intends to object to the request. The Company cannot estimate the amount of potential liability, if any, that could arise from this matter." B. Riley Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides collaborative financial services and solutions in North America, Australia, and Europe. The company operates in four segments: Capital Markets, Auction and Liquidation, Valuation and Appraisal, and Principal Investments - United Online and magicJack. B. Riley Financial, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in Woodland Hills, California. B RILEY FINANCIAL: Suit Against MLV & Co. Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- B. Riley Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a putative class action suit against MLV & Co. remains pending. On January 5, 2017, complaints filed in November 2015 and May 2016 naming MLV & Co. ("MLV"), a broker-dealer subsidiary of FBR & Co. (FBR), as a defendant in putative class action lawsuits alleging claims under the Securities Act, in connection with the offerings of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller") have been consolidated. The Master Consolidated Complaint, styled Gaynor v. Miller et al., is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and, like its predecessor complaints, continues to allege claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act against nine underwriters for alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and prospectuses issued in connection with six offerings (February 13, 2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013; September 26, 2013; October 17, 2013 (as to MLV only) and August 21, 2014) with an alleged aggregate offering price of approximately $151,000. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement of certain costs and expenses. In August 2017, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on Section 12 claims and found that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged a corrective disclosure prior to August 6, 2015, when an SEC civil action was announced. Defendants' answer was filed on September 25, 2017. Plaintiffs have filed motions for class certification and to remand the case to state court following a positive ruling in an unrelated case by the U.S. Supreme Court. B. Riley said, "Although MLV is contractually entitled to be indemnified by Miller in connection with this lawsuit, Miller filed for bankruptcy in October 2015 and this likely will decrease or eliminate the value of the indemnity that MLV receives from Miller." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. B. Riley Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides collaborative financial services and solutions in North America, Australia, and Europe. The company operates in four segments: Capital Markets, Auction and Liquidation, Valuation and Appraisal, and Principal Investments - United Online and magicJack. B. Riley Financial, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in Woodland Hills, California. BASICS PLUS: Delacruz Claims Website not Blind-friendly ------------------------------------------------------- Emanuel Delacruz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Basics Plus Inc. and Basics Plus Mega LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01407 (S.D. N.Y., February 13, 2019), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Basics Plus Mega LLC, operates the Basics Plus stores across the United States including a commercial website, www.basicsplus.com. Delacruz claims that this is not accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com BELLAMY'S AUSTRALIA: Clayton Utz Discusses Court Ruling ------------------------------------------------------- Peter Sise, Esq. -- psise@claytonutz.com -- of Clayton Utz, in an article for Lexology, reports that where there are multiple shareholder class actions making the same allegations but with different legal teams, a court may permit the successful lead plaintiffs to recover duplicative costs unless those costs were unreasonably or unnecessarily incurred. Multiple shareholder class actions against the one defendant company about the same conduct are becoming more common. We've already explored whether a court will allow multiple shareholder class actions to continue in a previous Insights article. Depending on the circumstances, a court may allow only one of the shareholder class actions to continue; alternatively, it may allow two or more to continue. If two or more continue, will the defendant company be required to pay the costs of all of them if it is unsuccessful? At the time of our previous article, this was uncertain, but because of a recent decision of the Federal Court, we now have a little more clarity. That decisions is McKay Super Solutions Pty Ltd (Trustee) v Bellamy's Australia Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 215 (McKay). The dilemma of duplication If a defendant company fails in defending a shareholder class action, it is likely to be ordered to pay the reasonably incurred costs of the lead plaintiff due to the rule that "costs follow the event". If two shareholder class actions are permitted to proceed which relate to the same subject matter and which have two lead plaintiffs represented by separate legal teams, some work and attendant costs may be performed by each lead plaintiff. This is the dilemma of duplicative costs. A defendant company could fairly ask why it should pay for two sets of proceeding which are alleging the same thing. Against this, the lead plaintiffs could say that the class action legislation in Australia contemplates multiple proceedings, since it allows group members to "opt out" and run their own individual proceedings, and each lead plaintiff should be allowed to choose its own legal team rather than having another's legal team forced on it by the prospect of not recovering some of its costs. Since costs are high in complex litigation, this is an important issue. Matters came to the fore in the recent decision of McKay. McKay's super solution or Bellamy's formula? In McKay, the defendant company was Bellamy's, which is known for producing infant formula, among other things. It was defending two shareholder class actions "advancing identical claims and seeking identical relief". The two lead plaintiffs were McKay Super Solutions and Mr Basil. In an earlier decision, Justice Beach allowed both shareholder class actions to continue with each lead plaintiff having separate legal representation. Bellamy's sought orders that: the costs that may be recovered by McKay Super Solutions and Mr Basil from Bellamy's be assessed as though McKay Super Solutions and Mr Basil were represented by the same legal team in one proceeding rather than separate legal teams in separate proceedings; and the total costs that may be recovered by Bellamy's from McKay Super Solutions and Mr Basil be capped at approximately $4.4 million.[1] In short, Bellamy's asked that its potential costs liability be capped as if it were defending one proceeding instead of two. To be balanced, Bellamy's also sought an order that the total costs it could recover from McKay Super Solutions and Mr Basil, if it were successful, be capped at $4.4 million.[2] McKay Super Solutions and Mr Basil had already entered into a "co-operation protocol" to reduce unnecessary duplication of work. This was intended to reduce the costs exposure of Bellamy's and had been ordered by Justice Beach. His Honour ordered that the protocol require the lead plaintiffs: -- to use reasonable endeavours to agree on areas of expert evidence and the briefing of experts; -- to consult with each other before preparing, filing and serving any evidence; -- to use reasonable endeavours to progress the two proceedings in a similar manner; -- to co-operate in the conduct of interlocutory applications; and to confer about key dates. Bellamy's considered this protocol to be insufficient, particularly since it thought it would be exposed to $1.5 million of additional costs if there were no capping of costs. Justice Beach concluded that he had the power to grant the orders sought by Bellamy's but declined to do so. His Honour accepted that the total costs that will be incurred by McKay Super Solutions, Mr Basil and Bellamy's were likely to exceed the costs that would be incurred if there were only one lead plaintiff and one class action. His Honour also accepted that some work and its attendant costs would be duplicated as a result of their being two shareholder class actions. In fact, the co-operation protocol indicated this; for example, it required the solicitors for each of McKay Super Solutions and Mr Basil to attend interviews with potential expert witnesses as well as some other conferences. Still, his Honour declined to make the orders sought by Bellamy's for the following reasons. First, his Honour thought that the correct "prism" to look through was not whether it is reasonable for Bellamy's to bear more than one set of costs, but whether the two plaintiffs had unnecessarily or unreasonably duplicated costs. Once this was accepted, the fact there would be some duplication of costs was not enough to justify the orders sought by Bellamy's. There needed to be unnecessary duplication. His Honour said there were several "applicant specific tasks" that would result in duplicated, but unobjectionable, costs. Second, the co-operation protocol was working well to reduce any duplication of costs, so much so that his Honour was unable to conclude that there was likely to be any unnecessary duplication in the future. Third, if there were any unjustified duplication of costs, it would be better to deal with them retrospectively at a later date. His Honour would then be making a decision in the "known world" rather than trying to make a prediction about the future. Fourth, Bellamy's could not demonstrate any need to make the orders now. Among other things, Bellamy's argued that making the orders now would facilitate the cost-effective conduct of the matter, which in turn would assist a settlement since a large costs liability is an impediment to settlement. This is certainly a relevant consideration since all shareholder class actions in Australia to date have settled rather than proceeded to judgment. However, if this argument justified a cap on costs in McKay, it would also justify a cap on costs in all shareholder class actions and in fact, in all court proceeding since settlement should be encouraged for all disputes. Justice Beach was not persuaded by Bellamy's argument because the co-operation protocol was working effectively and if it ceased to work effectively, it could be modified. Fifth, his Honour thought he was not currently in a position to adequately assess the cap of $4.4 million. The upshot for costs if you're facing multiple shareholder class actions The outcome in McKay is mixed news for companies that might find themselves defending multiple shareholder class actions making the same allegations. The good news is that a court is willing to impose a protocol on lead plaintiffs to avoid the unnecessary duplication of costs. It is also open to addressing unnecessarily duplicated costs at a later date when more information is available. The not-so-good news is that a defendant company is likely to be liable for duplicative costs where those costs were necessary. Justice Beach gave some examples of such costs. His Honour also said that an order treating the case as if there were only one shareholder class action would only operate from the date that he decided that the two shareholder class actions should be permitted to continue. That means that the duplicative costs of each lead plaintiff researching and preparing their own statement of claim plus the costs of other early steps would all be costs that each lead plaintiff could seek to recover from the defendant. The outcome in McKay is perhaps unsurprising. The class action legislation in Australia contemplates multiple proceedings; Justice Beach had already decided that the two class actions should be permitted to continue with each lead plaintiff having separate legal representation; and the general position for all proceedings in the Federal Court is that a successful party is permitted to recover its "fairly and reasonably incurred" costs. In those circumstances, it is difficult to object to a lead plaintiff recovering duplicated costs provided they are not unreasonable or unnecessary. [GN] BERNER FOOD: Lyles Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data ----------------------------------------------------------- Darryl Lyles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Berner Food and Beverage, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH03364 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., March 14, 2019) seeks to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs and the proposed Class's sensitive, private, and personal biometric data. The Defendant captured, collected, received through trade, and/or otherwise obtained biometric identifiers or biometric information of their Illinois employees, like Plaintiff, without properly obtaining a written executed release, and without making the required disclosures concerning the collection, storage, use, or destruction of biometric identifiers or information. Plaintiff and the putative Class are aggrieved by Defendant's failure to destroy their biometric data when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied within three years of employees' last interactions with the company, says the complaint. Plaintiff Darryl Lyles is an individual citizen of the State of Illinois who worked for Defendant in Illinois in 2018. Berner Food & Beverage, LLC is a Delaware corporation and has at least one place of business in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Phone : 314-833-4825 Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com plesko@pwcklegal.com BLACKBERRY LIMITED: May 6 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION AND THE GRANTING OF LEAVE TO PROCEED WITH STATUTORY SECONDARY MARKET MISREPRESENTATION CLAIMS Read this notice carefully as it may affect your legal rights THIS NOTICE IS TO certain investors in the common shares of BlackBerry Limited ("BlackBerry") during the period from and including March 28, 2013 to and including September 20, 2013 ("Class Period") other than certain persons and entities associated with the defendants, further described below ("Class" and "Class Members"). THE CERTIFICATION ORDER By Order dated February 5, 2019, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ("Court") has certified, pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, Swisscanto Fondsleitung AG v BlackBerry Limited, Thorsten Heins and Brian Bidulka File No. CV-13-495413-00CP ("BlackBerry Canadian Class Action"). The Court has appointed the class action plaintiff, Swisscanto Fondsleitung AG, as the representative plaintiff for the Class, defined as follows: All persons and entities, wherever they may reside or be domiciled, who acquired BlackBerry's Securities during the Class Period on any Canadian securities trading venue or otherwise in Canada, and all persons and entities who acquired BlackBerry's Securities during the Class Period outside of Canada who are residents of Canada or were residents of Canada at the time of acquisition and, in each case, continued to hold some or all of those Securities as of September 20, 2013, other than the Excluded Persons. "Class Period" means the period from March 28, 2013 through September 20, 2013, inclusive. Excluded from the Class are BlackBerry, Thorsten Heins, Brian Bidulka (collectively, the "Defendants"), their past and present subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, senior employees, partners, legal representatives, heirs, predecessors, successors and assigns, and any individual who is an immediate member of the family of an individual Defendant. Pursuant to the certification Order, you are a Class Member if you acquired BlackBerry's common share securities at any time between March 28, 2013 and September 20, 2013, inclusive, held some or all of those securities as of September 20, 2013, and: a) you acquired such BlackBerry securities on a Canadian stock exchange or trading venue, regardless of where you may reside; or b) you are a resident of Canada or were a resident of Canada at the time of acquisition of such BlackBerry securities, regardless of the stock exchange or trading venue on which you acquired those securities. The BlackBerry Canadian Class Action will now proceed to trial as a securities class action involving claims for damages for misrepresentation in BlackBerry's disclosure documents. The Court has identified the issues that will be dealt with collectively and the conclusions sought, which are set out in Appendix "A." The BlackBerry Canadian Class Action will proceed in Toronto, Ontario. Certification is a procedural matter that defines the form of the class action. The merits of the claims in the action, or the allegations of fact on which the claims are based, have not been finally determined by the Court. The Defendants dispute the claims asserted against them. THE NATURE OF THE CLAIMS ASSERTED The BlackBerry Canadian Class Action arises from the unsuccessful launch of BlackBerry's next-generation smartphones known as BlackBerry 10 in 2013. It asserts that certain of BlackBerry's financial disclosures and other disclosure documents issued during the Class Period contained false or misleading representations regarding the sales of the BlackBerry 10 smartphones and the company's revenues generated through the sales of those devices, and that those financial disclosures of BlackBerry violated the applicable accounting principles. On September 20, 2013, BlackBerry disclosed that it was taking an approximately $1 billion inventory charge primarily related to the BlackBerry 10 smartphones, and that it was changing its revenue recognition accounting method with respect to the sales of those devices. As a result of the alleged misrepresentations, it is alleged that Class Members paid too much when they acquired BlackBerry's securities during the Class Period, and suffered damages after the alleged misrepresentations were publicly corrected on September 20, 2013. The Class Action Claims On behalf of the Class, the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action asserts claims under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act ("OSA") and, if necessary, the equivalent provisions of the Securities Legislation of the other Canadian Provinces and Territories ("Securities Legislation"). Additionally, the Class Action advances claims in common law negligent misrepresentation. By Order dated November 17, 2015, the Honourable Justice Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice also granted leave to proceed with the statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act and, if necessary, the equivalent provisions of the Securities Legislation. The Defendants sought to appeal from the Court's Order granting leave to proceed to the Ontario Divisional Court. By endorsement dated November 6, 2018, the Divisional Court rejected the Defendants' request to bring an appeal with respect to the Order granting leave, which accordingly became final. Leave of the Court was a necessary precondition to the assertion of these claims. The statutory claims asserted under the OSA and the Securities Legislation are subject to liability limits, which may cap the amount of damages that can be recovered from each Defendant by way of the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action or any other class or individual proceeding asserting claims under the OSA or the comparable provisions of the Securities Legislation in any other province or territory of Canada. If the Class is successful at trial, it is possible that the damages may exceed the damages caps, if applicable. The common law negligent misrepresentation claims are not subject to liability limits. If you wish to pursue other claims against the Defendants relating to the matters at issue in the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action, you should immediately seek independent legal advice. DO NOTHING IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BLACKBERRY CANADIAN CLASS ACTION Class Members who want to participate in the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action are automatically included and need not do anything at this time. YOU MUST OPT OUT IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE BOUND BY THE CLASS ACTION Each Class Member who does not validly opt out of the Class Action will be bound by the terms of any judgment or settlement, whether favourable or not, and will not be allowed to prosecute an independent action. Class Members who do not want to be bound by the outcome of the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action must "opt out," meaning that they must exclude themselves from the Class Action in accordance with the procedure described herein. If you wish to opt out of the Class Action, you must complete, sign and return the Opt-Out Form provided at Appendix "B" to RicePoint Administration Inc. In order for your opt-out to be valid, your complete and signed Opt-Out Form must be postmarked or received by RicePoint Administration Inc. by no later than May 6, 2019. A Class Member who opts out will not be entitled to participate in the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action. CLASS COUNSEL AND LEGAL FEES The representative plaintiff and the Class are represented by Siskinds LLP ("Class Counsel"). Class Counsel are conducting the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action on a contingent fee basis. In the event of success, Class Counsel will make a motion to the Court for approval of their fees and disbursements to be paid from the funds recovered in the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action. A Class Member will not be required to pay any costs in the event that the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action is unsuccessful. Class Members have the right to seek intervenor status in the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action. A Class Member who intervenes in the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action may be required to pay legal costs arising from the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION This notice has been approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The Court offices cannot answer any questions about the matters in this notice. The Orders of the Court and other information in both languages are available on Class Counsel's website at http://www.siskinds.com/blackberry/. Questions relating to the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action may be directed to Class Counsel: English: Sajjad Nematollahi Siskinds LLP Suite 302, 100 Lombard Street Toronto, ON, Canada M5C 1M3 Tel: +1.800.461.6166 ext. 4390 (toll free) Tel: +1.416.594.4390 (outside North America) Email: sajjad.nematollahi@siskinds.com En français: Karim Diallo Siskinds Desmeules s.e.n.c.r.l. 43, rue de Buade, bureau 320 Quebec, Quebec G1R 4A2 Tel: +1-418-694-2009 Email: karim.diallo@siskindsdesmeules.com NOTICE TO BROKERAGE FIRMS Please deliver this notice by email to your clients who purchased BlackBerry's securities during the Class Period and for whom you have valid email addresses. If you have clients who purchased BlackBerry's securities during the Class Period for whom you do not have valid email addresses, please contact RicePoint Administration Inc. to obtain hard copies of this notice for the purpose of mailing the notice to those clients. Brokerage firms may request up to $15,000 in total for the expenses relating to the distribution of this notice to the Class Members. If the amounts submitted in aggregate exceed $15,000, each brokerage firm's claim shall be reduced on a pro rata basis. BlackBerry Canadian Securities Class Action c/o RicePoint Administration Inc. PO Box 4454, Toronto Station A, 25 The Esplanade Toronto, ON, Canada M5W 4B1 The publication of this notice was authorized by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice [GN] BRINK'S INCORPORATED: Garcia Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned Armando Garcia, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Brink's Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 2018-039589, (Fla. Cir., November 27, 2019), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on February 12, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-20557. Garcia filed the lawsuit pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 Email: agp@rgpattorneys.com Brink's is represented by: Gregory R. Hawran, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 374-0506 Fax: (305) 374-0456 Email: gregory.hawran@ogletreedeakins.com CAMPBELL SOUP: To Defend Consolidated Securities Suit in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------------- Campbell Soup Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 27, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a consolidated class action in New Jersey entitled, In re Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS. On January 7, 2019, three purported shareholder class action lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey were consolidated under the caption, In re Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS (the Action). Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System was appointed lead plaintiff in the Action and, on March 1, 2019, filed an amended consolidated complaint. The company, Denise Morrison (the company's former President and Chief Executive Officer), and Anthony DiSilvestro (the company's Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer) are defendants in the Action. The consolidated complaint alleges that, in public statements between July 19, 2017 and May 17, 2018, the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted material information about the company's business, operations, customer relationships, and prospects, specifically with regard to the Campbell Fresh segment. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Campbell Soup said, "We intend to vigorously defend against the Action." Campbell Soup Company, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets branded food and beverage products. It operates through three segments: Americas Simple Meals and Beverages, Global Biscuits and Snacks, and Campbell Fresh. Campbell Soup Company was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in Camden, New Jersey. CARA NAILS: Lliguicota Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Maruga Lliguicota, on behalf of herself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, v. Cara Nails, Inc. d/b/a Cara Nails and EUN HI HONG Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02309 (S.D. N.Y., March 14, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, unlawful deductions from wages, unpaid spread of hours premium, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law. Although Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek during her employment, the Defendants never paid her overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of 40, as required under the FLSA and NYLL. She was only paid at a straight time rate for all of her work hours in excess of 40 each week, says the complaint. Plaintiff, MARUGA LLIGUICOTA, worked as a manicure, masseuse and pedicurist for Defendants' nail salon from in or around September 2017 until in or around September 2018. CARA NAILS, INC. d/b/a Cara Nails, is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. William Brown, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 CAS MEDICAL: Franchi Suit Challenges Sale to Edwards Lifesciences ----------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CAS MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., ALAN W. MILINAZZO, PAUL A. MOLLOY, THOMAS S. PATTON, GREGORY P. RAINEY, JAMES E. THOMAS, KATHLEEN A. TUNE, and KENNETH R. WEISSHAAR, Case No. 1:19-cv-00478-UNA (D. Del., March 7, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which CAS Medical will be acquired by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and its affiliates. On February 11, 2019, CAS Medical's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Edwards. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, CAS Medical's stockholders will receive $2.45 in cash for each share of CAS Medical common stock they hold. Mr. Franchi alleges that the Proxy Statement relating to the sale omits material information regarding the Company's financial projections and fails to disclose, among other things: (i) all line items used to calculate EBITDA and EBIT; (ii) unlevered free cash flow and all underlying line items; and (iii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. CAS Medical is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices in Branford, Connecticut. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. CAS Medical is a medical technology company that develops, manufactures, and markets non-invasive cerebral and tissue oximeters used in patient monitoring. CAS Medical's principal products are the FORE-SIGHT(R) and FORE-SIGHT ELITE(R) brand tissue oximeters and sensors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com CELGENE CORP: Class Cert. Bid in Thalomid & Revlimid Cases Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a motion for class certification has been pending in the antitrust lawsuits related to the sales of Thalomid(R) and Revlimid(R). On November 7, 2014, the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB) filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that the company violated various antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract with Seratec S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories allegedly could not secure its own supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient, (b) allegedly refusing to sell samples of the company's THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to various generic manufacturers for the alleged purpose of bioequivalence testing necessary for ANDAs to be submitted to the FDA for approval to market generic versions of these products, and (c) allegedly bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits in order to allegedly delay approval for proposed generic versions of THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R). IUB, on behalf of itself and a putative class of third-party payers, is seeking injunctive relief and damages. In February 2015, the company filed a motion to dismiss IUB's complaint, and upon the filing of a similar putative class action making similar allegations by the City of Providence (Providence), the parties agreed that the decision in the motion to dismiss IUB's complaint would apply to the identical claims in Providence's complaint. In October 2015, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss on all grounds. The company filed its answers to the IUB and Providence complaints in January 2016. On June 14, 2017, a new complaint was filed by the same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the IUB case, making similar allegations and adding three new plaintiffs - International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health and Welfare Trust Fund (Local 39), The Detectives' Endowment Association, Inc. (DEA) and David Mitchell. Plaintiffs added allegations that the company's settlements of patent infringement lawsuits against certain generic manufacturers have had anticompetitive effects. Counsel identified the new complaint as related to the IUB and Providence cases and, on August 1, 2017, filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of IUB, Providence, Local 39, DEA, and Mitchell. On September 28, 2017, the same counsel filed another complaint, which it identified as related to the consolidated case, and which made similar allegations on behalf of an additional asserted class representative, New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund (NEC). The NEC action has been consolidated with the original action involving IUB, Providence, DEA, Local 39, and Mitchell into a master action for all purposes. On October 2, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of two damages classes under the laws of thirteen states and the District of Columbia and a nationwide injunction class. On February 26, 2018, the company filed its opposition to the plaintiffs' motion and a motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing all state law claims where the plaintiffs no longer seek to represent a class. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings on April 2, 2018, and the company filed its reply on April 13, 2018. The plaintiffs filed their reply in support of their class certification motion on May 18, 2018. Fact discovery in these cases closed on May 17, 2018 and expert discovery closed on December 11, 2018. On October 30, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. On December 14, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a new motion for class certification. The company's opposition to Plaintiff's new motion for class certification was filed on January 25, 2019 and the plaintiffs' reply in support of their new motion for class certification was filed on February 15, 2019. No trial date has been set. Celgene Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, discovers, develops, and commercializes therapies for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases worldwide. The company has agreements with BeiGene, Ltd; Acceleron Pharma, Inc.; Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; bluebird bio, Inc.; Lycera Corp.; and Juno Therapeutics, Inc. Celgene Corporation was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Summit, New Jersey. CELGENE CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------------- Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On March 29, 2018, the City of Warren General Employees' Retirement System filed a putative class action against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions concerning (1) trials of GED-0301, (2) 2020 outlook and projected sales of OTEZLA(R), and (3) the new drug application for Ozanimod. On May 3, 2018, a similar putative class action lawsuit against the company and certain of its officers was filed by Charles H. Witchcoff in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by making material misstatements and/or omissions concerning (1) trials of GED-0301, (2) 2020 outlook and projected sales of OTEZLA(R), and (3) the new drug application for Ozanimod. On September 27, 2018, the court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel for the putative class. On October 9, 2018, the court entered a scheduling order which requires lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint by December 10, 2018; defendants to file their motion to dismiss the amended complaint by February 8, 2019; lead plaintiff to file its opposition to the motion to dismiss by April 9, 2019; and defendants to file their reply by May 9, 2019. On December 10, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint. On February 8, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint in full. Celgene Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, discovers, develops, and commercializes therapies for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases worldwide. The company has agreements with BeiGene, Ltd; Acceleron Pharma, Inc.; Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; bluebird bio, Inc.; Lycera Corp.; and Juno Therapeutics, Inc. Celgene Corporation was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Summit, New Jersey. CELGENE CORP: Court Approves Settlement in JCAR015-Related Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has approved the settlement reached in the securities lawsuits related to the clinical trial of JCAR015. In July 2016, two putative securities class action complaints (the Veljanoski Complaint and the Wan Complaint) were filed against Juno Therapeutics, Inc. (Juno) and its chief executive officer, Hans E. Bishop, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. On September 7, 2016, an additional putative securities class action complaint (the Paradisco Complaint and, together with the Veljanoski Complaint and the Wan Complaint, the Complaints) was filed against Juno, Mr. Bishop, and its chief financial officer, Steve Harr, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The Complaints generally allege material misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding patient deaths in Juno's Phase II clinical trial of JCAR015 as well as, violations by all named defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. On October 7, 2016, the Complaints were consolidated into a single action. On December 12, 2016, the court-appointed lead plaintiff and a named plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint (Consolidated Complaint), which includes claims against Juno, Mr. Bishop, Dr. Harr, and Juno's chief medical officer, Dr. Mark J. Gilbert (the Defendants). The Consolidated Complaint includes allegations similar to those in the previous Complaints, as well as additional allegations regarding purported material misrepresentations and omissions in public statements after July 7, 2016 regarding the safety of JCAR015. The parties mediated on May 9, 2018, following which the parties agreed to a settlement in principle of the class action. On November 16, 2018, the court approved the parties' settlement. Celgene said, "The settlement amount was not materially different than the amount we had previously accrued for this matter." Celgene Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, discovers, develops, and commercializes therapies for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases worldwide. The company has agreements with BeiGene, Ltd; Acceleron Pharma, Inc.; Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; bluebird bio, Inc.; Lycera Corp.; and Juno Therapeutics, Inc. Celgene Corporation was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Summit, New Jersey. CELGENE CORP: Goldstein Sues to Enjoin Vote on Bristol-Myers Merger ------------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID GOLDSTEIN, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. CELGENE CORPORATION, MARK J. ALLES, RICHARD W. BARKER, HANS E. BISHOP, MICHAEL W. BONNEY, MICHAEL D. CASEY, CARRIE S. COX, MICHAEL A. FRIEDMAN, JULIA A. HALLER, PATRICIA A. HEMINGWAY HALL, JAMES J. LOUGHLIN, ERNEST MARIO, and JOHN H. WEILAND, Case No. 2:19-cv-08087 (D.N.J., March 7, 2019), seeks to enjoin a stockholder vote on a Proposed Transaction currently scheduled for April 12, 2019, unless and until certain violations are cured. On January 2, 2019, Celgene and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company ("Parent") through Parent's wholly owned subsidiary Burgundy Merger Sub, Inc., entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which, each Celgene stockholder will be entitled to receive $50 in cash, one share of Parent common stock and one contingent value right ("CVR") for each share of Celgene common stock they own. If the Proposed Transaction is completed, BMS stockholders are expected to own approximately 69% of the company, and Celgene stockholders are expected to own approximately 31%. The Proposed Transaction has an equity value of approximately $74 billion. Mr. Goldstein alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by filing a materially incomplete and misleading Registration Statement with the SEC and disseminated it to Celgene's stockholders. He contends that the Registration Statement fails to disclose, among other things: (i) projected earnings per share ("EPS"); (ii) EBITDA; and (iii) the projection line items used to derive the Company's unlevered free cash flows, including taxes, capital expenditures and changes in net working capital and milestone payments. Celgene is a Delaware corporation, with its principal executive offices located in Summit, New Jersey. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Celgene is an integrated global biopharmaceutical company engaged primarily in the discovery, development and commercialization of innovative therapies for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases through next-generation solutions in protein homeostasis, immuno-oncology, epigenetics, immunology and neuro-inflammation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW, LLC 1373 Broad St., Suite 203C Clifton, NJ 07013 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 Facsimile: (973) 282-8603 E-mail: DZ@zemellawllc.com CENTURYLINK INC: Faces Caliendo Securities Suit in C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES CALIENDO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CENTURYLINK, INC., GLEN F. POST, III, SUNIT S. PATEL, JEFF K. STOREY, INDRANEEL DEV, and ERIC J. MORTENSEN, Case No. 2:19-cv-01629 (C.D. Cal., March 6, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed failed to disclose that: (1) CenturyLink had undisclosed material weaknesses in its internal controls over revenue recording processes and the procedures for measuring fair value of assets and liabilities assumed in connection with its Level 3 Communications, Inc. acquisition; (2) consequently, CenturyLink would delay the filing of its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, despite initially reporting those financial results in a press release dated February 13, 2019; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. CenturyLink purports to provide various communications services to residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers primarily in the United States. The Company is incorporated in Louisiana with global offices in El Segundo, California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com CENTURYLINK: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 6 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of CenturyLink, Inc. (NYSE:CTL) from May 10, 2018 through March 4, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for CenturyLink investors under the federal securities laws. To join the CenturyLink class action, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1525.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) CenturyLink had undisclosed material weaknesses in its internal controls over revenue recording processes and the procedures for measuring fair value of assets and liabilities assumed in connection with its Level 3 Communications, Inc. acquisition; (2) consequently, CenturyLink would delay the filing of its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 despite initially reporting those financial results in a press release dated February 13, 2019; and (3) as a result, CenturyLink'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 May 6, 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-1525.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. [GN] CERTIFIEDSAFETY: Does not Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages, Jones Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Harold Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CertifiedSafety, Inc. and Phillips 66 Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01380 (N.D. Cal., March 14, 2019) is a class and collective action on behalf of Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals who have worked for the Defendants as non-exempt, hourly employees, including Safety Attendants and Safety Foremen challenging the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and California and Washington wage and hour laws. Plaintiff and putative Class and Collective members are not paid minimum wage for all hours worked, overtime rates or double time rates, as appropriate, for all hours worked above eight per day and forty per week, says the complaint. They are also routinely denied meal and rest periods, the complaint adds. Plaintiff and members of the putative Class and Collective are current and former non-exempt, hourly Safety Attendants and Safety Foremen, who worked for Defendants throughout the United States. CertifiedSafety is an American company that provides skilled safety personnel to clients operating oil refineries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. David C. Leimbach, Esq. Michelle S. Lim, Esq. Scott L. Gordon, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 CHRYSLER: Subpoena Served in Jeep Uconnect Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Madison-St. Clair Record reports that Belleville city attorney Brian Flynn trusted the Federico family to sell him a Jeep but served a subpoena for their records after one of them wouldn't help him find plaintiffs for a class action against Chrysler. Mr. Flynn leads the class action in U.S. district court, not as lawyer but as Jeep owner. A subpoena he served on Federico Dodge Chrysler in Wood River last year hangs over the action while he and the family hold it in abeyance. The subpoena would require Federico to produce dealership contracts with Chrysler and all rules and policies on warranties, promotions, and customer inquiries. It would also require production of sales reports and personnel records. Mr. Flynn bought a Jeep in 2013, with an information system by name of Uconnect. He sued Chrysler in 2015, claiming hackers could remotely seize control of his Jeep through Uconnect. He also named UConnect maker Harman Industries as second defendant. Chrysler counsel Stephen D'Aunoy of St. Louis deposed Mr. Flynn in 2016, asking at the outset why he bought his vehicle at Federico. "I'm friends with one of the Federicos so I kind of had it in my mind that I might go get a Dodge or a Jeep," Mr. Flynn said, identifying Danielle Federico as his friend and one who finalized paperwork for his transaction. "I think her father is the owner," he said. Mr. Flynn said he knew her through mutual friends for five or six years. Mr. D'Aunoy asked when he decided he wanted an SUV from Federico. "I think I always just had it in the back of my mind," Mr. Flynn said. "I just like to do business with friends." Mr. D'Aunoy asked what he drove on his first visit and he said Grand Cherokees. "I know I drove a couple of them because one of the ones I drove was actually Mr. Federico's," Mr. Flynn said. "They're saying I could get a good deal on it. Of course he is driving a high end car but I didn't want to spend that kind of money." Mr. Flynn said he had a loan preapproved but financed the Jeep through the dealership. Mr. D'Aunoy asked how he determined that the price was fair. Mr. Flynn said they gave him a price and he asked if they could go a little lower. "I didn't sit there and haggle with them a lot simply because, I guess, my view is I want to do business with friends," Mr. Flynn said. "If they screw me here, I'm never coming back. If they want to do business with me, I can come back every few years and get a car." Mr. D'Aunoy asked why he purchased an extended warranty. "Because Danielle told me it was a good idea and I trusted her," Flynn said. Mr. D'Aunoy asked his understanding of his complaint about the vehicle. "That it's susceptible to being taken over, being hacked," Flynn said, and when asked if it had ever been hacked said he didn't know. Mr. D'Aunoy asked how his vehicle was different from any other for hackability. "It is my understanding generally that the Uconnect system is more susceptible to hacking," Mr. Flynn said. "It's my understanding that all the electrical components are part of one system and a patch just isn't going to fix it." Mr. D'Aunoy asked if he thought there was anybody out there who wanted to harm him, and Mr. Flynn said there might be. "I represent, you know, dangerous individuals who have been accused of dangerous crimes," Flynn said. "I have had people approach me and threaten me." Mr. D'Aunoy asked if they were capable of hacking his vehicle. "I'm not aware of their capabilities," Flynn said. Mr. D'Aunoy asked if it was easier to cut his brake lines than hack the vehicle, and Mr. Flynn said he had no idea. Mr. D'Aunoy asked him about discussions with Danielle Federico in 2015, and he said he called her to see if she might know other Jeep owners. Mr. D'Aunoy asked if she identified any, and Mr. Flynn said she did not. Mr. D'Aunoy showed him a response to an interrogatory indicating he asked whether she would provide names of those who purchased the affected vehicles. Mr. Flynn said that was essentially his question. Mr. D'Aunoy asked if she provided names and he said no. Mr. D'Aunoy asked what she told him. "She really just expressed she wasn't interested," Mr. Flynn said. "I was really asking if we had any mutual friends. I wasn't asking her to give me the names of somebody I had never met." Mr. D'Aunoy asked why he was interested in other purchasers. Mr. Flynn said that after he and class counsel Mike Gras talked, "it seemed like he needed more than one person." For Uconnect maker Harman Industries, William McKenna asked Mr. Flynn if Ms. Federico said anything about a defect in the vehicle. "I think she said that a recall would be coming," v Flynn said He said she told him it would be okay. Mr. McKenna said, "Those were exact words or words in substance?" Mr. Flynn said, "Words in substance." The Federico family didn't figure in the litigation any further until late last year, when Flynn served his subpoena for their records. The family retained William Niehoff of Belleville, who objected on Jan. 4. Mr. Niehoff wrote that the subpoena was unreasonable in scope and unduly burdensome, that it included trade secrets or other confidential information. It would require Federico to engage counsel to assist in collection and review of documents. He further wrote that it would require Federico to divert employees from their jobs to search paper and electronic information over an extended time, and that Flynn could obtain most of the information from defendants. On Jan. 22, Mr. Niehoff posted a joint motion to hold his objections in abeyance. He wrote that the parties worked diligently to find a solution addressing Flynn's discovery requests and Federico's concerns. He wrote that the parties would update the court regarding whether to withdraw the subpoena or set the objections for consideration by the magistrate. Magistrate Judge Reona Daly presides over discovery. District Judge Michael Reagan presides as trial judge but won't hold trial. He set it in November but plans to retire. [GN] CIGAR.COM INC: Website not Blind-friendly, Dawson Says ------------------------------------------------------ Leshawn Dawson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. CIGAR.COM, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01377 (S.D. N.Y., February 13, 2019), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Defendant is a cigar retail company that operates www.cigar.com that allow consumers to access store locations and hours, purchase store products online for pickup or delivery. Dawson claims that it is not accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com - and - Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: Joseph@cml.legal CIGNA CORP: Proskauer Rose Attorney Discusses Court Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan E Richman, Esq. -- jerichman@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 5 affirmed the dismissal of a securities class action alleging misrepresentations arising from generalized statements about an issuer's compliance efforts and Code of Ethics. The decision in Singh v. Cigna Corporation held that such generic statements are not material because a reasonable investor could not have relied on them as representations of regulatory compliance. The decision is welcome news for issuers in light of the many recent lawsuits alleging securities-law violations based on generalized statements about the importance of ethical standards and regulatory compliance. Such cases should be more difficult to maintain unless the issuer has touted its compliance efforts in detail. Background The Singh case arose from Cigna's purchase of a regional Medicare insurer. After the acquisition, Cigna began receiving notices of noncompliance from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"). CMS conducted an audit and concluded that Cigna had failed to comply with CMS requirements. Cigna eventually announced that it had already spent nearly $30 million to remedy the alleged violations, but that it might "'not be able to address matters arising from the [CMS Sanctions] Notice in a timely and satisfactory manner.'" Cigna shareholders filed a securities class action alleging that Cigna had made false or misleading statements by: -- claiming that it had "'established policies and procedures to comply with applicable requirements'" and that it "'expect[ed] to continue to allocate significant resources'" to compliance efforts, -- publishing a Code of Ethics that affirmed the importance of compliance and integrity, and -- stating in its annual report that it "'expect[ed] to continue to allocate significant resources'" to compliance, and discussing the difficulty of compliance in light of regulatory uncertainty in the healthcare arena. These statements allegedly were false or misleading in light of the regulatory issues that Cigna was facing. The District Court dismissed the case, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently allege both materially false statements and scienter. The Second Circuit affirmed on the first ground, without reaching the scienter issue. Second Circuit's Decision The court framed its decision as presenting "a creative attempt to recast corporate mismanagement as securities fraud." "[F]irst, point to banal and vague corporate statements affirming the importance of regulatory compliance; next, point to significant regulatory violations; and voila, you have alleged a prima facie case of securities fraud!" But the court held that "such generic statements do not invite reasonable reliance" and therefore are not materially misleading. The court ruled that Code of Ethics statements that "amount to general declarations about the importance of acting lawfully and with integrity" constitute inactionable puffery. Similarly, the statements about Cigna's compliance efforts were too generic to be material. The court distinguished the statements in this case from those in a prior case, in which the company had "described its compliance mechanisms in confident detail, including references to 24-hour monitoring teams, specific compliance equipment, and its clean compliance record." "Such detailed descriptions stand in sharp contrast to Cigna's simple and generic assertions about having 'policies and procedures' and allocating 'significant resources'" to compliance. The court also noted that Cigna's statements were "framed by acknowledgments of the complexity and numerosity of applicable regulations," thereby suggesting "caution (rather than confidence) regarding the extent of Cigna's compliance." Because Cigna's challenged statements were "tentative and generic, and because they emphasize the complex, evolving regulatory environment that Cigna faced," a reasonable investor would not view them as material. Implications Securities cases traditionally were about accounting or financial matters, but so many securities actions these days are actually about something else: alleged foreign bribery, sexual harassment, antitrust violations, money laundering, environmental disasters, apartment fires, etc. Companies involved in those situations have been sued under the securities laws based on the theory that they made broad statements about the importance of and their efforts to comply with legal and ethical standards – and that those statements must have been false or misleading because of what ultimately happened. Many (although not all) courts have dismissed such claims where the challenged statements were only generic. Some courts, however, appear to have applied a looser standard, at least at the pleading stage. The Singh decision should cause courts to look harder at the challenged statements to determine whether they are specific enough to be material – or whether, as in so many cases, they are merely generic, almost boilerplate recitations that most companies make to state their aspirational goals and show that they hope to be considered good corporate citizens. The Singh decision does not specifically address a situation where a company has made generic statements about compliance and ethics in direct response to questions about or allegations of misconduct. Nor, however, does the Second Circuit's ruling create an exception for those statements. The decision focuses more on the generic nature of the statements than on the specific context in which they were made. We shall see how courts construe Singh if merely generic statements are made to rebut allegations of misconduct. [GN] CINEMARK USA: Dawson Claims Website not Blind-friendly ------------------------------------------------------ Leshawn Dawson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01348 (S.D. N.Y., February 12, 2019), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Cinemark USA, Inc. is movie theatre chain owned by Cinemark Holdings, Inc. Its website, www.cinemark.com, allows access to information on movies and showtimes, including the ability to purchase movie tickets online, and related goods and services. Dawson claims that it is not accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com - and - Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: Joseph@cml.legal CINEMARK USA: Stipulation and Release Entered in Brown Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Cinemark USA, Inc.said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has agreed to a Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release of Claims in the case, Silken Brown v. Cinemark USA, Inc. Silken Brown v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, presents putative class action claims for penalties and attorney's fees arising from alleged violations of the California wage statement law. The claim is also asserted as a representative action under the California Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) for penalties. The Court granted class certification. The company denies the claims, denies that class certification is appropriate, denies that the plaintiff has standing to assert the claims alleged and is vigorously defending against the claims. The company denies the claims, denies that class certification is appropriate, denies that the plaintiff has standing to assert the claims alleged and is vigorously defending against the claims. The Company denies any violation of law; however, to avoid the cost and uncertainty associated with litigation the Company and the plaintiff entered into a Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release of Claims (the "Settlement Agreement") to fully and finally dismiss all claims that would be brought in the case. The Settlement Agreement must be approved by the Court. During the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company recorded a litigation reserve based on the proposed Settlement Agreement in loss on disposal of assets and other on the consolidated income statement. Cinemark USA, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates in the motion picture exhibition industry. The company operates in two segments, U.S. Markets and International Markets. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Plano, Texas. Cinemark USA, Inc. is a subsidiary of Cinemark Holdings, Inc. CLASSIC OILFIELD: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Fulmer Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Todd Fulmer and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Classic Oilfield Services, LP, and Ben Pinkston, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00041, (W.D. Tex., February 12, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, unlawfully kept tips, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Classic Oilfield Services operates a logistics and trucking business where Fulmer worked as driver. He claims to have worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek without being paid an overtime premium at a rate not less than one and one half times his regular rate of pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Charles L. Scalise, Esq. Daniel B. Ross, Esq. ROSS LAW GROUP 1104 San Antonio Street Houston, TX 78701 Tel: (512) 474-7677 Fax: (512) 474-5306 Email: Charles@rosslawpc.com COCO DULCE: Hayes Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in RONNETTE HAYES, Plaintiff, v. COCO DULCE, INC., a Florida corporation, and EMILIO PEREZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-80368 (S.D. Fla., March 15, 2019) brought this action on behalf of herself and other employees and former employees of the Defendant similarly situated for overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). In the course of employment with the Defendants, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not paid time and one-half of their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week during one or more work weeks, says the complaint. Plaintiff was and is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida and was an employee of the Defendant. Defendant, COCO DULCE, INC., is a Florida corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Rush, Esq. CHRISTOPHER J. RUSH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Compson Financial Center, Suite 205 1880 North Congress Avenue Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Phone: 561-369-3331 Fax: 561-369-5902 Email: crush@crushlawfl.com eservice@crushlawfl.com COMMERCIAL FURNITURE: Mannie Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dimitry Mannie, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Commercial Furniture Installation, Inc., John Haselhorst and Jackie Armagost, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00182-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss., March 13, 2019) seeks from the Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendants repeatedly violated the FLSA by failing willfully to pay Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked for the Defendants within the three years immediately preceding the filing and the commencement of the instant civil action. Defendants provide furniture installation and renting, in several states, including in the State of Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Carlos Tanner, III, Esq. TANNER & ASSOCIATES, LLC Post Office box 3709 Jackson, MS 39207 Phone: 601-460-1754 Facsimile: 662-796-3509 Email: carlos.tanner@thetannerlawfirm.com COOPER COMPANIES: Deal in Contact Lens Suit Awaits Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------- The Cooper Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the settlement in the contact lens-related class action remains subject to final Court approval at a future hearing to be set by the Court. Since March 2015, over 50 putative class action complaints were filed by contact lens consumers alleging that contact lens manufacturers, in conjunction with their respective Unilateral Pricing Policy (UPP), conspired to reach agreements between each other and certain distributors and retailers regarding the prices at which certain contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages against CooperVision, Inc., other contact lens manufacturers, distributors and retailers, in various courts around the United States. In June 2015, all of the class action cases were consolidated and transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. In August 2017, CooperVision entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, without any admission of liability, to settle all claims against CooperVision. In July 2018, the Court approved the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, and the Company paid the $3.0 million settlement amount into an escrow account. The settlement remains subject to final Court approval at a future hearing to be set by the Court. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Cooper Companies, Inc. operates as a medical device company worldwide. It operates through CooperVision and CooperSurgical business units. The Cooper Companies, Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Pleasanton, California. CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Melucci Sues Over Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Melucci, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, Joseph K. Belanoff, and Charles Robb, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01372-LHK (N.D. Cal., March 14, 2019) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Corcept securities between August 2, 2017 and February 5, 2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had improperly paid doctors to promote its drug Korlym; (2) that the Company aggressively promoted Korlym for off-label uses; (3) that the Company's sole specialty pharmacy was a related party; (4) that the Company artificially inflated its revenue and sales using illicit sales practices through a related party; (5) that such practices are reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (6) 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. On January 25, 2019, Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation ("SIRF") published a report alleging that Corcept paid doctors to prescribe its drug Korlym for off-label uses. On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.52, or more than 11%, to close at $12.29 per share on January 25, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff Nicholas Melucci purchased Corcept securities during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law violations. Corcept is a pharmaceutical company that purports to develop medications to treat severe metabolic, oncologic, and psychiatric disorders by modulating the effect of cortisol.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 COSTA MESA, CA: Group Home Ordinance Suit Named Top Defense Verdict ------------------------------------------------------------------- Keller/Anderle LLP on March 6 disclosed that two of Keller/Anderle's jury trial victories in 2018 were selected to the Daily Journal's list of the prestigious top 20 "Top Defense Verdicts of 2018." The Daily Journal describes the list as "the largest and most significant verdicts in California in 2018." In Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc., et al. v. City of Costa Mesa, Keller/Anderle LLP secured a complete jury victory for the City of Costa Mesa in a federal lawsuit challenging its group home ordinance. Two sober living home operators and an industry trade group brought the suit in the Central District of California in 2014, arguing that any regulation, no matter how favorable to the disabled, was discriminatory. Other cities had lost lawsuits challenging their own ordinances, settled them, or had been intimidated into not passing ordinances at all. The Costa Mesa City Council hired Keller/Anderle in March 2018, when it was clear the City would need a complete victory at trial in order to preserve the ability to enforce reasonable regulations on group home operators. After a four-week trial before the Honorable James Selna, the eight person jury returned a unanimous verdict on all counts for the City of Costa Mesa. Jennifer Keller and Chase Scolnick were co-lead counsel and Anand Sambhwani was second chair, backed by Michael Schachter and Nahal Kazemi. In Christina Chavez v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., after deliberations following a 12-day trial, a jury in Los Angeles Superior Court found that Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. ("MassMutual") did not improperly withhold dividends from a class of hundreds of term life insurance policyholders. The jury sided with the insurer and found that the policies in question never generated enough profit to warrant dividends under the policy agreements. The jury rejected named plaintiff Christina Chavez's claims that the insurer had breached its contracts with hundreds of people who had purchased participating 20-year term life insurance, or T20G policies, from 2000 to 2004 in the Los Angeles area. Jennifer Keller and Jesse Gessin led the firm's trial team. Contact: Kay Anderle Managing Partner Keller/Anderle LLP Address: 18300 Von Karman Ave., Suite 930 Irvine, California 92612-1057 Ph. 949.476.8700 Fax 949.476.0900 kanderle@kelleranderle.com www.kelleranderle.com [GN] CPI CARD: New York Court Tosses Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------- CPI Card Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the Court in the case entitled, In Re CPI Card Group Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:16-CV-04531 (S.D.N.Y.), has entered an order and final judgment dismissing the case, in its entirety, with prejudice. On June 15, 2016, two purported CPI stockholders filed putative class action lawsuits captioned Vance, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc., et al. and Chipman, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") against CPI, certain of its former officers and current and former directors, along with the sponsors of and the financial institutions who served as underwriters for CPI’s October 2015 initial public offering ("IPO"). The complaints, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of CPI common stock pursuant to the October 8, 2015 Registration Statement filed in connection with the IPO, asserted claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act") and sought, among other things, damages and costs. In particular, the complaints alleged that the Registration Statement contained false or misleading statements or omissions regarding CPI's customers' (i) purchases of Europay, MasterCard and VISA chip cards (collectively, "EMV(R) cards") during the first half of fiscal year 2015 and resulting EMV(R) card inventory levels; and (ii) capacity to purchase additional EMV(R) cards in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015, and the remainder of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. The complaints alleged that these actions artificially inflated the price of CPI common stock issued pursuant to the IPO. On August 30, 2016, the Court consolidated the Vance and Chipman actions and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On October 17, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, asserting the same claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The amended complaint was based principally on the same theories as the original complaints, but added allegations that the Registration Statement contained inadequate risk disclosures and failed to disclose (i) small and mid-size issuers' slower-than-anticipated conversion to EMV(R) technology and (ii) increased pricing pressure and competition CPI faced in the EMV(R) market. On September 21, 2018, the parties executed a stipulation and agreement of settlement ("Stipulation") to resolve the claims asserted in the amended complaint. On October 22, 2018, the Court granted lead plaintiff's motion for authorization to notify the settlement class of the proposed settlement. After distribution of the notice to the class and a final settlement hearing on February 5, 2019, the Court entered orders on February 6, 2019: (i) approving the proposed settlement; and (ii) granting in part lead plaintiff's motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses. On February 25, 2019, the Court entered an order and final judgment dismissing the case, in its entirety, with prejudice. CPI Card Group Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in the design, production, data personalization, packaging, and fulfillment of financial payment cards. It operates through U.S. Debit and Credit, U.S. Prepaid Debit, and Other segments. CPI Card Group Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Littleton, Colorado. CREDIT COLLECTION: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Riccio Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Frank Riccio filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Frank Riccio v. Credit Collection Services, Case No. 3-17-cv-08889, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit. The appellate case is captioned as Frank Riccio v. Credit Collection Services, Case No. 19-1500, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant FRANK RICCIO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com bwolf@legaljones.com Defendant-Appellee CREDIT COLLECTION SERVICES is represented by: Andrew M. Schwartz, Esq. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PC 2000 Market Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-2765 E-mail: amschwartz@mdwcg.com CVR REFINING: Wong Suit Asserts Stock Price Manipulation -------------------------------------------------------- Billy F.B. Wong and Stephanie Gordon, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CVR Refining GP, LLC, CVR Energy, Inc. and Icahn Enterprises, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 2019-0103, (Del. Ch., February 11, 2019), seeks redress for breach of contract, tortious interference and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for alleged depression of trading prices of partnership's units and acquisition of all minority units at an artificially deflated price in violation of the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership. CVRR is an independent downstream energy limited partnership with refining and related logistics assets that operates in the mid-continent region. The General Partnership and its affiliates allegedly manipulated CVRR's common unit price by disclosing that it was considering exercising its purchase right, causing the Partnership's unit price to decline. Plaintiffs held CVRR common units that were seized for grossly inadequate value. They had owned CVRR common units continuously since 2013. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Peter S. Pearlman, Esq. Kelly M. Purcaro, Esq. COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP Park 80 West – Plaza One 250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401 Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 Telephone: (201) 845-9600 Facsimile: (201) 845-9423 Email: psp@njlawfirm.com kmp@njlawfirm.com - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com DABECCA NATURAL: Parker Hits Biometrics Data Sharing ---------------------------------------------------- Danielle Parker and Craig Reed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dabecca Natural Foods, Inc., Case No. 2019CH01845 (Ill. Cir., February 13, 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. Parker and Reeds worked for Dabecca at its Illinois facility. They were required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints. Plaintiffs alleges that Dabecca improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data without informed consent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Fish, Esq. Kim Hilton, Esq. Seth Matus, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 E. 5th Ave., Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Tel: (630) 355-7590 Fax: (630) 778-0400 Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com kunze@fishlawfirm.com smatus@fishlawfirm.com jkunze@fishlawfirm.com DEL FRISCO'S: Matzura Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Web Site ----------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN MATZURA AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. DEL FRISCO'S OF NEW YORK, LLC D/B/A DEL FRISCO'S, Case No. 1:19-cv-02046 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2019), arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Del Frisco's of New York, LLC, doing business as Del Frisco's, is a domestic limited liability company registered to do business in the state of New York with its principal executive offices in Irving, Texas. The Defendant operates Del Frisco's restaurants, as well as the Del Frisco's Web site and advertises, markets, distributes, and/or sells food and other products at its restaurants in the state of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 879-0240 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com nyjg@aol.com DEPOP INC: Dawson Claims Website not Blind-friendly --------------------------------------------------- Leshawn Dawson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Depop, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01350 (S.D. N.Y., February 12, 2019), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Depop is a clothing, shoes and accessories retailer that operates DEPOP stores in New York, including its store in New York City. It offers the commercial website, www.DEPOP.com, that allow consumers to access store locations and hours, purchase store products online for pickup or delivery, including shoes and related products. Dawson claims that it is not accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com - and - Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: Joseph@cml.legal DISH DBS: Oral Argument in Krakauer Tentatively Set for May 7-9 --------------------------------------------------------------- DISH DBS Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that an appeal from a court decision in the Krakauer Action has been tentatively calendared for oral argument during the May 7-9, 2019 argument session. On March 25, 2009, the company's wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. was sued in a civil action by the United States Attorney General and several states in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois (the "FTC Action"), alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and the Telemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR"), as well as analogous state statutes and state consumer protection laws. A portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent third-party retailer at issue in the FTC Action are also the subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action"). Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that case found that the independent third-party retailer was acting as DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue in that case, and that class members are eligible to recover $400 in damages for each call made in violation of the TCPA. On March 7, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed motions with the Court for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, for a new trial, which the Court denied on May 16, 2017. On May 22, 2017, the Court ruled that the violations were willful and knowing, and trebled the damages award to $1,200 for each call made in violation of TCPA. On April 5, 2018, the Court entered a $61 million judgment in favor of the class. On May 4, 2018, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The appeal has been tentatively calendared for oral argument during the May 7-9, 2019 argument session. DISH DBS said, "During the second quarter 2017, we recorded $41 million of "Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss). We recorded $20 million of "Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action during the fourth quarter 2016. Our total accrual related to the Krakauer Action at December 31, 2018 and 2017 was $61 million and is included in "Other accrued expenses" on our Consolidated Balance Sheets." DISH DBS Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides pay-TV services under the DISH and Sling brands in the United States. The company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado. DISH DBS Corporation is a subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation. DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Portela Appeals D.N.J. Order to 3rd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Diego F. Portela filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Diego Portela v. Diversified Consultants Inc., Case No. 2-17-cv-03431, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 26, 2019, Judge John Michael Vazquez granted DCI's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The matter involves alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the "FDCPA"). On Dec. 9, 2016, the Plaintiff allegedly incurred a debt obligation to Verizon Wireless. The debt was then referred to DCI for collection. When the debt was referred to DCI, the Verizon obligation was past due and in default. In a letter dated Dec. 9, 2016, the Defendant wrote to the Plaintiff in an attempt to collect payment for the debt. The appellate case is captioned as Diego Portela v. Diversified Consultants Inc., Case No. 19-1501, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DIEGO F. PORTELA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com Defendant-Appellee DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS INC. is represented by: Andrew J. Blady, Esq. Ross Enders, Esq. SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC 3682 Green Ridge Road Furlong, PA 18925 Telephone: (267) 544-0840 E-mail: ablady@sessions.legal renders@sessions-law.biz - and - Aaron R. Easley, Esq. SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC 3 Cross Creek Drive Flemington, NJ 08822 Telephone: (908) 237-1660 E-mail: aeasley@sessions.legal ECCGP LLC: Kitchen Staff Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Abilio Arriola and Porfirio Arriola Cruz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ECCGP LLC, Kefkarp Inc., FYSI35 Inc., Fotios Liberatos, Kostas Kantlis, Dimitri Doe and Giovanna Doe, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00849 (E.D. N.Y., February 12, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. ECCGP LLC, Kefkarp Inc. and FYSI35 Inc. operate as Greek Family Kitchen and Souvlaki Square respectively, where Plaintiffs worked as kitchen staff. He worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, spread-of-hours and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of hours worked, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com ELDER HOMECARE: Gonzales Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Reatha Gonzales on behalf of herself and all others similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ELDER HOMECARE, INC. AND MIMI ANH-NGOC TRAN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00261-LY (W.D. Tex., March 15, 2019) is a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") suit against the Defendants. The Defendants paid Plaintiff and the Class Members by the hour, but only paid straight time for all hours worked over forty per week. As such, Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff and other non-exempt Class Members overtime wages, says the complaint. Plaintiff and those similarly situated provided care to the Defendants' clients at their homes. Defendants provide services to elderly residents in their homes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. MORELAND VERRETT, P.C. Moreland Verrett, PC 2901 Bee Cave Rd, Box L Austin, TX 78746 Phone: (512) 782-0567 Fax: (512) 782-0605 Email: doug@morelandlaw.com ELLIE MAE: Kent Securities Suit Challenges Sale to Thoma Bravo -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ELLIE MAE, INC., SIGMUND ANDERMAN, JONATHAN CORR, KAREN BLASING, CARL BUCCELLATO, CRAIG DAVIS, A. BARR DOLAN, ROBERT J. LEVIN, MARINA LEVINSON, JEB S. SPENCER, and RAJAT TANEJA, Case No. 1:19-cv-00473-UNA (D. Del., March 6, 2019), arises from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Ellie Mae will be acquired by EM Eagle Purchaser, LLC and EM Eagle Merger Sub, Inc., affiliates formed by Thoma Bravo Fund XIII, L.P. On February 11, 2019, Ellie Mae's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Thoma Bravo. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Ellie Mae's stockholders will receive $99 in cash for each share of Ellie Mae common stock they hold. The Plaintiff alleges that the proxy statement filed in connection with the Proposed Transaction omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading and in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Among other things, the Plaintiff contends, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) all line items used to calculate Adjusted EBITDA; (ii) all line items used to calculate unlevered free cash flow; and (iii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. Ellie Mae is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices in Pleasanton, California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Ellie Mae is a leading cloud-based platform provider for the mortgage finance industry. Founded in 1997, Ellie Mae's technology solutions are used by lenders to originate and close residential mortgage loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com EMC HOTELS: Harty Claims Website not Blind-friendly --------------------------------------------------- Owen Harty, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EMC Hotels and Resorts LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01326 (S.D. N.Y., February 12, 2019), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Defendant operates The Time Hotel in Rockland NY. It offers a website that allows consumers to book rooms online. However, Harty claims that this is not accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Sverd, Esq. THOMAS B. BACON, P.A. 225 Broadway, Suite 613 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (646) 751-8743 Email: psverd@sverdlawfirm.com EQT CORPORATION: Garfield Files Appeal in Suit v. Officers ---------------------------------------------------------- A notice of appeal has been filed in Garfield, R. v. Porges, D., et. al. in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on Feb. 20, 2019. The case is captioned Robert Garfield, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated, Appellant v. David L. Porges; Vicky A. Bailey; Philip G. Behrman, Ph.D.; Kenneth M. Burke; A. Bray Cary, Jr.; Margaret K. Dorman; James E. Rohr; Steven T. Schlotterbeck; Stephen A. Thorington; Lee T. Todd, Jr., Ph.D.; and Christine J. Toretti, and EQT Corp., Defendant, Case No. 254 WDA 2019. Mr. David L. Porges, also known as Dave, served as Interim President and Chief Executive Officer of EQT Corporation since March 15, 2018 until 2018. EQT Corporation is a petroleum and natural gas exploration and pipeline transport company headquartered in EQT Plaza in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Appellant is represented by: Kravec, Joseph N., Jr., Esq. Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC 429 Fourth Ave, Ste 1300 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 281-8400 The Appellees are represented by: Allen, Thomas Lee, Esq. Reed Smith LLP 225 5TH Ave Ste 1200 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2716 Phone: (412) 288-3066 - and - Rockney, James Louis, Jr., Esq. Reed Smith LLP 225 5TH Ave Ste 1200 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2716 Phone: (412) 288-4046 FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Fees and Expenses Resolved in Parshall Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the parties in the case, Parshall v. First BancTrust Corporation, have resolved the plaintiff's counsel's claim for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. On February 13, 2018, an alleged class action complaint was filed by a purported stockholder of First Bank in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware captioned Parshall v. First BancTrust Corporation (Case No. 1:18- cv-00218) against the Company, Merger Sub, First Bank and members of First Bank's board of directors (the "Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit related to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 11, 2017 (as amended by the First Amendment to Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into as of January 18, 2018), among the Company, Merger Sub and First Bank and the merger contemplated thereby (the "Merger"). Among other things, the Lawsuit alleged that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC by the Company on January 22, 2018 failed to disclose allegedly material information relating to the Company's and First Bank's financial projections, the analyses performed by First Bank's financial advisor, and alleged potential conflicts of interest of First Bank's officers, directors and financial advisor. The plaintiff sought, among other relief, to enjoin the Merger from proceeding. The Company believes that the factual allegations in the Lawsuit were without merit. On March 9, 2018, in order to moot plaintiff's disclosure claims, reduce the expenses, burdens, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and avoid the risk of delaying or adversely affecting the Merger, in exchange for the plaintiff agreeing to withdraw the Lawsuit and dismiss his claims with prejudice, the Company and First Bank made additional supplemental disclosures to the proxy statement/prospectus related to the Merger that was first mailed to stockholders of First Bank on or about February 9, 2018. The agreement between the parties did not release or otherwise prejudice any potential claims of any member of the putative class other than the plaintiff and did not constitute any admission by any of the defendants as to the merits of any claims. In January 2019, the parties resolved the plaintiff's counsel's claim for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides community banking products and services to commercial, retail, and agricultural customers in the United States. First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc. was incorporated in 1981 and is headquartered in Mattoon, Illinois. FLEX PHARMA: Rumaldo Agrees to Drop Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Flex Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the case, Teofilina Rumaldo v. Flex Pharma, Inc., et al., has been voluntarily dismissed. On June 19, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company and certain of its current executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Teofilina Rumaldo v. Flex Pharma, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05493. The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between November 6, 2017 and June 12, 2018. The complaint generally alleged that the company and certain of its current officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the company overstated the viability and approval prospects for its product candidate FLX-787 for the treatment of MND and CMT and, as a result, the company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. This case was voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice, on December 10, 2018. Flex Pharma, Inc., a biotechnology company, develops and commercializes products for the treatment of muscle cramps, spasms, and spasticity associated with neurological conditions and exercise-associated muscle cramps in the United States. It operates in two segments, Consumer Operations and Drug Development. Flex Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. FORJAS TAURUS: Burrow Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned WILLIAM BURROW, OMA LOUISE BURROW, SUZANNE M. BEDWELL, individually and as mother and next friend Class Action of R.Z.B., a minor, and ERNEST D. BEDWELL, individually and as father and next friend of R.Z.B., a minor v. FORJAS TAURUS S.A. and BRAZTECH INTERNATIONAL, L.C., Case No. 1:16-cv-21606-EGT (S.D. Fla.), move the Court for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, and approval of the Notice Program intended to provide notice of the Settlement to potential Class Members, as well as other relief incidental to the Settlement and in furtherance of enabling the Court to conduct a Final Approval Hearing and approve the Settlement Agreement. In particular, the Plaintiffs ask that the Court enter an order: 1. holding that Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is granted; 2. holding that the Settlement Agreement is Preliminarily Approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable to the Settlement Class, and within the reasonable range of possible final approval; 3. holding that the Parties have shown that the Court will likely approve the Settlement Agreement under Federal Rule 23(e)(2) and certify the Settlement Class for purposes of judgment in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, such that giving of notice to all Settlement Class Members who would be bound by the Settlement Agreement is justified; 4. approving the Notice Program as the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and as meeting the requirements of due process and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; 5. directing that Notice be provided to the Settlement Class in accordance with the Notice Program; 6. establishing the procedure for Settlement Class Members to object to final approval of the Settlement Agreement or for Persons to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class, and setting the Opt-Out and Objection Deadline; 7. approving the suggested form Notice of Opt-Out, provided that potential Settlement Class Members need not use the suggested form and may opt-out by providing the information required in another form; 8. approving the method of providing the Enhanced Warranty Service and the claim process provided for in the Settlement Agreement for submitting Claim Forms and determining whether Persons qualify as Validated Claimants; 9. barring and preliminarily enjoining all Settlement Class Members, directly, on a representative basis or in any other capacity, from commencing, prosecuting, intervening in, or participating as a plaintiff or class member in any action, arbitration, or proceeding in any court, arbitration forum or tribunal asserting any of the Released Claims against any of the Released Parties, pending final determination of whether the Settlement Agreement should be approved; 10. staying all proceedings in this civil action except those related to approval and effectuation of the Settlement Agreement, pending final determination of whether the Agreement should be approved; 11. approving and appointing Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions to serve as Claims Administrator, with Hilsoft Notifications (a business unit of Epiq) serving as Notice Provider, to perform the tasks as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and execute the Class Notice and authorizing and approving Braztech's role in the claims process as provided for in Part III(C)(2) of the Settlement Agreement; 12. holding that no discovery (except for reasonable confirmatory discovery requested by Class Counsel) with regard to the Settlement Agreement or its implementation shall be permitted by any prospective Settlement Class Member or any other Person, other than as may be directed by the Court upon a proper showing seeking permission to conduct such discovery by motion filed with the Court, noticed, and served in accordance with applicable rules and procedures; 13. scheduling a hearing on Final Approval of the Agreement; and 14. suthorizing and approving Defendants continuing the Early Warning Program and beginning to provide the Enhanced Warranty Service prior to Final Approval and approving the evidentiary preclusion provided for in Part IV(B) of the Settlement Agreement.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian W. Warwick, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. P.O. Box 1870 Lady Lake, FL 32158 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com - and - Brannon J. Buck, Esq. BADHAM & BUCK, LLC 2001 Park Place North, Suite 500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 521-0036 E-mail: bbuck@badhambuck.com - and - Gregory A. Brockwell, Esq. BROCKWELL SMITH LLC 2100 1st Avenue North, Suite 300 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 800-8505 E-mail: greg@Brockwellsmith.com - and - Chris Bataille, Esq. FLANIGAN & BATAILLE 1007 W. 3rd Ave., Suite 206 Anchorage, AK 99501 Telephone: (907) 279-9999 Facsimile: (907) 258-3804 E-mail: cbataille@farnorthlaw.com - and - Andrew F. Knopf, Esq. PAUL KNOPF BIGGER 840 South Denning Dr., Suite 200 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 622-2111 E-mail: andrew@pkblawfirm.com - and - Vincent Swiney, Esq. SWINEY & BELLENGER, LLC 2910 Linden Ave., Suite 201 Homewood, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 236-6735 E-mail: jvs@sblaw.net FUNKO INC: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Kanugonda Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a lead plaintiff has been appointed in the class action suit entitled, Kanugonda v. Funko, et al. On June 4, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit Kanugonda v. Funko, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against the company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain other defendants. On January 4, 2019, a lead plaintiff was appointed in that case. Judge Ricardo S. Martinez granted Plaintiff Carl Berkelhammer's Renewed Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Lead and Liaison. Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs, sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc. was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington. FUNKO INC: Still Defends Securities Suit in King County ------------------------------------------------------- Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County. On November 16, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County against the company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the company's initial public offering (IPO), entitled Robert Lowinger v. Funko, Inc., et. al. In January and March 2018, five additional putative class action lawsuits were filed in Washington state court, four in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County and one in the Superior Court of Washington in and for Snohomish County. Two of the King County lawsuits, Surratt v. Funko, Inc. et. al. (filed on January 16, 2018) and Baskin v. Funko, Inc. et. al. (filed on January 30, 2018), were filed against the company and certain of its officers and directors. The other two King County lawsuits, The Ronald and Maxine Linde Foundation v. Funko, Inc. et. al. (filed on January 18, 2018) and Lovewell v. Funko, Inc. et. al (filed on March 27, 2018), were filed against the company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON, Fundamental and certain other defendants. The Snohomish County lawsuit, Berkelhammer v. Funko, Inc. et. al. (filed on March 13, 2018), was filed against the company, certain of its officers and directors, and ACON. On May 8, 2015, the Berkelhammer action was voluntarily dismissed, and on May 15, 2018 a substantially similar action was filed by the same plaintiff in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County. On April 2, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit Jacobs v. Funko, Inc. et. al was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against the company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain other defendants. On May 21, 2018 the Jacobs action was voluntarily dismissed, and on June 12, 2018 a substantially similar action was filed by the same plaintiff in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County. On July 2, 2018, all of the above-referenced suits were ordered consolidated for all purposes into one action under the title In re Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County. On August 1, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON, Fundamental, and certain other defendants. On October 1, 2018, the company moved to dismiss that action. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the company's motion to dismiss on October 31, 2018, and the company filed its reply to plaintiffs' opposition on November 30, 2018. Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs, sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc. was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington. GLASSMAN AUTO: Installers Claim Overtime Pay for Hrs Worked Over 40 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Cline and Jeremy Meade, for themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Glassman Auto Repair, LLC and Matt Stone, individually, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00043, (S.D. Ohio, February 13, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid compensation, including overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Glassman specializes in auto glass replacement and repairs where Cline and Meade worked as installers. Glassman failed to pay them for the hours in excess of 40 they worked in a workweek, including premium pay for the overtime hours worked, saya the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley L. Gibson, Esq. Brian G. Greivenkamp, Esq. GIBSON LAW, LLC 9200 Montgomery, Rd., Suite 11A Cincinnati, OH 45242 Tel: (513) 834-8254 Email: brad@gibsonemploymentlaw.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid for Class Cert. in Adeptus Health Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a class certification motion has been pending in in the consolidated class action related to the sale of Adeptus Health securities. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed beginning in October 2016 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include certain former directors and officers of Adeptus Health Inc. (Adeptus), as well as Adeptus' sponsor. As to the underwriters, the consolidated complaint, filed on November 21, 2017, relates to the $124 million June 2014 initial public offering, the $154 million May 2015 secondary equity offering, the $411 million July 2015 secondary equity offering, and the $175 million June 2016 secondary equity offering. GS&Co. underwrote 1.69 million shares of common stock in the June 2014 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $37 million, 962,378 shares of common stock in the May 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $61 million, 1.76 million shares of common stock in the July 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $184 million, and all the shares of common stock in the June 2016 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $175 million. On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. On September 12, 2018, the defendants' motions to dismiss were granted as to the June 2014 and May 2015 offerings but denied as to the July 2015 and June 2016 offerings. On September 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint to remove the dismissed claims. On December 7, 2018, plaintiffs moved for class certification. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces 1MDB-Related Class Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company is facing a putative securities suit in New York regarding the company's disclosure concerning the scandal in 1Malaysia Development Berhad or 1MDB, an insolvent Malaysian strategic development company, wholly owned by that country's Minister of Finance . On December 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Group Inc. and certain current and former officers of the firm alleging violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange Act with respect to Group Inc.'s disclosures concerning 1MDB and seeking unspecified damages. The firm is cooperating with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and all other governmental and regulatory investigations relating to 1MDB. Proceedings by the DOJ or other governmental or regulatory authorities could result in the imposition of significant fines, penalties and other sanctions against the firm, including restrictions on the firm's activities. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Forex-Related Litigation Underway ------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in litigation involving the sales of foreign currency exchange instruments. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") and the Company ("Group Inc.") are among the defendants named in putative class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in September 2016 on behalf of putative indirect purchasers of foreign exchange instruments. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on June 30, 2017, generally alleged a conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and asserted claims under federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. On March 15, 2018, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, and on October 25, 2018, plaintiffs' motion for leave to replead was denied as to the claim under federal antitrust law and granted as to the claims under state antitrust and consumer protection laws. On November 28, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint asserting claims under various state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws and seeking treble damages in an unspecified amount. GS&Co. and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on November 7, 2018 by certain direct purchasers of foreign exchange instruments that opted out of a class settlement reached with, among others, GS&Co. and Group Inc. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and seeks injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. GS&Co. and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in two putative class actions filed in the district court of the Central District in Israel on behalf of direct purchasers of foreign exchange instruments. The complaints, filed on September 11, 2018 and September 29, 2018, respectively, generally allege a conspiracy to manipulate prices of foreign exchange instruments. The second putative class action also asserts claims based on misuse of the "last look" features of foreign exchange trading systems. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: NY Securities Class Suit Stayed Pending Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the district court has stayed the proceedings in a securities class action pending an appellate court's decision. Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group Inc.'s public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's activities in the collateralized debt obligation market, and the firm's conflict of interest management. The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which names as defendants Group Inc. and certain current and former officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seeks unspecified damages. The defendants have moved for summary judgment. On December 11, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted the defendants' petition for interlocutory review of the district court’s August 14, 2018 grant of class certification. On January 23, 2019, the district court stayed proceedings in the district court pending the appellate court's decision. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Approved in Cobalt Securities Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has approved a settlement of the claims against the Goldman Sachs defendants related to the sale of securities of Cobalt International Energy, Inc. The Company (Group Inc.), certain former directors of Cobalt International Energy, Inc. (Cobalt), who were designated by affiliates of Group Inc., and GS&Co. are among defendants in a putative securities class action relating to certain offerings of Cobalt's securities, and are among the parties that have reached a settlement. On February 13, 2019, the court approved a settlement of the claims against the Goldman Sachs defendants. The firm has paid its full contribution to the settlement fund. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. HARD TACK: Naiman Files Suits Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Sidney Naiman, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hard Tack, Inc.; and National Motor Club of America, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01738-ESW (D. Ariz., March 15, 2019) is an action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), a federal statute enacted in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. In violation of the TCPA, National Motor hired the co-defendant Hard Tack, who made telemarketing calls to a cellular telephone number of Mr. Naiman for the purposes of advertising National Motor goods and services using an automated dialing system and a pre-recorded message, which is prohibited by the TCPA. The Plaintiff never consented to receive the calls, which were placed to him for telemarketing purposes, says the complaint. Plaintiff Naiman is a resident of Arizona in this District. National Motor Club of America, Inc. is a corporate entity formed under the laws of the State of Alaska. Hard Tack, Inc. is a corporate entity registered in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trinette G. Kent, Esq. Kent Law Offices 3219 E Camelback Rd #588 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Phone: (480) 247-9644 Facsimile: (480) 717-4781 Email: tkent@lemberglaw.com - and - Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com HASBRO INC: Class Suit Over Toys "R" Us Disclosure Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Hasbro, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a putative securities class action lawsuit over the company's alleged misleading statements with the financial condition of Toys"R"Us, Inc. On or about September 28, 2018, a putative securities class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of the company's officers and/or directors (the "Defendants") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, on behalf of all purchasers of Hasbro common stock between April 24, 2017 and October 23, 2017, inclusive. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, alleging that Defendants purportedly made materially false and misleading statements in connection with the financial condition of Toys"R"Us, Inc. and its impact on the Company, as well as the financial impact on the Company's business of economic conditions in the United Kingdom and Brazil. Defendants deny liability and intend to vigorously defend the action. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Hasbro, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a play and entertainment company. The company's U.S. and Canada segment markets and sells action figures, arts and crafts, and creative play products; electronic toys and related electronic interactive products; fashion and other dolls, infant products, play sets, preschool toys, plush products, and sports action blasters and accessories; and vehicles and toy-related specialty products, as well as traditional board games, and trading card and role-playing games primarily in the United States and Canada. Hasbro, Inc. was founded in 1923 and is headquartered in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. HAUDENOSAUNEE DEV'T: Ordered to Pay $15K to Class Action Plaintiffs ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nahnda Garlow, writing for Two Row Times, reports that a Hamilton judge has ordered the defendants to pay $15,500 in costs to Bill Monture and Wilf Davey in a putative class action that is now moving towards certification. Justice Lococo issued his decision on January 7, 2019 and ordered Haudenosaunee Development Institute, Hazel Hill, Brian Doolittle, Aaron Detlor, the HDI's Ontario Corporation 2438543 Ontario Inc, Ogwawista Dedwahsnye Inc. and Elvera Garlow to make payment by February 7, 2019. Lawyer for Davey and Monture, Jeffrey Kaufman, told TRT the payment was received late on March 5. Now, he says, the case will proceed toward a motion for certification as a class action. In his decision from September 12, 2018 Justice Lococo writes that the plaintiffs are seeking $50 million in damages for the proposed class members, referred to in the claim as "the Haudenosaunee People". Justice Lococo gave a decision verifying that the claims being made by Davey and Monture have merit to come before the courts. HDI's lawyers sought to have the case tossed but were unsuccessful. Justice Lococo disagreed writing in his judgment that he does not agree "that it is plain and obvious that the plaintiffs' claim has no reasonable chance for success". None of the claims have been proven in court, however it is now potentially on its way to becoming a class action suit. Justice Lococo said that four items; breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation and oppression have tenability to be argued in the case. Claims in the lawsuit allege a breach of fiduciary duty by Elvera Garlow with her role in HDI's federal financial management corporation known as Ogwawista Dedwahsnye Inc. According to Corporations Canada, Ogwawista is listed as a not-for-profit corporation with three original founding board members: Elvera Garlow, Colin Martin and Lousie Hill. Martin signed the documents in the articles of incorporation as the incorporator. In 2017, Hill left the board and Kelly MacNaughton was listed as her replacement. The board changed again in 2018 with the departure of Garlow and new member Myka Burning added to the federal corporation. HCCC's lawyer Aaron Detlor is also being sued in the case for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Justice Lococo writes the plaintiffs claim Mr. Detlor was retained by the HCCC to act as their lawyer with respect to development projects on Haudenosaunee land and that Detlor had a responsibility to act in good faith. The plaintiffs say they suffered damages as a result of Mr. Detlor breeching that contract. Additional claims against the HDI and its officials allege the numbered company, Ogwawista and the individual directors engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation of the Haudenosaunee people and have added an additional claim of Oppression. The relief from oppression claim is specifically against 2438543 Ontario Inc. under the Ontario Business Corporations Act — which protects an entities shareholders against prejudice and prevents corporations from disregarding their interests. The plaintiffs say all of the Haudenosaunee people are shareholders according to the corporations construction, and that they relied on the defendants to "protect the rights of the class but instead, the defendants misappropriated the funds." [GN] HCP OXFORD: Knowles Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HCP Oxford OBG Felix Sub-Tenant, LLC. The case is styled as Carlton Knowles on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HCP Oxford OBG Felix Sub-Tenant, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01870 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 18, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hcp Oxford Obg Felix Sub-Tenant, LLC (trade name Hotel Felix) is in the Resort Hotel business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: CK Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group PLLC 30 E 39th St-2nd Fl New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com HERITAGE-CRYSTAL CLEAN: Appeal in Adelphia Class Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Heritage-Crystal Clean, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2018, that the company has taken an appeal from the Circuit Court's grant of class certification in the case entitled, Adelphia, Inc. d/b/a/ Village Auto and Dan's One Stop Shop, LLC v. Heritage-Crystal Clean, Inc. and Heritage-Crystal Clean, LLC The Company is currently defending a putative class action lawsuit, Adelphia, Inc. d/b/a/ Village Auto and Dan's One Stop Shop, LLC v. Heritage-Crystal Clean, Inc. and Heritage-Crystal Clean, LLC, Case No. 15-L-386, in the Circuit Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit in Kane County, Illinois, alleging that the Company charged fees in violation of both its contracts and applicable state laws. The case involves claims brought under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq., as well as claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The case has been brought as a putative class action on behalf of all customers of HCC who entered into a written contract and have paid a fuel surcharge from 2005 to present. The Circuit Court granted Plaintiffs' request for class certification on August 28, 2018. Heritage-Crystal Clean said, "We have petitioned the Illinois Court of Appeals for an interlocutory appeal of this order. It was granted and we are proceeding with the appellant process. As of December 29, 2018, no liability was accrued related to this lawsuit." Heritage-Crystal Clean, Inc., through its subsidiary, Heritage-Crystal Clean, LLC, provides parts cleaning, and hazardous and non-hazardous containerized waste services to small and mid-sized customers in the vehicle maintenance and manufacturing services industries in North America. It operates in two segments, Environmental Services and Oil Business. Heritage-Crystal Clean, Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in Elgin, Illinois. HESKA CORP: Court Approves Settlement in Fauley Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Heska Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the settlement in the class action suit initiated by Shaun Fauley has been approved by the court. On October 10, 2018, the company reached an agreement in principle to settle the complaint that was filed against the Company by Shaun Fauley on March 12, 2015 in the U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois alleging the company's transmittal of unauthorized faxes in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, as a class action. The settlement, which was approved by the court on February 28, 2019, will require the company, among other things, to make available a total of $6.75 million to pay class members, as well as to pay attorneys' fees and expenses to legal counsel to the class. The Company has recorded an estimated loss provision of approximately $7.0 million in 2018 in connection with the settlement agreement and expenses associated with the matter, which is included in general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statements of Income. The Company does not have insurance coverage for the Fauley Complaint. Heska Corporation manufactures, sells, and markets veterinary diagnostic and specialty products for canine and feline healthcare markets in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally. The company was formerly known as Paravax, Inc. and changed its name to Heska Corporation in 1995. Heska Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Loveland, Colorado. HEWLETT PACKARD: Forsyth Class Action Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------------- Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the case entitled, Forsyth, et al. vs. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, is still stayed. This purported class and collective action was filed on August 18, 2016 and an amended complaint was filed on December 19, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the California Business and Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them with younger workers. Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide collective action under the ADEA comprised of all individuals aged 40 and older who had their employment terminated by an HP entity pursuant to a work force reduction ("WFR") plan on or after December 9, 2014 for individuals terminated in deferral states and on or after April 8, 2015 in non-deferral states. Plaintiffs also seek to certify a Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012. On September 20, 2017, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration and administratively closed the case pending resolution of the arbitration proceedings. On November 30, 2017, three named plaintiffs filed a single arbitration demand. Thirteen additional plaintiffs later joined the arbitration. On December 22, 2017, defendants filed a motion to (1) stay the case pending arbitrations and (2) enjoin the demanded arbitration and require each plaintiff to file a separate arbitration demand. On February 6, 2018, the court granted the motion to stay and denied the motion to enjoin. The claims of these sixteen arbitration named plaintiffs have been resolved. The parties submitted an update to the Forsyth court on February 28, 2019 on the status of additional opt-in plaintiffs who were required to arbitrate their claims. The Forsyth class action remains stayed. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT, Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HEWLETT PACKARD: Jackson Class Action Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------------- Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the class action suit entitled, Jackson, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, has been stayed by the court. This putative nationwide class action was filed on July 24, 2017 in federal district court in San Jose. Plaintiffs purport to bring the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated African-Americans and individuals over the age of forty. Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of racial and age discrimination in lay-offs and promotions. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 29, 2017. On January 12, 2018, defendants moved to transfer the matter to the federal district court in the Northern District of Georgia. Defendants also moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds and to strike certain aspects of the proposed class definition. On July 11, 2018, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss this action for improper venue, and also partially dismissed and struck certain claims without prejudice to re-filing in the appropriate venue. On July 23, 2018, plaintiffs re-filed their lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On August 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of the Northern District of California action with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 15, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay their lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia, which was granted by the court. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT, Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HEWLETT PACKARD: Ross and Rogus Class Action Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action lawsuit entitled, Ross and Rogus v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. On November 8, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed in Santa Clara County alleging that Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (HPE) pays its California-based female employees "systemically lower compensation" than HPE pays male employees performing substantially similar work. The complaint alleges various California state law claims, including California's Equal Pay Act, Fair Employment and Housing Act, and Unfair Competition Law, and seeks certification of a California-only class of female employees employed in certain "Covered Positions." A Case Management Conference is scheduled for March 15, 2019. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT, Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HEWLETT PACKARD: Settlement in Wall Suit Granted Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the court in the case, Wall v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and HP Inc., has issued an order granting final approval of the settlement and setting a hearing for September 27, 2019, to confirm that the settlement distributions have been made. This certified California class action and Private Attorney General Act action was filed against Hewlett-Packard Company on January 17, 2012 and the fifth amended (and operative) complaint was filed against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise on June 28, 2016. The complaint alleges that the defendants paid earned incentive compensation late and failed to timely pay final wages in violation of the California Labor Code. On August 9, 2016, the court ordered the class certified without prejudice to a future motion to amend or modify the class certification order or to decertify. The scheduled January 22, 2018 trial date was vacated following the parties' notification to the court that they had reached a preliminary agreement to resolve the dispute. The parties subsequently finalized and executed a settlement agreement and, on May 9, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement. On July 2, 2018, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. On December 21, 2018, the court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement and setting a hearing for September 27, 2019 to confirm that the settlement distributions have been made. A Qualified Settlement Fund has been fully funded. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT, Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HILL'S PET: Dog Owners Sue Over Toxic Pet Food ---------------------------------------------- Kelly Bone, Christina Sawyer and Janine Buckley, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc., Hill's Pet Nutrition Sales, Inc., And John Does 1-10,, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00831, (E.D. N.Y., February 11, 2019), seek monetary relief and an order forcing Hill's to pull out all potentially toxic products from shelves, redress for breach of contract, duties and covenants of good faith and fair dealing and for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, New York General Business Law and various state consumer protection laws. Hill's manufactures and sells pet food at veterinary clinics and pet retailers across the United States, including specialty dog foods. It has allegedly manufactured, sold and warranted Specialty Dog Foods containing toxic and often fatal levels of vitamin D that can cause symptoms such as vomiting, loss of appetite, increased thirst, increased urination, excessive drooling, and weight loss, and can lead to serious health issues in dogs including renal dysfunction and failure and death. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. TUSA P.C. P.O. Box 566 Southold, NY 11971 Tel. (631) 407-5100 Email: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com - and – TUSA P.C. 150 Motor Parkway, Ste. 401 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Tel. (631) 407-5100 - and - Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. John Scheflow, Esq. Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq. Nyran Rose Rasche, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782 4880 Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com jscheflow@caffertyclobes.com jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com nrasche@caffertyclobes.com HP INC: 189 Plaintiffs Opt in Forsyth Lawsuit --------------------------------------------- HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the opt-ins in Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, now has a total number of 189 plaintiffs. This is a purported class and collective action filed on August 18, 2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging the defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the California Business and Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them with younger workers. Plaintiffs originally sought to certify a nationwide collective class action under the ADEA comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had their employment terminated pursuant to a workforce reduction ("WFR") plan on or after May 23, 2012 and who were 40 years of age or older. Plaintiffs also originally sought to represent a Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after May 23, 2012. Following a partial motion to dismiss, a motion to strike and a motion to compel arbitration that the defendants filed in November 2016, the plaintiffs amended their complaint. New plaintiffs were added, but the plaintiffs agreed that the class period for the putative nationwide ADEA collective action should be shortened and now starts, at the earliest, on December 9, 2014. The plaintiffs also agreed that the class period for the putative California state law class action should be shortened and now starts on August 18, 2012. On January 30, 2017, the defendants filed another partial motion to dismiss and motions to compel arbitration as to several of the plaintiffs. On March 20, 2017, the defendants filed additional motions to compel arbitration as to a number of the opt-in plaintiffs. On September 20, 2017, the Court granted the motions to compel arbitration as to the plaintiffs and opt-ins who signed WFR release agreements, denied the pending motion to dismiss without prejudice, stayed the action and administratively closed the case pending the completion of the compelled arbitrations. On November 30, 2017, three named plaintiffs and twelve opt-in plaintiffs filed a single arbitration demand. An additional arbitration claimant was added later by stipulation. On December 22, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to: (1) stay the claims of individuals not subject to arbitration and (2) enjoin the demanded arbitration and require each plaintiff to file a separate arbitration demand. On February 6, 2018, the Court granted the motion to stay and denied the motion to enjoin. Pre-arbitration mediation proceedings took place on October 4 and 5, 2018, and the claims of all 16 arbitration claimants were resolved. Between November 2018 and February 2019, an additional 150 individuals filed consents to opt‐in to the action as party‐plaintiffs, many of whom signed separation agreements that include class waivers and mandatory arbitration provisions. The addition of these opt-ins brings the total number of plaintiffs to 189. The stay of the litigation remains in place. HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HP INC: April 25 Final Approval Hearing in Printer Firmware Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that a final hearing to consider approval of the settlement in the case entitled, In re HP Printer Firmware Update Litigation, is scheduled for April 25, 2019. Five purported consumer class actions were filed against HP, arising out of the supplies authentication protocol in certain OfficeJet printers. This authentication protocol rejects some third-party ink cartridges that use non-HP security chips. Two of the cases were dismissed, and the remaining cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned In re HP Printer Firmware Update Litigation. The remaining plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 15, 2018, alleging 11 causes of action: (1) unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; (2) fraudulent business practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; (3) violations of the False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500, et seq.; (4) violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq.; (5) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices ‒ Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. Section 17.01, et seq.; (6) violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. Section 19.86.010, et seq.; (7) violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, New Jersey Statutes Ann. 56:8-1, et seq.; (8) violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1030, et seq.; (9) violations of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Cal. Penal Code Section 502; (10) Trespass to Chattels; and (11) Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations and/or Prospective Economic Advantage. On February 7, 2018, the plaintiffs moved to certify an injunctive relief class of "all persons in California who own a Class Printer" under the "unfair" prong of the California unfair competition statute and a class of "all persons in the United States who purchased a Class Printer and experienced a print failure while using a non-HP aftermarket cartridge during the period between March 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and common law trespass to chattels. On March 29, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part HP's motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim under the "unfair" prong of the California unfair competition statute, claims under the non-California consumer protection statutes, and claim for tortious interference with contractual relations and/or prospective economic advantage. The court also dismissed in part the plaintiffs' fraud-based claims under the California consumer protection statutes and computer hacking claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. The court denied HP's motion to dismiss with respect to the plaintiffs' claim for trespass to chattels and claim under the "unlawful" prong of the California unfair competition statute. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend on all of the dismissed claims, except the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act claim to the extent it was based on two specific subsections of that statute. On September 18, 2018, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release pursuant to which the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss all claims against HP in exchange for a $1.5 million payment to the class and an agreement that HP would not reinstall the authentication protocol on the printers at issue. The settlement is subject to the approval of the court. The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which was granted by the court on November 19, 2018. Notice of the settlement was given to the class beginning on January 7, 2019, and class members will have 120 days in which to opt out of or object to the settlement. A final approval hearing is scheduled for April 25, 2019. HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HYUNDAI: Class Action Over Brake Defect Can't Proceed ----------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a consumer's suit alleging a brake defect in Hyundai's Santa Fe SUVs can't be certified as a class action because she hasn't adequately proved the commonality of the alleged damages suffered. [GN] KNISHKA RESTAURANT: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jose Nelson Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Knishka Restaurant Associates Inc., d/b/a Akbar Restaurant, and Pradeep Malhotra and Meena Malhotra, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. CV-19-1476 (E.D. N.Y., March 14, 2019) is an action against the Defendants to recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiffs employment at the Defendant's restaurant. Although Plaintiff Jose Nelson Ramirez worked approximately 72 or more hours per week during his employment by Defendants, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. Moreover, the Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by both the NYLL and the FLSA. The Defendants also failed to keep accurate payroll records, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Jose Nelson Ramirez was employed by Defendants from in or around March 2007 until in or around October 2018. Knishka Restaurant Associates Inc., d/b/a Akbar Restaurant, is a corporation organized under the laws of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kcw Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 KPA STUDIO: Jin Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------------- JINHUA JIN, on behalf of herself individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v. KPA STUDIO, INC.; AEG PAYROLL PROCESSING CENTER NO. 58, INC.; APPLIED UNDERWRITING, INC.; JIHAN "ERIC" KIM, in his official and Individual capacities; "CHRIS" JIHONG KIM, in his official and individual capacities, Case No. 1:19-cv-01317 (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2019), seeks to recover overtime premiums and other wages she earned but which the Defendants failed to pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. KPA Studio, Inc., is a New York corporation engaged in providing integrated architectural metal and glass building facade design, engineering, fabrication and installation services for construction projects located throughout New York. KPA has maintained a place of business in Richmond Hill, New York. The Individual Defendants are officers of KPA. AEG Payroll Processing Center No. 58, Inc., is a Nebraska corporation engaged in providing payroll preparation and related tax administration and reporting services as the payroll agent for companies around the country, including KPA. Applied Underwriters, Inc., is a Nebraska corporation engaged in providing payroll preparation and related tax administration and reporting services as the payroll agent for companies around the country, including KPA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott B. Gilly, Esq. SCOTT BROWNING GILLY, P.L.L.C. 510 Fifth Avenue, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 319-9556 LABOR NETWORK: Cruz Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------- Guadalupe Cruz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Labor Network Personnel Services, Inc. and Aryzta, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00858, (N.D. Ill., February 11, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, state law statutory penalties, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Labor Network provides laborers to client companies in Illinois. Cruz was assigned to work at its client, Aryzta Bakeries, at Clover Hill, Chicago IL. He claims that he was not compensated for all time worked and failed to pay him premium overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Williams, Esq. WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, PC 53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701 Chicago, IL 60604 Tel: (312) 795-9121 - and - Alexandria Santistevan, Esq. FARMWORKER & LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 33 N. LaSalle, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 784-3541 Email: litigation@flapillinois.org LASSENS NATURAL: Caballero Hits Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks ----------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Caballero individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lassens Natural Foods & Vitamins, LLC, a limited liability company; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV08555 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 13, 2019) is action against the Defendant for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. Throughout the statutory period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked (including overtime and double-time wages), failed to provide Plaintiff with uninterrupted meal periods, failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff to take uninterrupted rest periods, failed to maintain accurate records of the hours Plaintiff worked, failed to timely pay all final wages to Plaintiff when Defendants terminated Plaintiffs employment, and failed to furnish accurate wage statements to Plaintiff, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a California resident who worked for Defendants in Los Angeles County, California as a deli employee from approximately August 2017 to October 2018. Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry, business, and establishment within the State of California, including Los Angeles County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com LVNV FUNDING: Court Refuses to Approve Elliott Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Rebecca Grady Jennings denied without prejudice the Joint Motion for Certification of Settlement Class and Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement filed by the parties in the lawsuit titled ANTHONY ELLIOTT v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-00675-RGJ-LLK (W.D. Ky.). Plaintiff Anthony Elliott brings this action against LVNV seeking relief for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Proposed Settlement would create two classes "Class I: Prejudgment Court Costs Class" and "Class II: Judgment Lien Filing Fee and Garnishment Fee Class" (the "Prejudgment Class" and "Post-Judgment Class," respectively). Class I encompasses those against whom LVNV sought to collect "prejudgment court costs." Class II encompasses those against whom LVNV tried to collect a "post-judgment filing fee paid by LVNV to file a 'Notice of Judgment Lien Upon Real Estate'" and/or a "post-judgment garnishment fee." The Proposed Settlement also details the benefits that the two Classes would receive. Class I members would receive an amount equal to the "prejudgment court costs" LVNV has collected, or sought to collect, from them, either in the form of a credit to their account with LVNV, or, if they no longer have an account with LVNV, in cash. Class I members would also receive another $75 in statutory damages. Class II members would receive the same benefit, an amount equal to the "prejudgment court costs" that LVNV has collected, or sought to collect, from them, as well as the added $75 in statutory damages. In her order, Judge Jennings opines that the Proposed Settlement is not fair, reasonable, and adequate. Judge Jennings notes that Class II is not composed of individuals on whom LVNV imposed prejudgment costs, it is made up of individuals on whom LVNV imposed post-judgment fees. "Thus, as written, the Proposed Settlement provides Class II members with only the $75.00 statutory award received by members of both classes, while Class I members would receive that $75.00 statutory award and an additional award based on the actual damages they suffered. And while Class II members would receive minimal benefit from the Proposed Settlement, they are subject to the same release of claims as Class I members," Judge Jennings rules. A telephonic status conference is scheduled for April 9, 2019, at 11:00 a.m.[CC] MARINA'S BAKERY: Brito Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage, Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Brito, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marina's Bakery Corp., Margarito Gonzalez and Sergio Gonzalez, in their individual and professional capacities, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00828 (E.D. N.Y., February 12, 2018), seeks minimum wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards and the New York Labor Law. Defendants own and operate two restaurants and bakeries in Staten Island, New York, both named "Marina's Bakery." Defendants allegedly paid their employees below the applicable State minimum wage and never paid them overtime compensation or spread of hours pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Innessa Melamed Huot, Esq. Alex J. Hartzband, Esq. Patrick J. Collopy, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 983-9330 Fax: (212) 983-9331 Email: ihuot@faruqilaw.com ahartzband@faruqilaw.com pcollopy@faruqilaw.com - and - Jeffrey L. Olshansky, Esq. S. Tito Sinha, Esq. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT URBAN JUSTICE CENTER 123 William St, 16th Floor New York, NY 10038 Phone: (646) 923-8315 Fax: (212) 533-4598 E-mail: jolshansky@urbanjustice.org tsinha@urbanjustice.org MDL 2545: Kilpatrick Attorney Discusses Court Ruling ---------------------------------------------------- James F. Bogan III, Esq. -- jbogan@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that there are two ways to beat a class action -- defeat class certification or defeat the class claims on the merits. Individual RICO actions tend to be complex and expensive to defend, and they increase a defendant's exposure, given that RICO's civil remedies include treble damages and fee-shifting. RICO class actions only add to the complexity, expense, and exposure. Accordingly, defendants in RICO class actions usually seek the dismissal of civil RICO claims at the earliest opportunity. Recent decisions in RICO class actions against pharmaceutical companies demonstrate how this strategy plays out. In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation In a prior post [RICO class actions: To win certification, the RICO claims must be driven by defendant-specific and not class-member specific evidence; otherwise, individualized issues predominate], we reported on the denial of class certification of a putative RICO class action in the case In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2545, Case Nos. 14 C 1748, 14 C 8857, 2018 WL 3586182 (N.D. Ill., July 26, 2018) ("MMO III"). In that MDL proceeding, which was consolidated in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois, thousands of individuals asserted personal injury claims against a number of defendants, consisting of manufacturers, promoters, and sellers of testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) drugs. The individual plaintiffs claimed that use of TRT drugs caused serious personal injuries, such as "cardiovascular and venous thromboembolic injuries." Id. at *1. One of the plaintiffs in the MDL, however, was Medical Mutual of Ohio (MMO), an insurer and third-party payor (TPP) seeking to represent a nationwide class of TPPs. MMO claimed that the TPPs suffered financial harm as the result of the defendants' fraudulent marketing schemes, by reimbursing medically unnecessary or even harmful TRT prescriptions. MMO's original complaint was 434 pages long and alleged a number of nationwide schemes to defraud. It identified 23 defendants and sorted them into 7 different groups. As for the civil RICO claims, the complaint alleged a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), as well as a claim for RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). The defendants moved to dismiss, including for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim. The district court largely denied this motion, ruling that MMO had Article III standing to bring the RICO claims, that MMO had sufficiently alleged RICO proximate cause, and that MMO had sufficiently alleged a RICO conspiracy. But the district court agreed that the fraud-based predicate acts (mail and wire fraud) had not been alleged with sufficient particularity and gave MMO the opportunity to submit an amended complaint. Ultimately, some of MMO's RICO claims were allowed to proceed, and the case moved into the class certification discovery phase. See In re Testosterone Replacement Therapy Prods. Liab. Litig., 159 F. Supp. 3d 898 (N.D. Ill. 2016) ("MMO I"), and In re Testosterone Replacement Therapy Prods. Liab. Litig., Nos. 14 C 1748, 14 C 8857, MDL No. 2545, 2016 WL 4091620 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2016) ("MMO II"). After class discovery, MMO moved for class certification. But the district court denied MMO's motion for class certification, concluding that individualized issues predominated, because the evidence going to the key issues of exposure to and reliance on the alleged fraud -- the evidence critical to a showing of RICO proximate cause -- required class-member by class-member proof. MMO III, 2018 WL 3586182. In a later ruling granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on MMO's individual RICO claims, the district court dismissed the claims on the merits, ruling on the basis of detailed summary judgment evidence that no reasonable jury could find that MMO relied on the defendants' alleged misrepresentations and, therefore, no reasonable jury could find that defendants' alleged fraud proximately caused MMO's alleged RICO injury -- the reimbursement of TRT prescriptions. In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2545, Case Nos. 14 C 1748, 14 C 8857, 2019 WL 652217 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 14, 2019) ("MMO IV"). In re: Insulin Pricing Litigation In another RICO case against pharmaceutical companies, In re: Insulin Pricing Litigation, Case No. 3:17-cv-0699-BRM-LHG, 2019 WL 643709 (D.N.J. Feb. 15, 2019), plaintiffs accused the defendants of engaging in a scheme to inflate the price of insulin products. The first case was filed in the District of New Jersey and was later consolidated with 5 other class actions. Ultimately, a First Amended Complaint was filed on behalf of 67 individuals seeking to represent a nationwide class of insulin consumers. The pharmaceutical companies moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The district court denied the motion in substantial part, ruling that plaintiffs adequately alleged RICO predicate acts, a RICO enterprise, proximate causation, and a RICO conspiracy. But the RICO claim fell short in one key respect – the indirect purchaser rule. The plaintiffs did not buy insulin products directly from the pharmaceutical companies. Indeed, "Plaintiffs [were] multiple purchasers down the distribution chain from Defendants and [were] quintessential indirect purchasers for the purposes of the indirect purchaser rule." 2019 WL 643709, at *9. Because plaintiffs did not and could not allege that they purchased the insulin products directly from the defendants, their claims were subject to dismissal without prejudice for lack of standing, as per the indirect purchaser rule established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the antitrust cases Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) and Kansas v. UtiliCorp United Inc., 497 U.S. 199 (1998). These putative RICO class actions advanced creative and complicated RICO allegations against pharmaceutical companies. The defendants, however, were ultimately able to expose the soft underbellies of the RICO liability theories advanced in those cases. Attorneys defending RICO defendants -- especially in RICO class actions -- must always be looking for ways to win the dismissal of RICO claims. But, as especially demonstrated in In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation, the path to dismissal can be a long and difficult process. [GN] METHUEN, MA: Police Superior Officers Union Files Wage Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Tom Duggan, writing for Valley Patriot, reports that the Methuen Superior Officers Union has filed a wage violation grievance against the city saying that; "The City of Methuen has, on an ongoing and continuous basis, and in an arbitrary manner violated the provisions of the parties' CBA (contract) in effect from July 1, 2017 through June 20, 2020 as implemented by agreement under the terms of the parties' MOU (Memorandum Of Understanding) dated July 18, 2018, by failing to pay wages and other compensation to bargaining unit members as required by the terms of the CBA, MOU, and established practice. The actions of the city also violate provisions of Massachusetts state law." The grievance lists five counts against the city. Union President Greg Gallant says that in addition to the wage violation grievance they have also filed an unfair labor action against the city for refusing to turn over records pertaining to their wage violation. He related that the city actions have also been discriminatory and punitive, stating the city has over the last six months responded to a public records request, in which they released their home addresses, social security numbers and other personal information that is exempt from public release under the state's public records law. "Honestly, our union members did not want to take this action," Greg Gallant, president of the superior officers union told The Valley Patriot late on March 6. "The city councils lack of understanding in collective bargaining and Massachusetts Labor Law has really forced our hand." "The union demands that the city immediately and retroactively abide by the terms of the CBA and make all bargaining unit members whole, and also award any additional remedy provided for under Massachusetts General Law, including treble (triple) damages as provided by the Massachusetts Wage Act. [GN] MICHIANA CHRYSLER: Class Action Over Deceptive Act Can Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- Katie Stancombe, writing for The Indiana Lawyer, reports that Mishawaka car dealership failed to convince the Indiana Court of Appeals that it was wrongly denied its motion to dismiss a class action complaint from several angry customers after the panel found general allegations of uncured and incurable acts against the dealership were enough for dismissal. In purchasing their respective vehicles from Michiana Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram Fiat, Tatiyana Sanders, Shalonda Vida and Robert Sheppard alleged they were each charged with a document preparation fee that was neither affirmatively disclosed nor negotiated. The customers thus argued in a July 2017 class action complaint against Michiana that the document fee exceeded actual expenses incurred for preparation of the documents, and that other Michiana customers who purchased cars in the two years prior had also been unfairly charged. Specifically, the buyers alleged Michiana's fee was an "unfair, abusive, or deceptive act, omission, or practice in connection with a consumer transaction" in violation of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act. However, the customers instead cited a statutory provision from the Indiana Motor Vehicle Dealer Services Act, Indiana Code section 9-32-13-7. Michiana filed a motion to dismiss the customers' complaint, arguing they had failed to state a claim for relief pursuant to the Consumer Act and that they had no private right under I.C. section 9-32-13-7. Despite agreeing that they had no private cause of action under their cited statute, the customers asserted the reference was merely descriptive of an unfair consumer practice prohibited by the Consumer Act. Noting a catch-all provision broadly defining deceptive acts in the Consumer Act permitted the claim of non-disclosure, the St. Joseph Circuit Court denied Michiana's motion to dismiss and certified the order for interlocutory appeal. The Indiana Court of Appeals found the trial court correctly denied Michiana's motion in Gasbi, LLC d/b/a Michiana Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram Fiat v. Tatiyana Sanders, et al.,18A-PL-1865, noting Michiana was not justified on grounds that the consumers identified acts already addressed by I.C. section 9-32-13-7 without providing a private cause of action. Additionally, the court found that in order to state a claim under the Consumer Act, the consumers needed to allege Michiana committed an uncured or incurable deceptive act. It also noted, however, that the consumers' complaint relied on the premise that conduct that would constitute a violation of I.C. Section 9-32-13-7 would also be a deceptive act within the meaning of the Consumer Act. "We find the general allegations of uncured and incurable acts adequate to withstand dismissal. The question before the trial court was whether the complaint stated a claim as opposed to whether the plaintiffs would likely prevail on the merits," Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote for the court. "At the pleading stage, a party may assert alternative and even inconsistent theories of recovery; it is sufficient to plead the operative facts of the case so that the defendant is put on notice of the expected trial evidence." The appellate court thus found the customers' complaint should not be dismissed as long as it stated a set of allegations on which it could be granted relief, "no matter how unartfully pleaded." [GN] MIZUHO BANK: Lack Moves to Certify Class of California Residents ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JOSEPH LACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MIZUHO BANK, LTD., a Japanese financial institution, and MARK KARPELES, an individual, Case No. 2:18-cv-00617-RGK-GJS (C.D. Cal.), moves to certify this class: All California residents who wired money to Mt. Gox KK's bank account at Mizuho Bank, Ltd., between June 20, 2013 and February 24, 2014. Mr. Lack also moves to be appointed as class representative, and to have his counsel appointed as class counsel. This case involves the alleged concealment of information critical to the decision to invest in cryptocurrency. Mizuho Bank provided banking services for Mt. Gox, a bitcoin exchange based in Tokyo. That partnership proceeded with little conflict until Mizuho decided that it no longer wanted to do business with Mt. Gox, and embarked on a months-long quest designed to either force Mt. Gox to sever the relationship or create a pretext for Mizuho to do so without getting blood on its hands, the Plaintiff contends. The centerpiece of this campaign was Mizuho's decision, unilaterally implemented on June 21, 2013, to no longer process outbound wire withdrawals from Mt. Gox's account, the Plaintiff asserts. That information was not shared with the world either by Mt. Gox's owner, Defendant Mark Karpeles, or by Defendant Mizuho. Mr. Lack contends that this information was material to the decision to invest in bitcoin on the Mt. Gox exchange, and that Mizuho intentionally did not disclose this information because it wanted to avoid appearing culpable for difficulties Mt. Gox users encountered. The Court will commence a hearing on April 29, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. J. Aaron Lawson, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Facsimile: (415) 373-9435 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com alawson@edelson.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Clark Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- Cindy Clark, on behalf of Stephen A. Clark, deceased, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00450 (E.D. Mo., March 14, 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: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD, LLC 9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: 913 451 3433 E-mail: kogoza@gohonlaw.com MONTGOMERY COUNTY: Henderson Files Suit for Racial Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Henderson, Natasha Patterson and Mychelle Sneed-Jacobs, Plaintiffs v. Montgomery County Community College, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01064-JD (E.D. Penn., March 14, 2019) is a civil action seeking compensatory, punitive and non-pecuniary damages based on pattern and practice of race discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA). Plaintiff Henderson began working for Defendant in March 2008 at the Director of Upward Bound Partnership for Student Success. Over time, she was promoted to Dean of Academic Affairs. As a Dean, she faced constant oversight, harassment and scrutiny by the administration and the faculty union, none of which was experienced by her Caucasian counterparts. Plaintiff Natasha Patterson was initially hired by Defendant in 2014 as a Diversity Fellow. Throughout her tenure she was denied promotion after promotion despite being more qualified than other non-African-American candidates. Plaintiff Mychelle Sneed-Jacobs began working for Defendant in October 2017 as the Assistant Vice President of Academic Affairs. She was summarily terminated less than four months later for no apparently justifiable reason. Once she was terminated, the Defendant could not wait to replace her with the under qualified Caucasian female they sought to hire in the first place. The Defendant has and is engaged in an ongoing pattern and practice of race discrimination and knowingly employs company-wide policies and practices that have a disparate impact on African-Americans. The Defendant's systemic discrimination against African-Americans include, but is not limited to, the practices described above, says the complaint. Plaintiffs are Africana-American female adults. Montgomery County Community College is a college of higher education located at 340 Dekalb Pike, Blue Bell, PA 19438.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Edward McCain III, Esq. Zakia E. Moore, Esq. McCain Law, P.C. 1515 Market Street, Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 236-1086 Fax: (215) 543-3343 Email: jmccain@mccain-law.com zmoore@mccain-law.com MOVING SOLUTIONS: Rider Seeks Prelim. Nod of $470,000 Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled BARBARA MIDDLE RIDER FOR GARY MIDDLE RIDER, an individual, ROBERT GARZA, an individual, ALBERT ARELLANO, an individual, JOSE DON CORONADO, an individual, PLAINTIFFS AND PUTATIVE PLAINTIFFS v. MOVING SOLUTIONS, a California Corporation MANAGED FACILITIES SOLUTIONS, LLC a California Limited Liability Company and CHARTWELL STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., a New York Corporation licensed to do business in California, Case No. 5:17-cv-04015-LHK (N.D. Cal.), moves for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. This is a class action complaint filed on behalf of nonexempt movers against the Defendants. After a full day of mediation, the Parties agreed to settle this case for $470,000 to be paid by the Defendants. The Settlement Sum includes attorney's fees, costs and expenses directly related to the case. The Settlement Administration costs are estimated to be $16,000. Subject to Court approval, Class Representatives Barbara Middle Rider, Robert Garza, Albert Arellano, and Jose Don Coronado shall receive Service Awards of $5,000 each. Subject to Court approval, Class Counsel will be paid up to $117,500 for attorneys' fees, and an additional amount for reasonable litigation costs not to exceed $8,500. The members of the class shall recover damages based upon the number of work weeks they worked during the class period. The net settlement is an estimated $290,183. If every potential claimant returns a claim form, then a total of approximately 17,225 work weeks will be paid. In that case each claimant shall be paid approximately $16.85 for every week they worked for the Defendants.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Dal Bon, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES DAL BON 606 N. 1st St. San Jose, CA 95112 Telephone: (408) 466-5845 Facsimile: (408) 286-7111 E-mail: jdb@wagedefenders.com - and - Victoria L.H. Booke, Esq. BOOKE & AJLOUNY 606 North First Street San Jose, CA 95112 Telephone: (408) 286-7000 Facsimile: (408) 286-7111 E-mail: vbooke@bookelaw.com NATERA INC: Hale Sues Over Unauthorized Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------- Teresa Hale, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Natera, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01402 (N.D. Cal., March 15, 2019) is a class action complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Natera in sending text messages to Plaintiff on her cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). By sending unauthorized text messages to Plaintiff and individuals throughout the nation, Natera violated federal law and caused them concrete harm. Specifically, by effectuating these unauthorized text messages, Natera has violated individuals' statutory and privacy rights and has caused individuals actual harm, not only because individuals were subjected to the aggravation and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies wireless spam, but also because individuals frequently have to pay their cell phone service providers for the receipt of such wireless spam, says the complaint. Plaintiff Teresa Hale is a citizen residing in Kansas City, Missouri. Natera is a provider of numerous genetic tests to doctors with patients who are pregnant or wishing to become pregnant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Annick M. Persinger, Esq. Tanya S. Koshy, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone (510) 254-680 Facsimile (202) 973-0950 Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com tkoshy@tzlegal.com - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Andrea R. Gold, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Phone (202) 973-0900 Facsimile (202) 973-0950 Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com agold@tzlegal.com - and - Rachel Soffin, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone (865) 247-0080 Facsimile (865) 522-0049 Email: rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com NEWELL BRANDS: Still Defends Oklahoma Firefighters Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit entitled, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell Brands Inc., et al. The Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors have been named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, on behalf of all persons who acquired Company common stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the April 2016 acquisition of Jarden (the "Registration Statement"). The action was filed on September 6, 2018, and is captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell Brands Inc., et al., Civil Action No. HUD-L-003492-18. The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants made certain materially false and misleading statements and omissions in the Registration Statement regarding the Company's financial results, trends, and metrics. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but has not specified the amount of damages being sought. The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously. Newell Brands Inc. designs, manufactures, sources, and distributes consumer and commercial products worldwide. Newell Brands Inc. was formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and changed its name to Newell Brands Inc. in April 2016. The company was founded in 1903 and is based in Hoboken, New Jersey. NHS PENNSYLVANIA: Brown's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Martin L. C. Feldman denies without prejudice as moot the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action in the lawsuit captioned CHRISTOPHER BROWN, SR., on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees v. NHS PENNSYLVANIA, INC. and MERAKEY PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 2:18-cv-01617-MLCF-JVM (E.D. La.). The Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement and advised that the parties would file pleadings for dismissal within 20 days. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is denied without prejudice as moot.[CC] OJKAV INC: Fears Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------ Dione Fears, Jose Gomez, and Francisco Bermudez, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Ojkav, Inc., and FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01827 (N.D. Ill., March 15, 2019) is a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and a class action in the State of Illinois under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), based upon the Defendants' failure to properly or fully compensate them for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants did not pay the Named Plaintiffs or any member of the putative FLSA or IMWL Classes any additional compensation for time that they worked in excess of 40 hours per week, notes the complaint. The Defendants' policies and practices with regard to their failure to properly classify drivers as non-exempt employees, track and record drivers' hours, and/or accurately pay its drivers overtime workweek-by-workweek, were applied uniformly with respect to the Named Plaintiffs and all members of the putative FLSA and IMWL Classes, adds the complaint. Plaintiffs reside in Chicago, Illinois and have worked as delivery drivers for the Defendants beginning in or around March 2016 through approximately February 2019. Ojkav, Inc. is a Contractor Service Provider ("CSP") of Fedex Ground, and employs pickup and delivery drivers throughout the nation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq. Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq. Madeline Engel, Esq. Caffarelli & Associates Ltd. S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 763-6880 OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NY Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company's motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action suit in New York is still pending. On November 16, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint captioned Dror Gronich v. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), Case No. 1:17-cv-08983-NRB. On November 17, 2017, a second purported securities class action complaint captioned Steve Klein v. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth was filed against the Company and the same officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:17-cv-09024-NRB. Thereafter, the Court considered a series of applications by various shareholders to be named lead plaintiff, consolidated the two actions and designated Royce Setzer as the lead plaintiff. Pursuant to a Scheduling Order entered by the Court, lead plaintiff Setzer and additional plaintiff Earl Holtzman filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on May 25, 2018 (the "Securities Class Action"). The Securities Class Action purports to be a class action brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired the Company's securities between May 3, 2017 and October 31, 2017. The Securities Class Action alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making materially false and/or misleading statements, and by failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including the financial and operating results of one of the Company's operators, the ability of such operator to make timely rent payments, and the impairment of certain of the Company's leases and the uncollectibility of certain receivables. The Securities Class Action, which purports to assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. The Company and the officers named in the Securities Class Action filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 17, 2018. Briefing on the Motion to Dismiss is complete, and the Court heard Oral Argument on February 13, 2019. Although the Company denies the material allegations of the Securities Class Action and intends to vigorously pursue its defense, we are in the early stages of this litigation and are unable to predict the outcome of the case or to estimate the amount of potential costs. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. is a real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company invests in and provides financing to the long-term care industry. Omega operates healthcare facilities in the United States which are operated by independent healthcare operating companies. ONLY NY: Delacruz Claims Website not Blind-friendly --------------------------------------------------- Emanuel Delacruz, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Only NY Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01345 (S.D. N.Y., February 12, 2019), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Only NY Inc., operates a retail location at 176 Stanton Street, New York, NY including the Only NY website, www.onlyny.com. Delacruz claims that this is not accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired.. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com OTTO CLIPS: Bennington Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Brianna Bennington, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Otto Clips Company, Lorraine Stockberger, individually and George Stockberger, individually, Case No. 19-cv-05367 (D. N.J., February 11, 2019), seeks to recover to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. Defendants operate a beauty salon where Bennington worked as a stylist. She claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for the hours that she worked. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com PATTERSON COS: Amended Complaint Filed in Kramer Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 26, 2019, that an amended complaint has been filed in the class action suit initiated by Nathaniel Kramer. On October 9, 2018, Nathaniel Kramer filed indirect purchaser litigation against Patterson Companies, Inc., Henry Schein, Inc. and Benco Dental Supply Company in the United States District Court for the District of Northern District of California. The purported class action complaint asserts violations of the California Cartwright Act and the California Unfair Competition Act based on an alleged agreement between Schein, Benco, and Patterson (and unnamed co-conspirators) not to compete as to price and margins. Plaintiff alleges that the agreement allowed the defendants to charge higher prices to dental practices for dental supplies and that the dental practices passed on all, or part of, the increased prices to the consumers of dental services. Subject to certain exclusions, the complaint defines the class as all persons residing in California purchasing and/or reimbursing for dental services from California dental practices. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction, actual damages to be determined at trial, trebled, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On December 7, 2018, an amended complaint was filed asserting the same claims against the same parties. Patterson said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, we believe that the indirect purchaser action is without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this litigation." Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. PATTERSON COS: Faces Hatchett Class Suit in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------- Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 26, 2019, that the company has been named as defendant in a purported class action suit initiated by R. Lawrence Hatchett, M.D. On January 29, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed by R. Lawrence Hatchett, M.D. against Patterson Companies, Inc., Henry Schein, Inc., Benco Dental Supply Company, and unnamed co-conspirators in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that members of the proposed class suffered antitrust injury due to an unlawful boycott, price-fixing or otherwise anticompetitive conspiracy among Schein, Benco and Patterson. The complaint alleges that the alleged conspiracy overcharged Illinois dental practices, orthodontic practices and dental laboratories on their purchase of dental supplies, which in turn passed on some or all of such overcharges to members of the class. Subject to certain exclusions, the complaint defines the class as all persons residing in Illinois purchasing and/or reimbursing for dental care provided by independent Illinois dental practices purchasing dental supplies from the defendants, or purchasing from buying groups purchasing these supplies from the defendants, on or after January 29, 2015. The complaint alleges violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act, 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. Sections 10/3(2), 10/7(2), and seeks a permanent injunction, actual damages to be determined at trial, trebled, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. Patterson said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, we believe that the indirect purchaser action is without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this litigation." Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. PATTERSON COS: Plymouth County Retirement Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 26, 2019, that the company continues to defend a federal securities class action suit entitled, lymouth County Retirement System v. Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson and Ann B. Gugino. On March 28, 2018, Plymouth County Retirement System ("Plymouth") filed a federal securities class action complaint against Patterson Companies, Inc. and its former CEO Scott P. Anderson and former CFO Ann B. Gugino in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota in a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson and Ann B. Gugino, Case No. 0:18-cv-00871 MJD/SER. On November 9, 2018, the complaint was amended to add former CEO James W. Wiltz and former CFO R. Stephen Armstrong as individual defendants. Under the amended complaint, on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Patterson's common stock between June 26, 2013 and February 28, 2018, Plymouth alleges that Patterson violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose that Patterson’s revenue and earnings were "artificially inflated by Defendants' illicit, anti-competitive scheme with its purported competitors, Benco and Schein, to prevent the formation of buying groups that would allow its customers who were office-based practitioners to take advantage of pricing arrangements identical or comparable to those enjoyed by large-group customers." In its class action complaint, Plymouth asserts one count against Patterson for violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and a second, related count against the individual defendants for violating Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plymouth seeks compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' witness fees and costs. On August 30, 2018, Gwinnett County Public Employees Retirement System and Plymouth County Retirement System, Pembroke Pines Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers, Central Laborers Pension Fund were appointed lead plaintiffs. Patterson said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, we believe that the class action complaint is without merit, and we are vigorously defending ourselves in this litigation. We do not anticipate that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial statements. Patterson has also received requests under Minnesota Business Corporation Act Section 302A.461 to inspect corporate books and records relating to the issues raised in the securities class action and the antitrust matters." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. PATTERSON COS: Settlement Agreement Inked in Dental Supplies Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 26, 2019, that the parties in the case entitled, In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, have executed a settlement agreement. Beginning in January 2016, purported antitrust class action complaints were filed against defendants Henry Schein, Inc., Benco Dental Supply Company and Patterson Companies, Inc. Although there were factual and legal variations among these complaints, each alleged that defendants conspired to foreclose and exclude competitors by boycotting manufacturers, state dental associations, and others that deal with defendants' competitors. On February 9, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered all of these actions, and all other actions filed thereafter asserting substantially similar claims against defendants, consolidated for pre-trial purposes. On February 26, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was filed by Arnell Prato, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., d/b/a Down to Earth Dental, Evolution Dental Sciences, LLC, Howard M. May, DDS, P.C., Casey Nelson, D.D.S., Jim Peck, D.D.S., Bernard W. Kurek, D.M.D., Larchmont Dental Associates, P.C., and Keith Schwartz, D.M.D., P.A. (collectively, "putative class representatives") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB. Subject to certain exclusions, the putative class representatives seek to represent all private dental practices and laboratories who purchased dental supplies or equipment in the U.S. directly from any of the defendants, during the period beginning August 31, 2008 until March 31, 2016. In the consolidated class action complaint, putative class representatives allege a nationwide agreement among Henry Schein, Benco, Patterson and non-party Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc. not to compete on price. The consolidated class action complaint asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeks equitable relief, compensatory and treble damages, jointly and severally, interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees. On September 28, 2018, the parties executed a settlement agreement that proposes, subject to court approval, a full and final settlement of the lawsuit on a class-wide basis. Subject to certain exceptions, the settlement class consists of all persons or entities that purchased dental products directly from Henry Schein, Patterson, Benco and Burkhart, or any combination thereof, during the period August 31, 2008 through and including March 31, 2016. Patterson said, "As a result, we recorded a charge of $28.3 million in our first quarter 2019 results in our Corporate segment." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. PBF HOLDING: Goldstein Class Action Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------- PBF Holding Company LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from a class action lawsuit 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' subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of the company's 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' added an additional plaintiff. PBF Holding 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 Holding Company LLC refines and supplies unbranded transportation fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants, and other petroleum products in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey. PBF Holding Company LLC is a subsidiary of PBF Energy Company LLC. PBF HOLDING: Kendig Suit Transferred to Calif. Central District --------------------------------------------------------------- PBF Holding Company LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 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., has been 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 Holding 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 Holding Company LLC refines and supplies unbranded transportation fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants, and other petroleum products in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey. PBF Holding Company LLC is a subsidiary of PBF Energy Company LLC. PETE AND GERRY'S: Lugones Files False Ad Suit in NY --------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE LUGONES, TRICIA RIZZI, MARCUS SIEZING, and CLAUDIA VASSALLO, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals v. PETE AND GERRY'S ORGANICS, LLC and NELLIE'S FREE RANGE EGGS, Case No. 1:19-cv-02097-KPF (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2019), alleges that the Defendants knowingly lied to the Plaintiffs and potential Class members and perpetuated their deception through the sale of falsely advertised free range eggs to millions of consumers in order to pad their bottom line. The Plaintiffs aver that they believed they were buying and eating eggs from laying hens that enjoyed lives free from unnecessary pain and distress, had access to green fields, space to spread their wings and engage in natural behaviors, and the opportunity to thrive in functional social groupings, as advertised by the Defendants. The harsh reality, the Plaintiffs contend, is that Nellie's crams and stuffs hens into sheds up to 20,000 at a time, which overcrowding prevents the hens from extending their wings, foraging, or making their way to the outdoor space Nellie's advertises so prominently. Pete and Gerry's Organics, LLC, is a New Hampshire corporation headquartered in Monroe, New Hampshire. Pete and Gerry's is one of the nation's largest sellers of eggs, with $177 million in reported sales revenue in 2017. Nellie's Free Range Eggs is an entity controlled by Pete and Gerry's Organics and has the same corporate address. Pete and Gerry's Organics uses the Nellie's Free Range Eggs corporate identity to conduct various business, including a new partnership with the Boston Red Sox. Nellie's is one of the largest sellers of eggs from free-range laying hens.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeanne M. Christensen, Esq. Julia Elmaleh-Sachs, Esq. WIGDOR LLP 85 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 257-6800 Facsimile: (212) 257-6845 E-mail: jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com jelmaleh-sachs@wigdorlaw.com - and - Asher Smith, Esq. PETA FOUNDATION 1536 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 483-7382 Facsimile: (202) 540-2208 E-mail: AsherS@petaf.org PPG INDUSTRIES: Certification of Stockholders Class Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- Joe Cammarata, Lead Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled TREVOR MILD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., MICHAEL H. MCGARRY, VINCENT J. MORALES, and MARK C. KELLY, Case No. 2:18-cv-04231-RGK-JEM (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court for an order certifying this Class: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired PPG Industries, Inc. common stock between January 19, 2017 through May 10, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period") and who were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are Defendants PPG Industries, Inc., Michael McGarry, Vincent Morales, and Mark Kelly; the officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant times; members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. The Plaintiff also seeks appointment as Class Representative and for the appointment of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Class Counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on April 29, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] Lead Plaintiff Joe Cammarata is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Peter A Binkow, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Jason L. Krajcer, Esq. Leanne H. Solish, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com pbinkow@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com jkrajcer@glancylaw.com lsolish@glancylaw.com PROTECTIVE LIFE: Unit Still Defends Advance Trust & Life's Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Protective Life Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a company subsidiary continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities Intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective Life Insurance Company. Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities Intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290, is a putative class action that was filed on August 13, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Plaintiff alleges that Protective Life Insurance Company (PLICO) required policyholders to pay unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life and variable universal life policies issued or administered by PLICO or its predecessors that provide that cost of insurance rates are to be determined based on expectations of future mortality experience. The plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and other unspecified relief. Protective Life said, "The Company is vigorously defending this matter and cannot predict the outcome of or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that might result from this litigation." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Protective Life Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides financial services primarily in the United States. The company engages in the production, distribution, and administration of insurance and investment products. The company was founded in 1907 and is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. Protective Life Corporation is a subsidiary of Dai-ichi Life Holdings, Inc. RALPH LAUREN: Does Not Pay Tailors Overtime Wage, Luna Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- FELIX LUNA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION; BHAMBI'S CUSTOM TAILORS, LTD; HARRY OM, LLC d/b/a BHAMBI'S CUSTOM TAILORS; H&L CUSTOM TAILORS, LLC d/b/a/ BHAMBI CUSTOM TAILORS; HARERAM SADHWANI, (a.k.a. HARRY BHAMBI and HARRY BHAMBI SADHWANI), an Individual; and LAL SADHWANI (a.k.a. LAL BHAMBI), an Individual, Case No. 1:19-cv-02084 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2019), alleges that Bhambi's failed to pay overtime to its tailors, who work at its store and at Ralph Lauren in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Ralph Lauren Corporation is a Delaware corporation with a global headquarters and a principal place of business at 650 Madison Avenue, in New York City. Ralph Lauren is a global apparel design, marketing, production, and distribution company. Bhambi's Custom Tailors, LTD, Harry Om, LLC, and H&L Custom Tailors, LLC, are New York corporations with their principal place of business located in New York City. They do business as Bhambi's Custom Tailors. The Individual Defendants are owners, officers or managers of the Bhambi Corporations. The Bhambi Entity Defendants have common ownership, unified operation and/or control, and operate as a single tailoring business located at 14 East 60th Street, Suite 610, in New York City. Ralph Lauren engaged Bhambi to provide tailors to work at its store beginning in about 2016. Ralph Lauren contracted with Bhambi for Bhambi to supply employees to work as tailors at the Ralph Lauren retail store located at 867 Madison Avenue, in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Schley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SCHLEY, LLC 245 Park Avenue, 39th Floor New York, NY 10167 Telephone: (212) 672-1848 E-mail: mschley@schleylaw.com REALPAGE INC: Jones Sues Over Inaccurate Background Reports ----------------------------------------------------------- DIANE D. JONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC. d/b/a LEASINGDESK SCREENING, Case No. 1:19-cv-00501-JG (N.D. Ohio, March 6, 2019), is a consumer class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act brought on behalf of rental applicants nationwide, who were the subjects of background reports prepared by the Defendant. Ms. Jones contends that the Defendant systematically violates the FCRA by failing to use reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of information included on the reports it sells to prospective landlords. Specifically, the Plaintiff argues, the Defendant violates fundamental accuracy requirement of the FCRA by reporting criminal record information about consumers, including her, that does not pertain to them and which in fact relates to a different person with an entirely different name. RealPage, Inc., is a consumer reporting agency that regularly conducts business in the state of Ohio in its own name and as "LeasingDesk Screening." RealPage maintains a principal place of business in Richardson, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew A. Dooley, Esq. O'TOOLE, MCLAUGHLIN, DOOLEY & PECORA CO., LPA 5455 Detroit Rd. Sheffield Village, OH 44054 Telephone: (440) 930-4001 Facsimile: (440) 934-7208 E-mail: mdooley@omdplaw.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. 1600 Market Street, 25th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735.8600 Facsimile: (215) 940.8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com RELATED COMPANIES: Website not Accessible to Blind, Fischler Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- A case, BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE RELATED COMPANIES, L.P., d/b/a Truffles Tribeca, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02329 (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2019), is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, www.truffles.nyc, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Fischler and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant denies full and equal access to its Website. The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Blind and visually impaired users of Windows operating system-enabled computers and devices have several screen-reading software programs available to them. Some of these programs are available for purchase and other programs are available without the user having to purchase the program separately. Job Access With Speech ("JAWS") is currently the most popular, separately purchased and downloaded screen-reading software program available for a Windows computer. For screen-reading software to function, the information on a website must be capable of being rendered into text. If the website’s content is not capable of being rendered into text, the blind or visually impaired user is unable to access the same content available to sighted users. The international website standards organization, the World Wide Web Consortium, known throughout the world as W3C, has published version 2.0 Level AA of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG 2.0"). WCAG 2.0 are well-established guidelines for making websites accessible to blind and visually impaired people. These guidelines are universally followed by most large business entities and government agencies to ensure its websites are accessible. The Defendant owns and manages buildings throughout the United States, including the building, Truffles Tribeca, located at 34 Desbrosses Street, New York, New York. It rents within this building, studio apartments, and apartments with one or more bedrooms. The Defendant's Website is heavily integrated with this apartment building, serving as its gateway. Through the Website, Defendant's tenants and prospective tenants are, inter alia, able to: learn information about the building, including its location, apartment features and building amenities; view images and floor plans of the apartments; search availabilities; learn about pricing, and contact a leasing agent through a form contained on the Website.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: 212 392 4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com REV GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated IPO-Related Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ REV Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action related to the company's January 2017 initial public offering (IPO). A consolidated federal putative securities class action and a consolidated state putative securities class action are pending against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock in or traceable to its January 2017 initial public offering (IPO) and of purchasers in its secondary offering of common stock in October 2017, as well as, for the federal action, purchasers from October 10, 2017 through June 7, 2018. The actions also name certain of the underwriters for the Company's IPO or secondary offering as defendants. The federal and state courts each consolidated multiple separate actions pending before them, the first of which was filed on June 8, 2018. The actions allege certain violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and, for the federal action, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Collectively, the actions seek certification of the putative classes asserted and compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The underwriter defendants have notified the Company of their intent to seek indemnification from the Company pursuant to the IPO underwriting agreement regarding the claims asserted with respect to the IPO, and the Company expects the underwriters to do the same in regard to the claims asserted with respect to the October 2017 offering. The Company and the other defendants intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Additional lawsuits may be filed and, at this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuits, the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of the lawsuits, or any potential effect that it may have on the Company or its operations. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. REV Group, Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes specialty vehicles in the United States, Canada, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, the Caribbean, and internationally. It operates through three segments: Fire & Emergency, Commercial, and Recreation. REV Group, Inc. was formerly known as Allied Specialty Vehicles, Inc. and changed its name to REV Group, Inc. in November 2015. The company is headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Hubner Files Securities Class Action in NY --------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Hubner, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Revolution Lighting Technologies, Inc., Robert V. LaPenta, Charles J. Schafer, and James A. DePalma, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02308 (S.D. N.Y., March 14, 2019) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Revolution Lighting securities between March 14, 2014, and November 14, 2018, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On October 17, 2018, Revolution Lighting reported preliminary financial results for third quarter 2018, with revenue expected to be $33 million, compared to previous guidance of $40-$41 million. On this news, Revolution Lighting's stock price fell $0.98 per share, or over 38%, to close at $1.58 per share on October 17, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Revolution Lighting was improperly recognizing revenue for certain transactions; (ii) as a result, Revolution Lighting's financial statements were misstated; (iii) Revolution Lighting lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; (iv) as a result, Revolution Lighting would be subject to regulatory scrutiny and incur substantial costs; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about Revolution Lighting's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the complaint. Plaintiff purchased Revolution Lighting securities and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions alleged herein. Revolution Lighting designs and manufactures light-emitting diode ("LED") lighting solutions for industrial, commercial, and government markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Takata and Klapper Class Suits Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ Riot Blockchain, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a consolidated Takata v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al. and Klapper v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al. On February 17, 2018, Creighton Takata filed an action asserting putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's shareholders in the United District Court for the District of New Jersey, Takata v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-02293. The complaint asserts violations of federal securities laws under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of shareholders that purchased stock from November 13, 2017 through February 15, 2018. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and directors made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false and/or misleading statements in press releases and public filings regarding its business plan in connection with its cryptocurrency business. The complaint requests damages in unspecified amounts, costs and fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified relief. Two additional, nearly identical complaints were subsequently filed by Richard Roys and Bruce Greenawalt in the United District States Court for the Southern District of Florida (Roys v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 9:18-cv-80225) and the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (Greenawalt v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00440), respectively. On March 27, 2018, the court closed the Roys case for administrative purposes. On April 2, 2018, Mr. Greenawalt filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of his action, which the court entered on the same date. On April 18, 2018, Joseph J. Klapper, Jr., filed a complaint against Riot Blockchain, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors in the United District Court for the District of New Jersey (Klapper v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-8031). The complaint contained substantially similar allegations and the same claims as those filed by Mr. Takata, and requests damages in unspecified amounts, costs and fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified relief. On November 6, 2018, the court in the Takata action issued an order consolidating Takata with Klapper into a single putative class action. The court also appointed Dr. Golovac as Lead Plaintiff and Motely Rice as Lead Counsel of the consolidated class action. Lead Plaintiff's consolidated complaint is due on or before January 7, 2019. Riot Blockchain, Inc. focuses on building, supporting, and operating blockchain technologies, primarily through its cryptocurrency mining operations and other developed businesses, as well as joint ventures, acquisitions, and targeted investments in the sector. Riot Blockchain, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is based in Castle Rock, Colorado. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Ontiveros Moves for Prelim. OK of $8MM Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled YADIR A. ONTIVEROS, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC., a Delaware Corporation; SAFELITE GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; SAFELITE GLASS CORP., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-07118-DMG-RAO (C.D. Cal.), move the Court for entry of an order: 1. preliminarily certifying the proposed Settlement Classes under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the majority of which have already been certified by way of Court Order on a motion for class certification; 2. approving the filing of a Second Amended Complaint, in order to add Francisco Curiel as a named plaintiff, and in order to add a claim for waiting time penalties, which Plaintiff Ontiveros does not have standing to pursue as a current employee of Safelite, and which Mr. Curiel is already pursuing through an action in Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC652703; 3. preliminarily appointing Yadir Ontiveros and Francisco Curiel as Class Representatives for settlement purposes; 4. confirming the appointment of Paul K. Haines, Esq., Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq., Tuvia Korobkin, Esq., Sean M. Blakely, Esq., Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq., and Matthew K. Moen, Esq., of Haines Law Group, APC, as Class Counsel for settlement purposes; 5. preliminarily approving the class action settlement based upon the terms set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement and Release; 6. appointing CPT Group, Inc., as the third-party settlement administrator for mailing notices and otherwise administering the settlement; 7. approving the proposed Rule 23 Class Notice, and directing that it be disseminated to the proposed Settlement Class as provided in the Settlement Agreement; and 8. scheduling a final fairness hearing to consider final approval of the Settlement Agreement, entry of a proposed final judgment, Class Counsel's Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and the Class Representatives' Incentive Payments. If this Settlement is approved, the total settlement amount paid by Safelite will be $8,201,500, which consists of $7,475,000 in new monies and $726,500 in monies already paid by Safelite to Settlement Class Members as part of a Pick Up Stix settlement campaign. Settlement Class Members, who worked as Technicians, which is the vast majority of the Settlement Class, will be receiving 100% of all Labor Code Section 226.7 rest period premium wages and overtime wages that they could establish are owed under a best-case scenario at trial, and will be receiving settlement payments that are in excess of $8,000 on average with the highest payment in excess of $40,000. In addition to Technicians, other non-exempt employees, who are alleged to have been underpaid overtime wages will also be receiving 100% of all overtime wages underpaid to them in addition to amounts for penalties that greatly exceed the unpaid overtime wages at issue. The Court will commence a hearing on April 5, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Tuvia Korobkin, Esq. Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2228 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com SANDERSON FARMS: Discovery Ongoing in Broiler Chicken-Related Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in the broiler chicken-related suits. Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and the company's subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with 13 other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in multiple putative class action lawsuits filed by direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens, thereby violating federal and certain states’ antitrust laws, and also allege certain related state-law claims. The complaints also allege that the defendants fraudulently concealed the alleged anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy. The complaints seek damages, including treble damages for the antitrust claims, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Court has consolidated all of the direct purchaser complaints into one case, and the indirect purchaser complaints into two cases, one on behalf of commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs and one on behalf of end-user consumer plaintiffs. On October 28, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed consolidated, amended complaints, and on November 23, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed second amended complaints. On December 16, 2016, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs separated into two cases. On that date, the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On January 27, 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints in all of the cases, and on November 20, 2017, the motions to dismiss were denied. On February 7, 2018, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint, adding three additional poultry producers as defendants. On February 12, 2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, in which they also added three additional poultry producers as defendants, along with Agri Stats. On February 20, 2018, the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint. On November 13, 2018, the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their fifth amended complaint, adding three additional poultry producers as defendants. On November 28, 2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint. On January 15, 2019, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint, and the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their sixth amended complaint. Both the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs added two new poultry producers as defendants. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. Sanderson Farms said, "We intend to continue to defend the lawsuits vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations." Between December 8, 2017 and February 18, 2019, additional purported direct-purchaser entities individually brought twenty-one separate suits against seventeen poultry producers, including Sanderson Farms, and Agri Stats in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. These suits allege substantially similar claims to the direct purchaser class complaint described above. Those filed in the Northern District of Illinois are now pending in front of the same judge as the putative class action lawsuits. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. On June 26, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to transfer the case filed in the District of Kansas to the Northern District of Illinois, and that motion was granted on September 13, 2018. It is possible additional individual actions may be filed. Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company, produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel, Mississippi. SANDERSON FARMS: North Carolina Class Action Shelved ---------------------------------------------------- Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the Court has granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss and stayed the action in the Eastern District of North Carolina pending resolution of the action in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On January 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and the company's subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On March 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in a second putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The Court ordered the suits consolidated into one proceeding, and on July 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants unlawfully conspired by sharing data on compensation paid to broiler farmers, with the purpose and effect of suppressing the farmers' compensation below competitive levels. The consolidated amended complaint also alleges that the defendants unlawfully conspired to not solicit or hire the broiler farmers who were providing services to other defendants. The consolidated amended complaint seeks treble damages, costs and attorneys' fees. On September 8, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, on October 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their response, and on November 22, 2017, the defendants filed a reply. On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the Sanderson Farms defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss the complaint filed in the Eastern District of Oklahoma on its merits is pending as to the remaining defendants. On February 21, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a substantially similar lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against Sanderson Farms and its subsidiaries and another poultry producer. The plaintiffs subsequently moved to consolidate this action with the Eastern District of Oklahoma action in the Eastern District of Oklahoma for pre-trial proceedings, with the defendants in support thereof. That motion was denied. On July 13, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit in the Eastern District of North Carolina. On January 15, 2019, the Court granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss and stayed the action in the Eastern District of North Carolina pending resolution of the action in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Sanderson Farms said, "We intend to defend this case vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this action. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations." Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company, produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel, Mississippi. SANDERSON FARMS: Plaintiffs' Appeal in NY Securities Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the company is awaiting a ruling on the appeal made by the plaintiff in a putative class action suit before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Sanderson Farms, Inc.; Joe F. Sanderson, Jr., the Chairman of the Registrant's Board of Directors and its Chief Executive Officer; and D. Michael Cockrell, director and Chief Financial Officer, were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed on October 28, 2016, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On March 30, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Lampkin Butts, director, Chief Operating Officer, and President, as a defendant, and on June 15, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The complaint alleges that the defendants made statements in the Company's SEC filings and press releases, and other public statements, that were materially false and misleading in light of the Company's alleged, undisclosed violation of the federal antitrust laws. The complaint also alleges that the material misstatements were made in order to, among other things, "artificially inflate and maintain the market price of Sanderson Farms securities." The complaint alleges the defendants thereby violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), including Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and, for the individual defendants, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seeks damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and entered judgment for the defendants. On January 31, 2018, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That appeal is now fully briefed, and the Court of Appeals heard oral argument on August 31, 2018. Sanderson Farms said, "The Company is awaiting a ruling on the appeal. If the plaintiffs were to prevail in the action, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company, produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel, Mississippi. SEALE MOORER: Employees Hit Unpaid Overtime, Insurance Premiums --------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Campbell, Ryan Carr, Richard Conley, Nicholas Dalton, Jamie Forsythe, Michael Hill, Terry Keith, Joseph Kobalka, Terrance Malone, Nora Merhar, David Miller, Sharon Miller, Cameron Mokas, Michael Schertzer, Matt Stephey, Tammy Tull Oakley, Howard Watts, and Eric Wilder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Seale Moorer, Exceptional Innovation, Inc., SmarTV Company LLC, Quadriga Americas LLC, InterTouch Holdings, LLC and ST Holdings LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00466 (S.D. Ohio, February 12, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other remedies for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Defendants are in the Information Technology industry providing a unified platform of guestroom technology services, including technology solutions for broadband connectivity, multimedia services, interactive television and managed network solutions to the hospitality and healthcare industries in 103 countries. Defendants allegedly failed to compensate Plaintiffs for all hours worked while employed and breached contracts and/or implied contracts and/or agreements by failing to pay the agreed upon weekly compensation, failing to reimburse employees and failing to pay out unused vacation time upon separation. Moreover, Exception Innovation and Seale Moorer failed to pay the premiums to the employees' insurance policies despite deducting a portion of the premium from their paychecks. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Greg R. Mansell, Esq. Carrie J. Dyer, Esq. Kyle T. Anderson, Esq. MANSELL LAW, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Tel: (614) 610-4134 Fax: (513) 826-9311 Email: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com Kyle@MansellLawLLC.com SENTRY ELECTRICAL: Lewis Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHN LEWIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SENTRY ELECTRICAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00178-WOB (S.D. Ohio, March 6, 2019), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, including overtime wages, and all other available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sentry Electrical Group, Inc., is a foreign corporation doing business in multiple states, including Ohio. The Company provides high and medium voltage electrical construction and maintenance services of electrical infrastructure for private owners and public utilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage Street, NW, Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 34 N. High St., Suite 502 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 824-5770 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com SLEEP NUMBER: Cassels and Cadenas Suit Transferred to Fresno County ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sleep Number Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2018, that the Court in the class action lawsuit initiated by Donald Cassels and Jose Cadenas has transferred venue from the Superior Court in San Francisco County to the Superior Court in Fresno County. On September 18, 2018, former Home Delivery Technician, Donald Cassels, and former Field Services Delivery Assistant, Jose Cadenas, filed suit in Superior Court in San Francisco County, California alleging representative claims on a purported class action basis under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. While the two representative plaintiffs were in the Home Delivery workforce, the Complaint does not limit the purported plaintiff class to that group. The plaintiffs allege that Sleep Number failed or refused to adopt adequate practices, policies and procedures relating to wage payments, record keeping, employment disclosures, meal and rest breaks, among other claims, under California law. The plaintiffs purport to represent all former and current Sleep Number employees in the State of California aggrieved by the alleged practices. The Complaint seeks damages in the form of civil penalties and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and expressly disclaims the recovery of any purported individual specific relief or underpaid wages. After Sleep Number raised issues with the plaintiffs' choice of venue, the Court transferred venue from the Superior Court in San Francisco County to Superior Court in Fresno County. Sleep Number said, "We intend to vigorously defend this matter" Sleep Number Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets a line of air bed mattresses. The Company provides a variety of beds, bedding, pillows, mattress pads and layers, sheets, duvets, bed skirts, bases, furniture, bed accessories, and kids blankets. Sleep Number serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. SLEEP NUMBER: Spade Class Action Ongoing in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------ Sleep Number Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2018, that the company intends to seek court dismissal of the purported class action lawsuit initiated by David and Katina Spade. On January 12, 2015, Plaintiffs David and Katina Spade commenced a purported class action lawsuit in New Jersey state court against Sleep Number alleging that Sleep Number violated New Jersey consumer statutes by failing to provide to purchasing consumers certain disclosures required by the New Jersey Furniture Regulations. It is undisputed that plaintiffs suffered no actual damages or in any way relied upon or were impacted by the alleged omissions. Nonetheless, on behalf of a purported class of New Jersey purchasers of Sleep Number beds and bases, plaintiffs seek to recover a $100 statutory fine for each alleged omission, along with attorneys' fees and costs. Sleep Number removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which subsequently granted Sleep Number's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which certified two questions of law to the New Jersey Supreme Court relating to whether plaintiffs who have suffered no actual injury may bring claims. The New Jersey Supreme Court accepted the certified questions and on April 16, 2018, ruled in the company's favor on one of the two questions, holding that a consumer only has standing to bring a claim under the relevant statute if the consumer has been harmed by the defendant's conduct. The Third Circuit remanded the case to the federal district court, which initially allowed the plaintiffs to file its proposed amended complaint, but thereafter rescinded its order and then denied Plaintiffs' request to file the amended complaint. Sleep Number said, "We plan to ask the Court to dismiss the case." Sleep Number Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets a line of air bed mattresses. The Company provides a variety of beds, bedding, pillows, mattress pads and layers, sheets, duvets, bed skirts, bases, furniture, bed accessories, and kids blankets. Sleep Number serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. SOLDIER TRUCKING: Barricelli Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Giovanni Barricelli, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff, v. Soldier Trucking, LLC and Travis Smith, individually, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00136, (M.D. Tenn., February 11, 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. Soldier Trucking receive and deliver packages for Amazon, where Barricelli worked as a delivery driver. He 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: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com SPECIALIZED LOAN: Class Certified in Quinn Suit; April 29 Hearing ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry in the case styled Thomas Quinn, et al. v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-02021 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo. The minute entry states that: -- Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is granted; -- Memorandum Opinion and Order entered; -- Defendant's motion for leave to file sur−reply memorandum in further opposition to motion to certify classes is granted; -- Plaintiff's motion to withdraw is granted; -- Attorney Lloyd J. Brooks, Esq., is terminated; -- Status is hearing set for April 29, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.[CC] STAMPS.COM: Karinski Files Securities Class Action in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Karinski, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Stamps.com, Inc., Kenneth McBride, Kyle Heubner, and Jeff Carberry, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01828 (C.D. Cal., March 13, 2019) asserts violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Defendants repeatedly touted the Company's purportedly strong financial results and relationship with USPS. However, these statements were false and misleading because the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's financial results depended on the manipulation of a USPS reseller program that cost USPS an estimated $235 million per year; and (ii) as a result, the Company's business was unsustainable and its financial results were highly misleading, says the complaint. The truth emerged on February 21, 2019, after the market closed, when Stamps.com held a conference call to discuss its financial results for the fourth quarter of 2018 and fiscal year 2018 as well as its business outlook and "certain strategic items that impact our business outlook for 2019", the complaint asserts. Plaintiff acquired Stamps.com securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures. Stamps.com is a provider of Internet-based mailing and shipping solutions in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 405-7190 Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com SUNRUN INC: Deal in Consolidated Shareholder Suit Has Initial OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sunrun Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the Court has granted preliminary approval of the settlement in the consolidated cases, Fink, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Hall, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., and Sanogo, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al. On May 3, 2017, a purported shareholder class action captioned Fink, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02537, was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against the Company and certain of the Company's directors and officers. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, by making false or misleading statements in connection with public filings made between September 15, 2015 and March 8, 2017 regarding the number of customers who canceled contracts after signing up for the Company's home-solar energy system. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, including interest, attorney's fees, and costs, on behalf of all persons other than the defendants who purchased the Company's securities between September 16, 2015 and May 2, 2017. On May 4, 2017, a purported shareholder class action captioned Hall, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02571, was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. On May 18, 2017, a purported shareholder class action captioned Sanogo, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02865, was filed in the United States District Court, Northern California District of California. The Hall and Sanogo complaints are substantially similar to the Fink complaint, and seeks similar relief against similar defendants on behalf of a substantially similar class. On August 23, 2017, the Fink, Hall, and Sanogo actions were consolidated, and on September 25, 2017, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint which alleges the same underlying violations as the original Fink, Hall and Sanogo complaints (such consolidated action referred to as the "federal court litigation"). On April 5, 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 3, 2018. On July 19, 2018, the court again granted defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice. On August 8, 2018, the Company reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs to settle all claims asserted in the federal court litigation against all defendants for $2.5 million, all of which will be funded by the Company's insurers. The Company and all defendants have denied, and continue to deny, the claims alleged in the federal court litigation and the settlement does not reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or liability as to any defendant. On November 20, 2018, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement is subject to definitive documentation, shareholder notice and final court approval. Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale, ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in the United States. It also sells solar energy systems and products, such as panels and racking, as well as solar leads generated to customers. The company markets and sells its products through direct-to-consumer approach across online, retail, mass media, digital media, canvassing, field marketing, and referral channels, as well as its partner network. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. SUNRUN INC: Settlement of California Suit Wins Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- Sunrun Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has granted final approval of a settlement and entered judgment in the Baker, Cohen, Nunez, and Pytel consolidated lawsuit. The aggregate amount of the settlement is $32.0 million, $30.1 million of which will be funded by the Company's insurers and the remaining $1.9 million of which was accrued as of June 30, 2018. On April 13, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Pytel v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538215, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of the Company's directors and officers, the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and certain other defendants. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), by making false or misleading statements in connection with the Company's August 5, 2015 initial public offering regarding the continuation of net metering programs. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who acquired the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the initial public offering. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, including interest, rescission or rescissory damages, an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, and any equitable or injunctive relief deemed appropriate by the court. On April 29, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Baker et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538419, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. On May 10, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Nunez v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538593, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. The Baker and Nunez complaints are substantially similar to the Pytel complaint, and seek similar relief against similar defendants on behalf of the same purported class. On February 1, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint including allegations related to the alleged effect of customer cancellations on the Company's business. On April 21, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Cohen, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538304, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of the Company's directors and officers, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act by making false or misleading statements in connection with an August 5, 2015 initial public offering regarding the Company's business practices and its dependence on complex financial instruments. The Cohen plaintiffs seek to represent the same class and seek similar relief as the plaintiffs in the Pytel, Nunez, and Baker actions. On September 26, 2016, the Baker, Cohen, Nunez, and Pytel actions were consolidated (such consolidated action referred to as the "state court litigation"). On December 27, 2017, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Following a mediation on May 4, 2018, the parties entered into an agreement in principle to settle all claims asserted in the state court litigation against all defendants. The Company and all defendants have denied, and continue to deny, the claims alleged in the state court litigation and the settlement does not reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or liability as to any defendant. On December 14, 2018, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered judgment. Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale, ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in the United States. It also sells solar energy systems and products, such as panels and racking, as well as solar leads generated to customers. The company markets and sells its products through direct-to-consumer approach across online, retail, mass media, digital media, canvassing, field marketing, and referral channels, as well as its partner network. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. T.B.G. PIZZA: Kenny Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements ---------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kenny, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. T.B.G. Pizza, Inc. and Malament Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a "Domino's Pizza", Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00791-PWG (D. Md., March 14, 2019) is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and a class action under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL") and the Montgomery County minimum wage requirement ("CMW") to recover unpaid minimum wages owed to Plaintiff and all similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at their Domino's Pizza stores. Instead of reimbursing their delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their net wages to fall below the federal and state minimum wages during some or all workweeks, says the complaint. Plaintiff Robert Kenny was employed by the Defendants from the mid-1990s to about March 2018 as a delivery driver at their Domino's Pizza store in Germantown, Maryland. Defendants have operated a chain of about nine Domino's Pizza franchise stores in Maryland and Virginia during times relevant to this case.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michal Shinnar, Esq. GILBERT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C. 1100 Wayne Ave, Ste. 900 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: (301) 608-0880 Facsimile: (301) 608-0881 Email: Mshinnar-efile@gelawyer.com - and - Mark A. Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Phone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com - and - Eli Karsh, Esq. LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH 230 S. Bemiston Ave., Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 862-3333, ext. 13 Facsimile: (314) 862-0605 Email: elikarsh@aol.com TAMPA BAY: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ Steven Sellers, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Tampa Bay Sports & Entertainment LLC, the owner of the Tampa Bay Lightning National Hockey League team, sent unsolicited text messages to lure customers, a new class action lawsuit alleges. The company uses bait-and-switch tactics to entice smart phone users to enter sweepstakes and with other opportunities, then "floods the recipient with nearly daily advertising and telemarketing text messages," the March 5 complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, states. [GN] TAPESTRY INC: Garcia Moves to Certify Class & 5 Subclasses of AMs ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled NORMA GARCIA, individually, on a representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TAPESTRY, INC., a Maryland Corporation which will do business in California as Coach Leatherware California, Inc. DBA Coach; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:18-cv-01537-DMG-SHK (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court for an order certifying a class and five subclasses: * Class: all current and former non-exempt employees with the titles of Associate Manager and/or Assistant Manager employed by Defendant Tapestry, Inc., dba Coach in the State of California from June 13, 2014 to the present; * Security Checkpoint Subclass: All current and former non-19 exempt employees with the titles of Associate Manager and/or Assistant Manager employed by Defendant in the State of California and who were required to go through a security checkpoint during a meal period, rest break and/or at the end of a shift during the period from June 13, 2014 to the present; * Meal Break Subclass: All current and former non-exempt employees with the titles of Associate Manager and/or Assistant Manager employed by Defendant in the State of California who worked a shift in excess of 6 hours during the period from June 13, 2014 to the present; * Rest Break Subclass: All current and former non-exempt employees with the titles of Associate Manager and/or Assistant Manager employed by Defendant in the State of California who worked a shift of at least 3.5 hours during the period from June 13, 2014 to the present; * Waiting Time Penalty Subclass: All current and former employees with the titles of Associate Manager and/or Assistant Manager employed by Defendant in the State of California and who separated from their employment with Defendant during the period from June 13, 2015 to the present; and * Wage Statement Penalty Subclass: All current and former non-exempt employees with the titles of Associate Manager and/or Assistant Manager employed by Defendant in the State of California during the period from June 13, 2017 to the present. Ms. Garcia also asks the Court to appoint her as the Class representative and to appoint her counsel as class counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on May 31, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Mankin, Esq. Misty M. Lauby, Esq. Peter J. Carlson, Esq. FERNANDEZ & LAUBY LLP 4590 Allstate Drive Riverside, CA 92501 Telephone: (951) 320-1444 Facsimile: (951)320-1445 E-mail: bjm@fernandezlauby.com mml@fernandezlauby.com pjc@fernandezlauby.com TENNESSEE: Harris Seeks Certification of Class Under Rule 23 ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned RICKY HARRIS, RANDY JONES, RONNIE ARMSTRONG, JACK NUNLEY, RAYMOND TEAGUE, MICHAEL STEWART, JOHN BOATFIELD, STACY RAMSEY, CHARLES MOSLEY, WILLIAM LEDFORD, BRUCE SMILEY, LAMONT JOHNSON, ANDREW MANN, EDDIE MURPHEY, et al., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER PRISONERS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, STATE OF TENNESSEE, SIMILARLY SITUATED v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, TENNESSEE BOARD OF PAROLE, TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, CANDICE WISEMAN, DIRECTOR OF SENTENCE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SERVICES, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00174 (M.D. Tenn.), moves for class certification. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs move the Court to enter an order determining that this action may be maintained as a class action. Ricky Harris, et al., in Pikeville, Tennessee, appear pro se.[CC] TITLEMAX OF GEORGIA: Stein Sues Over Unremitted Lien Filing Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Stein, individually and on behalf of a class, Plaintiff, v. Titlemax of Georgia, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19A73124 (N.D. Ga., February 5, 2019), seeks damages in the form of having certain loans be deemed void ab initio; three times the amount of any interest or other charges charged or collected on the loan; plus reasonable attorney's fees for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of Georgia Payday Loan Statutes. Titlemax charged Stein a lien filing fee yet did not remit it and charged interest rates on amounts allegedly loaned for the purpose of registering a lien. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Shimshon Wexler, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF SHIMSHON WEXLER, PC 2244 Henderson Mill Rd, Suite 108 Atlanta, GA 30345 Tel: (678) 699-1938 Fax: (678) 609-1482 Email: swexleresq@gmail.com TIVITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Weiner Class Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Tivity Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company's motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit initiated by Eric Weiner remains pending. On November 20, 2017, Eric Weiner, claiming to be a stockholder of the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock between February 24, 2017 and November 3, 2017 ("Weiner Lawsuit"). The Weiner Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming as defendants the Company, the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial officer and a former executive who served as both chief accounting officer and interim chief financial officer. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act in making false and misleading statements and omissions related to the United Press Release. The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. On April 3, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead plaintiff, designated counsel for the lead plaintiff, and established certain deadlines for the case. On June 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On August 3, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and a memorandum in support of a motion to dismiss seeking dismissal on grounds that the first amended complaint fails to plead any actionable statement or omission (the "Motion to Dismiss"). No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement programs in the United States. The company offers SilverSneakers senior fitness program to the members of Medicare advantage, Medicare supplement; and Prime fitness, a fitness facility access program through commercial health plans and employers. The company was formerly known as Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in January 2017. Tivity Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. TRAVELPORT WORLDWIDE: Faces Toro Private Merger-Related Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Travelport Worldwide Limited said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 5, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the merger related suits agrees to the dismissal of their case in exchange of a supplemental disclosure. On December 9, 2018, Travelport Worldwide Limited, a Bermuda exempted company (the "Company"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Toro Private Holdings III, Ltd., a private limited company organized under the laws of England and Wales ("Parent"), and, following execution of a joinder, Toro Private Holdings IV, Ltd., a Bermuda exempted company and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"). The Merger Agreement provides, among other things, that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving company of the Merger and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger"). On February 25, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Stephen Bushansky v. Travelport Worldwide Limited et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00916-SCJ (the "Bushansky Litigation") was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors (the "Board of Directors") pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 14a-9 and against the members of the Board of Directors pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On February 26, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Anthony Franchi v. Travelport Worldwide Limited et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01802-ER (the "Franchi Litigation") was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and the members of the Board of Directors pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 and against the members of the Board of Directors pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On February 27, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Melvyn Klein v. Travelport Worldwide Limited et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01863-LGS (the "Klein Litigation" and, together with the Bushansky Litigation and Franchi Litigation, the "Merger Litigation") was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, the members of the Board of Directors, Merger Sub and Parent pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 and against the members of the Board of Directors pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Merger Litigation relates to the definitive proxy statement filed by the Company with the SEC on February 13, 2019 (the "Proxy Statement") in connection with the Merger. The complaints in the Merger Litigation generally allege that the Proxy Statement omitted certain material information regarding the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement. The Merger Litigation seeks, among other remedies, to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, or in the event that an injunction is not awarded, rescission of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorney's fees. On March 5, 2019, the Company has reached an agreement with the respective plaintiffs to resolve the Merger Litigation. In connection with the resolution of the Merger Litigation, the Company has agreed to make a supplemental disclosures (the "Supplemental Disclosures") to the Proxy Statement. The Supplemental Disclosures should be read in conjunction with the Proxy Statement, which should be read in its entirety. Each of the plaintiffs has agreed that, following the filing of the Current Report on Form 8-K, they will dismiss the respective actions in their entirety, with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs only and without prejudice to all other members of the putative classes. The Company believes that no further supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws and that the Proxy Statement disclosed all material information required to be disclosed therein. However, in order to alleviate the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, the Company has agreed to make these Supplemental Disclosures. The Supplemental Disclosures will not affect the merger consideration to be paid to shareholders of the Company in connection with the Merger or the timing of the special general meeting of the Company's shareholders (the "Special General Meeting") scheduled for March 15, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time at the offices of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 601 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10022. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://goo.gl/tXheE7. Travelport Worldwide Limited, together with its subsidiaries, operates a travel commerce platform that offers distribution, technology, payment, mobile, and other solutions for the travel and tourism industry in the United States, the United Kingdom, and internationally. Travelport Worldwide Limited was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Langley, the United Kingdom. TRIVAGO NV: NY Court Rejects Consolidated Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- trivago N.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a New York court has dismissed a securities class action against the company. The company and certain of its management board members are the subject of two putative class actions that were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. These two actions have since been consolidated into a single action, and an amended complaint was filed in that action on March 30, 2018. The amended complaint asserts claims under the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired trivago's American Depositary Receipts pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the company's initial public offering (IPO) on or about December 16, 2016 and/or on the open market between December 16, 2016 and October 25, 2017. The complaint also names underwriters of our initial public offering as defendants. On May 14, 2018, the company filed a motion to dismiss this matter. On February 26, 2019, the court granted the motion to dismiss as to all defendants, without granting plaintiffs leave to further amend the complaint. The plaintiffs were expected to appeal the decision by March 29, 2019. trivago N.V., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a hotel and accommodation search platform. It offers online meta-search for hotels by facilitating consumers’ search for hotel accommodation through online travel agents, hotel chains, and independent hotels. The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Düsseldorf, Germany. trivago N.V. is a subsidiary of Expedia Group, Inc. TRUECAR INC: Milbeck Seeks Class Certification; Hearing on May 13 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement Fund moves to certify the case entitled LEON D. MILBECK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TRUECAR, INC., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02612-SVW-AGR (C.D. Cal.), as a Class Action. The Lead Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint it as Class Representative, and to appoint Saxena White P.A. as Class Counsel, and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as Liaison Counsel to the Class. The Court will commence a hearing on May 13, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Lead Plaintiff is represented by: Justin B. Farar, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 820 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 575-8604 Facsimile: (310) 444-1913 E-mail: jfarar@kaplanfox.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. Mario M. Choi, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 350 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com mchoi@kaplanfox.com - and - Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. Jason A. Uris, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com jcampisi@kaplanfox.com juris@kaplanfox.com - and - Maya Saxena, Esq. Joseph E. White, III, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. Dianne M. Anderson, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 150 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com jwhite@saxenawhite.com lhooker@saxenawhite.com danderson@saxenawhite.com - and - Steven B. Singer, Esq. Kyla Grant, Esq. Sara DiLeo, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 10 Bank Street, 8th Floor White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 437-8551 Facsimile: (888) 631-3611 E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com kgrant@saxenawhite.com sdileo@saxenawhite.com U.S. XPRESS: Solak Files IPO-Related Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ John Solak, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. 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, Defendants, Case No. 651535/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., March 14, 2019) is a federal securities class action on behalf of those persons and/or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired USX Class A common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"). On May 7, 2018, in connection with the Company's IPO, USX filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC. The registration statement was subsequently amended, with the final amended registration statement on Form S-1/A, and filed on June 11, 2018. The Registration Statement was declared effected by the SEC on June 13, 2018. The complaint asserts that the Registration Statement and Prospectus 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. Because of the materially deficient Offering Documents, Defendants have violated their independent, affirmative duty to provide adequate disclosures about adverse conditions, risks, and uncertainties, says the complaint. Plaintiff purchased USX common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's IPO and has been damaged thereby. USX operates as an asset-based truckload carrier providing services primarily in the United States. It operates through two segments: Truckload and Brokerage.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank R. Schirripa, Esq. Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Hillary M. Nappi, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP 112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 213-8311 Facsimile: (212) 779-0028 UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Commuters Plan to File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ 702 reports that Uber commuters are planning a class action lawsuit against the company. Riders who claim to have been robbed, raped and attacked while using the e-hailing service are behind the suit. A lawyer representing the Uber victims, Ulrich Roux says his clients have all gone through terrible ordeals. "Tracy Stockhall was also attacked by people who entered the vehicle from the boot and she managed to jump out of the vehicle and escape. She sustained severe injuries and is convinced that had she not taken that action, she would have also been raped." Ulrich Roux, Lawyer representing Uber victims, said. "Another couple was also attacked by two men emerging from the boot of their Uber and at the time the male was stabbed and raped the female countless times and taken to a place in Tembisa and only escaped the next morning." [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Miller Thomson Discusses Court Ruling -------------------------------------------------------- Eamonn Flaherty, Esq. -- eflaherty@millerthomson.com -- and Margaret Sims, Esq. -- msims@millerthomson.com -- of Miller Thomson LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that ihe January 2, 2019 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., ("Uber Appeal Decision") has increased the risk that arbitration clauses may be found to be invalid in the face of a potential class action claim. Direct selling companies that rely on such clauses in their contracts with independent salespeople should take notice. In a 2018 decision of Justice Perell in Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., a class action brought by a driver against Uber was stayed based on an arbitration clause. The class action plaintiff appealed and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, the result of which is that the class action can proceed to the certification phase. While it can be expected that Uber will seek leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, Uber has not yet done so; the deadline for Uber to do so is in early March, 2019. Of broader interest is that in allowing the appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal has called into question the enforceability of arbitration clauses in Canada where violations of the employment standards legislation are alleged, and has potentially opened the door for class actions by independent salespeople. In Canada, class action waivers have been effected by way of arbitration clauses, which may or may not include an explicit class action waiver. However, before a direct selling company assumes that their particular arbitration clause will be unenforceable in the face of an unproven class action allegation (that their independent salespeople are employees, as opposed to independent contractors), it should be noted that the facts at issue in the Uber Appeal Decision were a key foundation of the decision, and most direct selling companies will face less risk. Simply put, the context for most direct selling companies will not be the Uber situation, which factually put Uber on the more extreme end of the arbitration clause spectrum. The basic facts in the Uber Appeal Decision are as follows. At issue in the decision was whether Heller entered into a Driver services agreement and an UberEATS services agreement by clicking on "Yes, I Agree" to the agreements when he first logged in to the Driver App. Each agreement contained an arbitration clause (the "Arbitration Clause") which established an arbitration process before the International Chamber of Commerce ("ICC") in the Netherlands based on the laws of the Netherlands. If a driver wanted to pursue a dispute with Uber, the driver was required to pay up-front ICC fees and costs of approximately US$14,500. These fees do not cover counsel fees, travel or other expenses related to participating in the arbitration. This was contrasted with the evidence that, as an UberEATS driver, Heller earned approximately $400 to $600 per week (or about $20,800-$31,200 per year) based on 40 to 50 hours of work delivering food for UberEATS driving his own vehicle, before taxes and expenses. In the Uber Appeal Decision, the panel confirmed that, under section 7 of the Arbitration Act [1], arbitration agreements must be enforced and stays granted, unless there is legislation restricting recourse to arbitration. Despite this baseline finding, for the purpose of whether the class action should be stayed, the Arbitration Clause was found to be invalid because: (i) the Arbitration Clause amounted to an illegal contracting out of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41; and (iii) the Arbitration Clause is unconscionable. As a consequence, the stay of the drivers' class action was set aside and the class action will proceed to the next phase, which is a motion for certification. It is noted that the Uber Appeal Decision does not decide that Uber drivers are employees, but simply finds that the class action is not stayed in favour of arbitration in the Netherlands, as required by the Uber drivers' agreement. The issue of whether Uber drivers are employees is an issue for determination in the class action itself. The takeaway from the Uber Appeal Decision is that to increase the likelihood of an arbitration clause being effective and any class action being stayed in favour of the arbitration, direct selling companies will want to evaluate their arbitration clause and consider whether updating the clause is prudent. The following aspects of the direct seller's arbitration clause and the surrounding circumstances warrant consideration: Location Ideally, the arbitration clause provides that the arbitration be held in the province where the independent salesperson operates his or her direct selling business or, at a minimum, in Canada, but it may be enough that the arbitration is in a somewhat proximate U.S. state (as opposed to farther afield, as was the case in the Uber Appeal Decision). While not the ideal, arbitration in Utah or Arizona, for example, will likely be found to be significantly less onerous than the Netherlands, as was required under the Uber Arbitration Clause. Governing Law There will be less risk if the arbitration clause sets out that disputes will be decided based on the law in the province where the independent salesperson operates his or her direct selling business. If the arbitration clause calls for determination under another jurisdiction's law, then it will be important to provide information on that other jurisdiction's law to the independent salesperson, as part of entering the contract. Cost of Arbitration It is important to make sure that the costs of initiating the arbitration are not out of line with the amount of the dispute. In the Uber Appeal Decision, the high ICC fees which the Uber drivers faced in arbitrating a dispute was a major factor. Not all arbitration organizations have minimum fees which are as high as the ICC. The American Arbitration Association fees are significantly lower, for smaller claims, than the ICC's fees. To get a sense of potential fees, most arbitration centers provide information on their websites to assist with estimating fees.[2] In addition to considerations of which arbitration organization may be appropriate, direct sellers should consider the number of arbitrators required under their arbitration clause. Arbitrations where the governing clause mandates for three arbitrators will be significantly more expensive than an arbitration requiring one arbitrator. Independent Legal Advice As is the case with many contracts, especially standard form contracts, it is best practice to make sure that the independent salesperson's right to obtain independent legal advice in respect of the agreement is brought to their attention and that there is a real opportunity to do so. Rebutting Presumption that Independent Salespeople are Employees In the Uber Appeal Decision, the result was heavily based on the presumption that the drivers were employees; this was based on the presumption that the allegations by the drivers in their class action pleadings were true. Such a presumption can be rebutted. Rebutting the presumption will be important to have a court exercise its discretionary power to stay any class action proceeding in favour of arbitration. In contrast to Uber, which exercises a large degree of control over Uber drivers, it will assist if a direct seller company can demonstrate that they exercise limited controls over their independent salespeople. For many direct seller companies, this will not be difficult as they provide tools to assist their independent salespeople in operating a successful business, but do not control how their independent salespeople run their businesses. Know your Independent Salespeople Finally, it will assist in overcoming arguments that an arbitration clause should not be enforced if the direct seller can show that the independent salesperson is a business or business person and is not a vulnerable person. There will be a higher risk that an arbitration clause will not be enforced if the independent salesperson is found to be a vulnerable person; considerations include the person's ignorance of business, illiteracy, ignorance of the language of the bargain, illness, senility, or disability. While the Uber Appeal Decision does seem disruptive of arbitration clauses, we highlight that the facts at issue in that case are on the far end of the scale. The drivers would have had to pay a hefty price to arbitrate in the Netherlands and they earn relatively small sums as drivers. A finding of unconscionability is unusual. Designing an arbitration process, which does not rise to the egregious facts laid out in Uber, can be accomplished -- to seek to preserve recourse to arbitration to resolve disputes between direct seller companies and their independent salespeople on an individual (as opposed to a class action) basis. [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Victims of Attacks File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- eNCA reports that paying for a ride that might cost you your life. Riders are raped, robbed and attacked in cars and now Uber is facing a multimillion-rand lawsuit by survivors. Susan Dey, mother of singer Tamara Dey, is one of them. Ms. Dey recalled the night she was raped, robbed and beaten by her driver and two accomplices. "The driver wasn't very communicative so I was a little uneasy, but I wasn't listening to that feeling," she said. "When he should have turned right he accelerated and went straight." Ms. Dey said two men appeared behind her, one strangling her and the other holding her at knifepoint. "They threatened to kill me. It was impossible to get loose," Ms. Dey said. After the hours-long ordeal, the men stopped next to the road where they took Dey out of the boot and threw her down an embankment. Lawyer Ulrich Roux said he has received instruction from Ms. Dey and ten other clients to register a class action lawsuit holding Uber responsible for the attacks. "At the end of the day when Susan and the other clients entered the vehicles, they were doing so under the premise that Uber promises to offer safe and reliable service. "Clearly in these incidents, this wasn't the case," he said. Riders should use the following guidelines when using an Uber or any other metered taxi service: Ask the driver to identify you. If he is a certified Uber driver he will have access to the certified software and the trip will be a valid and authorised trip. Ask the driver to open the boot of the vehicle before you enter the vehicle. Rather have one uncomfortable minute than the alternative. Do not supply your destination, rather direct the driver. If you are unsure about where you are heading, make use of your own GPS system on your phone and direct the driver accordingly. Make sure the number plate of the vehicle matches the one on your app. Make use of the "Share my ETA" option on the app. In doing so, a friend will know where you are heading and whether everything is in order. [GN] UNIT CORP: Chieftain Royalty Class Suit Ongoing in Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------------------- Unit Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Chieftain Royalty Company v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-16-230, District Court of LeFlore County, Oklahoma. On November 3, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Unit Petroleum Company styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. Unit Petroleum Company in LeFlore County, Oklahoma. Plaintiff alleges that Unit Petroleum breached its duty to pay royalties on natural gas used for fuel off the lease premises. The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages, an accounting, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. Plaintiff is seeking relief on behalf of Oklahoma citizens who are or were royalty owners in our Oklahoma wells. The company filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the claims asserted by the Plaintiff and the putative class are barred because they have already been asserted by the putative class in the Panola lawsuit and are subject to its reversal of class certification. The court denied the company's motion to dismiss and the company have asked the court to certify its order so that it can be immediately appealed. That issue is still pending before the court. Unit Corp. said, "If we do not ultimately prevail on our claim of issue preclusion, we have several other defenses, including that the case cannot be properly certified as a class action because of the wide variety of circumstances that determine whether a royalty payment was wrongfully withheld. The issue of class certification has not been heard by the court." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Unit Corp. engages in onshore contract drilling of oil and gas wells (for its own account as well as for other companies), exploration and production of oil and gas, and the gathering and transportation of natural gas primarily in the U.S. Unit was founded in 1963 and is based in Tulsa. UNIT CORP: Continues to Defend Panola ISD Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Unit Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend Panola Independent School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma. Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly, Melody Culberson, and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and spacing units for which the company's exploration segment distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing related fees. Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class action on behalf of persons who receive royalty from us for our Oklahoma production. The company have asserted several defenses including that the deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. We have also asserted that the case should not be tried as a class action due to the materially different circumstances that determine what, if any, deductions are taken for each lease. On December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order certifying the class. On May 11, 2012 the court of civil appeals reversed the trial court's order certifying the class. The Plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and on October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied. On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a second request to certify a class of royalty owners slightly smaller than their first attempt. Since then, the Plaintiffs have further amended their proposed class to just include royalty owners entitled to royalties under certain leases in Latimer, Le Flore, and Pittsburg Counties, Oklahoma. In July 2014, a second class certification hearing was held where, besides the defenses described above, we argued that the amended class definition is still deficient under the court of civil appeals opinion reversing the initial class certification. Closing arguments were held on December 2, 2014. Unit said, "There is no timetable for when the court will issue its ruling. The merits of Plaintiffs' claims will remain stayed while class certification issues are pending. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Unit Corp. engages in onshore contract drilling of oil and gas wells (for its own account as well as for other companies), exploration and production of oil and gas, and the gathering and transportation of natural gas primarily in the U.S. Unit was founded in 1963 and is based in Tulsa. UNITED ENROLLMENT: Becker Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Cody Becker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United Enrollment Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-60369 (M.D. Fla., February 11, 2019), seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. United Enrollment Services operates as an insurance marketing agency. They transmitted multiple text messages with intent to encourage its recipients to avail of its services. At no point in time did Becker provide them with his express written consent to be contacted using an automated dialer, notes the complaint.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com UNITED NATURAL: Appeal in Class Suit v. Supervalu Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- United Natural Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 26, 2019, that the appeal taken by the so-called New England plaintiff to the 8th Circuit, in a class action involving Supervalu Inc., is still pending. In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against Supervalu alleging that a 2003 transaction between Supervalu and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, Supervalu purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain of Supervalu's assets to C&S that were located in New England. Three other retailers filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions and the cases were consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District Court in Minnesota. The complaints alleged that the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities that Supervalu and C&S purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are divided into Midwest plaintiffs and a New England plaintiff and are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees. At a mediation on May 25, 2017, Supervalu reached a settlement with the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class, which was the one Midwest class suing Supervalu. The court granted final approval of the settlement on November 17, 2017. The material terms of the settlement include: (1) denial of wrongdoing and liability by Supervalu; (2) release of all Midwest plaintiffs’ claims against Supervalu related to the allegations and transactions at issue in the litigation that were raised or could have been raised by the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class; and (3) payment by Supervalu of $9 million. The New England plaintiff is not a party to the settlement and is pursuing its individual claims and potential class action claims against Supervalu, which at this time are determined as remote. On February 15, 2018, Supervalu filed a summary judgment and Daubert motion and the New England plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and on July 27, 2018, the District Court granted Supervalu's motions. The New England plaintiff appealed to the 8th Circuit on August 15, 2018. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. United Natural Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, distributes natural, organic, and specialty foods and non-food products in the United States and Canada. The company operates through three divisions: Wholesale, Retail, and Manufacturing and Branded Products. United Natural Foods, Inc. was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island. UNITED NATURAL: Customer Data Security Breach Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- United Natural Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 26, 2019, that the customer data security breach suit against Supervalu Inc., is ongoing. On October 22, 2018, the Company acquired all of the outstanding equity securities of Supervalu Inc. In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were filed against Supervalu relating to the criminal intrusion into Supervalu's computer network that were previously announced by Supervalu in its fiscal 2015. The cases were centralized in the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption In Re: SUPERVALU Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. On June 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Supervalu filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and the hearing took place on November 3, 2015. On January 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue as they had not met their burden of showing any compensable damages. On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the District Court's dismissal of the complaint or in the alternative to conduct discovery and file an amended complaint, and Supervalu filed its response in opposition on March 4, 2016. On April 20, 2016, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the District Court's dismissal or in the alternative to amend the complaint. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit and on May 31, 2016, Supervalu filed a cross-appeal to preserve its additional arguments for dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint. On August 30, 2017, the 8th Circuit affirmed the dismissal for 14 out of the 15 plaintiffs finding they had no standing. The 8th Circuit did not consider Supervalu's cross-appeal and remanded the case back for consideration of Supervalu's additional arguments for dismissal against the one remaining plaintiff. On October 30, 2017, Supervalu filed a motion to dismiss the remaining plaintiff and on November 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend its complaint. The court held a hearing on the motions on December 14, 2017, and on March 7, 2018, the District Court denied plaintiff’s motion to amend and granted Supervalu's motion to dismiss. On March 14, 2018, plaintiff appealed to the 8th Circuit and the oral argument occurred on February 12, 2019. United Natural said, "Supervalu had $50 million of cyber threat insurance above a per incident deductible of $1 million at the time of the Criminal Intrusion, which the Company believes should cover any potential loss related to this litigation." United Natural Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, distributes natural, organic, and specialty foods and non-food products in the United States and Canada. The company operates through three divisions: Wholesale, Retail, and Manufacturing and Branded Products. United Natural Foods, Inc. was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island. UNITED STATES: 10K Federal Employees Opt Into NTEU Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Ogrysko, writing for Federal News Network, reports that after a year of proposed pay freezes, executive orders and a historic government shutdown, the National Treasury Employees Union is choosing to look on the bright side, even if its members suffered a few battle scars along the way. After all, a federal district judge overturned nine key provisions of the President's executive orders on collective bargaining and official time. Congress eventually reversed the President's pay freeze and passed a 1.9 percent raise. Lawmakers secured back pay for federal employees during this most recent government shutdown -- and all future ones. And the courts are moving forward with two of NTEU's recently-filed lawsuits that challenge the 35-day government shutdown. About 10,000 federal employees who are part of NTEU's bargaining units have so far opted into the union's class-action lawsuit, which argued the administration violated the Fair Labor Standards Act when it forced excepted federal employees to work without pay during the shutdown. NTEU is pleased that with uptake so far from its collective bargaining members, considering some 25,000 federal employees joined a similar class action lawsuit following the 2013 government shutdown. A judge is considering a motion to consolidate NTEU's case with about a dozen other similar ones, Paras Shah, NTEU's assistant counsel, told reporters on March 6. Most notably, the law firm Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman and Fitch has filed a similar suit on behalf of the American Federation of Government Employees. The government and unions are working with an outside consultant to calculate the amount of liquidated damages that federal employee plaintiffs are owed. Shah said all parties are still sorting through mountains of payroll data. "There's still some pay data to be obtained from agencies," he said. "The government has told plaintiffs counsel in that case that after the damages are calculated that it intends to appeal the Court of Federal Claims ruling to the federal circuit." NTEU, meanwhile, is still pursuing its second shutdown lawsuit, which it filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia during the recent lapse in appropriations. The union's second lawsuit raises a variety of constitutional questions that challenges the Antideficiency Act, the mechanism that ultimately prompts agencies to shut down, furlough some and force other federal employees to work without pay for the duration of a lapse of appropriations. "I wanted to do everything in my power to find an avenue to bring shutdowns to an end," Tony Reardon, NTEU's national president, told reporters. "If you don't have the appropriation in place to pay employees, then they don't work. My bet is that Congress is going to do what they have to do to make sure that there are appropriations in place to make sure that we do not have shutdowns." A federal district judge will consider the government's motion to dismiss NTEU's Antideficiency Act case. Meanwhile, NTEU is encouraging its members to build off the momentum they earned during the recent shutdown to educate and engage members of Congress about their work. "That connection is what we're going to build," Reardon said on March 6 at the union's annual legislative conference in Washington. "We're going to strengthen our existing relationships. We're going to continue to find common ground with those members of Congress who do not always stand with us. We're going to create new relationships with freshman legislators." NTEU fearful of further pay freezes, familiar retirement cuts Still, many of the challenges NTEU faced over the past year will likely resurface again. The Trump administration is appealing the federal judge's decision on the President's executive orders. And while federal employees are still waiting for the 2019 pay raise, Reardon said he has a feeling the White House won't shy away from another proposed pay freeze for the following year. "I'm concerned that we're going to see much of the same," he said of the president's 2020 budget proposal. The president's 2019 budget proposal suggested a pay freeze and a familiar series of cuts for current and future retirees and federal employees. The White House is expected to release its "skinny" budget proposal. NTEU is also preparing for the prospect of more proposed cuts to agency budgets. Preserving the Office of Personnel Management from a proposed reorganization, for example, is another priority for the union. "I'll be the first to tell you, OPM does have some faults," Reardon said. "But that said, it's an independent agency that shields our workforce from direct political control, and that must be maintained." Reardon and other federal employee unions have largely said the past year did little to improve their relationships with the Trump administration. But he said NTEU has struck up positive working relationships with some agency leaders. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb was particularly helpful in finding flexibilities for food and safety inspectors during the shutdown, who were otherwise forced to pay for work travel out of pocket, Reardon said. The union also had positive and productive conversations with Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan to resolve challenges for CBP officers who had called to take temporary duty assignments along the southern border. IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig stepped in personally to resolve problems that NTEU bargaining members experienced when they tried to file for unemployment benefits during the shutdown. "I'm not interested in having a battle with the administration," Reardon said. "I'm not interested in having a battle with any agencies. I'm interested in finding a way to work -- whether it's with the administration or whether it's with individual agency heads. I want the best possible working environment for my members." [GN] VEOLIA: AG Defends Decision to Remove Counsel in Flint Water Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michigan Radio reports that in the wake of Flint's lead in water crisis, there have been a number of criminal and civil lawsuits filed against both public officials and private companies. One of the class action lawsuits filed on behalf of the people of Flint was against the French company Veolia and the Texas-based engineering firm Lockwood, Andrews, and Newnam -- or LAN. The civil lawsuit was filed by Noah Hall, an independent special prosecutor appointed by former Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette. It seeks to hold these companies financially accountable for their involvement in the Flint water crisis. But Mr. Hall was let go by Attorney General Dana Nessel last month for comments he made on Stateside in January, Ms. Nessel told host Cynthia Canty on March 6. Now, in-house attorneys in the AG's office are leading the case against the two private firms. "I think to suggest that I am not going to handle these cases properly when there's really nothing to base that on, I would say is inappropriate, is improper," said Attorney General Dana Nessel in response to comments made by former special prosecutor Noah Hall. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel talked to Stateside about why Hall was let go, and her response to Hall's assertion that the people of Flint should be represented by an independent legal team, not state attorneys. Ms. Nessel said she chose to move some of the civil lawsuits, including the one against Veolia and LAN, to the attorney general's office because she wasn't satisfied that they were being properly handled. She said she wanted to make sure that the lawyers prosecuting those cases were directly accountable to the voters of Michigan. "I thought in order to make certain that these cases were properly investigated, properly charged, properly prosecuted, I needed to have career prosecutors who were dedicated civil servants and who were working on behalf of the people of the state of Michigan," Ms. Nessel explained. Ms. Nessel said she removed Noah Hall from his role as independent special prosecutor because he violated rules of professional conduct by publicly discussing ongoing investigations with the media. "And in doing so, quite frankly, it jeopardizes those investigations and it jeopardizes the prosecutions as well," she added. Mr. Hall spoke with Stateside about concerns regarding the ongoing Flint water crisis investigations, and also in January. Hall had plenty of opportunity to bring concerns about the Veolia and LAN case to her privately, says Ms. Nessel, but failed to do so. Hall also failed to respond to a letter sent directly to him after his interview in January with Stateside, according to Ms. Nessel. The attorney general said she is confident that her team, which is defending the state against class action civil suits filed on behalf of Flint residents, would be able to adequately represent those same residents in the case against Veolia and LAN. Ms. Nessel said that her office consulted extensively with their ethics officer to ensure that they could oversee the case without violating ethical guidelines. Plus, Ms. Nessel added, she will be personally overseeing the civil lawsuit against Veolia and LAN. She said any concern on Hall's part that she would be defending actions taken by former Governor Rick Snyder or the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality or any other state officials is unfounded and improper. "I'm working as hard as I can, and as industrious as I can, to ensure that these cases are being handled properly. And ultimately, the voters will be able to hold me accountable for that in 2022. And see if I have ultimately kept my promises and honored my commitment that I made to the residents of this state," Ms. Nessel said. If the state wins the case against the two companies, there could be tens, or even hundreds, of millions of dollars in payouts to the state. That money, as dictated by state law, would go into the general fund. What ultimately happens to that money will be decided by state lawmakers, but Ms. Nessel said she has been vocal about her commitment to making sure the residents of Flint are properly compensated for the harm caused by the city's lead in water crisis. [GN] VIBRANTCARE REHABILITATION: Faces Labor Suit in Ca. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- Carol Beckwith-Cohen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VibrantCare Rehabilitation, Inc., Patsy Neumann and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG19006376, (Cal. Super. Ct., February 11, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon, redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under the California Labor Code and applicable and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. VibrantCare provides outpatient hand, physical and occupational therapy. Plaintiff worked as a hand therapist at two of VibrantCare's facilities located in Castro Valley and Fairfield, California. Cohen claims to be uncompensated for off-the-clock meal and rest periods and hours doing paperwork. She was terminated because of her complaints. She has yet have to receive her last pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 401 West A Street, Suite 2550 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 235-2416 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: csekino@sfmslaw.com - and - James C. Shah, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 35 East State Street Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: jshah@sfmslaw.com - and - Mary E. Wright, esq. Oriet Cohen-Supple, esq. WRIGHT & SUPPLE LLP 660 Key Route Boulevard Albany, CA 94706 Telephone: (510) 495-5749 Email: oriet@wrightandsupple.com mary@wrightandsupple.com VIVINT SOLAR: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Suit in D.C. --------------------------------------------------------- Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In July 2018, an individual filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, purportedly on behalf of himself and other persons who received certain telephone calls. The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and some of its implementing regulations. The complaint seeks statutory penalties for each alleged violation. Vivint Solar said, "The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint, has retained counsel and intends to vigorously defend itself in the litigation. The Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any, at this time." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The company also sells photovoltaic installation products, as well as solar renewable energy certificates. The company was formerly known as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Lehi, Utah. VIVINT SOLAR: Resolves Customers' Suit over Power Purchase Deals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has entered into a settlement agreement in the class action lawsuit involving the customers' power purchase agreements. In June 2018, four of the Company's customers, on behalf of themselves and a purported class, named the Company in a putative class action alleging violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and requesting relief pursuant to Section 1689 of the California Civil Code. The complaint sought (1) rescission of their power purchase agreements' (PPAs) along with restitution to the plaintiffs individually and (2) declaratory and injunctive relief. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend itself. On November 14, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the four customers whereby the customers agreed to dismiss the putative class action in exchange for rescission of their contracts, removal of the systems that the Company installed on their properties, immaterial compensation payments to each customer and an immaterial payment for attorneys' fees and costs. Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The company also sells photovoltaic installation products, as well as solar renewable energy certificates. The company was formerly known as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Lehi, Utah. VIVINT SOLAR: Wage and Hour Class Action Ongoing ------------------------------------------------ Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a purported class action lawsuit involving employees wage and hour violation. In February 2018, two former employees, on behalf of themselves and a purported class, named the Company in a putative class action alleging that the Company misclassified those employees and violated other wage and hour laws. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and statutory penalties for the alleged violations. The Company disputes the allegations and has retained counsel to defend it in the litigation. Vivint Solar said, "If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in this case, it is possible that the impact could be material to the Company's results of operations in the period or periods in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable. Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The company also sells photovoltaic installation products, as well as solar renewable energy certificates. The company was formerly known as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Lehi, Utah. WAKE COUNTY, NC: Smith Appeals E.D.N.C. Ruling to Fourth Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff David Lee Smith filed an appeal from a Court ruling in his lawsuit entitled David Smith v. County of Wake, Case No. 5:03-ct-00561-BO, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Raleigh. The appellate case is captioned as David Smith v. County of Wake, et al., Case No. 19-6330, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff filed an appeal from a court ruling in the case. That appellate case is styled David Smith v. County of Wake and Donnie Harrison, Sheriff, Case No. 18-6703. The nature of suit is stated as prison condition. David Lee Smith is currently incarcerated at the Pender Correctional Center, in Burgaw, North Carolina. He, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, appears pro se.[BN] WAL-MART STORES: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Mays Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Lerna Mays v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-02318-AB-KK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Mar. 7, 2019, the Hon. Judge Hon. Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify Final Wage Statement Subclass; 2. directing parties to meet and confer and submit a joint proposed class notice within 14 days of the date of the Order, along with a proposed order approving the notice 3. certifies a Wage Statement Class of: "all Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. California workers who received one or more wage payments during the period from Friday, December 16, 2016 to January 31, 2018. 4. appointing Lerna Mays as Class Representative; and 5. appointing Harris & Ruble as Class Counsel. The appellate case is captioned as Lerna Mays v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 19-80029, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent LERNA MAYS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Dale Alan Harris, Esq. Priya Mohan, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 4771 Cromwell Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 962-3777 Facsimile: (323) 962-3004 E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com pmohan@harrisandruble.com Defendant-Petitioner WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation, is represented by: Susan Eileen Coleman, Esq. Cheryl Johnson-Hartwell, Esq. Paloma Peracchio, Esq. Mitchell Aaron Wrosch, Esq. BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 236-0600 E-mail: scoleman@bwslaw.com cjohnson-hartwell@bwslaw.com pperacchio@bwslaw.com mwrosch@bwslaw.com - and - Theane Evangelis, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7726 E-mail: TEvangelis@gibsondunn.com WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Herrington Class Action Underway ------------------------------------------------------ Waterstone Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that Waterstone Mortgage Corporation continues to defend itself against a class action suit entitled, Herrington et al. v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation is a defendant in a class action lawsuit that was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin and subsequently compelled to arbitration before the American Arbitration Association. The plaintiff class alleged that Waterstone Mortgage Corporation violated certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and failed to pay loan officers consistent with their employment agreements. On July 5, 2017, the arbitrator issued a Final Award finding Waterstone Mortgage Corporation liable for unpaid minimum wages, overtime, unreimbursed business expenses, and liquidated damages under the FLSA. On December 8, 2017, the District Court confirmed the award in large part, and entered a judgment against Waterstone in the amount of $7,267,919 in damages to Claimants, $3,298,851 in attorney fees and costs, and a $20,000 incentive fee to Plaintiff Herrington, plus post-judgment interest. On February 12, 2018, the District Court awarded post-arbitration fees and costs of approximately $98,000. The judgment was appealed by Waterstone to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where oral argument was held on May 29, 2018. On October 22, 2018, the Seventh Circuit issued a ruling vacating the District Court's order enforcing the arbitration award. Waterstone Financial said, "If the District Court determines the agreement only allows for individual arbitration, the award would be vacated and the case sent to individual arbitration for a new proceeding. If the District Court determines the arbitration agreement nevertheless allows for collective arbitration, the District Court could confirm the prior award." On December 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed her post-remand brief. In it, Plaintiff asks the Court to reaffirm the arbitration award entered by Arbitrator Pratt in full. Alternatively, she asked the Court to affirm her individual damage award and the awards of 123 other opt-ins whose arbitration agreements permit joinder or class actions. Lastly, Plaintiff asked the Court to have 154 opt-ins intervene and file an amended complaint for individual relief in court. Waterstone opposed the motion on January 28, 2019, and asked the Court to vacate the prior Final Award in full because Herrington's arbitration agreement only allows for individual arbitration. Plaintiff filed its reply on February 14, 2019. Waterstone Financial said, "If the judgment is upheld in full, the Company has estimated that the award, which includes attorney's fees, costs, and interest, could be as high as $11 million. However, Waterstone has meaningful appellate rights and intends to vigorously defend its interests in this matter, including arguing for complete reversal on appeal. Although the Company believes there is a strong basis to vacate the award, there remains a reasonable possibility that the Court's judgment will be affirmed in whole or in part, with the possible range of loss from $0 to $11 million. We do not believe that the loss is probable at this time, as that term is used in assessing loss contingencies. Accordingly, in accordance with the authoritative guidance in the evaluation of contingencies, the Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter." Waterstone Financial, Inc. operates as a bank holding company for WaterStone Bank SSB that provides various financial services to customers in southeastern Wisconsin, the United States. It operates through two segments, Community Banking and Mortgage Banking. The company was formerly known as Wauwatosa Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Waterstone Financial, Inc. in August 2008. Waterstone Financial, Inc. was founded in 1921 and is based in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Settlement Reached in Werner Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Waterstone Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the parties in the case, Werner et al. v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, have reached a settlement in principle to resolve the claims. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation is a defendant in a putative collection action lawsuit that was filed on August 4, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Werner et al. v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation. Plaintiffs allege that Waterstone Mortgage Corporation violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay loan officers minimum and overtime wages. On October 26, 2017, Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification and to provide notice to the putative class. On February 9, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and notice. On July 23, 2018, Waterstone filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the claims. It sought to (1) dismiss the time-barred claims of 4 opt-ins and (2) dismiss all other opt-ins due to the denial of conditional certification. In response, all but Werner and Wiesneski filed motions to withdraw their consents to join the case. The Court denied the summary judgment motion on the basis that it was moot due to the opt-in plaintiffs voluntarily dismissing their case. On October 17, 2018, Werner and Wiesneski asked the Court to send their claims to arbitration. On December 13, 2018, the Court denied the request, finding they had waived their right to arbitrate based on litigating the case in Court for over a year. Thus, the case remained in Court as a two-Plaintiff case. As of February 2019, the parties have reached a settlement in principle to resolve the claims. Waterstone Financial said, "The amount of the settlement would not have a material impact to the financial statements. The parties are working on finalizing the terms of settlement." Waterstone Financial, Inc. operates as a bank holding company for WaterStone Bank SSB that provides various financial services to customers in southeastern Wisconsin, the United States. It operates through two segments, Community Banking and Mortgage Banking. The company was formerly known as Wauwatosa Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Waterstone Financial, Inc. in August 2008. Waterstone Financial, Inc. was founded in 1921 and is based in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. WELCH FOODS: Jones Files Fraud Class Action in New York Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Welch Foods Inc., A Cooperative et al. The case is styled as Charles Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Welch Foods Inc., A Cooperative, Promotion in Motion, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01532 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 18, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Welch Foods Inc. processes and produces grape-based products that include juices, jams, jellies, and spreads. Promotion In Motion, Inc. manufactures and markets confections, fruit snacks, fruit rolls, and snack foods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq. Sheehan & Associates, P.C. 505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 303-0552 Fax: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com WILLOW CREEK COMPANIES: Garcia Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Felix Garcia, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Willow Creek Companies, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00005, (W.D. Tex., February 5, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Willow Creek Companies is primarily engaged in the construction, replacement and repair of natural gas pipelines, crude oil pipelines, storage facilities and civil site work where Garcia worked as a safety inspector. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid overtime. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (281) 885-8844 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com WORLD FINANCIAL: Abtahi Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Fatemeh Abtahi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. World Financial Group, Insurance Agency, Inc., World Financial Group, Inc., Transamerica Financial Advisors Inc. and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00065683, filed on December 28, 2018, was removed from California Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on February 12, 2019, under Case No. 19-cv-00306. Abtahi alleges unlawful deductions, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime, failure to provide lawful meal and rest periods, failure to pay all wages due upon separation and failure to furnish timely and accurate itemized wage statements under California Labor Code.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Chad Fessenden Edwards, Esq. ROSENBERG, SHPALL & ZEIGEN, APLC 10815 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92127 Tel: (619) 232-1826 Fax: (619) 232-1859 - and - David Rosenberg, Esq. ROSENBERG SHPALL AND ASSOCIATES 750 B St., Suite 3210 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 232-1826 Fax: (619) 232-1859 - and - Malte L. L. Farnaes, Esq. FARNAES AND LUCIO APC 2235 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 210 Encinitas, CA 92024 Tel: (760) 942-9431 Fax: (760) 452-4421 Defendants are represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Marlene M. Moffitt, Esq. Tim L. Johnson, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 652-3100 Facsimile: (858) 652-3101 Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com marlene.moffitt@ogletree.com tim.johnson@ogletree.com ZIPRECRUITER INC: Alvarado Sues to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Alvarado, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ZipRecruiter, Inc., an Arizona Corporation, Ian Siegel and Jane Doe Siegel and Joe Edmonds and Jane Doe Edmonds, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00865, (D. Ariz., February 11, 2019, seeks unpaid wages for overtime compensation due, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses of this action and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. ZipRecruiter offers job board advertising and career recruitment tools to fill customers' job vacancies. Alvarado work for the defendants as an account manager, cold-calling and emailing current and potential customers to solicit ZipRecruiter's services. He claims premium for time spent working in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. Defendants allegedly misclassified him as "exempt." Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Telephone: (480) 382-5176 Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com ********* 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 ***