/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190410.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 10, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 72 Headlines A10 NETWORKS: No Amended Complaint Filed in Shah Class Suit AEGON NV: Settlement Approved in Suit over Monthly Deduction Rates AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Discovery in Karth Suit v. Keryx Underway AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Rosenblatt Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Hossfeld Suit Alleging TCPA Violations ALTA MESA: Faces FNY Class Suit Over Securities Law Violations AMBEV SA: Appeal in Brewers Retail Litigation in Canada Pending AMERICAN ADVISORS: Markell Suit Asserts Wage and Hour Violations AMERICAN MEIZHOU: Underpays Bartenders, Lightner Suit Says AMPCO PITTSBURGH: Settlement Reached in Retired Employees' Suit AMPIO PHARMA: Shaffer Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ANDERSONS INC: Faces Murphy Suit over Employee Bias AUMNI GROUP: Jaquez Suit Seeks to Recoup Minimum & Overtime Wages BANK OF AMERICA: Sued over Sale of Fannie and Freddie Bonds BLOOM ENERGY: Faces Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund Class Suit BRISTOW GROUP: Lilienfeld Says Financial Report Misleading CAMDEN PROPERTY: Wins Summary Judgment in Suarez Class Suit CANNAE HOLDINGS: Otis Suit Against O'Charley's Dismissed CAREGUARDIAN INC: Removes Labor Suit to S.D. New York CAS MEDICAL: Faces Suits over Edward Lifesciences Merger CATHEDRAL CITY, CA: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, Goddard Alleges CBL & ASSOCIATES: Settlement in Wave Lengths Suit Okayed CELLCOM ISRAEL: Appeal in Disconnection-Related Suit Dismissed CELLCOM ISRAEL: Appeal on Dismissal of Messages Suit Denied CELLCOM ISRAEL: Awaits Court OK on Termination Fee Settlement CELLCOM ISRAEL: Settlement Pending in Portability Fees Suit CELLCOM ISRAEL: Settlement Pending in Subscribers Privacy Suit CELLCOM ISRAEL: Still Defends Call Detail Service-Related Suit CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Prescod Files False Labeling Suit CENTENE CORP: Scott Seeks OT Pay for Call Center Staff CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: East Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay and Expenses CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: Underpaid Workers File Class Suit in Calif. COATES ELECTRIC: IBEW Seeks Final Class Certification COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Portman Sues over Debt Collection Practice CONCENTRIX SERVICES: Turner Seeks to Certify Class of At-Home CSRs CONN'S INC: MicroCapital Opts Out of Securities Suit in Texas CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Ill. Residents Class Certified in Bakov Suit COVERALL NORTH: Bille Seeks Class Certification COVIA HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Hearing Not Yet Rescheduled CREDIT SUISSE: Continues to Defend SSA Bonds-Related Suits CREDIT SUISSE: Continues to Defend USD LIBOR Litigation CREDIT SUISSE: Defending Against USD ICE LIBOR Litigation in SDNY CURO GROUP: Continues to Defend Yellowdog Partners Class Suit DELTA AIR: Pica Appeals C.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit DEUTSCHE BANK: Agreement Reached in SSA Direct Participants Suit DEUTSCHE BANK: Continues to Defend Shareholders' Class Suit in NY DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Suits over Trading of US Agency Bonds DEUTSCHE BANK: RMBS Trust-Related Class Suits Dismissed DEUTSCHE BANK: Settlement Reached in Canadian Precious Metal Suits DEUTSCHE BANK: Still Defends Bank Bill Swap Rate Claims DEUTSCHE BANK: Still Defends Royal Park Investments Suits DEUTSCHE BANK: Suit in Canada over SSA Bonds Ongoing DEUTSCHE BANK: Suits over Mexican Government Bond Ongoing DOBBERSTEIN LAW: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed DOORDASH INC: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, Goldman-Hull Says EAST RIVER RESTAURANT: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages EGV COMPANIES: Smith Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls EMSP LLC: Seeks Fifth Circuit Review of Ruling in Funez FLSA Suit ENSIGN GROUP: Harris Seeks Overtime Pay FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Ibrahim Sues over Hostile Work Environment FIDELITY SOUTHERN: Parshall Sues over Securities Transaction FIRST INTERSTATE: Parshall Suit Dropped FPI MANAGEMENT: Faces Daniel Herrera Labor Suit FTD COMPANIES: Bid for Review in EasySaver Rewards Suit Pending G WILLI FOOD: Bid to Withdraw Class Suit v. Gold Frost Pending G WILLI FOOD: NIS2.7-Mil. Customer Protection Breach Suit Ongoing GATEWAY TRANS: Wooldridge Seeks Minimum Wages for Drivers GENERAL MOTORS: Dawson Sues Over Faulty CP4 Fuel Injection Pumps GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Martinez Suit over Defective 2.4L Engine GENERAL REVENUE: Henderson May File Second Amended Complaint GLOBAL FIXTURE: Tillis Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Workers GLOBAL LOCKSMITH: Armstrong et al. Suit Moved to S.D. Georgia GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Dismiss Transient Tax Suit Granted GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: June 2019 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing GS FIRE: Violates FLSA by Misclassifying Workers, Guzman Alleges HALL MANAGEMENT: Martinez et al. Suit Transferred to E.D. Cal. HANJIN INT'L: Brimhall Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California HELIOS AND MATHESON: Arbitration Bid in Tabas Case Pending HELIOS AND MATHESON: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Underway HELIOS AND MATHESON: MoviePass Faces Weinberger Class Suit HERSHEY CO: Court Narrows Claims in Brookside Mislabeling Suit HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE: Hill Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA HOME DEPOT USA: Hartley Seeks Overtime Pay IC SYSTEM: Faces Moody Suit over Debt Collection Practices IDAVM GROUP: Garcia Moves to Certify Employees Class Under FLSA IDAVM GROUP: Garcia Seeks to Certify Class Under Damasco Decision INEOS STYROLUTION: Foth Moves to Certify Hourly Employees Class INNERWORKINGS INC: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Brown Suit JEH ENTERPRISES: Kwong Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages JONES SCAFFOLD: Accused by Ross of Not Paying Minimum & OT Wages KEARNY BANK: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA/NJWHL, Hawkins Says KIA MOTORS: Faces Palmberg over Sale of Defective 2.0 GDI Engine KND PARTNERS: Website Not Accessible, Kennedy Alleges KNOLLMEYER BUILDING: Condo Unit Owners Sue over Negligence LEADERS IN COMMUNITY: Brooks Seeks Certification of RICO Class LENDING CLUB: Plouffe Sues over Unauthorized Credit Inquiry LESAINT LOGISTICS: Diller Challenges Collection of Biometric Info LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Accord in Formaldehyde & Abrasion MDL Appealed LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Bid to Certify Class in Mason Suit Pending LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Continues to Defend Kramer Suit in Calif. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Entered in Dana Gold Litigation LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Steele Class Suit in Canada Ongoing LYFT INC: Faces McGee Suit over Breach of Contract MANAGED FUTURES: Iowa Public Employees' Suit v. MS&Co. Ongoing MARYSVILLE, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Avondale Homeless Suit MASTERBRAND CABINETS: Removes Labor Suit to C.D. California MDL 2548: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gold Futures MDL MDL 2709: Court Certifies Classes in 16 States MDL 2804: Stracener Suit v. Purdue over Opiates Sales Consolidated MEDEQUITIES REALTY: Bushansky Seeks to Enjoin Vote on Sale to Omega MEGAN BRENNEN: Faces Robinson Suit over Employment Discrimination MICHIGAN: Seeks Court of Appeals Review of Ruling in Bell Suit MISSOURI: Suit Challenges Rule on Suspension of Driver's License MONSANTO CO: Faces Heisch Suit Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries MONSANTO COMPANY: Bellangers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Bruinsmas Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Cashdollar Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MORTON BUILDINGS: Helms Seeks to Certify Construction Workers Class MSD ENTERPRISES: Palapa Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR: Ali Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA MYPIZZA TECHNOLOGIES: Nikrothanond Sues over Telemarketing Calls NATIONAL VISION: Removes Mendoza Labor Suit to N.D. California NB BAKER: Cal. App. Affirms PAGA Arbitration Denial in Correia Suit NEVADA GOLD: Settlement Entered in Maverick Merger-Related Suits NIKODEMO OPERATING: Eduoard Moves to Certify Class of Employees NORTH CAROLINA: Suit by Inmates over Hep C Screening Certified NUNNO CORP: Faces Bradley Suit for Wrongful Termination NUVASIVE INC: Goldstein Seeks Damages over Wrongful Termination NY TEX CARE: Faces Francisco Labor Suit O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Seeks Prelim. Nod of Miller Suit Settlement OCEANFIRST BANK: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA & NJWHL, Horner Says OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Wheby Says Registration Statement Misleading ORACLE CORP: Response to Amended Complaint Due April 19 PAR TECHNOLOGY: Neals Sues over Collection of Biometric Data PARTNER COMMS: Breach of License-Related Class Suit Ongoing PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Unlawful SMS Charges Ongoing PARTNER COMMS: Withdrawal of Suit over Cellular Plan Promo Okayed PERFORMANCE SHIPPING: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss "Robinson" PETRO RIVER: Appeal in in Donelson-Friend Suit Still Pending PROTECTIVE LIFE: Continues to Defend Advance Trust Suit QWEST CORP: Sales Practices Suit v. CenturyLink Still Ongoing REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Polat Class Action RELIANCE FIRST: DeSantis Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA, NYLL REPUBLIC SERVICES: Buonopane Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Defends Consolidated Too and Spock Class Suits RUBY HAND: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA/IMWL, Cervantes Says SEARCHLIGHT CAPITAL: Pocrass Suit over Layoffs Moved to N.D. Cal. SELLAS LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Abstral(R) Related Suit Pending SEMPER BLUE: Springer Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification SEO'S CAFE: Trinidad Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay SIMMONS FIRST NATIONAL: Parshall Drops Suit over Reliance Merger SSC KERRVILLE: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Passmore FLSA Suit SURE CHECK: Removes FDCPA Suit to Western District of Missouri SWITCH INC: Stockholders Class Suits over IPO Still Ongoing TEG STAFFING: Vaughn-Love Sues over Background Checks TIGERPOLY MANUFACTURING: Speakman Alleges Workplace Harassment TURTLE BEACH: Court Certifies Shareholders Class Suit ULTIMATE SOFTWARE: Faces Kent Securities Suit Over Hellman Merger UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Failed to Pay Final Wages at Termination VIVID SEATS: Derdiger Sues Over Bait-and-Switch Ticket Scheme WEST HILLS SURGICAL: Braun Sues over Hospital Surprise Billing WEST VIRGINIA: Court Dismisses Suit Over State's Parole WILLIAM SINGER: Faces Bendis Suit Over College Admission Scandal ********* A10 NETWORKS: No Amended Complaint Filed in Shah Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- A10 Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the lead plaintiff in the case, Shah v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al., did not file an amended complaint by the Court-ordered deadline. On March 22, 2018, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and certain former officers, were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Shah v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al., 3:18-cv-01772-VC (the "Securities Action"). On August 31, 2018, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On October 5, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint which asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The amended complaint named the same defendants as the initial complaint, in addition to one of the Company’s former executive vice presidents. The Company and individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On February 21, 2019, the court granted the motions to dismiss with leave to amend within 21 days. The lead plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the Court-ordered deadline. A10 Networks, Inc. provides software and hardware solutions in the United States, Japan, other Asia Pacific and EMEA countries, and Latin America. A10 Networks, Inc. was incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. AEGON NV: Settlement Approved in Suit over Monthly Deduction Rates ------------------------------------------------------------------ Aegon N.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has approved the settlement made in the class action suit relating to the company's increases in monthly deduction rates ("MDR") on universal life products. Several US insurers, including Aegon subsidiaries, have been named in class actions as well as individual litigation relating to increases in monthly deduction rates ("MDR") on universal life products. Plaintiffs generally allege that the increases were made to recoup past losses rather than to cover the future costs of providing insurance coverage. In one such class action against Aegon's subsidiary pending in the US federal district court for the Central District of California, the parties agreed to settle the case which resulted in a net charge to the income statement for 2018 of USD 166 million. In January 2019, a court approved the aforementioned settlement. Aegon N.V. provides insurance, pensions, and asset management services worldwide. It offers life, accident, and health insurance; property and casualty insurance; home and car insurance; individual investment accounts; annuities; retirement plan services; stable value solutions; retail and institutional investment management solutions; savings products; group pensions; mortgage loans; and bank accounts. Aegon N.V. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in The Hague, the Netherlands. AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Discovery in Karth Suit v. Keryx Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the consolidated class action suit entitled, Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., is discovery. Four putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Keryx and certain of its former officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur, and James Oliviero) and consolidated in the Massachusetts District Court, captioned Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 26, 2016, with an amended complaint filed on February 27, 2017). Plaintiffs seek to represent all stockholders who purchased shares of Keryx common stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016. The complaint alleges that Keryx and the named individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning Keryx, its supplier relationships, and future prospects, and that the allegedly misleading statements were not made known to the market until Keryx's August 1, 2016 announcement of an interruption in its supply of Auryxia. By order dated July 19, 2018, the Massachusetts District Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The parties are presently engaged in discovery. No trial date has been set. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Rosenblatt Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the plaintiff in the case, Rosenblatt v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., has decided to drop the lawsuit, without prejudice. On June 28, 2018, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or Keryx, and Alpha Therapeutics Merger Sub, Inc., or the Merger Sub, pursuant to which the Merger Sub would merge with and into Keryx, with Keryx becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the company, or the Merger. On December 12, 2018, the company completed the Merger. In October and November 2018, four purported shareholders of Keryx filed four separate putative class actions, or the Merger Securities Actions, against Keryx, a former officer and director of Keryx (Jodie P. Morrison, who is now a director of the company), former directors of Keryx (Kevin J. Cameron, Mark J. Enyedy, Steven C. Gilman, Michael T. Heffernan, Daniel P. Regan and Michael Rogers, some of whom are current members of the company's Board of Directors), and, with respect to one action, the Merger Sub and Akebia, challenging the disclosures made in connection with the Merger. The complaints in the Merger Securities Actions generally allege that the registration statement filed in connection with the Merger failed to disclose certain allegedly material information in violation of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The alleged omissions relate to (i) certain financial projections for Keryx and Akebia and certain financial analyses performed by our advisors; (ii) certain terms relating to the engagement of one of Keryx's advisors; and (iii) any alleged negotiations that may have taken place regarding which individuals would serve on the company's Board of Directors after consummation of the Merger as well as future employment of officers. Each of the complaints seeks to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the Merger; however, none of the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking such relief before the Merger was consummated. The complaints also seek rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages, a declaration that that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder, and an award of plaintiffs' costs, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' fees and experts' fees. Three of the Merger Securities Actions are pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, or the Delaware District Court: Corwin v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 16, 2018); Van Hulst v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 24, 2018); and Andreula v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed November 1, 2018). On January 4, 2019, plaintiff John Andreula filed a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in the Delaware District Court and appoint himself as lead plaintiff. The Delaware District Court has yet to rule on that motion. The fourth Merger Securities Action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, or the Massachusetts District Court: Rosenblatt v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 23, 2018). The plaintiff in the Rosenblatt action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice, on February 19, 2019. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Hossfeld Suit Alleging TCPA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT HOSSFELD, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-01897 (N.D. Ill., March 19, 2019), alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making non-emergency calls to the cell phones of the Plaintiff and others using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice without prior express consent. Allstate Insurance Company is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois. Allstate provides personal lines property and casualty products. The Company offers home security, business, supplemental health, long-term care, boat, flood, identity theft expenses, and motor home insurance products. The Company also provides financial products, such as annuities, education savings, IRAs, and mutual funds; emergency roadside assistance; and checking and savings accounts, money market accounts, and certificates of deposit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander H. Burke, Esq. Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 729‐5288 E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com - and - 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 ALTA MESA: Faces FNY Class Suit Over Securities Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- FNY PARTNERS FUND LP and FNY MANAGED ACCOUNTS, LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ALTA MESA RESOURCES, INC. f/k/a SILVER RUN ACQUISITION CORPORATION II, HARLAN H. CHAPPELLE, JAMES T. HACKETT, THOMAS J. WALKER, WILLIAM D. GUTERMUTH, JEFFREY H. TEPPER, DIANA J. WALTERS and RIVERSTONE HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-01027 (S.D. Tex., March 19, 2019), is brought for alleged violations of: (i) Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Fraud Claims") on behalf of themselves and all other persons or entities, excluding the Defendants, that purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Alta Mesa Resources, Inc., f/k/a Silver Run Acquisition Corporation II ("Silver Run II" or the "Company") during the period August 16, 2017 through February 25, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby; and (ii) Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (the "Proxy Claims") on behalf of themselves and other Alta Mesa shareholders as of the January 22, 2018 record date that were entitled to vote on the proposed transaction (the "Acquisition") to acquire Alta Mesa Holdings, LP ("Alta Mesa") and Kingfisher Midstream LLC ("Kingfisher"). The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions of material facts in the run up to the Acquisition concerning, among other things, the estimated 2018 and 2019 earnings for Kingfisher and Alta Mesa. In March 2018, less than two months after shareholders voted for the Acquisition, Silver Run II adjusted the Kingfisher and Alta Mesa earnings estimates downward 46% and 8%, causing Silver Run II's stock to lose 16.5% of its value in the ensuing four trading days. Remarkably, Silver Run later conceded that the conditions that led to these adjustments began in 2017 -- before the January 2018 Proxy was issued. Alta Mesa Resources, Inc., is an oil and gas company with its principal place of business located in in Houston, Texas. The Company is incorporated in Delaware and is focused on oil and gas exploration and production in the Anadarko Basin of Oklahoma. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Riverstone Holdings, LLC, is a private equity firm focused on the energy sector. Riverstone sponsored the initial public offering and the Acquisition through various related affiliates and investment vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 500 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1900-16 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 710-5960 E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com - and - Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. Joshua K. Porter, Esq. Andrew M. Sher, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 894-7200 E-mail: rcappucci@entwistle-law.com jporter@entwistle-law.com asher@entwistle-law.com AMBEV SA: Appeal in Brewers Retail Litigation in Canada Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Ambev S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the appeal by the plaintiffs in Brewers Retail Inc. litigation is pending. On December 12, 2014, a lawsuit was commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), Brewers Retail Inc. (known as The Beer Store or "TBS"), and the owners of Brewers Retail Inc. (Molson Coors Canada, Sleeman Breweries Ltd. and Labatt Breweries of Canada LP, or the Brewers. The lawsuit was brought in Canada pursuant to the Ontario Class Proceedings Act, which sought, among other things: (1) to obtain a declaration that the defendants conspired with each other to allocate markets for the supply of beer sold in Ontario since June 1, 2000; (2) to obtain a declaration that the Brewers conspired to fix, increase and/or maintain prices charged to Ontario licensees (on-trade) for beer and the fees charged by TBS to other competitive brewers who wished to sell their products through TBS; and (3) damages for unjust enrichment. As part of this third allegation, the plaintiffs allege illegal trade practices by the Brewers. They are seeking damages not exceeding C$1.4 billion; punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages of C$5 million; and changes/repeals of the affected legislation. The company have not recorded any provision in connection therewith. In March 2018, the court granted summary judgment and dismissed the class claims. The plaintiffs have appealed. The hearing before the Court of Appeals was held on January 28 and 29, 2019 and the judgement is expected in the second quarter of 2019. Ambev S.A., through its subsidiaries, produces, distributes, and sells beer, draft beer, carbonated soft drinks (CSD), other non-alcoholic beverages, malt, and food products in the Americas. It operates through three segments: Latin America North, Latin America South, and Canada. The company was founded in 1885 and is headquartered in São Paulo, Brazil. Ambev S.A. is a subsidiary of Interbrew International B.V. AMERICAN ADVISORS: Markell Suit Asserts Wage and Hour Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY MARKELL; FRANK RIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN ADVISORS GROUP; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 30-2019-01058063-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., March 19, 2019), alleges that the Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code, including failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked and overtime wages at the proper rate. The Defendants are California citizens doing business in Orange County in the state of California. The Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Defendants are in the business of lending mortgages.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 E-mail: swong@aegislawfirm.com khaque@aegislawfirm.com jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com AMERICAN MEIZHOU: Underpays Bartenders, Lightner Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- RAENIECE LIGHTNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN MEIZHOU DONGPO GROUP, INC.; AMERICAN MEIZHOU DONGPO HOLLYWOOD, INC.; AMERICAN MEIZHOU DONGPO IRVINE, INC.; AMERICAN MEIZHOU DONGPO ARCADIA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07263 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff Lightner was employed by the Defendants as server and bartender. American Meizhou Dongpo Group, Inc. operates in the restaurant management industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Isandra Fernandez, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 AMPCO PITTSBURGH: Settlement Reached in Retired Employees' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has reached a settlement in the class action suit initiated by Retired Former Employees. In February 2017, the Corporation, its indirect subsidiary Akers National Roll Company, as well as the Akers National Roll Company Health & Welfare Benefits Plan were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, where the plaintiffs (currently retired former employees of Akers National Roll Company and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial, and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO) alleged that the defendants breached collective bargaining agreements and violated the benefit plan by modifying medical benefits of the plaintiffs and similarly situated retirees. The defendants moved to dismiss the case, and plaintiffs petitioned the court to compel arbitration. On June 13, 2017, the District Court compelled arbitration and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss as moot. Defendants appealed this decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on June 21, 2017. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision to compel arbitration on August 29, 2018. The plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied. Rather than litigating the merits of the case at the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the Corporation reached a settlement agreement in principle with the plaintiffs, which remains subject to approval by the court. Ampco-Pittsburgh said, "As expected, the final resolution of this settlement agreement will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources." Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells custom designed engineering products to commercial and industrial users worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Forged and Cast Engineered Products; and Air and Liquid Processing. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation was founded in 1929 and is headquartered in Carnegie, Pennsylvania. AMPIO PHARMA: Shaffer Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the case, Shaffer v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., has been voluntarily dismissed. On August 25, 2018 and August 31, 2018, two purported stockholders of the Company brought putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Shi v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-07476-SJO-RAO, and in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Shaffer v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02252-KLM, together, the "Securities Class Actions". Plaintiffs in the Securities Class Actions allege that the Company and certain of its current officers violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting and/or omitting information regarding the AP-003 Phase III clinical trials of Ampion. Plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock from December 14, 2017 through August 7, 2018. The Securities Class Actions seek unspecified damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 24, 2018, certain purported stockholders filed motions to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the Shi case. On November 6, 2018, the Shaffer case was voluntarily dismissed. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development of therapies for the treatment of prevalent inflammatory conditions in the United States. The company is developing compounds that decrease inflammation by inhibiting specific pro-inflammatory compounds. Its product pipeline includes Ampion, an intra-articular injection for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado. ANDERSONS INC: Faces Murphy Suit over Employee Bias --------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against The Andersons, Inc. over its alleged employment discrimination practices. The case is captioned Murphy v. The Andersons, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-00184-SRW (M.D. Ala., March 13, 2019). It is assigned to Hon. Judge Susan Russ Walker. The Andersons, Inc. is a diversified company rooted in agriculture that conducts business around the world in the commodity trading, ethanol, plant nutrient and rail sectors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ashley Meade Posey, Esq. Humble Law LLC 3112 Blue Lake Dr-Ste 100 Birmingham, AL 35243 Telephone: (205) 358-3100 Facsimile: (205) 358-3033 E-mail: ashley@humble.law - and - Dustin John Kittle, Esq. Humble Law LLC 3112 Blue Lake Drive Vestavia, AL 35243 Telephone: (205) 358-3100 Facsimile: (205) 358-3033 E-mail: dustin@humble.law AUMNI GROUP: Jaquez Suit Seeks to Recoup Minimum & Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL JAQUEZ on behalf of himself, individually, and all others similarly situated v. AUMNI GROUP, INC. d/b/a CITY BUSINESS INC., CREDICO (USA) LLC, and PRANAV VERMA, individually, Case No. 1:19-cv-02448 (S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2019), seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum and overtime compensation and liquidated damages pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Aumni Group, Inc., doing business as City Business Inc., is a New York domestic business corporation with its principal place of business located in New York City. Pranav Verma is an owner, manager, principal, and/or agent of Aumni. Credico (USA) LLC is a foreign limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois. Credico is the parent company of Aumni.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Galen J. Criscione, Esq. CRISCIONE RAVALA, LLP 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 920-7142 Facsimile: (800) 583-1787 E-mail: GCriscione@lawcrt.com BANK OF AMERICA: Sued over Sale of Fannie and Freddie Bonds ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Bank of America, N.A., Barclays Bank Plc and others alleges that the Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to systematically raised their profits earned from dealing Fannie and Freddie bonds (FFBs). The Defendants are horizontal competitors and the dominant dealers of debt securities issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. These financial instruments are collectively referred as "FFBs," short for Fannie and Freddie bonds. FFBs refer to unsecured issuances, and do not include the mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. According to the complaint, the Defendants were the largest players in the process that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac use to issue FFBs which gave Defendants control over FFB supply ultimately available to investors. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division is currently pursuing a criminal investigation into price-fixing in the secondary market for FFBs, where the Defendants are the largest dealers in terms of the volume of FFBs they sell to, and buy from, investors. Multiple sources indicate that the investigation focuses on antitrust and fraud violations in connection with the activities of bank traders in the $550 billion secondary market. The secondary market for FFBs is a vast "over-the-counter" ("OTC") market. Unlike stocks, by contrast, FFBs are not traded on a national exchange. In order to buy or sell FFBs, an investor must typically communicate directly with a salesperson or trader employed by a dealer over computer networks and/or by phone to receive a price quote. An OTC market is therefore a dark market that enables a few select, knowledgeable, and privileged dealers to collude and harm investors -- especially as compared to stock markets with a multitude of banks and investors and other agents able to see public information updated in real-time as they trade. Consistent with the DOJ Antitrust Division's investigation, empirical, economic price data and other market facts demonstrate that Defendants used their control over FFB supply to fix the prices of these instruments, causing the Commonwealth and the Class to pay too much (when buying FFBs) and receive too little (when selling FFBs) on their FFB transactions during the Class Period. The Plaintiff obtained pricing data for over 13,117 unique FFBs and a total of 1.6 million FFB transactions. The price data and other market data reveal highly anomalous FFB pricing. The economic facts are consistent with price-fixing of the FFBs which Defendants traded with their customers during the Class Period. First, the economic facts strongly suggest an agreement by Defendants to charge inflated, supracompetitive prices for newly-issued FFBs that they sold to investors after acquiring them from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Inflating prices after FFB issuances was lucrative for Defendants because a large volume of their FFB sales occurred in the week following an FFB issuance. Consequently, each Defendant had the common motive to inflate the prices of these products by charging agreed-upon, supracompetitive prices to investors after acquiring FFBs from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Second, the economic facts strongly suggest coordination amongst Defendants to inflate the prices of older FFBs in the days prior to each new FFB issuance. This acted to drive the market price of new FFBs artificially higher by establishing an inflated benchmark for comparison so that Defendants could earn excess, unlawful profits once they had new FFB inventory to sell. Third, throughout the Class Period, the market and pricing data strongly suggest Defendants, rather than competing with each other for investors' FFB transactions, agreed to inflate the prices at which they sold FFBs to investors (the "ask" price), or deflated the price at which they purchased FFBs from investors (the "bid" price), or both. Observation of the bid-ask spreads that Defendants charged during the Class Period in comparison with the bid-ask spreads that Defendants charged after the Class Period shows that, after the Class Period, bid-ask spreads in the FFB market markedly decreased for no other apparent economic reason, evidencing that prices during the Class Period were not reflective of a competitive market. Tellingly, the patterns of these three behaviors are observed to statistically diminish after April 2014 following the increase in oversight and scrutiny of banks' fixed income operations in the wake of the LIBOR scandal, when multiple government regulators forced Defendants to institute internal controls to deter a recurrence of widespread anti-competitive conduct in their sales and trading businesses, as well as the publicity surrounding the criminal investigation into banks' manipulation of the foreign exchange ("FX") market. Defendants thus colluded to manipulate prices in the secondary market to extract supra-competitive profits for themselves at the expense of Commonwealth Funds and Class members. Defendants' conspiracy systematically raised their profits earned from dealing FFBs at the expense of their customers -- investors who traded FFBs with Defendants and who were repeatedly overcharged and underpaid due to Defendants' anti-competitive conduct. The conspiracy injured investors, many of whom were drawn to FFBs for their safety and liquidity. FFBs are not perceived to be risky investments, and their returns to investors typically reflect this fact. However, investors did not bargain for the overcharges and underpayments that the Defendant banks caused. The Defendants' alleged agreement to restrain trade in the FFB market is another instance of collusion and price-fixing in financial markets by these same Defendants during the same period of time. Given the persistent, pervasive, and secret nature of Defendants' conspiracy, as well as the existence of ongoing governmental investigations into the alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff believes that further evidentiary support for his claims will be unearthed after a reasonable opportunity for discovery. The case is captioned as JOSEPH M. TORSELLA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS TREASURER OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the the Plaintiff, vs. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BARCLAYS BANK PLC; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; CREDIT SUISSE AG; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; DEUTSCHE BANK AG; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; FIRST TENNESSEE BANK, N.A.; FTN FINANCIAL SECURITIES CORP.; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.; AND UBS SECURITIES LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02438 (S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2019).[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Vincent Briganti, Esq. Christian Levis, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: 914-997-0500 Facsimile: 914-997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com clevis@lowey.com - and - Gerald Lawrence, Esq. Julia R. McGrath, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. One Tower Bridge, Esq. 100 Front Street, Suite 520 West Conshohocken, PA Telephone: 215-399-4770 Facsimile: 610-862-9777 E-mail: glawrence@lowey.com jmcgrath@lowey.com - and - Christopher Craig, Esq. PENNSYLVANIA TREASURY DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL 129 Finance Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 E-mail: ccraig@patreasury.gov BLOOM ENERGY: Faces Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has been named as a defendant in a class action suit initiated by the Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund. On March 20, 2019, a class action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County, by the Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated ("Plaintiff"), against the Company, certain of its directors and officers, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO) in July 2018. The Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the purchase of the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the Form S-1 Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's IPO. Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. BRISTOW GROUP: Lilienfeld Says Financial Report Misleading ---------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Lilienfeld, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BRISTOW GROUP INC., JONATHAN E. BALIFF, and L. DON MILLER, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01064 (S.D. Tex., March 21, 2019), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Bristow's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that Bristow lacked adequate monitoring processes related to non-financial covenants within its secured financing and lease agreements; as a result, Bristow could not reasonably assure compliance with certain non-financial covenants; as a result, Bristow was reasonably likely to breach certain agreements; as a result, Bristow had understated its short-term debt; the required corrections would materially impact financial statements; there was a material weakness in Bristow's internal controls over financial reporting; and as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about Bristow's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On February 11, 2019, after the market closed, Bristow filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing that it "did not have adequate monitoring control processes in place related to non-financial covenants within certain of its secured financing and lease agreements." On this news, Bristow's stock price fell $1.22 per share, or nearly 40%, to close at $1.84 per share on February 12, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit states. Bristow is an industrial aviation services provider with major transportation operations in the North Sea, Nigeria and the Gulf of Mexico, and in most other major offshore energy producing regions of the world.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Willie C. Briscoe, Esq. THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC 12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 520 Dallas, TX 75251 Telephone: 972-521-6868 Facsimile: 281-254-7789 E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com CAMDEN PROPERTY: Wins Summary Judgment in Suarez Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. James C. Dever III grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit styled JORGE SUAREZ v. CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST, CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT, INC., and CSP COMMUNITY OWNER, LP, Case No. 5:17-cv-00124-D (E.D.N.C.). Judge Dever denies the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, and denies as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Clerk is directed to close the case. On January 24, 2017, Jorge Suarez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed this complaint in Wake County Superior Court against the Defendants alleging violations of the Residential Rental Agreements Act, the North Carolina Debt Collection Act and the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. In his order, Judge Dever opines that Mr. Suarez's claims for violations of the RRAA, the NCDCA, and the UDTPA all fail on the merits. Judge Dever states that the claims fail as a matter of law because the Plaintiff cannot show that the Defendants committed an unfair or deceptive act.[CC] CANNAE HOLDINGS: Otis Suit Against O'Charley's Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- Cannae Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the case entitled, Otis v. O'Charley's, LLC, has been dismissed. Otis v. O'Charley's, LLC, was filed on July 13, 2016, in U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois. The lawsuit purports to bring a national class action on behalf of all O'Charley's servers and bartenders under the Fair Labor Standards Act and similar state laws. The complaint alleges that O'Charley's failed to pay plaintiffs the applicable minimum wage and overtime by requiring tipped employees to: (a) spend more than twenty percent of their time performing non-tipped duties, including dishwashing, food preparation, cleaning, maintenance, and other "back of the house" duties; and (b) perform "off the clock" work. Plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory relief. The named plaintiffs and members of the putative class are parties to employment agreements with O'Charley's that provide, inter alia, for individual arbitration of potential claims and disputes. On October 25, 2016, the District Court entered an Order staying all proceedings in the Otis case pending the United States Supreme Court's resolution of certain petitions for certiorari filed in several Circuit Courts of Appeals cases that address the issue of whether agreements between employers and employees to arbitrate disputes on an individual basis are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. The Order provides that, if certiorari is granted in any of the Circuit Courts of Appeals cases, the stay of the Otis case will continue until the Supreme Court reaches a final decision on the merits in the cases. On January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in three of the Circuit Courts of Appeals cases that address the enforceability of arbitration agreements. On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled on the issue, holding that class-action waivers in employment arbitration agreements are enforceable. The parties reached a settlement on January 2, 2019, whereby the plaintiffs agreed to a full and complete settlement and release of all claims that were asserted or that could have been asserted in the litigation. The settlement is not material to the Company's financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. The settlement was approved and the case was dismissed with prejudice by court order on February 15, 2019. Cannae Holdings, Inc. engages in the restaurant business. It owns and operates the O'Charley's, Ninety Nine, Village Inn, and Bakers Square restaurants; and food service concepts, as well as its Legendary Baking bakery. Cannae Holdings, Inc. was incorporated in 2017 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. CAREGUARDIAN INC: Removes Labor Suit to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- Careguardian, Inc. and Joshua Bruno remove case styled SANDRA OLIVER, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CAREGUARDIAN, INC., JOSHUA BRUNO, AKASH SHAH AND JOHN DOES No. 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02541 (Filed Nov. 18, 2018), Case No. 655748/2018, from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan Division) on March 21, 2019. The Plaintiff seeks an award of unpaid wages, spread of hours wages, overtime wages and minimum wages and statutory and punitive damages due under the New York Labor Law and New York common law.[BN] Counsel for Careguardian, Inc. and Joshua Bruno: Meghan E. Hill, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 41 South High Street, Suite 2000 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: +1 614.365.2700 Facsimile: +1 614.365.2499 30 Rockerfeller Plaza, 23rd Floor New York, NY 101112 Telephone: +1.212.407.0105 Facsimile: +1.212.872.9815 E-mail: meghan.hill@squirepb.com CAS MEDICAL: Faces Suits over Edward Lifesciences Merger -------------------------------------------------------- CAS Medical Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company is facing several class action suits related to merger of the company with Edwards Lifesciences Holding, Inc. and Crown Merger Sub, Inc. On February 11, 2019, the Company, Edwards Lifesciences Holding, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation ("Edwards" or the "Acquiror") and Crown Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Acquiror ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company continuing as the surviving company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Acquiror. The Board of Directors of the Company has unanimously approved the Merger Agreement, the Merger, and the other transactions contemplated thereby. On or about March 7, 11, 14 and 21, 2019, four putative class action complaints challenging the Merger were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Adam Franchi v. CAS Medical Systems, Inc., et al., Shiva Stein v. CAS Medical Systems, Inc., et al., Thomas Torreano v. CAS Medical Systems, Inc. et al. and Joseph Rish Jr. v. CAS Medical Systems, Inc. et al., respectively, and on or about March 11, 2019 an additional putative class action complaint challenging the merger was filed in the Superior Court for the State of Connecticut, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven, captioned Charles New v. CAS Medical Systems, Inc., et al. The complaints were filed on behalf of the public shareholders of CASMED and name as defendants CASMED and the members of its board of directors. The complaints generally allege violations of federal securities laws with respect to purported disclosure deficiencies in the preliminary proxy statement for the merger that CASMED filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on March 1, 2019. The complaint in the Stein action also alleges that CASMED's directors agreed to sell CASMED for inadequate consideration, the complaint in the New action also alleges that CASMED's directors agreed to sell CASMED for an unfair price as a result of an unfair sale process and the complaint in Torreano also alleges that the Merger contains preclusive deal protection provisions. The Torreano complaint also alleges claims against Edwards Lifesciences Holding, Inc. Crown Merger Sub, Inc. and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The complaints seek a variety of relief, including an injunction preventing the consummation of the Merger, rescission of the Merger if it is consummated or rescissory damages, attorneys' fees and expenses. CAS Medical said, "The defendants have not yet responded to the complaints, but believe that the claims asserted against them are without merit." CAS Medical Systems, Inc., a medical technology company, develops, manufactures, and markets non-invasive patient monitoring products worldwide. It was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Branford, Connecticut. CATHEDRAL CITY, CA: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, Goddard Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- COREY GODDARD, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v. CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, Case No. 5:19-cv-00482 (C.D. Cal., March 18, 2019), alleges that the Defendant fail to fully compensate the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals for all overtime hours, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The City is a political subdivision of the state of California and, at all relevant times hereto, employed the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Mastagni, Esq. Isaac S. Stevens, Esq. Ian B. Sangster, Esq. Tashayla D. Billington, Esq. MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT A Professional Corporation 1912 "I" Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Telephone: (916) 446-4692 Facsimile: (916) 447-4614 E-mail: davidm@mastagni.com istevens@mastagni.com isangster@mastagni.com tbillington@mastagni.com CBL & ASSOCIATES: Settlement in Wave Lengths Suit Okayed -------------------------------------------------------- CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated March 26, 2019, that on March 20, the board of directors of CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. approved the structure of a settlement in the class action lawsuit filed on March 16, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "Court") by Wave Lengths Hair Salons of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Salon Adrian. As previously disclosed, plaintiff's motion for class certification of a nationwide RICO class and a Florida RICO and FDUTPA (Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act) class was partially granted by the Court on January 7, 2019. In its action, plaintiff sought unspecified monetary damages as well as costs and attorneys’ fees, based on allegations that we and certain affiliated entities overcharged tenants at bulk metered malls for electricity. The company's petition seeking to appeal the Court's class certification order was denied by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on March 4, 2019. On March 11, 2019, the Court set the trial date for April 2, 2019. On March 15, 2019, following mediation proceedings, a proposed structure of a settlement was approved by representatives of the parties. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company have denied all allegations of wrongdoing and have asserted that our actions have at all times been lawful and proper. A copy of the proposed settlement is available at https://bit.ly/2FRrwed. CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. is a self managed and self administered real estate investment trust. The Company owns regional shopping malls and community shopping centers in the United States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee. CELLCOM ISRAEL: Appeal in Disconnection-Related Suit Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the appeal from a decision in the class action lawsuit related to service disconnection has been dismissed. In January 2017, the district court partially approved a request to certify a lawsuit filed against the company in February 2013 as a class action, relating to an allegation that the company failed to disconnect customers within the time frame set in its license and applicable law. In March 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the allegations which were not approved, to the Supreme Court. In September 2018 plaintiff's appeal was consensually dismissed. The total amount claimed had the purported class action been approved was estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 72 million. Cellcom Israel Ltd. provides cellular and landline telecommunications services in Israel. It operates through two segments, Cellular and Fixed-line. Cellcom Israel Ltd. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Netanya, Israel. CELLCOM ISRAEL: Appeal on Dismissal of Messages Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the plaintiffs' appeal on the dismissal of a class action lawsuit has been denied. In December 2016, the district court partially approved a request to certify a lawsuit filed against the company in July 2014 as a class action, relating to an allegation that the commercial messages the company sent to its subscribers failed to meet the requirements of applicable law. In January 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the allegations which were not approved, to the Supreme Court. The total amount claimed was estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 21 million. Cellcom Israel Ltd. provides cellular and landline telecommunications services in Israel. It operates through two segments, Cellular and Fixed-line. Cellcom Israel Ltd. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Netanya, Israel. CELLCOM ISRAEL: Awaits Court OK on Termination Fee Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a settlement agreement has been filed with the court in a class action lawsuit related to unlawful termination fees and the proceedings are still pending. In August 2016, the district court approved a request to certify a lawsuit filed against the company in February 2015 as a class action, relating to an allegation that the company unlawfully charged our subscribers with early termination fees. The total amount claimed was estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 15 million. In January 2018, a settlement agreement was filed with the court and the proceedings are still pending. Cellcom Israel Ltd. provides cellular and landline telecommunications services in Israel. It operates through two segments, Cellular and Fixed-line. Cellcom Israel Ltd. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Netanya, Israel. CELLCOM ISRAEL: Settlement Pending in Portability Fees Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a settlement agreement has been filed with the court in the class action suit relating to the unlawful subscribers' portability fees and the proceedings are still pending. In October 2016, the district court approved a request to certify a lawsuit filed against the company in January 2013 as a class action, relating to an allegation that the company unlawfully charged its subscribers before the subscribers' portability to the company' network was completed. The total amount claimed was estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 19 million. In February 2019, a settlement agreement was filed with the court and the proceedings are still pending. Cellcom Israel Ltd. provides cellular and landline telecommunications services in Israel. It operates through two segments, Cellular and Fixed-line. Cellcom Israel Ltd. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Netanya, Israel. CELLCOM ISRAEL: Settlement Pending in Subscribers Privacy Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a settlement agreement has been filed with the court in the purported class action suit alleging violation of the privacy of the company's subscribers. The proceedings are still pending. In 2015, a purported class action was filed against the company, by plaintiffs alleging to be subscribers of the Company, claiming compensation for non-monetary damages in connection with allegations that the company unlawfully violated the privacy of its subscribers and were unlawfully enriched by so doing. Cellcom said, "The amount claimed from the company, if the lawsuit is certified as class action is estimated by the plaintiffs to be NIS 15 billion." In February 2017, a settlement agreement was filed with the court and the proceedings are still pending. Cellcom Israel Ltd. provides cellular and landline telecommunications services in Israel. It operates through two segments, Cellular and Fixed-line. Cellcom Israel Ltd. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Netanya, Israel. CELLCOM ISRAEL: Still Defends Call Detail Service-Related Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class action suit related to the company's breach of subscription agreements. In December 2017, the district court partially approved a request to certify as a class action a lawsuit filed against the company in May 2015, relating to an allegation that the company breached the agreements with its subscribers by charging them for a call details service, which was previously provided free of charge, without obtaining their consent. In February 2018, the company appealed the approval of this allegation to the Supreme Court and the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of other allegations. In January 2019 the company's appeal was consensually dismissed and the plaintiff's appeal was consensually accepted. The total amount claimed was not estimated by the plaintiffs. Cellcom Israel Ltd. provides cellular and landline telecommunications services in Israel. It operates through two segments, Cellular and Fixed-line. Cellcom Israel Ltd. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Netanya, Israel. CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Prescod Files False Labeling Suit --------------------------------------------------- DANIEL PRESCOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CELSIUS HOLDINGS, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV09321 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 19, 2019), accuses the Defendants of deceiving purchasers of Celsius Live Fit drink by falsely labeling the Product as having "No Preservatives." Mr. Prescod seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief on behalf of a California class of consumers, who purchased the Product, which was falsely labeled and advertised as having "No Preservatives" when it actually contains "citric acid," a well-known preservative. Celsius Holdings, Inc., is a corporation headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Celsius is the one of the owners, manufacturers, and distributors of the Products. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are presently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Matthew T. Theriault, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804 Los Angeles, CA 90069 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com mtheriault@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com CENTENE CORP: Scott Seeks OT Pay for Call Center Staff ------------------------------------------------------ RUBY SCOTT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFF, vs. CENTENE CORP. and CENTENE MANAGEMENT CO., LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-00198-SWW (E.D. Ark., March 21, 2019), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The case is a hybrid class and collective action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other hourly-paid call center employees, employed by Defendant, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and the others overtime compensation for all hours that Plaintiff and the others worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Centene Corporation is a large publicly-traded company and a multi-line managed care enterprise that serves as a major intermediary for both government-sponsored and privately insured health care programs.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Daniel Ford, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 south shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: East Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay and Expenses ------------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL EAST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CERTIFIEDSAFETY, INC. and UNITED REFINING COMPANY, Case No. 3:19-cv-01427 (N.D. Cal., March 18, 2019), seeks full compensation on behalf of the Plaintiff and others for all alleged unpaid wages, including overtime and double time, all denied meal and rest periods, unreimbursed business expenses, inaccurate wage statement penalties, and waiting time penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code. CertifiedSafety is an American company that provides skilled safety personnel to clients operating oil refineries. CertifiedSafety provides services to clients with oil refineries throughout the United States, including California. CertifiedSafety maintains its headquarters in League City, Texas. United Refining Company is an American corporation that refines and markets petroleum products. United operates oil refineries in Pennsylvania and the United States, and maintains its headquarters in Warren, Pennsylvania.[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 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com mlim@schneiderwallace.com sgordon@schneiderwallace.com CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: Underpaid Workers File Class Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- HAROLD JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CERTIFIEDSAFETY, INC.; SHELL OIL COMPANY; and SHELL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-01428 (N.D. Cal., March 18, 2019), challenges the Defendants' alleged policies and practices of failing to compensate the Plaintiff and others for all hours worked, minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime and double time wages. Headquartered in League City, Texas, CertifiedSafety is an American company that provides skilled safety personnel to clients operating oil refineries. CertifiedSafety provides services to clients with oil refineries throughout the United States, including California and Washington. Shell Oil Company is an American corporation that refines and markets petroleum products. Shell Oil Company is the United States-based wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell plc, a British-Dutch multinational oil and gas company headquartered in the Netherlands and incorporated in the United Kingdom. Shell Oil Products Company LLC is an American company that refines and markets petroleum products. Shell Oil Products is a related entity to Shell Oil Company. Shell Oil Products operates oil refineries in California, Washington, and the United States.[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 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com mlim@schneiderwallace.com sgordon@schneiderwallace.com COATES ELECTRIC: IBEW Seeks Final Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as, I.B.E.W. Local No. 494 et al., the Plaintiffs, vs. Coates Electric, LLC and Brody Coates, Defendants, Case No. 18CV1849 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for final class certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs filed this motion alongside their motion for default judgment and damages. The purpose of the motion is to allow Glen Savage and Walter Thornton who are not currently named as Plaintiffs in the complaint. The suit seeks to recover damages under the FLSA as a part of the Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment and damages. Savage and Thornton, like 12 of the 21 Named Plaintiffs in the complaint, has still not been paid for some of their hours worked. Savage and Thornton are similarly situated to each of the 21 Named Plaintiffs in having a claim for liquidated damages, which under the FLSA is not affected by whether wages were untimely paid or were outright unpaid, the lawsuit states.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Yingtao Ho, Esq. Christopher Ahrens, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C. 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100 MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: 414 271-4500 Facsimile: 414 271-6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Portman Sues over Debt Collection Practice ------------------------------------------------------------------ JACOB PORTMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC.; CAPIO PARTNERS, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendant(s), Case No. 3:19-cv-08798-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., March 21, 2019), alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair practices. The Plaintiff brings the state-wide class action on behalf of himself and all New Jersey consumers and their successors in interest, who were harmed by the Defendant's conduct in violation of the FDCPA, the lawsuit states.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Ben A. Kaplan, Esq. CHULSKY KAPLAN LLC 280 Prospect Ave. 6G Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (877) 827-3395 Facsimile: (201) 803-6611 E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com CONCENTRIX SERVICES: Turner Seeks to Certify Class of At-Home CSRs ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled TIARA TURNER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CONCENTRIX SERVICES US, INC., and CONCENTRIX CORPORATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-01072-SOH (W.D. Ark.), asks the Court to conditionally certify the class defined as: All hourly At-Home Customer Service Representatives since November 30, 2015. Ms. Turner brought this suit on behalf of all former and current hourly At-Home Customer Service Representatives employed by the Defendants to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to: A. approve of the use of U.S. Mail and text message (or alternatively, U.S. Mail and e-mail) to distribute Plaintiff's proposed Notice and Consent to Join; B. approve the form and content of Exhibits 1–5; C. order the Defendants to produce the requested contact information of each putative class member in an electronically importable and malleable electronic format, such as Excel, within seven (7) days after this Court's Order is entered; D. allow for an opt-in period of ninety (90) days, to begin seven days after the day that Defendants produces the names and contact information for the putative class members, in which putative class members may submit a Consent to Join this lawsuit as an opt-in plaintiff; E. grant the Plaintiff leave to send a follow-up reminder Postcard via U.S. Mail (and alternatively e-mail message), beginning 30 days after the opt-in period begins, to potential plaintiffs who have not responded to the Notice; and F. award costs and a reasonable attorney's fee and grant all other relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled, whether specifically prayed for or not.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Short, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com CONN'S INC: MicroCapital Opts Out of Securities Suit in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- Conn's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2019, that MicroCapital Fund, LP, MicroCapital Fund Ltd, and MicroCapital LLC have provided notice that they were opting out of the class action entitled, In re Conn's Inc. Securities Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548. The company and two of its former executive officers were defendants in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the "Court"), captioned In re Conn's Inc. Securities Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548 (the "Consolidated Securities Action"). The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations, and prospects. They alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and sought to certify a class of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Conn's common stock or call options, or sold or wrote Conn's put options between April 3, 2013 and December 9, 2014. On June 14, 2018, the parties filed a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement for the Consolidated Securities Action. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement terms and stayed the Consolidated Securities Action on June 28, 2018. The $22.5 million settlement was funded solely by proceeds from the company's insurance carriers. As part of the settlement, the company, along with the other executive officer defendants, have denied and continue to deny any wrongdoing giving rise to any liability or violation of the law, including the U.S. securities laws, as well as each and every one of the claims alleged by plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action. The Court held a final settlement approval hearing on October 11, 2018 and that same day the Court signed its Final Order and Judgment approving the terms of the settlement of the Consolidated Securities Action. The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on November 15, 2018. All claims of class members who did not opt out of the Consolidated Securities Action were settled and dismissed. MicroCapital Fund, LP, MicroCapital Fund Ltd, and MicroCapital LLC (collectively "MicroCapital") provided notice that they were opting out of the class action. Conn's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of durable consumer goods and related services in the United States. It operates through two segments, Retail and Credit. The company was founded in 1890 and is headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas. CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Ill. Residents Class Certified in Bakov Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit captioned ANGEL BAKOV and JULIE HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONSOLIDATED WORLD TRAVEL, INC. d/b/a HOLIDAY CRUISE LINE, a Florida Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-02980 (N.D. Ill.). The Court certifies the class as to the claims of the Illinois residents, but lacks jurisdiction over the Defendant as to the claims of the nonresident, proposed class members. In this class action lawsuit, Plaintiffs Angel Bakov, Julie Herrera, and Kinaya Hewlett allege that the Defendant directed an Indian company called Virtual Voice Technologies Pvt. Ltd. to place phone calls to the Plaintiffs and potential class members without prior express written consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Randall Snyder is granted. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Kenneth R. Sponsler and the Defendant's Motions to Exclude the Testimonies of Colin Weir and Christina Peters-Stasiweicz are all denied.[CC] COVERALL NORTH: Bille Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit CARIBE BILLE and QUINCY REEVES, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. COVERALL NORTH AMERICA, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00092-JCH (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for class certification. According to the complaint, Connecticut employers may not classify workers as independent contractors unless they can show that the workers are (a) free from control and direction, (b) performing their work away from the employer's places of business and outside their usual course of business, and (c) "customarily engaged" in an "independently established" trade, occupation, profession or business. The Plaintiffs challenge what they contend are illegal employment practices by a large national cleaning company that sells low-paying janitorial jobs to primarily immigrant workers under the guise that the workers are buying their own businesses. Coverall North America sells cleaning "franchises" to workers who pay large sums of money in order to obtain this low-wage cleaning work. Coverall requires these workers to pay fees both upfront and on an ongoing basis for the right to continue working, including franchise fees, finder's fees, workers' compensation insurance, liability insurance, and assorted other fees, as well as chargebacks (which require the workers to return payments they have already received for their services when customers fail to pay their bills).[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated persons: Richard Hayber, Esq. Michael T. Petela, Esq. THE HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC 750 Main Street, Ste 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (203) 522-8888 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com mpetela@hayberlawfirm.com - and - Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com apagano@llrlaw.com COVIA HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Hearing Not Yet Rescheduled ------------------------------------------------------------ Covia Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the hearing to consider final approval of a class action settlement has not yet been rescheduled. The final settlement hearing, originally scheduled for March 12, 2019, was postponed due to conflicts with the Court's schedule. The hearing has not yet been rescheduled. On June 1, 2018 (the "Merger Date"), Unimin Corporation ("Unimin") completed its previously announced merger transaction (the "Merger") with Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. ("Fairmount Santrol"). Upon closing of the Merger, Fairmount Santrol was merged into a wholly owned subsidiary of Unimin and ceased to exist as a separate corporate entity. The combined entities began operating as Covia. Fairmount Santrol common stock was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") prior to the market opening on June 1, 2018 and Covia commenced trading under the ticker symbol "CVIA" as of that date. Beginning on April 24, 2018, alleged stockholders of Fairmount Santrol filed class actions against Fairmount Santrol and its directors in the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Ohio and for the District of Delaware. The lawsuits generally alleged that Fairmount Santrol and its directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing misleading disclosures in connection with the Merger. The lawsuits sought, among other things, to enjoin the special meeting at which stockholders of Fairmount Santrol were scheduled to vote on, among other items, a proposal to adopt the Merger agreement. On May 15, 2018, pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for the defendants, Fairmount Santrol disseminated additional information to Fairmount Santrol stockholders through a Current Report on Form 8-K. Also on May 15, 2018, the plaintiffs withdrew their pending motions for a preliminary injunction. On June 1, 2018, after the holders of the majority of the outstanding shares of Fairmount Santrol voted to approve the Merger, the Merger was effected pursuant to the Merger agreement. On November 9, 2018, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement and the plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court seeking preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. The final settlement hearing, originally scheduled for March 12, 2019, was postponed due to conflicts with the Court's schedule. The hearing has not yet been rescheduled. Covia Holdings Corporation provides diversified mineral-based and material solutions for the industrial and energy markets. The company operates through two segments, Energy and Industrial. Covia Holdings Corporation was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Independence, Ohio. CREDIT SUISSE: Continues to Defend SSA Bonds-Related Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Credit Suisse Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend class action suits related to supranational, sub-sovereign and agency (SSA) bonds. Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, along with other financial institutions and individuals, have been named in several putative class action complaints filed in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) relating to the supranational, sub-sovereign and agency (SSA) bonds. The complaints generally allege that defendants conspired to fix the prices of SSA bonds sold to and purchased from investors in the secondary market. These actions have been consolidated in the SDNY. On April 7, 2017, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on November 3, 2017, which defendants moved to dismiss on December 12, 2017. On August 24, 2018, the SDNY granted defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, but granted plaintiffs leave to amend. On November 6, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended class action complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss on December 21, 2018. Separately, on February 7, 2019, Credit Suisse AG and certain of its affiliates, together with other financial institutions and individuals, were named in a putative class action filed in the SDNY, which makes allegations similar to the consolidated class action, but seeks to represent a putative class of indirect purchasers of US dollar SSA bonds where the purchase was made in or connected to New York. Credit Suisse Group AG and certain of its affiliates, together with other financial institutions, have also been named in two Canadian putative class actions, which make allegations similar to the consolidated class action. Credit Suisse Group AG, through its subsidiaries, provides various financial services worldwide. It operates through Swiss Universal Bank, International Wealth Management, Asia Pacific, Global Markets, and Investment Banking & Capital Markets segments. Credit Suisse Group AG was founded in 1856 and is based in Zurich, Switzerland. CREDIT SUISSE: Continues to Defend USD LIBOR Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- Credit Suisse Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend the USD London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) litigation. Beginning in 2011, certain Credit Suisse entities were named in various civil lawsuits filed in the US, alleging banks on the US dollar LIBOR panel manipulated US dollar LIBOR to benefit their reputation and increase profits. All but one of these matters have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes into a multi-district litigation in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The majority of the actions have been stayed since their outset, while a handful of individual actions and putative class actions have been proceeding. The Credit Suisse entities have been dismissed from all non-stayed putative class actions. In a series of rulings between 2013 and 2018 on motions to dismiss, the SDNY (i) narrowed the claims against the Credit Suisse entities and the other defendants (dismissing antitrust, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Commodity Exchange Act, and state law claims), (ii) narrowed the set of plaintiffs who may bring claims, and (iii) narrowed the set of defendants in the LIBOR actions (including the dismissal of several Credit Suisse entities from various cases on personal jurisdiction grounds). The plaintiffs have appealed several of the SDNY's rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit). On February 23, 2018, the Second Circuit issued a decision in an appeal of one individual (non-class) action that largely affirmed the SDNY's rulings, including upholding the dismissal of certain state law and securities law claims as to Credit Suisse Group AG, but vacated certain rulings and remanded the case for further proceedings. Another consolidated Second Circuit appeal is still pending. Separately, on May 4, 2017, the plaintiffs in the three non-stayed putative class actions moved for class certification. On February 28, 2018, the SDNY denied certification in two of the actions and granted certification over a single antitrust claim in an action brought by over-the-counter purchasers of LIBOR-linked derivatives. In the same decision, the court dismissed Credit Suisse AG, the only remaining Credit Suisse entity in the action, from the over-the-counter action. All parties moved for immediate appellate review of the class-certification decisions, and the Second Circuit denied their petitions for review. On June 15, 2018, plaintiffs in several non-class actions filed amended complaints or filed for leave to amend their currently operative complaints. On July 13, 2018, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaints and opposed leave to amend. In the one matter that is not consolidated in the multi-district litigation, the SDNY granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on March 31, 2015. On June 1, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in the SDNY; defendants' opposition brief was filed on July 15, 2015. On March 20, 2018, the SDNY denied the plaintiff's request for leave to file an amended pleading and dismissed the case on the merits. Plaintiff appealed to the Second Circuit. Credit Suisse Group AG, through its subsidiaries, provides various financial services worldwide. It operates through Swiss Universal Bank, International Wealth Management, Asia Pacific, Global Markets, and Investment Banking & Capital Markets segments. Credit Suisse Group AG was founded in 1856 and is based in Zurich, Switzerland. CREDIT SUISSE: Defending Against USD ICE LIBOR Litigation in SDNY ----------------------------------------------------------------- Credit Suisse Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company is facing a consolidated US dollar Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) LIBOR suit. In January 2019, members of the US dollar Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) LIBOR panel, including Credit Suisse Group AG and certain of its affiliates, were named in three civil putative class action lawsuits alleging that panel banks suppressed US dollar ICE LIBOR to benefit defendants' trading positions. These actions have been consolidated in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). Credit Suisse Group AG, through its subsidiaries, provides various financial services worldwide. It operates through Swiss Universal Bank, International Wealth Management, Asia Pacific, Global Markets, and Investment Banking & Capital Markets segments. Credit Suisse Group AG was founded in 1856 and is based in Zurich, Switzerland. CURO GROUP: Continues to Defend Yellowdog Partners Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- CURO Group Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a securities class action lawsuit entitled, Yellowdog Partners, LP v. CURO Group Holdings Corp., Donald F. Gayhardt, William Baker and Roger W. Dean. On December 5, 2018, a putative securities fraud class action lawsuit was filed against the company and its chief executive officer, chief financial officer and chief operating officer in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, captioned Yellowdog Partners, LP v. CURO Group Holdings Corp., Donald F. Gayhardt, William Baker and Roger W. Dean, Civil Action No. 18-2662. The complaint alleges that the company and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and that the individual defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as "control persons" of CURO. Plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a class of investors who purchased the company's stock between July 31, 2018 and October 24, 2018. Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class period, the company made misleading statements and omitted material information regarding the company's efforts to transition its Canadian inventory of products from Single-Pay loans to Open-End loans. Plaintiffs assert that the company and the individual defendants made these misstatements and omissions to keep our stock price high. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief. CURO Group said, "While we intend to vigorously contest this lawsuit, we cannot determine the final resolution or when it might be resolved. In addition to the expenses incurred in defending this litigation and any damages that may be awarded in the event of an adverse ruling, our management’s efforts and attention may be diverted from the ordinary business operations to address these claims. Regardless of the outcome, this litigation may have a material adverse impact on our results because of defense costs, including costs related to our indemnification obligations, diversion of resources and other factors." CURO Group Holdings Corp., a diversified consumer finance company, provides consumer finance to a range of underbanked consumers in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The company was formerly known as Speedy Group Holdings Corp. and changed its name to CURO Group Holdings Corp. in May 2016. CURO Group Holdings Corp. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Wichita, Kansas. DELTA AIR: Pica Appeals C.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Gabrielle Groff and Dana Pica filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit styled Dana Pica, et al. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02876-MWF-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The nature of suit is stated as other contract actions. The appellate case is captioned as Dana Pica, et al. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-55300, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by April 12, 2019; -- Transcript is due on May 13, 2019; -- Appellants Gabrielle Groff and Dana Pica's opening brief is due on June 21, 2019; -- Appellees Delta Air Lines, Inc., Does and [27].AI, Inc.'s answering brief is due on July 22, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DANA PICA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and GABRIELLE GROFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Justin F. Marquez, Esq. Thiago Coelho, Esq. Bobby Saadian, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com - and - J. Paul Gignac, Esq. FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP 15 West Carrillo Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 962-9495 Facsimile: (805) 962-0722 E-mail: jpg@foleybezek.com Defendant-Appellee DELTA AIR LINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, is represented by: David L. Balser, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-2782 E-mail: dbalser@kslaw.com - and - Joseph Nicholas Akrotirianakis, Esq. KING AND SPALDING LLP 633 W. 5th Street, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 E-mail: jakro@kslaw.com Defendant-Appellee [27] .AI, INC., a California Corporation, is represented by: Casie D. Collignon, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-0600 E-mail: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com - and - Teresa Carey Chow, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 E-mail: tchow@bakerlaw.com DEUTSCHE BANK: Agreement Reached in SSA Direct Participants Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has reached an agreement to settle the actions by direct market participants for the amount of US$48.5 million. Deutsche Bank is a defendant in several putative class action complaints filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York by alleged direct and indirect market participants claiming violations of antitrust law and common law related to alleged manipulation of the secondary trading market for Sovereign, Supranational and Agency Bonds (SSA) bonds. Deutsche Bank has reached an agreement to settle the actions by direct market participants for the amount of US$48.5 million and has recorded a provision in the same amount. The settlement is subject to court approval. The action filed on behalf of alleged indirect market participants is in its early stages. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial, and related products and services to private individuals, corporate entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private & Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. DEUTSCHE BANK: Continues to Defend Shareholders' Class Suit in NY ----------------------------------------------------------------- Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the lead plaintiff in the shareholders class action suit pending before the Southern District of New York has filed an amended class action complaint. Deutsche Bank and certain of its current and former officers and management board members are the subject of a purported class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Deutsche Bank on a United States exchange or pursuant to other transactions within the United States between March 20, 2017 and May 30, 2018. Plaintiffs allege that Deutsche Bank's Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Annual Reports on Form 20-F for the years 2016 and 2017 and its quarterly interim reports on Form 6-K for calendar 2017 contained materially false and misleading statements regarding its business, operational and compliance policies and internal control environment. On January 25, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint. Deutsche Bank is defending the action. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial, and related products and services to private individuals, corporate entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private & Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Suits over Trading of US Agency Bonds ---------------------------------------------------------- Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has been named as defendant in four putative class action suits related to the alleged manipulation of the secondary trading market for US Agency bonds. Deutsche Bank has also been named as a defendant in four putative class action complaints filed in February and March 2019 in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of antitrust law and common law related to alleged manipulation of the secondary trading market for US Agency bonds. These cases are in the early stages. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial, and related products and services to private individuals, corporate entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private & Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. DEUTSCHE BANK: RMBS Trust-Related Class Suits Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------- Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the class action suits related to certain Residential Mortgage-Backed Security (RMBS) trusts have been dismissed. Deutsche Bank is a defendant in civil lawsuits brought by various groups of investors concerning its role as trustee of certain Residential Mortgage-Backed Security (RMBS) trusts. The actions generally allege claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest, negligence and/or violations of the US Trust Indenture Act of 1939, based on the trustees' alleged failure to perform adequately certain obligations and/or duties as trustee for the trusts. Two putative class actions brought by a group of investors, including funds managed by BlackRock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others recently were settled. One of these putative class actions was pending in the Superior Court of California until the court dismissed the action with prejudice on January 11, 2019. The second putative class action was pending in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York and was dismissed with prejudice on December 6, 2018. Deutsche Bank was also a defendant in a lawsuit brought by the Western and Southern Life Insurance Company and five related entities, but on September 28, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of their claims. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial, and related products and services to private individuals, corporate entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private & Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. DEUTSCHE BANK: Settlement Reached in Canadian Precious Metal Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has reached a settlement agreement in the Canadian class action suits related to precious metal. Deutsche Bank is a defendant in Canadian class action proceedings in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec concerning gold and silver. Each of the proceedings seeks damages for alleged violations of the Canadian Competition Act and other causes of action. Deutsche Bank has reached agreements to settle these actions. The agreements remain subject to court approval, and the amounts are not material to the Bank. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial, and related products and services to private individuals, corporate entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private & Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. DEUTSCHE BANK: Still Defends Bank Bill Swap Rate Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court overseeing the Bank Bill Swap Rate Claims litigation has granted plaintiffs permission to file a second amended complaint. On August 16, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York against Deutsche Bank and other defendants, bringing claims based on alleged collusion and manipulation in connection with the Australian Bank Bill Swap Rate ("BBSW") on behalf of persons and entities that engaged in US-based transactions in BBSW-linked financial instruments from 2003 through the date on which the effects of the alleged unlawful conduct ceased. The complaint alleges that the defendants, among other things, engaged in money market transactions intended to influence the BBSW fixing, made false BBSW submissions, and used their control over BBSW rules to further the alleged misconduct. An amended complaint was filed on December 16, 2016. On November 26, 2018, the court partially granted defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint, dismissing all claims against Deutsche Bank. On March 4, 2019, the court granted plaintiffs permission to file a second amended complaint. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial, and related products and services to private individuals, corporate entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private & Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. DEUTSCHE BANK: Still Defends Royal Park Investments Suits --------------------------------------------------------- Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend the Royal Park Investments SA/NV class action suits. Deutsche Bank has been named as a defendant in six separate civil lawsuits, two putative class actions and four individual lawsuits. The putative class actions were brought by Royal Park Investments SA/NV, concern 10 trusts, and are pending in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. In the first case, which plaintiff filed on June 18, 2014, plaintiff alleges that the trusts suffered total realized collateral losses of more than US$ 3.1 billion, although the complaint does not specify a damage amount. On March 29, 2018, the court issued an order denying plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification, and on August 7, 2018, the court of appeals denied plaintiff's motion for leave to immediately appeal the denial of class certification. On September 28, 2018, the court denied plaintiff's motion seeking permission to prove liability and damages using a statistical sample of the loans at issue in the case. Discovery is ongoing. On August 4, 2017, Royal Park filed a separate, additional class action complaint against the trustee asserting claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, breach of trust, equitable accounting and declaratory and injunctive relief arising out of the payment from trust funds of the trustee’s legal fees and expenses in the other, ongoing Royal Park litigation. On August 13, 2018, the court stayed the action pending resolution of the underlying Royal Park litigation and denied the trustee's motion to dismiss without prejudice to its refiling once the stay is lifted. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial, and related products and services to private individuals, corporate entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private & Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. DEUTSCHE BANK: Suit in Canada over SSA Bonds Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend class action suits in Canada relating to the alleged manipulation of secondary trading of Sovereign, Supranational and Agency Bonds (SSA bonds). Deutsche Bank is a defendant in putative class actions filed on November 7, 2017 and December 5, 2017 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and Federal Court of Canada, respectively, claiming violations of antitrust law and the common law relating to alleged manipulation of secondary trading of Sovereign, Supranational and Agency Bonds (SSA bonds). The complaints rely on allegations similar to those in the US class actions involving SSA bond trading, and seek compensatory and punitive damages. The cases are in their early stages. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial, and related products and services to private individuals, corporate entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private & Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. DEUTSCHE BANK: Suits over Mexican Government Bond Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend several class action suits related to the trades of Mexican government bonds. Deutsche Bank was named as a defendant in several putative class action complaints filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of US antitrust law and a claim for unjust enrichment relating to Mexican government bond trading. The case is in its early stages. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial, and related products and services to private individuals, corporate entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private & Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. DOBBERSTEIN LAW: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned KIM AKER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DOBBERSTEIN LAW FIRM LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-415-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com DOORDASH INC: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, Goldman-Hull Says --------------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against Doordash, Inc for violations of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219, and the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 251-262, and California Labor Code. The case is captioned NOAH GOLDMAN-HULL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. DOORDASH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01513 (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2019). Goldman-Hull alleges that Doordash misclassifies him and other delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees and fails to pay them all hours worked. Further, Goldman-Hull seeks statutory penalties assessed in connection with California Private Attorneys General Act. He also seeks to recover the damages for claims of unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the FLSA. DoorDash, Inc. provides takeout food delivery via a phone application and website throughout the country. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net rprieto@eeoc.net - and - Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 839-6506 Facsimile: (818) 986-9698 E-mail: marbuckl@baronbudd.com EAST RIVER RESTAURANT: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRES ZAMORA RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EAST RIVER RESTAURANT GROUP, LTD. (D/B/A ELEVEN B), THE MATADOR RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. (D/B/A GUAC), and VINCENT A. SGARLATO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02534 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker. However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to washing plates, pots, utensils, preparing chicken, preparing dough, cutting vegetables, organizing inventory, restocking the refrigerators with beverages, folding pizza boxes, taking out the trash, and mopping and sweeping. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Zamora the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiff as a delivery worker in their payroll, but in actuality his duties required a significant amount of time spent performing the alleged non-tipped duties. The Defendants owned, operated or controlled an Italian and a Mexican Restaurant, located at 174 Avenue B, New York, NY 10009 under the name "Eleven B" and at 179 Avenue B, New York, NY 10009 under the name "Guac".[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com EGV COMPANIES: Smith Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- STEWART SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EGV COMPANIES, INC., a Missouri corporation, the Defendant, Case 2:19-cv-01170-MSG (E.D. Pa., March 198, 2019), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing auto-dialed calls to cellphone owners and to obtain damages and other redress for all persons injured by its conduct under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, all of the calls at issue in this case were made on behalf o, for the benefit of, and with the knowledge and approval of EGV. Unfortunately for consumers, EGV, in an attempt to sell more auto warranties, engaged in an aggressive telemarketing campaign -- often stepping outside the law in the process. Specifically, the Defendant uses an automatic telephone dialing system, to make unsolicited telemarketing calls to cellphone numbers. While calls to landlines may be permitted under the Act, the lawsuit contends that the Defendants' action is a plain violation of the TCPA to make those calls to cellphones without first obtaining prior express consent. EGV makes telemarketing calls to solicit to purchase auto warranties that it administers.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class: Barry Cohen, Esq. ROYER COPPER COHEN BREAUNFELD LLC Two Logan Square 00 N. 18th Street, Suite 710 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 484 362 2628 Fascimile: 484 362 2630 - and - Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. Taylor T. Smith, Esq. WOODRWO & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com EMSP LLC: Seeks Fifth Circuit Review of Ruling in Funez FLSA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants E.M.S.P., L.L.C., Edwin A. Miranda and Sadia Esther Palacio filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Funez, et al. v. E.M.S.P., L.L.C., et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-1922, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wage and overtime liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Sulma Hernandez, et al. v. E.M.S.P., L.L.C., et al., Case No. 19-30216, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees SULMA HERNANDEZ, On behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated; DIANNA MEJIA, On behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated; DILCIA NUNEZ, On behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated; KARLINA MOLINA, On behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated; LYDIA VEGA, On behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated; REYNA RODRIGUEZ, On behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated; JESSICA MARILU ROSALEZ FUNEZ, On behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated; CANDY MELISSA ZAMORA, On behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated; JULIE CARBALLO, Incorrectly named Julia S. Carballo; MARLENE RODRIGUEZ, On behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated; WENDY RAMIREZ; IRMA RIVERA; DORIS HERNANDEZ; ALICE CARTER; KEYRA BORDEN; BONNIE EVANS; SADIE GRIMES; NANCY MARTINEZ; JACOBY BRIGHT; JOSHUA ROBERT; NANCY MIRANDA; ELIJAH JONES; and GEORGE REED are represented by: Christopher L. Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C. 639 Loyola Ave. New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 308-1438 Facsimile: (504) 308-1446 E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com Defendants-Appellants E.M.S.P., L.L.C., EDWIN A. MIRANDA and SADIA ESTHER PALACIO are represented by: Preston L. Hayes, Esq. CHEHARDY SHERMAN WILLIAMS, L.L.P. 1 Galleria Boulevard Metairie, LA 70001 Telephone: (504) 217-2006 Facsimile: (504) 833-5600 E-mail: plh@chehardy.com ENSIGN GROUP: Harris Seeks Overtime Pay --------------------------------------- The case captioned as, VICTORIA HARRIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), Plaintiffs, v. THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC., KEYSTONE CARE, LLC, and TREE CITY HEALTHCARE, INC, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00713-C (N.D. Tex., March 22, 2019), alleges that Plaintiff and Class Members routinely work in excess of 40 hours in each workweek. However, the defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members at one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in each workweek. Plaintiff Harris seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under Sections 207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Ensign Group, Inc., Keystone Care, LLC., and Tree City Healthcare, Inc. provide post-acute care services including independent living, assisted living, skilled nursing, rehabilitative care, home health, home care and hospice. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: 817-479-9229 Facsimile: 817-887-1878 E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Ibrahim Sues over Hostile Work Environment ---------------------------------------------------------------- A civil action has been filed against Fidelity Investments, Inc. for human rights violations. The case is captioned MAIE IBRAHIM, Plaintiff, against FIDELITY INVESTMENTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 152689/2019 (N.Y. Sup., March 13, 2019). Plaintiff Maie Ibrahim brings a civil action to remedy Fidelity Investments' unlawful and discriminatory employment actions taken against her, including hostile work environment, harassment based upon sex, discrimination based upon sex resulting in constructive discharge, and retaliation resulting in constructive discharge in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiff seeks equitable and legal relief in the form of declaratory relief; injunctive relief; monetary damages for past and future economic losses; compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, emotional distress, mental anguish, and humiliation; punitive damages; reasonable attorney's fees; costs of this action; and any such other and further relief deemed just and equitable. Fidelity is a multinational financial services corporation duly organized and existing in the State of Massachusetts conducting business in the State of New York, County of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin S. Clark, Esq. LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4020 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 967-3000 E-mail: jclark@levineblit.com FIDELITY SOUTHERN: Parshall Sues over Securities Transaction ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit over alleged violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 has been filed against Fidelity Southern Corporation. The case is captioned PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FIDELITY SOUTHERN CORPORATION, JAMES B. MILLER JR., H. PALMER PROCTOR JR., DAVID R. BOCKEL SR., RODNEY D. BULLARD, WILLIAM MILLARD CHOATE, DONALD A. HARP JR., KEVIN S. KING, WILLIAM C. LANKFORD JR., GLORIA A. O'NEAL, W. CLYDE SHEPHERD III, RANKIN M. SMITH JR., and AMERIS BANCORP, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01098-MHC (N.D. Ga., March 8, 2019). Parshall claims that the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed by the defendant on February 12, 2019, omits material information with respect to a proposed transaction. The action stems from the transaction announced on Dec. 17, 2018, pursuant to which Fidelity Southern Corporation will be acquired by Ameris Bancorp. On the same day, Fidelity’s Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Ameris. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Fidelity will receive 0.80 shares of Ameris common stock for each share of Fidelity common stock they own. However, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with an omission that renders it false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration Statement. Fidelity is a Georgia corporation and maintains its principal executive offices at 3490 Piedmont Road, Suite 1550, Atlant, Georgia 30305. Its common stock is traded on NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker symbol LION. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Marshall P. Dees HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC. 1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 - and - RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. Gina M. Serra 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone(302) 295-5310 - and - RM LAW, P.C. Richard A. Maniskas 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone:(484) 324-6800 FIRST INTERSTATE: Parshall Suit Dropped --------------------------------------- First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 18, 2019, that the plaintiff in the putative class action suit entitled, Parshall v. Community 1st Bank, et al., has agreed to dismiss the case. On or about February 8, 2019, a purported individual stockholder of Community 1st Bank ("CMYF") filed a lawsuit in the Court for the First Judicial District of The State of Idaho, Kootenai County (the "Court"), under the caption Parshall v. Community 1st Bank, et. al., Case No. CV28-19-1063 (the "Action"). The complaint, which was filed as a putative class action and derivative action on behalf of the individual plaintiff and the public stockholders of CMYF, alleges that the proxy statement/prospectus (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus") forming a part of the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed by First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. ("First Interstate") in connection with the proposed merger of CMYF with First Interstate Bank, the wholly-owned subsidiary of First Interstate, does not contain certain information alleged to be material to the CMYF stockholders concerning the proposed merger. The complaint asserts claims against CMYF's directors for breach of fiduciary duty, and against First Interstate for aiding and abetting the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief against consummation of the merger and additional, allegedly corrective disclosures as well as attorneys' and expert fees. Solely to avoid the costs, risks, nuisance and uncertainties inherent in litigation and to allow the CMYF stockholders to vote on the proposals required in connection with the proposed merger with First Interstate Bank at the CMYF special meeting of stockholders to be held on March 27, 2019 (the "Special Meeting'), CMYF hereby supplements the disclosures contained in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus (the "Additional Disclosures"). The Additional Disclosures should be read in conjunction with the Proxy Statement/Prospectus. In light of the Additional Disclosures, plaintiff has agreed to dismiss the Action with prejudice as to his individual claims and without prejudice to the claims of the members of the putative class. In dismissing the Action, plaintiff has reserved the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees from the Court. The agreement to make the Additional Disclosures will not affect the merger consideration to be paid to CMYF's stockholders or the timing of the Special Meeting. CMYF and the other defendants, including First Interstate, vigorously deny that the Proxy Statement/Prospectus is deficient in any respect and that the Additional Disclosures are material or required. CMYF and First Interstate believe that the claims asserted in the Action are without merit, and that the Additional Disclosures do not provide information required by the federal securities laws or Idaho law or that is material to the decision of the CMYF stockholders as to how to vote their shares at the Special Meeting. The Additional Disclosures are being made solely to eliminate the burden, expense, and nuisance of further litigation, and to avoid any possible delay to the closing of the merger that might arise from further litigation. A copy of the additional disclosures is available at https://bit.ly/2TP8Y2Q. First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for First Interstate Bank that provides range of banking products and services in the United States. First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. was incorporated in 1971 and is headquartered in Billings, Montana. FPI MANAGEMENT: Faces Daniel Herrera Labor Suit ----------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against FPI Management, Inc. The case is captioned Daniel Herrera vs. FPI Management Inc, Case No. 34-2019-00252461-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento County, March 13, 2019). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Tami R. Bogert. FPI Management, Inc. is a privately owned, third-party, multifamily property manager. Headquartered in Folsom, California, FPI currently manages 110,000 units in 14 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W Lee, Esq. Diversity Law Group 515 S Figueroa St Ste 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com FTD COMPANIES: Bid for Review in EasySaver Rewards Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- FTD Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the objector's petition seeking Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit's denial of a motion to stay the issuance of mandate in the case entitled, In re EasySaver Rewards Litigation, is still pending. Commencing on August 19, 2009, the first of a series of putative consumer class action lawsuits was brought against Provide Commerce, Inc. and co-defendant Regent Group, Inc. d/b/a Encore Marketing International ("EMI"). These cases were ultimately consolidated during the next three years into Case No. 09 CV 2094 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California under the title In re EasySaver Rewards Litigation. Plaintiffs' claims arise from their online enrollment in subscription based membership programs known as EasySaver Rewards, RedEnvelope Rewards, and Preferred Buyers Pass (collectively the "Membership Programs"). Plaintiffs claim that after they ordered items from certain of Provide Commerce's websites, they were presented with an offer to enroll in one of the Membership Programs, each of which is offered and administered by EMI. Plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of consumers allegedly damaged by Provide Commerce's purported unauthorized or otherwise allegedly improper transferring of billing information to EMI, who then posted allegedly unauthorized charges to their credit or debit card accounts for membership fees for the Membership Programs. In the operative fourth amended complaint, plaintiffs asserted ten claims against Provide Commerce and EMI: (1) breach of contract (against Provide Commerce only); (2) breach of contract (against EMI only); (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) fraud; (5) violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (against EMI only); (8) invasion of privacy; (9) negligence; and (10) violations of the Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs seek damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. After motion practice regarding the claims asserted and numerous settlement conferences and mediations in an effort to informally resolve the matter the parties reached an agreement on the high level terms of a settlement on April 9, 2012, conditioned on the parties negotiating and executing a complete written agreement. In the weeks following April 9, 2012, the parties negotiated a formal written settlement agreement (the "Settlement"), which the court preliminarily approved on June 13, 2012. After notice to the purported class and briefing by the parties, the court conducted a final approval hearing (also known as a fairness hearing) on January 28, 2013, but did not rule. On February 4, 2013, the court entered its final order approving the Settlement, granting plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards, and overruling objections filed by a single objector. The court entered judgment on the Settlement on February 21, 2013. The objector filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 4, 2013. After the completion of briefing, the Ninth Circuit set oral argument for February 2, 2015. But on January 29, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order deferring argument and resolution of the appeal pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in a matter captioned Frank v. Netflix, No. 12 15705+. On March 19, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order vacating the judgment in this matter and remanding it to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion in Frank v. Netflix issued on February 27, 2015. The district court ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of final Settlement approval May 21, 2015. After briefing, the district court conducted a hearing on July 27, 2016 and took the matter under submission. On August 9, 2016, the district court entered an order reapproving the Settlement without any changes, and accordingly entered judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice. On September 6, 2016, the objector filed a notice of appeal. On November 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary affirmance of the district court's judgment, to which the objector responded and filed a cross-motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary affirmance temporarily stayed briefing on the appeal. On March 2, 2017, the Ninth Circuit denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary affirmance and objector's cross-motion for sanctions, and reset the briefing schedule. The objector filed his opening brief on May 1, 2017. Thirteen state Attorneys General filed an amicus brief in support of the objector on May 8, 2017. The parties filed their answering briefs on June 30, 2017. Various legal aid organizations filed an amicus brief in support of no party regarding cy pres relief also on June 30, 2017. The objector's optional reply brief was filed on August 14, 2017. The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on May 17, 2018. On October 3, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion vacating the district court's award of attorney's fees, but otherwise affirmed the district court’s approval of the class action settlement. On October 10, 2018, the objector filed a motion to stay the issuance of mandate, which would return jurisdiction to the district court, and for an extension of time to file a petition for panel rehearing. The Ninth Circuit denied the objector's motion on November 21, 2018, and issued the mandate on November 29, 2018. In March 2019, the parties completed submission of supplemental briefings to the district court regarding the amount of Plaintiffs' counsel’s attorneys' fees and costs award. As of the date of this filing, the district court has not issued a decision on the matter. On February 13, 2019, the objector filed a petition seeking Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit's decision. As of the date of this filing, the Supreme Court has not reviewed the objector's petition. The negotiated settlement amount has been fully reserved. FTD Companies said, "There can be no assurances that other legal actions or governmental investigations will not be instituted in connection with the Company's current or former business practices. The Company cannot predict the outcome of governmental investigations or other legal actions or their potential implications for its business." FTD Companies, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a floral and gifting company primarily in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland. It operates through four segments: Provide Commerce, Consumer, Florist, and International. The company was formerly known as UNOL Intermediate, Inc. FTD Companies, Inc. was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in Downers Grove, Illinois. G WILLI FOOD: Bid to Withdraw Class Suit v. Gold Frost Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- G. Willi-Food International Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that the company is awaiting the court's decision on plaintiff's motion to withdraw the class action suit against Gold Frost Ltd. A lawsuit and a motion to approve it as a class action was filed on July 22, 2018, against Gold Frost Ltd. (through the company) (hereafter – "Gold Frost") and eight other companies to the Jerusalem District Court for allegedly not complying with the food labelling regulations in connection with one of its products and thereby misleading consumers. At this stage, the amount of the lawsuit is NIS 4 million, since the plaintiff does not have sufficient data regarding the amount of the damage. On November 16 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw the lawsuit, including payment compensation and attorneys' fees at amounts that are immaterial to the Company. As of the date of this report, the Court has not yet issued a ruling approving the withdrawal of the lawsuit. G. Willi-Food International Ltd. develops, imports, exports, markets, and distributes various food products worldwide. The company was formerly known as G. Willi-Food Ltd. and changed its name to G. Willi-Food International Ltd. in June 1996. The company was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Yavne, Israel. G. Willi-Food International Ltd. is a subsidiary of Willi-Food Investments Ltd. G WILLI FOOD: NIS2.7-Mil. Customer Protection Breach Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- G. Willi-Food International Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that a preliminary hearing was held in the class action suit related to customer protection breach. A lawsuit and a motion to approve it as a class action was filed on March 26, 2018 against the Company to the Tel Aviv District Court for allegedly breaching some of its consumer protection duties in connection with one of its products, thereby misleading its customers. At this stage, the amount of the lawsuit is NIS 2.7 million, since the plaintiff does not have sufficient data regarding the amount of the damage. A preliminary hearing was held on December 19, 2018. In view of the preliminary stage of the proceedings, it is not yet possible to assess the result of the lawsuit. G. Willi-Food International Ltd. develops, imports, exports, markets, and distributes various food products worldwide. The company was formerly known as G. Willi-Food Ltd. and changed its name to G. Willi-Food International Ltd. in June 1996. The company was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Yavne, Israel. G. Willi-Food International Ltd. is a subsidiary of Willi-Food Investments Ltd. GATEWAY TRANS: Wooldridge Seeks Minimum Wages for Drivers --------------------------------------------------------- Billy Ray Wooldridge, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the ePlaintiff, vs. Gateway Transportation of Georgia, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00053-HLM (N.D. Ga., March 19, 2019), seeks damages for the Defendant's failure to pay minimum wages to Plaintiff and similarly situated long-haul over-the-road truck driver employees of Defendant as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act. Wooldridge was an employee of Defendant who worked as a long-haul over-the-road truck driver, transporting goods in a large container truck belonging to Defendant with an attached bunk cab. His work required that he sleep in the cab of his truck while away from home working for Defendant. According to the complaint, the Defendant paid Wooldridge for his work on a per-mile basis. At times, Wooldridge was paid 33 cents per mile, and at other times he was paid up to 42 cents per mile. However, the Defendant failed to ensure that the weekly wages Wooldridge received on this per-mile basis equaled at least the FLSA minimum hourly wage for all weekly hours that Wooldridge worked. In many instances, Wooldridge did not receive the federal minimum wage for all of his hours of work per seven-day workweek because the weekly mileage pay he received, when divided by the weekly hours considered worked under the FLSA, was less than the FLSA mandated minimum hourly wage rate of $7.25. The Defendant's conduct was not limited to its treatment of Wooldridge. It paid all of its employee long-haul over-the-road truck drivers on a per-mile basis without ensuring that its workers were paid minimum wage for all hours of work in each seven-day workweek. As the result of this pay practice, Defendant frequently failed to pay its employee long-haul over-the-road truck drivers FLSA mandated minimum wages for all hours that they worked. Gateway Transportation provides long-haul trucking services to its customers, with locations in Georgia and Florida. In connection with these services, Gateway employs truck drivers like Plaintiff to drive its trucks.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Charles R. Bridgers, Esq. DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS, FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC 3100 Centennial Tower 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 979-3150 Facsimile: (404) 979-3170 E-mail: charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com - and - Allen R. Vaught, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com marbuckl@baronbudd.com GENERAL MOTORS: Dawson Sues Over Faulty CP4 Fuel Injection Pumps ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE DAWSON and JOHN TAMBURINI individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-08680 (D.N.J., March 15, 2019), concerns diesel vehicles sold in New Jersey with defective CP4 fuel injection pumps. The vehicles at issue refer to GM manufactured vehicles, including: the 2011-2016 model year Chevrolet Silverado 2500 and 3500 and the 2011-2016 model year GMC Sierra 2500 and 3500, which are equipped with the 6.6 liter, V-8, turbocharged, Duramax engine. The Plaintiffs allege that GM failed to disclose to Plaintiffs and other buyers/lessees that the Bosch CP4 high pressure fuel injection pumps installed in the Class Vehicles are defective when used in the United States. Such pumps, which require a certain amount of lubricity, are incompatible with U.S. diesel fuel, which does not have the required lubricity. Based in Detroit, Michigan, General Motors LLC is a Delaware limited liability company doing business throughout the United States and in various other countries. GM, through its various entities, manufactures, distributes, designs, sells, leases and warranties the Class Vehicles in this District and other locations in the United States. The Company's core automobile brands include GMC and Chevrolet.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell D. Paul, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Shoshana Savett, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net elechtzin@bm.net stsavett@bm.net GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Martinez Suit over Defective 2.4L Engine -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07432 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2019) alleges that the Defendant's motor vehicles equipped with a 2.4L engine, including the 2011 GMC Terrain, contained one or more design and manufacturing defects in their engines that cause them to be unable to properly utilize engine oil and, in fact, to improperly burn off and consume abnormally high amounts of oil. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the vehicles equipped with the 2.4L engine had one or more defects that can result in various problems, including, but not limited to, excessive oil consumption; improper burning or consumption of abnormally high amounts of oil; premature failure of the engine balance chains; premature failure of the fuel pump plunger seal; fuel leaks into the crankcase; rough running of the engine; engine run-on conditions; loss of power; rough idle; and stalling. These conditions present a safety hazard and are unreasonably dangerous to consumers because they can suddenly and unexpectedly cause engine failure while the vehicle is in operation at any time and under any driving condition or speed. The unexpected engine failure, thereby, expose the Plaintiff and her passengers to a serious risk of accident and injury. General Motors LLC was incorporated in 2009 and is based in Wilmington, Delaware. General Motors LLC operates as a subsidiary of General Motors Company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tionna Dolin, Esq. Daniel Tai, Esq. STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 929-4900 Facsimile: (310) 943-3838 E-mail: tdolin@slpattorney.com dtai@slpattorney.com GENERAL REVENUE: Henderson May File Second Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Glen E. Conrad grants the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in the lawsuit captioned WILLIE HENDERSON, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 7:17-cv-00292-GEC (W.D. Va.). The second amended complaint will be deemed filed as of the date of the order and docketed separately by the Clerk, according to the order. The Plaintiff will file an amended motion for class certification reflecting Navient Portfolio Management, LLC as an additional defendant within five days. The parties will confer and submit a proposed briefing schedule on the amended motion for class certification within 10 days. Upon receipt of the proposed briefing schedule, the Court will finalize the hearing date for the amended motion for class certification. The original motion for class certification will be administratively terminated by the Clerk.[CC] GLOBAL FIXTURE: Tillis Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Workers -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, MONIQUE TILLIS, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons, the Plaintiff, vs. GLOBAL FIXTURE SERVICES, INC. and DOLGENCORP OF TEXAS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01059 (S.D. Tex., March 21, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees owed to Plaintiff Monique Tillis and all other similarly situated employees employed by, or formerly employed by the Defendants, its subsidiaries and affiliated companies, under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. According to the complaint, Dolgencorp of Texas, Inc. is one of a number of corporations formed for the purpose of operating Dollar General stores around the country. Global Fixture Services, Inc. is a company that performs services, solely at Dollar General stores. Global hires crews of approximately individuals to "re-set" Dollar General stores. A re-set involves removing all merchandise from a Dollar General store and putting it in a storage container brought on site for that purpose, removing all shelving, coolers and other fixtures. One crew member is called the "lead contractor," and is the point person for dealing with the Dollar General representative and generally in charge of the crew and their work. Each crew spends a week or so on each re-set, beginning on Saturday and finishing the following Thursday, Friday, or occasionally Saturday. The crew then rebuilds and rearranges shelving, coolers and fixtures according to the new Dollar General -- determined arrangement, and then puts the merchandise back on the shelves. The Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to properly compensate Plaintiff and Members of the Class for work performed in the employ of the Defendants. They have suffered damages as a direct result of Defendants' illegal actions, the lawsuit states.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. Vijay Pattisapu, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: 713-868-3388 Facsimile: 713-683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com vijay@buenkerlaw.com GLOBAL LOCKSMITH: Armstrong et al. Suit Moved to S.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, New Covenant Church, Inc., Carlos L. Williams, Felicia Williams, and Catherine Armstrong, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Jeanine R. Armstrong, Carla Futch, Yvette D. Clayborne, S. Ferguson, and One Unknown Officer, in their individual and official capacities as Police Officers for the City of Brunswick, Georgia; Global Locksmith Pros, LLC; Primesouth Bank, the Defendants, Case No. CE19-00333, was transferred from the Superior Court of Glynn County, Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia (Brunswick) on March 21, 2019. The Southern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00040-LGW-BWC to the proceeding. The suit demands $1,600,000 alleging civil rights related violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lisa G. Wood.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. Attorneys for the Defendants: Emily Rose Hancock, Esq. Richard K. Strickland, Esq. BROWN, READDICK & BUMGARTNER P.O. Box 220 Brunswick, GA 31521 Telephone: (912) 264-8544 Facsimile: (912) 264-9667 E-mail: ehancock@brbcsw.com rstrickland@brbcsw.com GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Dismiss Transient Tax Suit Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- Golden Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has granted a joint motion to dismiss the Transient Lodging Tax-related suit. On August 31, 2018, prior guests of The Strat filed a purported class action complaint against the company in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of similarly situated individuals and entities that paid the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax ("Tax") on the portion of a resort fee that constitutes charges for Internet access, during the period of February 6, 2014 through the date the alleged conduct ceases. The lawsuit alleged that the Tax was charged in violation of the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, which imposed a national moratorium on the taxation of Internet access by states and their political subdivisions, and sought, on behalf of the plaintiff and the putative class, damages equal to the amount of the Tax collected on the Internet access component of the resort fee, injunctive relief, disgorgement, interest, fees and costs. All defendants to this matter, including Golden Entertainment, Inc., filed a joint motion to dismiss this matter for lack of merit. The District Court granted this joint motion to dismiss on February 21, 2019. Golden Entertainment aid, "At this time this matter is closed. The plaintiffs have the right to appeal." Golden Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, focuses on distributed gaming, and resort casino operations in the United States. The company was formerly known as Lakes Entertainment, Inc. and changed its name to Golden Entertainment, Inc. in July 2015. The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: June 2019 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Golden Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a final fairness hearing to consider approval of the settlement in a class action lawsuit in Nevada is scheduled for June 2019. In February and April 2017, several former employees filed two separate purported class action lawsuits against the company in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, and on behalf of similarly situated individuals employed by the company in the State of Nevada. The lawsuits allege that the company violated certain Nevada labor laws including payment of an hourly wage below the statutory minimum wage without providing a qualified health insurance plan and an associated failure to pay proper overtime compensation. The complaints seek, on behalf of the plaintiffs and members of the putative class, an unspecified amount of damages (including punitive damages), injunctive and equitable relief, and an award of attorneys' fees, interest and costs. The company agreed to settle the first of these cases in the fourth quarter of 2017 and the second of these cases in the third quarter of 2018. In February 2019, the court approved the settlement for the first case for $0.5 million. The remaining case remains subject to final court approval, with the final fairness hearing scheduled for June 2019. Both were included in the company's recorded reserves of $1.7 million at December 31, 2018. Golden Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, focuses on distributed gaming, and resort casino operations in the United States. The company was formerly known as Lakes Entertainment, Inc. and changed its name to Golden Entertainment, Inc. in July 2015. The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. GS FIRE: Violates FLSA by Misclassifying Workers, Guzman Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE GUZMAN, ANGEL GAMERO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. GS FIRE PROTECTION, LLC, and BRENT A. EAKINS, Case No. 4:19-cv-00214-ALM (E.D. Tex., March 19, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by improperly classifying the Plaintiffs and Class Members as independent contractors to evade legal obligations to pay overtime wages. GSFP is a Texas limited-liability company with its principal offices located in in Allen, Texas. Brent A. Eakins is a part owner and Manager of GSFP. GSFP installs and repairs fire-protection systems in residential and commercial construction projects, including single-family houses, multi-unit dwellings, and retail spaces, throughout North Texas and across the state. Eakins is GSFP's owner, President, and Manager.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James D. Sanford, Esq. GILLESPIE SANFORD LLP 4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 800-5112 Facsimile: (214) 838-0001 E-mail: jim@gillespiesanford.com HALL MANAGEMENT: Martinez et al. Suit Transferred to E.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Erica Martinez, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hall Management Corp., et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-00343-DAD-BAM (Filed March 12, 2019) was transferred from the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The Defendants removed this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1441 and 1446, and stated that this Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332 and/or alternatively, the Court has original removal jurisdiction pursuant to Class Action Fairness Act. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd. Plaintiff Martinez sues Hall Management for its failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay all overtime wages, meal period violations, wage statement violations, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition. Martinez seeks unpaid wages, penalties, liquidated damages, restitution, attorneys' fees, costs and interest. Defendants Hall Management Corp. and Hall Management Group, Inc., employ seasonal farm labor employees to process and pack produce. [BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. Matthew Kevin Moen, Esq. Paul K. Haines, Esq. Haines Law Group, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com mmoen@haineslawgroup.com phaines@haineslawgroup.com Attorneys for Defendants Hall Management Corp. and Hall Management Group, Inc.: Michael C. Saqui, Esq., Jennifer M. Schermerhorn, Esq., Anthony C. Oceguera, Esq. Rebecca A. Hause-Schultz, Esq. DOWLING AARON INCORPORATED 1410 Rocky Ridge Drive, Suite 330 Roseville, CA 95661 Telephone: (916) 782-8555 Facsimile: (916) 782-8565 E-mail: Jschermerhorn@laborcounselors.com RHause-Schultz@laborcounselors.com HANJIN INT'L: Brimhall Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The purported class action lawsuit titled SABRINA BRIMHALL, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. HANJIN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION dba INTERCONTINENTAL LOS ANGELES DOWNTOWN, a California Corporation, and DOES 1-100, Case No. 19STCV02379, was removed on March 18, 2019, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02014 to the proceeding. Defendant Hanjin International Corporation, erroneously sued as Hanjin International Corporation dba Intercontinental Los Angeles Downtown, and Real Party Defendant in Interest IHG Management (Maryland) LLC dba Intercontinental Los Angeles Downtown, removed the action. On January 28, 2019, Sabrina Brimhall filed a civil complaint in the Superior Court. The Plaintiff alleges claims for, among other things, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages.[BN] Defendants Hanjin International Corporation and IHG Management (Maryland) LLC are represented by: Michael J. Burns, Esq. Eric E. Hill, Esq. Michelle M. Scannell, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 E-mail: mburns@seyfarth.com ehill@seyfarth.com mscannell@seyfarth.com HELIOS AND MATHESON: Arbitration Bid in Tabas Case Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the parties are awaiting a court ruling on a motion to compel arbitration in the Jackie Tabas and Katherine Rosenberg-Wohl v. MoviePass Inc., et al. On November 21, 2018, Jackie Tabas and Katherine Rosenberg-Wohl, acting on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against MoviePass, the Company and three of their executive officers, Theodore Farnsworth, Stuart Benson and J. Mitchell Lowe (the "November 21, 2018 Complaint"). Jackie Tabas and Katherine Rosenberg-Wohl v. MoviePass Inc., et. al., Case No. 3:18-cv-7087. The November 21, 2018 Complaint alleges, among other things, breach of contract by MoviePass, failure to disclose certain terms of service under Section 17602 of the California Business and Professions Code, and violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, the California Unfair Competition Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The November 21, 2018 Complaint also alleges claims of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment and inducement to breach contracts. Plaintiffs amended the November 21, 2018 Complaint on February 15, 2019 (the "First Amended Complaint"), dropping the claims of Plaintiff Rosenberg-Wohl following an individual settlement, and asserting the same claims made by Plaintiff Tabas in the November 21, 2018 Complaint on behalf of five new Plaintiffs: Linda Hobbs, Tim Samartino, Barbara Sjodahl, Patricia Dawn Walker, and Cheryl Whelan. Pursuant to an agreement between the parties tolling the running of the statutes of limitation on Plaintiffs’ claims, Plaintiffs also dropped the claims that had been previously asserted against Messrs. Farnsworth, Benson and Lowe. On March 8, 2019, MoviePass and the Company moved to compel arbitration of all the claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint on an individual basis. That motion is currently being briefed by the parties, and all further proceedings have been stayed while the motion is pending. Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. provides a range of information technology (IT) solutions to Fortune 1000 companies and other organizations in the United States. The company was formerly known as Helios and Matheson Information Technology Inc. and changed its name to Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. in May 2013. Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in New York, New York. HELIOS AND MATHESON: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the defendants in the consolidated class action suit are seeking dismissal of an consolidated complaint with prejudice. On August 2, 2018, Jeffrey Chang, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between August 15, 2017, and July 26, 2018, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and two of its executive officers, Theodore Farnsworth and Stuart Benson (the "August 2, 2018 Complaint"). Jeffrey Chang v. Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:18-cv-6965. On August 13, 2018, Jeffrey Braxton, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between August 15, 2017, and July 26, 2018, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and two of its executive officers, Theodore Farnsworth and Stuart Benson. Jeffrey Braxton v. Helios and Matheson Analytics, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-07242-UA. On November 16, 2018, the Court consolidated the two actions, appointed a group as lead plaintiffs and appointed Levi & Korsinsky as lead counsel for the putative class. On January 4, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint against the Company, Theodore Farnsworth, Stuart Benson, and Mitchell Lowe (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's statements to the market were materially false or misleading because the Company allegedly represented that it would continue to experience substantial growth, and that its business model was sustainable. The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. On February 25, 2019, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint with prejudice. Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. provides a range of information technology (IT) solutions to Fortune 1000 companies and other organizations in the United States. The company was formerly known as Helios and Matheson Information Technology Inc. and changed its name to Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. in May 2013. Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in New York, New York. HELIOS AND MATHESON: MoviePass Faces Weinberger Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that MoviePass Inc. has been named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit entitled, Lawrence Weinberger and Laurie Weinberger v. MoviePass Inc. On February 1, 2019, Lawrence Weinberger and his wife, Laurie Weinberger, acting on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against MoviePass (the "February 1, 2019 Complaint"). Lawrence Weinberger and Laurie Weinberger v. MoviePass Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01039. The February 1, 2019 Complaint alleges, among other things, breach of contract and of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by MoviePass, and violations of Sections 349(b) and 350 of the New York General Business Law, prohibiting deceptive and misleading conduct and false advertising in consumer transactions. Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. provides a range of information technology (IT) solutions to Fortune 1000 companies and other organizations in the United States. The company was formerly known as Helios and Matheson Information Technology Inc. and changed its name to Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. in May 2013. Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in New York, New York. HERSHEY CO: Court Narrows Claims in Brookside Mislabeling Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned HOWARD CLARK, TODD HALL, ANGELA PIRRONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. No. C 18-06113 WHA. (N.D. Cal.). The Hershey Company has a product line of Brookside Dark Chocolate candy balls filled with fruit-flavored gel. These chocolate balls are sold in bag-shaped packaging, with photos of the predominant fruit flavors on the front. Some of the packages have banners across the top of the front stating NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS, NO ARTIFICIAL COLORS. Other packages do not have that banner but do say with other Natural Flavors, underneath the named fruit flavors. The Plaintiffs allege that Brookside Dark Chocolate candy products violate California, New York, and federal statutes. In this putative class action, the plaintiffs allege twelve separate claims, including: (1) fraud by omission (2) negligent misrepresentation (3) violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (4) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, unfair and unlawful prongs (5) violation of California's False Advertising Law (6) breach of express and implied warranties (7) violations of Section 349 and 350 of New York General Business Laws, and (8) claims for breach of express and implied warranties under New York U.C.C. Section 2-313 and 2-314. MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FRCP 12(B)(1) Hershey argues that the plaintiffs do not have standing and lack a justiciable injury, contending that the plaintiffs' counsel recruited clients through a fishing website, www.classactionrebates.com, which promises people that they can cash in on class settlements. Hershey has had previous interactions with counsel's use of the website to solicit clients. In 2015, plaintiffs' counsel responded to Hershey: "I agree that the email blast was a one time event and I (sic) no further email blasts or advertising is forthcoming from my office or classactionrebates.com." Hershey alleges that plaintiffs decided to purchase the products at some point after publication of counsel's Brookside advertisements on August 1, 2018. Here, Hershey only offers speculation of a direct connection between an email solicitation and the supposed enrollment of plaintiffs in this case. Hershey submits evidence in counsel's declaration and in exhibits requesting judicial notice. These questions are more appropriate for a summary judgment motion, after discovery on the way in which plaintiffs came to counsel. This motion is DENIED without prejudice to renewal of the issue on a motion for summary judgment. MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FRCP 12(B)(6) In the context of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the district court cannot consider extrinsic evidence (such as the declarations offered by Hershey in support of the motion under Rule 12(b)(1)). The standard for the California statutes claimed here is the reasonable consumer test, which requires a plaintiff to show that members of the public are likely to be deceived by the business practice or advertising at issue. In the presence of labeling banners that state NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING, NO ARTIFICIAL COLORING, it is at least plausible that a reasonable consumer seeing the Acai & Blueberry Flavor or Pomegranate packages at issue would believe that the candy was made with flavoring from the fruits shown and that there would be no artificial flavoring. Rule 56(d), which authorizes a court to allow time for discovery during a motion for summary judgment when facts are unavailable to the nonmovant, parties must be given reasonable opportunity to present all material pertinent to the motion. Motion to Dismiss Under FRCP 9(b) While the plaintiffs' claims are not so implausible as to warrant granting Hershey's motion to dismiss on that basis, a number of the plaintiffs' claims lack sufficient particularity. The Plaintiffs' claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and plaintiffs' common law claims for fraud by omission and negligent misrepresentation (collectively, Claims (1)-(8)) should be analyzed within the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b), as plaintiffs allege deception and fraud throughout their complaint. The first amended complaint states where plaintiffs purchased their products, but the dates and products purchased are not specific nor is the why of plaintiffs' reliance on alleged advertising on products whose labels are shown changing in plaintiffs' own pleadings. The first amended complaint does state which Brookside products are at issue in this case, but not specifically which products were purchased by plaintiffs, nor what was present on the allegedly offending packaging chosen by plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs argue, without reference to any well-pled factual allegations in the complaint, that the violations and misrepresentations are similar across product labels. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims do not give notice to Hershey of which labels and which packages upon which plaintiffs allegedly relied when making their purchases. Thus, plaintiffs do not give defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud charged so that they can defend against the charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong. The Plaintiffs here have failed to meet the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b). Consequently, pursuant to Rule 9(b), Hershey's motion to dismiss, without prejudice, plaintiffs' claims (1) through (8) based on violations of the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the common law claims for fraud of omission and negligent misrepresentation which do not meet the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b) is granted. Express Warranties To plead a claim for breach of express warranty, plaintiffs must allege the terms of the warranty, reasonable reliance, and that the breach of that warranty proximately caused their injury. Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description. The Plaintiffs allege that the packaging's banner NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS was part of the basis of the bargain between the parties. However, as stated above, plaintiffs have failed to differentiate which fruit flavors made this assertion and also which products they purchased based on those assertions. Brookside products that do not carry the banner affirmatively representing NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS do not make the warranty that plaintiffs claim. These other Brookside products state only also with other Natural Flavors, which is not an express warranty of no artificial flavors. Hershey's motion to dismiss the claim of breach of express warranty for the products that do not warrant NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS is GRANTED. Hershey's motion to dismiss the claim of breach of express warranty for the products that do warrant NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS is denied. Implied Warranties The Plaintiffs bring their claim for breach of implied warranty under Cal. Com. Code Section 2314. Hershey relies on the ordinary use definition in that statute, Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used but that is only Section 2314(2)(a). Hershey ignores Section 2314(2)(f), which also must be met and upon which plaintiffs rely: Goods to be merchantable must conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any. Hershey's motion to dismiss, without prejudice, the claim of breach of implied warranty for the products that do not warrant NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS is granted. Hershey's motion to dismiss the claim of breach of implied warranty for the products that do warrant NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS is denied. New York General Business Law Claims. The Plaintiffs allege violations of New York General Business Laws Section 349, Unfair Trade Practices, and Section 350, False Advertising. General Business Law Section 349 prohibits deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce, or in the furnishing of any service in the state of New York. To assert a claim under Section 349, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice. General Business Law Section 350 governs deceptive advertisements and product labels. The elements of a claim for relief under this section are that the advertisement: (1) had an impact on consumers at large (2) was deceptive or misleading in a material way and (3) resulted in an injury. Claims under New York General Business Law Section 349 and Section 350 are not subject to the pleading-with-particularity requirements of FRCP 9(b), and thus are subject to the notice-pleading requirements of FRCP 8(a). Plaintiffs must plead with requisite plausibility that any of the defendant's claims were materially misleading. Hershey's motion to dismiss New York General Business Laws Section 349 and Section 350 causes of action is denied. New York Claims for Breach of Express And Implied Warranties Express warranty exists under New York Law when a plaintiff shows that the statement falls within the definition of a warranty, that she relied on it, and that it became the basis of the bargain. Plaintiffs allege that the packaging's banner NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS was part of the basis of the bargain between the parties. Hershey's motion to dismiss, without prejudice, the New York claim of breach of express warranty for the products that do not warrant NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS is GRANTED.Hershey's motion to dismiss the claim of breach of express warranty for the products that do warrant NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORSis DENIED. Under New York U.C.C. Section 2-314, a warranty that goods are merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. Hershey relies on the ordinary use definition in that statute, Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used, but that is only one part of the N.Y. U.C.C., Section 2314(2)(c). Hershey ignores Section 2314(2)(f), which also must be met and upon which plaintiffs rely: Goods to be merchantable must conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any. Hershey's motion to dismiss, without prejudice, the claim of breach of implied warranty for the products that do not warrant NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS is GRANTED. Hershey's motion to dismiss the claim of breach of implied warranty for the products that do warrant NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS is denied. Tolling of Statute of Limitations Plaintiffs Pirrone and Hall allege claims for purchases dating back to 2012 and 2014, respectively Plaintiffs' claims, however, are subject to a three-or four-year statute of limitations significantly shorter than the approximately seven and five years, respectively, that have passed since their alleged purchases. Delayed discovery The Plaintiffs allege that they did not discover that the labeling was false and misleading until November. Plaintiffs have provided no allegations detailing how they discovered the alleged unlawful labeling. Thus, plaintiffs have not sufficiently pleaded that the delayed discovery rule applies. Fraudulent concealment In order to establish fraudulent concealment, the complaint must show: (1) when the fraud was discovered (2) the circumstances under which it was discovered and (3) that the plaintiff was not at fault for failing to discover it or had no actual or presumptive knowledge of facts sufficient to put him on inquiry. Claims relying on fraudulent concealment must meet the heightened pleading requirements of Rule] 9(b). Plaintiffs have provided no facts as to the circumstances under which the fraud was discovered. This order finds plaintiffs have not met their heavy burden to plead fraudulent concealment with particularity and, thus, have not adequately pleaded fraudulent concealment to toll the statute of limitations. Continuing Violation The Plaintiffs do not allege sufficient grounds for tolling the statute of limitations, so therefore their claims are dismissed, without prejudice, to the extent that they are based on conduct that took place prior to the applicable limitations period. Additionally, California and New York statute of limitations and tolling rules apply to plaintiffs' claims brought under each state's respective laws. A claim under New York General Business Law Section 349 or Section 350 is subject to a three-year statute of limitations and runs from the time when the plaintiff was injured, not from when plaintiff learns they have been deceived. In addition, a claim for relief for breach of express or implied warranty is subject to a four-year statute of limitations. The beginning of the limitation period does not depend on a plaintiff's knowledge of a defect. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 25, 2019 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y28j9a4tfrom Leagle.com. Howard Clark, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the general public, Todd Hall, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the general public & Angela Pirrone, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs, represented by Lilach Halperin -- lilach@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A Marron, Michael Houchin -- mike@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron & Ronald A. Marron -- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC. The Hershey Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Amit Rana, Braunhagey & Borden LLP, David Howard Kwasniewski, BraunHagey & Borden, LLP, Jonas Noah Hagey, BraunHagey & Borden LLP & Matthew Brooks Borden, BraunHagey & Borden LLP. HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE: Hill Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDY HILL, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01031-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, March 19, 2019), arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay employees overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Hillstone is a domestic for-profit corporation. According to its Web site, Hillstone provides long-term care, hospice services, memory care, rehabilitation, therapy, and related healthcare services throughout the State of Ohio at various care centers, including Hudson Elms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Peter Contreras, Esq. CONTRERAS LAW, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 787-4878 Facsimile: (614) 957-7515 E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com HOME DEPOT USA: Hartley Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------ An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against Home Depot USA for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned DAVID HARTLEY, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. HOME DEPOT USA INC., Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-00573 (M.D. Fla., March 22, 2019). According to the lawsuit, the Defendant unlawfully deprived the Plaintiff and all other employees similarly situated, of overtime compensation during the course of his employment. Home Depot USA is an American home improvement supplies retailing company that sells tools, construction products, and services. Its principal location of business operations is at 2455 Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC 805 East Broward Blvd. Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com jill@jordanrichardspllc.com jake@jordanrichardspllc.com stephanie@jordanrichardspllc.com - and - Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. Michael J. Pascucci, Esq. EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI 5400 S. University Drive, Suite 417 Davie, FL Telephone: (954) 889-3359 E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com IC SYSTEM: Faces Moody Suit over Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Moody, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, files a class action complaint against IC System, Inc. for an alleged violation of Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is captioned Moody v. IC System Inc, Case No. 3:19-cv-00618-N (N.D. Tex., March 13, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge David C Godbey. IC System, Inc. is an accounts receivable company that was founded in 1938 by Ruth and Jack Erickson. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman Marcus & Zelman LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (845) 367-7146 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com IDAVM GROUP: Garcia Moves to Certify Employees Class Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled ANDRES GARCIA, TUGSBILEGT GONGOR and DMITRO MIKHAYLOVSKY, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. IDAVM GROUP ENTERPRISES, INC., IDAVM MULTI GROUP ENTERPRISES, INC., MARINOV IM EMPIRE, INC., MARINOV IM POWER, INC., d/b/a Sarpino's Pizzeria and IVAN MARINOV, Case No. 1:18-cv-03525 (N.D. Ill.), move pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for entry of an order: (1) conditionally certifying an FLSA Collective, defined as: All current and former hourly employees who worked for Defendants at any of their Sarpino's Pizzeria restaurants at any time from May 17, 2015 through the date of judgment (the proposed "Collective"); (2) requiring the Defendants to identify all putative members of the proposed Collective by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, dates of employment, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses in electronic and importable format, e.g., a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, within 14 days of the entry of the order; (3) permitting the Plaintiffs' counsel to send Court-approved Notice of this action (Exhibit 1) to putative members of the proposed Collective via U.S. Mail and e-mail; (4) permitting the Plaintiffs' counsel to send the shortened reminder Notice (Exhibit 2) to putative members of the Collective via text message 30 days into the opt-in period; and (5) approving a 60-day opt-in period from the date the Court-approved Notice is sent during which putative members of the Collective may join this case by returning their written consents.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas A. Doyle, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe St., Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 E-mail: tad@wexlerwallace.com - and - Matthew L. Turner, Esq. Rod M. Johnston, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com rjohnston@sommerspc.com IDAVM GROUP: Garcia Seeks to Certify Class Under Damasco Decision ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ANDRES GARCIA, TUGSBILEGT GONGOR, and DMITRO MIKHAYLOVSKY, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. IDAVM GROUP ENTERPRISES, INC., IDAVM MULTI GROUP ENTERPRISES, INC., MARINOV IM EMPIRE, INC., MARINOV IM POWER, INC., d/b/a Sarpino's Pizzeria and IVAN MARINOV, Case No. 1:18-cv-03525 (N.D. Ill.), seek certification of this class: All current and former hourly employees who worked for Defendants at any of their Sarpino's Pizzeria restaurants in Illinois at any time from May 17, 2008 through the date of judgment. Andres Garcia, Tugsbilegt Gongor and Dmitro Mikhaylovsky seek an order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure certifying for class action treatment their overtime, minimum wage and breach of contract claims under Illinois law. They also seek a reasonable period of time to conduct discovery in connection with Rule 23 class certification and will proceed under whatever schedule the Court directs. The Plaintiffs further request that the Court stay briefing on this Motion pending discovery as to Rule 23 class issues. They contend that they are filing this Motion now in conformance with the Seventh Circuit's decision in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), in order to avoid a "buy-off" settlement offer to the named Plaintiffs only, which could potentially moot the claims for class-wide relief set forth in their Complaint. Accordingly, after class discovery is completed, Plaintiffs say they would file a Memorandum in Support of this Motion, and other briefing could follow on whatever schedule the Court directs.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas A. Doyle, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe St., Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 E-mail: tad@wexlerwallace.com - and - Matthew L. Turner, Esq. Rod M. Johnston, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com rjohnston@sommerspc.com INEOS STYROLUTION: Foth Moves to Certify Hourly Employees Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled ANTHONY FOTH, and AARON LUCUS on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. INEOS STYROLUTION AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00460 (N.D. Ill.), move the Court for an order allowing notice of this action to be sent to the Defendant's current and former employees, specifically those hourly employees working in operations, maintenance, logistics, and the lab (collectively, "Hourly Employees") to inform them of their right to opt-in to this case under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of hourly employees, who have worked for the Defendant for its failure to pay compensation for all time worked, and as a result, failed to pay compensation at the overtime rate for all hours worked over 40 per work week. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act, in particular by not paying the Plaintiffs for all compensable work time, including time spent donning and doffing required safety equipment and work clothes, and not paying overtime hours.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc J. Siegel, Esq. Bradley Manewith, Esq. James D. Rogers, Esq. SIEGEL & DOLAN LTD. 150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 878-3210 Facsimile: (312) 878-3211 E-mail: msiegel@msiegellaw.com bmanewith@msiegellaw.com jrogers@msiegellaw.com INNERWORKINGS INC: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Brown Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- InnerWorkings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the decision on the motion to dismiss the case, Errol Brown, et al., v. InnerWorkings, Inc., et al. suit, is pending. In May 2018, shortly following the Company's announcement of its intention to restate certain historical financial statements, a putative securities class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The action, Errol Brown, et al., v. InnerWorkings, Inc., et al., is currently pending before the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Allegations in the complaint include that the Company and its current and former officers and directors made untrue statements or omissions of material fact by issuing inaccurate financial statements for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2015, 2016, and 2017, as well as all interim periods. The putative class seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages as well as reimbursement of fees and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and other costs. The Company and individual defendants dispute the claims. On July 27, 2018, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the case. Plaintiff's counsel filed an amended complaint on September 25, 2018. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 26, 2018, and a decision on the motion is pending. InnerWorkings, Inc. provides marketing execution solutions in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, continental Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Mexico, Central America, and South America. The company was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. JEH ENTERPRISES: Kwong Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------- TERRY KWONG, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JEH ENTERPRISES, INC., a California Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-574649 (Cal. Super., March 20, 2019), alleges that Defendant failed to provide required meal periods, failed to provide required rest periods, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to reimburse employees for required expenses, and failed to timely pay wages when due in violation of California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in California and paid on a draw versus commission compensation scheme from January of 2016 to January of2017 and was at all times during his employment with the Defendant entitled to be paid minimum wages and entitled to the legally required off-duty meal periods. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was also required to be paid for his rest periods as the Defendant paid the Plaintiff only commission wages for certain pay periods. The Defendant did not separately compensate the Plaintiff for his rest periods. To date, the Defendant has yet to pay the Plaintiff all of his wages due to him and all premiums due to him for missed meal and rest breaks and the Defendant has failed to pay any penalty wages owed to him. The Defendant owns and operates car dealerships and service centers in San Francisco County.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP Website: www.bamlawca.com 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 JONES SCAFFOLD: Accused by Ross of Not Paying Minimum & OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- DARRELL ROSS, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a representative of other aggrieved employees v. JONES SCAFFOLD CO., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV08898 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 15, 2019), accuses the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code by, among other things, failing to pay minimum and overtime wages. Jones Scaffold Co. is a California corporation, with a principal place of business in the state of California. The Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants. Jones provides scaffold erection and dismantling services. The Plaintiff worked as a scaffold builder for the Defendants, in a non-exempt and/or hourly position, beginning on August 22, 2017, until in or about July 2018.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. Heather K. Cox, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP 301 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1550 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 432-8933 Facsimile: (562) 435-1656 E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com heather@carlinbuchsbaum.com KEARNY BANK: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA/NJWHL, Hawkins Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- COURTNEY HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. KEARNY BANK, Case No. 2:19-cv-08712 (D.N.J., March 18, 2019), seeks to redress the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law by failing to pay the Plaintiff and those similarly situated all overtime wages owed to them. Kearny Bank is a bank operating a branch at 216 Main Street, in West Orange, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew D. Miller, Esq. Justin L. Swidler, Esq. Richard S. Swartz, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway North, Ste. 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com jswidler@swartz-legal.com rswartz@swartz-legal.com KIA MOTORS: Faces Palmberg over Sale of Defective 2.0 GDI Engine ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC PALMBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV007734 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 5, 2019) alleges that the Defendants' vehicle and its 2.0 gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine were defective and susceptible to sudden and catastrophic failure. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants knew since 2009, if not earlier, that the 2011-2019 KIA Optima, 2011-2016 KIA Sportage, 2012-2019 KIA Sorento, 2011-2019 Hyundai Sonata, and 2013-2019 Hyundai Santa Fe vehicles equipped with a 2.0 or 2.4L engine, including the 2011 Kia Optima contained one or more design and manufacturing defects in their engines that results in the restriction of oil flow through the connecting rod bearings, as well as to other vital areas of the engine. This defect -- which typically manifests itself during and shortly after the limited warranty period has expired -- will cause the KIA Vehicle to experience catastrophic engine failure, stalling while in operation and poses an unreasonable safety risk of non-collision fires all due to inadequate lubrication. Furthermore, engine seizure often causes internal parts, such as the connecting rods, to break and a knock hole in the engine, permitting fluids to leak and ignite a fire. Kia Motors America, Inc. operates as an automobile dealer. The Company offers passenger cars, minivans, sports utility vehicles, crossovers, sedans, vans, and cargo trucks. Kia Motors serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 402 W Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6994 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com - and - Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Adam Gonnelli, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (854) 705-9460 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com Gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq. Amy E. Boyle , Esq. HALUNEN LAW 1650 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 605-4098 Facsimile: (612) 605-4099 E-mail: boyle@halunenlaw.com Wolchansky@halunenlaw.com - and - Bonner C. Walsh, Esq. WALSH PLLC PO Box 7 Bly, OR 97622 Telephone: (541) 359-2827 Facsimile: (866) 503-8206 E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com KND PARTNERS: Website Not Accessible, Kennedy Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA KENNEDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KND PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a WEST BANK INN, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60546-KMW (S.D. Fla., March 1, 2019) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in the major life activity of walking more than a few steps without assistive devices. The Plaintiff is bound to ambulate in a wheelchair or with a cane or other support and has limited use of her hands. She is unable to tightly grasp, pinch and twist of the wrist to operate. When ambulating beyond the comfort of her own home, the Plaintiff must primarily rely on a wheelchair. The Plaintiff visited the website http://www.westbankinn.netto book accommodations, and review information pertaining to the goods, services, features, facilities and benefits of the Defendant's property. However, the Defendant failed to comply with the requirements set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was deprived of the same goods, services, features, facilities, benefits, advantages, and accommodations of the Property available to the general public. Specifically, the website indicates that the hotel offers various kinds of sleeping accommodations, but no information as to whether any of the rooms are accessible. No information was given as to whether or where it offers compliant or accessible roll-in showers, tubs, built in seating, commodes, grab bars, sinks, wrapped pipes, sink and door hardware, properly located amenities, sufficient maneuvering spaces, compliant doors, furniture, controls and operating mechanisms. KND Partners, LLC d/b/a West Bank Inn owns and operates a boarding and lodging facility. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Corkill, Esq. THOMAS B. BACON, P.A. 7 N. Coyle Street Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 375-3475 Facsimile: (877) 828-4446 E-mail: kimberlyatlaw@gmail.com - and - Thomas B. Bacon, Esq. THOMAS B. BACON, P.A. 644 North Mc Donald St. Mt. Dora, FL 32757 Telephone: (850)375-3475 E-mail: kimberlyatlaw@gmail.com KNOLLMEYER BUILDING: Condo Unit Owners Sue over Negligence ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Knollmeyer Building Corporation and Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company for negligence and breach contract. The case is captioned IMPERIAL TOWERS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION through its BOARD OF MANAGERS and CAROLE ARONSON, behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and JEANNE GOLDBERG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, V. KNOLLMEYER BUILDING CORP., and PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 19-813 (Mass. Cmmw., Middlesex County, March 22, 2019). The plaintiffs seek to recover costs to evaluate and repair window and door glass damaged by the defendant contractor Knollmeyer while performing concrete repairs in the nearby area. Plaintiffs seek payment for damages to their units. They also claim that the Condominium Association is entitled to damages and performance under a performance bond issued by the surety since Knollmeyer has not performed under the contract and has not fully addressed its default under the contract. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company is a surety company licensed to issue surety bonds in Massachusetts, with a principal place of business at One Bala Plaza. Suite 100, Bala Cynwyd, PA. The company issued performance bond no. PB00181800234 naming Knollmeyer as the contractor and Imperial Towers Condominium Association as the owner with respect to Knollmeyer's work for the Imperial Towers Condominium Association described as Balcony Repairs and Waterproofing. Knollmeyer is a Massachusetts company with a principal place of business at 60 Jonspin Road, Wilmington, Middlesex County, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott C. Gladstone, Esq. Attorney at Law 822 Boylston Street, #300 Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 Telephone: (617) 730-4525 E-mail: sg@sgladslonclaw.com LEADERS IN COMMUNITY: Brooks Seeks Certification of RICO Class -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled JAMES BROOKS, KYSER WILSON, and ROBERT JACKSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. LEADERS IN COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVES, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-04609-WHA (N.D. Cal.), seek to certify this class: "All individuals who have been or will be put on LCA's Electronic Monitoring program by the Alameda County Court system from July 31, 2014, until this litigation is complete, who were threatened with jail by LCA or any of its employees, agents, or representatives." The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify this case as a class action to vindicate the rights of all individuals harmed by LCA's extortionate business practices. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's widespread extortion scheme targeted at individuals in its electronic monitoring program is in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Hobbs Act and the California Penal Code. The Court will commence a hearing on May 9, 2019, 8:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Phil Telfeyan, Esq. Marissa Hatton, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW 400 7th Street NW, Suite 602 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 505-2058 E-mail: ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org mhatton@equaljusticeunderlaw.org LENDING CLUB: Plouffe Sues over Unauthorized Credit Inquiry ----------------------------------------------------------- GUY A. PLOUFFE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60715-FAM (S.D. Fla., March 19, 2019), challenges the actions of Lending Club with regard to Lending Club's unauthorized and unlawful credit inquiry. According to the complaint, Lending Club is or was engaged in arranging for consumer credit to persons in the State of Florida, more particularly in Palm Beach County, Florida. Any violation by Defendant was knowing, willful, and intentional, and Defendant did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such violation. In or about July 2014, Mr. Plouffe obtained an unsecured personal loan through the Lending Club. On July 24, 2015, Mr. Plouffe filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy protection in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 15-23328-PGH. The Debt was scheduled in the Bankruptcy and Defendant received notice of the Bankruptcy. On or about November 6, 2015, Mr. Plouffe received a bankruptcy discharge in the Bankruptcy. Lending Club did not file any proceedings to declare the Debt "non-dischargeable". Lending Club did not request relief from the "automatic stay" codified at 11 U.S.C. section 362 et seq. while the Bankruptcy was pending to pursue Mr. Plouffe on any personal liability for any of the underlying Debt. Accordingly, the Debt that was serviced by Lending Club was discharged through the Bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Discharge extinguished any relationship between Mr. Plouffe and Lending Club. Mr. Plouffe did not conduct any business, nor incur any additional financial obligations, to Lending Club since the date of the Bankruptcy Discharge. Upon discovering the unauthorized access to his credit reports by the Lending Club, Mr. Plouffe contacted the Lending Club by telephone to report the unauthorized credit report inquiry. In the ensuing discussion, the representative of the Lending Club apologized to Mr. Plouffe and represented to Mr. Plouffe that the inquiries would immediately stop. Despite the promise by the Lending Club's representative that Lending Club would cease reviewing the credit reports of Mr. Plouffe, upon review of his TransUnion credit report dated January 25, 2019, Mr. Plouffe discovered that Lending Club submitted unauthorized credit report inquiries to TransUnion on a monthly basis since September 2018, including October 8, 2018, November 8, 2018, December 8, 2018, and January 9, 2019. To his greater surprise, Mr. Plouffe also observed that the Lending Club had started a second account review cycle which resulted in Lending Club also accessing the TransUnion credit report on December 23, 2018 and January 13, 2019, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Robert W. Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 1212 S.E. 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 763-8660 Facsimile: (954) 763-8607 E-mail: rphyu@aol.com rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com legalassistant@lawfirmmurphy.com LESAINT LOGISTICS: Diller Challenges Collection of Biometric Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON DILLER, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. LESAINT LOGISTICS, LLC and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-5, Case No. 2019CH03410 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., March 15, 2019), seeks relief from LeSaint's alleged practice of collecting "biometric identifiers" or "biometric information" from people working in its Illinois facilities, in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. LeSaint Logistics, LLC, is an Illinois limited liability company headquartered in Romeoville, Illinois. The identities of the Doe Defendants are not yet known to the Plaintiff. LeSaint Logistics, a third-party logistics provider, provides integrated supply chain solutions. The Company offers supply chain, inventory, and warehouse management; and transportation, fulfillment, engineering consulting, and operational conversion services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Tod A. Lewis, Esq. David M. Oppenheim, Esq. Mara A. Baltabols, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com tod@bockhatchllc.com david@classlawyers.com mara@classlawyers.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Accord in Formaldehyde & Abrasion MDL Appealed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that two individuals have filed an appeal from the order approving the settlement in the Formaldehyde and Abrasion multi-district litigation proceedings and the Appeals Court consolidated both appeals. Beginning on or about March 3, 2015, numerous purported class action cases were filed in various U.S. federal district courts and state courts involving claims of excessive formaldehyde emissions from the Company's Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring products. The purported classes consisted of all U.S. consumers that purchased the relevant products during certain time periods. Plaintiffs in these cases challenged the Company's labeling of its products as compliant with the California Air Resources Board Regulation and alleged claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation and violation of various state consumer protection statutes. The plaintiffs sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive relief and unquantified damages, including restitution and actual, compensatory, consequential and, in certain cases, punitive damages, as well as interest, costs and attorneys' fees incurred by the plaintiffs and other purported class members in connection with the alleged claims. The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") transferred and consolidated the federal cases to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the "Virginia Court"). The consolidated case in the Virginia Court is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products Marketing, Sales, Practices and Products Liability Litigation (the "Formaldehyde MDL"). Beginning on or about May 20, 2015, multiple class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and other district courts located in the place of residence of each non-California plaintiffs consisting of U.S. consumers who purchased the Company's Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring products challenging certain representations about the durability and abrasion class ratings of such products. These plaintiffs asserted claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty and violation of various state consumer protection statutes. The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in these cases; however, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they did seek an order (i) certifying the action as a class action, (ii) adopting the plaintiffs' class definitions and finding that the plaintiffs are their proper representatives, (iii) appointing their counsel as class counsel, (iv) granting injunctive relief to prohibit the Company from continuing to advertise and/or sell laminate flooring products with false abrasion class ratings, (v) providing restitution of all monies the Company received from the plaintiffs and class members and (vi) providing damages (actual, compensatory and consequential), as well as punitive damages. On October 3, 2016, the MDL Panel transferred and consolidated the abrasion class actions to the Virginia Court. The consolidated case is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Laminate Flooring Durability Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (the "Abrasion MDL"). On March 15, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement agreement to jointly settle the Formaldehyde MDL and the Abrasion MDL. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company has agreed to fund $22 million (the "Cash Payment") and provide $14 million in store-credit vouchers for an aggregate settlement amount of $36 million to settle claims brought on behalf of purchasers of Chinese-made laminate flooring sold by the Company between January 1, 2009 and May 31, 2015. The $36 million aggregate settlement amount was accrued in 2017. On June 16, 2018, the Virginia Court issued an order that, among other things, granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. Following the preliminary approval, and pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company, in June, paid $0.5 million for settlement administration costs, which is part of the Cash Payment, to the plaintiffs' settlement escrow account. Subsequent to the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing held on October 3, 2018, the Court approved the settlement on October 9, 2018 and, as a result, the Company paid $21.5 million in cash into the plaintiffs' settlement escrow account. To date, insurers have denied coverage with respect to the Formaldehyde MDL and Abrasion MDL. On November 8, 2018, an individual filed a Notice of Appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (the "Appeals Court") challenging the settlement. On December 14, 2018, another individual filed a Notice of Appeal in the Appeals Court. Subsequently, the Appeals Court consolidated both appeals and entered a briefing schedule. Vouchers, which generally have a three-year life, will be distributed by the administrator upon order of the Court. At December 31, 2018, the Company's obligations related to Formaldehyde MDL and Abrasion MDL consisted of a short-term payable of $35.5 million with $14 million expected to be satisfied by the issuance of vouchers. If the appeals were to result in the settlement being set aside, the Company would receive $21.5 million back from the escrow agent. Accordingly, the Company has accounted for the payment of $21.5 million as a deposit in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. The Company has no liability accrued related to the appeals. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories. The company offers hardwood species, engineered hardwood, laminates, resilient vinyl flooring, waterproof vinyl plank, and porcelain tile; renewable flooring, and bamboo and cork products; and a selection of flooring enhancements and accessories, including moldings, noise-reducing underlay, adhesives, and flooring tools under the Bellawood brand. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Bid to Certify Class in Mason Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a motion for conditional certification of the purported class action suit initiated by Ashleigh Mason is pending. On or about August 15, 2017, Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll and Osagie Ehigie filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all current and former store managers, store managers in training, installation sales managers and similarly situated current and former employees holding comparable positions but different titles (collectively, the "Putative Class Employees") alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by classifying the Putative Class Employees as exempt. The alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work. The plaintiffs seek certification of the Putative Class Employees for (i) a collective action covering the period beginning three years and 115 days prior to the filing of the complaint through the disposition of this action for the Putative Class Employees nationwide in connection with FLSA and (ii) a class action covering the period beginning six years and 115 days prior to the filing of the complaint through the disposition of this action for members of the Putative Class Employees who currently are or were employed in New York in connection with NYLL. The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified amount for unpaid wages and overtime wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other damages. In November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting conditional certification for all Putative Class Employees who worked within the federal statute of limitations period. The Company filed its opposition to this motion, which is now pending before the court. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories. The company offers hardwood species, engineered hardwood, laminates, resilient vinyl flooring, waterproof vinyl plank, and porcelain tile; renewable flooring, and bamboo and cork products; and a selection of flooring enhancements and accessories, including moldings, noise-reducing underlay, adhesives, and flooring tools under the Bellawood brand. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Continues to Defend Kramer Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class action filed by Robert J. Kramer. On or about November 17, 2017, Robert J. Kramer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated (collectively, the "Kramer Plaintiffs") filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento on behalf of all current and former store managers, all others with similar job functions and/or titles and all current and former employees classified as non-exempt or incorrectly classified as exempt and who worked for the Company in the State of California (collectively, the "CSM Employees") alleging violation of the California Labor Code including, among other items, failure to pay wages and overtime and engaging in unfair business practices. The Kramer Plaintiffs seek certification of the CSM Employees for a class action covering the prior four-year period prior to the filing of the complaint through the disposition of this action for the CSM Employees who currently are or were employed in California (the "California SM Class"). The Kramer Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the Kramer Plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts for unpaid wages and overtime wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other damages. The Company disputes the Kramer Plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Lumber Liquidators said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and therefore no accrual has been made related to this. Any such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the Company's results of operations, financial condition and liquidity." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories. The company offers hardwood species, engineered hardwood, laminates, resilient vinyl flooring, waterproof vinyl plank, and porcelain tile; renewable flooring, and bamboo and cork products; and a selection of flooring enhancements and accessories, including moldings, noise-reducing underlay, adhesives, and flooring tools under the Bellawood brand. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Entered in Dana Gold Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the Company has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Dana Gold and certain other lead plaintiffs. On or about December 8, 2014, Dana Gold ("Gold") filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the Morning Star bamboo flooring that the Company sells is defective (the "Gold Litigation"). Plaintiffs have narrowed the complaint to the Company's Morning Star Strand Bamboo flooring (the "Strand Bamboo Product") sold to residents of California, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and West Virginia for personal, family or household use. The Gold Litigation plaintiffs allege that the Company has engaged in deceptive trade practice acts in conjunction with the sale of the Strand Bamboo Products. The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Company's actions violate the law and that it is financially responsible for notifying all purported class members, injunctive relief requiring the Company to replace and/or repair all of the Strand Bamboo Product installed in structures owned by the purported class members and a declaration that the Company must disgorge, for the benefit of the purported classes, all or part of the profits received from the sale of the allegedly defective Strand Bamboo Product and/or to make full restitution to the plaintiffs and the purported class members. In November 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification with respect to the six states. The Company appealed the decision, but the petition for appeal was denied. On January 2, 2019, the court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment. The Company has participated in court-ordered mediation sessions. Trial, which was previously scheduled for February 25, 2019, has been postponed. Following settlement discussions with the respect to the Gold Litigation, on March 15, 2019, the Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Gold and certain other lead plaintiffs in the Gold Litigation (the "MOU"), which would resolve all disputes on a nationwide basis. Under the terms of the MOU, the Company will contribute $14 million in cash and provide $14 million in store-credit vouchers, with a potential additional $2 million in store-credit vouchers based on obtaining a claim's percentage of more than 7 percent, for an aggregate settlement of up to $30 million. The MOU is subject to certain contingencies, including the execution of a definitive settlement agreement, board approval of the definitive settlement agreement, and court approvals. The entry into the MOU or any subsequent execution of a definitive settlement agreement does not constitute an admission by the Company of any fault or liability and the Company does not admit any fault or liability. There can be no assurance that a settlement will be finalized and approved or as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation. If a final, court-approved settlement is not reached, the Company will defend the matter vigorously and believes there are meritorious defenses and legal standards that must be met for, among other things, success on the merits. The Company has notified its insurance carriers and continues to pursue coverage. As the insurance claim is still pending, the Company has not recognized any insurance recovery related to the Gold Litigation. As a result of these developments, the Company has determined that a probable loss has been incurred and has recognized a charge to earnings of $28 million within selling general and administrative expense during the fourth quarter of 2018 with the offset in the caption "Accrual for Legal Matters – Current" on its balance sheet related to this potential settlement as of December 31, 2018. If the Company does not execute a definitive settlement agreement consistent with the MOU or incurs losses with the respect to the Bamboo Flooring Litigation, the actual losses that may result from these actions may exceed this amount. Any such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the Company's results of operations, financial condition and liquidity. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories. The company offers hardwood species, engineered hardwood, laminates, resilient vinyl flooring, waterproof vinyl plank, and porcelain tile; renewable flooring, and bamboo and cork products; and a selection of flooring enhancements and accessories, including moldings, noise-reducing underlay, adhesives, and flooring tools under the Bellawood brand. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Steele Class Suit in Canada Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class action lawsuit in Canada initiated by Sarah Steele. On or about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele ("Steele") filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada Superior Court of Justice against the Company. In the complaint, Steele's allegations include strict liability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud by concealment, civil negligence, negligent misrepresentation and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Steele did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint, but seeks compensatory damages, punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages, statutory remedies, attorneys' fees and costs. Lumber Liquidators said, "While the Company believes that a further loss associated with the Steele litigation is possible, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible loss." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories. The company offers hardwood species, engineered hardwood, laminates, resilient vinyl flooring, waterproof vinyl plank, and porcelain tile; renewable flooring, and bamboo and cork products; and a selection of flooring enhancements and accessories, including moldings, noise-reducing underlay, adhesives, and flooring tools under the Bellawood brand. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia. LYFT INC: Faces McGee Suit over Breach of Contract -------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action has been filed against Lyft, Inc. for an alleged breach of contract. The case is captioned Allyson McGee, an individual, on behalf or herself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. LYFT, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-57442U (Cal. Super., San Francisco County, March 11, 2019). Allyson McGee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, complains that Lyft has engaged in practices that violate laws regarding the pay and working conditions of its drivers, as well as unfair business practices. Lyft Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its corporate headquarters and primary place of business in San Francisco, California, and operations in at least 33 other states in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq. Andrew H. Haas, Esq. George A. Aloupas, Esq. QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES 22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 Telephone: (949) 458-9675 Facsimile: (949) 458-9679 E-mail: req@quintlaw.com ahh@quintlaw.com gaa@quintlaw.com - and - Roger Carter, Esq. Bianca A. Sofonio, Esq. THE CARTER LAW FIRM 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 245-7500 E-mail: rcarter@carterlawfirm.net bianca@carterlawfirm.net MANAGED FUTURES: Iowa Public Employees' Suit v. MS&Co. Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Managed Futures Premier Graham L.P said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("MS&Co."), continues to defend a purported antitrust class action suit entitled, Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al. In August of 2017, MS&Co. was named as a defendant in a purported antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York styled Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that MS&Co., together with a number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. antitrust laws and New York state law in connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of electronic exchange-based platforms for securities lending. The class action complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class of borrowers and lenders who entered into stock loan transactions with the defendants. The class action complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the class of plaintiffs and treble damages. On September 27, 2018, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint. Managed Futures Premier Graham L.P is private fund launched by Ceres Managed Futures LLC. It is managed by Graham Capital Management, L.P. The fund engages in the speculative trading of futures contracts, options on futures and forward contracts, and forward contracts on physical commodities and other commodity interests, including, but not limited to, foreign currencies, financial instruments, metals, energy, and agricultural products. It was formerly known as Managed Futures Charter Graham LP. Managed Futures Premier Graham L.P was formed on July 15, 1998 and is domiciled in the United States. MARYSVILLE, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Avondale Homeless Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant City of Maryville's motion to dismiss most of the Plaintiffs' claims in the case captioned BRIGITTE RAELYNN BUTCHER, BILLY JOHN REID, JOLENE ANN REID, SUSAN EXTEIN, STANLEY EXTEIN, MICHAEL ELLIOT, CRYSTAL MOTLEY, DICK VEIT, DENNIS OWENS, DERECK DEMPSEY, CARRIE ANTRAPP, WILBUR BARTHOLOMEW, ANNETTE SKEEN, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; MARYSVILLE HOMELESS UNION, CALIFORNIA HOMELESS UNION/STATEWIDE ORGANIZING COUNCIL, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF MARYSVILLE, a municipal entity; MAYOR RICKY SAMAYOA, CITY COUNCILMEMBER DALE WHITMORE, CITY COUNCILMEMBER DON PETTIGO, CITY ATTORNEY BRENT BORSDEN, CHIEF OF POLICE CHRIS SACHS; COUNTY OF YUBA; YUBA COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION; YUBA COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION MANAGER JEREMY STRANG; YUBA COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TRACEY CLARK; CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CHRIS MONACO, individually and in their official capacities; H&H TRENCHING CO.; DOES 1-100, Defendants. No. 2:18-cv-02765-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal.). The Plaintiffs are homeless individuals who previously lived in one of the many homeless encampments that once existed on the banks of the Yuba and Feather Rivers. They bring federal and state law claims on behalf of themselves and approximately 300-500 persons who were forcibly removed from the homeless encampments known as Avondale. Plaintiff's Untimely Opposition To determine whether the Court should excuse a party's failure to meet a court-imposed deadline, it considers four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact upon the proceedings (3) the reason for the delay and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Statute of Limitations The City argues that the Court should dismiss all of Plaintiffs Elliot and Motley's claims as time-barred. The Court grants the City's motion to dismiss Elliot and Motley's Section 1985(3), ADA, and state law claims as time-barred. The Court denies the City's motion to dismiss Elliot and Motley's Section 1983 claims as time-barred, because those claims fall under the continuing violations doctrine. Neither Section 1983 nor ADA has its own statute of limitations. Rather, federal courts apply the forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury actions. California's statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years. This two-year statute of limitations also governs Elliot and Motley's state tort claims. The Plaintiffs concede that, when viewed in isolation, Elliot and Motley's claims accrued outside the limitations period. They argue that this Court should nonetheless allow the claims to go forward under the continuing violations doctrine. By the Plaintiffs' account, this doctrine allows claims that would ordinarily be time-barred to proceed if the plaintiff can show those claims arose out of a systematic policy or practice of discrimination that operated, in part, within the limitations period. Likewise, Elliot and Motley's Section 1983 claims against the City necessarily arise out of a series of acts. To sustain a Section 1983 claim against a municipality, a plaintiff must show that a constitutional deprivation arose out of a custom, policy, or practice. Like a hostile work environment claim, a claim of municipal liability necessarily requires a series of improper acts. If the destruction of Elliot and Motley's property was pursuant to the City's custom, policy, or practice, the continuing violations doctrine applies. Elliot and Motley contend that the City helped destroy their property in February 2016, a month before the City and County allegedly adopted a 13-step plan to displace homeless individuals from the encampments outside. Plaintiffs allege that this conduct although occurring before the existence of a written plan -- was nonetheless part of the City's broader policy to violate their constitutional rights. Because challenging a City's policy necessarily implicates a series of acts, this Court finds that the continuing violations doctrine applies to Elliot and Motley's Section 1983 claims. The Court does not dismiss these claims as time-barred. There is not, however, a custom, policy, or practice requirement under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3), ADA, or state tort law. The Court, therefore, views each of those claims as discrete. The continuing violations doctrine does not apply to these claims. The Court, therefore, dismisses those claims as time-barred. 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3) The City argues that the Court should dismiss all the Plaintiffs' Section 1985(3) claims. Section 1985(3) prohibits conspiring for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class or persons of the equal protection of the laws. As the City argues in its Reply, Plaintiffs concede that the federal courts have not identified homelessness as a suspect classification. Rather, the Plaintiffs argue that a Section 1985(3) claim lies because homeless persons could make out an Equal Protection Clause claim on other grounds. Because, as the Plaintiffs concede, the courts have not designated homelessness as a suspect classification, this Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Further, the Plaintiffs cannot cure this deficiency by amendment. The Court dismisses all the Plaintiffs' Section 1985(3) claims with prejudice. ADA The Plaintiffs did not oppose the City's motion to dismiss their ADA claim. Further, by citing only to the Findings and Purpose section of the statute in their complaint, the Plaintiffs fail to apprise either the City or this Court of the statutory basis of the claim. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Plaintiffs' ADA claim without prejudice. First Amendment The Plaintiffs do not clearly explain what theory they rely on for their First Amendment claims. The Plaintiffs appear to be making a Retaliation claim, arguing that the City destroyed their paper, cardboard, paint, pens, pencils, brushes, writing implements and other materials used to create protest signs in direct response to the protest Butcher helped organize a few days earlier. To state a claim for Retaliation, the Plaintiffs needs to assert that the City's actions deterred or chilled [the plaintiffs' political speech and such deterrence was a substantial or motivating factor in the defendant's conduct. The Plaintiffs' Retaliation claim suffers from at least two deficiencies. First, the alleged destruction of Thorntree in February 2016 occurred before the October 2016 protest. Therefore, the City could not have intended to retaliate against Elliot and Motley for protesting in front of City Hall. The Court dismisses Elliot and Motley's First Amendment Retaliation claims with prejudice. Secondly, the complaint simply does not contain any allegations that retaliation was a substantial or motivating factor in the City's conduct. The Plaintiffs rest their Retaliation claims on the fact that the City helped destroy Hollywood Trailer Park two days after Butcher helped organize a protest in Washington Square Park. The Plaintiffs fail to set forth a prima facie case for Retaliation under the First Amendment. The Court dismisses the remaining Plaintiffs' First Amendment claims without prejudice. Fourth Amendment The City argues that the Court should dismiss the Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims. But the Plaintiffs have adequately pled a Fourth Amendment claim against the City for unreasonably seizing their personal property. The City argues that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Fourth Amendment because any warrantless seizure that occurred was justified by either probable cause or exigent circumstances. As an initial matter, Lavan makes clear that a violation of a City ordinance does not vitiate the Fourth Amendment's protection of one's property. Indeed, the Court found that by seizing and destroying Appellees' unabandoned legal papers, shelters, and personal effects, the City meaningfully interfered with Appellees' possessory interests in that property. No more is necessary to trigger the Fourth Amendment's reasonable requirement. Taken as true, the Plaintiffs' allegations set out a prima facie case under the Fourth Amendment. The Court denies the City's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims. Eighth Amendment The City argues that the Plaintiffs have not properly pled claims under the Eighth Amendment. This Court agrees. As the City argues, the Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment in three ways: it limits the type of punishment that can be imposed on those convicted of crimes; it proscribes punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime; and it imposes substantive limits on what can be made criminal. The Plaintiffs' allegations fall short. Looking to the face of the complaint, only Stanley and Susan Extein appear to have standing. They are the only plaintiffs who allege that the City blocked them from entering their encampments at threat of arrest. Accordingly, none of the other plaintiffs have standing to challenge the City's enforcement of this ordinance, because they have not alleged that arrest was imminent. The Plaintiffs do not allege an Eighth Amendment violation. This court dismisses this claim without prejudice. Fourteenth Amendment The City summarily argues that, because homelessness is not a suspect classification and housing is not a fundamental right, the Plaintiffs' Equal Protection claim fails. The Plaintiffs counter that their Equal Protection claim survives under the danger-creation doctrine. The Plaintiffs' legal argument in support of this claim is also incorrect. The danger-creation doctrine does not support a claim under the Equal Protection Clause. Rather, it is a theory of liability under Substantive Due Process. Although the Plaintiffs' Opposition is misguided in its analysis, the City is the moving party here and it simply has not shown that Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a cause of action under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court denies the City's motion to dismiss this claim. State Law Claims The City's motion argues that the Court should dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' state law claims because the Plaintiffs failed to comply with the Government Tort Claims Act (TCA). Under California law, a claim relating to a cause of action for injury to person or to personal property shall be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. A plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to demonstrate compliance with the TCA's claim presentation requirement or an excuse for noncompliance. The Plaintiffs argue in their Opposition that they are excused from compliance. Their failure to allege this excuse in the Complaint is reason enough to dismiss the state law claims. The Court nonetheless discusses each of Plaintiffs' proposed excuses to explain why it is dismissing these claims with prejudice. Here, the Plaintiffs' state law claims have fallen within the TCA since their inception. The Holt and Minsky exceptions do not apply. The Court, accordingly, grants in part and denies in part the City's Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 25, 2019 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y462bwk6from Leagle.com. Brigitte Raelynn Butcher, Billy John Reid, Jolene Ann Reid, Susan Extein, Stanley Extein, Michael Elliot, Crystal Motley, Dick Veit, Dennis Owens, Dereck Dempsey, Carrie Antrapp, Wilbur Bartholomew, Annette Skeen, Marysville Homeless Union & California Homeless Union/Statewide Organizing Council, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony David Prince -- aprince@sfbar.org -- Law Offices of Anthony D. Prince. City of Marysville, Defendant, represented by Kristin A. Blocher -- kblocher@akk-law.com -- Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff, LLP, Bruce Alan Kilday -- bkilday@akk-law.com -- Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff, LLP & Sean D. O'Dowd -- sodowd@akk-law.com -- Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff, LLP. County of Yuba, Yuba County Code Enforcement Division, Jeremy Strang, Chris Monaco & Tracey Clark, Defendants, represented by John Robert Whitefleet -- jwhitefleet@porterscott.com -- Porter Scott, APC. MASTERBRAND CABINETS: Removes Labor Suit to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc. removed case styled, MATTHEW WHEATLEY, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MASTERBRAND CABINETS, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1820484 (Filed Aug. 7, 2018), from the San Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 21, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00513 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts Defendants'violation of the California Labor Code, including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, and unreimbursed business expenses. MasterBrand Cabinets, Inc. manufactures cabinets for kitchen, bath, and other-rooms. It serves consumers and channel partners through dealers and a national-to-local supply chain in the United States and Canada.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendant: Jon D. Meer, Esq. Timothy L. Hix, Esq. David Rosenberg, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com thix@seyfarth.com drosenberg@seyfarth.com MDL 2548: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gold Futures MDL --------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs American Precious Metals, Ltd., Norman Bailey, Patricia Benvenuto, Compania Minera Dayton, Edward Derksen, Edward R. Derksen, Frank Flanagan, Thomas Galligher, KPFF Investment, Inc., Duane Lewis, Larry Dean Lewis, Robert Marechal, David Markun, Blanche McKennon, Kelly McKennon, Thomas Moran, Steve E. Summer, Richard White, White Oak Fund LP, David Windmiller and Michel de Chabert-Ostland filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the multidistrict litigation styled In re: Commodity Exchange, Inc., Gold Futures and Options Trading Litigation, MDL No. 14-md-2548, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy to fix the price of physical gold and gold-denominated financial instruments from 2004 to 2012. Until November 2014, the price of physical gold was set twice daily through a private auction involving some of the largest bullion banks in London. The Plaintiffs allege that the afternoon "Gold Fixing"--also known as the "PM Fixing"--was a cover for a price-fixing conspiracy among the entity charged with operating the Gold Fixing, Defendant London Gold Market Fixing Ltd., and the participant banks: The Bank of Nova Scotia, Barclays Bank plc, Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Bank plc, and SociÃ(C)tÃ(C) GÃ(C)nÃ(C)rale SA ("Fixing Banks"). The Plaintiffs are individuals and entities that sold physical gold, gold futures traded on the Commodity Exchange, Inc. market, shares in gold exchange-traded funds ("ETFs"), or options on gold ETFs during the Class Period. Seeking to recover alleged losses suffered as a result of the Defendants' alleged manipulation and suppression of the price of gold through the gold "fixing" process, the Plaintiffs bring putative class action claims for (1) unlawful restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (2) market manipulation in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act ("CEA"); (3) employment of a manipulative or deceptive device and false reporting in violation of the CEA; (4) principal-agent liability under the CEA; (5) aiding and abetting manipulation in violation of the CEA; and (6) unjust enrichment. The appellate case is captioned as In re: Commodity Exchange, Inc., Gold Futures and Options Trading Litigation, Case No. 19-651, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners Kevin Maher, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Edward Derksen; Richard White, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Eric Nalven, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; White Oak Fund LP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; J. Scott Nicholson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; American Precious Metals, Ltd., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Steve E. Summer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Thomas Moran, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Patricia Benvenuto, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Thomas Galligher, on behalf of themeselves and all others similarly situated; Larry Dean Lewis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Duane Lewis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Edward R. Derksen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; David Markun, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Nando, Inc.; KPFF Investment, Inc.; Norman Bailey; Michel de Chabert-Ostland; David Windmiller; Frank Flanagan; Robert Marechal; Albert Semrau; Kelly McKennon; Blanche McKennon; and Compania Minera Dayton are represented by: Daniel L. Brockett, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com Defendants-Respondents Bank of Nova Scotia and Scotiamocatta are represented by: Kenneth Mark Raisler, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4675 E-mail: raislerk@sullcrom.com Defendants-Respondents Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital PLC, Barclays Capital Inc. and Barclays PLC are represented by: Michael Feldberg, Esq. ALLEN & OVERY LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 610-6360 E-mail: michael.feldberg@allenovery.com Defendants-Respondents HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC USA, Inc. and HSBC Holdings PLC, a United Kingdom Corporation, are represented by: Damien J. Marshall, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 E-mail: dmarshall@bsfllp.com Defendants-Respondent Societe Generale is represented by: Benjamin Fleming, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 875 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 918-3000 E-mail: benjamin.fleming@hoganlovells.com Defendant-Respondent The London Gold Market Fixing Limited is represented by: James V. Masella, III, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 885-5562 E-mail: jmasella@blankrome.com Defendants-Respondents Societe Generale S.A. and SG Americas Securities, LLC, are represented by: Dennis Henry Tracey, III, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 875 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 918-3524 E-mail: dennis.tracey@hoganlovells.com Defendants-Respondents The Bank of Nova Scotia and Scotia Capital (USA) Inc. are represented by: Stephen Ehrenberg, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-3269 E-mail: ehrenbergs@sullcrom.com MDL 2709: Court Certifies Classes in 16 States ---------------------------------------------- The Hon. Gary A. Fenner granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the multidistrict litigation captioned IN RE: DOLLAR GENERAL CORP. MOTOR OIL MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 2709 and Master Case No. 16-02709-MD-W-GAF (W.D. Mo.). Judge Fenner opines that the Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with regard to the 16 statewide unjust enrichment classes and the 16 statewide consumer protection classes. Judge Fenner adds that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that common issues of fact or law predominate over individual issues for the proposed nationwide unjust enrichment class, the multistate implied warranties class, and the statewide implied warranties classes. Pursuant to Rule 23(g), Kanner & Whiteley, LLC is appointed as lead counsel for all classes. A summary of certified classes and the appointed representatives is as follows: -- California: * Class Definition: All persons in the State of California who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE 10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and not for resale, since February 8, 2012. * Named Representative: Roberto Vega * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC; Milstein Adelman Jackson Fairchild & Wade LLP * Claims: 1) Unjust Enrichment 2) False Advertising (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500) 3) Consumer Legal Remedies (Cal. Civ. Code. Section 1750) 4) Songs Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1791, 1792) 5) Unfair Competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200) -- Colorado: * Class Definition: All persons in the State of Colorado who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE 10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and not for resale, since February 15, 2013. * Named Representative: Allen Brown * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC * Claims: 1) Unjust Enrichment 2) Colo. Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Colo. Rev. Stat. Section 5-1-105) -- Florida: * Class Definition: All natural persons residing in the State of Florida who, after December 18, 2011, purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE 10W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and not for re-sale. * Named Representative: Bradford Barfoot * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC; Ku & Mussman, P.A. * Claims: 1) Unjust Enrichment 2) Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Fla. Stat. Section 501.201) 3) Misleading Advertising Law (Fla. Stat. Section 817.41) -- Illinois: * Class Definition: All persons in the State of Illinois who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE 10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and not for resale, since February 15, 2013. * Named Representative: Gerardo Solis * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC * Claims: 1) Unjust Enrichment 2) Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 Ill Comp. Stat. 510/1) -- Kansas: * Class Definition: All persons in the State of Kansas who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE 10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and not for resale, since February 2013. * Named Representative: Nicholas Meyer * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC * Claims: 1) Unjust Enrichment 2) Kansas Consumer Protection Act (Kan. Stat. Ann. Section 50.623) -- Kentucky: * Class Definition: All persons in the Commonwealth of Kentucky who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE 10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and not for resale, since February 15, 2014. * Named Representative: John Foppe * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC; Futscher Law PLLC * Claims: 1) Unjust Enrichment 2) Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. Section 367.220) -- Maryland: * Class Definition: All persons in the State of Maryland who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE 10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and not for resale, since December 2011. * Named Representative: John McCormick, III * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC; Law Offices of Stephen J. Nolan * Claims: 1) Unjust Enrichment 2) Maryland Consumer Protection Act (Md. Code Ann., Com. Law Section 13-101) -- Michigan: * Class Definition: All persons in the State of Michigan who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE 10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and not for resale, since February 2010. * Named Representative: Bruce Gooel * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC; Law Offices of John P. Zuccarini * Claims: 1) Unjust Enrichment 2) Michigan Consumer Protection Act (Mich. Comp. Laws Section 445.901) -- Minnesota: * Class Definition: All persons in the State of Minnesota who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE 10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and not for resale, since February 15, 2010. * Named Representative: Scott Sheehy * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC; Maschka, Riedy, Ries & Frentz Law Firm * Claims 1) Unjust Enrichment 2) Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Minn. Stat. Section 325D.43) 3) Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (Minn. Stat. Section 324F.68) -- Missouri: * Class Definition: All persons in the State of Missouri who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE 10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and not for resale, since February 15, 2011. * Named Representatives: Robert Oren, James Taschner * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC; Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC * Claims 1) Unjust Enrichment 2) Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 407.010) -- Nebraska: * Class Definition: All persons in the State of Nebraska who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE 10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and not for resale, since February 2012. * Named Representative: Janine Harvey * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC * Claims: 1) Unjust Enrichment 2) Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 59-1601) 3) Nebraska Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 87-301) -- New Jersey: * Class Definition: All persons in the State of New Jersey who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE 10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and not for resale, since December 2009. * Named Representative: William Flinn * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC; Clark Law Firm * Claims: 1) Unjust Enrichment 2) New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (N.J. Stat. Ann. Section 56:8-1) -- New York: * Class Definition: All persons in the State of New York who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE 10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and not for resale, since December 2009. * Named Representatives: Kevin Gadson, Robert Barrows, Jason Wood * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC; Clark Law Firm; Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC * Claims: 1) Unjust Enrichment 2) N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 349 3) N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 350 -- North Carolina: * Class Definition: All persons in the State of North Carolina who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE 10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and not for resale, since on or before 2010. * Named Representative: Brandon Raab * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC; Daniels Law Firm, PC * Claims: 1) Unjust Enrichment 2) North Carolina Consumer Protection Act (N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 75-1.1) -- Ohio: * Class Definition: All persons in the State of Ohio who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE 10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and not for resale, since February 2011. * Named Representative: Miriam Fruhling * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC; Futscher Law PLLC * Claims: 1) Unjust Enrichment 2) Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (Ohio Rev. Code Section 1345.01) -- Wisconsin: * Class Definition: All persons in the State of Wisconsin who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE 10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and not for resale, from May 8, 2011, to the present. * Named Representative: Seit Alla * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC; Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP * Claims: 1) Unjust Enrichment 2) Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Wis. Stat. Section 100.18) 3) Wisconsin Unfair Methods of Competition and Trade Practices (Wis. Stat. Section 100.20).[CC] MDL 2804: Stracener Suit v. Purdue over Opiates Sales Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, Ronald D. Stracener, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc., Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., Insys Therapeutics Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Cephalon Inc. Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Actavis plc, Actavis Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Laboratories Inc., McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health Inc., AmerisourceBergen Corporation, and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00086, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on March 19, 2019. The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-op-45144-DAP to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violation. The Stracener case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The ML was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multi district Litigation on December 5, 2017. These cases concern the alleged improper marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various prescription opiate medications into cities, states and towns across the country. Responding The Plaintiffs' positions on centralization vary considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or potential tag-along actions support centralization. The Plaintiffs in 15 actions or potential tag-along actions oppose centralization altogether or oppose transfer of their action. In addition to opposing transfer, the State of West Virginia suggests that the ML Panel delay transferring its case until the Southern District of West Virginia court decides its motion to remand to state court. Third party payer plaintiffs in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania potential tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers Health and Welfare Fund) oppose centralization of third participatory actions. Western District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case. The Northern District of Illinois tag-along Plaintiff City of Chicago asks the Panel to defer transfer of its action until document discovery is completed. The Presiding Judge in the MDL is Sarah S. Vance, United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:17-MD-02804-PAD.[BN] Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned principally by descendants of Mortimer and Raymond Sackler. In 2007 it paid out one of the largest fines ever levied against a pharmaceutical firm for mislabeling its product OxyContin, and three executives were found guilty of criminal charges.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Stephen M. Tunstall, Esq. P.O. Box 152 Mobile, AL 36601 Telephone: (251) 432-2221 Facsimile: (251) 432-2218 E-mail: stephen@smtlawyer.com MEDEQUITIES REALTY: Bushansky Seeks to Enjoin Vote on Sale to Omega ------------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. MEDEQUITIES REALTY TRUST, INC., JOHN W. MCROBERTS, RANDALL L. CHURCHEY, JOHN N. FOY, STEVEN I. GERINGER, STEPHEN L. GUILLARD, WILLIAM C. HARLAN, ELLIOTT MANDELBAUM, and TODD W. MANSFIELD, Case No. 3:19-cv-00231 (M.D. Tenn., March 17, 2019), seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which MedEquities will be acquired by Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. On January 2, 2019, MedEquities and Omega issued a joint press release announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated January 2, 2019. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each share of MedEquities common stock will be converted into the right to receive (i) 0.235 of a share of Omega common stock, and (ii) $2.00 in cash, plus a special cash dividend of $0.21 per share of MedEquities common stock to be paid at closing of the transaction (the "Merger Consideration"). The Proposed Transaction represents an enterprise value of approximately $600 million. Mr. Bushansky alleges that the registration statement filed in connection with the Proposed Transaction omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) the actual intrinsic standalone value of the Company and Omega; (ii) the financial analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; (iii) the background of the Proposed Transaction; and (iv) Citi's potential conflicts of interest. He contends that the failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as MedEquities stockholders need such information in order to cast a fully-informed vote in connection with the Proposed Transaction. MedEquities, a Maryland chartered corporation, is a self-managed and self-administered real estate investment trust that invests in a diversified mix of healthcare properties and healthcare-related real estate debt investments. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq. Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq. BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES 40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200 P.O. Box 150734 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 248-2828 Facsimile: (866) 816-4116 E-mail: PKNASHLAW@aol.com Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly K. Moran, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com mrogovin@weisslawllp.com kmoran@weisslawllp.com MEGAN BRENNEN: Faces Robinson Suit over Employment Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth L. Robinson filed an employment-related lawsuit against Megan J. Brennen for alleged discriminatory practices. The case is captioned Robinson v. Brennen, Case No. 1:19-cv-00559-CAB (N.D. Ohio, March 13, 2019). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Christopher A. Boyko. Megan J. Brennan is the 74th and the first female Postmaster General of the United States and the Chief Executive Officer of the world's largest postal organization.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Phillips, Esq. 4403 St. Clair Avenue Cleveland, OH 44103 Telephone: (216) 531-0123 Facsimile: (216) 881-3928 E-mail: d.g.phillips@sbcglobal.net MICHIGAN: Seeks Court of Appeals Review of Ruling in Bell Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Civil Service Commission filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled CARLOS BELL v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 17-003861-CZ, in the Wayne Circuit Court. The appellate case is captioned as CARLOS BELL v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 347929, in the Michigan Court of Appeals.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee BELL CARLOS/ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED is represented by: Leonard Mungo, Esq. THE MUNGO LAW FIRM, PLC 333 West Fort Street, Suite 1500 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 963-0407 Facsimile: (313) 963-0200 E-mail: lmungo@mungoatlaw.com Defendant-Appellant CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION is represented by: Christopher W. Braverman, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF MICHIGAN G. Mennen Williams Building, 7th Floor 525 W. Ottawa St. P.O. Box 30212 Lansing, MI 48909 Telephone: (517) 335-7622 E-mail: adam.braverman@usdoj.gov MISSOURI: Suit Challenges Rule on Suspension of Driver's License ---------------------------------------------------------------- NATHAN WRIGHT; and CAMESE BEDFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION of the Missouri Department of Social Services; MICHAEL PARSON, in his official capacity as Governor of Missouri; STEVE CORSI, in his official capacity as Director of the Missouri Department of Social Services; PATRICK LUEBBERING, in his official capacity as Director of the Family Support Division; JOEL WALTER, in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Revenue; and JACKIE BEMBOOM, in her official capacity as Director of the Motor Vehicle and Driver Licensing Division, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00398-RLW (E.D. Mo., March 4, 2019) alleges that the Defendants unconstitutionally suspend the driver's licenses of parents who are unable to pay child support. According to the complaint, the Defendants enforce license suspensions as penalties for nonpayment with no indigence exception. Such suspensions amount to wealth-based discrimination in violation of substantive due process and equal protection rights. Because the Defendants enforce a complete deprivation against parents who are completely unable to satisfy their child support requirements, affected parents are a suspect class, and the Defendants' violates equal protection rights, as it is not narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. The Defendants deprived parents of their property interest in their driver's licenses without a meaningful hearing -- that is, a pre-deprivation ability-to-pay hearing determining whether nonpayment was willful -- or notice of such a hearing. The suspensions violate procedural due process rights. Missouri is a state in the Midwestern United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rebecca Ramaswamy, Esq. Phil Telfeyan, Esq. ATTORNEYS, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW 400 7th Street NW, Suite 602 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 505-2058 E-mail: rramaswamy@equaljusticeunderlaw.org ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org - and - Stephanie Lummus, Esq. ATTORNEY, ST. FRANCIS COMMUNITY SERVICES 100 N. Tucker Blvd., Suite 726 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 977-5452 E-mail: stephanie.lummus@slu.edu MONSANTO CO: Faces Heisch Suit Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries --------------------------------------------------------------- BRENT A. HEISCH AND TRICIA HEISCH v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00517 (E.D. Mo., March 18, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiffs' Roundup(R)-related injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The lawsuit is an action for damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) 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. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading producer of glyphosate. The Company advertises and sells goods, specifically Roundup, in the state of Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Bellangers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID BELLANGER and BERNADETTE BELLANGER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00547-JMB (E.D. Mo., March 22, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Bruinsmas Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- SJOERD BRUINSMA and BROOK BRUINSMA, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00217 (W.D. Mich., March 21, 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: Adam J. Brody, Esq. Brion B. Doyle, Esq. Seth B. Arthur, Esq. VARNUM LLP Bridgewater Place, P.O. Box 352 Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352 Telephone: (616) 336-6000 E-mail: ajbrody@varnumlaw.com bbdoyle@varnumlaw.com sbarthur@varnumlaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Cashdollar Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------------- LORI CASHDOLLAR, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00551 (E.D. Mo., March 22, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com MORTON BUILDINGS: Helms Seeks to Certify Construction Workers Class ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled, CYREL HELMS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MORTON BUILDINGS, INC., the Defendant Case No. 3:18-cv-128 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify a class consisting of: "each individual who performed construction work for Morton Buildings, Inc., any time since November 12, 2015, as a Construction Crew Member or Construction Crew Lead". The suit seeks to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff moves the Court to conditionally certify the lawsuit as a collective action for the purpose of providing notice of the action to members of the collective action class.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Steve Rauls, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com MSD ENTERPRISES: Palapa Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS GUTIERREZ PALAPA and GERMAN IGNACIO REYES MEJIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MSD ENTERPRISES, INC. (D/B/A BAR VIRAGE), DAVID GELGARD (A.K.A. DAVID GELBARD), MIKE SHLEV (A.K.A. MICHAEL), JACOB COHEN (A.K.A. YAKOV), and MARCELO SININ, Case No. 1:19-cv-02412 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. MSD Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Bar Virage, was a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York. The Individual Defendants serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporation. The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a restaurant, located at 118 2nd Ave., in New York City under the name "Bar Virage." The restaurant was located in the NoHo section of Manhattan in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR: Ali Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Mirza Hyder Ali; and All Others Similarly Situated v. Muhammad Muzaffar Ahmed, Muhammad Laique Ahmed and Muhammad F. Ahmed, Case No. 4:19-cv-01004 (S.D. Tex., March 18, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages from the Defendants. The Defendants are brothers. Together, they own, operate and control several gasoline stations and convenience stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq. ALI S. AHMED, P.C. One Arena Place 7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920 Houston, TX 77074 Telephone: (713) 223-1300 Facsimile: (713) 255-0013 E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com MYPIZZA TECHNOLOGIES: Nikrothanond Sues over Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- KANOK NIKROTHANOND, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MYPIZZA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant,Case No. 1:19-cv-02548 (E.D.N.Y., March 21, 2019), seeks to stop Slice from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making prerecorded solicitation calls to consumers without their consent, and to otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by Slice's conduct. Slice provides an app-based online platform that allows consumers to order pizza and related items from local pizzerias. Slice solicits local pizzerias to join their network and provides them with a landing page on Slice's website, a VOIP phone number, and marketing services for the local pizzeria. In return, Slice receives $1.95 for each order that is placed through the Slice platform to local pizzeria, the lawsuit states. Slice drives traffic to the pizzerias using a number of different methods, including telemarketing. Slice places prerecorded telemarketing solicitation calls to consumers from the VOIP phone numbers Slice provides to the local pizzerias in its network, encouraging consumers to use Slice to place pizza orders from the local pizzerias for Slice's and the local pizzerias' joint benefit. According ot the complaint, Slice maintains exclusive control of the VOIP phone numbers it provides to the local pizzerias in its network that Slice uses to place pre-recorded calls to consumers. Slice does not obtain the required prior express written consent before making these pre-recorded calls to consumers as is required by the TCPA.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the putative Class: Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN P.A. 5 Penn Plaza, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26 th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com NATIONAL VISION: Removes Mendoza Labor Suit to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- National Vision, Inc. removed the case captioned as, JAVIER MENDOZA on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL VISION, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV004327 (Filed Nov. 13, 2018), from Monterey County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 21, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-01485 to the proceeding. The complaint alleged that Defendants failed to provide meal periods or compensation, rest periods or compensation; failed to pay hourly and overtime wages; failed to comply with itemized employee wage statement requirements; failed and refused to pay agreed wages; and failed to pay all wages upon termination under the California Labor Code.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendant: Julie G. Yap, Esq. Tiffany T. Tran, Esq. Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350 Sacramento, CA 95814-4428 Telephone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 E-mail: jyap@seyfarth.com ttran@seyfarth.com pebsworth@seyfarth.com NB BAKER: Cal. App. Affirms PAGA Arbitration Denial in Correia Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One, issued an Opinion affirming the trial court's judgment denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration on PAGA Claims in the case captioned MARK CORREIA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. NB BAKER ELECTRIC, INC., Defendant and Appellant. No. D073798. (Cal. App.). The Defendant appeals the trial court's judgment granting the arbitration petition on all causes of action except for the PAGA claim. Plaintiffs Mark Correia and Richard Stow sued their former employer, NB Baker Electric, Inc., alleging wage and hour violations and seeking civil penalties under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA). On the PAGA claim, the court followed the California Supreme Court decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 (Iskanian), which held unenforceable agreements to waive the right to bring PAGA representative actions in any forum, and the California Court of Appeal decision in Tanguilig v. Bloomingdale's, Inc. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 665 (Tanguilig), which held a PAGA claim cannot be compelled to arbitration without the state's consent. The trial court stayed the PAGA claim pending the conclusion of the arbitration. Baker contends the court erred because: (1) plaintiffs' response to its arbitration petition was untimely; (2) Iskanian is no longer binding as it is inconsistent with a recent United States Supreme Court decision, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018) U.S. 138 S.Ct. 1612 (Epic) and (3) the parties' arbitration agreement should be interpreted to mean that if the representative-action waiver is unenforceable, the PAGA claim for statutory penalties remains subject to arbitration. Timeliness of Plaintiffs' Opposition Papers Before reaching plaintiffs' substantive arguments, the Court considers consider Baker's contention the court erred in considering plaintiffs' response to the arbitration petition because plaintiffs did not file the opposition by the statutory deadline date. Code of Civil Procedure section 1290 authorizes a party to seek to compel arbitration by filing a petition in court, and states the petition allegations are deemed to be admitted unless a response is duly served and filed. Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.6 provides: A response shall be served and filed within 10 days after service of the petition with an exception not applicable here. Baker filed its petition to compel arbitration on September 7, 2017. The motion identified the hearing date as January 12, 2018. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on December 29, 2017. The opposition was untimely under Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.6's deadline. Baker contends the court had no jurisdiction to consider this untimely response. The Court disagrees. First, it is not clear that the arbitration petition statute rather than the general motions statute governs the timing requirements when a complaint has been filed in court. Even if the petition timeline applied here, Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.6 specifically allows a court to extend the time for filing an opposition for good cause, and reviewing courts have long held trial courts are authorized to consider late-filed opposition papers for good cause if there is no undue prejudice to the moving party. Iskanian Remains Good Law on Nonenforceability of Blanket PAGA Waivers In the Arbitration Agreement, plaintiffs agreed to waive their rights to maintain any representative action in arbitration or any court concerning any dispute specified in Section 5. In the court below, the parties agreed a representative action included a PAGA claim and that the Arbitration Agreement purported to ban these claims in any forum arbitration or court. Baker conceded that this complete ban was unenforceable under Iskanian. On appeal, it has changed its position. Baker now asserts that the ban is enforceable because Iskanian is no longer good law after the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Epic. Baker argues Epic'sinterpretation of the FAA preemption clause undermines Iskanian's reasoning and requires that California courts enforce PAGA representative-action waivers. The Court reject these arguments. Because Epic did not rule on the precise issue before Iskanian, the Court remains bound by Iskanian'sholding. Moreover, Iskanian's holding and reasoning are not necessarily incompatible with Epic. Applicable Law Congress enacted the FAA in response to judicial hostility to arbitration and to ensure that private arbitration agreements are enforced according to their terms. Under section 2 of the FAA, state laws inconsistent with the federal act's provisions and objectives are preempted. In Concepcion, the United States Supreme Court held the FAA preempted a California Supreme Court decision (Discover Bank v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 148) holding that class action waivers are unenforceable in consumer contracts as against public policy. (Concepcion, supra, 563 U.S. 333.) The Concepcion court found the California Supreme Court's holding interfered with the fundamental attributes of arbitration because arbitration is poorly suited to resolve class actions, emphasizing a class action's strict procedural formalities, complex notice requirements, and potential severe consequences to a defendant. In Iskanian, the California Supreme Court considered Concepcion's impact on arbitration agreements in the employment context. (Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 362-363.) The Iskanian plaintiffs (who had signed arbitration agreements with class action and representative action waivers as part of their employment) asserted wage-and-hour class action claims and PAGA claims seeking statutory penalties for Labor Code violations. The Iskaniancourt first addressed the issue whether the FAA preempts the state law rule, embodied in Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443, providing class-action waivers in employment contracts generally violate public policy. The Iskanian court determined Concepcion's holding and reasoning applied to class action waivers in employment contracts and overruled Gentry. The Iskanian court specifically recognized that as in Concepcion, the refusal to enforce the employment arbitration agreement class action waivers interfered with the fundamental attributes of arbitration. In so ruling, the Iskanian court rejected the employees' arguments that the class action waiver was unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), finding the NLRA did not override FAA's preemption provision. The Iskanian court, however, reached a different conclusion on the waiver of the employee's PAGA cause of action, holding a complete ban on PAGA actions is unenforceable. The court's conclusion was predicated on its view that a PAGA claim functions as a law enforcement mechanism to implement state labor laws. Relying on Epic's reiteration of the FAA's broad preemptive scope barring state laws interfering with arbitration provisions requiring individual arbitrations, Baker urges us to disavow Iskanian's continuing validity on PAGA claims. We decline to do so. On federal questions, intermediate appellate courts in California must follow the decisions of the California Supreme Court, unless the United States Supreme Court has decided the same question differently. Iskanian held a ban on bringing PAGA actions in any forum violates public policy and that this rule is not preempted by the FAA because the claim is a governmental claim. Epic did not consider this issue and thus did not decide the same question differently. Epic addressed a different issue pertaining to the enforceability of an individualized arbitration requirement against challenges that such enforcement violated the NRLA. Moreover, the cause of action at issue in Epic differs fundamentally from a PAGA claim. Epic held an employee who agrees to individualized arbitration cannot avoid this agreement by asserting claims on behalf of other employees under the FLSA or federal class action procedures. Epic's interpretation of the FAA's preemptive scope does not defeat Iskanian's holding or reasoning for purposes of an intermediate appellate court applying the law. The Iskanian court reached a different conclusion from Concepcion on the enforceability of the contractual waiver not because the Iskanian court interpreted the FAA differently from Concepcion on the preemption issue, but based on the unique nature of a PAGA claim as a qui tam type action, and the PAGA litigant's status as `the proxy or agent' of the state and his or her substantive role in enforcing our labor laws on behalf of state law enforcement agencies. Because the California Supreme Court found a PAGA claim involved a dispute not governed by the FAA, and the waiver would have precluded the PAGA action in any forum, it held its PAGA-waiver unenforceability determination was not preempted. Epic did not reach the issue regarding whether a governmental claim of this nature is governed by the FAA, or consider the implications of a complete ban on a state law enforcement action. Because Epic did not overrule Iskanian's holding, the Court remains bound by the California Supreme Court's decision. Did Court Err in Refusing to Order PAGA Claim to Arbitration Baker contends that even if it cannot enforce the contractual provision barring a representative action in any forum, the court erred in refusing to order the PAGA action to arbitration, as a representative action and/or an individual action. Plaintiffs counter that they cannot be required to litigate the PAGA claims in arbitration because the state is the real party in interest in a PAGA claim and the state never consented or waived its right to bring its claim to court. The issue before us is whether the agreement to arbitrate a PAGA representative action is enforceable in this case. This precise issue was not addressed in Iskanian or Sakkab. Iskanian held a waiver of an employee's right to bring a representative action in any forum violated public policy and that this rule was not preempted by the FAA. It did not address the question whether an employee's predispute agreement to arbitrate PAGA actions is enforceable by requiring arbitration of the claim. It noted only that the parties' particular arbitration agreement appeared to read as requiring arbitration of individual claims but not of representative PAGA claims and therefore the plaintiff must proceed with bilateral arbitration on his individual damages claims, and the employer must answer the representative PAGA claims in some forum. Relying on the rationale underlying Iskanian's PAGA waiver-enforceability and FAA-preemption conclusions, these courts reasoned that because the state is the real party in interest in a PAGA action and a PAGA plaintiff asserts the claim solely on behalf of, and as the proxy for, the state, the employee's predispute arbitration agreement does not subject the claim to arbitration because the state never agreed to arbitrate the claim. Under these decisions, predispute arbitration agreements generally do not support the compelled arbitration of PAGA claims because the state retains control of the right underlying the employee's PAGA claim at least until the state has provided the employee with implicit or explicit authority to bring the claim. At that point, an employee's waiver of the trial right and an agreement to arbitrate may be enforceable. But before that time, the employee has no authority or authorization to waive the state's rights to bring the state's claims in court. In sum, the Court agrees with the California Courts of Appeal that have held Iskanian's view of a PAGA representative action necessarily means that this claim cannot be compelled to arbitration based on an employee's predispute arbitration agreement absent some evidence that the state consented to the waiver of the right to bring the PAGA claim in court. There was no such evidence produced in this case. Finally, the Court reject Baker's claim that the court erred in failing to order plaintiffs' individual PAGA claims to arbitration. Generally, every PAGA action seeking penalties is a representative action on behalf of the state. Thus, a single representative claim cannot be split into an arbitrable individual claim and a nonarbitrable representative claim. A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s February 25, 2019 Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/yypczqlafrom Leagle.com. Finch, Thornton & Baird, Chad T. Wishchuk -- cwishchuk@ftblaw.com -- Kathleen A. Donahue -- kdonahue@ftblaw.com -- and Marlene C. Nowlin -- mnowlin@ftblaw.com -- for Defendant and Appellant. Baker Law Group, Michelle Baker -- michelle@bakerllp.com -- Law Office of Alan S. Yockelson and Alan S. Yockelson -- yockelson@appellatelaw.net -- for Plaintiffs and Respondents. NEVADA GOLD: Settlement Entered in Maverick Merger-Related Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nevada Gold & Casinos, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the Company has entered into a settlement agreement with all of the plaintiffs in full satisfaction of the claims upon payment of $ 250,000. A proposed transaction announced on September 18, 2018, pursuant to which Nevada Gold & Casinos, Inc. will be acquired by Maverick Casinos LLC and Maverick Casinos Merger Sub Inc. Six putative class action complaints have been filed in connection with the proposed Merger: (i) on December 4, 2018, Cindy Fuller filed a lawsuit captioned Cindy Fuller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against the Company and members of the Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; (ii) on December 6, 2018, William Kikendall filed a lawsuit captioned William Kikendall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Nevada Gold & Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-2323 No., against the Company and members of the Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; (iii) on December 7, 2018, George Assad filed a lawsuit captioned George Assad, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Nevada Gold & Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No. A-18-785749-C, against the Company and members of the Board of Directors in the District Court of the State of Nevada in Clark County, Nevada (the "Assad State Action"); (iv) on December 13, 2018, Joseph Conlon filed a lawsuit captioned Joseph Conlon v. Nevada Gold & Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No. A-18-785991-C, against the Company and members of the Board of Directors in the District Court of the State of Nevada in Clark County, Nevada; (v) on January 3, 2019, Peter D'Arcy filed a lawsuit captioned Peter D'Arcy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Nevada Gold & Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00025-GMN-CWH, against the Company and members of the Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada – Las Vegas Division; and (vi) on January 3, 2019, George Assad filed a lawsuit captioned George Assad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Nevada Gold & Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No. A 2:19-cv-00026-JCM-CWH, against the Company and members of the Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. In general, the complaints assert claims against the Company and the Board of Directors alleging, among other things, that the defendants failed to make adequate disclosures in the preliminary proxy statement filed by the Company with the SEC on December 3, 2018, in connection with the proposed Merger, either in violation of the Exchange Act or in violation of fiduciary duties owed by the Company's directors and/or the Company to the Company’s stockholders. The Assad State Action also alleges that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiff and the other public stockholders of the Company in approving the Merger Agreement and that the Company aided and abetted such breaches of the fiduciary duties of the members of the Board of Directors. All six actions seek, among other relief, to enjoin the Merger (or, in the alternative, an award of rescissory damages in the event that the Merger is completed), and an award for the costs of the actions, including attorneys' and expert fees. On February 14, 2019 the Company entered into a settlement agreement with all of the plaintiffs in full satisfaction of the claims upon payment of $ 250,000. Nevada Gold & Casinos, Inc., a gaming company, finances, develops, owns, and operates gaming properties and projects. It operates in three segments: Washington, South Dakota, and Nevada. The company was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Renton, Washington. NIKODEMO OPERATING: Eduoard Moves to Certify Class of Employees --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled SAINT SURIN EDUOARD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. NIKODEMO OPERATING CORP. d/b/a FLORIDIAN DINER, DIMITRIOS KALOIDIS, IOANIS PARAPONIARIS and STEVE ZAHARAKIS, Case No. 18-cv-5554 (E.D.N.Y.), moves the Court for an order certifying a class of all hourly employees of the Defendants, who worked at their diner from December 15, 2016, to present. Mr. Eduoard accuses the Defendants of failing to pay overtime and earned wages, and failing to provide accurate wage statements under New York Labor Law.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Myers, Esq. FRANK & BOLAND, P.C. 500 Bi-County Blvd, Suite 465 Farmingdale, NY 11735 Telephone: (631) 756-0400 Facsimile: (631) 756-0547 E-mail: jmyers@laborlaws.com NORTH CAROLINA: Suit by Inmates over Hep C Screening Certified -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit LLOYD BUFFKIN, KIM CALDWELL, and ROBERT PARHAM, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. ERIK HOOKS, ABHAY AGARWAL, KENNETH LASSITER, PAULA SMITH, and NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00502-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Court entered an order March 20, 2019: 1. adopting in part a Magistrate Judge's Recommendation; 2. granting Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of: "all current and future prisoners in DPS custody who have or will have chronic hepatitis C virus and have not been treated with direct-acting antiviral drugs"; 3. appointing Lloyd Buffkin and Robert Parham as class representatives and appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel; 4. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, in that Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to provide direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment to the Plaintiffs is granted; 5. granting Plaintiffs' request for an injunction ordering Defendants to cease denying DAA treatment based on contraindications, other than patient refusal, and to cease denying DAA treatment based solely on a prisoner's FibroSure score, in that Policy No. CP-7 is enjoined in its entirety; and 6. denying Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to institute universal opt-out screening and to treat all class members with DAAs regardless of fibrosis level. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' policy of screening only those prisoners with certain risk factors, rather than screening all prisoners under an opt-out system, is deliberately indifferent to the risk that prisoners with Hep C virus will evade detection and will not receive the necessary treatment, that Defendants' policy of providing DAA drug treatment only to certain prisoners based on FibroSure test scores and contraindications is deliberately indifferent to the risk that individuals who do not meet the policy criteria may still suffer serious health consequences from Hepa C virus. The Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by discriminatorily withholding medical treatment from Plaintiffs while providing treatment to prisoners with other health issues.[CC] NUNNO CORP: Faces Bradley Suit for Wrongful Termination ------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action has been filed against Nunno Corporation, Ltd. for violations of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and California Labor Code. The case is captioned GABRIEL BRADLEY, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, vs. NUNNO CORPORATION, LTD, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02106 (C.D. Cal., March 21, 2019). Plaintiff also alleges that, during his employment, Defendants wrongfully discriminated against him based on his disclosed and known mental disability that was qualified for protection under FEHA. Plaintiff reported mistreatment, discrimination, bullying, and battery that he had experienced by employees and supervisors of Nunno to a supervisor. Without conducting any investigation into Plaintiff's complaints, Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated by that same day (Jan. 31, 2019) in retaliation for making the complaints. Nunno Corporation, Ltd. is a California corporation registered with the California Secretary of State as having its principal place of business in Paso Robles, California within San Luis Obispo County. Nunno specializes in architectural steel buildings, structural steel fabrication and steel building components. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq. Joshua H. Watson, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD,A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: jwatson@justice4you.com NUVASIVE INC: Goldstein Seeks Damages over Wrongful Termination --------------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related action has been filed against NuVASIVE, Inc. The case is captioned PHILLIP GOLDSTEIN, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NUVASIVE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00012805-CU-WT-CTL (Cal. Super., March 8, 2019). Goldstein seeks all compensatory damages for wrongful termination. He also alleges the Defendant committed anti-kickback violations concerning the cellular allograft freezer program. On Dec. 21, 2017, Goldstein brought up to Albert Cornejo's attention a possible Health Care Professional (HCP) compliance violation related to the freezer program. However, on the same day, Cornejo approved the shipment of the freezer to the HCP customer in the absence of a signed agreement or the cellular allograft product manufacturer's purchase order, ignoring Goldstein's concerns and NuVasive's own internal policy and procedures. Goldstein believed that Cornejo's decision was motivated by revenue over adherence to the anti-kickback requirements of the freezer program and was further motivated by the desire to obtain revenue credit prior to the close of that fiscal year. NuVasive, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business located at 7475 Lusk Blvd., San Diego, California. It is a medical device company that focuses on developing minimally-disruptive surgical products and procedurally-integrated solutions for the spine surgery. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle Baker, Esq. BAKER LAW GROUP LLP 10945 Vista Sorrento Parkway, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 452-0093 Facsimile: (858) 750-1049 E-mail: michelle@bakerllp.com - and - Oleg Cross, Esq. CROSS LAW APC 6363 Greenwich Dr., Ste 140 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 781-1360 Facsimile: (619) 819-7346 E-mail: oleg@cplitigation.com NY TEX CARE: Faces Francisco Labor Suit --------------------------------------- An employment-related class action has been filed against NY TEX CARE, INC, accusing the defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Family and Medical Leave Act, and New York Labor Law. The case is captioned HERLINDA FRANCISCO, NY TEX CARE, INC., d/b/a GREEN & WHITE DRY CLEANERS, and INSUN YUN, Case No. 1:19-cv-01649 (E.D.N.Y., March 22, 2019). Plaintiff Francisco seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Corporate Defendant NY Tex Care, Inc. is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York with an address for service of process and principal place of business located at 47-46b 30th Street, Long Island City, NY 11101. Individual defendant Insun Yun is an owner of the corporate defendant. He exercises operational control as it relates to all employees including Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class. The Defendants operate a commercial cleaning company offering dry cleaning services under the tradename Green & White Dry Cleaners. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-465-1188 Facsimile: 212-465-1181 O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Seeks Prelim. Nod of Miller Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the lawsuit entitled JOE MILLER, et al., each on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00687-ODS (W.D. Mo.), jointly move the Court for an order preliminary approving the Parties' Settlement Agreement and Release. On March 15, 2019, the Parties entered into the Settlement Agreement and Release in this matter. The Settlement Agreement provides substantial relief to approximately 20,000 members of the proposed settlement class comprised of persons who have purchased O'Reilly 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid in the state of Missouri between July 20, 2013, and the present. The Parties also ask the Court to enter an order: (a) conditionally certifying, for settlement purposes only, the settlement class: "All persons and other entities who purchased O'Reilly 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid in Missouri at any point in time from July 20, 2013 to present, excluding those who purchased for resale. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants, including any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or controlled person of Defendants; Defendants' officers, directors, agents, employees and their immediate family members, as well as the judicial officers assigned to this litigation and members of their staffs and immediate families" (the "Settlement Class"); (b) conditionally finding, for settlement purposes only and conditioned upon entry of the Final Order and Judgment, and the occurrence of the Effective Date (as defined in the attached Settlement Agreement), that the prerequisites for a class action under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied in that: (a) the number of members of the Settlement Class is so numerous that joinder of all members thereof is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class; (c) the claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class for purposes of settlement; (d) Plaintiffs have fairly and adequately represented the interests of the Settlement Class and will continue to do so, and Plaintiffs have retained experienced counsel to represent them; (e) the questions of law and fact common to the members of the Settlement Class predominate over any questions affecting any individual members of the Settlement Class; and (f) a class action is superior to the other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy; (c) appointing Tom Bender, Esq., and Dirk Hubbard, Esq., from the law firm Horn Alyward & Bandy, LLC; Gene Graham, Esq., William Carr, Esq., and Bryan White, Esq., from the law firm of White, Graham, Buckley & Carr, LLC; and Clayton Jones, Esq., of the Clayton Jones Law Firm as counsel for the Settlement Class ("Class Counsel"); (d) designating named Plaintiffs Joe Miller, Kenny Higgs, Raymond Bieri, and Don Sherwood as representatives of the Settlement Class; (e) appointing RG/2 Claims Administration LLC to serve as the Settlement Administrator; (f) setting a Final Fairness Hearing to be held before the Court to determine whether the terms and conditions forth in the Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate and should receive final approval; (g) staying, pending the Final Fairness Hearing, all proceedings in this action, other than proceedings necessary to carry out or enforce the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement; (h) approving the Long Form Class Notice, Summary Class Notice, Claim Form and Instructions, Request for Correction Form and Instructions, and the notice and settlement administration process set forth in Settlement Agreement, including the exhibits thereto, finding that it is the best practicable notice under the circumstances, it provides individual notice to all Settlement Class Members who can be identified through a reasonable effort, and it is reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise the members of the Settlement Class of the pendency of this action, the terms of the settlement, and their right to object to the settlement or exclude themselves from the Settlement Class; (i) approving the timetable and process for exclusion from the Settlement Class or objection to the Settlement by any Settlement Class Member; and (j) approving the timetable and process for Class Counsel to file their application for expenses and attorneys' fees.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gene P. Graham, Jr., Esq. William Carr, Esq. Bryan T. White, Esq. WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY, & CARR, L.L.C 19049 East Valley View Parkway Independence, MO 64055 Telephone: (816) 373-9080 Facsimile: (816) 373-9319 E-mail: ggraham@wagblaw.com bcarr@wagblaw.com bwhite@wagblaw.com - and - Thomas V. Bender, Esq. Dirk Hubbard, Esq. HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC 2600 Grand, Ste. 1100 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 421-0700 Facsimile: (816) 421-0899 E-mail: tbender@hab-law.com dhubbard@hab-law.com - and - Clayton Jones, Esq. CLAYTON JONES, ATTORNEY AT LAW 405 Foxwood Dr. Raymore, MO 64083 Telephone: (816) 318-4266 Facsimile: (816) 318-4267 E-mail: clayton@claytonjones.com The Defendants are represented by: Thomas P. Berra, Jr., Esq. Oliver H. Thomas, Esq. R. Taylor Matthews III, Esq. Edward T. Pivin, Esq. LEWIS RICE LLC 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 444-1352 Facsimile: (314) 612-1352 E-mail: tberra@lewisrice.com othomas@lewisrice.com tmatthews@lewisrice.com epivin@lewisrice.com - and - Robert W. Tormohlen, Esq. Scott A. Wissel, Esq. LEWIS RICE LLC 1010 Walnut St., Suite 500 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 472-2507 Facsimile: (816) 472-2500 E-mail: rwtormohlen@lewisricekc.com sawissel@lewisricekc.com OCEANFIRST BANK: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA & NJWHL, Horner Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELYSSA HORNER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. OCEANFIRST BANK, N.A. and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:19-cv-08711-BRM-TJB (D.N.J., March 18, 2019), alleges that in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and those similarly situated proper overtime compensation. OceanFirst Bank is a company doing business in New Jersey at various locations. The Doe Defendants are presently unknown. OceanFirst Bank operates as a federally chartered stock savings bank. OceanFirst provides personal banking services, including checking accounts, savings accounts, online banking, mortgages, home equity loans, certificates of deposit, individual retirement accounts, investment services, and trust services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carley A. Doyle, Esq. Matthew D. Miller, Esq. Justin L. Swidler, Esq. Richard S. Swartz, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 E-mail: cdoyle@swartz-legal.com mmiller@swartz-legal.com jswidler@swartz-legal.com rswartz@swartz-legal.com OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Wheby Says Registration Statement Misleading ---------------------------------------------------------------- EARL M. WHEBY, JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OHR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., MIKE FERGUSON, JASON SLAKTER, ORIN HIRSCHMAN, THOMAS M. RIEDHAMMER, JUNE S. ALMENOFF, NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS, INC., and OHR ACQUISITION CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00541-UNA (D. Del., March 20, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction announced on January 3, 2019, pursuant to which Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc. will merge with NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. On January 2, 2019, Ohr's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with NeuBase and Ohr Acquisition Corp. On March 8 2019, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says. The Proxy Statement fails to disclose the "financial forecasts, relating to the business, earnings, cash flow, assets, liabilities and prospects of Ohr and NeuBase that were furnished to Roth by management of Ohr and NeuBase, respectively." With respect to Roth's Initial Public Offering Comparables Analysis – NeuBase, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose the individual enterprise value of the issuer in each of the IPOs observed by Roth in the analysis. Ohr is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company that develops novel therapies for ophthalmic diseases.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: 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 - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com ORACLE CORP: Response to Amended Complaint Due April 19 ------------------------------------------------------- Oracle Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2019, that defendants' response to an amended complaint pending before the Northern District of California is due by April 19, 2019. On August 10, 2018, a putative class action, brought by an alleged stockholder of Oracle, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the company, its Chief Technology Officer, its two Chief Executive Officers, two other Oracle executives, and one former Oracle executive. On December 21, 2018, the court granted plaintiff's motion that it be appointed lead plaintiff and approving its selection of lead plaintiff's counsel. On March 8, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants made or are responsible for false and misleading statements regarding Oracle's cloud business. Plaintiff further alleges that the former Oracle executive engaged in insider trading. Plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and unspecified declaratory/injunctive relief. Defendants' response to the amended complaint is due by April 19, 2019. Oracle said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses against this action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it." Oracle Corporation develops, manufactures, markets, sells, hosts, and supports application, platform, and infrastructure solutions for information technology (IT) environments worldwide. The company provides services in three primary layers of the cloud: Software as a Service, Platform as a Service, and Infrastructure as a Service. Oracle Corporation was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Redwood City, California. PAR TECHNOLOGY: Neals Sues over Collection of Biometric Data ------------------------------------------------------------ KANDICE NEALS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PAR TECHNOLOGY CORP., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH03701 (Ill. Cir., March 21, 2019), seeks to put a stop to the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and storage of Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' sensitive biometric data. PAR is a developer of cloud-based point of sale ("POS") systems for the hospitality industry. It offers a range of POS systems that enable businesses-primarily restaurants-to track their employees' time by using a biometric finger scanner. When employees first begin their jobs at a restaurant that uses PAR's POS system, they are required to scan their fingerprint in its biometric time tracking system as a means of authentication, instead of using key fobs or other identification cards. While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks in theworkplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or identification cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised-fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Despite this law, PAR disregards restaurant employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the BIPA, the lawsuit states.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589 6370 Facsimile: 312 589 6378 E-mail: brichman@edelson.com adescott@edelson.com - and - David Fish, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: 630 355 7590 Facsimile: 630 778 0400 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com kunze@fishlawfirm.com PARTNER COMMS: Breach of License-Related Class Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class action suit related to the company's breach of legal provisions and provisions of its license. On July 15, 2014, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class action were filed against the Company and against additional cellular operators and content providers. The claim alleges that the cellular operators, including the Company, breached legal provisions and provisions of their licenses and thereby created a platform that led to the customers' damages alleged in the claim. The total amount claimed against all of the defendants is estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 300 million. The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be certified as a class action. Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Rosh HaAyin, Israel. PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Unlawful SMS Charges Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------- Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class action suit related to the company's unlawful charges to its customers for services of various content providers, which are sent through text messages (SMS). On September 7, 2010, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges that the Company unlawfully charges its customers for services of various content providers, which are sent through text messages (SMS). The total amount claimed from the Company was estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 405 million. The claim was certified as a class action in December 2016. In January 2017, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, regarding the definition of the group of customers. Partner estimates that even if the claim will be decided in favor of the approved group of customers (as defined by the District Court), the damages that Partner will be required to pay for, will be immaterial. In November 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and the claim was reverted back to the District Court. Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Rosh HaAyin, Israel. PARTNER COMMS: Withdrawal of Suit over Cellular Plan Promo Okayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that an Israeli court has approved the agreement among the parties to withdraw a lawsuit over the Company's cellular plan promotional offers. On April 25, 2017, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges that Partner misled its customers with respect to certain cellular plans that were represented as including international call minutes while in fact Partner charged its customers that joined these plans for international calls. The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total amount claimed in the lawsuit, should the lawsuit be certified as a class action. In February 2019, the parties filed an agreed upon remunerated withdrawal request which was approved by the Court. Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two segments, Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Rosh HaAyin, Israel. PERFORMANCE SHIPPING: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss "Robinson" ------------------------------------------------------------------ Performance Shipping Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company is awaiting the court's order on the motion to dismiss filed in the consolidated case, Jimmie O. Robinson v. Diana Containerships Inc. Between October 23, 2017 and December 15, 2017, three largely similar lawsuits were filed against the Company and three of its executive officers. On October 23, 2017, a complaint captioned Jimmie O. Robinson v. Diana Containerships Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-6160, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ("Eastern District"). The complaint is brought as a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of a putative class consisting of purchasers of common shares of the Company between January 26, 2017 and October 3, 2017. On October 25, 2017, a complaint captioned Logan Little v. Diana Containerships Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-6236, was filed in the Eastern District. The complaint is brought as a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of a putative class consisting of purchasers of common shares of the Company between January 26, 2017 and October 3, 2017. On December 15, 2017, a complaint captioned Emmanuel S. Austin v. Diana Containerships Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-7329, was filed in the Eastern District. The complaint is brought as a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of a putative class consisting of purchasers of common shares of the Company between June 9, 2016 and October 3, 2017. The complaints name as defendants, among others, the Company and three of its executive officers. The complaints assert claims under Sections 9, 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On April 30, 2018, the Court consolidated the three lawsuits into the first-filed Robinson lawsuit, appointed lead plaintiffs and approved lead plaintiffs' selection of lead plaintiffs' counsel. On July 13, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint (superseding the three initial complaints). On September 21, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Briefing on that motion was concluded on November 30, 2018. Performance Shipping said, "The Company and its management believe that the complaints are without merit and plan to vigorously defend themselves against the claims." Performance Shipping Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides shipping transportation services through its ownership of containerships. The company was founded in 2010 and is based in Athens, Greece. PETRO RIVER: Appeal in in Donelson-Friend Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Petro River Oil Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the appeal filed by the plaintiffs in the case entitled, Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v. United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., is still pending. On August 11, 2014, Martha Donelson and John Friend amended their complaint in an existing lawsuit by filing a class action complaint styled: Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v. United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No. 14-CV-316-JHP-TLW, United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (the "Proceeding"). The plaintiffs added as defendants twenty-seven (27) specifically named operators, including Spyglass, as well as all Osage County lessees and operators who have obtained a concession agreement, lease or drilling permit approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA") in Osage County allegedly in violation of National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the BIA improperly approved oil and gas leases, concession agreements and drilling permits prior to August 12, 2014, without satisfying the BIA's obligations under federal regulations or NEPA, and seek a determination that such oil and gas leases, concession agreements and drilling permits are void ab initio. Plaintiffs are seeking damages against the defendants for alleged nuisance, trespass, negligence and unjust enrichment. The potential consequences of such complaint could jeopardize the corresponding leases. On October 7, 2014, Spyglass, along with other defendants, filed a Motion to Dismiss the August 11, 2014 Amended Complaint on various procedural and legal grounds. Following the significant briefing, the Court, on March 31, 2016, granted the Motion to Dismiss as to all defendants and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants against the plaintiffs. On April 14, 2016, Spyglass with the other defendants, filed a Motion seeking its attorneys' fees and costs. The motion remains pending. On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed three motions: a Motion to Amend or Alter the Judgment; a Motion to Amend the Complaint; and a Motion to Vacate Order. On November 23, 2016, the Court denied all three of Plaintiffs' motions. On December 6, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. That appeal is pending as of the filing date of these financial statements. Petro River said, "There is no specific timeline by which the Court of Appeals must render a ruling. Spyglass intends to continue to vigorously defend its interest in this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Petro River Oil Corp., an independent energy company, focuses on the exploration and development of conventional oil and gas assets. It primarily holds interests in the Mid-Continent Region in Oklahoma, including Osage County and Kay County, Oklahoma. The company is based in New York, New York. PROTECTIVE LIFE: Continues to Defend Advance Trust Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Protective Life Insurance Companysaid in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company 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, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290. The putative class action was filed on August 13, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Plaintiff alleges that the Company 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 the Company 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 Insurance Company, a stock life insurance company, provides financial services through the production, distribution, and administration of insurance and investment products primarily in the United States. The company operates through Life Marketing, Acquisitions, Annuities, Stable Value Products, and Asset Protection segments. The company was founded in 1907 and is based in Birmingham, Alabama. Protective Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of Protective Life Corporation. QWEST CORP: Sales Practices Suit v. CenturyLink Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Qwest Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the CenturyLink, Inc. continues to defend itself against a consolidated class action suit entitled, In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation. In June 2017, McLeod v. CenturyLink, a putative consumer class action, was filed against CenturyLink in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that it charged some of its retail customers for products and services they did not authorize. A number of other complaints asserting similar claims have been filed in other federal and state courts, as well. The lawsuits assert claims including fraud, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Also, in June 2017, Craig. v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., a putative securities investor class action, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that it failed to disclose material information regarding improper sales practices, and asserting federal securities law claims. A number of other cases asserting similar claims have also been filed. Beginning June 2017, CenturyLink received several shareholder derivative demands addressing related topics. In August 2017, CenturyLink's Board of Directors formed a special litigation committee of outside directors to address the allegations of impropriety contained in the shareholder derivative demands. In April 2018, the special litigation committee concluded its review of the derivative demands and declined to take further action. Since then, derivative cases were filed. Two of these cases, Castagna v. Post and Pinsly v. Post, were filed in Louisiana state court in the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ouachita. The remaining derivative cases were filed in federal court in Louisiana and Minnesota. These cases have been brought on behalf of CenturyLink against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company and seek damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The consumer putative class actions, the securities investor putative class actions, and the federal derivative actions described above have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings as In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Qwest Corporation, an integrated communications company, provides communications services to business and residential customers in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The company was incorporated in 1911 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana. Qwest Corporation operates as a subsidiary of CenturyLink, Inc. REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Polat Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Regulus Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a putative class action lawsuit initiated by Baran Polat. On January 31, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed by Baran Polat in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, or District Court, against the company, Paul C. Grint (the company's former Chief Executive Officer), and Joseph P. Hagan (then the company's Chief Operating Officer and currently our President and Chief Executive Officer). The complaint includes claims asserted, on behalf of certain purchasers of the company's securities, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In general, the complaint alleges that, between January 21, 2016, and June 27, 2016, the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business and the prospects for RG-101, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On February 10, 2017, a second putative class action complaint was filed by Li Jin in the District Court against the Company, Mr. Hagan, Dr. Grint, and Timothy Wright, the Company’s Chief Research and Development Officer. The Complaint alleges claims similar to those asserted by Mr. Polat. The actions have been related. On February 17, 2017, the District Court entered an order stating that defendants need not answer, or otherwise respond, until the District Court enters an order appointing, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and the parties then submit a schedule to the District Court for the filing of an amended or consolidated complaint and the timing of defendants' answer or response. On April 3, 2017, two motions for consolidation of the two actions, appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of counsel were filed in the actions, or the Consolidation and Lead Plaintiff Motions. On October 26, 2017, the District Court entered an order consolidating the cases, appointing lead plaintiffs, and appointing lead counsel for lead plaintiffs. On December 22, 2017, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the Company, Dr. Grint, Mr. Hagan, and Michael Huang (our former Vice President of Clinical Development). The consolidated complaint alleges that between February 17, 2016 and June 12, 2017, the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making materially false and misleading statements regarding RG-101. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. On February 6, 2018, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. On March 23, 2018, plaintiff filed their opposition to the motion and on April 24, 2018, defendants filed their response. No hearing date has been set. Regulus said, "We intend to vigorously defend this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Regulus Therapeutics Inc., a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company, engages in the discovery and development of medicines that target microRNAs to treat a range of diseases in the United States and Europe. Regulus Therapeutics Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. RELIANCE FIRST: DeSantis Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA, NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROSEANN DESANTIS, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RELIANCE FIRST CAPITAL, LLC, HUGH MILLER, and OBIORA EGBUNA, Case No. 2:19-cv-01566 (E.D.N.Y., March 19, 2019), seeks to recover alleged unpaid earned overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Reliance First Capital, LLC, is a New York corporation with locations in various regions throughout the United States, including its corporate headquarters in Melville, New York. The Individual Defendants are officers of the Company. Reliance offers loan programs to homeowners in the United States. It provides refinancing, HARP 2.0 program, purchase mortgages, FHA loans, FHA 203(k) loans, FHA streamline refinance, VA loans, portfolio programs, debt consolidation programs, adjustable rate mortgages, jumbo loans, FHA and conventional mortgage loan programs for manufactured homes, reverse mortgages, and USDA loan programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erik H. Langeland, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ERIK H. LANGELAND, PC 733 Third Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 354-6270 Facsimile: (212) 898-9086 E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com REPUBLIC SERVICES: Buonopane Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD BUONOPANE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00296-CRE (W.D. Pa., March 18, 2019), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Republic is an Arizona company doing business throughout the United States. Republic is a "waste remediation services company" and boasts that "Operators in every major basin nationwide trust Republic Services to handle their mission-critical oilfield waste treatment, recovery, disposal and logistics."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Defends Consolidated Too and Spock Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rockwell Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from a consolidated class action. On July 27, 2018, Plaintiff Ah Kit Too filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York against the Company and former officers, Robert Chioini and Thomas Klema. The complaint is a federal securities class action purportedly brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of the Company between March 16, 2018 and June 26, 2018. The Complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Chioini and Klema violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants filed reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission that contained purported inaccurate and misleading statements regarding the potential for the Company's drug, Triferic, to quality for separate reimbursement status by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. On September 4, 2018, Plaintiff Robert Spock filed a similar putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York against the Company and Messrs. Chioini and Klema. The Spock complaint is a federal securities class action purportedly brought on behalf of a class consisting of persons who purchased the Company's securities between November 8, 2017 and June 26, 2018. This complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Chioini and Klema violated the Exchange Act in that the Company was aware the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would not pursue the Company's proposal for separate reimbursement for Triferic; misstated reserves in the Company's quarterly report for the first quarter of 2018; had a material weakness its internal controls over financial reporting, which rendered those controls ineffective; Mr. Chioini withheld material information regarding Triferic from the Company's auditor, corporate counsel, and independent directors of the Board; and, as a result of these alleged issues, statements about the Company's business were materially false and misleading. On September 25, 2018, four Company stockholders filed motions to appoint lead plaintiffs, lead counsel, and to consolidate the Ah Kit Too v. Rockwell securities class action with the Spock v. Rockwell securities class action. On October 10, 2018, the court issued an order consolidating the two actions, appointing co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On December 10, 2018, lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which included the same allegations as the initial complaints and asserted claims on behalf of a putative class consisting of person who purchased the Company's securities between November 8, 2017 and June 26, 2018. On February 18, 2019, the Company answered the consolidated amended complaint. The lawsuits seek damages allegedly sustained by the class and an award of plaintiffs' costs and attorney fees. The case is at an early stage with no significant pre-trial proceedings (such as substantive motions, discovery, etc.) having occurred. The Company believes it has defenses to the claims of liability and damages and is responding accordingly. The Company has tendered the class action to its D&O insurance carrier(s) for defense and indemnity under its applicable insurance policies. The Company maintains a $1.0 million self-insured retention under the applicable insurance policies, which can be exhausted by payment of expenses or indemnity. Rockwell Medical, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical company that targets end-stage renal disease and chronic kidney disease with therapies and products for the treatment of iron deficiency and hemodialysis. Rockwell Medical, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is based in Wixom, Michigan. RUBY HAND: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA/IMWL, Cervantes Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO CORIA CERVANTES, an individual, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs, similarly situated, known and unknown v. RUBY HAND CAR WASH, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, and JACK YOUSEF, an individual, Case No. 1:19-cv-01815 (N.D. Ill., March 15, 2019), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance for the Defendants' alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff an overtime premium for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Ruby Hand Car Wash, LLC, is an Illinois limited liability company that operates the Ruby Hand Car Wash business located on North California Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. Jack Yousef is the manager of the Ruby Hand Car Wash business. The Company provides car wash and detailing services to the general public and car dealers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy M. Nolan, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 322-1100 Facsimile: (312) 322-1106 E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com SEARCHLIGHT CAPITAL: Pocrass Suit over Layoffs Moved to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendants removed case styled KATHERINE POCRASS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SEARCHLIGHT CAPITAL PARTNERS LP, OPPENHEIMER FUNDS INC., BRIGADE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP, CARRIAGE HOUSE CAPITAL ADVISORS LLC, MARBLEGATE SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES MASTER FUNDS LP, APOLLO CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, TRICADIA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-573713 (Filed Feb. 11, 2019), currently pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 21, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-1476 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that Defendants are owners of Gymboree Group, Inc., Gymboree Intermediate Corporation, Gymboree Holding Corporation, Gymboree Wholesale, Inc., Gym-Mark, Inc., Gymboree Operations, Inc., Gymboree Distribution, Inc., Gymboree Manufacturing, Inc., Gymboree Retail Stores, LLC, Gym-Card, LLC, and Gymboree Island, LLC, which filed for bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of Virginia on January 17, 2019. (Bankr. E.D. Va., Case No. 19-30258-KLP). The complaint further alleges that Plaintiff and the putative class were former employees who worked at, reported to, or received assignments from Gymboree's San Francisco headquarters, who were terminated without cause, as part of, or as the result of, mass layoff or plant closure ordered by Defendants and carried out beginning on January 18, 2019 and within 30 days of that date, who were not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by Defendants, as required by California Labor Code, the lawsuit states.[BN] Attorney for Brigade Capital Management, LP; OppenheimerFunds, Inc.; Searchlight Capital Partners, L.P.; and Tricadia Capital Management, LLC: Christopher Harris, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 885 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022-4834 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 Facsimile: (212) 751-4864 E-mail: christopher.harris@lw.com SELLAS LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Abstral(R) Related Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Abstral(R)-related suit remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On February 13, 2017, putative shareholder securities class action complaints were filed in federal court alleging, among other things, that the Company and certain of the Company's former officers and directors failed to disclose that Galena’s promotional practices for Abstral(R) (fentanyl sublingual tablets) were allegedly improper and that Galena may be subject to civil and criminal liability, and that these alleged failures rendered Galena's statements about its business misleading. The actions were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were named by the Court and a consolidated complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On August 21, 2018, the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was granted without prejudice to file an amended complaint. On September 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On October 22, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and on December 21, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. On January 18, 2019, the Company filed a reply in support of its motion. The Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development of novel cancer immunotherapies for various cancer indications. SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc. is headquartered in New York, New York. SEMPER BLUE: Springer Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit JOSHUA SPRINGER, the Plaintiff, v. SEMPER BLUE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 18-00968-CV-W-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered an order on March 18, 2019: 1. granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification of: "all current and former SB Pro officers who have worked for Defendant at any time during the last three years"; and 2. granting a request for notice by U.S. Mail and email to all putative class members. On December 7, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Semper Blue Professional Services, Inc. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated various provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court ruled as follows: -- The Court agrees with the Defendant that the case caption should not be included at the top of the notice to potential class members. -- The Court agrees with the Defendant that Section I, subsection (1) shall be amended to read "to inform of a collective action lawsuit against Semper Blue Professional Services, Inc. ("Semper Blue"), which you have the right to join, or decline to join, " The Plaintiff does not object. -- The Court agrees with the Defendant that a Court-approved class definition should be used in the first sentence of Section II. Plaintiff does not object. The Court approves the following sentence: "Plaintiff brought this lawsuit on behalf of himself and other current former compliance and security officers employed by Semper Blue." Similarly, the last sentence of the first paragraph in Section II shall read, "Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime and regular time pay owed to him individually and to other similarly situated compliance and security officers." Further, the reference to "public safety officer" in the first section marked "TO:" shall be amended to read "Compliance or Security Officer." -- The Court agrees with the Defendant that it is entitled to a specific denial of Plaintiff's allegations in Section II, paragraph two. Plaintiff does not object. The Court approves the following paragraph: "Semper Blue denies Plaintiff's allegations. Semper Blue contends that at all times it paid its employees in good faith and paid all wages due to its employees. Semper Blue denies that it altered any time records or that it has committed any violations of the FLSA. Semper Blue denies that any current or former employees are entitled to any additional compensation or other relief." -- The Court agrees with the Defendant that the class have 45 days to return forms indicating an individual's consent to join the class action. Plaintiff does not object. -- The Plaintiff requests notice be sent to individuals who have worked for Semper Blue in the last three years. The Defendant argues that notice should be sent only to those individuals who have worked for Semper Blue in the last two years. The Court agrees with Plaintiff. -- The Plaintiff requests the Defendant provide it with an Excel spreadsheet of all hourly employees at Semper Blue which includes putative class members' names, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, last known mailing addresses, email addresses, and if known, job classifications. Defendant objects to providing putative class members' phone numbers and Social Security numbers. The Court agrees with the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with an Excel spreadsheet including putative class members' names, last known mailing addresses, email addresses, and if known, job classifications. Semper Blue provides security services in Kansas City, Missouri and other metropolitan areas around the country. The Plaintiff was previously employed at Semper Blue as a security officer in Kansas City. In December 2018, the Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging the Defendant violated provisions of the FLSA when it failed to pay minimum wage and overtime pay to the Plaintiff and other security or compliance officers at its various locations.[CC] SEO'S CAFE: Trinidad Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------- GABRIEL TRINIDAD and LUDWIN GABRIEL ARREAGA FUENTES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SEO'S CAFE CORP. (D/B/A 33 GOURMET DELI), IN HWA SEO, KEVIN SEO, HANS SEO, and LUCY DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02433 (S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2019), alleges that Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are former employees of Seo's Cafe Corp. The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located at 157 W. 33rd Street, New York, NY 10001 under the name "33 Gourmet Deli". The Plaintiffs were employed as a cook and a delivery worker at the deli. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay the Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis. The Defendants ostensibly employed and accounted for Plaintiff Arreaga as a delivery worker in their payroll, but in actuality his duties required a significant amount of time spent performing the non-tipped duties alleged above. Plaintiff Arreaga and all other tipped workers were paid above the tip-credit rate but below the minimum wage rate by the Defendants. The Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising Plaintiff Arreaga's actual duties in payroll records by designating him as a delivery worker instead of a non-tipped employee. This allowed the Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiff Arreaga at the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay him above the tip-credit rate but below the minimum wage rate, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 SIMMONS FIRST NATIONAL: Parshall Drops Suit over Reliance Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simmons First National Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 25, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a class action suit entitled, Parshall v. Brouster, et al. On March 5, 2019, a purported shareholder of Reliance Bancshares, Inc. ("Reliance") filed a putative derivative and class action lawsuit against Reliance, the members of the Reliance board of directors and Simmons First National Corporation ("Simmons") in the St. Louis County Circuit Court, 21st Judicial Circuit of Missouri, on behalf of himself and similarly situated Reliance shareholders, and derivatively on behalf of Reliance, captioned Parshall v. Brouster, et al., Case No. 19SL-CC00963 (the "Action"). The Action relates to the proposed merger of Reliance with and into Simmons as described in the definitive proxy statement/prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on March 4, 2019 and first mailed to Reliance shareholders on or about March 6, 2019 (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus"). The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties by agreeing to an allegedly insufficient price for the sale of Reliance, and agreeing to allegedly inappropriate deal protection devices. The plaintiff further alleges that the Proxy Statement/Prospectus omitted material information that Reliance shareholders purportedly need in order to evaluate the proposed merger. The plaintiff alleges that Simmons aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary duty breaches by the individual defendants. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses. Solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, Simmons and Reliance have agreed to make additional disclosures to supplement the disclosure contained in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus (the "Additional Disclosures"). The Additional Disclosures should be read in conjunction with the Proxy Statement/Prospectus. In exchange for the agreement to make the Additional Disclosures, the plaintiff has agreed to dismiss the Action, with prejudice to his individual claims, and without prejudice to the claims of the putative members of the proposed class. The parties believe that the issuance of the Additional Disclosures will moot the claims set forth in the Action. A copy of the Additional Disclosures is available at https://bit.ly/2Uq2MD8. Simmons First National Corporation operates as the holding company for Simmons Bank that provides financial products and services to individuals and businesses. Simmons First National Corporation was founded in 1903 and is headquartered in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. SSC KERRVILLE: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Passmore FLSA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants SSC Kerrville Alpine Terrace Operating Company, L.L.C., SSC Kerrville Edgewater Operating Company, L.L.C. and SSC Kerrville Hilltop Village Operating Company, L.L.C., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Rosario Passmore, et al. v. SSC Kerrville Hilltop Village, et al., Case No. 5:18-CV-782, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio. The appellate case is captioned as Rosario Passmore, et al. v. SSC Kerrville Hilltop Village, et al., Case No. 19-50225, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 22, 2019, the Defendants filed an appeal from a court decision in the lawsuit. That appellate case is entitled Rosario Passmore, et al. v. SSC Kerrville Hilltop Village, et al., Case No. 19-50101. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney previously denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and to Compel Arbitration. Plaintiffs Passmore and Brenda L. Chafton, formerly known as Brenda Agbeye, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, originally filed the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, on July 28, 2018. In addition to asserting individual employment claims under the FLSA and Texas state law, the Named Plaintiffs also seek to represent a putative class of similarly-situated individuals regarding their claims under the FLSA, including certain opt-in Plaintiffs who have already filed consents to join in the action.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees ROSARIO PASSMORE, Individually and On behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, and BRENDA L. CHAFTON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, formerly known as Brenda Agbeye, are represented by: Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq. MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 700 W. Summit Drive Wimberley, TX 78676 Telephone: (512) 782-0567 E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com - and - Daniel Anthony Verrett, Esq. MORELAND VERRETT, P.C. 2901 Bee Cave Road Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 782-0567 E-mail: daniel@morelandlaw.com Defendants-Appellants SSC KERRVILLE HILLTOP VILLAGE OPERATING COMPANY, L.L.C., SSC KERRVILLE EDGEWATER OPERATING COMPANY, L.L.C., and SSC KERRVILLE ALPINE TERRACE OPERATING COMPANY, L.L.C., are represented by: Lara Cardin de Leon, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 112 E. Pecan Street Weston Centre San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 277-3611 E-mail: lara.deleon@ogletreedeakins.com SURE CHECK: Removes FDCPA Suit to Western District of Missouri -------------------------------------------------------------- Sure Check Brokerage, Inc. removed case styled MONICA PORTER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SURE CHECK BROKERAGE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1916-CV01183 (Filed Jan. 8, 2019) from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on March 21, 2019. The Western District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00216-BP to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendant: Joshua C. Dickinson, Esq. Kersten L. Holzhueter, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 1000 Walnut, Suite 1400 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 474-8100 Facsimile: (816) 474-3216 E-mail: jdickinson@spencerfane.com kholzhueter@spencerfane.com SWITCH INC: Stockholders Class Suits over IPO Still Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Switch, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a stockholders' suit over the company's initial public offering (IPO). Four substantially similar putative class action complaints, captioned Martz v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 20, 2018); Palkon v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 30, 2018); Chun v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed May 11, 2018); and Silverberg v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed June 6, 2018), were filed in the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada, and subsequently consolidated into a single case (the "State Court Securities Action"). Additionally, on June 11, 2018, one putative class action complaint captioned Cai v. Switch, Inc. et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Federal Court Securities Action," and collectively with the State Court Securities Action, the "Securities Actions") and subsequently transferred to the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada in August 2018 and the federal court appointed Oscar Farach lead plaintiff. These lawsuits were filed against Switch, Inc., certain current and former officers and directors and certain underwriters of Switch, Inc.'s initial public offering (IPO) alleging federal securities law violations in connection with the IPO. These lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of Switch, Inc. seeking to represent a class of stockholders who purchased Class A common stock in or traceable to the IPO, and seek unspecified damages and other relief. In October 2018, the state court granted defendants motion to stay the State Court Securities Action in favor of the Federal Court Securities Action. In November 2018, the plaintiffs in the State Court Securities Action filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the stay order. In December 2018, the Supreme Court of Nevada directed Switch and other defendants to file an answer to the writ by February 2019. In October 2018, the lead plaintiff of the Federal Court Securities Action filed an amended complaint. In November 2018, Switch, Inc. and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to strike. Switch, Inc. believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend against them. Switch, Inc., through its subsidiary, Switch, Ltd., provides colocation space and related services primarily to technology and digital media companies in the United States. It develops and operates data centers in Nevada and Michigan. The company also serves cloud and managed service providers, financial institutions, IT and software providers, government agencies, network and telecommunications providers, and others that conduct critical business on the Internet. Switch, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. TEG STAFFING: Vaughn-Love Sues over Background Checks ----------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY VAUGHN-LOVE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TEG STAFFING, INC., a California corporation; and EASTRIDGE WORKFORCE TECHNOLOGY, INC., a California corporation, Case No. Case 3:19-cv-00519-DMS-BLM (S.D. Cal. March 19, 2019), seeks compensatory and punitive damages due to the Defendants' willful or grossly negligent conduct and its systematic and willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law. The case is class action arising from the acquisition and use of consumer and/or investigative consumer reports by the Defendants to conduct background checks on Plaintiff and other prospective, current, and former employees. The Defendants routinely obtain and use information from background reports in connection with their hiring processes without complying with state and federal mandates for doing so. As part of this practice, the Defendants provide a requisite disclosure form to applicants. However, the disclosure form that the Defendants provided to Plaintiff and each Class Member as part of its hiring process is noncompliant with state and federal statutes. The Defendants have violated the requirements under these statutes by failing to provide proper "pre-authorization" disclosures. The procurement of background reports for employment purposes is subject to strict disclosure requirements under federal law pursuant to the FCRA and under California law pursuant to the ICRAA and CCRAA. Among other things, an employer may not procure a background report concerning a job applicant unless a "clear and conspicuous" disclosure is made in a stand-alone document that "consists solely of the disclosure" informing the applicant that a report may be obtained for employment purposes. TEG Staffing, Inc. develops strategic workforce management programs, technology platforms, and comprehensive staffing solutions.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Mark A. Ozzello, Esq. Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Mark.Ozzello@capstonelawyers.com Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com TIGERPOLY MANUFACTURING: Speakman Alleges Workplace Harassment --------------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related lawsuit has been filed against Tigerpoly Manufacturing, Inc. and David Whittaker, seeking redress and injunctive relief over an alleged sexual harassment in the workplace. The case is captioned DEBORAH SPEAKMAN, 1340 S. Pickaway Street, Lot 18, TIGERPOLY MANUFACTURING, INC. 6231 Enterprise Pkwy, Grove City, OH 43123 Circleville, OH 43113, Plaintiff, v. TIGERPOLY MANUFACTURING, INC. 6231 Enterprise Pkwy, Grove City, OH 43123 and DAVID WHITTAKER c/o Tigerpoly Manufacturing, Inc. 6231 Enterprise Pkwy, Grove City, OH 43123, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00913-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, March 13, 2019). Speakman accuses Tigerpoly for condoning, tolerating, and ratifying David Whittaker's harassing conduct. Whittaker's sexually offensive and harassing conduct created a hostile and/or abusive work environment for Speakman. Subsequent to Speakman reporting of sexual harassment to her supervisor, employer, and filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint, Speakman's supervisor has nitpicked every small thing she has done and harassed her at work. Further, Whittaker continues to intimidate Speakman at work. Defendants' actions were retaliatory in nature based on Speakman's opposition to the sexual harassment. Tigerpoly Manufacturing, Inc is an Ohio-incorporated business with its principal place of business located at 6231 Enterprise Pkwy., Grove City, OH 43123. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan R. McFarland, Esq. Matthew G. Bruce, Esq. THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC 25200 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 200 Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: (513) 883-1147 Facsimile: (216) 291-5744 E-mail: Evan.McFarland@SpitzLawFirm.com Matthew.Bruce@SpitzLawFirm.com TURTLE BEACH: Court Certifies Shareholders Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Turtle Beach Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the district court has certified a class of shareholders of the Company as of January 15, 2014. On August 5, 2013, VTB Holdings, Inc. (VTBH) and the Company (f/k/a Parametric Sound Corporation) announced that they had entered into the Merger Agreement pursuant to which VTBH would acquire an approximately 80% ownership interest and existing shareholders would maintain an approximately 20% ownership interest in the combined company. Following the announcement, several shareholders filed class action lawsuits in California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the Merger. The plaintiffs in each case alleged that members of the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders by agreeing to a merger that allegedly undervalued the Company. VTBH and the Company were named as defendants in these lawsuits under the theory that they had aided and abetted the Company's Board of Directors in allegedly violating their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in both cases sought a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin closing of the Merger, which, by agreement, was heard by the Nevada court with the California plaintiffs invited to participate. On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada case denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Following the closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations and sought monetary damages as well as an order rescinding the Merger. The California plaintiffs dismissed their action without prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada action, which was granted. Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations as prior complaints and sought monetary damages. On June 20, 2014, VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the action, but that motion was denied on August 28, 2014. On September 14, 2017, a unanimous en banc panel of the Nevada Supreme Court granted defendants' petition for writ of mandamus and ordered the trial court to dismiss the complaint but provided a limited basis upon which plaintiffs could seek to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on December 1, 2017 to assert the same claims in a derivative capacity on behalf of the Company, as a well as in a direct capacity, against VTBH, Stripes Group, LLC, SG VTB Holdings, LLC, and the former members of the Company's Board of Directors. All defendants moved to dismiss this amended complaint on January 2, 2018, and those motions were denied on March 13, 2018. Defendants petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to reverse this ruling on April 18, 2018. On June 15, 2018, the Nevada Supreme Court denied defendants' writ petition without prejudice. The district court subsequently entered a pretrial schedule and set trial for November 2019. On January 18, 2019, the district court certified a class of shareholders of the Company as of January 15, 2014. Turtle Beach Corporation operates as an audio technology company. It provides various gaming headset solutions for various platforms, including video game and entertainment consoles, handheld consoles, personal computers, and mobile and tablet devices under the Turtle Beach brand. The company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. ULTIMATE SOFTWARE: Faces Kent Securities Suit Over Hellman Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. THE ULTIMATE SOFTWARE GROUP, INC., SCOTT SCHERR, MARC D. SCHERR, JAMES A. FITZPATRICK, JR., RICK A. WILBER, AL LEITER, JONATHAN MARINER, and JASON DORSEY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00540-UNA (D. Del., March 19, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which the Company will be acquired by Unite Parent Corp. and Unite Merger Sub, which are affiliates of Hellman & Friedman. On February 3, 2019, Ultimate Software's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Ultimate Software's stockholders will receive $331.50 in cash for each share of Ultimate Software common stock they hold. The Plaintiff alleges that with respect to the Company's financial projections, the Proxy Statement filed in connection with the Merger fails to disclose, for each set of projections: (i) all line items used to calculate Adjusted EBITDA; (ii) all line items to calculate unlevered free cash flow; and (iii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. Hence, the Plaintiff contends, the Proxy Statement 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. Ultimate Software is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices in Weston, Florida. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Ultimate Software is a provider of cloud-based human capital management solutions ("HCM") and employee experience solutions. Ultimate Software's UltiPro product suite is a comprehensive, engaging solution that has human resources ("HR") and payroll at its core and includes benefits management, talent acquisition, talent management, time management, and global people management functionality available in 14 languages with 61 country-specific localizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Failed to Pay Final Wages at Termination ------------------------------------------------------------------ PAMELA SECADA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV09589 (Cal. Super., March 21, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to timely pay final wages at termination pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff brings the action individually and as a class action on behalf of herself and certain former employees of Defendants. The Defendants allegedly maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and practice of willfully failing to pay employees all wages, including accrued vacation time and/or paid time off wages due within time period specified by California law when employment terminates, the lawsuit states. The Regents of the University of California is the governing board of the University of California. The board has 26 voting members. The California Constitution grants broad institutional autonomy, with limited exceptions, to the Regents.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Kane Moon, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com VIVID SEATS: Derdiger Sues Over Bait-and-Switch Ticket Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD DERDIGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VIVID SEATS LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01904 (N.D. Ill., March 19, 2019), arises out of the Defendant's alleged deceptive pricing and advertising scheme whereby it misrepresented the price of tickets sold on its Web site and/or app. The Defendant's pricing is essentially a bait-and-switch scheme: it lures consumers to purchase tickets to concerts and sporting events by offering them a percentage discount but then charges them the original price, making such purchases no bargain at all, the Plaintiff alleges. Put simply, he contends, the Defendant fleeces consumers with a not-bargained-for price each time a consumer buys an event ticket using its purported discounts. Vivid Seats LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. The Defendant operates an independent secondary ticket marketplace, http://www.vividseats.com/,for live events, such as sports, concerts, and theater. The Defendant is engaged in the sale and marketing of event tickets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Sweetnam, Esq. Natasha Singh, Esq. SWEETNAM LLC 100 North La Salle Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 757-1888 E-mail: wms@sweetnamllc.com ns@sweetnamllc.com WEST HILLS SURGICAL: Braun Sues over Hospital Surprise Billing -------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA BRAUN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WEST HILLS SURGICAL CENTER, and Does 1-100, Case No. 19STCV09SSI (Cal Super., March 21, 2019), alleges that West Hills has violated numerous provisions of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiff says West Hills Hospital issued a surprise bill to Plaintiff in the amount of $500, despite the fact Plaintiff never even entered the Hospital. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of all persons residing in the State of California who were provided medical services at West Hills Surgical and thereafter received a surprise bill from West Hills Hospital despite the fact that they never went to West Hills Hospital for treatment. According to the complaint, Californians are being ambushed by "surprise billing," from the West Hills Defendants. The scheme occurs when a patient goes to a West Hills Surgical for out-patient services only to find out weeks or months later that West Hills Surgical authorizes West Hills Hospital to bill patients, hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, despite the fact that the patients never enter West Hills Hospital for any treatment whatsoever. Further, even if West Hills Hospital performed some sort of nominal service for West Hills Surgical patients, West Hills Hospital bills patients at rates far in excess of any reasonable rate for the nominal services which may have been performed by West Hills Hospital. The result is financially burdensome for consumers who reasonably thought they had nothing to worry about since they had obtained health insurance coverage and went to an in-network facility, namely West Hills Surgical, for pre-approved medical treatment.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Mitch Kalcheim , Esq. LEGAL GP 725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 508 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 955-7142 E-mail: MHK@LEGALGP.COM WEST VIRGINIA: Court Dismisses Suit Over State's Parole ------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston, issued a Findings and Recommendation granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in the case captioned DENNIS BURCH and The Class of Similarly Situated Persons Being Those State of West Virginia Prisoners Serving a Sentence of Life with the Possibility of Parole for a Crime Committed Before July 10, 1997, Plaintiffs, v. BENITA MURPHY, Chairperson, West Virginia Parole Board, MICHAEL TRUPO, CAROLE B. GREENE, and PEGGY POPE, Members, West Virginia Parole Board, all in their official capacities, Defendants. Case No. 2:17-cv-03311. (S.D.W.V.). The West Virginia parole review statute, which was then codified in West Virginia Code Section 62-12-13(a)(5), provided that the Parole Board shall at least once a year reconsider and review the case of every prisoner so eligible. Burch contends that, as applied to him, and all other prisoners sentenced to serve life with mercy sentences prior to July 10, 1997, the change in the set-off period created a sufficient risk of increased punishment. In Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), the Supreme Court observed that a case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if, viewing the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true, and in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint does not contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. While the complaint need not assert detailed factual allegations, it must contain more than labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. The Court finds that the Complaint fails to state a colorable constitutional claim. The defendants' motion to dismiss asserts that the Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Specifically, the defendants contend that Burch's ex post facto claim is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decisions in Morales and Garner because Burch cannot demonstrate that the amended statute at issue presents a sufficient risk of increasing the measure of punishment attached to the covered crimes. Garner, 529 U.S. at 250 (quoting Morales, 514 U.S. at 509). In Morales, the Supreme Court reviewed a California statute that changed the frequency of parole hearings for prisoners convicted of more than one homicide from every year to up to every three years. The Court found that the amendment did not modify the statutory punishment imposed for any particular offense, nor did it alter the standards for determining an inmate's initial parole eligibility date or his suitability for parole. In Garner, the Supreme Court applied this same rationale in finding that the retroactive application of a rule changing the frequency of parole reconsideration hearings from every three years to up to eight years did not, on its face, violate ex post facto principles. The defendants further contend that the amended West Virginia law mirrors the statutes at issue in Morales and Garner in respect to the discretion afforded to the Parole Board and the opportunity for reconsideration for expedited review. In essence, Burch asserts that simply because these prisoners will not be seen by the parole board as often, there is an increased risk that they will not be granted parole as quickly as they would have under the old law. Burch contends that discovery will be necessary to develop evidence to support his contentions, and that the appointment of counsel will facilitate this discovery process, which will include sensitive parole files of past and present life-with-mercy inmates to compare the periods of incarceration that those inmates served before parole was granted. However, in order to succeed with his ex post facto claim, Burch must demonstrate a significant risk that application of the amended statute will, in effect, result in a longer period of incarceration. He has not made such a showing. There is no federal constitutional right to parole. While the WVSCA has recognized that inmates have a reasonable expectation of release on parole where objective criteria are met, the Parole Board retains discretion to determine when it is in the state's best interest for such release. Consequently, Burch has not shown that the amended West Virginia statute will have the effect of prolonging his punishment either on the face of the statute or as applied to his specific circumstances. Accordingly, the undersigned proposes that the presiding District Judge FIND that Burch has failed to state a plausible violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause in Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution and his Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim for relief. Therefore, the Magistrate recommends that the presiding District Judge grant the defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismiss this civil action from the docket of the court. A full-text copy of the Magitsrate's February 25, 2019 Findings and Recommendation is available at http://tinyurl.com/y5mgeyqtfrom Leagle.com. Dennis Burch, The Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Being Those State of West Virginia Prisoners Serving a Sentence of Life with the Possibility of Parole for a Crime Committed Before July 10, 1997, Plaintiff, pro se. Benita Murphy, Chairperson, West Virginia Parole Board, Michael Trupo, Carole B. Greene & Peggy Pope, Members, West Virginia Parole Board, All in Their Official Capacities, Defendants, represented by Keith D. Fisher , OFFICE OF THE WEST VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL. WILLIAM SINGER: Faces Bendis Suit Over College Admission Scandal ---------------------------------------------------------------- TYLER BENDIS, JULIA BENDIS, NICHOLAS JAMES JOHNSON, and JAMES JOHNSON v. WILLIAM "RICK" SINGER, THE KEY WORLDWIDE FOUNDATION, THE EDGE COLLEGE & CAREER NETWORK, LLC, d/b/a "THE KEY," THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES, THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY, YALE UNIVERSITY, and GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 5:19-cv-01405 (N.D. Cal., March 15, 2019), is brought by the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated arising from two fraudulent college-admission schemes, the "Test Cheating" scam and "Student-Athlete Recruitment" scam. The putative class action lawsuit revolves around the two fraudulent schemes coordinated between three distinct groups: (1) parents whose college-age children had insufficient test scores and other credentials to gain admission to highly selective universities, but who nevertheless believed that they could bribe their child's way through the college admissions door; (2) a California con-man, William "Rick" Singer, who, through the use of a fraudulent college-admissions-mentoring company and a bogus California charitable foundation, saw an opportunity to enrich himself to the tune of millions of dollars through fraud and bribery; and (3) individuals involved in the college admission pipeline who were supposed to keep the college admission process honest (including standardized test administrators and representatives of at least seven highly selective Universities) who were willing to accept bribes and thereby taint the college admission process. William "Rick" Singer is a resident of Newport Beach, California, in Orange County California, but also does business in Sacramento, California. Singer owned The Key and served as Chief Executive Officer of KWF. The Edge College & Career Network, LLC d/b/a "The Key," is a limited liability corporation with its principal place of business located in Sacramento, California. The Key was a for-profit college counseling and preparation business that Singer founded in or about 2007 and incorporated in the state of California in or about 2012. The Key Worldwide Foundation ("KWF") is a purported charitable organization with its principal place of business located in Sacramento. KWF was a non-profit corporation in Newport Beach, California, that Singer established as a purported charity in or about 2012. University of Southern California ("USC") is a private, highly selective university located in or near Los Angeles County, California. Stanford University is a private, highly selective university located in or near Palo Alto, California, in Santa Clara County. University of San Diego ("USD") is a private, highly selective university located in or near San Diego County, California. The University of Texas at Austin ("U-Texas") is a public, highly selective university located in or near Travis County, Texas. Wake Forest University is a private, highly selective university located in or near Forsyth County, North Carolina. Yale University is a private, highly selective university located in or near New Haven County, Connecticut. Georgetown University is a private, highly selective university located in or near the District of Columbia. University of California, Los Angeles ("UCLA") is a public, highly selective university located in or near Los Angeles County, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John F. Medler, Jr., Esq. THE MEDLER LAW FIRM, APC 2030 Main Street Suite 1300 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 260-4940 Facsimile: (949) 260-4944 E-mail: john@medlerlawfirm.com - and - Caleb Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328 Manhattan Beach, CA 90245 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - and - David M. Cialkowski, Esq. Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.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 ***